Thursday, December 28, 2006

Simplicity on complex things

There is a big wave of thoughts on the word "simplicity" as referred to the way product managers and designers think a new (or rethink an old) mobile phone, game platform, software, a tool... a widget. A thing.

What's the simplest word to say "a thing that can be used"?
In Italian, I would say congegno or coso. Everybody would understand me, given he/she knows Italian.
I bet you don't understand the word. Because you lack the knowledge to interpret the verbal signal, which your brain would have linked to a conceptual model, something "you know".

Simplicity is a matter of "I already know that, it's simple!".
When our brain encounters a new thing, it tries to map it to something known. That is to say, it starts a matching procedure, just like the one that makes me look like certain celebrities :)
After matching a model, Mr Brain keeps going refining the identification process by finding differences and specifying further features. (You are probably thinking "This is generally valid, but you can find a lot of examples which do not work this way." Exactly what I meant :) )

Therefore, if you want simplicity look for already seen things. Look for something natural. Even if there is a really innovative technology that you cannot live without.
If you want innovation please do not try to justify its complexity as a necessary by-product of innovation.

In my experience, I have to say that the real challenge of technological innovation is to make the technology unseen. We are overwhelmed by acronyms -I have the special gift of inventing a new one each day :)- and useless bits of false knowledge that we call "technical jargon".

That's why, in my personal (and professional) opinion, one way to make VoIP live long is to kill VoIP as we've seen it so far. The technology is not always "under the hood", and fighting with proxy configuration and NAT traversal issues is not acceptable for the average user(note).
Therefore, solutions that sell the thing of calling via Internet "as is" are going to die.
On the other hand, solutions that provide you with a "virtual personal assistant", a "calling privacy shield", a "doorbell for your site" (like our Sitofono) are going to be more successful just because they can be understood and matched with something known. Secondly, they will be valued for what they are, but this is a second step. You cannot value what you don't understand, do you?

I've some thoughts about "features" and "simplicity" that I want to discuss with you, but I prefer to write them on a separate post, and with some time to digest this long one. :)


Note: as Steve Krug says in "Don't Make Me Think", his bestseller book on web usability, "the actual average user is kept in a hermetically sealed vault at the International Bureau of Standards in Geneva" :))

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Friday, December 22, 2006

Bug in Firefox VoIP

It seems like Abbeyphone VOW is doing something bad on web pages...

Updated: If you use Movable Type in Firefox, BEWARE of Abbeyphone! by ZDNet's Russell Shaw -- There's this voice over Web platform called Abbeyphone that, in the wrong set of circumstances, has potential to create havoc for some bloggers who use Movable Type via Firefox. I know this because I've had problems on a couple of blog sites. Problems like, right-hand margins getting blown out, and distorting both the post and [...]


Actually, our Firefox VoIP Extension is putting some garbage in nearly all the web pages which contain user numbers as user input: therefore, any application that contains a <textarea> tag may be affected by this bug.
Albeit the application is in beta version, this is the kind of bug that needs attention...

As Luca suggested, the current workaround is to untick "Highlight numbers" in your Abbeyphone for Firefox extension.
But the problem will be fixed in the next version, which is planned in the second half of January.

Stay tuned and:
Thanks for feedback, Russell!

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Find the celebrities that look like you

Some days ago I've received an e-mail from a dear friend, in which there was a photo collage of her, in the middle, and a bunch of celebrities whirling around her photo.
Each photo presents the celebrity name and a "look-alike percentage".
You can see a live example in the sidebar of this blog, just scroll down a bit.

I found it really funny and entertaining, and I started feeding the matching algorithm with a lot of pictures of myself (tanned, recovering from illness, with glasses, a slim period, a fat period, drunk, really drunk...)!
It is not obvious, but each photo carries certain features that make a different match set, therefore you are not always Mel Gibson's secret brother :).

Anyway, it is interesting to note that several celebrity matches are always there, in the top ten, and that tells me that a GOOD face recognition system MUST work with a photo set of the candidates, not only a picture. (I've been working on classifying algorithms for a while, and I personally experimented the importance of considering the variances along with the "average" model, i.e. don't blindly trust the first match result)

Another interesting thing that smells "viral marketing" is the fact that this "nice free face recognition tool" carries a promotional message, which says: Myheritage.com is building a social network of families, and is competent on face recognition products.

Instead of building yet-another-youtube-promo-video, they built an application. A nice one, that users will remember to use and spread. As a consequence of that, I imagine they are seeing a great increase in their subscription daily rate...


Technorati Tags: , , ,