Archive for June 2006


10 Information Retrieval Patterns

June 29th, 2006 — 12:27pm

In an ear­lier post­ing titled Goal Based Infor­ma­tion Retrieval, I reviewed four modes of infor­ma­tion retrieval that my team iden­ti­fied as address­ing user goals in a broader and more effec­tive fash­ion than the sim­ple query and response search­ing com­mon today.
In this follow-up, I’ll share a set of 10 poten­tially reusable infor­ma­tion retrieval pat­terns that describe the ways users com­bine and switch modes to meet goals: Each pat­tern is assem­bled from com­bi­na­tions of the same four modes. We found these pat­terns while ana­lyz­ing and inter­pret­ing user research on the goals and behav­iors of a wide vari­ety of users active within a large infor­ma­tion envi­ron­ment. This envi­ron­ment pro­vides com­plex finan­cial ser­vices con­tent and capa­bil­i­ties through a product-based user expe­ri­ence that requires a costly sub­scrip­tion. This par­tic­u­lar set of pat­terns emerged from a mix of user research gath­ered using ethnog­ra­phy, con­tex­tual analy­sis, cog­ni­tive walk­through, and heuris­tics review, in addi­tion to straight for­ward inter­views with users.
The four modes we found for our users were: seek­ing, vis­it­ing sta­ble des­ti­na­tions, mon­i­tor­ing, and receiv­ing deliv­ered infor­ma­tion (full def­i­n­i­tions avail­able in the orig­i­nal arti­cle). Each mode empha­sizes a dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tion of lower or higher lev­els of user activ­ity to obtain infor­ma­tion, and greater or lesser sta­bil­ity of the set­tings users encounter.
The pat­terns iden­tify con­sis­tent com­bi­na­tions and sequences of the infor­ma­tion retrieval modes that users employ while under­tak­ing goals.
We’ve sug­gested names to cap­ture the fla­vor for the ten pat­terns we found:

  • Seeker
  • Reg­u­lar Customer
  • Explorer
  • Ini­tial Subscriber
  • Vig­i­lant Subscriber
  • Sky­diver
  • Watch­dog
  • Returned Expa­tri­ate
  • Vig­i­lant Customer
  • Curi­ous Subscriber

To make the pat­terns eas­ier to under­stand, the illus­tra­tions and descrip­tions below show the dif­fer­ent modes that make up each pat­tern.
Seeker, Reg­u­lar Cus­tomer, Explorer Pat­terns

Seeker
The Seeker is look­ing for some­thing. Once found, the Seeker goes else­where to accom­plish other goals.
Reg­u­lar Cus­tomer
The Reg­u­lar Cus­tomer vis­its the same destination(s) con­sis­tently for the same rea­sons. Then the Reg­u­lar Cus­tomer real­izes they can save the time and effort of vis­it­ing, and switches modes to have the things they need deliv­ered directly to them.
Explorer
The Explorer is learn­ing about a new (or changed) envi­ron­ment; explor­ing it’s struc­ture, con­tents, laws, etc. The Explorer may do this for their own pur­poses, or for oth­ers.
Ini­tial Sub­scriber, Vig­i­lant Sub­scriber Pat­terns

Ini­tial Sub­scriber
The Ini­tial Sub­scriber seeks what is needed, finds the things needed, goes to their location(s), and then chooses to have these things deliv­ered to allow them to seek other things.
Vig­i­lant Sub­scriber
The Vig­i­lant Sub­scriber makes effec­tive use of mon­i­tor­ing and deliv­ery, fol­lowed up with vis­i­ta­tion of des­ti­na­tions, to ensure they do not miss out on any­thing that might be use­ful to them within the envi­ron­ment.
Sky­diver, Watch­dog, Returned Expa­tri­ate Pat­terns

Sky­diver
The Sky­diver makes a bold entrance from out­side the envi­ron­ment, and lands pre­cisely on tar­get.
Watch­dog
The Watch­dog first finds things, and then places them under care­ful watch.
Returned Expa­tri­ate
The Returned Expa­tri­ate was away, and is back again. They begin by revis­it­ing known places, then seek out what has changed, mon­i­tor changes for a while, and even­tu­ally begin to have valu­able things deliv­ered.
Vig­i­lant Cus­tomer, Curi­ous Sub­scriber Pat­terns

Vig­i­lant Cus­tomer
The Vig­i­lant Cus­tomer comes by often, but wants to be sure, and so mon­i­tors things from afar for a while before decid­ing deliv­ery is more effec­tive.
Curi­ous Sub­scriber
The Curi­ous Sub­scriber has things deliv­ered reg­u­larly, but vis­its all the same to see what else may be avail­able. And just to be sure, they seek out the things they sus­pect are here, but can­not see imme­di­ately.
Reusing Modes and Pat­terns
Reuse is rare in the realm of user expe­ri­ence and infor­ma­tion archi­tec­ture. The infor­ma­tion retrieval modes we iden­ti­fied are inde­pen­dent of user role, per­sona, or user type. As a result, the pat­terns assem­bled from those modes are also inde­pen­dent of the same con­tex­tual fac­tors. Since the modes and pat­terns are not tied to spe­cific fea­tures, func­tion­al­ity, or infor­ma­tion struc­tures, this would seem to indi­cate that modes and pat­terns may resuable in dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments for user pop­u­la­tions pur­su­ing sim­i­lar root goals.
I hope mode-based pat­terns like these offer some level of reusabil­ity. To that end, I am curi­ous about where and how they help define infor­ma­tion retrieval expe­ri­ences for other types of users and other domains.
If you use them, send me a note about where, when, and how.

2 comments » | Information Architecture, User Experience (UX)

Discovering User Goals / IR Goal Definitions

June 24th, 2006 — 12:22am

In an ear­lier post on cre­at­ing Goal Based Infor­ma­tion Retrieval Expe­ri­ences, I offered a list of fun­da­men­tal user goals that under­lays needs and usage of four sug­gested infor­ma­tion retrieval modes. In this post, I’ll share the approach employed to dis­cover the fun­da­men­tal goals of the users in our envi­ron­ment, with the aim of offer­ing it as one way of under­stand­ing goals rel­e­vant for other types of envi­ron­ments and user expe­ri­ence archi­tec­tures.
Since the root user goals we iden­ti­fied are poten­tially applic­a­ble to other envi­ron­ments and con­texts, I’ll share the def­i­n­i­tions behind the full set of root goals we dis­cov­ered. Together, the approach and def­i­n­i­tions should help demon­strate how cap­ture a sys­tem­atic and also holis­tic view of what users have need to accom­plish when under­tak­ing infor­ma­tion retrieval tasks more com­plex than search­ing.
Finally, address­ing the per­spec­tive of strate­gic design and user expe­ri­ence method­ol­ogy, fram­ing broad user goals well offers strong foot­ing for address­ing busi­ness per­spec­tives, and engag­ing busi­ness audi­ences in pro­duc­tive dis­cus­sions on the pri­or­ity of capa­bil­i­ties and the func­tion­al­ity of the user expe­ri­ence.
Dis­cov­er­ing Root Goals
Begin­ning with raw goals gath­ered via a mixed palette of dis­cov­ery and user research (inter­views, task analy­sis, con­tex­tual inquiry, or other qual­i­ta­tive insight meth­ods) incor­po­rated into the project, we first called out the dif­fer­ent types or objects of infor­ma­tion users iden­ti­fied.
Our start­ing lists of raw user goals or needs looked some­thing like this (though it was con­sid­er­ably larger, and more varied):

  • Read oper­at­ing guidelines
  • Review instal­la­tion instructions
  • Scan tech­ni­cal sup­port requests
  • Review tech­ni­cal specifications

Iden­ti­fy­ing the objects in this set is not dif­fi­cult: tech­ni­cal spec­i­fi­ca­tions, oper­at­ing guide­lines, instal­la­tion instruc­tions, and sup­port requests. The activ­ity verbs are also easy to spot:

  • read
  • scan
  • review

We then com­pared the activ­ity verbs for sim­i­lar­ity and dif­fer­ences, and refined these raw goals into a root goal of “review” that could apply to any of the objects users named.
Recom­bin­ing the root goal with var­i­ous objects yields a set of con­crete goals:

  • Review oper­at­ing guidelines
  • Review instal­la­tion instructions
  • Review tech­ni­cal specifications
  • Review tech­ni­cal sup­port requests

This approach is more art than sci­ence, but is sys­tem­atic, and is inde­pen­dent of con­text and for­mat.
Here’s an illus­tra­tion of the process.
Dis­cov­er­ing Root Goals

Final Root Goals For Our Envi­ron­ment
These are the def­i­n­i­tions we estab­lished for the root goals we found for all our dif­fer­ent types of users. [I haven’t included the objects of the goals, or the con­crete goals.]

  • To Assess means to make a judge­ment or deci­sion about, con­sid­er­ing rel­e­vant factors
  • To Com­pare means to review the sim­i­lar­i­ties and dif­fer­ences of two or more exam­ples of the same type of thing by look­ing at them in detail
  • To Find means to learn the loca­tion and sta­tus of
  • To Iden­tify means to dis­tin­guish by the use of spe­cific criteria
  • To Locate means to become aware of where and how a thing may be found, and / or con­tacted. Locate and find are sim­i­lar, so likely reflect dif­fer­ing but sim­i­lar usages and con­texts in the minds of users
  • To Mon­i­tor means to track the sta­tus and loca­tion of
  • To Obtain means to acquire and retain for other purposes
  • To Par­tic­i­pate means to be present and recognized
  • To Review means to exam­ine in detail
  • To Save means to store and keep
  • To See means to be pre­sented with in a man­ner that makes assumed rela­tion­ships or char­ac­ter­is­tics apparent
  • To Under­stand means to con­sider all avail­able points of view or sources of infor­ma­tion on a topic / item / sit­u­a­tion, and for­mu­late an opin­ion and frame of ref­er­ence for one’s own purposes.

Some exam­ple con­crete goals for an user expe­ri­ence that addresses travel plan­ning could include:

  • Find hotels
  • Review hotel accommodations
  • Save travel itineraries
  • Com­pare vaca­tion packages
  • See optional excur­sions offered by a hotel
  • Iden­tify full-service or all-inclusive resorts
  • Locate the oper­a­tors of scuba div­ing excursions
  • Mon­i­tor the price of air­line tick­ets to Sardinia
  • Under­stand how to plan and pur­chase vacations
  • Assess the cost and value of a vaca­tion package

Sym­me­try and Men­tal Mod­els
We found the con­cept of a root goal insight­ful for help­ing to design user expe­ri­ence archi­tec­tures because it is inde­pen­dent of par­tic­u­lar user roles, infor­ma­tion types, and usage con­texts. Being root ele­ments, they point at com­mon­al­i­ties rather than dif­fer­ences, and so can help guide the def­i­n­i­tion of men­tal mod­els that span user groups, or allow the reuse of an infor­ma­tion archi­tec­ture ele­ment such as a nav­i­ga­tion com­po­nent, task flow, or screen lay­out.
Build­ing numer­ous con­crete goals that are vari­a­tions on a smaller set of com­mon root goals allows the men­tal model for the envi­ron­ment to achieve a greater degree of con­sis­tency and pre­dictabil­ity (we hope — we’ll see what the usabil­ity and eval­u­a­tions bring back). This con­sis­tency helps fur­ther efforts toward sym­me­try through­out the infor­ma­tion archi­tec­ture. While most infor­ma­tion archi­tects uncon­sciously reach for sym­me­try in user expe­ri­ences by design­ing repeated ele­ments such as com­mon label­ing, rules for lay­out, and com­po­nent sys­tems of fea­tures and func­tion­al­ity — sym­me­try is some­thing we should make more con­scious efforts to encour­age both within envi­ron­ments and across envi­ron­ments.
Speak­ing To the Busi­ness: Goal-based Pri­or­i­ti­za­tion of Capa­bil­i­ties and Func­tion­al­ity
With solid root goals and com­mon infor­ma­tion objects, it’s pos­si­ble to build up a sim­ple and con­sis­tent gram­mar that out­lines the set of pos­si­ble con­crete goals across user types. This set of goals is a good basis for engag­ing busi­ness stake­hold­ers in choos­ing the right set of pri­or­i­ties to guide design and build efforts. Sys­tem­at­i­cally artic­u­lated goals allow busi­ness audi­ences a com­fort­able and neu­tral basis for pri­or­i­tiz­ing the capa­bil­i­ties the envi­ron­ment will offer users. Of course, choices of capa­bil­ity directly affect costs, effort lev­els, design and build time­lines, and all the other tan­gi­ble aspects of a user expe­ri­ence. Ref­er­ence pri­or­i­ties can also help guide longer-term invest­ment and strat­egy decisions.

1 comment » | Information Architecture, User Experience (UX), User Research

Goal Based Information Retrieval Experiences

June 20th, 2006 — 8:07pm

Though it’s com­mon prac­tice, think­ing of infor­ma­tion retrieval exclu­sively as ‘search’ is an arbi­trar­ily nar­row way of fram­ing an area of capa­bil­ity with strong impact on over­all per­cep­tions of user expe­ri­ence qual­ity and effec­tive­ness. In the long term, it lim­its oppor­tu­ni­ties to offer cus­tomers more effec­tive solu­tions to broader and more fully under­stood needs that involve infor­ma­tion retrieval, but are moti­vated by other goals. This nar­row view is espe­cially lim­it­ing for the user expe­ri­ence archi­tect, as it implies an imme­di­ate focus on the search aspects of infor­ma­tion envi­ron­ments.
A bet­ter way of fram­ing infor­ma­tion retrieval is in terms of oppor­tu­ni­ties to meet gen­uine user goals and objec­tives by sup­port­ing more var­ied modes of activ­ity. Users often have broad goals in mind while they pur­sue infor­ma­tion retrieval activ­i­ties; buy­ing a car, mak­ing a good invest­ment deci­sion, or learn­ing how to man­age their health care plans. And yet the infor­ma­tion archi­tec­ture of many envi­ron­ments still overem­pha­sizes search­ing as a way of accom­plish­ing goals.
Address­ing broader goals with an effec­tive infor­ma­tion retrieval expe­ri­ence will likely mean sup­port­ing modes of inter­ac­tion beyond just search­ing. But pro­vid­ing these addi­tional modes and user expe­ri­ence capa­bil­i­ties can open new oppor­tu­ni­ties for ser­vices, fea­tures, rev­enue, improv­ing rela­tion­ships, etc.
Even in sit­u­a­tions where a wide range of users need to select very spe­cific mate­ri­als from a large archive or pool of con­tent (the tra­di­tional library model), a search-centric infor­ma­tion retrieval model that offers no/few other capa­bil­i­ties is reduc­tive and overly sim­plis­tic.
Instead of imme­di­ately focus­ing on the scope or func­tion­al­ity of a search expe­ri­ence and sys­tem instal­la­tion, look for the pat­terns in user goals and needs that imply com­mon modes of inter­ac­tion with infor­ma­tion, and use them as a basis for defin­ing capa­bil­i­ties the envi­ron­ment must offer.
Here’s a list of com­mon types of user goals that involve infor­ma­tion retrieval — think of them as root goals that take on dif­fer­ent spe­cial­ized forms in dif­fer­ing environments:

  • review­ing sum­maries of items
  • exam­in­ing details
  • com­par­ing multiples
  • under­stand­ing con­texts and situations
  • learn­ing about peo­ple in the environment
  • per­ceiv­ing trends
  • pre­dict­ing implications
  • mon­i­tor­ing sta­tus or activity
  • iden­ti­fy­ing by criteria
  • estab­lish­ing similarity
  • obtain­ing infor­ma­tion for reuse

None of these explic­itly includes the activ­ity of search­ing, though many do imply some level of find­ing.
For a recent project, we defined four infor­ma­tion retrieval or inter­ac­tion modes that would meet the goals of our expected users:

  • seek­ing information
  • vis­it­ing sta­ble destinations
  • mon­i­tor­ing notifications
  • receiv­ing deliv­ered assets

These modes range from more active seek­ing, to less active receiv­ing deliv­ery, and per­sis­tent set­tings (sta­ble des­ti­na­tions) to fluid set­tings — mon­i­tor­ing or seek­ing. Together, they define pos­si­ble kinds of infor­ma­tion retrieval expe­ri­ences and capa­bil­i­ties that will meet the vary­ing needs and goals of users when prop­erly com­bined.
Infor­ma­tion Retrieval Modes

Seek­ing
The seek­ing mode focuses on tra­di­tional search­ing, but includes other activ­i­ties such as nar­row­ing sets using cumu­la­tive para­me­ters, find­ing with/in faceted sys­tems, and . A clas­sic exam­ple of seek­ing mode is a user who poses an ad-hoc query via a search inter­face, and sorts through the list of search results returned in response. This list may incor­po­rate many dif­fer­ent kinds of items from many dif­fer­ent sources, a com­bi­na­tion that no other user ever encoun­ters again.
From an infor­ma­tion archi­tec­ture per­spec­tive, the key char­ac­ter­is­tic of seek­ing mode is that, users bring the sit­u­a­tions and con­texts (like search results) they encounter into exis­tence by seek­ing them out. When seek­ing, users encounter fluid des­ti­na­tions within the larger infor­ma­tion envi­ron­ment based on what they are look­ing for, and how they are look­ing for it.
Another char­ac­ter­is­tic of the seek­ing mode is that users will not know in advance what they will encounter, even though they may have a very good idea of what they need to meet their goal. When seek­ing, users might be pre­sented with a mixed set of con­cep­tu­ally related items of many dif­fer­ent types, from unknown sources, with diverse con­tents / struc­ture / com­po­si­tion.
Of course, users may not know what they need, or how to ask for it, as Donna Maurer’s 4 Modes of Seek­ing Infor­ma­tion and How to Design for Them points out, but this was a less impor­tant fac­tor in the way we framed seek­ing within our envi­ron­ment than whether users would know what to expect as a result of their seek­ing activ­i­ties, and whether they could retrace their path to a par­tic­u­lar step of their jour­ney.
Vis­it­ing Sta­ble Des­ti­na­tions
When vis­it­ing sta­ble des­ti­na­tions, users encounter sta­ble places within the infor­ma­tion envi­ron­ment that exist regard­less of the user’s activ­i­ties. Where seek­ing invokes tem­po­rary con­texts do not per­sist, a sta­ble des­ti­na­tion is per­sis­tent. Per­sis­tence could be con­cep­tual only, reflected in nav­i­ga­tion ele­ments, or made part of the user expe­ri­ence via any num­ber of mech­a­nisms. All des­ti­na­tions have a focus of some kind, such as a topic, or prod­uct, or event, and may be defined by the inter­sec­tion of sev­eral focuses, such as prod­ucts or doc­u­ments cre­ated by one per­son that are related to a topic or event.
Des­ti­na­tions could take the form of many kinds of pages — includ­ing the A-Z indexes Donna men­tions — but could also con­sist of pre­de­ter­mined com­bi­na­tions of con­di­tions and con­text that users can revisit with­out choos­ing them again. In an envi­ron­ment of known con­tents, des­ti­na­tions offer users a set of things they under­stand in advance and expect (after ade­quate oppor­tu­ni­ties for learn­ing). Des­ti­na­tions will likely change based on busi­ness rules and user con­text, as well as changes in the items avail­able within the envi­ron­ment.
A good exam­ple of a sta­ble des­ti­na­tion is the Arts page of the New York Time online; the arti­cles and the art they con­cern change con­stantly, yet users know what to expect when they visit. The page is a vis­i­ble part of the envi­ron­ment con­cep­tu­ally (as a cat­e­gory) and in terms of nav­i­ga­tion, and is eas­ily acces­si­ble directly from out­side the envi­ron­ment.
Mon­i­tor­ing
The mon­i­tor­ing mode is a more fluid and less active infor­ma­tion retrieval mode wherein the envi­ron­ment sends users noti­fi­ca­tions of events, activ­ity, sta­tus, or changes tak­ing place within it’s bound­aries. The key char­ac­ter­is­tic of mon­i­tor­ing is that users can accom­plish goals with­out enter­ing the envi­ron­ment, or with only lim­ited entry that takes them to a known set­ting.
Mon­i­tor­ing effec­tively extends the user expe­ri­ence and infor­ma­tion retrieval capa­bil­i­ties beyond the bound­aries of the orig­i­nat­ing envi­ron­ment, and allows users to know in advance what they will find or encounter when they enter the envi­ron­ment.
Mon­i­tor­ing nat­u­rally requires mes­sages or com­mu­ni­ca­tion tokens, com­monly email, RSS, or SMS, but could take many other forms as well. A good exam­ple of mon­i­tor­ing is the con­fig­urable alerts that many travel ser­vices pro­vide to indi­cate when prices for air­line tick­ets to spe­cific cities change, or match a price point.
Receiv­ing Items via Deliv­ery
Receiv­ing deliv­ered items is the least active mode we defined for users, allow­ing them to retrieve infor­ma­tion with­out actively seek­ing, vis­it­ing a des­ti­na­tion, or mon­i­tor­ing the envi­ron­ment. In this mode, users do not have to enter the envi­ron­ment at all to retrieve infor­ma­tion, enabling them to fur­ther goals with­out increas­ing acqui­si­tion costs or effort.
Deliv­ery implies mech­a­nisms to man­age the nature, rate, and for­mat of the infor­ma­tion to deliver, as well as the chan­nel: email, attach­ments, RSS, pod­casts, vlogs, etc.
Good exam­ples of deliv­ered infor­ma­tion are the iconic stock ticker, RSS feeds for blog post­ings, and email pub­li­ca­tions.
Com­bin­ing Modes: User Goals and Cus­tomer Life­cy­cles
It’s nat­ural that user goals will span modes, and that the pre­ferred mode for accom­plish­ing a goal may change over time to reflect shift­ing usage pat­terns and needs.
As an exam­ple, a sin­gle user might shift among dif­fer­ent modes that reflect learn­ing more about the struc­ture and con­tent of the envi­ron­ment. From ini­tial seek­ing activ­ity focused on search­ing for infor­ma­tion related to a topic, a user may switch to vis­it­ing a known sta­ble des­ti­na­tion that addresses that topic, enter­ing the envi­ron­ment from the out­side with­out ini­tial seek­ing.
This des­ti­na­tion may include tools to estab­lish mon­i­tor­ing for a spe­cific type of item, which a user who under­stands the domain will appre­ci­ate and take advan­tage of as a way to reduce the num­ber of required vis­its while remain­ing aware of activ­ity or sta­tus. Even­tu­ally, this user might shift from mon­i­tor­ing to direct deliv­ery of a few spe­cific and very valu­able infor­ma­tion assets, through a chan­nel and in a for­mat of their choos­ing.
IR Mode Life­cy­cle

In the same way that pat­terns in goals allow expe­ri­ence archi­tects to iden­tify com­mon modes of infor­ma­tion retrieval, pat­terns of cross-mode usage will emerge in pop­u­la­tions of users or cus­tomers. Once under­stood, these kinds of flows present oppor­tu­ni­ties on many lev­els; user expe­ri­ence, busi­ness model or process, and tech­ni­cal architecture.

4 comments » | Information Architecture

Announcing The Arrival of 2.0 2.0

June 9th, 2006 — 10:42pm

It has recently become clear that we’re now in the first stages of 2.0 2.0.
And I’m pleased to report that all indi­ca­tors firmly sup­port uni­ver­sal expec­ta­tions that 2.0 2.0 will be much bet­ter than 2.0 1.0 was, or hoped to be.
In fact, 2.0 2.0 is pre­dicted to pos­i­tively blow the doors off 2.0 1.0.
Besides being cheaper, faster, and bet­ter than 2.0 1.0, 2.0 2.0 will be vastly more prof­itable, fully nour­ish­ing in a non-fattening eco­log­i­cally and eth­i­cally respon­sive way, and a supremely snappy dresser for all occa­sions.
2.0 2.0 is a bold recon­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of the basic fram­ing tenets of 2.0, that takes full advan­tage of the new capa­bil­i­ties and pos­si­bil­i­ties latent in the emerg­ing 2.0.
Whereas the inher­ent weak­nesses of the basic con­cep­tual con­struc­tion of 2.0 1.0 were only appar­ent in the after-the-fact fash­ion that was typ­i­cal of the fun­da­men­tal lim­i­ta­tions in the 2.0 1.0 under­stand­ing of 2.0, 2.0 2.0 is a fully trans­par­ent, self-funding, scal­able, gen­uinely pro­gres­sive, eman­ci­pa­tory, empow­er­ing, and com­pre­hen­sive vision of the future evo­lu­tion of 2.0.
Now that 2.0 2.0 is here, we can look back on the inad­e­qua­cies of 2.0 1.0 with a mix­ture of pride — after all, it was the only under­stand­ing of 2.0 avail­able at the time, and it did lay the foun­da­tions for the sub­limely enhanced 2.0 that is 2.0 2.0 — and cha­grin, since we rec­og­nized even in the moment that the fullest flower of 2.0 1.0 could only hope to be an incom­plete por­trayal of the true pos­si­bil­i­ties of 2.0 that pre­cluded real­iz­ing 2.0’s full poten­tial as long as it was the dom­i­nant par­a­digm for inter­pret­ing 2.0.
Thank­fully, we can now look for­ward to the immi­nent real­iza­tion of the full promise of the 2.0 2.0 vision, as it har­nesses col­lec­tive, emer­gent, non-linear, thin­gies to bring periph­eral ben­e­fits unimag­in­able in the era of 2.0 1.0, such as improv­ing con­ver­sa­tion at indus­try cock­tail par­ties, and mak­ing every­one a good dancer.

Comment » | Ideas

Back to top