The folks at Yahoo are definitely in re-designing mode as the new delicious was just launched not too long ago. But, unlike delicious, which received a reasonably extensive user-interface upgrade, the new Flickr home page is much more subtle. One of the things I could never stand about the old design was all of the advertising and system messages in the left hand column. Now, all of that information has been moved to a smaller right hand column in favor of a larger and more defined focus on a user's activity and network. One of my favorite, albeit not particularly surprising, additions is the 'recent activity' stream (which lists comments made by you and others as well as friends added etc). It integrates seamlessly into the home page design and is much more functional then the 'comments you've made' or 'comments made on your pictures' streams that used to be the only way to access this kind of information before. It makes perfect sense that Flickr would follow the band wagon and provide this kind of a feed but I do wish that they provided a way to respond to comments on photos made by others within this stream, rather then forcing you to go to the photo's page.

The other really nice addition is the photos that accompany group updates. I still think more focus on groups would be nice. But this is definitely a welcome change from the small link that used to be present at the bottom of the old home page.

Overall, while not much has changed, the user-interface is definitely more functional, easier to navigate and highlights information that is undoubtedly the most relevant to the user.

To see examples of exciting projects happening in the 'new' New Orleans, visit social inovation organization Alldaybuffet's New Orleans 100 Project, an initiative to "highlight and encourage discussion about 100 of the most innovative and world-changing ideas to take root in the city since Katrina."

Also read my post on greensear.ch about sustainable re-building practices. Here is an excerpt:

Today marks the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s landfall and devastating destruction of the city of New Orleans and the surrounding gulf coast region. As an outside observer, one who fell in love with the culture of this unique place from the first time I visited, it has been hard to watch the slow pace of recovery, to hear the heart breaking stories of the systemic failure of both national and local disaster relief and to realize that much of what the people there have had to endure post-Katrina simply never should have happened. However, in the midst of the chaos of recovery, something positive has started to become very clear; the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region represents an historic opportunity to actually change the infrastructure of a city from the ground up, to do things differently and perhaps, with the correct combination of innovative ideas, sustainable practices and local involvement, to do them better.

The blog is mostly about providing a communal space to discuss the intersection between the environment and technology and everything that falls neatly (and not so neatly) in between, while also encouraging readers to utilize the 'search' feature. Searching generates money from advertising, which is then donated to an environmental non-profit. There are already several authors who have become involved, many familiar ITP names. I think it will be a very interesting experience and I am excited to see what kind of conversation develops. Check it out. My first post is on RideTheCity.com.

In any case, since del.icio.us was bought by Yahoo, everyone had been waiting for the time when the site would get a UI upgrade. I have to admit that my first awareness that it had actually happened was from Tikva Morowati on Twitter followed by Megan MacMurray a couple of hours later on gchat, unfortunately my RSS feeds took a back seat to lots of work and getting sick. When I finally got a chance to see it for myself, I was pleasantly surprised by its simplicity. It even looks a little Flickr-esque, which I guess shouldn’t be a big surprise, when you have a good thing that wins lots of awards it would be smart to copy it.

The first big change you see of course is that the site has a new sexy style, not over done, but enough to look a little less like the start-up it was three plus years ago. The navigation menus, which split the site into three main sections, bookmarks, people and tags, provide a nice organization of the top things that users would probably be looking for on their home page. The new search is also nicely designed, with the ability to search bookmarks in numerous different ways. The bookmarks are also organized in a much nicer way so that they are easier to read at a glance and easier to sort through. The best feature, however, is the new tag search bar, which allows you to quickly navigate bookmarks by using tags and tag combinations. It also auto-completes, a nice little touch. The only thing I could do without is the tag arrangement on the right hand side. As an obsessive lover of tag clouds, I always preferred to view my tags as a cloud, perhaps not the most efficient way to find something, but it was MY WAY. This function is still available, just not on the right, which is now organized by “Top 10”, “All Tags” and “Tag Bundles”. This is kind of annoying. Top 10 is not so useful for me and I have never really gotten into the habit of consistently using bundles, although I probably should. But, its only one extra step to get to my beloved cloud, which I suppose I can deal with.

All in all, it looks great, works better and seems to integrate a lot of features that users have been wanting for a really long time. Too bad it took half a century to get it done. Oh, and one more thing, I should no longer be calling it del.icio.us. The beloved play on the site name has now been replaced by delicious.com. That too I could do without, but it definitely makes more sense.

A change in UI for any popular site is not going to ever satisfy every user all of the time. However, an interesting trend appears to have begun in the way these kinds of sites have attempted to deal with the obvious need to release changes to their UI without confusing and angering loyal users. This approach focuses more on a healthy combination between usability and the interesting implementation of new technologies and functionality. The most important aspect of this switch in thinking about UI design is the desire to give users time to adjust to the switch by providing them with a choice. As an example, one of the largest sites to change its UI by this method in recent months was MySpace. Long regarded as the pinnacle of how not to design for the web, from information architecture mistakes to pure ugliness, it was an absolute necessity to make changes in their UI to accommodate new features sets due to launch to compete with the increasingly successful implementation of new features on Facebook. The big surprise in the UI was not that it actually made the site any more usable, I am not entirely sure how that is possible, but that MySpace wisely allowed its user base to decide whether to implement it or not. Although it is probably quite widely used now, for months after its launch many users refused to switch. Perhaps driven by force of habit or the lack of desire to figure out the placement of needed features, many users simply found no need to change their behavior and no time to learn the new configuration. It was only when the site launched the ability to customize a home page design that users begin to switch over in greater numbers, most likely fueled by friends who were early adopters. Given the nature of the site and what its users do there, this makes a lot of sense. But what is more interesting then the patterns of feature adoption of the MySpace user, is the fact that their new approach to a UI launch worked. Rather than discouraging users to switch over in great numbers, something that one might expect in giving users a choice between old and familiar and new and scary, it seemed to provide the ultimate buffer between habit and the necessity of change.

Given the amount of cross platform copycat behavior that has become common place between many of these social software competitors, it shouldn’t have been surprising that Facebook would copy this approach when they decided to launch their new UI recently. The only reason why it raised my eyebrow was that Facebook has become rather well known for launching numerous new feature sets with little notification to or consultation with their user base. It is true that the recent tremendous success of the site has actually been largely dependent on their elaborate risk tasking, but we all remember the “mini feed, news feed” situation where users revolted at functionality change quite severely. The problem was not simply that users felt their privacy had been violated by the publication of their activities to their friends, but more importantly that they had not been properly consulted or informed regarding the new functionality and what affect it would have on their information. The fact that the developers ended up being right, and that this functionality became an incredibly important feature for the new direction of the platform, did not take away from the significance of the user back lash. This was direct evidence that people do not inherently like change, particularly when that change involves user trust. Perhaps it was thanks to this revolt that Facebook decided to play it safe this time around. More likely, they simply noticed a really good idea.

The new UI is, as promised, much more about functionality then actual new design choices. Ironically, it puts incredible emphasis on the once hated mini feed in a user’s profile, integrating it within the user’s wall and copying the recently popular “friend feed” by allowing users to comment on updates. In fact, the entire “first tab” of the new profile reads like a “lifestream”. Facebook says it implemented this strategy because it noticed that users were actually the most interested in recent updates. While this may be true for many users, the big issue is that this very specific view into one’s “life” on Facebook cannot be changed, a fact that seems to be in direct conflict with the old Facebook where configuration of one’s profile through drag and drop was incredibly intuitive.
In continuing with this new configuration strategy, the left hand sidebar has remained active for applications, albeit ones that seem to have been chosen at random, and additional tabs have been added for info, photos and boxes, with the additional ability to add other tabs as needed. The tabs definitely clean up the profile page, in danger of becoming as messy as a user-designed MySpace profile, and the ability to add as many as you want to accentuate applications you care about is quite nice. However, when attempting to add additional tabs I noticed that some applications were missing from the list of possible tabs I could add. Why can’t I add a tab for the groups I am in for example? Or pages? Perhaps these are simply bugs that will be addressed, but it was quite annoying because it hid many things from view completely and seemed to put emphasis on one’s I didn’t particularly care about.

Not having the time to investigate much further, I have actually switched back to the old Facebook temporarily. I am not sure that I will leave it that way in the long run, but my decision in doing so makes me realize how important their decision to keep both possibilities active was, and how important this decision should be for many sites to take note of before implementing a new UI. It is not necessarily the way to go in every case; it is true that users do not always know what they want until you give it to them. But I still believe that form should follow function (a little something I learned in photo school) and that the only way to learn about what form the function of something social should take is to ask those who use it.

As reported on many news sites today, "despite more than $22 million in repairs, a levee that broke with catastrophic effect during Hurricane Katrina is leaking again because of the mushy ground on which New Orleans was built, raising serious questions about the reliability of the city's flood defenses." The seepage can be spotted at the 17th Street Canal in the Lakeview neighborhood. Although pictures of the levy seepage in this wealthier area of the city were abundant, leaks have been reported at numerous other locations.

This situation is infuriating on two levels. First, it is incomprehensible to me how the Army Corp of Engineers could rebuild the levees to almost pre-Katrina specifications and then be surprised that they would not be up to the task of keeping the city safe. It is evident to me that an independent source needs to responsible, either in an implementation or watchdog capability, for rebuilding the levee system as no one in our government seems willing or capable of doing so. In addition, the levees in and of themselves are not the only problem. Other measures need to be explored regarding different ways to protect the city and affectively respond to a disaster, should one occur again in the future. This is not just a city-wide issue, but one that needs to reach through to the highest levels of government. We all know that our president sat around for five days while the citizens of the city were stranded and helpless. There needs to be effective measures put in place that dictates on a federal level how the government, the state and the city respond to such situations in the future.

The other reason I am angry is something that I have heard so many times during my exploration of this issue, the suggestion that somehow in living in New Orleans, one should simply accept the possibility of a flood as catastrophic as Katrina in the same way that someone in tornado alley should accept the possibility of a tornado. Some people even go as far as to say that rebuilding or returning to the city is pointless as a result. The fact remains that, simply because the city averages between one and two feet below sea level (although obviously alternatively higher and lower in certain locations), does not mean that this is the reason why the city flooded. This entire thought process is ludicrous for many reasons.

First, we need to realize that flooding in and of itself, particularly in this case, is not in fact the "natural disaster". Rather, flooding is the resulting effect OF a natural disaster, such as a hurricane. We can identify this as an effect because its impact is completely dependent upon a particular location’s preparedness and ability to recover post-storm. The effect of flooding on the city of New Orleans was not in fact an effect of hurricane Katrina, therefore, but of a system that failed to protect or assist residents efficiently both before and for a significantly long period after the storm.

Living below sea level is a risk, there is no denying that. But suggesting that somehow residents should simply vacate the city because of the danger is the same as saying that to avoid earthquakes we shouldn't live in California, to avoid hurricanes in general we shouldn't live in Florida or other parts of the southeast or to avoid dangerous winter storms we shouldn't live in the northern most parts of the country. There is risk in living in all of these areas, but risk does not and SHOULD not translate into ambivalence from the public at large. The bottom line is weather is notoriously unpredictable and does not only strike in areas that are known for certain weather patterns or vulnerable to certain weather patterns. In 2006 tornadoes whipped through my hometown in Westchester County, New York coming perilously close to my daughter's day care center. I am not specifically sure of the history, but suffice it to say that this had probably never happened before in that area. Saying it is possible to outrun weather patterns is as ridiculous as it is to say we can predict whether or not it will rain two years from today.

That being said, we can protect ourselves. Yet that is the very mechanism that has failed the city of New Orleans, and continues to fail it to this day. The city suffered as a result of Katrina because engineers and our government made mistakes that are now being repeated. The only thing that can be done to reverse this circumstance is to completely re-evaluate the entire levee system. Supposedly that was what was being done. This report only shows that our assumptions in that regard are very wrong.

But it wasn't only the fear of turning into another version of YouTube or morphing into a kind of PhotoBucket that drove many Flickr users to speak out against video functionality. In fact, many users were actually concerned that the inclusion of video would change their 'experience' of the site not necessarily because it would become a destination point for silly video clips but because it would change the very nature and 'feeling' of the community, causing exclusionary video-only groups to pop-up and de-emphasizing the community's main focus around photography. Interestingly enough, Flickr itself has fought battles to protect this kind of focus before, even though their efforts angered certain other members of the community. As I blogged in 2006, Flickr enacted a policy that banned screenshots from global search results because they determined that screenshots were not in fact photographs. This policy of protecting the Flickr mission statement on photo sharing was handed down directly from the original founders of the Flickr platform, making many users wonder if the new video features have anything to do with the founders. Several users even expressed the opinion that video on Flickr is actually an effort by Yahoo to compete with Goggle Video and not anything to do with enhancing Flickr user experience.

While members of the Flickr community will likely sit on both sides of the fence of this debate for quite a while, the question still remains. Will this ultimately be a good move for Flickr? As a place on the web long thought of for its community features, best practices, forward thinking functionality and simplistic visual design, in addition to its photographs, will changing the method by which members can communicate actually cause a break down of the very fabric that made Flickr the Webby Award winner for the number one community site in 2007? Will the inclusion of video attract a different kind of user not interested in participating and communicating in the same way many in the Flickr community do currently?

As someone who has used Flickr for over two years and has long said that it is one of my favorite sites on the web, I can certainly understand the concern from users. Changing what Flickr offers to its user can change the type of user, thus changing the type of user groups created, the type of information shared, the type of communication between users and thus the community as a whole. However, all that being said, there are certainly advantages to being able to supplement conversation, information and opinions with video. And I do think that because of the way Flickr inherently operates, the ability to upload video will not immediately become the kind of feature that inundates the site with garbage and instantaneous change. As an example, unlike other sites that would have advertised the new features in bright bold red letters, Flickr only boasts a small little graphic on its home page, almost invisible to anyone not looking for it. Upon logging in, a user is presented with a couple of indications that there is a new feature, a snippet from the Flickr blog, the change from "Upload Photos" to "Upload Photos and Videos" but, in true Flickr style, nothing that disrupts the utility of the home page. As with every other new feature they have released, Flickr seems thus far to be adhering to its long time tradition of simplicity over everything else. And, the fact that these features are advertised in this way, certainly attempts to clarify that this functionality is being released FOR existing users not in a blind attempt to attract a different kind of audience. And for all of that I applaud them so far.....anything else, well, we will have to wait and see.....this could be a really amazing supplement to an already vibrant and interesting community. Let's hope thats how it plays out...

In any case, so far I have read about half of the book and am very happy (although not surprised) to say that I like it very much. Although many of the things that Clay discusses in the book thus far are based upon stories he told in the Social Facts class he taught at ITP or things that I have already heard his opinions on (through that class and general discussions with him), the way they are presented in the book make it far from boring or re-iterative. I especially think that the way he discusses "user-generated content" in terms of sharing, collaborating and action is particularly interesting and important to digest, particularly for someone like me who is fundamentally interested in action.

My favorite thought of the book so far: "Love motivates people to bake a cake and money motivates people to make an encyclopedia. Now, though, we can do big things for love"

More to come.....

We are really excited to have gotten past the initial application process. About 700 to 1000 apply yearly and 150 to 300 organizations are accepted into the second phase. It couldn't be happening at a better time either, as Jadie and I are in the very long process of converting the freeFormed architecture to Drupal.

The Buy One Give One program allows you to purchase a laptop for a child in your life while donating an identical laptop to a child in a developing nation. The XO laptop runs on Linux, has WiFi, built in social sharing capabilities and has applications that do everything from painting and drawing to musical composition, taking pictures and learning programming. It also has built in video and voice recording capabilities. Designed to withstand harsh weather conditions and the daily use by children, the XO laptop features a sealed, rubberized keyboard that is resilient to water, dust, and dirt. It’s also scaled to accommodate child-sized hands and has a lighter touch than normal keyboards. Since many children in developing nations do not have access to electricity, the XO laptop is designed to be extremely power efficient. The batteries operate for up to 2,000 recharge cycles (four times the lifetime of a typical laptop battery). They are extremely efficient, contain no toxic heavy metals, and can be hand charged via a crank, pedal or pull-cord—or recharged by a directly connected solar panel.

I think the project is amazing and so I decided to buy a laptop for my daughter and lend the little support that I could afford. Plus, I am dying to check this thing out for myself. The joke is that I may end up playing with it more than her. But in either case, I think it is quite a responsible Christmas gift and I hope that others looking for a gift for a child will consider it.

First, I think it is quite obvious that Open Social is an incredibly smart idea in theory. It is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks such as profile information, friends Information and social activities, things that would be found in Facebook's news feed for example. It also allows developers lots of latitude with respect to how their applications are created instead of relying on a proprietary mark-up language the way Facebook does. Developers can use normal javascript and html and can even embed Flash elements. But the advantage of this approach is really its ability to provide developers with one way to reach users across multiple different platforms. Initial partners include LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo and Friendster with developers like Flixster, iLike, RockYou and Slide already developing applications.

The problem is, however, that in order for Open Social to integrate into a platform, the platform itself has to become a 'host'. This means that instead of developers going where the critical mass of users are (i.e. facebook or myspace) they must wait for the platforms these users have already integrated their social activities into to come to them. This is not necessarily a problem if popular platforms open up to the project and many have. But what would be the advantage to the giants in social networking of doing so, particularly in the case of Facebook?

Since its release, many people have stated that this is a blatant attack on Facebook where it is the weakest, its quintessential closed nature. But it is its closed nature that has been attracting record numbers of users, particularly internationally. The integration of applications within this closed environment means that users have control over their information and social connections, while still bing able to easily utilize incredible amounts of functionality with a mouse click. And lets not forget that the adoption of applications is viral thanks to the news feed. Developers have the ability to tap into a huge user base that is already paying attention.

Now, I am not intending to sing Facebook's praises unconditionally. Any developer knows that, while creating an app for the platform is quite simple, its restrictions and limitations are incredibly frustrating at times. It has also become frustrating to attempt to reach users across multiple platforms, having to learn different APIs or method of creating applications that will work in different situations. Open Social gets rid of this problem. It also gets rid of the need for developers to find hosting solutions for their applications, something that many of the more popular Facebook apps, such as iLike, had to struggle with in the beginning when their user base shot up exponentially overnight. It also takes a lot of the strain off of the platforms themselves. Imagine, for instance, how much of a project the Facebook Developer platform was for the in-house developers.

All in all, I think where Open Social will initially have the most success is with the less popular social networks and smaller developers who have good reason to participate since Google will be doing all the heavy lifting. But I don't see this as being a Facebook killer, at least not in its present incarnation. While I am a firm believer that the future of social software is indeed moving towards a more open and less proprietary environment, Open Social is still relying on its success through integration with the proprietary. And the leaders in that field have very little incentive to join the band wagon. Developers of these kind of integrated applications, however, will naturally be excited to try out something new. But the bottom line is, developers flock to where the users are and the users are, for the time being, on Facebook and Myspace.

However, there are some interesting things that have been going on that I would like to comment on. Hopefully, I will get back into the swing of things...freelancing is a bitch!

Download Walking Tour Map