Lars Trieloff: i18n for Web 2.0 (Web 2.0 Expo, Berlin) [en]

steph-note: incomplete notes. I was very disappointed by this session, mainly because I’m exhausted and I was expecting something else, I suppose. I should have read the description of the talk, it’s quite true to what was delivered. Please see my work on multilingualism to get an idea where I come from.

Why internationalize? You have to speak in the language of your user.

e.g. DE rip-offs of popular EN apps like Facebook. CN version of Facebook, and RU, and turkish.

What is different in Web 2.0 internationalization? Much more complicated than normal software i18n, but some things are easier.

More difficult:

  • sites -> apps
  • web as platform
  • JS, Flash, etc…

The i18n challenge is multiplied by the different technologies.

Solution: consolidate i18n technology. Need a common framework for all.

steph-note: OK, this looks like more of a developer track. A little less disappointed.

Keep the i18n data in one place, extract the strings, etc. then pull them back into the application once localized.

Example of how things were done in Mindquarry.

steph-note: oh, this is in the Fundamentals track :-/ — this is way too tech-oriented for a Fundamentals track in my opinion.

steph-note: insert a whole bunch of technical stuff I’m skipping, because I can’t presently wrap my brain around it and it is not what interests me the most, to be honest.

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 21

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 22

Ankur Shah & Gi Fernando: (Facebook API) Disrupting the Platform (Web 2.0 Expo, Berlin) [en]

*Here are my notes of this session. Usual disclaimers apply.*

Harnessing social analytics and other musings on the Facebook API

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 10

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 17

In the lights of OpenSocial, tough week to be talking about Facebook.

Ankur and Gi are going to talk about a variety of good things that they’ve done with the Facebook platform.

Understanding human relationships.

Facebook is a truly social platform, which allows to create truly social applications. Engage with your friends directly. Ability for a company to respond to the social content inside the platform.

Questions:

– where were they? (Facebook)
– where we are? (developers)
– what’s everyone doing?
– where’s it all going?

Geek + pizza = Facebook.

7000 applications. SuperWall, Slide, Top Friends, iLike, Flixter, Likeness — successful!

*steph-note: Ankur is speaking a little fast for me and I have a headache, so I’m not following this very well, sorry*

Applications kept in a controlled environment. The back-end to all those applications is the same.

Doesn’t depend where your engaging with your users as long as you are.

Standardised facebook functions => very compact code. Homogenous look (avoids the “MySpace effect”)

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 8

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 16

Bob Dylan application.

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 15

PHP. API easy to use. *steph-note: maybe I should build a Facebook app… not sure about what though!*

Standardised component set.

Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 20

Big question: does the platform really break? Facebook’s innovation is so quick that things break.

A short note on viral-ness. A phenomenon, from 50 friends to 50’000 users in a week. It can happen… but. The Dylan application allows you to share something with others. Individuals make applications spread more than other users.

Facebook allows users to spam their friends with applications.

My Questions: 450’000 daily active users.

Socialistics. Information about your friends.

*steph-note: ew, sorry, I’m passing out. Nothing to do with the content of this session, quite interesting.*

Little Facebook API vs. OpenSocial moment.

Jesse James Garrett: Delivering Rich Experiences (Web 2.0 Expo, Berlin) [en]

Here are my notes of the end of Jesse James Garrett’s keynote. There might be bits and pieces missing and I may have misunderstood things. Thanks for bearing with me.

steph-note: missed the beginning, sorry.

MS Word Displaying All Toolbars!

Word Toolbars all turned on sends the following message:

“Word processing is complicated. In fact, it’s so complicated that we, the developers of this tool, haven’t figured it out. So, we’re outsourcing that job (figuring it out) to you, our users.”

Look at video cassette recorders. They’ve come a long way these last 30 years, lots of buttons but… nobody seems to be able to set the clock, still now.

Mentions something Steve Jobs said in 1984.

Beautiful, elegant solution that works.

The product has aesthetic appeal (beautiful), maximises simplicity (elegant), has to address a genuine need/desire (solution) — many startups out there fail because they don’t address a real need — and can be used by its users, not just by us, its creators (that works).

Even MS word has started to get this. They’ve moved beyond toolbars. More simplicity. Not there yet maybe, but real progress. The new interface is much cleaner and simpler.

Last generation of video cassette recorders. Now, we have TiVo. But TiVo was only made possible by really taking a step back. Look at TiVo users: passionate. Users develop an emotional attachment to products which deliver on those four points.

Research seems to show that there is something different happening in our brains when we interact with complex technological tools. steph-note: some variety of pets? Like our interactions with other people, same mechanisms in our brains. We respond to these products as if they were people. We imagine they have personalities, moods… 12-year-old girl who kissed her iPod goodnight before going to bed on the day she got it. Or adults whose iPod breaks, go out and buy a new one, but can’t open the box for two days, because it would mean they have to say good-bye to their old, broken, companion.

iPod case “iGuy”. TiVo logo that has arms and legs.

Products who know who they are, and reflect a consistency in their behaviour.

Experiment: have users try software and evaluate it. One group, user same computer for both tasks. Group 2, different computer. Group 1 were nicer with their feedback, almost as if they didn’t want to hurt the computer’s feelings.

Diamond Rio, first mp3 player commercially available. Looked like a transformative product, so much that the record industries went to court to have it banned in the US. But nobody remembers it! Everybody remembers the iPod as the first mp3 player. Met with a lot of skepticism. (ipod = “idiots price our devices”). Too expensive, not enough features. But actually, it’s a beautiful elegant solution that works.

Developing software applications: we talk about them as data, wrapped in logic, and a user interface. User interface = shell.

But in the minds of our users: there is the user interface, and magic inside.

When we make choices about our products based on things that our users cannot see, we’re going in the wrong direction.

But this is changing. The web (2.0) is leading the way. We make decisions about the user interface first, and allow those decisions to drive technological choices. “Designing from the outside in.” (O’Reilly)

Web 2.0 companies are not being driven by a business or technology strategy, but by an experience strategy.

The experience is the product.

Any technological choices that do not reinforce the experience that we want the users to have of the product are the wrong decision.

Jeremy Keith: The Beauty in Standards and Accessibility (Web2.0Expo, Berlin) [en]

Here are my notes of Jeremy Keith‘s session. He’s somebody I always appreciate listening to, and he also happens to be the creator (and provider) of Buzzword Bingo. Play with your neighbour when keynotes or sessions go down the buzzword path.

My notes are as correct as I can make them, but they may be missing bits and pieces and I might even have misunderstood stuff.

Web 2.0 Expo 6 - Jeremy Keith

First define. Who knows about beauty? The poets.

John Keats: Ode on a Grecian Urn. “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

William Blake: Auguries of Innocence. “To see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wildflower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour.”

Looking deep beneath the surface. Close-up sketch of a flea. Micrographia. Beautiful. Viewing source. This is how we see the beauty of things.

This whole web2.0 stuff is not about details. We’re not using microscopes, but telescopes, looking at the “big picture”. Telescopes can be good: think “Galileo”.

He brought upon the world an a priori change. A new way of looking at the world, though the world had not changed. The earth revolves around the sun, and not the opposite.

Darwin: the world didn’t change from one day to the next when The Origin of Species was published, but our view of the world did.

We want to think about structure. How is the house built? It’s when you understand the structure that you can build solid houses. Same with web pages. This is where web standards come in.

Separation. Before: all mixed up (html, css, js). Now: separate. (cf. http://nataliejost.com) Progressive enhancement. An a priori change to how you design websites.

a) begin with your content
b) structure it (HTML)
c) think about how it’s going to look (CSS)
d) think about the behaviour (DOM Scripting)

Web 2.0 Expo 5

If you remove any of these layers, it will still work. It won’t look pretty, it won’t behave as well, but it will still “work”.

CSS

  # in a separate document!
 p { }
 #foo { }

Then, add rules using selectors. From general to specific.

DOM

Very similar approach. Make it external. You don’t put it in the document. The vocabulary is different, but you also reference elements in the page pretty easily

 document.getElementsByTagName("p")
 documnet.getElementById("foo")

School of thought called “unobtrusive scripting”, “unobtrusive javascript”

Beware

First structure, then presentation. If you catch yourself doing this…

 <a href="..."> # wrong!

If you put behaviour in here, you’ve wasted a hyperlink.

Slightly better… but still bad

 <a href="#"> # JS equivalent of using the style attribute

steph-note: I’m learning stuff about JS! yay!

Bandwidth benefits in doing things the right way. Process benefits, you can separate the work. And also… the beauty of it. Flexibility. See how it reacts in situations you haven’t accounted for? It won’t fall apart if somebody accesses with no CSS, no JS, no images…

So, is this about making site accessible? Kind of. Note: go to the talk on accessibility Thursday morning.

Jeremy is talking more about universality. You’re not shutting out devices. Mobile. Search bots. Screen readers.

W.B. Yeats (April 1916) “All is changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born.”

Ajax

Wonderful, beautiful, but can be terrible depending on how it’s used. steph-note: reminds me of what we said of JS in 99-00

The key to Ajax is about asynchronous communication with the server. XmlHttpRequest.

Jeremy’s definition: “A way of communicating with the server without refreshing the whole page.” Just part of the page.

Buzzword Hijax.

Here is how Jeremy thinks we should build an ajax application.

a) build a website in the old-fashioned way — buttons, links, for interaction with the server
b) then, come along with ajax — which parts of this page benefit from just being refreshed separately, and intercept the links/events. Hijack the requests. Bypass the whole page interaction.

Progressive enhancement rather than a terrible beauty that locks people out. Switch off JS, and everything still works.

Where? When?

Patterns: when I click a link/form, and when I submit it, I return to the same page with almost nothing changed.

  • registration forms (specially for user name availability)
  • comments on a blog/forum
  • add to cart
  • steph-note: sign in links

“Web 2.0” is not about web applications versus documents in the old “Web 2.0”. It’s a sliding scale. Most sites are somewhere in between documents and application. Applications work with documents! It’s not an either… or thing.

This kind of Ajax is more on the document side of the scale, roughly mid-way to the application end. Doesn’t scale to “more application”.

But at that point, why the hell are you building that with HTML, CSS and JS? The reason to use them is that they degrade gracefully. If you decide that all three are required, maybe you need to use another technology, like Flash. These technologies have their place for applications which cannot degrade gracefully. Flash is made for building web applications! But there is an insistance in building “2.0 Apps” in HTML/CSS/JS.

Maybe hesitancy because Flash isn’t a standard in the same way as HTML/CSS/JS?

Standards: you know your stuff will work, you know there’ll be support there. The best thing that Adobe could ever do in Jeremy’s opinion is to open it up truly (steph-note: if I understood that correctly).

History of standards.

ISO, ECMA, W3C…

Open data. API. RSS. XHTML.

If you’re going to release and API, look at what Google and Yahoo are doing and copy. Build upon existing conventions. Your own format is not going to make it.

If you allow people to access your data like that, you start to see emerging patterns.

Microformats! steph-note: yay!

Machine tags! steph-note: yay again! There is a machine tags wiki.

Jeremy, like many of us, really hates the “Web 2.0” label/buzzword. It had its place a few years ago, but now it’s really putting us in a box. Ajax is a good buzzword, because it allows to talk about a certain technology in a snappy way. Whereas Web2.0… ask ten people, and you’ll get 10 explanations.

Web2.0: people.

But we don’t need a buzzword for that. We already have a word for “leveraging collective intelligence”: the WEB!

Combine looking through the microscope and looking through the telescope.

Kathy Sierra: Keynote (Web2.0Expo, Berlin) [en]

[fr] Mes notes de la keynote de Kathy Sierra.

Here are my notes of Kathy Sierra’s keynote, quite different from yesterday’s workshop, which I also blogged. My notes are probably incomplete in some spots and may contain mistakes.

Finding Web 2.0 Opportunities (Kathy Sierra)

1) reduce guilt and fear

most of the time, people feel like they suck, like it’s their fault. Sometimes, making the product easier is not always the answer. We need to reduce that kind of feeling/face. How about using facial recognition to see when users are pulling a face? Or even simpler, have a WTF?! button.

Help, FAQ and user manuals do not solve WTF faces. People writing help and FAQ think you’re happy to use the softwa
re and a bit intellectually curious about using the software. Not true! Assume that most of the time, our users feel in WTF mode. Even if your software is easy to use, it might be they’re pulling that face because of what they’re trying to do with your tool.

FAQ/Help aren’t wrong, they’re written for the wrong place of the curve.

Recognise that people are miserable, feel they suck at what they’re trying to learn. Let people off the hook for feeling bad that it’s their fault. Books teaching something shouldn’t make people think they’re stupid.

“Appartments for rent: dog required.” In the US, so hard to find a place to live when you have a dog.

“Please walk on the grass, hug the trees, smell the roses.”

“What kind of genius? young, early, or late bloomer (Doc Searls).”

A lot of 2.0 stuff (like Twitter) increases the guilt, because you have to keep up. steph-note: I realise I’ve been letting myself off the hook quite a lot regarding that.

Being an expert is generally just a matter of focus, not a matter of natural talent.

How to write a bestseller? Choose a title that lets people off the hook. “The perfect mess” or “Everything bad is good for you.”

2) Don’t “bait and switch” on the relationship

Don’t start out all nice and interested and seductive, and in the end push away. How do you treat your ongoing users vs. the users you want to capture? The difference between how sales reps treat customers or prospects is often huge and the wrong way around. Documentation quality.

Web 2.0 Expo 3

Take the marketing budget and throw it into user learning. It’s not always a problem to not have a marketing budget: teach your users to kick ass.

Every time you think of something that you might do for marketing, think about what would happen if you applied that to user learning. Huge example: camera brochures and material. Glossy brochures that are all about taking great photos — which is the reason people buy cameras! — and afterwards, manuals that teach me to be a tool expert, which is not what I want!

Serendipity Curve. Introduce randomness. Excessive customisation and tailoring strips out the delight of discovering something unusual and unexpected. Encourage people to make connections between your stuff and seemingly unrelated things.

Roger von Oech’s “Creative Whack Pack” (steph-note: looks really good!)

3) Make it real/Make it important

Why are we here? We still need physical presence despite all our technology. A huge part of our brain is devoted to our hands and mouth.

Smell is really important steph-note: shows cup of coffee on slide, it does something to our brain but not just smell. Skin was meant to be used.

A real present trumps a virtual gift (not that the latter isn’t meaningful!!) Think about how you can give something in the real world to your users, related to your product. In the US, the UPS guy is a hero. He’s a sex-symbol. Physically impossible to not smile when you see the Amazon box on your doorstep.

Philosophy of Electric Rain:

  • users should do something kick ass within 20 minutes
  • the process of buying, downloading and installing feel like you’re getting a special present. E.g. a real human answers the tech support. We don’t expect that!

Unboxing! “geek unpacking porn” Look at pictures of other people unpacking their new geek toy. steph-note: I almost did that with a Flickr photo of my new macbook and roomba.

People are actually coming up with ways to make those pictures more seductive. These things matter!!

Even if you’re working in bits, and all “virtual”, find something you can send to your users offline. People always care about the t-shirts.

T-shirt First Development. ThinkGeek. It’s not enough to send it to them, give them a way to show that they’re wearing the t-shirt.

Don’t make this mistake:

Web 2.0 Expo 4

There are women or smaller men in your audience. They won’t feel like they kick ass in an XXL t-shirt. Yes, even if it’s not cost-effective.

Remember we’re not ready to leave our bodies behind just yet. “Real” sex still trumps the “virtual” kind…

Reminder: Speaking Tuesday at Web2Open, Berlin [en]

[fr] Je présente une session sur le multilinguisme ici à Berlin, à l'occasion de Web2Open, mardi (demain!) à 10h10.

Just a reminder: I’ll be giving my talk Waiting for the Babel Fish: Languages and Multilingualism Tuesday (tomorrow as of writing) at 10:10 during Web2Open at the Web2.0Expo in Berlin.

I also put together (for the occasion, but I’d been wanting to do it for a long time) a page entirely devoted to my work about languages and multilingualism on the internet. This is the first page of the Focus series which will showcase some of my work and the areas I’m currently active in.

For those of you who’ve been intrigued by this twitter of mine I’m going to make you wait a little more — but if we bump into each other at Web2.0Expo, don’t be shy to ask me about it!

Update: here’s the slideshow! Slightly upgraded since the last incarnation of this talk at Google:

Thanks to all those of you who came. I got lost on the way so arrived late — my apologies to any of you who might have been there on time and left before I arrived.

Kathy Sierra: Creating Passionate Users (Web2.0Expo, Berlin) [en]

[fr] Workshop de 3 heures animé par Kathy Sierra. Comment rendre ses utilisateurs passionnés.

Disclaimer: theses are just my live notes of Kathy Sierra‘s workshop. Though I try to be accurate, they may contain mistakes or be incomplete. Please don’t hesitate to link to other notes, reviews, or relevant material in the comments.

Not passion like being attached to your iPod, but more passion like how we invest energy into our hobbies.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 2

There are techniques we can use to achieve that…

Kathy is going to draw techniques from many domains, who all have a piece of the puzzle:

  • hollywood 🙂
  • cognitive science
  • neurobiology
  • psychology
  • learning theory
  • design
  • game design
  • advertising

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 3

Passion: music, photography… that level of passion. Think of something that you have a passion for, or have had a passion for. Here’s how to tell if it was: you want to keep getting better, you want to learn more, practice more… that’s a real passion.

People with a passion:

  • show off
  • learn
  • continuously improve
  • spend time

Reverse-engineering passion. Look at common attributes of things people have a passion about (e.g. people want to keep learning and getting better). How can we drive passion rather than wait for it to happen?

Where there is passion… there is a user kicking ass. Nobody really get a passion about something they suck at. Challenge: what to do in the period where users still suck.

One of the reasons people pursue passions is that it gives them a higher resolution experience. You see things differently when you’re passionate. You see more details, things that others don’t notice.

The Kick Ass Curve:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 5

Between the first time and the suck threshold is the real challenge, because that’s where we’ll lose people. Strategies to keep pushing our users up that curve, and not just when they get past the point where they no longer suck. The faster you can get your users past the Suck Threshold, the more likely you are to have passionate users.

So, how fast can we do that, and how?

But… the problem is that people don’t want to be experts at a tool, but experts at what they can do with the tool. They use the tools to do something. That explains why documentation is all wrong, because it focuses on teaching the tool.

Good example: photography site which focuses on the results people want, the photos they want to be able to take, instead of on the camera.

Kathy, seeing slow-shutter speed photo of waterfall, understands why she needs to ditch her point-and-shoot, because she needs control on the shutter speed to be able to take those kind of pictures. And that’s what she wants to be able to do.

We don’t want to be tool experts.

Before our customers buy, we treat them well with glossy brochures, and as soon as they buy they get an unpalatable tech manual for their camera.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 6

What if your product isn’t something people can use to do really cool things? (Showing a picture of Coldplay.) If we look, we can see what people might be able to use it for that they’ll get excited about. So, Chris Martin of Coldplay is very interested in fair trade. He helps people get involved in the cause. (Oxfam.) A band can help people become passionate about their work, their music.

Another example: Red Bull. Kathy likes Red Bull, but she doesn’t want to become an expert at what’s in it! So Red Bull are helping people become passionate about other stuff, not the drink — music, for example.

Bottom line: whatever you have, whatever your business is, you can have passionate users. They don’t have to be passionate about your product.

Imagine Nikon sets up a really cool site to teach people about photography. Learning is a drug for the brain, so this feel-good feeling is going to be linked to Nikon, who is behind the site. Passion spills back to the tool/brand. (That was a bit of psychology…)

THE important question: what do (or can) you help your users kick ass at? (answers are not: the tool, the interface). The stuff your tool allows to do.

What if you make trash bags? Well, you can sponsor a festival, do something completely unrelated. But you could have little films with creative use of trash bags, and then you create tutorials to teach people to make kick-ass films with those trash bags. (steph-note: sounds way more lame when I write it than when Kathy says it.)

Big question: how do we actually make that happen?

It all starts in the user’s head, and the user’s brain is not our friend.

Our brain has a little logic, and lots of emotion. Our brain thinks we’re still cavemen. Our brain has a big crap filter, and not much gets through. Your brain cares about that which you feel. Chemistry! Mind has one agenda, but brain has another. Imagine, trying to learn from a dry textbook even though committed to studies and the test… but the brain isn’t into it. Any moment though, something could wake the brain up (smell of pizza, cute guy).

What does the brain care about?

  • things that are just a little weird, that are just out of expectations
  • scary things
  • sex
  • little young helpless innocent things (baby, puppy)
  • play, joy
  • humour (bunny suicides…)
  • faces
  • things that are not quite resolved, some mystery, want to know the rest of the story (hand hiding face)

To keep people reading, you need to make sure their brain stays awake.

The brain doesn’t care about

  • generic clichés (bride and groom kissing, no-no, whereas groom biting bride’s shoulder…)

Trick the brain!

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 7

Conversational beats formal every time. It can be subtle!! steph-note: this what I try to explain to people about writing in “blog style”.

Leading theory about that: the brain can’t tell the difference between a real conversation and something written in conversational tone. “God, a conversation, I have to keep up my end, pay attention.”

Rule: talk to the brain, not to the mind.

To read: “A mind of its own” by Cordelia Fine (How your Brain Distorts and Decieves)

Prepare the brain so that when people see this they think “ew, bad”:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 8

Hey… all this was just about getting people’s attention! We still need to get past the Suck Threshold.

Where are my users on the suck / kick ass curve? If your tool is easy to learn, can they spend a lifetime getting better at what they do with it?

Who do snowboarders go back the second day? The first is so awful! Because there is this picture in their mind of what it’ll be like to kick ass at it. People persevere because they have an idea in their head of what it will be to be really good at it. Another reason is that they see a path, a series of steps to getting there.

People stick at something that’s stuff because there is:

  • compelling picture
  • clear path
  • easy first step

How easy depends on how much value they perceive they’ll get. Sometimes just giving an e-mail address is too big a step.

Who is describing this “compelling picture” for your users?

Why? Who cares? So what? If people are to learn something, they have to keep turning the pages of the book. We need to get past the brain’s crap filter when we’re explaining.

It’s an exercise:

  • My tool does X
  • So what?
  • Well, if you can do X, then it means you can do Y
  • And so what?
  • etc…

(when you feel like killing the other for being so thick, you’re getting close t the meaningful stuff: “you’ll never have sex again”, “you’ll lose your job”)

Keep asking why.

Now, we need to get users to learn.

Learning increases resolution.

“RTFM” expresses how we feel about our users. If you want them to RTFM, make a better FM!

All the money goes to enticing, sexy, motivating, advertising brochures. And after… when it’s time to learn, nothing left.

Learning Theory

Facts — information — understanding. Need more understanding. We tend to teach too many facts. steph-note: cutlery noise from outside coming in through open door is really annoying me

The more they understand, the less they need to memorize.

Because a choice is asked, our brain starts doing more processing.

Smackdown Model: throw two equally compelling, strong, arguments at somebody, and the brain is forced to start processing.

Words + pictures > words. Even drawing a picture on a napkin and taking a photograph of it.

Look for “oh crap!” and “oh cool” moments.

steph-note: tiring

“just in time” is more effective than “just in case” learning. But be careful, you don’t want to always prevent them from scraping their knees.

Who can help you help your users learn? Where are the resources? steph-note: other users! Kathy: “community” 😉

However, nothing of that matters unless you manage to keep your users engaged.

steph-note: break-time, good!

Should read the book “Flow, The Psychology of Optimal Experience”.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 10

What is it like to be in the flow state? You don’t really notice that time is passing. If you have lost time, either you were abducted by aliens, or you were in the flow state. You just keep going. For people to be in the flow state, a very delicate balance needs to be achieved:

  • knowledge and skill
  • challenge

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 11

What turns the brain on?

  • discovery
  • challenge
  • narrative
  • self-expression
  • social framework
  • cognitive arousal
  • thrill
  • sensation
  • triumph
  • accomplishment
  • fantasy
  • fun (?)

Fun does not have to mean funny.

What breaks flow state, state of enchantment? Think of the user as under a spell. Suddenly realising that they’re using this tool to achieve what they’re doing. (Oh, crap, where’s that button?)

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 12

Don’t make me think about the wrong thing. Just make me think about the interesting stuff. Make it hard to do the wrong thing, and easy and natural to do the right thing.

Techniques to make the flow state happen and remain there. How do we keep them coming back?

Nobody does this better than game developers. Video games! Always trying to get to the next level.

User experience Spiral:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 13

Motivational milestones. Make sure the users know where they’re going.

Differences between girls and boys and video games:

  • boys: getting to the next level is the aim
  • girls: getting to the next level, but what for?

Are there any new superpowers that I’ll get at the next level? If done right, the payoff gets bigger for each level. Gives you a chance to paint the next compelling picture of what they’ll be able to do.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 14

Levels have to be small at the start.

What are levels for web development?
Online communities?
Flickr users?

What are your level superpowers?

Frequent rewards. Lots of small benefits. User as hero. Who/what is the helpful sidekick/mentor? How will the hero be changed?

The Tribe…

e.g. 37 signals: “getting real” — so people who are into 37 signals products identify with this “getting real” attitude. Mac: “think different”.

Music video, shot just in living-room and shows what all the money that could have gone into making it could be used for in the third world:

What part of your product is (or could be) part of a user’s identity? (meaning)

Site where people photograph their iPod in various settings. People holding one company’s book in various locations.

So, how can your users show that they belong to the tribe?

If you want them to talk… give them something to talk about. LOTR stuff in calendar OSX (steph-note: dig around that).

e.g. on cover of one of Kathy’s series books, same girl as on this site— lots of talk!

Figuring things out (insider info) is social currency (whuffie). Everyone loves to be the one to tell you about… X.

Find interesting stories. Give users treats. Things that they can talk about. Give them social currency that they can use elsewhere. Legends, stories, people. Where there is passion, there are people.

Once you get to a certain level, people start trying to figure out who will play you in the movies 😉

founder/creation stories, user-as-hero stories? You don’t want to make it about you… people are passionate about themselves. First thing to look at: testimonials. They should be about how great these users are as a result of using the products. People want to see themselves reflected in the testimonials.(Not about the product of the founders.) The more first person language in reviews (about a book, eg.), the better. What’s important is if something good happened to the user, not what they think about you.

Community

  • forums?
  • study groups?

at the least, a blog with comments…

Javaranch registration terms of service: “Be nice”. Users have to agree to that. If people aren’t nice, how do you get them to answer and ask questions? How quickly can you make it possible for people to ask and answer questions?

No dumb questions. Don’t allow people to say “that’s already been answered 50 times”. It’s OK to ask a question again. Never shun somebody for asking a question.

But the most important factor is actually no dumb answers. Try to get people to convert to answerers as fast as possible. Information on “how to answer questions”. When people answer a question, make sure they feel encouraged because they’ve done it.

Tutorials on how to make tutorials.

How to know you’ve got passionate users

When people stop criticising you, but criticise your users. A bit unsettling, but that means you have passionate users. “Cult?” “Sheep?”

Then, give your users some sort of defensive weapon.

If you try to satisfy everybody, you delight and inspire nobody.

Tips and trouble on the road to passionate users

Levelled products (iMovie is free, FinalCut isn’t — so you start with iMovie thinking you’ll never need more, and at some point you’ll outgrow it; problem though: big gap between the two from a usability point of view). Good strategy, however.

“Dignity is Deadly”

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 15

Startup: individuals
Corporate: consensus

Apes become smarter as they work together. Humans become dumber as they work together. (“Wisdom of Crowds”)

We tend to think our ideas are amazing, but our users think they’re tolerable.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 16

Listening to users: what they say is not what they want.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 17

User priorities

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 18

When you ask them to prioritize, and when you ask them to also explain, you get very different results.

The greatest cause of user pain:

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 19

Making things better can in fact make them worse. If a simple thing is nice and flow-inducing… No need to improve it by adding tons of features.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 20

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 21

The Secret…

It doesn’t matter what they think about you… (It’s not about you, and it’s not about what you do). All that matters is how they feel about themselves as a result of their interaction with you, your product, your company… steph-note: thinking that Lush testimonials are spot-on, they really have passionate users and I’m one of them.

The user must have an “I rule!” experience.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 22

Remember: your users are real people.

Thank you, Kathy. It was great to have a chance to see you.

Web 2.0 Expo, Kathy Sierra 23

Une journée pour bosser sur nos sites "pro": Website Pro Day [fr]

Si vous êtes un peu comme moi (consultant/indépendant dans le domaine du web) vous avez probablement quelque part un site professionnel qui erre, l’âme en peine, attendant depuis une année qu’on veuille bien s’occuper de lui.

Eh oui, comme on dit, c’est les cordonniers les plus mal chaussés, et les professionnels de la communication web qui ont les sites-vitrine les moins à jour. Pas pour rien qu’on recommande le blog, c’est beaucoup plus facile à entretenir, comme format.

Donc, mon pauvre site professionnel a bien de la peine, depuis un moment déjà. Il n’est vraiment plus à jour. Je fais des tas de choses qui ne sont pas annoncées sur le site, et franchement, ce qui y est aurait besoin d’un bon coup de peinture pour le remettre au goût du jour. Me “vendre” n’a jamais été mon point fort, et ça commence à se voir.

Sans compter également que, côté “vitrine professionnelle”, les nombreuses années d’écriture sur Climb to the Stars ont tout de même généré quelques bons articles qui méritent d’être mis un peu en évidence, alors qu’ils sont enterrés dans les archives et une arborescence de catégories à faire pâlir un bibliothécaire.

Vu également que mes activités professionnelles se développent à l’étranger, une version en anglais de ce site ne serait pas du luxe.

En résumé, y’a du boulot.

La bonne nouvelle, c’est que je ne suis pas la seule. Une remarque d’Ollie sur le piètre état de son propre site pro m’a donné une idée. M’inspirant de la journée “finissons et publions nos brouillons d’articles!” mise sur pied par Chris Messina, si nous organisions une journée pour bosser sur nos sites pros? Quand on travaille seul ou presque, structurer son temps est une des grandes difficultés. Se retrouver à plusieurs dans un but spécifique nous paraît une bonne idée pour faire avancer les choses.

Donc, le mercredi 28 novembre à Lausanne, Ollie et moi nous serrerons les coudes pour offrir un sérieux lifting à nos sites respectifs. Si vous êtes dans une situation similaire à la nôtre, c’est avec plaisir que nous vous invitons à vous joindre à nous! L’invitation est sur Facebook (si vous êtes un indépendant du web, vous y êtes certainement déjà!):

Facebook | Website Pro Day à Lausanne

Cette journée de travail (d’étude, enfin) sera consacrée à la remise en forme de sites professionnels trop négligés d’indépendants du web.

On passe tellement de temps à se soucier des sites de nos clients que les nôtres en pâtissent! Il est temps de prendre le taureau par les cornes et de consacrer une journée à polir notre propre présence online.

Concrètement: on se retrouve dans un lieu adéquat (wifi, calme, vivres) et on bosse chacun sur son site, avec son laptop et son matériel. A plusieurs, c’est plus motivant!

Attention: ceci n’est pas un atelier où on débarque pour se faire “coacher” ou pour apprendre quelque chose. C’est chacun pour soi, chacun son truc (même si entre collegues, un peu de feedback ou de dépannage peut aider). On est entre pairs, quoi.

Si vous voulez être des nôtres, envoyez-moi un petit mot!

Si vous avez un lieu à proposer sur Lausanne, faites signe aussi.

J’ai choisi le perroquet plein de couleurs pour illustrer l’invitation, parce que c’est l’occasion de nous mettre en avant sous notre meilleur jour!

Si l’idée vous interpelle mais que vous n’êtes pas sur Lausanne… pas de souci! Organisez un événement similaire dans votre ville 🙂

Opérations médiatiques: marre [fr]

[en] Sick and tired of being asked to do stuff for free particularly when it's a media stunt. I rant about two recent situations where I've been contacted for "unpaid work" which is obviously going to benefit "the client" more than me.

Deux opérations médiatiques auxquelles j’ai été conviée de participer me laissent songeuse — et un peu inconfortable. Laissez-moi d’abord vous en dire quelques mots, puis on verra où part ce billet (j’avoue ne pas très bien le savoir moi-même).

La première, “Tapis rouge pour les APEMS”, a eu lieu pour moi hier (il y a aussi un vernissage de l’expo ce soir à Lausanne, mais vu mon état, je n’y serai pas). D’après ce que j’ai compris, il s’agit d’un événement monté par l’agence Plates-Bandes pour faire mieux connaître les APEMS. Les APEMS sont une structure d’accueil lausannoise pour les enfants de première à quatrième primaire, avant et après l’école ainsi que durant la pause de midi. L’événement comporte deux volets: une exposition à l’hôtel de ville (un APEMS éphémère y est recréé) et la visite de personnalités de la région dans les différents APEMS durant la journée, sous forme “d’invités suprise” pour les enfants (“Devine qui vient aujourd’hui?”).

Voici l’essentiel de l’invitation que j’ai reçue par e-mail il y a quelques mois:

“Devine qui vient aujourd’hui” invitent 20 personnalités de la région à venir
passer un moment (soit le petit déjeuner, soit le repas de midi, soit le
temps de jouer ou les quatre heures), avec les enfants, dans un des 20 APEMS
de Lausanne. Cette action sera fortement médiatisée.

Votre nom est ressorti dans les invités souhaités par les enfants ou les
professionnels des APEMS et nous aurions grand plaisir à vous associer à
cette journée.

Hier midi, je suis donc allée dîner à l’APEMS de Pierrefleur. C’était une expérience assez perplexante. J’avoue que je ne savais pas trop ce que je faisais là (les indications que j’avais reçues disaient simplement qu’il suffisait que je m’y rende, l’idée étant que je passe un moment là-bas avec les enfants) — et pour tout dire, le personnel de l’APEMS ne semblait pas avoir reçu beaucoup plus d’informations que moi à ce sujet.

Dans un premier temps, j’ai eu une conversation tout à fait sympathique avec la responsable de l’APEMS (après avoir été chaleureusement accueillie). Nous avons parlé de nos parcours respectifs, du fonctionnement de l’APEMS, de ce que je faisais professionnellement.

Au fur et à mesure que les enfants arrivaient et que le temps passait, mes doutes quant au choix de ma petite personne comme “invitée surprise” pour ces enfants grandissaient. Ils n’ont jamais entendu parler de moi, et c’est bien normal. Je ne travaille pas avec leur tranche d’âge (ils ne chattent pas, ne bloguent pas, vont peut-être sur Internet, mais franchement, ce que j’ai à leur raconter à ce sujet ne les intéresse sans doute guère). Les trois garçons de quatrième année avec qui j’ai partagé une table de repas ont parlé entre eux des jeux vidéos et films qu’ils appréciaient (“Le silence des agneaux”, à neuf ans, avec bénédiction parentale?!). J’avoue que cette partie de l’expérience avait pour moi un désagréable goût de flash-back, me renvoyant à quelques traumatismes scolaires de cette époque (mais bon, ça, c’est mes histoires, hein).

D’une opération annoncée comme “fortement médiatisée”, on est passé à “la presse a été prévenue, peut-être qu’ils viendront” et finalement à “ben non, sont pas venus”.

Je ne suis pas certaine de saisir les tenants et aboutissants de cette opération médiatique, mais j’avoue qu’elle me laisse avec la relativement désagréable impression d’être allée faire acte de présence (et un peu tapisserie) dans une APEMS afin que mon nom puisse figurer sur une liste transmise aux médias pour un coup de pub, accompagnée d’autres noms plus ou moins connus de la région.

Déformation professionnelle oblige: m’est avis qu’un bon site web, bien référencé et vivant, présentant les APEMS et leurs activités (il existe peut-être mais j’ai été incapable de le trouver) serait déjà un bon moyen de rendre cette structure d’accueil plus visible. (Là, je parie, ça va faire le coup classique, comme d’habitude: cet article va se retrouver sur la première page de Google pour le mot-clé “APEMS” d’ici peu.)

Voilà donc pour ma première “opération médiatique”.

La seconde, c’est “Le Temps des femmes”. Le journal Le Temps fête ses 10 ans en début d’année prochaine, et s’offre (et offre à ses lecteurs) un numéro spécial entièrement rédigé par des femmes influentes dans divers domaines en Suisse Romande. Idée fort sympathique, même si je doute que ce genre d’opération fait vraiment avancer la cause des femmes (je ne peux m’empêcher de penser qu’on donne ainsi un jour de congé aux hommes en offrant aux femmes le “privilège” de venir travailler). Il me semble que c’est tout bénéfice pour le journal — rien dans l’invitation n’indique que les bénéfices de ce numéro spécial seront reversés à une organisation faisant avancer la cause des femmes, par exemple (et on pourrait encore bien sûr débattre de l’utilité d’une telle action).

Mais là n’est pas vraiment la question. Mon malaise est ailleurs. Voyez-vous, le ton de l’e-mail (et de l’invitation Word à imprimer et renvoyer par fax!) est assez clair: je suis invitée à participer à cette journée de rédaction du numéro spécial, ainsi qu’au débat qui aura lieu le lendemain, et on espère que la proposition m’aura “séduite”. Après un rapide e-mail pour plus d’informations, je comprends que ce qu’on me propose de faire, c’est le “making-of” de la journée, en la bloguant. Du live-blogging d’événement, en somme.

Vous voyez où je veux en venir? Je me demande si Le Temps réalise qu’en m’invitant ainsi, ils sont en train de me demander de venir travailler pour eux une journée? Car oui, c’est du travail. Mettre au service d’une entreprise (ou de tout autre organisme) mon expertise dans le domaine des blogs, c’est ce que je fais pour gagner ma croûte. Bloguer, ce n’est pas juste “écrire dans un outil de blog” — je caresse l’espoir qu’un jour le monde comprenne que c’est une compétence spécialisée qui s’apprend.

En m’invitant à venir couvrir leur événement online, Le Temps s’assure les services d’une blogueuse qui sait vraiment ce qu’elle fait (en d’autres mots, on appelle ça une “professionnelle”). Mettez aux commandes de la couverture live une personne qui sait écrire mais qui ne connaît pas aussi bien le média “blog”, et vous n’aurez pas quelque chose d’aussi bon. Ça ne viendrait à l’idée de personne de penser que “journaliste” est un métier ou une compétence qui s’improvise, alors que sans cesse, on imagine que “blogueur” est un boulot à la portée de n’importe qui. Oui, ça l’est — d’un point de vue technique. Tout comme n’importe qui peut utiliser Word ou PageMaker pour publier un journal. Comme partout, il y a des gens qui sont capables d’apprendre “sur le tas” et qui d’amateurs autodidactes, deviennent des pros. Mais ça n’est pas donné à tout le monde — et ça prend du temps. Des blogueurs francophones qui font ça depuis bientôt huit ans, vous en connaissez beaucoup?

Je m’emporte, hein. Ben voilà, on vire au coup de gueule. J’avoue que ces temps-ci j’en ai un peu ma claque. Ma claque qu’on sous-value mes compétences et ce qu’elles peuvent apporter, ma claque d’avoir de la peine à me “vendre” et de trouver si difficile le côté “business” de mon activité professionnelle, et ma claque aussi de ces tentatives répétées de venir me faire travailler gratuitement, sous prétexte qu’on a pas de budget (ce qui peut être vrai, mais c’est pas à moi de me serrer la ceinture à cause de ça), sous prétexte (et c’est pire) que “ça m’apportera de la visibilité” et donc que j’y gagne. Oui, messieurs-dames, la plupart de mes activités professionnelles sont “visibles”, et c’est pour cette raison que je peux me permettre de ne pas facturer le double afin de financer mon budget marketing/pub. (Je sais, je suis en train de râler, mais qu’est-ce que ça fait du bien, de temps en temps!)

Donc, bref, me voilà une nième fois devant le même problème: comment expliquer à quelqu’un qui me contacte pour une participation bénévole (que ce soit une stratégie un peu puante pour obtenir les gens à bon marché ou le résultat d’un manque de conscience honnête et peut-être pardonnable n’y change pas grand chose) que oui, volontiers, mais il faudra ramener les pépettes? Parce que je l’avoue, c’est pas une position très agréable: “ah oui, sympa votre invitation et votre projet, je participe volontiers mais faudra me payer!” Ça me rappelle furieusement cette grosse entreprise européenne qui a invité mon amie Suw Charman à donner une conférence chez eux… et qui ne s’attendait pas à la payer! Elle en parle brièvement dans notre podcast Fresh Lime Soda.

Oui, j’ai conscience qu’en bloguant cette histoire Le Temps risque de lire ce billet et de laisser un commentaire qui me sauvera la vie, genre “oh mais bien sûr qu’on va vous payer, combien coûte une journée de votre temps?” — et je me rends compte que si je me sens assez libre de m’exprimer ainsi sur ma petite tribune ouverte (ce blog), les relations “clients-fournisseurs” restent très codifiées et je me verrais mal déverser ce lot d’explications dans un mail. Ce ne serait pas vraiment approprié. Je m’en tiendrai probablement à un “je viens volontiers passer une journée dans vos locaux à couvrir la journée en bloguant, cependant ceci fait partie des prestations que je facture. Qu’aviez-vous prévu de ce côté-là?” assez convenu et un peu plus léché. (Oui, ça m’emmerde vraiment que ces négociations pécuniaires soient si compliquées — je suis en plein dedans ces jours avec au moins deux autres clients.)

Bon, ben voilà, comme on dit. Essayons de finir sur une note constructive: si vous contactez un blogueur (ou une blogueuse) pour participer à un événement, ou bloguer pour vous, par exemple, gardez à l’esprit qu’il s’agit peut-être d’un service pour lequel il (ou elle) s’attend à être payé(e). Et de grâce, approchez les choses ainsi. Si vous n’êtes pas familier avec le milieu (et même si vous l’êtes un peu) il est possible que vous sous-estimiez complètement (a) le travail nécessaire à acquérir les compétences auxquelles vous faites appel et (b) ce que vous allez en retirer comme valeur en fin de compte.

Too Many People [en]

[fr] J'ai atteint un point où je n'ai plus envie de faire de nouvelles connaissances. Je n'arrive déjà pas à voir les gens qui me sont chers autant que je voudrais. En ligne, les relations "délicates" (asymétriques, par exemple) sont plus faciles à gérer qu'hors ligne. De plus, les outils de "réseautage en ligne" nous aident à rester en contact avec plus de personnes qu'il ne nous serait normalement possible. Quand tout ça passe hors ligne, cela frise l'overdose.

This is a post in which I expect to be misunderstood, judged, and which will probably upset some. But it’s something that needs to be spoken about, because I’m certain I’m not the only one going through this, and I think it’s strongly related to what changes the internet is bringing into our lives when it comes to relating to people.

I’ve argued many times that online relationships and behaviors in general reproduce what goes on offline, so it may seem that I’m contradicting myself somewhat. But I think it’s also clear for everybody in this space that technology does change the way we live with others. Right now I see that our world is changing — it’s a bit blurry ahead, and actually I’m quite scared to see more clearly — and in our lifetimes, chances are the nature of human relationships will be deeply impacted by the technologies we are using and developing.

If all this doesn’t make sense, don’t worry. I’m not sure I understand what I’m saying myself. These might just be the tired rantings of a burnt-out and frustrated node in the network.

“Being an online person”, as I call it, means two things:

  • there are people out there who know you, sometimes quite well, but that you have never heard of
  • the “presence” dimension of our social tools allow you to keep in touch with more people (and better) than you would be able to offline

With their consequences, when your “online social life” goes offline:

  • micro-celebrity, micro-fame, fans
  • more relationships to nurture than the limited space and time permits

Our online social network does not necessarily translate well offline.

Let’s have a look at a few aspects of our relationships with others that we are maybe not necessarily the most proud of:

  • we like (or even love) some people more than others — or perhaps simply differently
  • we find some people more interesting than others
  • some people we are happy to spend long periods of time with, but infrequently — if we saw them every day they would drive us up the wall
  • some people we are happy to see a little each day, but would not want to spend a whole afternoon with
  • we sometimes want to spend time with one person (or some people) at the exclusion of others (others who can be people we care about, too)
  • we keep in touch with some people or are nice to them because they are useful to us
  • we like some people less than they like us (and vice-versa)
  • some people are business contacts to us, but would like to be our personal friend (or even get into our pants)

I think that if you look honestly, you will recognize yourself here. These facts about our social life are uncomfortable to deal with, and awkward. We don’t like thinking about them, much less talking about them. And we very rarely deal with them directly in the relationships they apply to.

Offline, we deal with a lot of this social awkwardness by avoiding it. This is why I argue that contact tagging, if done to structure our personal social network, must remain a private matter. We don’t tell some people certain things. We don’t mention that we’re meeting with Judy after lunch. We act a bit more distant with Tom than with Peter, hoping he’ll “get the message”. We tell Susie we’re too busy to see her, but drop everything when Mike invites us on a date.

Online, it’s even easier. We don’t respond to IMs or e-mails. We read certain blogs but not others. We chat absent-mindedly with Joe who is telling us his life-story, while we have a heart-to-heart discussion with Jack. We mark our status as DND but still respond to our best friend. We receive Twitter notifications on our phone from a select few, and keep a distracted eye on others’ updates. We lie more easily.

So, online, we actually have more freedom of movement (mainly because our emotional reactions are not so readily readable on the moment) to deal with some of these “awkward relationships” than offline — particularly, I would say, what I’d call the asymmetrical ones. From a networking point of view, being online is a huge advantage: the technology allows you to “stay in touch” with people who are geographically estranged from you, with a greater number of people than you could actually manage offline (“continuous partial friendship“), and it also allows you to keep in your network people who would probably not be in your offline circle, because it helps you tone down relationship awkwardness.

Conferences have lost their magic for me. I know, I know, I’m coming to this 18 months after everybody I know (I mean, I know I’m not alone and this is a normal process — but I’m still interested in analysing it). The first conferences I went to were bloody exciting. I got to meet all these people who were just names in my online universe, or with whom I’d been chatting for months or years, or whose blog I’d been reading in awe for ages. I made a lot of friends. (Maybe they wouldn’t agree, but that’s what it was like for me.) I met many people that I found interesting, likeable, wonderful, even. Some of them who also seemed to appreciate me back (as far as I can tell).

Over the last six months, conferences have become more and more frustrating. I’m speaking only of the social/networking aspect here. A dozen if not twenty people I really like are in town, sometimes more. Getting to see them offline is a rare occasion for me, and I’d like to spend half a day with each of them. But there is no time for that. People are here, and gone. They also have their other friends to see, which might not be mine.

To some, maybe, I’m “just another fan” — that I can live with, even if nobody likes being “just another fan”. But does one have to make conversation and appreciate every reader of one’s blog? If you like somebody’s blog, does that automatically mean they’re going to like you? Find your presence or conversation interesting? The hard reality of celebrity and fandom, even micro, is that the answer is “no”. It doesn’t mean that as a fan, I’m not an interesting person in my own right. It doesn’t mean that if I got to spend enough time with the person I’m fan of, they wouldn’t appreciate my company and find it enriching. But the fact I’m a fan, or a reader, doesn’t earn me any rights.

And increasingly, I’ve noted over the four or five last conferences I attended that there seem to be more people who want to get to know me than people I want to get to know. Or people who are interested in me for business reasons, but of the type where they get something out of me, and I don’t get much out of them. Or people who have been reading my blog for ages and are happy to be able to talk to me, but I know nothing of them.

I’ve reached a point where I don’t want any more people. I can’t keep up with my people, to start with. I feel spread too thin. I want to deepen relationships, not collect superficial ones. Contacts are useful for business, and though I’ve said many a time that the line between business and personal is more and more blurred, business contacts do not have to become personal friends. I know there are lots of wonderful people out there I don’t know. Lots of wonderful people I’ve maybe brushed aside or pushed away when suffering from “people overload”, when all I want to do is climb into my cave and stay there.

But you know, there are way too many great, interesting, fascinating people in the world to give them all the attention they deserve. Even if the world, here, is just “Web2.0-land”. But there is also a limit to how many meaningful conversations one can have in a day, and to how many meaningful relationships one can fit in a life. Those limits are personal. They vary from person to person. Some have them low, some have them high. But when the limit is reached, it’s reached.

So at some point, I need to choose who I spend my time with. In a very selfish way, I choose to give priority to the people in my life that I care for, and who bring me something. I’m there for me first, others after. I consider that one can only truly give and bring value to others when it is not at one’s own expense. I think this is valid in the economy of social relationships too. Being spread too thin impairs my ability to care — and I don’t want that.

Choosing who I spend my time with online is rather easy. I can tell the umpteenth guy who wants to “be friends” with me on IM that I have enough friends, I’m not looking for more, don’t chat with people I don’t know, and really can’t chat with him now. If he insists, I can ask him to leave me alone, and tell him that if he doesn’t, I’m going to have to block him. I can keep him out.

Offline, in a conference, it’s way more difficult. Maybe we need to take inspiration from Aram Bartholl and hang status messages around our necks, or chat windows (with curtains?) that we can close. I’m kidding, I honestly don’t think there is a real solution apart from being honest — in a socially acceptable and non-rejecting way (easier said than done).

I think we need more awareness of the complications offline to online transitions bring about. Maybe we’re going to have to start being explicit about these “social awkwardnesses” that I mentioned above — because changing the setting from online to offline makes it much more difficult to resolve them by ignoring them.

We’ve all been through the very unpleasant experience of being “stuck” in a conversation we don’t find interesting, but which is obviously fascinating for the other party. It happens even with our friends: I’m talking with Jill, and hear with my spare ear that Bill and Kate are talking about something much more interesting to me, but I can’t just dump Jill, can I? But what if Jill is somebody I’ve met 3 minutes ago — does that change anything? And of course, this dreadful thought: heck, could it be that I’m his/her Jill? Have I been the dreadful boring person one tries to shake off, without noticing?

These are human problems — they’re not technological. I feel I’m getting tired now and before I ramble too much (I feel I’m not very coherent anymore), I’ll don my flame-retardant suit (you never know) and hit publish. I’m looking forward to reading your reactions — whether you agree or disagree with me, of course.