Jun 8, 2011
User Experience is important: Reason #65398
I have a last-minute trip to New York this week. Because this is the season, apparently, of $750 hotel rooms when you book them late, I decided instead to save some money and make it an up-and-back trip in one day.
Which means I wanted an early train. So I searched for morning trains on the Amtrak site:
…and found that the earliest train possible got me from Baltimore to NYC by 8:44:
I thought I’d remembered earlier trains, but guessed that they may have been sold out, given that I was traveling at the last minute (UX note: See how quickly I assume I’m doing something wrong, instead of the site). But this morning, as I pondered the mad 20-block dash to get to my meeting a half-hour late, it struck me as impossibly odd. So I searched other dates into the summer, all with the same result of no trains before 6 a.m.
I downloaded the official Amtrak Northeast Corridor timetable (updated March 2011) and it confirmed my suspicions: there were earlier trains. So why weren’t they showing up on the Amtrak site when I was looking, I thought, at all morning trains?
I called to talk to a ticket agent. While I was on hold, I did what all flummoxed web users do: I clicked on random things. Finally, I hit on the secret combination: Instead of selecting “morning,” I should select a particular hour in the morning. 5 a.m., for example.
When I finally got the friendly Amtrak web support person on the phone, I asked her why the choice of “morning” did not, in fact, display all of the morning trains. She didn’t know, but her guess (and I think she’s correct) was that the site designer assumed that most people meant 6 a.m. when they said morning.
Assumed.
Most people.
Dangerous words.
Anyway, I got what I wanted, I suppose. And now I’ll be setting the alarm for 4:30 a.m., instead of the comparatively luxurious 5:30 a.m.
Apr 22, 2011
The inevitable arc of any ‘controversial’ tech story
By now, you’ve heard about the fact that your iPhone has been caching its location data file for months, leaving a nifty but, for some, troubling series of virtual breadcrumbs showing the phone’s movement over time.
I tend to agree with Gruber and other cooler heads that this is half-intentional, half-mistake. The intentional point is the short-term caching of location data to serve apps that use it. The mistake is in not flushing the data after it’s been used. Apparently, this is the way Android handles similar location information.
My guess: watch for an update real soon now.
Until then, marvel at the way these kinds of stories almost always play out:
- The original story is reported, in this case with nuance and a downloadable app to pull your own data and display it.
- Blogs pick it up and spin accordingly. Many Apple-centric sites report it with some perspective. Others freak out.
- A midwestern former-comedian-turned-senator demands answers.
- A subsequent post points out that answers to the senator’s questions already exist.
- Local television news joins the freakout. “YOUR PHONE IS SPYING ON YOU! DETAILS AT 11.”
What’s next? I don’t watch it, but I imagine that The Today Show will devote a sizable chunk of the show to it this morning. NPR will wring its hands. Consumer Reports will be sure to issue a news release saying that they still don’t recommend the iPhone. And Steve Ballmer will tell some interviewer willing to listen that he knew all along that “the iPhone is a flawed approach to smartphones.”
Okay. Now I’m exaggerating. But the point stands.
It’s a story. No question. And there are legitimate inquiries to be made about why Apple doesn’t flush out the data more frequently (or at all) and what, exactly, it’s being used for (there are many plausible guesses that are quite benign, but, so far, Apple hasn’t spoken up and cleared the air).
But by the time it gets to the ears of the general public, it’s become something much larger and, honestly, much more alarming and inaccurate.
Apr 20, 2011
Dear Amazon: Love the “Lending Library.” Now let me give my e-books to the local library.
One of the many bookcases at Baltimore's Book Thing, a free book exchange. Photo by Knile, cc at flickr.
Amazon announced today that, later this year, 11,000 libraries across the United States will be participating in the Kindle Lending Library, which will allow library patrons to borrow Kindle books.
Great idea, and long overdue.
But I want more. Or, if we’re getting technical about it, less.
I want to be able to donate my “used” Kindle editions to my local library. I’ve read most of them exactly one time. My wife and daughter could technically read them as well, using my login, but that’s as far as it goes.
With physical books, it’s simpler. Several times a year, I fill up the trunk of the Element with anything I’ve already read and won’t be holding onto for reference and take them to Baltimore’s Book Thing, an amazing and free book exchange where a sign near the exit encourages visitors to “Be Greedy” with their armloads of books.
And, yet, somehow the shelves are never empty. Because there’s an ongoing inbound supply of books.
Why not transition this model to e-books as well? I should be able to transfer my license to a public library. Why not? I give my paper books away all the time.
Apr 14, 2011
Now that’s how to help a new user
A quick work-related link this morning.
The new Patch iPhone app was released on iTunes this morning. I think there’s a lot to like there — especially if you’re in one of the 800+ (and growing) towns with its own Patch.
One well-designed small feature struck me immediately after I’d loaded the app: The simple help overlay that appeared on first launch. At a glance, if I had any question about how to use the app, it was answered visually and easily.
Nice touch.
Apr 6, 2011
How do you spend $40 million on a pay wall? You don’t
No real surprises here: Sulzberger says the NY Times pay wall didn’t cost $40 million. Or even close.
He doesn’t share any further details, but my bet is that a lot of that $40 million is marketing and first-year revenue loss, tracked as a cost (with the assumption of better numbers in the out years).
Mar 22, 2011
Giving money to The New York Times is not easy enough
It’s not surprising that there’s been a lot of thumb-sucking, pro and con around the announcement by The New York Times of the details of its metered online paywall system.
But if you stick to just the trenchant but usual suspects who weigh in, you might have missed some very solid analysis from the greater geek community.
For instance, John Gruber of Mac site Daring Fireball, who can’t help but compare the pricing strategies of Netflix and Apple with that of The New York Times, and find the Times wanting:
One thing many companies — in any industry — can learn from Apple is the importance of simple pricing. If you make it easy for people to understand how much they’re paying, and what they’re paying for, it is more likely that they’ll buy it. Or perhaps this is driven more by the converse: if people are confused about how much they have to pay, they’re more likely not to. The decision to purchase and the act of paying are part of the experience for any product or service, and should be designed accordingly.
…
This brings me to The New York Times’s new digital subscriptions. They’re neither easy-to-understand nor sound like a great value. Unlimited access to the NYT costs four times more than Netflix — $35 every four weeks. You can pay $15 or $20 every four weeks instead, but then you’ve got to choose between using a Times app on your smartphone or iPad (respectively). And how many normal people realize that if you, say, opt for the $15 plan, that you’ll be able to access the Times website from your iPad?
Netflix: one price, access from any device.
New York Times: three tiers, arbitrary division between devices based on screen size.
And this is from a self-confessed Times fan who wants them to succeed, but ends:
I don’t know that a simpler, lower-priced digital subscription plan would work for The Times, but I feel strongly that it would be more likely to work than what they’ve announced. I have a bad feeling about this.
I think Gruber’s onto something here. Companies with something to sell need to make it drop-dead easy for their fans to give them money. I’d add that they need to do so at a price-point that makes the buyer feel good about the purchase.
Mar 10, 2011
Me, elsewhere