The results established that the styling of content with shading or a border has negative effects on a web user’s visual search through a web page. Users process visual cues that are not consistent with a web site’s visual treatment and purposely do not attend to these areas. Web users also use expectations for the location of non-relevant items in order to give priority to goal oriented content during visual search. By defining the avoidance of content in a visual search task in terms of banner-blindness, these findings demonstrated the existence of content-blindness.

Download the complete study (you can skip to the Discussion section for the fun stuff)

Content_Blindness.pdf

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has worked hard to push the standardization of web accessibility. With the creation of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), the W3C has put its best foot forward in educating business and web developers of the importance of web accessibility. Their website acts as a hub for design resources and best practices, as well as a forum for solving complex web accessibility challenges. New challenges arise along with the wide adoption of new technology that focuses on interactive experiences for the typical web user by manipulating content on the client’s end. JavaScript, AJAX, and Flash heavy websites prove to be a challenge to those who require the aid of assisting technology in order experience the content on the page.

No one can dispute the need for wide acceptance and implementation of web accessibility standards. There are about 60 million people in the U.S. alone who cannot utilize a computer in order to use the internet in a normal fashion. This is no shortage of users that can be simply neglected when running a business online. The question is then, why are more companies not investing proper standards compliant development? I speculate that the answer has to do with major flaws in the typical web design life cycle.

The first, simply being oversight in the planning stages. Many successful internet based companies don’t start with standard iterative design process. Depending on the product, the focus is either on some innovative back-end functionality, or flashy front-end development that draws attention. As these products become successful, new version as built on old version until so much time and money has been put into it that a complete overhaul and redesign for overlooked accessibility standardization would be far too expensive. The best way to solve this type of problem is, for large, successful internet companies to take the initiative and lead the way in best practices. Yahoo! has a mandatory accessibility training program that all new developer employees must go through. Google has invested into an automatic captioning for YouTube videos in order to make it much easier for deaf people to enjoy the same procrastination tool that many web users have been able to use for several years now.

The second flaw that I can see contributing to the lack of standardization in web accessibility, does simply not know how to sell the idea. Imagine you work for a web design shop, and you want to pitch allocating some extra budget for ensuring that the product is compliant with web accessibility standards. How would you sell that to a client? I can predict that 9 times out of 10, the client will say: “but our target audience isn’t blind/hard of hearing/elderly/(insert your own excuse).” People generally just aren’t educated enough about the need for accessibility to argue the point. This is where the WAI comes in. An accredited town crier who has presence in the developer’s community as source for professional education is exactly what we accessibility needs in order become a standard.

Further Reading

• Web Accessibility Initiative – WAI Homepage
• CNN/CNET – Web accessibility no longer an afterthought
• Practical Ecommerce – Accessibility: How Many Disabled Web Users Are There?

Lara Farrar describes in a CNN article how a cell phone has transformed a Ghanaian man’s small taxi business. He is able to get calls to be picked up at any time from any anywhere. He is able to be on-call at all hours, and thus never losing on a business opportunity. Families can stay in touch easier from long distance, and farmers can keep track of market prices a town over in order to keep from losing on potential profit. It’s hard to dispute that the wide acceptance of a cheap, mobile, wireless, device could be a bad thing. It won’t transform a developing country into a modern high-tech society over night, and it is of course no substitute for good education and good health care systems. But it helps.

One of the challenges that faced cell phone adoption in developing countries was the requirement for electricity in order to charge phones. Many of these places have scarce and non-dependable energy resource, and thus driving the cost of owning a cell phone up. Samsung has recently started selling a reasonably priced solar charging phone called the Solar Guru. It has all of desired basic features of a modern cell phone including an FM radio, MP3 ring tones, games, and a torch light (a useful feature I had on an old phone that I am saddened does not appear on a lot of newer phones). This phone costs about $60 and can run for 5-10 minutes of talk time with just one hour of sunlight. It’s incredible how something that comes in no scarcity in many developing farming communities can be used to bring vital communication to places where once people had to travel to neighboring towns just to charge a cell phone.

Samsung is one of the few who attempts to bring cell phones to new markets where there is seldom a competitor. Its simply good business. Out of this there are sure to be competitors who will be able to offer more at a cheaper cost. Many of us in the US complain of cell service providers taking advantage of the consumer. This is the only downside that I can see with the potential boom in cell phones in poor developing countries. I fear that the cut-throat competition that thrives in cell service providers may attempt to get the best of economically week societies. What would be a preventative solution? Many have already adopted a pay as you go type plan in these places. Maybe if the trend continues in this direction, consumers will be safe from the communications giants that wring many modern consumers into contracts that exploit.

Further Reading

• CNN – Africans get upwardly mobile in cell phone boom
• Green Technology Daily - Will solar speed up emerging cell phone revolution
• Developments.org - Mobile phone revolution

So what does this have to do with software and education? Justice Antonin Scalia explained the ramifications of this by equating a patent for business methods with standards in horse training. “Let’s take training horses, don’t you think that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.” Why shouldn’t he make this outlandish comparison?

The decision of the appeal will and is being used in similar cases with IBM to combat the rejection of appeals for software. If a business method or more generally, an idea can be patented, what is to stop large corporations who can afford patent lawyers from claiming ownership over standard business practices? Imagine not being able to put in an IT ticket at work when something on your computer goes wrong. What would it be like if Dominos Pizza was the only pizza shop that could offer free delivery?

This could hit software the hardest. Software moves and develops very quickly. Computers and their capabilities have moved very far and fast over the past 20 years. Hardware has changed, and made it possible to do things made of 1960’s science fiction a reality in a very short period of time. Software innovates and grows along with the hardware to do new and powerful things. Software is able to innovate and progress so quickly because much of the development happens through virtual communities. Developers are able to share, inspire, challenge, and ultimately learn from each other. Sure, people may argue that open source is the epitome of socialism. But it would be a crime to argue that open source offers little in terms of innovation and peer-education for the purpose of moving software forward.

It comes down to companies claiming ownership not simply of their own products, but of mathematical algorithms used in their software. Patent ownership comes with over a decade of free monopoly type reign over a piece of technology or technological process before it enters into the public domain. In the world of software, falling a year behind is to become archaic and obsolete let alone 17 years. Patent ownership of a business model would therefore slow development to a halt. It is important to be able to build and improve on existing technology and software.

The ability to own a patent can be used as a defensive measure for companies. Suppose that a hugely successful e-marketing firm somehow solves the age old problem of spam with an algorithm. They could know how to offer complete and total spam protection without the need to aggregate large databases in order to block messages. The company could file a patent for this algorithm, and do nothing with it. Why would they do this? The company would loose all high ground on being able to profit from email spam by releasing the solution to the problem that they themselves create. So why not sit on the solution for a few years and keep their business profitable?

Sure a lot of the things I argue are worst case scenario if things go unchecked. It’s important to understand how far this decision for changes to patent law can reach. It must be dealt with delicately in order to ensure the modernization of technological ownership while keeping good business practice in check.

Further Reading:

• GEN – Oral Argument Sheds Light in Bilski v. Kappos
• Businessweek – Supreme Court to Review ‘Business Method’ Patents
• Washington Post – High court considers whether business methods can be patented
• Ars Technica – Microsoft’s pseudo sudo patent doesn’t really cover sudo

The Open Book Alliance feels that “the mass digitization of books promises to bring tremendous value to consumers, libraries, scholars, and students.” The problem is that at this point, the US government is not very likely to fund a project of this magnitude. Google happens to have the resources to do it effectively without burdening the tax payer.

The trade off is that the corporate giant will own the rights to the product of this endeavor. Naturally their intentions go beyond serving the public. Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin stated “I’ve been surprised at the level of controversy there, because digitalizing the world’s books to make them available; there’s been nobody else who’s attempted it at our scale.” It’s obvious that Google’s intentions are to profit off this in some way. And why shouldn’t they? If they can accomplish such a feat they deserve to make money off of advertising, crating new technology by training AI on a massive scale of information, and making it easy to access the information. The problem comes with the ownership of the data. It opens the doors for Google to hold the infinite information in these books hostage for profit in the form of subscription services and the like.

One of the problems that Google’s project raises with publishers is the potential of distribution of orphan works. Orphan works (in this context,) are books and journals who’s publishers either don’t exist or have unknown proprietors. These works do not quite qualify for public domain, but are being included in Google’s Book Search. Google is taking the scan first, ask permission later approach. In other words, they will distribute books that aren’t claimed by a publisher or author unless explicitly told not to by the owner. Ultimately this can (and in many cases will) lead to illegal distribution of published work if the proprietor does not speak up.

It’s fair to hope that Google will be responsible with their mass of knowledge, but that’s just not enough. By ensuring that the project is done with the public’s best interest in mind it’s important to set the rules before the game starts. The Open Book Alliance has set some baseline requirements that they would like too see addressed in the Google settlement. One of which is that “the settlement must result in the creation of a true digital library that grants all researchers and users, commercial and non-commercial, full access that guarantees the ability to innovate on the knowledge it contains.” This more or less encompasses the argument against Google’s Book Search project.

The amount and type of information that would potentially be at Google’s finger tips once this project is complete, would be difficult for Google’s corporate competitors (and impossible for small startup businesses) to replicate. Thus creating a monopoly in the form of digital information. Information that until now has been free to access for the public through the use of libraries. By updating this information for the modern digital age, Google will be creating a whole new domain for innovation.

If Google opens up the data that is collected to the public, they will still have the competitive edge on the technology by being able to get a head start on utilizing the information as the proprietors of the means to create the digital library. For example, they can develop early search technology to work with the digital library during the course of acquisition of the books. Thus, they can still profit off of the fruits of their labors whilst still leaving the window open for competitors to innovate and expand on the public domain of knowledge in a new format.

Further Reading:

• Open Book Alliance - http://www.openbookalliance.org/
• Mercury News – Google’s desire to scan old books has critics casting it as Goliath
• Library Journal – Google Settlement Due in Court November 9; Open Book Alliance Issues “Requirements”

How did this happen? Sometimes disguised as product loyalty, Apple sells its hard ware sporting an image. What happens when that shiny MacBook breaks? Can owners of broken hardware bring it to a third party specialist who can fix any hardware that follows standards in best practices in the market? No, consumers must 9 times out of 10 bring it to an Apple store, so that an Apple technician can fix the problem. You bought an Apple product, now you have no choice but to come back for extra service, whether it is an upgrade or extension of service. (Note the irony in that Apple is now locked into a strangling contract with AT&T.)

The initial investment into a company or product ultimately makes smaller choices of upgrades and additions cheaper to stay with the vendor than to change. The next thing the consumer knows, their entire “owned” suite of products (whether it be computer software, hardware, cell phone service, etc.) is with a single vendor. The consumer has essentially dug themselves into a hole of brand loyalty intentionally or not and is therefore forced to continue to financially feed the monster. Where does the cycle end and more importantly how does it hurt capitalism as a whole?

As I have stated earlier, capitalism thrives on innovation and the competition. Small business is a risk. There is no sure thing with a start up. There is less money to throw around, and this causes small business to stay innovative an ahead of the curve. This is its ace in the hole and the only thing it has to fight bigger companies. Large companies have their resources at their disposal; products can be created faster and cheaper. Ultimately the savings can be passed down to the consumer. Small business’s job is to challenge large companies with its innovation. Large companies’ jobs are to create competitive prices for the small business to beat. Thus business swings back and forth as David beats Goliath and vice versa on a regular basis. In the end, consumers win. They get the best of both worlds.

What is happening with vendor lock-in trends is that large companies are forcing their product, at a price they decide is fair on a consumer. The consumer must play along, or pay the price of breaking the cycle. Breaking the cycle means giving up their brand for a lesser known brand that offers innovation at a higher cost. The cost being: throwing away an initial investment into a vendor lock-in type product on top of the cost of investment into the smaller brand’s product.

It’s easy to see how the consumer is getting the tail end of the deal, but it goes beyond cost. Innovation suffers because small business suffers. It’s a snowball effect that creates a standstill in these fast moving technological times. It’s apparent that the problem exists, but there is no easy answer. Open source is starting to get more attention than it has in the past, but it only applies to software. The best way to change the current trends in business is to let the consumer’s money talk. In the end, the US is still run by capitalism. Money is the only language that capitalism understands. We won’t see a change until consumers wise up to the vendor lock-in gift and make it more profitable for business to compete rather than bully.

The most exciting of all projects and relevant to the web, is a small scale study on banner blindness. I don’t really have any funding, so its a pretty grass roots type endeavor. If you’re not familiar with what banner blindness is, I would recommend reading this article from Jakob Nielsen.

Don’t worry, I promise not to host any ads on this site. Results and findings should be up in about a month or so. If you live in the Boston area and are interested in participating, feel free to contact me using the nifty contact form.

That may sound a bit paranoid, but the US is currently trying to pass a bill called the PASS ID ACT. It essentially takes the asks state governments to take the power and responsibility of keeping track of people away from the state and bring it to a federal level. The requirements for obtaining this ID are higher than that for a state driver’s license in that it requires and electronically stores identification information. In other words, it’s a one stop shop for identity thieves.

The Real ID Act passed in May 2005 on the coattails of a bill to increase funding for American troops in Afghanistan. The costs for implementation of the ID’s was unrealistic, and no state agreed to invest. Now the PASS ID ACT is an update if not a rewrite to the Real ID Act. The PASS ID ACT limits the official uses for which the ID can be scanned and makes it less expensive to implement. Ultimately, it’s the same thing.

Riding the post 9/11 paranoia we are seeing decisions being made that attempt to make people feel safer. This type of ID is harder to obtain and harder to forge. It’s supposed to make us feel better about the people around us. It can act as an alibi for or against crimes in that the scanning of the ID can save time/location information. If we think about it, what is the price for this empty feeling of security? As the social security rises, privacy and risk for identity theft raises at the same degree. The people who would attempt to pose as someone else at the expense of the law will not be deterred by this. If anything, it drives up the price of stolen identification on the black market.

The only realistic benefit that I can see to this Act is that people whose driver’s licenses are revoked for DUI or any number of reasons will not be able to cross a state line and simply get a new one. If the PASS ID ACT is the solution for this problem, then we are using a fire hose to put out a flame. The issue can be fixed by looking at how we handle criminal charges and communication between states. Throwing money at the problem is probably the worst solution anyone could think of (especially in these fiscally troubling times.)

On that note, if we are looking to see stability in the US economy anytime soon the PASS ID ACT would certainly not move us in the right direction. Forcing states to invest into new, untested technology could prove to be nothing but a waste. Not to say that new technology is bad. In fact I whole heartedly support the use and innovation across the board for usable technology. With that comes fiscal responsibility, which the PASS ID act does not seem to demonstrate.

Further Reading:

• Law Blog – Real ID, Fake ID, Pass ID – What’s Up in the Air with a National Identification Card
• Center for Democracy and Technology – CDT Testifies on Reevaluating REAL ID Act
• Open Congress – S.1261 – PASS ID Act
• Electronic Frontier Foundation – PASS ID: REAL ID Reanimated

Mainstream or not, there only 2 recent films (as of the past 5 years) that come to mind.

• Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg’s Hot Fuzz
• David Wain’s The Ten

You may argue that there have been plenty of great comedies recently. Really? Watch them again. Then watch them over again. If you are not bored, then I apologize and am wrong. Now compare them to everlasting films like Office Space and The Big Lebowski. Do the recent films stand up through re-watching or are they simply cookie cutter recipes that all copy each other with cheap penis jokes and unfunny situational comedy that lasts longer than 25 min?

This recent plague in lack of originality has been infecting music for years much as it has for comedy film. Sure the “digital revolution” is amazing in the ground covered and leaps forward. Truly original music falls through the strainer here and there, but I have been less than excited as a whole for quite some time.

Melt my face, make my ears bleed, challenge me, get me exited. Please makers of music, I plead that you leave this trend of cultural bankruptcy that is hipsterdom behind. In your effort to stand out in originality and non-conformism, you are only conforming to each other in a comedic display of hypocrisy. Your music reflects this, you all sound similar and take from each other and just run in circles.

The few that break free are forgotten or fall/fly too far above the radar to be cool.