Dial Up A TV Station (browsing current.com)

Quick note to say I ran across a really pretty, really usable page at Current.com. You "dial up a TV station" in an Internet way (don't miss the slider on the right). Pretty handy, eh?
By the way, i got an email:
"The Alliance for Climate Protection and Current TV are proud to announce that the grand prize winner of our ":60 Seconds to Save the Earth" Ecospot Contest is Dave Schlafman for his video entitled Sky is Falling."
That one is here: http://current.com/items/87610321_ecospot_grand_prize_winner_sky_is_falling

Feels-Like-Live Experience Streaming

I spent a little time with Justin, of Justin.TV earlier this year. Luckily, my family is geeky enough that I could give them a 30-second warning by cellphone: I'm talking with Justin.TV right NOW. They pulled up the page and watched as he & I talked about lame topics (living in SF, Clement St., why he couldn't send me to Prague with his thing on my head, etc). You couldn't get more live than Justin.TV (ignoring his recent franchising).
But as maps, cameras and networks all take steps forward, the time-delay of most multi-media UGC becomes less and less clear. Like "Live TV (Recorded Earlier)," we watch vacation slideshows from Greece, unaware that the year isn't shown--and plan our vacations by them. (Don't worry, the Acropolis is still there.) My buddy is in Singapore right now, uploading photo batches to VOX and blogging as he travels. Remove the simple datestamp, and how would I know if he's home already? It certainly FEELS like it's from today. Even with the datestamp, he could be home, an armchair uploader. (And here I am, commenting: "don't drink the water.")
Check out VeoGeo - geo-coded video. A video player sits beside a map, to show you where they are. I mean... were. (Wait - didn't Justin.TV do this first? Or was that TwitterJustin?)



My point is this: user generated content is increasingly getting wrapped into "reality" metafabric (e.g., photographic map tiles, events calendars, current weather info, hotel availability), and is therefore increasingly "reality rich" contextually. That context may mean relevance to me, where I'm standing, and become increasingly blurred with my own reality.

When I pull up a store front in Google maps, it's a real shock if I print directions, follow them, and walk up to find the building has been remodeled.

Why? Because my mind doesn't really comprehend that the photo wasn't live in the first place.
And why not? I've certainly watched live-cams of cafes and public streets before.
Wasn't it Ocean's 11 where the thieves trick security by showing a recording over the live cams?
You can't believe everything on the Internet.

But if you're commuting in Toronto right now, you may find this useful:

The Worst (sponsorship opportunities)

I don't know where to start. If you ever dropped out of life to travel (circuses count), this header from Lonely Planet might grab you. (It did me.)



From there, dive into the featured article, which you may relate to (ESP if you carnied): "World's Worst Capitals." For those of you from The Big Island (usa), you'll appreciate in an appropriately petty way that DC didn't make the list (probably a conspiracy).

It's an interesting little article / list of comments. Yes, the bizarre historical and cultural-political seeds that lead to contextual "modernity" can be fascinating (esp. if you're stuck in a taxi or jail cell). But when you finish reading that one... you'll delight in the SPONSORS. Uh... Travel agents?

(Ouch... it's all about DC? In the context of Nigeria, and that cute, harsh-looking blonde chick?) Yes, let's go to DC, after all. Umm... therefore I travel? And what's with "get matched?"


I just want to remind everyone: this advertisement was brought to you by the best-in-class, highly evolved information system of... oh, never mind.

[Blogged to the tune of: Jackie Sixty, Black Box Recorder; Femme Fatale, The Velvet Underground; Vesela, Zluty Pes]

Thanks Christina! (23 eye-tracking lessons)

My goal for this blog was to represent humanity, while I work in the Internet space. This post is going to seem more like the other way around: telling Web professionals about our (human) target audience. But heck - I think this is pretty interesting. Nothing revolutionary, but a really nice, tight summary.

The details are posted at VirtualHosting.com's blog, by Christina Laun.

The highlights, in alphabetical order:

• Ads in the top and left portions of a page will receive the most eye fixation.
• Ads placed next to the best content are seen more often.
• Bigger images get more attention.
• Clean, clear faces in images attract more eye fixation.
• Fancy formatting and fonts are ignored.
• Formatting can draw attention.
• Headins draw the eye.
• Initial eye movement focuses on the upper left corner of the page.
• Large blocks of text are avoided.
• Lists hold reader attention longer.
• Navigation tools work better when placed at the top of the page.
• One-column formats perform better in eye-fixation than multi-column formats.
• People generally scan lower portions of the page.
• Readers ignore banners.
• Shorter paragraphs perform better than long ones.
• Show numbers as numerals.
• Text ads were viewed mostly intently of all types tested.
• Text attracts attention before graphics.
• Type size influences viewing behavior
• Users initially look at the top left and upper portion of the page before moving down and to the right
• Users only look at a sub headline if it interests them.
• Users spend a lot of time looking at buttons and menus.
• White space is good

Use My RSS vs. Display My Widget (it's a brand thing)

I finally found a pulsing site of editorial content that seems to get the widget game. No surprise, then, that they feature Pesach Lattin's column - the guy who invented the pop-up ad. Adotas is about interactive advertising. You can RSS their "featured articles," but if you want their full news feed, you'll need to install their "news widget." It's a nice interface, too: you can select the colors, layout style/shape, display headlines or headlines with articles, and it even gives you a preview.

Wow - remind anyone of the weather magnet?

All this, powered by Widgetbox. They've got a lot more where Adotas' came from.

Okay, and to be honest, I'm guessing the RSS limitation is because they aggregate content & can't distribute it. But you can see how the local newspaper could control the branding, design, and even advertising with a widget -- all of which gets lost in an RSS feed.

Maybe next week.

Just Let Me Say It (widget meets process)

I've posted a few times about the "widget wars" I see emerging -- functionality being extended from one platform into another.
But I was thinking about the process of communicating (by Web) and it dawned on me how ...just wrong... it is that we have to select what medium we're broadcasting a communication through before we begin the utterance (or rant).
How wrong is that?!
Let me put it this way - have you ever sent an email, which, as you click "Send" clearly looked more like an IM? (Or, a blog post -- "this will be lost on HIM"?)
To communicate is human; to type is ...less so. To open an application prior to activating one's voice is ...just wrong.
So, what does the resultant look like? I guess it's me, having a thought, and perhaps a vague sense of who I want to say it to, and what medium would be most appropriate, but then simply beginning the recording. Might be video, might be clicking on keys. One thought leads to the next. I make references, then, as an afterthought, tie in hyperlinks -- and add a comment about the photo at the aforhyperlinked site ("she doesn't usually look so strange").
And then, only then, am I ready to hit "Submit."
But alas, Jabber is going to choke on this 2 page, multi-media rich instant message. (And the recipient isn't online anymore.)
So, break it down.
Step 1: Rant, and capture. (It's like a dictaphone.)
Step 2: Look at it, and decide where to send it (Blog, IM, email, a mix.)
Step 3: Engage A.) social networks (GMail, FB, MySpace, etc) B.) and work through their address books (GMail vs. FaceBook).
Step 4: They get either a link, a notice, the bulk of it, etc. The systems between us figure out what to do with the embedded video, attached slideshow link, etc.

Oh, but then the insanity begins...
Step 5: They reply.

So where can I get an embedable widget called "Rant" that I can embed on any utility I use (I'd go for a Mac desktop widget this week). It looks like a sticky note, but expands to a WordPress editor. My uber-client.

Medium or media should be the afterthought, like licking the stamp.

(ps - my first post from MarsEdit.)

Divorcee Social Network

So, which social network would you rather to find your spouse hanging out at?
A local radio station had call-ins last week on "how MySpace ruined your marriage," and the lines lit up.
And here's one for the newly-divorced.
Mashable's Kristen Nicole did a nice write up on it, straddling the obvious tragedy-comedy:

"What makes this network stand out from the rest (aside from the topic) is the top charts for break up songs and the auction section where you can get rid of that shiny, sparkling reminder of the relationship that just didn't work out–the ring."

Meanwhile, if you're married but not yet ready to let it go for the sake of acceptance at IDoNowIDon't, you might turn your spouse's mouse to CouplesWorldWide - sort of a "Table for Six" approach for meeting other, similar couples.
Anyone seen any social networks for toddlers? (I think that's all that's left.)

Stayin' Alive (a long lost friend posted to my wall)

The web has been abuzz lately with "OpenSocial" reactions. Tim O'Reily, no surprise, commented his way to the head of the line (go Tim go).
As pundits ponder the future of the Yahoo-Pipe-ization of social network (data), and (coincidentally) so many begin griping about all the FaceBook spam they get (from their "friend," Sprite), I've had a quiet experience unfold, and with it a minor revelation.

Start here: remember when email was new, and you "found" and caught up with old friends, scattered to the winds? Maybe you began emailing with a sibling, or a parent, and found your bond with family stronger (shock & awe). Remember the awkward feeling, at a party, listening to someone yet to get an email account complaining loudly (because we all must agree, after all) that the world was becoming reduced to bytes, and where's the humanity? (You felt awkward because you were still tingling or giddy, or relieved, from the email you got just as you were walking out the door to come to the party...)

Go here: Well, I'm talking with people about their time online, their use of networks like FaceBook, and they're saying the same thing: this is how i get that tingly or giddy, or relieved feeling... this is where I find the people who (gulp) make me feel whole.
My Point: where's email? It's well known that email is, to the 19-24 and 13-18 demographic, "something I do for my parents, but only if they call and tell me they emailed me something." For fogies. But what about the 30-50 year-olds? We all HAVE email accounts - we use them more than we did 5 or 10 yrs ago. But 90% of the time, you don't get the tingling or giddy, or relieved experience from an email. You're on Match.com, or FaceBook, Classmates or Eons.

Something unraveled with email -- as a cultural facility/utility (and source of tingly). I'm just rambling aloud here, but obviously spam has something to do with it. Also, that we don't post our emails where it can get spidered, so old friends can find us (which we did gleefully on our first web pages, circa '95); again, reactions to spam.
And then there's the email factor: it's email. When you want to track down an old friend, you're happy to cautiously craft the re-introduction, attach a photo ("I'm the heavier one on the far left...") and launch it, as though all the way to mars -- then bite your nails for a few days, hoping it "arrived." But from there, it quickly becomes a back-and-forth, tag-team happy-slapping of responses. Doesn't really sound like email, eh? Messaging, instant messaging, delayed messaging; posting to walls, ...I send, awaiting your availability. (And what's with the "send" imagery. "I've never mailed a letter with a stamp in my life," a highschool senior told me recently).

So what's really starting to bug me now is that a person's appetite to connect (after 20 yrs; or, after 20 minutes), and also to "be listed in the book," is in some ways LESS supported now than it was in 1995. (Yes, I just said that.) Finding people in FB is a pain; figuring out how & where to find people is a pain. Search engines are kind of useless; MySpace gets crawled, but you get so much spam you ignore long lost friends trying to track you down there...
Worse, I fear spam evolution will keep pace with all these speak easy, bouncer-at-the-door closed networks that (however briefly) really let real people find their people and do what it's all about...
"Hi - it's me."
"Really? Wow! Have a seat."
"I saw you, and just had to come over and say 'hey.'"
"SO glad you did..."

Online.

And after all, isn't this what it's really about?

What is Social?

It's an ambitious title, I admit. I've been on some social networks this year, often for just seeing what the experience is like.
I think the nuts-and-bolts mechanism that either works or not (in me, in us), comes down to sharing: sharing a thought, a gripe, a detail, a suggestion... sometimes solicited, sometimes not. From there it gets dicey and contextual.
But without diving into that, I just want to share (...) how this insight has warped my offline experience. A dozen or so offline objects, moments, and habits now strike me as fundamentally social.
My three favorite examples of "social hardware," for example:

• The 3-way plug adapter I carry with me through airports & to to conferences - I've actually had friendly chats and swapped business cards after walking to the head of the "outlet line"
• My camera, or camera phone. "Hey, could you take our picture?" so often inspires questions, comments, and suggestions.
• Coffee maker. Not unlike on Del.icio.us or even Twitter, the incremental cost of supplying 1 more cup is negligible, when you're already making yourself a cup. Do you have (coffee) subscribers?

And then there's a beloved offline social recommendation engine: my local wine guy. Walk into Mayfare Liquor, and a guy named Steve would invariably grab whatever bottle you had picked out and ask you why you picked it. "Because it was cheap, ...and red?" was usually my response. He'd put it back, and return with two others. "Try these and tell me what you think." He'd zip to the next person, "Hi X, what did you think about those two bottles I gave you?" (I'd usually listen in...)
I stopped buying wine anywhere else. I loved this guy. I loved that my rate of satisfaction was almost guaranteed to be higher letting him guide me than browsing labels alone.
Well, I'm using the past tense here because Steve is no longer at Mayfare Liquor, apparently after having a falling out with the management. I walk in there now, stand there quietly, poking at bottles, realizing that I can go to any wine store and have this experience. I miss the recommendations steeped in a steady stream of consumers, and packaged in a friendly, no-nonsense personality.
Kind of sounds like eCommerce in the 90's, Web 1.0 world, eh?