semioticmonkey's posterous

Last summer, all dressed up and with great expenditure of advertising investments, it was launched a new kind of dessert: Gran Soleil. After an heavy rotation in TV-Radio slots time band, spot was taken off and replaced with a new one spending 30 seconds explaining, as an ugly tutorial, to users how the product was to be consumed and conserved. These instructions are indissoluble product’s elements (It has to be conserved in a specific way and position to have the product as intended). Without the former the product lacks to itself. Nth money investment (not expected, fruit of first market adoption data gathering) to make up for the lack of better understanding of the product’s novelty during its first launch.

A product, any product, is in interaction with a user, it comes to light from this interaction. It means it.

We study a product thinking about how, when, where, by whom will be consumed, used. There is no product in vacuum, without a social interaction.

If a product breaks some interaction conventions, some user’s expectation it needs to point out the new context, the new rules to follow to enjoy it, in fullness. And all this needs to be said (or shown) in effective manner. And straight away ².

Those Who failed here are two kinds of professionals:

Those who looked after the packaging, where no clearly statement about how to properly consume the product is shown (packaging was projected starting from traditional dessert model and so it lacks the major new factor in the product to be launched, the product itself which, without these instructions, is no more the intended product – Packaging is changed now with the inclusion of appropriate instructions).

Ad Agency which failed to understand the product, limiting itself to reiterating the same old redundancy (“creative” approach, which of “creative” has only the rate), to advertise without even noticing the product’s specificity as a whole. Except for trying to remedy damage done with an ugly spot sequence instructing explicitly clients about new rules of interaction. Better than nothing, of course, but a repaired damage is always a damage which points out all “creative” forces involved as incapable to understand the product.

Typical (and studied case) of the same market situation is the old frozen food introduction on large scale which carried on a new interaction with consumables in houses of millions.

ps. Never tasted product in case, so don’t ask ;)

ps_2. A stupid quick, redundant and dirty script for a different launch ad: Typical family with new product just bought. The kid (or the man, not the woman who is the main advertising target in this case) willing to consume quickly the product (anxiety, voracity, expectations based of past experience of similar products).

The woman explain why is not possible cause this product is different from others (“different” with a superiority connotation carried on by gestures and tone).

Optional quick new age teaching about the value of slowness to support and justify the requested unusual behavior. (woman teaching: superiority of the woman above man, of the mother above children)

Timelapse.

Dessert taken from refrigerated and offered to man/kid “Whoa! It is that different!” (product’s superiority as above, waiting time to taste and try the product well deserved, woman was right – woman’s superiority)

7- MORE EMOTIONS ARE BETTER THAN LESS.

Uhm, this proposition is so “simple” that it sounds like a mess.

What is an emotion? Emotion are quantifiable? The quality is equal to quantity? Quantity can dissimulate lack of quality and lack of quantity can invalidate quality?

Better a single enduring significant emotion than 100 minimal ones? 10 stupid men can be better than a single isolated smart one? 10 2W charges are better than 1 single 1000W charge? More “whoa!” features are better than few well useful thought ones? Finally: One single loved woman/man is worse than 10 different one night partners?

It is not quantity of emotions (i don’t believe there is something like this, anyway) what makes something special for us out of them. It is the singular meaning, the unrepeatable feeling of being in front of a single event not comparable with anything else. A case. The fortune teller. Look at your love stories and you’ll get it.

4 – KNOWLEDGE MAKE EVERYTHING SIMPLE

Simply not true. Demonstration:

A premise: Knowledge is Encyclopedia, semiotic collections of data analysis. Knowledge is not intellect. The latter is the actor of selection and concatenation. Id est, intelligence. It is intellect which selects, excludes, relates, archives, combines and, in sum, innovates. Knowledge without intellect is an HD full of mere data, a wikipedia without anyone who reflect upon its content. Of course, Intellect without knowledge will have no data stored to work with. Knowledge without Intellect will have no data to collect.

Analysis proceeds through exclusion of unrelated matter and dissection (the observer influences the observed field) of the element in analysis in ever more complex details. Intellect is, so, the scalpel cutting in infinite pieces the object and the formalization of details thus aquired trough induction. It simplifies them only through research of constants in the finer field under analysis. The more it analyses, the more details, the more data, the more intellect is incapable of simplify further if not through brute force abstraction or abstraction more and more complex and context related. Thus, we’ll have or a “simple” constant for the analized set as a whole or a relative constant for subset always in danger of change itself upon induction request, under the effect of the context.

The only knowledge simple is the deductive one. Take a model for granted and try to fit, pushing and packing, the reality in it. Idealism.

If i put myself on Mars, the Earth will be small and simple and men invisible. The more i come near to it, the more my gaze will be fractalized (coasts, clouds, sea, mountains, rains, wind), the more earth will be less simple and, key thing, embraceable as a unique organized whole, the more i wil see those little animals fussing around called men, men of all regions with specific differences and cultural specificities.

If i analyse from sidereal space, “earth is a simple sphere with squashed poles, a planet like so many other ones, composed of this and that but we can’t say more” is all you can say. If you want to know wtf is what makes earth what it is, you have to move your ass and come to see in person. You have to come closer. Coming closer inihibits seeing earth as a whole, as a simple unity. You will lost the gaze on the whole set and you will be in the middle of subsets.

Look straight in the face of your co-worker. Now stand up and go closer to him. Closer. Still not enough closer. Further. Can you see his wrinkles, now?

We are in the age of Nanotech, QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), turbolence, segments of ones. No space for the simple in scientific world. We are no more in the “more or less” world but in the Universe of Accuracy, in the High-Def “reality”.

In the end, knowledge doesn’t make anything simple or complex. Intellect does. The more it works the more complexities it will find in what it called once “simple”.

Neanderthal man had no computer to design with. No need to dress (Levi’s or Armani, it doesn’t matter) or iPod where listen stupid pop, no cell phone to make himself traceable. He was not aware of something called “Earth Mother” or Ecosystem either. Its world is simple, for us.

Maybe he would like Bach and Steve Reich or will he consider them too complex?

3 – SAVINGS IN TIME FEEL LIKE SIMPLICITY.

The more you go fast the more you save time the more details you lose. A driver in a car thrown at mad speed will see only a small percentage of what lies on sidewalks, only what he needs to see to avoid to run over someone (we hope). He has to do so.

Clicking on a Photoshop’s button to have a standard fill pattern saves you time but your design will be less detailed, less different from so many other’s ones clicking on the same button invoking the same fill pattern. Take your time to build from scratch a perfect pattern for your project and you’ll have something unique and a perfect fit for what you want to communicate throughout your design.

It is a matter of ROI. A craftsman take his time to make an unique product which he can sell to higher price on unit than large speedy scale productions and make more profit out of it. It depends on your market niche. Savings in time is simplicity. And it can take you out of business quickly.

Clicking on a button receiving a preconfigured three rows / three columns table can save your time but what if a need 5 rows? Let me choose before applying the simple solution. Give me a way to make choices.

Giving Choices Framework is not a simple solution but can be accomplished. Giving choice is not to stuff everything in one place but to craft a path to available choices. Having choice can take more time on task’s subset but it can be a profit on the whole project or, simply, it can make you feel more satisfied and gratified.

Don’t understimate the power of meaning. People are not machines. People want to be gratified too. People desire. People waste time, and enjoy wasting time.

Productivity is a tricky matter. There is a long run productivity and there is a short term productivity. Often, wasting time on the short term is productive on the long run. It depend upon the time frame considered.

People tends to be more productive when satisfied and they are satisfied not only because they are saving time.

More and more Social Networks are UI-UX Horrors but, guess what?!, they are full of people engaging each other. Why? Because they enjoy the community, are emotionally attached, they found something valuable for them, some content, some hope or some way to waste time or simply “relax” from the “productive” workflow.

Being a Wikipedia curator doesn’t make me earn a penny, does make me spend so much time but it make me feel like sharing with others, a warm feeling. Results are there for all to see.

“Communication” is a wasting time activity because people pass on information bits but, in the meanwhile, begin or stabilize a social relationship, even a minimal one (as everyone in a workplace knows, wasting time chatting nonsense or arranging to meet another or talking about news and so on). They need to do so. Getting a social relationship takes time. And not little time.

Amazon, as Nielsen keeps repeating ad nauseam, has UI problems but it sells because it offers something valuable to users: choice, good prices, good service. Who cares about UI Design problems and wasted short term through UI labyrinths?!

Meada seems to consider only the short term. Only large scale production. Productivity is then only a matter of numbers on the short run. How many tasks you accomplished? In how much time? A large scale production optimized design. Henry Ford revised. But on the long run? On the long tail?

An example: Apple Pages gives a quick way to have a document from templates. Short and simple. It seems usable. But what if a made my own style sheet and want to reuse it on another document (a business letter or an invoice). No luck! This is an ode to not scalable UX Design. Productive on the short run, wasted time on the long. By contrast Nisus Writer takes you more time to setup but you can reuse everything. The whole Nisus’s UX is crafted around this simple concept: plan (stylesheet page), organize (documents manager) and reuse (both). Waste time on the short run (two UI panels to manage), earn time on the long (reuse everything in every way). It was studied for working people not for “productive” guys looking to have something out of the door quickly. In any case, Pages User is gratified having a “pro” looking template in 1 minute not only for himself saving in time but for anticipating social recognition too. A cheap superego reason not only a enumerable measurement of profitability.

If i’m making a entertainment website, a “IN” discotheque for example, it is evident users are there not for having some deep content and info about it (users know it – directly or indirectly from word of mouth, often they already were there) but to have entertainment, to be amazed, to waste time. The “whoa!” factor anticipates or recalls the “real” thing.
Look at statistics. More and more internet users waste time on Flash Games, send links to each other to “special FX” Flash sites and so on. What this has to say to me as a UX Designer? I do have to end up, autocratically, the “stupidity” of all of them? Or i can learn from their effective behavior?

User Centered design is not based upon what Designer wants the user to be but upon the opposite. User Centered design is not only about direct, enumerable productivities tasks but about gratification too.
User Centered Design is not impose Designer’s vision of what he consider usable to users. Maybe not every man on earth wants to be every fuckin’ second of his whole life “productive” (whatever it means). Entertainment (aka wasted time for the masses, many bucks for producers) is the first biz on this planet, go figure why! Maybe users want to be pampered, not only spurred. Maybe users want to enjoy their time, not only make something tangible out of it. Maybe users love stupid things, not only useful informations. Maybe users love baroque, not minimal pseudo-zen design (or whatever designers believe according to the latest design trend, lost in memory dust after its hype is gone).

Maybe.

What follows is the first of a series of commentaries on Maeda’s The Laws of Simplicity.

I hope to make some Maeda’s misunderstandings about “organization”, “simplicity”, “meaning” and “context” clear raising some questions, suggesting different research paths and, when and if the case, agreeing with him.

I ask clemency for my bad english in advance.

2 – Organization makes a system of many appear fewer

Yep. It is true, in a meaning. False in another.
Organized systems are inclined to behave as a whole, where all the inner differences are annihilated for the profit of a constant (the organization rules). Look at totalitarisms and dictatorships for an example on how true it is this. Star Trek’s Borgs are media examples of the same principle.

Ants are inclined to behave as a whole. Every ant has a precise role in the march. They do very specific tasks, and only these. Everyday. For the whole life.

Tick’s life is simple. Wait for the host. Jump upon it. Store eggs in it. Die. Organized and simple, of course.

But, there is a “but”, the more intermediate levels (links between the parts of the system) the system has, the more structured is, the more noise it produces and so it becomes less and less effective and more bureaucratic. In this sense, organized systems are noisy systems. Byzantine system. 2nd Thermodynamic theorem still applies.

Cybernetics teaches us that a message just emitted is already attacked by noises. The more distance it travels the more noise it attracts. I say to you “hi there”. You say to a 3d “hi”. The 3d says to a 4th “buh!”. The message is noise now. Humans are not abstract machines (ok, i concede some cough couch societies do hope and work to makes them so) so they do not pass on the message as it arrived. Every intermediate level stops the message, makes something with it, tends to stabilize itself as an hub and only then (if) release it on bail.

As everyone can see in everyday life, every strictly organized enterprise lacks speed, adaptability, innovation and becomes a bureaucratic pyramid making money only by means of managed assets, acquisitions or monopoly position.
By contrast, small, disorganized but active startups innovate.
Take 3 people, each one with its strengths but willing to help each other to reach the goal and you’ll have a more vital enterprise than organized system with its accounting, project manager, art director, UX Designer, IxD, web marketing guru and so on.

Hi! I’m a Mac!
E devo installare un client CVS sul mio OS X 10.5 aka Leopard.
Dopo estenuante ricerca sono giunto ad un bivio consistente di due opzioni:
Supponiamo che un Mac Guy debba installare il client cvs su OS X.
Avrebbe due opzioni:

1. Installare i Developers Tools


2. Usare un client self contained

La prima opzione costringe alla installazione di un pacco dono di 1GB (versione personalizzata della installazione. Altrimenti sono 3GB e passa) con un mare di (in)utilities per testare la applicazione in Cocoa che non scriverete mai. Assieme al pacco dono di cui sopra, verranno installati anche il server ed il client cvs, certo.
Questa opzione, è palese, obbliga l’utente ad installare software, compilatori e strumentini vari di cui non avrà mai necessità.
Si obietta da più parti che ‘tanto con quello che costa un HD al giorno d’oggi…’ ma non è questo il problema. Non è infatti il costo il maggior deterrente a questa opzione. Non è la mera occupazione di spazio su disco che potrebbe essere usato chessò per la vostra libreria iTunes, I vostri progetti personali, le vostre foto, le immagini a 300dpi e quelle a 72dpi per lavorare, MySQL e I database con tanti bei files php in fila come piccoli indiani, il software che usate ogni santo giorno per lavorare, comunicare, divertirvi insomma tutte queste cosucce inutili. No, non è questo.
Costringere l’utente ad installare un mare di inutilità per 3mb (tanto ‘pesa’ cvs) che gli occorrono è non dare scelta. Non avere scelta. O il pacco dono, o il nulla. Questo è qui che fa problema.
Se optate per la via maestra come Apple ve la indica, allora installate il pacco dono e morta là. Avrete il vostro client cvs.

Potreste optare, si fa per dire, anche per darwinport, macports oppure fink ma, guarda caso, tutte e tre le opzioni richiedono I Dev Tools installati quindi tanto vale ignorarli ed installare cvs direttamente con I Dev Tools.

A questo punto della nostra storia dobbiamo introdurre altri due personaggi:
La Differenza e La Unione.
Dovrete settare il vostro client per discorrere amichevolmente con il server cvs, fare una working copy sul vostro HD (si, sempre quello pieno di 3GB di roba inutile per voi). Come farlo senza aprire il santo terminale?
Cercate su macupdate quello che fa per voi.
Trovate su macupdate 5 software di cui:

1. 3 PPC


2. 1 Universal


3. 1 versione freeware/pro a pagamento

Scartiamo, essendo come siamo avvezzi alla potenza di rosetta che più che stele è supplizio, I software ppc e ci dirottiamo sugli unici 2 (due) universal.
Il primo, richiede cvs già installato e vi permette le più comuni operazioni. Almeno sembra ad una prima occhiata.
Ad un uso più articolato, diciamo di 5 minuti, troviamo che non è possibile usare un diff-merge software di nostra scelta, quello che già di norma usiamo. O usiamo filemerge (contenuto nel pacco dono di cui sopra) oppure il vecchio e santo diff. Bene. E se volessi usare TextWrangler o qualsiasi altro? L’help tace e noi con lui.

Spendiamo due parole sul tanto decantato filemerge. Due parole di nome e di fatto. Non serve. Chiunque abbia usato winmerge (freeware) si ritroverà con volto basito di fronte a questa finestra dalla quale non si può fare direttamente alcuna operazione sui file in comparazione, i quali comandi sono messi in un comodissimo menu a tendina perché, ci hanno comunicato, gli icon designer di apple erano al momento in vacanza e non hanno avuto il tempo di preparare alcunché da pigiare ed i programmatori, per protesta contro le vacanze, a loro dire, inique di questi ultimi, hanno scioperato proprio nel momento in cui dovevano implementare il menu contestuale.

Insomma, non tiriamo neppure in ballo nomi illustri come Araxis e quant’altro in compagnia di filemerge. Lasciamo laddove si trova (nella cartella Dev/Application) e non ci pensiamo più.
Il secondo, di cui parleremo meglio dopo, va già molto meglio (dopo filemerge il mondo pare sorriderci e gli augelli far festa).
Che non vi venga in mente però di usare spaces con smartcvs. Che non vi venga in mente di usare la keyboard per switchare applicazioni. Un bug nel software lo rende inutilizzabile ogni volta che lo richiamate dal command+tab a partire da uno space diverso da quello ove lui si trovi.
Quindi, in summa, o non usate spaces oppure vi preparate a spostarvi di volta in volta da uno spazio all’alto alla ricerca del nostro (NonTanto)SmartCVS.
Dimenticavamo di aggiungere che la versione pro costa $80 (bug incluso, of course. E’ terminato il tempo nel quale acquistando un software avevi diritto all’uso normale di quest’ultimo).

Seconda opzione: usare un self contained client
Quali sono I candidati?

1. Eclipse (e parentela)


2. Il già visto (NonTanto)SmartCVS.

Entrambi in java per cui non attendetevi UI spettacolari, effetti speciali, riflessioni, eyecandy, yadayada (questo non è per forza di cose un male) e prestazioni al fulmicotone (questo è male).

Eclipse: download base con cvs client, diff e merge integrato. Nulla di più. 134MB e vi togliete il pensiero.
Affrontate le bizze del workspace (idiosincrasia di eclipse), fate il setup del repo, procedete al check out, attendete nel mentre che i vari dialoghi di eclipse si susseguono informandovi che sta presentandosi al server cvs e facendo I convenevoli del caso e, infine, molto in fine, avrete la vostra working copy.
A questo punto mica vorreste lavorare al vostro progetto con eclipse? Naaaaaa!
Fate partire il vostro fido TextMate ed iniziate a lavorare.
Dopo modifiche intensive vorreste procedere al commit. Ignari dello splendido isolamento nel quale eclipse vive e vegeta pensando che tutto ciò che non accade nel suo workspace semplicemente non è mai esistito e mai esisterà, vi accingete alla operazione tranne poi notare che eclipse non ha rilevato alcuna modifica effettuata nei files del progetto dato che sono state effettuate non con il suo editor.
Niente paura. Dovrete solo svegliare eclipse con un bel command+r perché si accorga di quanto è accaduto. Dopodiché, switchate modulo e procedete al commit. Andate a questo punto a prepararvi un bel caffè perché di tempo eclipse, tra connessione, recupero dell’indice dal repo e quant’altro, ce ne mette per questa operazione.

Hi! I’m a PC.
Equivalente di tutto ciò in Windows?
Installare TortoiseCVS (Freeware) 15MB
Installate Winmerge (Freeware) 2.90MB
Indicate a Tortoisecvs, con segno di spunta nelle preferenze, che volete usare winmerge per le operazioni di diff/merge.
Lavorate.

Windows, in questi contesti, è lontano. Altrove. Quasi nelle sfere celesti.

Qualcun altro é concorde con quanto da me affermato qui e qui circa la tanto strombazzata indicizzazione dei contenuti Flash.

Prima di tutto, il crawler del motore di ricerca non indicizzerà gli swf. incorporati via JavaScript (sapete quello stratagemma per evitare il 'clicca per attivare' di IE? Bene. Lui).

In seconda istanza, e maggiormente importante, il crawler non indicizzerà swf dinamicamente caricati come risorse esterne nè XML.
Ora, chiunque abbia un pò di esperienza in Sviluppo Flash sa benissimo che, per non impazzire con quel casino della timeline di Flash e per ottimizzare al massimo i tempi di caricamento (e per una marea di altre esigenze), é regola procedere per caricamento dinamico delle sezioni del website. A quanto io ne sappia la maggioranza dei Flash sites adotta giustamente questi approccio. Quanto più il sito é complesso tanto più si rende necessaria questa modalità. Spesso si carica in prima istanza solamente il framework generale (la UI standard) per poi, dietro input utente, caricare il resto.
Bene, allo stato dei fatti solamente questa prima parte verrà indicizzata dal crawler. Id est, un bel nulla. La presunta Home Page e poi il vuoto.
In altre parole nessuna moderna RIA verrebbe indicizzata, checché ne dica Adobe, a meno di non caricare l'impossibile in prima istanza.
Forse Adobe sta pensando come modello di RIA ai fulgidi esempi di Flash RIA di cui si é resa portabandiera con Acrobat.com che ci mette 5 minuti buoni (su di una fibra ottica) per caricare la UI?
Per quale tipologia di Flash site va bene questa presunta indicizzazione? Per i Flash sitarelli self contained. Detto altrimenti, coloro che meno avrebbero bisogno di essere indicizzati.

E se poi adottate un loader con caricamento dinamico via Actionscript di risorse esterne? Oh beh! quanto siete difficili!

Quanto rumore per nulla!

Fuori del giro dei fatti in 80 parole del PR Adobe, quello che abbiamo é:

• Nessuna specifica aperta a tutti gli sviluppatori interessati ma solamente delle indicazioni chiuse per ottimizzare gli spiders.


• Queste indicazioni sono solo a vantaggio di Google e Yahoo!. Gli altri? Se lo prendono in saccoccia.

Per fare un paragone non ortodosso, é come se le specifiche ottimizzate dell'HTML 5 fossero date solamente ad un gruppo ristretto di webdevs lasciando gli altri con il fondoschiena nell'acqua ed andare poi sbandierando la notiziona della release di HTML 5 ai quattro venti su tutti i canali possibili per ostentare il 'proprio commitment' e risollevare le sorti di una tecnologia affossata dalle critiche (giustificate).
Gli altri webdevs avrebbero le solite specifiche mentre alcuni, privilegiati, avrebbero un vantaggio competitivo su questi ultimi.
Tutti sono uguali ma alcuni sono più uguali di altri.

Il tutto condito con tanto di giustificazione di quanto finora accaduto mettendo artificialmente nello stesso calderone tutti gli altri in modo da distinguersi in positivo con l'annuncio. Prima affermo stronzate tirando nella mia propria situazione tutte le altre tecnologie e poi mostro che io, a differenza delle altre tecnologie, sto facendo qualcosa per combattere la situazione di cui sopra.

Bullshit.
E' falsa la prima posizione (le altre tecnologie non hanno tutti i problemi di Adobe Flash) ed é quindi falsa la conseguente (Adobe non sta facendo nient'altro che cercare di recuperare terreno sulle altre tecnologie).
Lezione di PR: come trasformare uno svantaggio in vantaggio con un semplice giro di parole.

Di sicuro una bella operazione di marketing ed un grande sforzo di PR. I fatti tralasciati sono che la concorrenza va a farsi benedire come anche la possibilità per i Social Networks (il che vuol dire la marea montante in Internet) di usare Adobe Flash in modo consistente e mantenere la possibilità di operare ricerche interne.
Nel campo che più mi preme, inoltre, continua ad essere impossibile usare Adobe Flash su RIA Business (Web Applications Intranet e comunque chiuse) ove occorre poi andare a ricercare un contenuto specifico.

A quando una apertura totale di questo pacchetto regalo, Adobe?

Articolata posizione di Kontra sulle problematiche legate al mancato supporto a Flash Lite e Flash su iPhone.