inputs/outputs

The stores that have donation boxes at their checkout stations have the right idea.  I think all stores should do this.  Just find an organization who needs support, or one that your company is interested in helping, and put a donation box for them on the counter.

I end up accumulating a good chunk of change throughout my work week.  It weighs down my pockets and I’d honestly rather get rid of it.  Not everyone agree of course, but sometimes it feels good to rid yourself of the extra weight.   Having the option is the most important part.

Imagine if all stores had a donation box for an organization focusing on cancer research, or Darfur, or whatever.  All stores across the nation, or in other parts of the world.  Cost to the company is virtually nothing.  You could use a shoebox.

Those electronic devices that spit out your change could offer the choice to have that money be deposited directly into the donation box.

It may seem a little silly to want a donation box based on the desire to create convenience for your customers, but I don’t feel that the reason behind a donation matters as much as the donation itself.

The cancel/kill button is one of those most essential elements in any piece of technology, even if it’s never used.

When we input, we make mistakes.  We should be able to change the output before our request has been processed (or gets stuck in processing).  Why don’t elevators have a cancel button when you hit the wrong floor?  Why don’t all printers have an off switch as opposed to a button which has to interact with the firmware, which could be non-responsive anyway.

After much speculation and hopefulness about a cell phone from Google, the company came out and announced that they’re not announcing a cell phone just yet. And really, what were you expecting?

The iPhone wasn’t a shock. Apple is the business of satisfying wants, not needs. Their computers can’t do anything that a PC of the same cost couldn’t handle, and many specialized applications only run on a PC. You need a PC to do things, but you want a Mac so that you can enjoy doing it. Apple also defined the standards for an MP3 playing device, and recently created a phone that no one truly needs, but everybody wants.

Google, on the other hand, satisfies the needs before the wants. Before Gmail, there was no efficient and simple web-based email service that also allowed for 3rd party clients through POP or IMAP. Or a calendar system that wasn’t bulky and difficult to use/collaborate with. Before Writely (Google Docs), we had to send email attachments back and forth to edit files. These are things we needed, and the aesthetics were inherent in the functionality of these innovations.

Google didn’t announce a Gphone - they announced a platform for developers to write applications on.  An open application that any phonemaker could use.  Granted, this approach has been tried before by Linux/Open-source fanatics, but this time it has a better chance of sticking due to Google’s initiative and brand recognition.  This, in combination with the iPhone, is really good news for the wireless market.

The iPhone has set a new standard for phones, and already brands like Nokia have tried to imitate the features of the iPhone.  The iPhone’s biggest weakness is its proprietary nature (only AT&T, app development is limited).  For a cell phone brand wanting to compete with the iPhone, a good strategy might be to design something similar to the iPhone (multi-touch, full featured browser), but instead of spending a lot of money on app development, let the users make the applications, and use the open Google platform.

Google has prove itself worthy of making great user interfaces.  Why not leave that to them since most cell phone makers have proven that they can’t make a good UI?  Cell phone makers can start focusing on the hardware to make sure people get what they want, and the needs are left to Google.

They could’ve easily released a Gphone, but instead, they created a piece to a puzzle and figured out where to place it.

There’s a virus attacking Macs.  You might say to yourself “What?  But I thought Macs don’t get virii?”  Well, that’s been true in the past, but there are a few reasons for that, and while some environment variables are affecting the safety of OS X, it’s still kind of mystifying.  The question I’m asking myself is “why now?”

See, while the Windows platform is an open hole fairly vulnerable to attacks from cybercrooks, it’s not this fact alone that makes it a virus magnet.  It’s the system which most users have, so it wouldn’t make sense for virus writers to target the other guys.  Virus writers get off on the publicity, the mountains of people that get shut down, etc.  It’s like Ann Coulter - all about the reaction rather than the content.  So while one could focus their attention on building a virus for Macs, they simply won’t get a reaction that compensates for the effort that went into creating the virus.

Until now, that is.  But what makes this the golden moment?  Viruses spread through networks, and while buddylists and email address books are good enough for that kind of thing, networks are the treasure troves.  This means business/organizations.  And most of those computers run Windows.

There are analysts that say that OS X is based on Unix and is stable enough to prevent a good number of attacks.  This may be true, but there are smart coders out there.  If every coder in the world wanted to attack OS X, nothing could stop them.  Still, it’s not going to be a free for all.  It’s still more profitable, in the sense that Windows is vulnerable and many networks run on Windows, to write virii for the MS system.

If you ask me, Mac users will be reasonably safe.  The usual rules apply.  Don’t download random files from porn sites, don’t open email attachments from people you don’t know, etc.   Until large networks start using OS X, we’re not going to get flooded with Trojans.

But I’ve been wrong before.

Radiohead has really started something with their “pay whatever you want” system. It was astounding to watch other musicians follow in their path (Jamiroquai, Oasis, etc) but it’s starting to spread into other industries. Paste Magazine is now offering a “pay whatever you want” subscription fee (with a minimum of $1).

Granted, a magazine based on music isn’t a leap away from CDs, but what if this was the new way of doing business? What if we could decide how much we wanted to spend on everything?

My guess: it would separate the good marketers from the bad ones. The bad marketers would become beggars, while the good marketers would become friends. The success of a business would rely on the relationship with the customer, and if the relationship was good and natural, the business would prosper.

The bad marketers would be creating powerpoints to train their employees on how to be effective customer service agents. The good marketers wouldn’t need powerpoints - they would already have the inherent skills necessary to establish good communication with consumers. The bad marketer would find any way to contact you, the good marketers would create value to draw you in.

Not everyone can do what Radiohead did, not immediately anyway. This is because you can’t really teach employees how to be good at establishing relationships and telling stories. Your company or product has to have inherent value before you even make a penny.

This is why an album that no one had heard yet generated so much revenue. The relationship with the fans, and the inherent value that the band had established drew everyone in. I want that same experience again and again with all of the products that I buy.

The following is a sketch of an idea for a social/technological revolution.  I’ve been trying to write this post for a while, but it’s never sounded articulate.  It still doesn’t, but it’s important to get this out.  Feel free to contribute.

Something finally dawned on me today.  In general, users don’t like systems.  This is why we try to work our way around most of the time, and why we come up with “hacks.”  But I suppose another way to look at it is that it’s not really the systems that we don’t like, it’s the amount of systems we’re required to deal with on a daily basis.

I use Gmail because I like Gmail, but in the office, I’m required to use Outlook, or something worse.  Sure, we could set our emails to be forwarded, but we wouldn’t be able to use the address book.  We have a user/pass for the app we use for our work, a user/pass for the app we use to manage our work, a user/pass for the time-keeping software we use… and it goes on.

It seems as if we’re yearning to break our data down into bits and pieces so that the bits can be read by anything.  You could use Outlook if you want, or Gmail.  The address book data would be compatible with both.  My manager tracking my time in Excel is fine if I can input my time in Gmail.  You should be able to see what available time I have in your Outlook interface, even if my calendar is in Gmail.  Almost like RSS, applied to everything.  The content remains the same, but it’s the medium that’s up to the user.

The bottom line:  we follow our career paths because we want to help people and we want to be creative in doing so.  We don’t like being bogged down by admin tools, but we know that it’s a necessary concession, even if we have a personal assistant.  Better communication means we’re more productive when we have time to be productive.  The more spread out those admin tools become, the worse it gets.  The less we want to do, the less we remember to do, and the less we care.  Less brainpower goes to the work that actually matters.

And this doesn’t mean that we need to get rid of certain technologies.  We just need to make sure that users can pick one to get everything done with.

More to come on this topic.

I’ve recently started traveling to Indiana for my job, and I’ve discovered a couple of qualities that make Indianapolis more user-friendly than DC. The interface is designed in a way that tries to appeal to all users. This quality is important for a successful and efficient system, if you ask me. It’s also one of the hardest things to accomplish.

In DC, I spend a lot of my time getting lost on side streets, not being able to make a u-turn or left turn when I need to make that turn, quick exits/turns with no warning, unmarked streets, or streets with terrible design. Now, I admit that I have a poor sense of direction, and that someone with a good sense of direction can learn to navigate DC. But someone with Firefox will also have a better browsing experience than someone with IE. Since there are still many IE users, designers try to design websites with all users in mind, and the same should go for streets. Indianapolis is the same way. The signs are large and they give sufficient warning when a turn needs to be made, and after a while I can figure out how to get to places without needing to consult Google maps. This is huge for me. I have a poor sense of direction, but I don’t notice it here.

It’s the same with OS X. Computer savvy people love it because it’s efficient, and non-techies love it because it’s idiot-proof. It’s the reason why so many are switching - it appeals to a diverse crowd.

The people in my office go to lunch every day, and so far all of the restaurants require us to pay at the register, after we’re done eating. This means we don’t have to divide the bill and end up short, or give 5 different credit cards. Every meal is charged separately. And we tip more that way, too. Paying takes about 3 minutes and then we’re back to the office. This system is appealing to the father of four who is paying for the entire meal, and it’s appealing to the group of 10 who are splitting the bill. Boom.

So why is this so hard for designers to do? For the same reason that scope creep happens - we start out with goals in mind, and then we run low on resources, the requirements begin to slowly mutate, and we end up with a completely inefficient system. There are places in DC where you can literally see where the scope crept - new roads were created and the designers attempted to link the old roads in a completely convoluted way, road signs weren’t replaced/added, and there are a bunch of spots where you can’t turn around if you miss an exit.

It happens more than frequently Lowest possible costs trumps good project management.  The little things become acceptable because they cost less.  And soon, the little things add up to a pile of tangled wires.  DC can’t really fix its problem now, since all the money has been spent, and a “fix” would involve an entire re-creation. But cities are around for decades, and new changes are done all the time. The hard part is thinking about what might happen in advance, and then optimizing the solution so that we don’t get a completely useless system.

Lessons: scope creep happens. It happens fast and quietly. If your budget is even remotely tight, you won’t recover from it when it becomes a monster.

Gadget makers used to have one goal with the devices they produced.  A cell phone made calls, a PDA helped you organize, a Discman played discs.

The current trend is to create devices that do it all, but specialize in a certain area at the same time.  For instance, the Blackberry is a PDA that also makes calls/takes photos, a cellphone makes calls but will also act as a clock/watch.  The iPod is an MP3 device but it will play your movies and you can also do some gaming.  These devices do well at their main function, but tend to skimp over the other stuff.  Cell phones make calls but suffer from a poor interface.  iPods play MP3s but I’ve never seen anyone use them to play games.  Instead of focusing on adding a bunch of pointless accessories, why not make hidden features?

High end watches can be sold for an absurd amount of money.  The watch performs one function, and so the rest of what it “does” is up to the owner.  The connection to the brand, the prestige, the story that the consumer tells themself, etc.  These are the hidden features.

Hidden features aren’t spelled out in the manual.  Not every user is affected by them.  The iPhone has a bunch of hidden features, all the way from the way it looks sitting on your hip, to the way it makes you feel like a futuristic businessman when you’re touching icons and watching the cool animations.  The rush you get from pushing the accelerator on a BMW, that’s a hidden feature.

For devices that do one thing really well, and do a mediocre job on the other stuff, hidden features might be a good thing to look into.

In my post about Radiohead, I had hoped that other bands would follow suit and start releasing music for free. Nine Inch Nails, Jamiroquai, and Oasis are all bands that have decided to give away their upcoming albums, or at least have considered it. It makes sense. This is a tipping point.

Most new bands sign record labels because it seems makes sense, even in the world of digital music. But it only seems to make sense. Most artists probably know that signing with a record label in order to finance the production of physical CDs is a risky investment, especially with the way the industry is currently going. At the same time, any artist or band that is interested in turning a profit doesn’t want the responsibility of being the first to explore the outrageous option of releasing an album for free online, especially when the success of such a project is so fragile.

But that fragility is only due to the fact that no popular band, before Radiohead, had taken the great leap. Because even though the arists know that they could get just as much PR riding on the energy of their live shows, the fans, viral/grassroots marketing, they can’t bring themselves to give up the CD. It’s unexplored terrain.

Now that the wall has been broken, and other bands are going to follow, the terrain will almost definitely change. Here are some possible scenarios.

1. Perhaps the big boys who have established careers won’t mind giving up the CD sales to get past the bureaucracy, but what about the newer artists? Maybe giving away the music for free will provide more exposure, and will get more people to come to the shows. And if it doesn’t, will we be forced to pay more for tickets (which are already pretty expensive)?

2. A&R execs don’t get to decide who’s popular anymore, the internet does. The internet decided that Tay Zonday was popular, and they decided that Britney Spears was fat. Does this mean that, in order to be successful, you should be a little sensational or remarkable? It sure would filter out a lot of the garbage, but it might leave out some of the gems that are handpicked.

3. And there’s the issue of noise. Right now, two or three bands are giving away music for free, and it’s remarkable because the terrain is unexplored. I’m sure that people have downloaded the music just based on the fact that it’s freely available and completely legal, but try to imagine a world where all music was free. On one hand, if a lot of people like a certain band, their music will spread to a very large audience. But I may never hear about a band that fills a niche genre for a smaller market unless I’m involved with a community of listeners in that market. And the typical user doesn’t necessarily have time to commit to that sort of thing.

4 . Along the same lines, what happens to radio, the so-called “mainstream” and Top 40? I’m thinking that not much will change here. Ideally, Pandora would become a major player and your radios would tailor the music it plays to your tastes. That’s right - no more AM, no more FM, just total internet radio. Realistically, money will probably play a role in the exposure of bands through a push marketing strategy (the way that radio currently is). This means that music PR firms aren’t dead. It also might turn into something that’s socially based - for instance, Radiohead is asking its listeners to decide how much their album is worth. Could radio turn into a collection of the songs for which people paid the most?

The fact is that sooner or later, recordings will end up being free. The combination of Radiohead releasing an album for free (technically), Amazon moving towards non-DRM music, and the way that the internet works, it will be a slow but steady move to the day that all recordings of music will be worth as much as you want them to be.

The interesting part will be seeing how the artists create enough value in their artistry to make sure that they can make a living. This may be a case of strongest-survive, but it’s needed. Capital is what make talentless bands popular and rich. I can’t wait to see what happens when it all comes down to the tunes.

I’ve been using a Hipster PDA for the past year now, and it’s really helped me implement GTD. Hopefully, this new GTD idea will help other people be a little more productive. It’s nothing groundbreaking, but then again, when are GTD ideas groundbreaking? Advanced common sense, they say.

I brainstormed, and came up with the two most appealing things about GTD/hPDA. If these apply to you, Pockets GTD might just be for you.

• The fact that the entire system fits inside of my pocket. Pen and all. I only have to use the web when I need to text myself a reminder as a designated time, or when I’m using Gcal as a hard landscape. Otherwise, I’m all analog.
• Contexts. I love that I can be in front of a computer and pull out a computer card, go running errands and have an errand card, be at work and have a work card, etc. I don’t want to think about any other context than “work” when I’m at work.

So, out of these two elements, I’ve devised a new system. I call it GTD Pockets. The entire system works like a conveyor belt. Now, it takes a little bit of setting up, but once it’s in place, it doens’t take any real thinking/effort. Here’s how you set it up and how you implement it.

(more…)