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 Last.fm. All of them take advantage of the implicit actions of their users. Last.fm 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.

Comments

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

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

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…