Skip to main content

Implicit Interfaces and the Web

The best interface to software might be doing nothing at all. Implicit interfaces are gaining mindshare. This is not a new idea. Amazon improves your experience based on your habits, for example. Google increasingly employs subtle, personal weighting of our search results. In The Implicit Web, Alex Iskold talks about the services of Amazon, Google, and All of them take advantage of the implicit actions of their users. lets us track, publish, and find songs we listen to and like, and after installation, I forget it most of the time I use it.

Implicit Today

A number of services have risen that really should be implicit, but are not. This might be caused by implicit interfaces' very nature of being unseen. Although they can be wonderful ways to interact with our networks, they are difficult to deploy. Developing the algorithms to translate user behavior into user interaction, without hindering the user experience, can be difficult. Even coming up with an idea for employing implicitness is difficult.

The ultimate implicit application might be Google, when taken in terms of number of users. Their intuitive Page Rank system turns millions of web pages interlinking between one another and turned it into a social ranking system. Digg, reddit, and their clones are hot news these days; however, we can't deny that they have done little more than turn what was implicit into something explicit. The change has good and bad qualities. An ironic note: Google seems completely unimpressed with social services, being the only major player expressing no interest in a service like social bookmarks. At least, this might appear to be the case, at first glance. However, when we take note that Google's entire business is built on the idea of utilizing the links on our web pages as votes, we find they were ahead of the game and have the largest social bookmarking site on the internet. The only missing features are associating the websites with actual people.

Why the Explicitness

If Google were so successful with the first massively deployed implicit interface, why would sites adapt the pattern into explicit voting systems? The migration from searching to sifting is a probable cause. The original Google model works great for mostly static content. Asking the popular search engine "What's new?" is not easy, and this is an angle explicit services employ. Social networks are nothing new, but the personal and explicit aspects are newly pushed. A search engine tells you which webpages are popular, but thinks knowing who agrees is less important. They also have a hard time distinguishing between things you like and things you do not like.

Implicit Tomorrow

We need to evaluate what makes a good system, which explicit interfaces can become implicit, and what naturally implicit features to improve. Embracing the implicit areas leads to a higher level of user involvement, because they can be involved when they are unaware of it. However, making the user aware of the affects of their implicit interactions might be exactly the sort of thing the user needs to understand these services are actually there and valuable. There is little market for sites that asks you manually rank books and movies and recommend more to you. Amazon made its business on doing just that, because it takes information automatically and makes it obvious to the user what value they are getting. I routinely buy books from my Amazon page, because I know my habits are tuned it into a great place for me to find what I need. The implicit is there, but I explicitly take advantage of it.


Anonymous said…
Giving up privacy, user mind reading and (seriously) better life through advertising (tn) seem to be the theme here.

This post would be much *much* less scarry if not because your "Giving my soul to Google post"

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Switched From Git to Microsoft OneDrive

I made the unexpected move with a string of recent projects to drop Git to sync between my different computers in favor of OneDrive, the file sync offering from Microsoft. Its like Dropbox, but "enterprise."

Feeling a little ashamed at what I previously would have scoffed at should I hear of it from another developer, I felt a little write up of the why and the experience could be a good idea. Now, I should emphasize that I'm not dropping Git for all my projects, just specific kinds of projects. I've been making this change in habit for projects that are just for me, not shared with anyone else. It has been especially helpful in projects I work on sporadically. More on why a little later.

So, what drove me away from Git, exactly?

On the smallest projects, like game jam hacks, I just wanted to code. I didn't want to think about revisions and commit messages. I didn't need branching or merges. I didn't even need to rollback to another version, ever. I just …

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.

CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…