Friday, September 18, 2009
Citation #1: Trends
Teicher, C.M. (2009, Jul 6). The app boom hits publishing. Publishers Weekly. 256, 27, p. 26-28. Accessed on September 18, 2009 from http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6668893.html
Trending Backwards
I recently read a blog post by Candi Harrison (thanks to the Twitter flow) that mentioned a new, and unfortunate trend:
As this week's assignment was to spot trends in the Web 2.0 world, this caught my attention. All week I had been thinking of futurism, new tools, looking forward, forward, forward. And here it was, evidence that the web (at least the government part of it) was pushing the citizen out of the spotlight, making participation more difficult. Ironically, one can assume that agency websites that feature their own news (in lieu of highly usable layouts of citizen task links) are doing so in an effort to get the attention and validation of the citizens (who are now confused and perturbed at having to scan through news stories to find the information and services they need.)
There's nothing wrong with wanting to publicize the good work of an agency. Most government agencies do amazing work with little funds and deserve recognition from the citizens they serve. But that recognition is not going to come from a person who is unable to find the link, form, document, phone number or other information they need. But it may come from a person who finds exactly what they need -- fast, with minimal effort, who spends a few extra moments to send a message to the agency saying how well the website served them.
Last week, I was talking to a friend who is a private sector usability specialist. I asked her if, like me, she is noticing that some agency websites seem to be slipping backwards, featuring agency news rather than top citizen tasks on their home pages. She said that, indeed, she and her colleagues are observing the same thing.
As this week's assignment was to spot trends in the Web 2.0 world, this caught my attention. All week I had been thinking of futurism, new tools, looking forward, forward, forward. And here it was, evidence that the web (at least the government part of it) was pushing the citizen out of the spotlight, making participation more difficult. Ironically, one can assume that agency websites that feature their own news (in lieu of highly usable layouts of citizen task links) are doing so in an effort to get the attention and validation of the citizens (who are now confused and perturbed at having to scan through news stories to find the information and services they need.)
There's nothing wrong with wanting to publicize the good work of an agency. Most government agencies do amazing work with little funds and deserve recognition from the citizens they serve. But that recognition is not going to come from a person who is unable to find the link, form, document, phone number or other information they need. But it may come from a person who finds exactly what they need -- fast, with minimal effort, who spends a few extra moments to send a message to the agency saying how well the website served them.
Philosophy of Technology
What is your philosophy of technology?
Such a large question. I needed some help. I needed to get some inspiration from the twitterverse. So I posted the message below to my Twitter account:
Here's a response:
When I posted the same question on Facebook, I got this response:
So let's consider the first one:
And when Asimov himself modified these principles to tools, he said that a tool should be safe, efficient, and intact.
I can pretty much agree with that. Any technology I use should be safe (e.g. not include malicious code, ideally non-toxic, environmentally friendly), be efficient and/or fun to use (e.g. make my life either easier or more enjoyable), and not break (e.g. code bugs, down networks, abrupt business dissolution).
Now let's consider the second response. Joe is saying he doesn't want technology to interfere with his primary method of social interaction -- face-to-face -- or at least not interfere to the degree that in-person meetings are wholly prevented. And I agree with his point on broad terms; the cost-benefit relationship between me and technology must be worth it. People must consistently come before machines. As technology changes society, for the upheaval to be worth enduring, those changes must benefit society greater than they cost it.
And it's worth noting that Joe has harnessed technology to work for him in a way that's in harmony with his philosophy: He Facebook-messaged me so that we can hang out in the real world.
Such a large question. I needed some help. I needed to get some inspiration from the twitterverse. So I posted the message below to my Twitter account:
Question: what is your philosophy of technology? (What is the role of technology and the role of humans regarding technology?) [126 characters]
Here's a response:
ajanaya: @LMamak I like Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics. Substitute "A robot" for technology.
When I posted the same question on Facebook, I got this response:
Joe Sinness: i don't want technology to prevent me from having real social interactions - - - translation, lets hang out soon so i can see your new pup
So let's consider the first one:
- [Technology] may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- [Technology] must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- [Technology] must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
And when Asimov himself modified these principles to tools, he said that a tool should be safe, efficient, and intact.
I can pretty much agree with that. Any technology I use should be safe (e.g. not include malicious code, ideally non-toxic, environmentally friendly), be efficient and/or fun to use (e.g. make my life either easier or more enjoyable), and not break (e.g. code bugs, down networks, abrupt business dissolution).
Now let's consider the second response. Joe is saying he doesn't want technology to interfere with his primary method of social interaction -- face-to-face -- or at least not interfere to the degree that in-person meetings are wholly prevented. And I agree with his point on broad terms; the cost-benefit relationship between me and technology must be worth it. People must consistently come before machines. As technology changes society, for the upheaval to be worth enduring, those changes must benefit society greater than they cost it.
And it's worth noting that Joe has harnessed technology to work for him in a way that's in harmony with his philosophy: He Facebook-messaged me so that we can hang out in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
