Follow-up on Justin.TV - failure is an option

April 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm · Filed under Video, Privacy

Justin.tv. Live streaming of someone’s life onto the Internet 24/7.

When I first heard of the concept, I thought “well, there must be more to it than meets the eye… because if there isn’t, it’s really going to suck.” Well, it turns out there wasn’t more to it than met the eye, and my prediction held true.

Justin.tv wasn’t created as an experiment of sociology and technology at its core. It was created as a for-profit business backed by venture capital. So, one would have thought there was something there—some great concept around WHAT Justin would be up to that would create the stir to propel the venture.

Turns out, there wasn’t. Justin.tv has taken the simplest, most uninteresting incarnation of ‘reality TV’ (which has been showing its age for awhile now), removed the entertainment factor, and mainlined it onto the Internet using some clever technology. That’s it.

Share This

Comments

Sick Web 2.0 app

April 17, 2007 at 11:16 am · Filed under Web 2.0

Who is Sick is a mashup of Google Maps and user supplied health (or lack thereof) information. From their web site:

Who Is Sick was started in 2006 with a mission to provide current and local sickness information to the public - without the hassle of dealing with hospitals or doctors. With a strong belief in the power of people and a faith that user generated content can be extremely valuable, our team set out to create an entirely new system for tracking and monitoring sickness information.

Share This

Comments

Microsoft: WPF/e = Silverlight

April 16, 2007 at 11:19 am · Filed under RIA, Video, User Interface, User Experience

Microsoft announced the public release name for the technology/plug-in previously known by its code name “WPF/e” (Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere) today as “Silverlight.” Although Microsoft has preferred that the technology not be compared with Adobe’s (formerly Macromedia) ubiquitous Flash plug-in, it’s hard not to make the comparison. Both plug-ins leverage vector based graphics and scripting languages to allow the delivery of richer-than-HTML multimedia experiences, and both have a focus on the delivery of video content.

I worked at Microsoft last year for a few months prior to returning to my post at Terralever. While there, I participated in a program in which Microsoft brought in multimedia designers to put Silverlight through its paces. They were working on a version of the plug-in that was still in development and were working without documentation. Even with those limitations, the resulting demos did show promise in the hands of the highly qualified multimedia designers.

But, who would consider Silverlight over Flash? Here’s some thoughts on Silverlight:

• For designer-developers who are more fluent in JavaScript (or AJAX) Silverlight may be easier to transition to than Flash
• For RIA’s (Rich Internet Applications) that involve communication between an HTML page and multimedia content housed within it, Silverlight may prove to be a more seamless solution as the Silverlight object is a part of the DOM
• This is a v1 product for Microsoft, who usually starts firing on all cylinders around v3, and, Microsoft seem serious about its movement into this space
• Video is the hot topic on the web right now. Flash is currently able to stream a maximum of 576 lines (per Ars Technica) whereas video encoded with Microsoft’s VC-1 codec can be streamed at 720 lines. Silverlight also handles scaling video while it is being viewed beautifully.

Silverlight’s biggest hurdle? Gaining the mind share of multimedia designers—and doing so with a PC-only development ecosystem (Microsoft Expression).

The cross-browser plug-in is currently available for both Internet Explorer and Firefox on the PC as well as Safari and Firefox on the Macintosh.

Share This

Comments

On the Bookshelf: IA / UI / UX / Visual Design

April 15, 2007 at 5:26 pm · Filed under Information Architecture, Visual Design, User Interface, User Experience

A few books on Information Architecture, User Interface Design, User Experience and Visual Design that I’m happy to have space for on my bookshelf:

• About Face 2.0: The Essentials of Interaction Design
• The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web
• The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
• The Design of Sites: Patterns for Creating Winning Web Sites (2nd Edition)
• The Rise of the Image, the Fall of the Word
• The Design of Everyday Things

Share This

Comments

Joost Beta review

April 15, 2007 at 11:28 am · Filed under Usability, Television, Peer-to-Peer, Content, Video, User Interface, Applications, Beta, User Experience

I’ve been using Joost now on and off over several weeks.

A few thoughts:

• Video Quality: VERY good for the Internet. What the Joost team has done with Internet video quality is nothing short of remarkable. That said, it’s not ready for a high def set, however.
• Streaming: Fair to Good. At work I have a better experience than home. My home setup is broadband delivered wireless (Pre N). I experience streaming delays once every few to several minutes that last anywhere between 5 and 20 seconds.
• Usability: Good to Very Good. The user interface works well, but not great. On some of the menus, I have sluggish responses when navigating through lists of channels or shows. UI elements make sense to me for the most part, but I don’t think that the average consumer would understand it as readily.
• Overall Experience: Fair to Good.

In its current incarnation, Joost isn’t for me. Why:

• I want to watch video on a television. I don’t want to watch it on my computer.
• Video quality is important to me. While the quality of video is impressive for the Internet, the quality I’m looking for is better.
• The social networking aspects aren’t all that compelling at this time.
• Performance matters. Whenever the service stops to buffer video, the content consumption experience is abruptly interrupted.
• Dynamically inserted commercials (in the middle of viewing video content—not the bookend static ads that previously existed) are implemented poorly, derailing the consumption of content without warning. They also make it feel like… well… watching television.

Does Joost have promise? Absolutely. Why:

• Bandwidth and video compression technologies are improving rapidly.
• Whether it is a scramble to try to understand the streaming landscape and not miss the boat entirely, or, because they know more about Joost than we do, several premium content providers have announced content provision via Joost. Desirable content will bring advertising, and advertising revenue will enable continued improvements.
• If the service takes off, it will naturally be brought into the living room.

What else could propel Joost forward?

• A feature that is new and innovative; something that simply doesn’t exist right now at all which would allow a very different take on the way that users interact with video. For example, what if transcripts of all the video that Joost offered was indexed allowing more advanced ways of finding content and consuming it.
• A well thought out partnership. While the UI isn’t as polished as one coming out of Cupertino, it certainly feels Apple-esque. What if Joost was another option on the Apple TV interface? Joost would make it to the living room, and Apple TV owners would have access to FREE content.
• Killer content. What if Joost delivered new movie releases two weeks prior to DVD releases?

I’ll keep watching Joost, but that ‘watching’ will likely be in terms of reading the press to see what is happening as opposed to firing up Joost to watch video on my computer. I won’t be surprised, however, if next year I’m watching Joost in my living room and experiencing content in a whole new way.

Note: I’m currently viewing Joost on a MacBook Pro with 2GB of ram, utilizing the current version of the Joost client (0.9.2). At the time of writing this I have zero invites to give out.

Share This

Comments