Archive for May 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The articles on Rands keep getting longer and longer, and as Iâ€™m finishing a piece, I worry, â€œIs it too long?â€ I worry about this because we live in a lovely world of 140-character quips and status updates, and I fret about whether Iâ€™ll be able to hold your attention, which is precisely the wrong thing to worry about. What I should be worried about is, â€œHave I written something worthy of your attention?â€
(Via David Lesue)
Houzz.com on "magic mirrors" — computerized touch surfaces on the mirrors and windows in your home:
Magic mirrors and magic windows â€” in fact, magic glass surfaces all over the house â€” will soon become commonplace, thanks to breathtaking advancements in computers, computer interfaces and, of all things, glass.
Count me as a skeptic on the word "soon". This technology barely exists, let alone having a good reason to (yet).
Devices should be getting more mobile, not less. To be successful, innovations should also solve a problem. I don't remember having the urge to check my email while leaning over the bathroom sink. It's also fairly counterproductive to OCD-types like me: "Now introducing smudgy screens all over your house, not just in your pocket."
The whole thing reminds me of the Google Glasses: why do we need it? Speaking of which, they've popped up in the news again; it turns out it won't be nearly as cool as originally pitched.
Does this all sound familiar?.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Michael Lopp defending gamification:
... there are a lot of folks who think gamification means pulling the worst aspects out of games and shoving them into an application. Itâ€™s not. Donâ€™t think of gamification as anything other than clever strategies to motivate someone to learn so they can have fun being productive.
Gamification is a buzz word, and it's gotten a bad name. Brent Simmons calls it manipulative, and Ben Brooks is a bit more colorful (and passionate).
The ever-insightful Lukas Mathis took the thoughtful middle ground. After I read his piece, I started a draft of my own. Now that draft will probably never see the light because, although the whole article is worth reading, Lopp has in three sentences summed up my feelings.
Of course, if your purpose in using gamification is anything other than helping the user enjoy learning and to be productive, then you'd do well to hear from the critics how you might be making your users feel about your software.
Mike Myatt, blogger for Forbes.com, writes:
Creating or expanding business relationships is not about selling â€“ itâ€™s about establishing trust, rapport, and value creation without selling. ...
Engage me, communicate with me, add value to my business, solve my problems, create opportunity for me, educate me, inform me, but donâ€™t try and sell me â€“ it wonâ€™t work. An attempt to sell me insults my intelligence and wastes my time. Think about it; do you like to be sold? News flash â€“ nobody does. Now ask yourself this question, do you like to be helped? Most reasonable people do. The difference between the two positions, while subtle, is very meaningful.
Great article, and a lot to think about. A corporate goal like "increase sales by 50%" can be taken two ways.
One way would be to imagine that more people need to be convinced to buy your product.
The other way is to consider how you can add value and find the customers who most need what you are offering.
Create goals that communicate your actual intended action and aren't open to interpretation. Measurements should be customer happiness levels, not dollars of income (that may or may not have been pried from your customers' unwilling fingers).
Focus on the reason that your product exists and help it help people.