The first few blackberries I had were fantastic.  They did what they were supposed to do really well.  The other bells and whistles were slightly useful, like mobile web browsing or the music player, but they could be ignored.  Then something happened that changed mobile phones, arguably forever – the iPhone.  It did a lot of things really well.  It did the basics (phone, email, calendar), and it also made mobile browsing functional.  What changed it all was consolidation of media (songs, videos) that people already had and the already legendary app store.

It was around this time that RIM, in an attempt to compete with Apple, decided to push products to the market too early.  The Storm was the worst and last blackberry I ever had.  The touch was flawed, the clickety screen was a rate-limiting factor, and the thing rebooted like a 386 running windows 95 (aka constantly).  It was an embarrassment.  Instead of learning from that mistake in 2008, fast forward to 2011 and the release of the Playbook.  Once again trying to compete with an Apple game changer, RIM releases a product that just wasn’t ready.  Shortcomings were a camera with no camera app, and no native mail app.  Let’s put that together with a wasteland for an app store and the fact that the arcane process for creating an app is a barrier (and affront) to developers.

Now Amazon just released the Kindle Fire.  I will bet today that it is a game changer in the tablet market at a price point of $199.  It doesn’t do everything at that price, but it does many things well.  It provides access to movies and music, e-reader excellence, and an enhanced web browser that leverages Amazon’s server capacity.  Why didn’t Bezos et al release this six months ago?  Because it wasn’t ready!  Why will it work?  It will hum because there is access to a breadth of content that Amazon already has.  The Fire is just another channel to the diversity of Amazon’s content.

Dear RIM, it’s time to wake up.  I loved you once.  You are Canadian.  We should be proud of you, but now we are not.   Stop putting products on the market when they aren’t ready.  Learn!  Pretty please, learn!!

PS – this really isn’t a public participation post, but a social media hardware post.  Couldn’t help myself.

-Joseph Peters-

We’ve all seen generic or stock images on websites.  The teamwork image of joined hands; the cheerful executive pumping his or her fist while using a laptop; business people embracing each other like they’ve just won the lottery.  These types or stock or generic photos are often added to websites to “jazz them up” or make them more user friendly.  But do they actually work?

According to research by web usability guru, Jakob Nielson, users don’t even notice them.  Based on eyetracking studies, he has examined how people view and interact visually with web pages.  Here are some of his recent findings:

• Posed stock images of “generic” people or models are almost completely ignored by users

• Instead, users are focused on finding the text content they are looking for

• Photos can add to websites when they are of “real people” like employees or participants

This is important to know when designing your next online public engagement website.  It should be designed with the user participant at the centre, allowing them to access the content information they are looking for, and to take part, as simply as possible.

Any photos on the site should be of real people – like the head of the host organization, staff involved, or even of some actual participants who have taken part in the engagement.  These images will be more genuine and effective if finished without glossy effects that can easily make it seem generic.

However, engagement sites should still be content focused.  Participants want to quickly learn about the project, read how their contribution will be used, and to take part.  And that’s the true objective for the site and process.

P.S. I know you’ve probably paid more attention to the generic team image on this page, but according to Nielson’s research, only because I’ve pointed it out!

- Ellis Westwood -

According to web usability guru Jakob Nielsen, people rarely read web pages word-by-word.  Instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences.

In fact, Nielsen has recently drawn attention to a study on web use that concludes visitors read at most 28% of the words on an average page visit.  But, he believes 20% is a better rule of thumb.

So, what does all this mean for public involvement?

• Keep text simple – and to a minimum.  Public involvement tools shouldn’t put people off with piles of text.  Instead, messages can be communicated in tables or creative images. Plus, tricks like bullets and bold font are still better than nothing.
• But, the real task is to create a truly participant-centred experience.   We think public involvement is about creating a transformative communication experience between hosts and participants.  And, new technologies make this possible.  Online, video, audio and flash animation create simple, powerful and breathtaking experiences that people can actively engage with.

One day, it would be fun to hear what Jakob Nielsen thought of our public involvement tools. We’ve certainly used his advice to design online experiences we think are truly accessible.

… But if he’s right, you’ve probably given up reading this blog post anyway.  So, I’ll sign-off here!

- Ellis Westwood -