Asus recently began selling a $399 Linux Laptop, the EeePC (on sale here), with a $299 version to be launched soon. That’s a very low price for a 2 lb., 7″ display machine—usually ultra-portables belong to a high-end and expensive category. The Toshiba Portege R500, for example, retails for $2000 or more.

The EeePC is getting great reviews and apparently has been selling one every two seconds in Taiwan. It isn’t the only affordable Linux machine making mainstream inroads—Dell has been selling Linux Unbuntu systems, and Everex just started selling a sub-$200 Unbuntu machine at Wal-Mart. But the EeePC is the first cheap ultra-portable to be marketed to a new niche—not business travelers with money to spend, but average computer users who want an affordable way to take the Internet with them. (The only affordable laptops with a similar form-factor, and perhaps Asus’ inspiration, are those in production for the One Laptop per Child project).

Asus is achieving success in a traditionally perilous niche. UMPCs, for instance, failed to catch on: they were too expensive. And while devices like the Pepperpad are less expensive, they are not cheap enough to capture the market. Tapping this niche isn’t just about creating the right Internet device; it’s also about breaking a certain price barrier. Asus is breaking that barrier both by offering Linux instead of Windows and by eliminating a regular hard drive in favor of 4GB of Flash storage.

Flash storage certainly helps reduce price, but why so few gigabytes? The idea is that customers are doing more of their work and storing more of their data online. With this fact in mind, the EeePC includes links to Google Docs and other online applications (although it also includes the free Microsoft Office-compatible OpenOffice.org suite). Here’s a user review that I think captures the essence of the need that the EeePC satisfies: “Good form factor. Basic apps are all I need. Browser very fast. Boot in a little less than 15 seconds.”

There are a few industry lessons here. The first is that hardware devices are becoming commoditized because of the predominance of Web applications. More and more, such devices are not the endpoint for users, but merely (preferably lightweight and fast) tools to reach the place they really want to be—online.

Here’s the take of Tom Krazit of Cnet:

“End users desire the ability to take the full Internet with them, the experience they have on their PC, in a nomadic or mobile fashion,” said Gary Willihnganz, director of marketing in Intel’s mobile group. That’s language straight from the playbooks of Apple’s Steve Jobs and Google’s Eric Schmidt, both of whom this year have emphasized their commitment to delivering a PC-like Internet experience on a handheld device.

Tim O’Reilly also puts it well:

We are starting to see the real blurring of handhelds, cell phones, cameras, and other consumer devices. Everything is becoming connected, and computing truly is becoming pervasive…. As people get seamlessly connected, wherever they are, devices become less important, even throwaway, and the continuity of the user’s data becomes most important.

O’Reilly’s conclusions are borne out by the PC market decline in Japan in favor of smaller devices. They are also borne out by the recent entry of Apple and Google into the mobile phone market. In fact, Google Android could drastically change the phone market by leading the market toward open source, unlocked phones that allow developers to bring wireless devices to the next level by giving users more choices when it comes to applications. It’s a move similar to the opening up of the Facebook API (with new competitor OpenSocial in pursuit) to allow a greater level of connectedness over the Web—not just via links, but via data exchange and functionality. The point is to bring state of mobile phone technology up to speed with the latest developments in Web applications, and that means especially making them more compatible with social networking and video-sharing applications.

So here’s how I trace these connections:

Social Networking–>Web applications predominance over client software–>Open APIs/Open Source–>Hardware lightening and commoditization in favor of social network access

That’s how I think cheap and lightweight hardware like the EeePC, the “cannibalization” of proprietary software by open source, recent developments in social networking, and Google Android are related.

NextStage Evolution/Global founder Joseph Carrabis blogs a lot about website usability and design. In his latest post he drops the lowdown about how our brains are wired to point our eyes wherever other folks are pointing theirs. Here’s the explanation why:

The reason this little game works is because human beings started off as herd and prey animals. Not only that, we were secretive little creatures for several million years of evolutionary history and all of this makes itself known in how our brains are wired to respond to, internalize and use information in our environment.

Our ancestors had to be constantly on guard for lions, tigers and bears. If Og the caveman was talking with me and suddenly looked over my shoulder, he might be seeing a predator. That was extremely useful information to our ancestors, so following Og’s gaze and looking where he looked was a good survival skill.

The point of his article was to explain how selection and placement of photos on a webpage (or in any media) can affect the user’s experience and actions. If you include a photo of people on your site, our eyes follow theirs! So where are they looking? I think good designers are aware of that, whether they know it or not. They can just feel the way the page is working.

Now that Mind & Media is setting up content management systems (CMS) for clients, I couldn’t help but draw a connection between Joseph’s article and the ease of editing a CMS. Certainly a huge advantage of a CMS is that any layperson, with almost zero training, can add or edit website content. It’s a tremendous way to speed site development!

However, while that may be great for dissemination of information, it could be detrimental to promoting message or inspiring action. What you see as snapshots of the latest networking event could actually be steering users away from your “Join Now!” button. The ability to easily edit a page does not equate to the ability to effectively design a page. So think about your purpose.

If your purpose is to quickly spread information, particularly to an audience that is eager to get to it, then a blog or other CMS may be great for you. If your purpose is to convince, persuade, sell, or motivate, then a properly composed page, or precisly cropped and placed photo, could be the difference between your audience’s eyes being drawn to your call to action or away from your site entirely.

Did you ever stop to think about what we are leaving behind in the way of tangible communication? Egyptian hieroglyphs, cuneiform on ancient clay tablets, the Rosetta Stone, and even Paleolithic cave paintings preserved information from past eons thanks to their rocky media. Today, however, we bombard each other with PowerPoint presentations, emails, text messages, and vlogs that live only in the electronic ether.

It seems only our past is worthy of imprinting on long-lasting material like monument stones. Why aren’t people chiseling Snoop Dogg lyrics onto bricks or blasting the word “McLovin” on the side of a quarry face?

If they knew about Harold Innis, they may start doing just that. Harold was a well-respected political economist from Toronto via the University of Chicago, who in the later, more cynical years of his life took a stab at mass media analysis. He probably hung around with people like Marshall McLuhan, drinking Latrobes, soul searching at Wrigley Field, and dreaming up fun titles for their dry books like The Gutenberg Galaxy.

Nevertheless, Harold made an interesting assumption: When communication is conveyed using durable materials like tablets of stone, they will be preserved over time and disseminated through an intimate if not respectful community that has access to view the information first hand. This is “time-biased” or “time-binding” media. Paper and electronic media, conversely, are light and fast, meant to be distributed over a larger community more quickly; this gives way to the theory of “space-biased” or “space-binding” media.

Harold went on to propose that space-biased media is the media that builds empires because the institutions of politics, religion, and commerce are influenced by the organization and vast distribution of information and hence create a social bias of the time-space continuum. In other galactic terms, time=no space, space-time=power, and power=a two-dollar hot dog at Wrigley Field.

What does this mean? I am not sure, but I think when something is written in stone, we trust it’s wiser than the moment in which it lives. We think it needs to be preserved in hard media, but it’s really only a sign for the times. Today, we let the legion electronic personal devices convey and capture every scrap of information so that everyone knows everything about anything. This numbs us to the authorities and institutions that bind us to their will. Depressed yet? Just wait…realize tombstones are a time-binding media, and make sure your epitaph inspires anyone who comes to visit. Oh, and don’t worry about launching empires.

I recently found this question on Linkedin:

Right now social networks and blogs dominate the web landscape. What do you think people will be utilizing online 8–10 years from now? Are there advancements in software or web development that you think will become as pervasive as social networks/blogs/etc.?

 

I took a stab at answering, but soon realized what a truly difficult question this was—and how lame my response really was (something about real-time virtual reality and that we’ll all be immersed in virtual worlds, but that technology is already here).

The truth is, who knows what the Web will look like in 8 or 10 years? A decade ago we were excited by email. AOL had the only visual Web interface and tons of people were using it. HTML was the language of the Web, and video had to be small to be seen well.

I did appreciate the creative analogy in this response:

I don’t see this Internet thing keeping people’s attention that much longer. Remember Beanie Babies? Oh, the Internet will be around but it won’t be top-of-mind. People will be used to just like they are use to TV, Radio, and the Telephone. I mean, do you really get excited to watch TV or talk on the telephone? And who even owns a working radio these days. The online world will go the way of the automobile. A necessary evil. Of course, the automobile will be online in a decade or so, which means there won’t be any need to step into the offline. I just hope virtual scent will be created by then because I’d really miss the smell of gasoline when I filled my tank.

I’m not sure I agree, but I sure hadn’t thought of that.

Ten years ago, we had maybe an inkling of how the use of applications would evolve. While the technology itself has remained pretty steady, how we’ve used it has expanded exponentially. What was once a home for static websites is now an infinite realm for interactive social networks, blogs, and wikis. Who would have guessed?

So, how will the Internet landscape look in 2017? Your guess is certainly as good as mine. Take a crack at answering. I’m interested to see what you think the Web will be.

The recent layoffs at Avid Technology, as well as the departure of CEO David Krall, have brought about speculation as to the future of Avid itself. There’s been a lot of debate as to whether or not Avid should discontinue their lower-end systems and instead focus on what it’s really known for: high-end editing solutions and media management.

I’ve been singing Avid’s praises for years and have had many heated “Avid vs. Final Cut Pro” debates with fellow editors. Recently, however, my singing has become more of a low hum.

I was disappointed in Avid’s showing at this year’s NAB convention. I didn’t actually attend, but I did sit anxiously at my computer following news and unveilings from the trade show floor of the Las Vegas Convention Center. Sadly, the announcement that caught my eye was from the Final Cut Pro booth. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the Final Cut Pro system, but I don’t really take it seriously either. When I use the Final Cut system I remap all the settings to make it an Avid, mainly because I spend most of my time editing on the Avid. It’s what I’m more comfortable with.

When Apple announced Final Cut Pro’s new ability to mix frame rates within a single project on the same timeline, I was shocked. How could Final Cut Pro come out with this before my precious Avid? This feature is not offered on any Avid system—not even my super-fancy Avid Symphony Nitris can achieve this task. Sure, there are things that can be done—cross converting, etc.—but it’s just not the same.

The Symphony Nitris is a great system and I love it, but like any editor, I want it all. I shouldn’t even be comparing a Symphony Nitris to a Final Cut Pro since I could get a row of Final Cut systems for the price of one Symphony Nitris! Therefore, I must have that feature. Avid owes me that feature!

I assumed that Avid was scrambling to add this function following the NAB event, but I was wrong. Instead there were major layoffs in July. Now it’s October and I’m. Still. Waiting.

What I would like to see from Avid is the introduction of a better lower-end, affordable, user-friendly editing system that can really compete with the Final Cut Pro. Some serious upgrades and advances for the higher-end systems wouldn’t hurt either.

Avid is a great system, but it has received plenty of criticism because of its cost; now, more and more, performance is entering the picture. It would be a mistake for Avid to ignore the lower-end editing market. If I had to buy a personal editing system today, I’d have to choose Final Cut Pro, on a shiny new MacBookPro. What if I really started liking Final Cut Pro, then did the unthinkable and converted? How frightening!

Come on, Avid, get your act together!

I recently read about the legal action taken by the National Federation of the Blind against Target for having an inaccessible website. Web accessibility refers to the practice of making webpages understandable to people with disabilities. They have to use a wide range of user agent devices instead of standard Web browsers. This case has been with the California District Court for more than a year, and was recently granted class-action status.

The World Wide Web revolutionized how people get information—but it doesn’t always work well for everyone. As Communication Architects, we need to be sensitive to the needs of those with disabilities—and respond with various techniques that make our websites more accessible.

With our government clients, Web accessibility isn’t just an option—it’s the law.

In 1973, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act, which guarantees:

No qualified individual with a disability in the United States…shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.

Section 508 is a 1998 amendment to the Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requiring electronic and information technology developed or purchased by the federal government be accessible by people with disabilities. This amendment created binding, enforceable standards that were incorporated into the Federal Procurement procedures complete with compliancy procedure and reporting requirements.

While accessibility tends to get attention in the government world—via Section 508—it should be on every organization’s mind.

The ruling by the California District Court has made it painfully obvious for Target! Making sites accessible takes more time and effort, effort that is often not seen in the final site, but is still important for all audiences.

What remains to be seen is how this case will affect the future of Web accessibility. Will accessibility get the attention it deserves in the corporate world, or will it go into settlement without a final court decision?

Let me know where you think this will go and what you think needs to be done to bring more attention to the world of Web accessibility and 508 compliancy.

The consistently insightful Valeria Maltoni over at Conversation Agent shared her thoughts on Penelope Trunk’s career-catalyzing advice, as taken from the pages of Trunk’s book, Brazen Careerist. Among suggestions like turning down promotions and making sure you hit the gym, you should:

Start a blog—starting a blog is the equivalent of letting people into the way you process information and form opinions; it’s a way to see if you exercise critical thinking and flex your writing muscle articulating on topics of your choosing. This is part ideas lab—the place where I test concepts to see for myself if they hold water. Sometimes I do not know exactly what I’m thinking until I commit it to writing and invite others to poke holes into it. The process is so transparent that it cannot be easily faked. It’s also a way to let others inform our thinking without having specific agendas—on a peer to peer level, with peer being defined as interested person/thinker. This is a very different process from the one we encounter in corporate America, where the person’s title may be the driver in decision making.

Right on the money, Ms. Maltoni.

Blogging is a way to take ownership of your professional, intellectual turf. It puts you in the spotlight (or the crosshairs), but understanding that responsibility liberates us, allows us to take risks, worry less about appeasing authority, and concentrate on innovating, on evolving—on being a thought leader. If a blog is a conduit to that kind of dialog, or allows you to raise your expertise profile, then by all means blogs are on the thought-leadership vanguard.

Put your ear up to the boardroom door; that panicked, scrabbling sound you hear is the old guard trying to understand what the kids are up to these days and grousing about how they can’t control it.

Of course you do. And like us, you spend a fair amount of them online.

Now, it looks like passing fixation is evolving into full-tilt addiction. Reuters reports that we’re sacrificing real-world relationships, interaction—even intimacy—for the sake of our virtual existence. According to a recent JWT survey:

More than a quarter of respondents—or 28 percent—admitted spending less time socializing face-to-face with peers because of the amount of time they spend online.

It also found that 20 percent said they spend less time having sex because they are online.

Pathetic? Perhaps to some, but also unshakable justification for building and maintaining a strong online presence, and for embracing the Web’s increasingly social nature. As one expert explained:

…online and offline lives are co-mingled and [many] would chose a Wi-Fi connection over TV any day…[t]his is how they communicate, entertain and live.

And it’s all about reaching people where they live, isn’t it?

We’re swamped. Everyone’s neck deep in information about a near-infinite number of subjects. How do we cope? By deluding ourselves into thinking we can assimilate everything.

But trying to process all that data from so many media streams is going to turn our brains into soup. We’re already seeing the impact it’s having on social skills (to say nothing of how people drive). Meeting and conversations are rarely in-the-moment events. Everyone is too busy text-messaging and thumbing email responses.

Such is the double-edged source of information and interconnectivity. We know more. We get more done. But are precise focus and valid feedback being compromised because we’re trying to see everything with a wide-angle lens?

43 Folders cites Stanley Bing’s assessment of what the informational deluge is doing to business leaders.

The author’s prediction:

I think one of the emerging leadership skills of the next five years will be learning how to do brilliant filtering—either programatically or by delegating information-sorting to others. To ultimately become someone whose system accounts for incoming data in smart ways and who never has to make excuses about too much stuff.

In a meeting this morning, our illustrious leader noted that he wades through dozens of marketing, communications, multimedia, and video e-newsletters weekly. Like most execs, he’s dedicated to keeping up with, if not outpacing, industry-specific innovations and insights. As information sources grow exponentially, he, like any top dog who wants to stay tuned in, is going to have to limit review to a few favorites and ask like-minded staff and trusted consultants to pick up the slack.

“The risk of insult is the price of clarity, and it is a price few are willing to pay.”

So wrote Roy H. Williams in his 1998 book The Wizard of Ads. That quote had formative impact when I was a tenderfoot copywriter. Almost ten years later, the words haunt me as I try to decipher ways to wield Web 2.0 influence. And that’s good; we can’t make new media all things to all people when, in fact, it requires more specificity than I ever had to sweat for a print ad or 30-second radio spot. If we try too hard to appeal to the largest possible audience, messages become murky and incoherent—but that doesn’t stop some people from trying.

Call it Silver Bullet Syndrome—a gut-wrenching affliction that’s regrettably common. Most of us have faced the indecisive decision maker who is “not quite sure what they want, but knows what they don’t want” (words that cause creeping dread), or someone who is positive there’s a perfect concept, ideal theme, or flawless sequence of words and images that will magically appeal to everyone, every time. They torture themselves, and everyone around them, looking for that silver bullet.

What a waste of talent and energy. Hoping for that kind of breakthrough and that kind of result consistently produces watered-down, ineffective messaging that does much more harm than good.

I once sat in a conference room brainstorming with a client for three hours on taglines for his Web startup. After 180 minutes, we had a list of three- and five-word phrases a mile long, any one of which would have been adequate, and a few that were quite good. But he couldn’t commit. He finally decided that he didn’t need a tagline, that visitors would figure out what his site did on their own. He was out of business in three months. Granted, that’s because his business problems were deeper than marketing, but if he had concentrated on creating an honest explanation of what his company did rather than making some ham-fisted attempt at universal appeal, perhaps he’d still be in business.

Remember that your largest possible audience isn’t that “known quantity” you’ve already identified. The largest possible audience is one you never captured in the first place because you weren’t clear enough. You owe it to yourself to be honest with your identity, and then tell the world in straightforward terms. Offend or confuse a few folks? So what? You’ll more than make it up in new adherents who get what you’re about without having to wade through obtuse explanation. And here’s the kicker: On the Web, we won’t give you that chance anyway. If we don’t know who you are and what you’re about in an instant, we’ll kill you with a click.

Stop trying to find universal communications cure-alls, messaging panaceas that appeal to everyone. Instead, concentrate on what you do well. Convey it with all the precision and clarity you can muster. Don’t waste your time and money searching for silver bullets.