The 2004 Google Zeitgeist is out and about.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 23, 2004, 10:01AMThe posting below on Onfolio, Pluck and other in-browser feed readers raises an interesting point about RSS and how people use it.
If we step back a second and think about the various types of use cases that utilize RSS, you see a pretty clear pattern emerge.
One of the great advantages of RSS is that it allows you to glean over large amounts of information without actually visiting entire web sites and determining if anything new is up or worth reading. A nicely organized feed list provides a nice birds-eye view of the world of content you'd like to follow.
It gets interesting when we think about whether we're going to dive deeper and deeper into the content. Generically, there appears to be five levels of altitude (if you will) in RSS:
If you consider the above, each requires a greater level of commitment and time to digest. For example, I have about eight channel groups that I use to organize my feeds. Admittedly, I focus on four or five groups on a regular basis. The rest I may visit on occasion or less often.
Among the ones I do visit, there are certain feeds within those groups that I'm a fan of or who's content I really value. If they have anything new to say, I want to know about it. This isn't the case with all the feeds, just some. Nevertheless, even the ones I care less about I'd still like to quickly scan the headlines to see if something catches my eye.
All of this leads to a direct correlation between how much I value a particular channel/feed and how willing I am to tolerate digesting additional details. If it's a cherished feed, I don't mind diving into the third or fourth level.
Feed readers out today are applying the Microsoft Outlook paradigm and I think this is flawed. Email is a different beast than RSS. My Inbox is one-dimensional compared to the varied world of sources that provide me with feeds. Each source is - in its own way - its own Inbox, with varying levels of importance, interest and context.
So what's the best way to address this? Flexibiilty. Make it easy for me to glean over a collection of feeds and their entries. FeedDemon speaks to some of this by providing some openness with style sheets for newspapers and the like. This is a great first step, but the novice user isn't going there. I've got all sorts of ideas about how an interface can better handle RSS, but describing it in prose isn't very worthwhile.
RSS applications are brand new and I think the reflex reaction is to lean on conventions that people use and understand today. This works...sometimes. In time, I think the applications that handle RSS will evolve along with the technology itself.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 21, 2004, 10:47AMA very special breed of RSS readers out there are the rare few that fit snugly inside (yes inside) your web browser. There are clear advantages to having your feed reader inside your browser. The main benefit is that if a link is worthy of a click, you're already there. You're not dealing with the leap to another application or the usually half-featured browser controls inside the feed reader itself.
Two products seem to stand out in this category: Pluck and Onfolio 2.0 (currently in beta). Both seem to do the trick nicely. Onfolio has a wealth of other features that center around snipping and collecting information from around the web. Pluck is more focused on feed reading/management. Both are relatively polished and fairly useful. Both are free (for now). Onfolio scores bonus points for integrating with both IE and Firefox.
My big gripe with both readers is that if you've got a lot of feeds, it still isn't especially easy to sift through all those entries that quickly. They've both chosen to adopt the Outlook paradigm of folders on the left, then headlines blurbs, then the full view. This works for email. I don't really like it for RSS.
The task of making it easy and simple to scan through many channels without feeling overloaded is really a challenge for the designers and builders of feed readers today. Very few have gotten it right in my opinion.
For me, FeedDemon still runs the show. I've tweaked one of the newspaper stylesheets so I can get a thorough scan of a lot of information very quickly. It's also visibly faster than the other products (not sure why).
For the philistines that remain clueless about the wonders of RSS, CNet breaks it down all nice.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 18, 2004, 01:19PMI just rebuilt my PC recently (that's right ladies) and a really good way of knowing which apps are most important to you is the order (and urgency) in which you install software back onto the OS.
One of the apps that ended up in the Top 5 is Dave's Quick Search It's a free and highly configurable little search box that sits in your taskbar or deskbar and allows you to conduct hundreds of different types of searches from a single place.
For example, if I'd like to check something on Pricegrabber, I simmply type: pgrab canon powershot. Or, if I'd like to search IMDB, I'd simply type: imdb godfather. Very cool and once you're hooked you won't look back.
What's even cooler is the ability to create your own search shortcuts to any web site that has a form. All the searches are stored in XML files on your machine. Don't feel like whipping together XML files? Then just use Dave's Quick Search Deskbar Search Wizard. It sits in your Internet Explorer toolbar and creates them for you.
I could go on and on about this thing. Just go get it. It's free for chrissake.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 16, 2004, 04:49PMAnyone who follows this blog knows that I'm a big fan of Rich Internet Applications (RIA's). It's finally good to see some real-world implementations of the technology.
TJ Maxx's online store uses Macromedia's Flex technology to create a far more seamless and enjoyable shopping experience. It's great to see this stuff in action. Even in ecommerce - a relatively simple experience - it improves things. I'm looking forward to see it go on more involved applications.
InternetWeek has more on this.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 15, 2004, 11:45PMWe all know that taskbar real estate is so gosh darn valuable. That's why this neat little extension minimizes Firefox and Thunderbird to the tray. Good stuff.
Sorry for all the Google-related stuff lately, but I had to link to this new Google service.
Heh.
Dave Winer put forth some thoughts about trusting Google on his blog. Another article by ZDNet includes some additional thoughts and some background.
It is absolutely fascinating to watch a company like Google craft an image that is founded upon goodwill and hugs and kisses. As far as I'm concerned, I just don't buy it. Here's why...
First off, Google is a company, not a charitable organization. While it would be great and wonderful if they could make tons of money and be altruistic, the real world is a bit of another story. I remember reading an interview with Craig from Craigslist where he talked about doing good and making money at the same time. I mean, if you can pull that off, great.
Google reminds me of the dot.com free-for-all that infected so many start-ups in the late 90's. The ingredients: a lot of cash, an idealistic view of the world, no accountability to investors (at least for a while). The result? "We're gonna change the world and make a difference, and oh yeh, eventually, we're going to make some money."
Now Google today is unique in some ways. It's already making money. As to whether the money it makes (and promises to make) justifies it's share price? I'll leave that for others to debate.
I think Google's strategy today is similar to the Internet start-ups of the 90's in that they're trying everything and are more interested in usage, adoption and brand-building over tangible returns.
Just yesterday, Google announced they're gonna swallow whole and make searchable the libraries of some major universities. No doubt a potentially great public service that we're all assuming is going to be free. Index and search your desktop? Free. News alerts as they happen in your email? Free. Search Google with your cell phone? Free. Email account with 1GB of space? Free.
Let's face it folks, this stuff ain't free because Google wants to turn the world into one big hippie festival. It's free because (a) Google makes money through a solid ad-based model and (b) they're using that money to build their brand in other areas that today don't make money at all.
I don't think a Master Plan is in place at Google HQ. I think there's a "We'll figure it out later" mindset. For now, just try to innovate and put out some neat, free stuff.
As to their altruism, I try to be optimistic when it comes to people, and cynical when it comes to businesses. They are a public, widely-held company and their master is not some idealistic charter. It is those shareholders.
A few months ago, Google tried to drop support for RSS on their Blogger application in an attempt to position ATOM, an alternative and lesser-known syndication standard. There was all sorts of wrangling, and eventually Blogger brought back support for RSS. That doesn't sound so altruistic to me.
In the end, I think it's really early in the Story of Google book. There's a ways to go before it becomes clear that Google can succeed and do no evil at the same time.
Neat little article that dips into the lovely little world of color theory for the less-than crative.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think its infinitely cool to have a CSS reference available on your iPod?
Ok, maybe it's just me.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 14, 2004, 11:07AMI was rummaging through the Web today looking for a good presentation tool and came upon these weird template sites that sell web site and Flash templates for ridiculously cheap prices. Here are a few:
I'd blow this stuff off if the templates were lousy, but they're not. In fact, some are very slick looking. This stuff isn't just web pages either. There are Flash intros and presentations, print stuff, etc.
So all this raises a few questions: Can you commoditize creativity? Or is it no longer creativity once you're selling it for $58 a pop. Beyond the basic philosophical questions, you have to wonder how globalization and cheap(er) labor is going to have an impact not only on obviously commoditize-able goods and services, but the less obviosu - like creative work, branding and the like.
I think we'll know the world has truly changed when it isn't only cheap goods that are coming out of the other side of the world but a credible brand that we'll value and trust.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 13, 2004, 03:56PMSo I've installed the MSN Search Toolbar. It works nicely. I was able to find what I'm looking for pretty easily.
Now I'm going to uninstall the Google Desktop Search. Is the Microsoft search that much better? It is actually.
It's not better because it beats Google's feature-for-feature. It's better because you can immediately see how it is more intimately tied to the Windows operating system. It's available in Outlook. It allows me to click on email search results and pull up the email in the Outlook interface in case I need to respond to or forward it. It's just "closer" to Windows.
These differences highlight something critical about this Battle Royale between Microsoft and Google: Microsoft owns the batte arena. This is not a match between two formidable opponents. It's a match between one opponent (Google) that is doing some smart things and another (Microsoft) that seems to be reacting rather than coming up with some innovations of their own.
You'd think Microsoft would be shaking in its boots. Hardly. Let's face it foiks, Microsoft is in a far better position to take an idea and seamlessly integrate it into the Windows experience. The examples I gave above are not trivial.
I've read about all sorts of theories about the Google OS and the like. It's some interesting stuff. But that reality is far away and Microsoft has proven in the past that they are well positioned to survive, and often-times crush, an innovative player. I'll leave it to the Slashdot forums to extol on the inherent evils in all this (or lack thereof).
So yeh, it's a battle alright, but Microsoft happens to own the arena , and in many cases, the rules of the game.
Speak of the devil. Here she is.
Let the desktop search insanity begin. Google started it. X1 is selling its soul to Yahoo. Microsoft is expected to throw something down this week (today?).
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 12, 2004, 02:35PMBusiness Week chimes in about blogging's growing pains as it evolves from niche hobby to another vehicle for advertising on the Web.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 11, 2004, 01:30PMThis isn't going to impress the ladies, but a lesser-known but nice feature of Firefox is the ability to set your home page to open up mutliple sites in tabs. You simply seperate your sites with the pipe character like so:
http://www.yahoo.com|http://www.cnn.com|http://www.cnet.com
Good stuff, I must say.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 10, 2004, 10:49AMNow I've got to admit, this is pretty neat. As to how useful it'll actually prove to be? Well who cares for now. It's still pretty damn cool.
It's called Google Suggest and it spits suggestions in drop-down below the search box as you type. Pretty neat (and impressive stuff).
As to its usefulness, if you're looking to explore - i.e. you have a general inkling of what you're looking for but not a very good idea of where to look - it's potentially useful. If you're going after something specific, like: Italian food downtown manhattan, you'll have to let Google do its thing and show results.
Regardless, neat stuff.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 9, 2004, 11:39AMBuilder.com has published a decent commentary on the double-edged sword that is RSS.
Some of the bigger players are starting to use some pretty nifty tricks to make the web experience a lot richer for users. Sites like Gmail, My Yahoo, Amazon's A9 and others are relying on a mixture of Javascript/DHTML, XML over HTTP and the like.
It's great to see technology finally start to catch up with the train-wreck of an application platform that is the World Wide Web. Nevertheless, I don't think this is a phenomena that is going to catch for a couple of reasons. First, the mixture of talent necessary to make this stuff a reality is relatively hard to find (and most smaller companies/shops won't bother to spend it anyway). Secondly, I think the web browser's days as a application delivery mechanism are numbered anyway. It is admittedly years, not months, away. It's not 10 years though. It's looking like 2-4.
The biggest jolt will undoubtedly be the release of Microsoft's Longhorn operating system. Organizations should seriously think about their existing archtectures and how easily they'll plug into this new platform of application delivery and presentation.
Until then, we live with what we've got - both as users and developers.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 2, 2004, 08:34PMNow that blogging has semi-officially exploded into mainstream consciousness, I think it's important to ask whether it will evolve into something as ubiquitous as email or if they hype will just settle down.
Looking back, I would point out to all the noise around personal home pages. AOL, Lycos and other players (Homestead comes to mind) scrambled to create this "communities." Lo and behold, people actually built home pages and then...nothing. The home pages got old and stale. People dipped their toes into this silliness and simply got bored with it. It simply wasn't compelling.
I think the key ingredient that blogs possess is the ease with which you can "speak to the world" without going into some hoaky html editing tool. You simply blurt out a posting (or a picture, or whatever) and the world can see it. So I guess blogs have had more legs than static home pages because it is more like a conversation than a single statement.
Then again, the verdict is still out. In two years, will the Internet be littered with a bunch of half-hearted attempts at blogging because people gave it a try and simply got bored? Personally, I enjoy reading blogs far more than posting to them. Posting sometimes feels burdensome. I remember reading somewhere that Kottke of Kottke.org felt pressure to keep things going. That would honestly suck. Only time will tell how much fuel this critter's got. It'll be interesting to watch.
Onjava has put out an informative article on integrating/migrating your existing web applications to Macromedia Flex. The article considers the architectural implications of moving to Rich Internet Applications and raises points that are salient beyond the particular platforms discussed.
It nicely outlines the shortcomings of the current web application experience and the benefits of RIA's. As an interaction designer, I am very interested with the powerful toolset RIA's provide. This is a worthy read even if you're not committed to the platforms discussed.
Posted by Richard Ziade on December 1, 2004, 11:15PMMicrosoft officially threw its hat into the blogging ring with MSN Spaces. It's a blog. It's a photo album. It's a list-maker thingy. There's a lot to this. Dare Obasanjo (Microsoft XML evangelist guy) breaks it down nicely.
My take on all this? It was bound to happen. It's pretty feature-rich, which means that some of the features may prove to be useless. It also pretty much requires Internet Explorer to experience the full richness of the app (some cool tricks going on here). Another annoyance is the requirement for ActiveX controls for certain functionality (e.g. photo uploading).
The verdict is still out as to whether the masses really want this. I don't think blogging as a hobby (or mild obsession) has a universal appeal. We'll just have to see.
...drumroll please...'Blog.'