My blogging experience has evolved. I have a new blog at http://moralizingstrategy.wordpress.com/. The new blog will focus on the ethical interaction of interactive strategy and persuasive technology with people.
This blog (Abnormativity) will most likely change its focus to community based economics and the role of interactive technologies for promoting it. Let me know what you think.
Peace
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Social Networks, Corporate Control
I was perusing MIT's OpenCourseWare for their Social Visualization course and I came across a truly phenomenal flash application. I posted an idea I had about showing relationships between corporations and their evils some time back, and while this is not exactly the same it does follow the same idea.
It's called they rule and while it's not entirely easy to use, it allows you to create your own maps or view maps that other people have made. Try clicking on 'Load Map' to see existing network chains. Some of these maps are very telling and it's nice to have the data presented in this way. I wish it was more publicized and more up to date (the data is from 2004, not too long ago).
Check it out and if you know of any other similar projects drop me a comment.
It's called they rule and while it's not entirely easy to use, it allows you to create your own maps or view maps that other people have made. Try clicking on 'Load Map' to see existing network chains. Some of these maps are very telling and it's nice to have the data presented in this way. I wish it was more publicized and more up to date (the data is from 2004, not too long ago).
Check it out and if you know of any other similar projects drop me a comment.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Community Based Economics and Taxes
Reason #813 to support community based economics...taxes.
When you make a purchase there are a series of steps of taxes that are encountered. Forgive my oversimplification, but consider the following example. You purchase one Americano from Starbucks each day $2 * 365 = $730.
Local Taxes
8.1% of that stays in your state in the form of sales tax. $59. Assuming a liberal 15% labor cost produces $100 * 2% = $2 in state income tax. So far, in local taxes we have $61.
Local Taxes (but not your community)
We'll assume a 20% product/food cost, $146 * 8.1% = $12. And we'll assume overpaid executives, regional managers, marketers, etc. up the chain take 4%, $30 * 2% = $.60 in state income tax. Let's say 10% net profit, $73 * 7% = $5 state corporate income tax. So in our oversimplified example we have $17.60 going to someone else's community.
Note: we don't care about federal taxes in this example since they are the same either way.
Your contribution: $730
Your community's taxes: $61
Someone else's: $7.60
Now is the fun part. Multiply all of those numbers by a guesstimate of 500 transactions a day.
Your community's contribution: $365,000
What you get back: $30,500
What you needlessly give away: $3,800
That's just one Starbucks store. There are 6,800 stores in the US, divided by 50 is about 136 in your state. So, one corporation is sucking $3,800 * 136 = $516,800 a year out of our community in the form of taxes. Furthermore, that's only the tax implication. In another post, I'll elaborate on some of the other monetary implications.
When you make a purchase there are a series of steps of taxes that are encountered. Forgive my oversimplification, but consider the following example. You purchase one Americano from Starbucks each day $2 * 365 = $730.
Local Taxes
8.1% of that stays in your state in the form of sales tax. $59. Assuming a liberal 15% labor cost produces $100 * 2% = $2 in state income tax. So far, in local taxes we have $61.
Local Taxes (but not your community)
We'll assume a 20% product/food cost, $146 * 8.1% = $12. And we'll assume overpaid executives, regional managers, marketers, etc. up the chain take 4%, $30 * 2% = $.60 in state income tax. Let's say 10% net profit, $73 * 7% = $5 state corporate income tax. So in our oversimplified example we have $17.60 going to someone else's community.
Note: we don't care about federal taxes in this example since they are the same either way.
Your contribution: $730
Your community's taxes: $61
Someone else's: $7.60
Now is the fun part. Multiply all of those numbers by a guesstimate of 500 transactions a day.
Your community's contribution: $365,000
What you get back: $30,500
What you needlessly give away: $3,800
That's just one Starbucks store. There are 6,800 stores in the US, divided by 50 is about 136 in your state. So, one corporation is sucking $3,800 * 136 = $516,800 a year out of our community in the form of taxes. Furthermore, that's only the tax implication. In another post, I'll elaborate on some of the other monetary implications.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Persuasive Technology Interview with BJ Fogg
This is a great interview with BJ Fogg. I feel like ethics was skimmed over a bit. Especially with statements such as
"If you understand what resonates with people, based on their profile, you will be able to change their behaviour and manipulate them"With that type of content and an explicit question about ethics it seems like a good level of discussion about ethics is called for. Aside from that minor drawback, there is some very interesting and enlightening content.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Goal Centered Design and Disruptive Innovation
I've been bothered by the term disruptive innovation, or disruptive technology. Perhaps the root is in some misunderstanding of mine, but it seems the goal is simply to provide individuals solutions to their problems. However, this is no different than goal centered design.
Maybe it is different, but if the goal is to provide individuals with tools that allow them to accomplish their goals in the best possible way, then both approaches should have the same end. I will point out though, that some disruptive innovation is meant to be disruptive just to be disruptive, but how does this help the individual? And if you are not helping the user of the product accomplish their goal, then what is the point?
Goal centered design should always be about challenging the status quo and should always provide better results than existing solutions. It seems to me that if your goal centered design is successful it will be 'disruptive' if, and only if, that is the best solution.
It's still seems to me to be an open question, why should we focus on disruptive innovation instead of, or in addition to, goal centered design?
Maybe it is different, but if the goal is to provide individuals with tools that allow them to accomplish their goals in the best possible way, then both approaches should have the same end. I will point out though, that some disruptive innovation is meant to be disruptive just to be disruptive, but how does this help the individual? And if you are not helping the user of the product accomplish their goal, then what is the point?
Goal centered design should always be about challenging the status quo and should always provide better results than existing solutions. It seems to me that if your goal centered design is successful it will be 'disruptive' if, and only if, that is the best solution.
It's still seems to me to be an open question, why should we focus on disruptive innovation instead of, or in addition to, goal centered design?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Viral Facebook Apps and Ethical Persuasion
I have not posted about the ethics of persuasive technology, because I have not had time to finish reading Berdichevsky and Neuenschwander's article yet, but I saw Yee Lee's post The Four Viral App Objectives (a.k.a., “Social network application virality 101″) today and I wanted to point out some implications.
There is a certain point where being viral just to be viral is the sole purpose of the social network app. Where the fulfillment of user's goals has been abandoned in favor of market saturation and I think that is a scary place to be. I think Bill Hick's view of marketing applies to that type of app. It almost seems irresponsible to present the list without the ethical disclaimer, although I loathe disclaimers. Furthermore, I doubt the disclaimer would provide much, if any, deterrence for those who would abuse the information.
Lee provides a great list, and obviously some well appreciated insights into what make an app go viral. These tactics can be used by legitimate interaction designers to incorporate into their user's experience. But I worry that the laundry list style of how to make people spread your app, especially without mentioning quality of content, will be abused by the marketing types out there. Further still, it might not give the full picture for those new to interaction design.
Despite my reservations I appreciate the research and sharing of knowledge and hope more comes. I will certainly keep these findings in mind the next time I have the opportunity to design a social networking app.
There is a certain point where being viral just to be viral is the sole purpose of the social network app. Where the fulfillment of user's goals has been abandoned in favor of market saturation and I think that is a scary place to be. I think Bill Hick's view of marketing applies to that type of app. It almost seems irresponsible to present the list without the ethical disclaimer, although I loathe disclaimers. Furthermore, I doubt the disclaimer would provide much, if any, deterrence for those who would abuse the information.
Lee provides a great list, and obviously some well appreciated insights into what make an app go viral. These tactics can be used by legitimate interaction designers to incorporate into their user's experience. But I worry that the laundry list style of how to make people spread your app, especially without mentioning quality of content, will be abused by the marketing types out there. Further still, it might not give the full picture for those new to interaction design.
Despite my reservations I appreciate the research and sharing of knowledge and hope more comes. I will certainly keep these findings in mind the next time I have the opportunity to design a social networking app.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Persuasive Technology and Interaction Design
The principles of persuasive technology should be applied to the principles of interaction design. If the goal of interaction design is to design so the user can accomplish her goals as easily as possible, then persuasive technology is a natural fit.
It is possible to persuade or seduce the user into performing the task that they need to perform to accomplish their goal. Cooper and Reimann point out that the goal is what the user hopes to complete and the task is just a means to that end (2003, About Face 2.0). Therefore, the tasks should be made as easy and inviting as possible. This is where I see seduction and persuasion falling into place.
Khaslavsky and Sherdoff use Philippe Starck’s juicer as an example (1999, CACM Vol 42, No 5). It takes the mundane task of juicing a fruit and makes it exciting by way of sensory stimulation. Interactive applications should also stimulate and entice the user to perform the task that helps to accomplish her goal. Stimulation can be sensory, mental, or subliminal.
For example, the free rice site provides mental stimulation to entice the user to achieve the goal of getting food to starving people. This is much more effective than the hunger site which only provides the good feeling of having accomplished a goal. However, without the enticing quality of the game, the user has little desire to come back each day to click the button. In both cases the user wants to feed the hungry, but one example is much more effective than the other. One example makes the task desirable and therefore the goal much more enjoyably reached.
In a goal centered design the designer should always find the best way to achieve the goal. And while Cooper, et al recommend the least amount of tasks possible, I believe the previous example shows that, in some circumstances, interjecting an enticing task makes the goal easier to attain and more enjoyable.
It is possible to persuade or seduce the user into performing the task that they need to perform to accomplish their goal. Cooper and Reimann point out that the goal is what the user hopes to complete and the task is just a means to that end (2003, About Face 2.0). Therefore, the tasks should be made as easy and inviting as possible. This is where I see seduction and persuasion falling into place.
Khaslavsky and Sherdoff use Philippe Starck’s juicer as an example (1999, CACM Vol 42, No 5). It takes the mundane task of juicing a fruit and makes it exciting by way of sensory stimulation. Interactive applications should also stimulate and entice the user to perform the task that helps to accomplish her goal. Stimulation can be sensory, mental, or subliminal.
For example, the free rice site provides mental stimulation to entice the user to achieve the goal of getting food to starving people. This is much more effective than the hunger site which only provides the good feeling of having accomplished a goal. However, without the enticing quality of the game, the user has little desire to come back each day to click the button. In both cases the user wants to feed the hungry, but one example is much more effective than the other. One example makes the task desirable and therefore the goal much more enjoyably reached.
In a goal centered design the designer should always find the best way to achieve the goal. And while Cooper, et al recommend the least amount of tasks possible, I believe the previous example shows that, in some circumstances, interjecting an enticing task makes the goal easier to attain and more enjoyable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
