Re: ::scr IA Goldrush (was Ramblings of a Classic Refugee)

[celia romaniuk <space@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Simon Batistoni wrote:

> In an attempt to swerve back on topic, the esteemed owner of this site
> mentioned in passing the other day that he's heard people suggesting that
> the whole hot-button of IA and next-generation interfaces may well become
> the next "in" thing, possibly spawning a dot com-style goldrush (economic
> recessions permitting).

Um. You mean Simon?

I can't find the article he was talking about, but I read it last week as
well. Just to clarify, the commentator in question was saying that there
will be another wave of investment by companies to make sure their sites
are usable. So - first wave was everyone doing flashy stuff, trying to be
cool, wacky start-up ideas. Then nothing. Then all these big companies
going, 'oy vey, we have this site we invested millions in, we better make
it actually work so we can make money from it'. 

Which is common sense, really.

I think that a lot of investment needs to go into making things worth -
but not just in terms of the interface. What's really important is often
the content beneath it, and how it is interconnected and surfaced via the
interface.
 
> I *can* see it happening. There have been a lot of rumblings for a while now
> on various of the tech and online news/opinion sites about new interfaces,
> and removing the dying desktop metaphor. This list is positively bursting
> with it, and in the programmer circles in which I move, the idea of creating
> new and interesting interfaces to our machines has been a slow-burning but
> deeply infectious meme.
> 
> Do those more involved in IA than I think this is the case? And if so, where
> is the goldrush money going to go? 

Actually, I think that the 'new new interface' was concentrated on a lot
in the last few years, and hopefully people realise now is that the first
object is to make the system work for people. And if you need a new
interface to support that, then great. Explore different ways of doing
it. But people are very wary of flashiness for its own sake. 

Does that make sense?

> "In marketing the word 'free' means the cost is concealed.        christopher
> Nothing is ever free. There is always a price to pay, in                 ross
> terms of money, or effort, or time, or quality."             'tunnel visions'

Good book, that.

-- 
celia
the thinner the air becomes the more we feel at home