Cooper Matthews

Things just haven’t been the same since you done gone.

I certainly find net neutrality to be one of the most important issues with regard to the future of interactive communications, but I fear that internet users will lose that neutrality without even realizing it. I don’t expect that one day a great hand will sweep down from the sky and takeover the flow of information. Rather, I believe the “freedom” of online information will be constricted gradually, under the cover of capitalism.

Look what we have here: Comcast – the largest cable company in the United States – has purchased NBC Universal, and all the content that comes with it, which includes broadcast and cable television stations as well as a movie studio. Comcast – also an ISP internet provider with the ability to deliver its newly acquired content digitally. They control the information, and they control the access to it.

A few of the concerns:

They now the ability to deliver NBC Universal content faster than the content of other companies

They have the ability to charge other cable and Internet providers a higher premium for the rights to broadcast and/or access NBC Universal content,

They have a history of putting the consumer second – by either blocking P2P downloads or by shutting down user accountsthat exceeded their monthly bandwidth limit with no warning whatsoever.

It also remains to be seen what will happen with Hulu.com, the joint venture between parent companies of NBC, ABC, and Fox, providing television shows, videos, and movies online for free (albeit still with ads). With its NBC Universal acquisition, Comcast has a bit of a conflict-of-interest on its hands, where it has control over a direct competitor to its core business. At the very least regulators will require that Comcast divest itself of its hulu.com interest prior to approving the merger.

I’m not against the right of a company to make money, but I think there needs to be some kind of cap or at least more oversight on corporate greed that – at the end of the day – only serves to injure those at the bottom of the societal food chain. Access to information online should not come down to “He with the most power and/or money wins.” If you want information via the internet, you should be able to get it freely (note: that’s different from “free”) without the owner of the pipe the information is flowing through having say over what flows down its pipe. I can only hope that the regulator review of this merger at least brings more into the light the issues of net neutrality, and what could happen when putting to much power over information into the hands of a few.

We’ve all had those moments of “Remember that time when…”, and upon trying to describe the exact event realized words could never do it justice. The listener actually had to be there to properly understand just how life changing this missed event truly was. If only you were able to call up that instant in time from a database, just think how both of your lives would be enriched! You would have the opportunity to relive it, while experiencing it anew with the listener as he/she experiences it for the first time! This is Gordon Bell’s idea – to record every single event that has ever happened in one’s life and store them in a database for posterity. It’s a romantic notion, but is it a good one? It is certainly an idea that gets to the crux of the issue for me – how do we use interactive communications to enhance society without giving up control over personal freedom?

“Lifelogger” Bell does his recording via a small camera he wears around his neck that takes snapshots at one-minute intervals that are then added to his database. He supplements the recorded material manually by scanning or typing in anything else he deems important. His idea is based loosely on the “Memex” device introduced by Bush in his “As We May Think” article from The Atlantic (from Module 2). With every event that has ever happened in our lives but a few clicks and a search away we wouldn’t have to actually “remember” anything. As bell notes, our “surrogate memory creates a freeing, uplifting, and secure feeling – similar to having an assistant with a perfect memory,” that leaves us to focus on the big picture rather than every little detail.

Sure there are the roses to re-smell, such as the birth of a child or a game winning goal, and man the roses are freakin’ sweet. But what about the other stuff (the manure, if you will), like that time you wet the bed and woke up covered in urine? Or the time in high school you peeped through the tiny hole in the last gym locker that gave a perfect view into the girls’ shower? Or the time you smoked a joint? (Granted, if all three happened in the same night that might be something you’d want and likely need the computer to remember, but I digress.)

All those indiscretions would be in the database. Every single one. There are no more shades of gray. It’s all there. And who would or could have access to it in the future? It certainly would be of interest to potential employers conducting background checks. In theory, law enforcement be able to subpoena “memories” with just cause in order to solve a murder, but what if in doing so they also find a memory of you whacking your professional golfer husband over the head with a 9-iron because of an extra-marital affair?Charges were mysteriously never filed, but now there’s indisputable proof. And no more privacy. As Nichols Carr points out, “Computers are technologies of liberation, but they’re also technologies of control.”

Kurzweil suggests in his TED lecture that a possible future use of nanotechnology to be the implanting of particles in the brain that could be instructed to temporarily disable a person’s “real” reality in favor of a virtual one, similar to Second Life but in the physical realm. At that point, how does one tell who – or what – is actually in control and what is “real”?

In introducing us to the idea of the Smart Mob and the exciting possibilities of mobile technologies, Rheingold also warns of the “use of the technology by some to create a society similar to the one seen in George Orwell’s 1984.”

Maybe it will simply become accepted that in using these interactive technologies we tacitly relinquish some or all of our privacy. Even today, depending on the SLA of software or a website that entity may retain the rights to anything occurring therein. Unfortunately, technology often outpaces society’s ability to evaluate the impact it will have before it’s too late. So as technology advances and floats out into the cloud, it is imperative to keep in mind the rights of the individual to their personal freedom and right to privacy.

…you control INFORMATION!!!

Even though this episode aired in 1995 – the nascent days of the internet – a prophetic Newman knew the power of information. Aside from the post office, until the internet arrived there hadn’t existed an inexpensive and accessible medium with which a vast array of information could be widely distributed to the masses. And now corporations seek to cash in on Newman’s brilliant idea. With conflicting versions of the future of the web – complete, open access one on hand, and some form of information control on the other, where does that leave the user?

The idea of “net neutrality” was an idea I’d acknowledged in passing but never devoted much thought to. Even when I signed up for my AT&T internet package that offered pricing tiers based on the amount of bandwidth I wanted to pay for, I didn’t think much of it. I chalked it up to a multi-billion dollar corporation squeezing as much blood from the stone as they could. Capitalism at it’s finest. I didn’t make the logical leap – that AT&T’s ability to control the “speed” at which I receive the information I desire means they directly control the flow of the information itself, including the ability to shut it off entirely.

The “Human Lobotomy” video gave me pause. Then I stumbled upon this article on TechCrunch, where AT&T actually was blocking access to a site (albeit a somewhat questionable one). This unregulated filtering only occurs in China, right? Apparently not, with the only difference being that the Chinese government controls the information, and in the U.S. it’s corporations. Three valium later, everything was back in perspective.

“Human Lobotomy” cautions that media outlets of TV, radio, and newspaper used to have a higher concentration of user generated content, and over time that contribution dwindled to next to nothing. Had Tim Berners-Lee sought a patent on his creation (apologies to Mr. Gore), or had CERN – his employer at the time – sought royalties, we’d never have known net neutrality. In fact, we’d likely have ended up with a fragmented system of incompatible technologies – an Apple web, a Microsoft web, etc. – where, ironically, information control would’ve been centralized with a few large companies.

Some current trends are alarming. There’s Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick which allowed it to virtually corner the market on online advertising, and with it the ability to construct user profiles. (Smartly, the search engine divested itself of DoubleClick’s Performics division – an SEO designed to “game” search results – and avoid a conflict of interest.) AT&T blocking 4Chan, and Comcast blocking P2P torrents.

With such a vast amount of data in the hands of so few, a concern larger than access to that information arises: privacy. This week’s New York Times reading alludes to the way companies possessing information about your web habits, search history, and physical location can accurately pinpoint the types of ads you’re likely to respond to. Which – in and of itself – isn’t technically a bad thing.

Unfortunately, as much as they try to scrub the data of any personal identifying information, with a little work it can still be tracked back to you. Halavais relates in his reading the case of AOL’s release of the search history of 650,000 randomly selected users, with their user names removed and replaced by a number. Within days, those individuals had been identified, and the AOL CTO was summarily fired.

So where does this leave the user? While I agree that groups offering premium content have a right to be paid for that, I don’t agree with ISPs giving people who can afford it faster or priority access. People driving to the library in a Mercedes enter through the same door as the guy who rode down there on his bike.

All of the information you’ve ever entered or accessed online – knowingly or not – has a history stored somewhere in the cloud. One protection option is to use a proxy server to mask the IP address, although this will likely slow performance a bit and may block other popular sites (Facebook, MySpace, etc.) as collateral damage. Trying to delete files online is more or less an exercise in futility – items “deleted” by the user are rarely ever removed completely. You could always use someone else’s computer (mother-in-law? ex-partner?) for the searches more private and/or embarrassing in nature, but this can be inconvenient at best and extremely embarrasing at worst.

Regardless, it’s up to the individual users to monitor themselves, and to monitor the public policy as it is determined going forward. The power is in your hands!

To refresh, my final project centers around the redesign of a small grocery store’s website, so I anticipate minimal legal/ethical concerns.

First, I’d have to look into the use of product images (e.g. “Del Monte Creamed Corn – 2 cans for a buck!!!”) within the website. I’ve seen brands and products pictured on the sites of other grocery store websites – both small stores and international chains. I’m not sure, however, if this usage is tacitly allowed by the vendor, or if there is an official approval required.

Second, I want to try to generate a sense of community on the website using pictures of customers and employees, as well as posting recipes. I’ll want to verify recipes for copyright, and either getting the author’s permission or giving a credit, or even excluding the recipe in its entirety. I will have to do more research into whether or not using photos of people in public places requires any kind of sign-off. I don’t anticipate this being an issue as I’m not selling the image itself, but since I am using the images in a commercial endeavor I don’t want to assume. Legal vagaries know no bounds.

While I don’t have it in my plan to allow groceries to be purchased via the website, this is something the client may want to explore in the future. If they decide to go down this path I’d have to look into the rules around and structure needed for online purchasing functionality. I’m also unsure who is liable in the event of a data breach or identity theft. There would likely be a additional expense of some kind to the store to purchase E&O insurance that guards against this risk.

Aside from these concerns, I don’t anticipate any other issues (famous last words…) given that this is a site enhancement rather than a “from scratch” creation.

Sort of why we’re all in the ICM program, right? This BusinessWeek article – Promote Your Business Through New Media by Karen Klein – polls PR experts for their opinions on the pre-requisites for small companies to consider before they begin marketing themselves via New Media (Full Disclosure: Gordon Andrew, who is quoted in the article, is both my uncle and a PR whiz).

The marketing techniques utilized historically have not changed, but the current technology allows a different means for them to be implemented. Mr. Andrew notes the importance of generating “bona fide thought leadership in your target market, then reporters and bloggers will find you.” The focus should first be developing a quality product or service, and then creating a unique brand identity before moving on to marketing.

The article emphasizes building a relationship by working directly with the potential client rather then creating a website and waiting for them to find you. “Old School” methods of attending industry conferences, cross-promoting with companies offering complimentary products/services, and issuing white papers still work. Start by providing prospects with information they can use to their benefit, rather than focusing explicitly on your company. Gain their trust, and they’ll come back to you.

What does that mean to ICM? The main issue run into by small companies attempting to use new media marketing techniques (JOB OPPORTUNITY!) is the time commitment. With so much “noise” online, it’s difficult for anyone – let alone prospective clients – to filter the valuable stuff from the junk. For the small company, keeping content fresh and distinct from their competitors across the various platforms (and staying abreast of new technologies under development) in the new media space is a full-time job in itself.

Linda Hamburger, a long time PR manager, says in the article that a company needn’t restrict its search to fill such a role to experienced candidates, as “new graduates are surprisingly talented and adept at using new media.” And that’s where you come in…

This one’s a classic, and never fails to bring a tear to my eye. Especially now that they’ve won #27!!!

(My thanks to Dr. Halavais for dismissing early this week. I only wish his vision would’ve allowed him to see such an amazing display.)

Do you use Facebook, Google Docs, or Flickr? Then you, sir, are part of the “Cloud”. The Cloud is the general term given to the practice of moving computing from one’s personal computer onto to web servers in some far-flung, exotic locale (or more likely, here).

With more people joining the Cloud everyday, all that data has to be stored somewhere. In this article from cnn.com, John Sutter tries to demystify the cloud and find out exactly where that “somewhere” may be.

One of the ironies Sutter discovers is that although companies often make copies of your data and store them on servers in separate locations to ensure that it doesn’t get lost and will be available when you need it, none are willing to disclose where exactly those locations may be.

Sutter also has little luck in determining who actually owns the data in the Cloud. “Terms of Service” agreements (those long text boxes of legal mumbo-jumbo that nobody actually reads before blithely checking the “I Consent” box on a website) are of little help in clarifying. And when a company spokeswoman was asked what would happen to all of the personal information and photos stored on Facebook were the site to become defunct, she tells him simply: “The business is doing well and continuing to grow.”

To summarize: Yes, we have your stuff in a secret place. Don’t worry – it’s safe, and you can have access to it any time you want. We promise*.

(*except for instances in which we alone determine circumstances dictate otherwise.)

This module centered around focusing design on the end user, and the various methods of doing so. I can say from personal experience, however, an equally important aspect of the design process is the project management. Without effective and accurate communication of the user requirements throughout the development life cycle to all the impacted teams the awesomeness of the design is irrelevant, and this is where the project manager comes in.

I’ve seen this scenario played out more times than I can count:

User: This product should really have capability “x”.
Business: The user wants it to do “x”. Make it so.
IT: OK. (goes away for a couple months)
IT: How’s this?
Business: This isn’t what I asked for!
IT: Yes it is. You signed off on the requirements right here (points to email on screen and smirks voraciously).
Business: Well. That’s not what I meant. I meant “y”. Fix it.
IT: We can fix it. It’ll take three more months.
Business: You *#&@^%#&~!!!!! (name calling and idle threats ensue; depending on money spent to date heads may roll)

The original project managers:

This is especially prevalent in large organizations, where a significant gulf exists between the front-of-house sales and back office operations areas. Often times business and IT end up speaking different dialects of the same language, and neither side understands why the other doesn’t “get it”. Both groups are operating within their respective shells. The business simply wants the work done, but IT resources don’t fully understand the “why”. The business can’t/won’t take the time to explain it all to them, believing their time is better spent on efforts that actually generate revenue for the company. The IT resources responsible for the heavy lifting, having only the written requirements to work from rather than the big-picture context of the request, churn out what they can based on what little they know.

What this project needs is a man who understands both sides of the issue, a man who can bring all parties to the table and conduct meaningful discussion, a man who can drive the technical team to implement the user-centered design desired by the business on time and on budget, a man adept at herding cats. This project needs…

Project Manager emerges from phone booth at stage left, wearing a unitard and cape emblazoned with a giant, stylized “PM”:

“Oooooohhhh! Look over there!! Moving swiftly from cubicle to cubicle!! Able to beat back jargon with a single bound, and see through the BS with his xray vision!! It’s PROJECT MAN-ager!!!

Truly, living the dream.

Project: Redesign of existing website for a small meat market

User needs:

1. Clean, continuous design throughout
2. Weekly specials/email blasts
3. More fluctuating/less static content
4. User-friendly catering menu
5. Recipes/Community section

The primary needs are a cleaner layout as the current design is a hot mess (can’t believe I just said that, but there’s no better way to describe it’s current state), and more interactivity from the site.