archive.Joe Lamantia.com

My slides from Blogtalk 2008 are available online now: I went through a lot of ideas quickly, so this is a good way to follow along at your own pace…

FYI: This version of the deck includes presenters notes – I’ll upload a (larger!) view-only version once I’m back from holiday in lovely Eire.

I went to the 4th of July con­cert on the Esplanade this past Mon­day, for the first time in sev­eral years, expect­ing to show some inter­na­tional vis­i­tors gen­uine Boston Amer­i­cana. After all, 4th of July cel­e­bra­tions are sin­gu­larly Amer­i­can expe­ri­ences; part sum­mer sol­stice rite, part brash rev­o­lu­tion­ary ges­ture, part demon­stra­tion of mar­tial prowess, part razzle-dazzle spec­ta­cle as only Amer­i­cans put on.
I sup­pose a unique Amer­i­can expe­ri­ence is what we got: in return for our trou­ble, we felt like unpaid extras in a tele­vi­sion pro­duc­tion recre­at­ing the hol­i­day cel­e­bra­tions for a remote view­ing audi­ence miles or years away. It was — de-centered — hol­low and inverted. It’s become a sim­u­lacrum, with a highly unnat­ural flow dri­ven by the cal­cu­lus of supra-local tele­vi­sion pro­gram­ming goals. The cen­ter of grav­ity is now a national tele­vi­sion audi­ence sit­ting in liv­ing rooms every­where and nowhere else, and not the 500,000 peo­ple gath­ered around the Hatch Shell who cre­ate the cel­e­bra­tion and make it pos­si­ble by com­ing together every year.
Despite all the razzle-dazzle — and in true Amer­i­can fash­ion there was a lot, from fighter jets to fire­works, via brass bands, orches­tras, and pop stars along the way — the expe­ri­ence itself was deeply unsat­is­fy­ing, because it was obvi­ous from the begin­ning that the pro­duc­tion com­pany (B4) held the inter­ests of broad­cast­ers far more impor­tant than the peo­ple who come to the Esplanade.
There were reg­u­lar com­mer­cial breaks.
In a 4th of July con­cert.
For half a mil­lion peo­ple.
Com­mer­cial breaks which the orga­niz­ers — no doubt trapped between the Scylla of con­trac­tual oblig­a­tions and the Charyb­dis of shame at jilt­ing a half-million peo­ple out of a sum­mer hol­i­day to come to this show — filled with filler. While the com­mer­cials aired, and the audi­ence waited, the ‘pro­gram­mers’ plugged the holes in the con­cert sched­ule with an awk­ward mix of live songs last­ing less than three min­utes, pre-recorded music, and inane com­men­tary from local talk­ing heads. We felt like we were sit­ting *behind* a mon­i­tor at a tap­ing ses­sion for a 4th of July show, lis­ten­ing while other peo­ple watched the screen in front.
I bring this out because it offers good lessons for those who design or cre­ate expe­ri­ences, or depend upon the design or cre­ation of qual­ity expe­ri­ences.
Briefly, those lessons are:
1. If you have an estab­lished audi­ence, and you want or need to engage a new one, make sure you don’t leave your loyal cus­tomers behind by mak­ing it obvi­ous that they are less impor­tant to you than your new audi­ence.
2. If you’re enter­ing a new medium, and your expe­ri­ence will not trans­late directly to the new chan­nel (and which well-crafted expe­ri­ence does trans­late exactly?), make sure you don’t dam­age the expe­ri­ence of the orig­i­nal chan­nel while you’re trans­lat­ing to the new one.
3. When adding a new or addi­tional chan­nel for deliv­er­ing your expe­ri­ence, don’t trade qual­ity in the orig­i­nal chan­nel for capa­bil­ity in the new chan­nel. Many sep­a­rate fac­tors affect judg­ments of qual­ity. Capa­bil­ity in one chan­nel is not equiv­a­lent to qual­ity in another. Qual­ity is much harder to achieve.
4. Always pre­serve qual­ity, because con­sis­tent qual­ity wins loy­alty, which is worth much more in the long run. Con­sis­tent qual­ity dif­fer­en­ti­ates you, and encour­ages cus­tomers to rec­om­mend you to other peo­ple with con­fi­dence, and allows other to become your advo­cates, or even your part­ners. For advo­cates, think of all the peo­ple who clear obsta­cles for you with­out direct ben­e­fit, such as per­mit and license boards. For part­ners, think of all the peo­ple who’s busi­ness con­nect to or depend upon your expe­ri­ence in some way; the con­ces­sions ven­dors who pur­chase a vend­ing license to sell food and bev­er­ages every year are a good exam­ple of this.
For peo­ple plan­ning to attend next year’s 4th of July pro­duc­tion, I hope the expe­ri­ence you have in 2006 reflects some of these lessons. If not, then I can see the head­line already, in bold 42 point let­ter type, “Audi­ences nowhere com­mem­o­rate Inde­pen­dence Day again via tele­vi­sion! 500,000 bored extras make cel­e­bra­tion look real for remote view­ers!“
Since this is the sec­ond time I’ve had this expe­ri­ence, I’ve changed my judg­ment on the qual­ity of the pro­duc­tion, and I won’t be there: I attended in 2002, and had exactly the same experience.

No related posts.

In the latest issue of ACMQueue, Tim Bray is interviewed about his career path and early involvement with the SGML and XML standards. While recounting, Bray makes four points about the slow pace of adoption for RDF, and reiterates his conviction that the current quality of RDF-based tools is an obstacle to their adoption and the success of the Semantic Web.
Here are Bray’s points, with some commentary based on recent experiences with RDF and OWL based ontology management tools.
1. Motivating people to provide metadata is difficult. Bray says, “If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that there’s no such thing as cheap meta-data.”
This is plainly a problem in spaces much beyond RDF. I hold the concept and the label meta-data itself partly responsible, since the term meta-data explicitly separates the descriptive/referential information from the idea of the data itself. I wager that user adoption of meta-data tools and processes will increase as soon as we stop dissociating a complete package into two distinct things, with different implied levels of effort and value. I’m not sure what a unified label for the base level unit construct made of meta-data and source data would be (an asset maybe?), but the implied devaluation of meta-data as an optional or supplemental element means that the time and effort demands of accurate and comprehensive tagging seem onerous to many users and businesses. Thus the proliferation of automated taxonomy and categorization generation tools…
2. Inference based processing is ineffective. Bray says, “Inferring meta-data doesn’t work… Inferring meta-data by natural language processing has always been expensive and flaky with a poor return on investment.”
I think this isn’t specific enough to agree with without qualification. However, I have seen analysis of a number of inferrencing systems, and they tend to be slow, especially when processing and updating large RDF graphs. I’m not a systems architect or an engineer, but it does seem that none of the various solutions now available directly solves the problem of allowing rapid, real-time inferrencing. This is an issue with structures that change frequently, or during high-intensity periods of the ontology life-cycle, such as initial build and editorial review.
3. Bray says, “To this day, I remain fairly unconvinced of the core Semantic Web proposition. I own the domain name RDF.net. I’ve offered the world the RDF.net challenge, which is that for anybody who can build an actual RDF-based application that I want to use more than once or twice a week, I’ll give them RDF.net. I announced that in May 2003, and nothing has come close.”
Again, I think this needs some clarification, but it brings out a serious potential barrier to the success of RDF and the Semantic Web by showcasing the poor quality of existing tools as a direct negative influencer on user satisfaction. I’ve heard this from users working with both commercial and home-built semantic structure management tools, and at all levels of usage from core to occasional.
To this I would add the idea that RDF was meant for interpretation by machines not people, and as a consequence the basic user experience paradigms for displaying and manipulating large RDF graphs and other semantic constructs remain unresolved. Mozilla and Netscape did wonders to make the WWW apparent in a visceral and tangible fashion; I suspect RDF may need the same to really take off and enter the realm of the less-than-abstruse.
4. RDF was not intended to be a Knowledge Representation language. Bray says, “My original version of RDF was as a general-purpose meta-data interchange facility. I hadn’t seen that it was going to be the basis for a general-purpose KR version of the world.”
This sounds a bit like a warning, or at least a strong admonition against reaching too far. OWL and variants are new (relatively), so it’s too early to tell if Bray is right about the scope and ambition of the Semantic Web effort being too great. But it does point out that the context of the standard bears heavily on its eventual functional achievement when put into effect. If RDF was never meant to bear its current load, then it’s not a surprise that an effective suite of RDF tools remains unavailable.

Related posts:

I’ve loved my shiny new iPod since November of last year, when I gave in to an acute case of technolust and bought the 40GB model. Six months on, despite the entry cost, the inability of Apple products to live happily in a PC universe without loads of expensive accessories, and the disconcerting set of scratches that appeared on the display almost immediately, I’d still say I was very happy.
That is until last week. Apparently, while I was running a standard firmware update (to the 4/28/04 release), the basic file system on my iPod became corrupted without warning, and everything on the pod was — erased. *38 GB* of all sorts of personally and professionally important files evaporated without so much as an unhappy face…
As it so happens, I was planning to wipe and rebuild anyway, so I’ve decided to look at this incident as an example of pre-emptive self-cleansing on the part of an exceptionally eager to please iPod, instead of a catastrophic file system failure.
But I’m still pissed. I have strong memories of using a Mac at a design studio in ’99, and deciding that I should wear a helmet to work because it crashed so often. This reminds me of that in a more personal and equally frustrating way.
And it’s going to cost Apple some money, to boot. I just decided that I’d replace my aging Dell laptop with a tasty new Powerbook – and now I think I’ll be buying something else. Great design and marketing don’t make up for unreliability.

Related posts: