Archive for February, 2008

Web 3.0, the Semantic Web, and Webstruxure

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 (which may or may not be the same thing). ReadWriteWeb has been leading the charge, and Hutch Carpenter provides an explanation of the Semantic Web that actually makes sense to me.

Webstruxure isn’t currently using the Resource Description Framework. Nevertheless, Canvas, one of the products we have under development, is very much in the Semantic Web space. As I described previously, Canvas takes content in HTML format and makes it dynamically reusable based on how it’s been tagged.

canvas_logo.JPG

Webstruxure has been helping our clients take semi-structured data and make it available to their users in meaningful ways since 2002, as described on our About Us page. We don’t really mind whether our products and applications are identified with the Semantic Web, Web 3.0 or anything else. But if the web as whole is moving in the direction we’re going, then that’s all to the good.

canvas_teaser.JPG

The power of artifice

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

In a previous post, we considered the problems of ensuring companies do the right thing – socially, environmentally, and economically. I suggested the adoption of a Shareholder Statement of Interests as a tool for conscientious owners to express their aims, and to provide a ‘job description’ for the company as a whole.

But why should the rest of us think this especially important for companies?

Well, a company is an artificial creation, a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law. True, a company cannot vote. But it has other powers that far exceed those of natural persons. Mostly, this is due to the fact that the company is an ‘umbrella identity’, under which many natural persons – people like you and I – can gather their resources and have them directed to certain purposes. It’s that ability to gather and direct, to enter into and perform legal obligations, to contract and transact, that makes a company an extremely powerful entity.

The greater the gathering of wealth, the greater the power. If we add to that the expertise of professional management and professional marketers, we can quickly understand how some mega-companies gain power and wealth to rival or even exceed that of many national governments.

You and I, as natural persons, have limitations. We learn and grow, mostly by making mistakes – whether small or great. We miss some opportunities, squander others, and a great many simply escape our attention. And the thing is, no matter how incompetent or foolish, we can’t fire our management! We’re a natural person, stuck with who we are. It’s one of the things that keeps us all more or less, as individuals, roughly equivalent.

But companies are not like this. They can import the best brains – the best of our experience and natural talents – to run themselves. They can concentrate and amplify the talents we natural people have. And they’re a legal person, with an identity that doesn’t inevitably die, get frail, or even have to sleep!

The point is that there’s a large imbalance of power between natural and legal people. And, as we all know, power can be used for both good and bad purposes. Shouldn’t we therefore want to know what purposes a company has, before we add to (or even just support) its power through employment, or investment, or purchasing its products? Shouldn’t we, the natural people, ask these ‘legal people’: “What do you want? What are you trying to achieve in our society?”

I don’t suggest that we want to know their business, but what they value. We want to know how the conscience of each artificial person works.

And what better way to find out than a Statement of Shareholder Interests?

Secrets of the Usability Testers

Friday, February 8th, 2008

Usability is now mainstream:

But it’s still hard to get usability right. No matter how carefully human interface design is taken into account, the moment when product meets user for the first time is likely to throw up surprises. I’ve seen usability testing from three sides: as the client of usability testing, as a test subject, and as someone conducting usability tests, which I’ve now done for three different sites and products developed by Webstruxure.

Here’s some of what I’ve learned about the testing process. I’ve used hypothetical cases and hypothetical participants, because the confidentiality of actual test participants is paramount.

  1. Selection of test subjects is critical. If you’re testing a site which provides information to the general public about different makes of mountain bike, then you won’t get very useful test results from a pool of usability testers which consist of expert mountain bikers and mountain bike retailers.
  2. It can take a lot of work to find the right test subjects. Usability tests usually take between 30 and 60 minutes. That’s a lot of time for busy people to take out of their days. Offer a reward to users for the time they are giving up, and be prepared to consider scheduling tests outside normal working hours if your testers need to come from the ranks of full-time workers.
  3. Some test subjects need a lot of reassurance that they are doing the right thing. It’s very important to let subjects know up front that the usability test isn’t a test of their ability to use the Internet. While younger “digital natives” tend to be happy to charge right into the testing tasks, offering comments as they go, and backtracking if things don’t work the first time, older users are often less confident, and are concerned that it’s their fault if things don’t work as they expect. The person running the testing needs to keep reassuring them that, if they have difficulties using the site, the problem lies with the site, not the user.
  4. Pauses are gold. The most valuable moments in a usability test are when the user pauses, looks up and down the screen, moves the cursor to and fro without clicking on anything. That’s when you need to ask what the user is thinking at that precise moment, because that’s when the site you’re testing is confusing them. Figure out what’s causing confusion now, and it will save you and your client a lot of time, money and effort later.
  5. It’s worth asking questions after the test … Give people the chance to make written or verbal comments about the site after they’ve completed the test. This will often generate good ideas – including ideas for applications of a product that you may not have thought of – and may also prompt the user to mention things about the site you didn’t find out from them during the test itself.
  6. … but a usability test is not the same as a survey. Despite the value of the post-test questions, the key thing in a usability test is what the users do. Just asking users about a site will not get you nearly as far as watching them interact with the site and making notes on what they do.

The most important thing I’ve found out through user testing is that even very busy people are patient, thoughtful and helpful when faced with the potentially unsettling task of testing a piece of software they’ve never seen before. That’s good to know.

A thought for wider consideration(s)

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

Most people want to be helpful and good. Even if we occasionally aren’t or cannot, we mostly want to do – and be seen to be doing – the right thing.

But can we as a society ensure that even companies do the right thing – socially, environmentally, and economically?

There are two difficulties with this, and I think we can solve them both.

Firstly, a company has a legal structure which can easily separate the shareholder from the way the company is governed. Especially in large public companies, any given shareholder is often one among many anonymous (and, individually powerless) thousands.

Secondly, it is commonly thought that the company exists to make a profit, and that this consideration must trump all others. The governors of the company (the Board of Directors) are responsible to the shareholders, who fire them if they do a bad job. And the Board in turn fires management who do a bad job.

But what do the shareholders actually want? That’s the question I think we should begin to answer explicitly with something like a Statement of Shareholder Interests.

New Zealand law says that Directors must “act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company”. Two questions lurk here: what constitutes ‘the company’, and what are its ‘best interests’? The law does not say.

I think shareholders should.

But how will we start doing this? Well, why shouldn’t I start with my own company? And you with yours? Webstruxure has two shareholders, who are happily aligned in their views about decent corporate citizenship. It’s easy for us – as it is likely to be easy for the many thousands of small-to-medium companies out there.

These documents should be public. They should be available to customers, potential partners, and investors. It would be easy to buy, partner, invest – and be employed – ethically.

For anyone with an interest, or potential interest, in a company, a public declaration that “we, the shareholders”, want a particular mix of outcomes is far more powerful than a ‘values’ statement put out by the marketing department.

Values are nice wishes; a declaration of shareholders’ interests is a job description.