OS/2 Shareware BBS: 8 Other/08-Other.zip/week_1.zip/framing.txt

Text File | 1996-01-01 | 67KB | 1,773 lines

#: 69307 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  14:50:25
Sb: #framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler 72241,1417 (X)

On page 24, Moore talks about expenses "vastly outdistancing" income.  We are
here to talk about applying Moore's ideas to the marketing of software.  But
Moore's book implicitly assumes that software must be produced by a company,
with all of the attendant fixed costs and management problems.  Moore frames
our problem as, "How can a discontinuous innovation be brought to market by a
conventional company?"

I would reframe the problem as, "How can a software product be brought to
market as a continuous innovation by an independent author without forming a
company at all?"  By doing this, we eliminate the problems of discontinuous
innovations for the customer and we eliminate the headaches and costs of
running a company.

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69320 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  20:06:33
Sb: #69307-#framing the problem
Fm: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

You ALWAYS have a company, no matter what else you do. Even if the company is
a sole proprietorship with a membership of one, that's still a company. You
just wear more hats concurrently, that's all.

How do you see it otherwise?

--Esther

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69331 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  22:09:56
Sb: #69320-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417 (X)

>> How do you see it otherwise?

Consider a desktop object that, in terms of user friendliness, is in the same
category as physical desktop objects like pens, pads of paper, and staple
removers.  I think that we will have many such OS/2 products within five
years.  As meterware, they'll be distributed freely; users will just download
them and start using them.

Running an international operation that distributes a product like that to a
mass consumer market is virtually costless. In that sense, we have a product
but no company.  The creator of the product just uploads it and starts cashing
checks.  Hats will be out of style.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69346 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    25-Dec-95  13:48:37
Sb: #69331-#framing the problem
Fm: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Sorry, I disagree 100%.

An entity that is in business to make money, to achieve goals ("make the world
better" or "build the best electronic mousetrap"), etc is a business. No
matter what the class of object, *companies* make pens and pads of paper and
staple removers. Companies have payroll and office rent and marketing expenses
and packaging, no matter what the nature of their widget is.

If you succeed, you'll change the nature of distribution and maybe (just
maybe) the nature of what's involved in starting up a business -- but you
won't be eliminating companies.

--Esther

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69364 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  04:47:14
Sb: #69346-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417

>> payroll...

I envision an organization of people who relate to each other as independent
contractors and vendors, but not as employees/managers.  In such an
organization, there is no payroll overhead.


>> ...office rent...

With everyone interacting online, from home, there is no facilities overhead.


>> marketing expenses

Granted, we'll still have marketing expenses (paid to contractors and
consultants).


>> packaging

I can't for the life of me see why I'd ever want to distribute a software
product in a box. <s>


>> you won't be eliminating companies

That depends on what the word "company" means to you.  The organizations that
I envision are patterned after 17th century cobbler workshops.  I want to help
create a world in which 90% of all workers consider themselves to be
apprentices, journeyers, or masters of a craft.

Moore paints a grim picture of a company that falls into the chasm.  IMO, the
grimness reflects both the reality of the chasm and the inability of the
"company" form of organization to deal with chasms.  Sure, we can learn how to
manage companies better.  But why not try to find an organizational model that
is more naturally suited to dealing with chasms, a form of organization that
takes "chasms" in stride.

We should probably drop this line of reasoning for now.  I only wanted to note
that there's more than one way to deal with "chasms".  Moore's goal seems to
be to teach us how to manage our companies better.  IMO, the real solution is
more radical, and involves abandoning the whole notion of a company.


#: 69385 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  11:28:37
Sb: #69364-framing the problem
Fm: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

We continue to disagree about the nature of businesses, but I do agree with
you that this is a major tangent from the marketing discussion. Let's table it
until later...?


#: 69307 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  14:50:25
Sb: #framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler 72241,1417 (X)

On page 24, Moore talks about expenses "vastly outdistancing" income.  We are
here to talk about applying Moore's ideas to the marketing of software.  But
Moore's book implicitly assumes that software must be produced by a company,
with all of the attendant fixed costs and management problems.  Moore frames
our problem as, "How can a discontinuous innovation be brought to market by a
conventional company?"

I would reframe the problem as, "How can a software product be brought to
market as a continuous innovation by an independent author without forming a
company at all?"  By doing this, we eliminate the problems of discontinuous
innovations for the customer and we eliminate the headaches and costs of
running a company.

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69337 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    25-Dec-95  00:16:39
Sb: #69307-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > "How can a software product be brought to  market as a continuous
 > innovation by an independent author without forming a company at
 > all?"

PMJI - I would suggest that you examine some of the computer game companies
for an answer to this question. All of them started from this premise. I would
love to see a case study on id software one day.

The question is: can the case be applied to the marketing of BUSINESS
software?




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 24-Dec-95 23:54]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69365 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  04:47:22
Sb: #69337-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011

>> can the case be applied to the marketing of BUSINESS software?

We seem to be questioning Moore's premise that we have to take as given that
we must market a -discontinuous- innovation.  You said that game software
successfully eliminates the "discontinuity" and asked whether the same could
also be done for business software.

Is game software really ever a continuous innovation?  That would knock down
our hypothesis that -all- software is, by nature, discontinuous.  What is it
about games that make them continuous innovations?

Answer: The user views them as objects.  In particular, she views them as
objects belonging to a class of objects with which she is already familiar.

Maybe we need OOM ("Object Oriented Marketing").  <smile>


#: 69448 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    26-Dec-95  23:03:55
Sb: #69365-framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361

 > Answer: The user views them as objects.  In particular, she views
 > them as objects belonging to a class of objects with which she is
 > already familiar.
 >
 > Maybe we need OOM ("Object Oriented Marketing").

As I understand it this was the intent of Taligent, and to a lesser extent,
OpenDoc.

Buy components, not suites. This allows us to build better custom fits for
each client. OTOH - we must satisfy the client's concern that finger-pointing
will not happen.

Modular audio components for sw might be a better analogy.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 26-Dec-95 18:20]


#: 69486 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  14:34:12
Sb: #69448-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> As I understand it this was the intent of Taligent, and to a lesser extent,
OpenDoc.

I think that you're talking about Parts vs Apps, Jerry.  I'm talking about
Simple vs Obscure.  The average computer person experiences software products
as mysterious, complex, frustrating, and unreliable.  One would not use any of
these terms to describe a pencil, a pad of paper, or a basic telephone.
Moore's challenge for us is to produce desktop objects that are intuitively
familiar the moment the user first sees them, that are simple, that never
frustrate, and that always do what one would intuitively expect them to do.

To be concrete, I'm talking about desktop objects whose complete user
interface is limited to 7 +/- 2 objects.  I.e., the total number of menu items
plus buttons plus text entry fields is about 7.


>> Modular audio components

OS/2, and only OS/2, makes it possible to move forward along both fronts, from
Apps to Parts, and from Complex to Simple. These two changes in the way that
we experience computers are distinct even though related.


#: 69543 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  03:02:16
Sb: #69486-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > Moore's challenge for us is to produce desktop objects that are
 > intuitively familiar the moment the user first sees them, that are
 > simple, that never frustrate, and that always do what one would
 > intuitively expect them to do.

This will never be possible given that the nature of a proper human-centric
interface must be dynamic with respect to the use of its components (ie: sw).

Novice users need one set of object behavior, expert users another. The
interface must constantly adapt as the user gains more experience. The
interface must also provide a very high degree of customization to adapt to
different user's requirements. Every tried to cook in someone else's kitchen,
or work in someone else's office?

For example, after using Warp for a couple of years I can guarantee you that
you would not be able to make any sense of my screen (which is all iconic, no
text) or use my apps (all have had their behavior modified via Warp.

 > OS/2, and only OS/2, makes it possible to move forward along both
 > fronts, from Apps to Parts, and from Complex to Simple.

I agree. That's why I'm hooked on Warp. The implication to app designers is
not clear in my mind though.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 27-Dec-95 16:45]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69561 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  09:49:36
Sb: #69543-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Every tried to cook in someone else's kitchen, or work in someone else's
office?

Good analogy.  Perhaps we need to give our products sentience.  Using your
analogy, it would be easy for me to walk into your kitchen and be instantly
productive if I could talk to the kitchen and tell it that I want to serve a
formal dinner for 8 featuring turkey, sweet potatoes, and salad and that I am
an experienced cook.  The kitchen would then supervise me, taking account of
both my knowledge of cooking and my ignorance of where tools and supplies are
stored.  It would also suggest that cranberries be added to the dinner plan.

I've been interested in software "sentience" since 1980, and since 1992 have
worked to build sentience into the software that I write.  Lest you think that
I'm blue-skying here, one of the three applications programming interfaces to
IdeaFarm (tm) Meterware Services is sentient.  It can be done.  After
mastering SOM, that's might be the next step in our development as OS/2
programmers.

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69580 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  13:54:36
Sb: #69561-#framing the problem
Fm: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

PMFJI but...

>>sentient.  It can be done.  After mastering SOM, that's might be the next
step in our development as OS/2 programmers.<<

This is the niche that PMPro Prolog should help supply.  But that seems to be
on the far side of a rather daunting chasm.

Regards,

Greg Bourassa


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69588 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:53:52
Sb: #69580-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166 (X)

>> This is the niche that PMPro Prolog should help supply

So far, I've framed my development problem as how to craft sentient C++
objects.  Now that VA gives us "Direct to SOM", I expect that this way to
frame the problem will keep me busy for several years.  Eventually, however,
I'd like to look at ways to use either Prolog or Lisp in crafting sentient C++
objects.

Unlike many, I don't think that AI is dead.  For me, software -is- AI.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69612 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  20:52:36
Sb: #69588-framing the problem
Fm: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

>> software -is- AI.<<

Of course.  All shades on a spectrum.

>>Prolog or Lisp in crafting sentient C++ objects<<

We are working on a SOM connection for PMPro.   The beauty of SOM is that the
classes and objects can be implemented in _any_ language.  So you are not
confined to the complexities and distractions of C and C++ in order to be
object-oriented.

While logic-programming is probably less suited to simulate "sentient"
behaviour than are neural nets, it is excellent at capturing qualitative world
knowledge and linguistic capabilities.

On the subject of UI simplicity -- I really think voice interfaces are the way
of the future.  GUIs and OOUIs will be "industrial", and new / non-technical
users will expect computers that can talk and especially _listen_
intelligently.

Regards,

Greg Bourassa


#: 69331 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  22:09:56
Sb: #69320-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417 (X)

>> How do you see it otherwise?

Consider a desktop object that, in terms of user friendliness, is in the same
category as physical desktop objects like pens, pads of paper, and staple
removers.  I think that we will have many such OS/2 products within five
years.  As meterware, they'll be distributed freely; users will just download
them and start using them.

Running an international operation that distributes a product like that to a
mass consumer market is virtually costless. In that sense, we have a product
but no company.  The creator of the product just uploads it and starts cashing
checks.  Hats will be out of style.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69518 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  22:02:43
Sb: #69331-#framing the problem
Fm: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

>> Consider a desktop object that, in terms of user friendliness, is in the
same category as physical desktop objects like pens, pads of paper, and staple
removers. <<

That concept is part of what is wrong with the industry; we need to transcend
the limits of a physical desktop and offer the user objects that are more user
friendly than what he is used to.



Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg & JOAT, Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69528 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  23:52:28
Sb: #69518-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

>> we need to transcend the limits of a physical desktop and offer the user
objects that are more user friendly than what he is used to.

What can be more user friendly than a pad of paper?  Let's use pads of paper
and ball point pens as our standard of simplicity and intuitiveness.  Let each
of us devote the next two years to disciplined study to learn how to craft
software objects that meet that standard.

Moore's book can tell us how to sugar coat discontinuous innovations to
minimize the -chasm-.  But before we delve into the gory details of how to
reach the mass market with the idiotically complex monsters that are today's
software products (including my own), let's reflect for a moment on the
tremendous power that OS/2 puts into the hands of programmers to design simple
things.

We really -can- craft simple products that cut the Gordian Knot, and eliminate
the -chasm- by eliminating the -discontinuity- altogether.


#: 69575 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  12:44:41
Sb: #69528-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > the tremendous power that OS/2 puts into the hands of programmers
 > to design simple things.
 >
 > We really -can- craft simple products that cut the Gordian Knot,
 > and eliminate the -chasm- by eliminating the -discontinuity-
 > altogether

Well said. There is elegance in simplicity. End-users don't need more
features, they need better features.

However, this leads to a couple of questions:

1) Who defines what is "simple" and what is not? IMO - that choice must be
left to the ultimate user of the interface, i.e. the interface must have the
capability to adapt to the needs of the individual.

2) Are end-users, of the current generation guis/oouis, satisfied with their
current environment? Does the world really want to take the time to learn a
new interface?

3) What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

4) Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

But, I must admit that I find the notion of small, modular, simple, objects to
be appealing.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 28-Dec-95 03:51]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69585 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:09:33
Sb: #69575-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

According to Moore, the discontinuity attracts Innovators but is a negative
for everyone else.  For Early Adopters, discontinuity is an irritation; for
the Early Majority, it is a show stopper.


>> Who defines what is "simple" and what is not?

Our millions of years of human evolution define what is simple.  Our brains
are hard coded to classify unfamiliar objects that we encounter.  The way that
we explore and probe newly encountered objects to discover what they can be
used for is also hardcoded.  (Just watch any 2 year old who is given an
unfamiliar toy.)

Jerry, IMO, we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts
with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop objects that can be
encountered in the same way.


>> the interface must have the capability to adapt to the needs of the
individual.

Perhaps this is equivalent to saying that the object must be sentient.


>> Does the world really want to take the time to learn a new interface?

In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all.  They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, and (2) that they are sentient.  Roughly speaking,
they are alive, aware of their surroundings, including you, and can be trained
in roughly the same way that a dog can be trained.


>> What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

The only general answer to that is that the marketing should target the
innovators first, as Moore advises.  IOW, you target the "children".  Look at
Moore p.17.  Let's replace the labels as follows:

Innovators: Children;    Early Adopters: Teenagers;    Early Majority:
Parents;    Late Majority: Empty Nesters;    Laggards: Retirees.

Is it a coincidence that the Chasm falls right where we'd expect it, between
the Teenagers and the people who are now parenting?  Think of the Chasm as
another word for Generation Gap.  Moore's categories seem to correspond
closely to the human life cycle.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69614 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  20:52:40
Sb: #69585-#framing the problem
Fm: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

>>we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts with a new
object, and then learn how to create desktop objects that can be encountered
in the same way.<<

I love the activity of considering how young humans develop, but I hate
tasting software objects. :-)

Greg


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69621 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  21:59:08
Sb: #69614-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166

>> tasting software objects

I knew that I was going to be reminded what 2 year olds do -first- with -any-
newly encountered object.

Here's the challenge:  What would a 2 year old, who is familiar with the OS/2
desktop and how to use the mouse, do if a big, colorful icon appeared?  She
can't taste it, but she could...

...pick it up... drop it... throw it... shake it... click on the pretty
colors... watch it as it moved...

That's the kind of initial interaction that I have in mind.  The ability to do
the above things is hardcoded into us.  When we activated the object by, say,
throwing it, the object would respond in a familiar way.  Maybe it would
scream, and say ouch when it hit another object.  Then it would do something
that would communicate something about its nature.  Maybe, in a voice, it
would say, "You can communicate with people all over the world with me, and
I'll show you how, if you'll only stop throwing ;me and shaking me."  Then it
would gradually draw the human into a familiarity with the finer points of its
behavior.

Toddlers would be our expert consultants when we design the initial
interaction aspects of a new object.


#: 69653 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  10:31:55
Sb: #69621-#framing the problem
Fm: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

>>Toddlers would be our expert consultants<<

I was being flippant about the taste aspect.  My son, as soon as he could
walk, specialized in trotting over to discarded cigarette butts on the street
and popping them in...  I never let him forget how much work it was to keep
him alive.

>>...pick it up... drop it... throw it... shake it...<<

You make some good points.  I think many users do some of what you are
suggesting, especially kids because they are not afraid of "breaking" it.  If
we can make our software objects robust enough so that they respond to this --
without breaking or wreaking havoc -- it would be good first step.

Regards,

Greg Bourassa


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69656 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  11:18:13
Sb: #69653-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: GREGORY BOURASSA 76150,1166 (X)

>> If we can make our software objects robust enough so that they respond to
this -- without breaking or wreaking havoc -- it would be good first step.

I'm not trying to set a higher standard regarding reliability.  The idea is
more to change the way that we approach the human interface.  Instead of
giving the user an inanimate object with 377 buttons, guages, and dials, let's
give the user a living, breathing, semi-intelligent sentient object.

A-Life (artificial life) is more than just a scientific curiosity.  It could
become the new trend for user interfaces.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69685 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  18:09:39
Sb: #69656-#framing the problem
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > I'm not trying to set a higher standard regarding reliability.
 > The idea is more to change the way that we approach the human
 > interface.

Perhaps the two shouldn't be exclusive! I'd treat a 19th c. serving dish in a
completely different way to a Corningware one.

There are some software packages that I am truly afraid of -- not willing to
explore to see if I can do more than I need to. This is contrary to my normal
relationship with software, and I tend to replace the more fragile stuff when
it is practical to do so.

"Sentient" objects are fine; I quite like the idea (though perhaps in a
limited implementation)! But I'd rather have sentient virtual chickens to
sentient virtual eggs....

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69696 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  21:09:01
Sb: #69685-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10 (X)

>> Perhaps the two shouldn't be exclusive! I'd treat a 19th c. serving dish in
a completely different way to a Corningware one.

What I meant was that making our objects sentient might not require additional
time or money; it might just be a matter of changing the way that we visualize
our products.  Improving reliability, however, requires additional resources.


>> I'd rather have sentient virtual chickens to sentient virtual eggs....

WDYM?  Could you be suggesting that I provide a toolkit that would let you
play with the idea of crafting sentient C++ objects? Hmmm.  That would be fun,
and it would be fun to have other people to share the experience with.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69730 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  04:48:37
Sb: #69696-#framing the problem
Fm: Samuel G. Little 70544,10
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > What I meant was that making our objects sentient might not
 > require additional time or money;

*Somebody* is going to have to do the work; and I doubt they'll do it for
free....

 >  >> I'd rather have sentient virtual chickens to sentient virtual
 > eggs....
 >
 > WDYM?  Could you be suggesting that I provide a toolkit that would
 > let you play with the idea of crafting sentient C++ objects?

No, not quite (I knew that analogy didn't work quite right). What I meant was
that chickens are considerably more versatile and considerably less fragile
than the eggs they came from ... not that eggs don't have their uses!

There's also the matter of maturity. I have a small problem with Moore's
model: I don't think it holds up to granularization. For example, depending on
the particular product category, I might fit in anywhere between innovator and
early majority. More often, I'm not sure I fit into any of his categories
(meaning, I'll "adopt" a dead, never popular technology if it makes sense to
me -- a corrollary, I guess, of his continuous v. discontinuous product
concept.

  --Sam. (Warped & using GCP 2.22)
    [e-mail]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69803 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:24:48
Sb: #69730-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Samuel G. Little 70544,10 (X)

>> depending on the particular product category, I might fit in anywhere
between innovator and early majority. More often, I'm not sure I fit into any
of his categories (meaning, I'll "adopt" a dead, never popular technology if
it makes sense to me

Moore's diagram can be viewed as a way to classify individuals, i.e. Fred is a
"late majority" and Mary is an "early adaptor".  We can call this an exercise
in "global" or "unconditional" classification.  In contrast, we can classify
individuals in reference to a particular new OS/2 product and then reclassify
them in reference to another product.

For example, when DeScribe released its editor, I might have been a "late
majority" simply because I was pulling my hair out solving problems with my
own business, and would have had no interest in a new way to do -anything-.
Three weeks later, I might have been an "innovator", who would have enjoyed
taking some time to play with what DeScribe had come up with.

I do not think that Moore's labels apply to individuals globally or
permanently.  They are, however, useful for classifying potential users at a
given moment of time in reference to a specific product category.  For
example, if I was planning to release a desktop calendar object at the end of
January, Moore's message to me is, "Jon, at the end of January all OS/2 users
will be distributed among Moore's categories with respect to desktop
calendars."

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69561 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  09:49:36
Sb: #69543-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Every tried to cook in someone else's kitchen, or work in someone else's
office?

Good analogy.  Perhaps we need to give our products sentience.  Using your
analogy, it would be easy for me to walk into your kitchen and be instantly
productive if I could talk to the kitchen and tell it that I want to serve a
formal dinner for 8 featuring turkey, sweet potatoes, and salad and that I am
an experienced cook.  The kitchen would then supervise me, taking account of
both my knowledge of cooking and my ignorance of where tools and supplies are
stored.  It would also suggest that cranberries be added to the dinner plan.

I've been interested in software "sentience" since 1980, and since 1992 have
worked to build sentience into the software that I write.  Lest you think that
I'm blue-skying here, one of the three applications programming interfaces to
IdeaFarm (tm) Meterware Services is sentient.  It can be done.  After
mastering SOM, that's might be the next step in our development as OS/2
programmers.

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69605 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  19:07:14
Sb: #69561-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > Perhaps we need to give our products sentience.

An interesting challenges. But perhaps somewhat overy ambitious given the
limited success that the industry has had to date in designing this type of
software.

I would be satisfied with a heuristic interface that would learn from
experience with the user.

 > if I could talk to the kitchen and tell it

But you can not do that today and there is no technology on the horizon that
will be able to offer this in the near term.

However, wrt, computer interfaces, it should be possible for you to walk
around with a PCCARD that would contain all details of your interface. Plug it
in to any box, get your interface. Or, we could follow the X approach and have
any terminal offer the interface of choice after a simple login.

 > one of the three applications programming interfaces to IdeaFarm
 > (tm) Meterware Services is sentient.

Please tell me more.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 28-Dec-95 17:54]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69607 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  19:33:56
Sb: #69605-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011

>> "one of the three applications programming interfaces to IdeaFarm (tm)
Meterware Services is sentient." Please tell me more.

Jerry, I've replied in GO OS2SHARE.


#: 69585 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:09:33
Sb: #69575-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

According to Moore, the discontinuity attracts Innovators but is a negative
for everyone else.  For Early Adopters, discontinuity is an irritation; for
the Early Majority, it is a show stopper.


>> Who defines what is "simple" and what is not?

Our millions of years of human evolution define what is simple.  Our brains
are hard coded to classify unfamiliar objects that we encounter.  The way that
we explore and probe newly encountered objects to discover what they can be
used for is also hardcoded.  (Just watch any 2 year old who is given an
unfamiliar toy.)

Jerry, IMO, we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts
with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop objects that can be
encountered in the same way.


>> the interface must have the capability to adapt to the needs of the
individual.

Perhaps this is equivalent to saying that the object must be sentient.


>> Does the world really want to take the time to learn a new interface?

In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all.  They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, and (2) that they are sentient.  Roughly speaking,
they are alive, aware of their surroundings, including you, and can be trained
in roughly the same way that a dog can be trained.


>> What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

The only general answer to that is that the marketing should target the
innovators first, as Moore advises.  IOW, you target the "children".  Look at
Moore p.17.  Let's replace the labels as follows:

Innovators: Children;    Early Adopters: Teenagers;    Early Majority:
Parents;    Late Majority: Empty Nesters;    Laggards: Retirees.

Is it a coincidence that the Chasm falls right where we'd expect it, between
the Teenagers and the people who are now parenting?  Think of the Chasm as
another word for Generation Gap.  Moore's categories seem to correspond
closely to the human life cycle.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69675 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  15:14:06
Sb: #69585-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon:

 > we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts
 > with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop objects
 > that can be encountered in the same way.

An thought provoking post. I agree with you but want to make sure that we also
consider the heuristic nature of dealing with a new object. ie: the second
time the object is encountered the behavior is modified. By the 5th time the
type of interaction may be quite different. By the time the child is 5 they
may have developed a completely new attitude wrt the object.

 > Roughly speaking, they are alive, aware of their surroundings,
  > including you, and can be trained in roughly the same way that a
 > dog can be trained.

I agree. But is this really possible with today's desktop technology?




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 29-Dec-95 01:38]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69695 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  21:08:54
Sb: #69675-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> the heuristic nature of dealing with a new object...  By the time the child
is 5 they may have developed a completely new attitude wrt the object.

Perhaps what I'm getting at (I'm not sure...) is that a dog is -very- complex,
if you frame the problem as, "How do I operate a dog?", or, "How do I use a
dog?", or, "What can I do with this dog?".  That is the way that we force
users to frame the problem of establishing a relationship with today's
software products.  In turn, that is why we are here talking about
"discontinuous innovations" and the "chasm".

But 2 year olds don't have any trouble establishing a relationship with a dog.
It would never occur to them to frame the problem in the above ways.  A two
year old frames the problem as, "Gee, look at that flapping tongue... What
will happen if I kiss it?"  Instant relationship.  Instant engagement.
Instant familiarity.  Three years later, the relationship has certainly
changed.  It is infinitely deeper than what any user ever experiences with
today's software products, yet that depth in relationship occurs effortlessly.


>> is this really possible with today's desktop technology?

Answer 1: Operating a dog is more complicated than operating ZOC.  The problem
might be that we design products to be operated, not products to be played
with.

Answer 2: Yes, one can construct C++ objects that are sentient.  If the
object's "environment" is simple enough, the code becomes trivial (e.g. about
100 lines for the complete definition of a sentient class).  Writing sentient
C++ objects is not fundamentally challenging.  It's just the idea that is
unfamiliar.  The code itself is mundane.  Jerry, if you are comfortable
reading C++ code, then you would easily be able to read the code for Sally
Sales (tm).

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69788 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  02:06:32
Sb: #69695-framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > The problem might be that we design products to be operated, not
 > products to be played with.

As I've mentioned before, I like your POV. <g>

 > If the object's "environment" is simple enough, the code becomes
 > trivial (e.g. about 100 lines for the complete definition of a
 > sentient class).

I see I have some more research to do before I can continue this discussion.
Thanks for the info.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 30-Dec-95 18:59]


#: 69331 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    24-Dec-95  22:09:56
Sb: #69320-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Esther Schindler [EXEC] 72241,1417 (X)

>> How do you see it otherwise?

Consider a desktop object that, in terms of user friendliness, is in the same
category as physical desktop objects like pens, pads of paper, and staple
removers.  I think that we will have many such OS/2 products within five
years.  As meterware, they'll be distributed freely; users will just download
them and start using them.

Running an international operation that distributes a product like that to a
mass consumer market is virtually costless. In that sense, we have a product
but no company.  The creator of the product just uploads it and starts cashing
checks.  Hats will be out of style.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69706 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  22:28:27
Sb: #69331-#framing the problem
Fm: Buck Bohac 70670,2352
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Hi Jon,

 > Consider a desktop object that, in terms of user friendliness, is
 > in the same category as physical desktop objects like pens, pads
 > of paper, and staple removers.  I think that we will have many
 > such OS/2 products within five years.  As meterware, they'll be
 > distributed freely; users will just download them and start using
 > them.

 > Running an international operation that distributes a product like
 > that to a mass consumer market is virtually costless. In that
 > sense, we have a product but no company.  The creator of the
 > product just uploads it and starts cashing checks.  Hats will be
 > out of style.

Nice dream!

The reality, at least now, is that your pen and paper become very popular. One
company wants to buy 1000 pieces, but they want them invoiced to a separate
company on a specific date because of their internal accounting systems.
Another company wants to know if you can do them in a different color for a
special project their working on.  Somebody else wants you to spend some
marketing money with their organization because they have a complementary
product that used together would increase sales for both of you. And on and
on.

What started out as a simple one person operation can't be handled by one
person any more.  What do you do?  Do you continue to program and improve your
product and ignore the other opportunities?  Do you take on the other
immediate opportunities and let your product development slip behind schedule?
If you are truly successful, you end up having a support staff.  The support
staff starts to need more support.  Pretty soon you end up with company
dynamics and you start asking the question, "How can my discontinuous
innovation be brought to market by my conventional company"?

Buck

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69804 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:24:51
Sb: #69706-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Buck Bohac 70670,2352

>> Nice dream!

Buck, are you sitting down?  The infrastructure that can make that dream a
reality for OS/2 desktop objects is now completely in place.  As soon as Terry
and I are sure that it works, we're going to start recruiting programmers.  To
illustrate, I'll respond to your questions by assuming that we're talking
about a meterware "pen" that is an OS/2 desktop object:


>> your pen and paper become very popular. One company wants to buy 1000
pieces, but they want them invoiced to a separate company on a specific date
because of their internal accounting systems.

Users don't buy the pen.  They just download it, place it on all of the
desktops where they want to use it, and start using it.  No one submits a
requisition.  No one issues a PO.  The usage of the pen incrementally affects
the size of the IdeaFarm refills that are shipped on standing order by IFO to
the company.  The adoption of the pen throughout the company does not result
in a single administrative task for anyone.  The only effect that it has is
that the company's budget for IdeaFarm refills will need to rise.


>> Another company wants to know if you can do them in a different color for a
special project their working on.

At this point, the vendor of the pen can separate the core function from the
(customizeable) layer above it.  The core function is then uploaded as a
meterware part that provides the pen's "core".  The outer shell of the pen,
which can be supplied by either the same or another meterware author, is then
uploaded.  As the market grows, the original author can specialize in
improving the core part, letting other authors specialize in providing shells
of various colors, sizes, shapes.


>> Somebody else wants you to spend some marketing money with their
organization because they have a complementary product that used together
would increase sales for both of you.

The meterware market will be characterized by zero resistance to sales,
because there is no longer a sale.  Users just put any object that looks
interesting onto their desktop, and start playing with it.  There is no moment
when the sale is closed, when the user "buys" anything.  In such a market, the
nature and objective of market communications will change.


>> What started out as a simple one person operation can't be handled by one
person any more.

Buck, meterware radically simplifies the whole process of moving product from
vendor to user.  In a meterware world, there will still be a need for an
Indelible Blue Catalog, but the focus will shift from generating sales to
generating usage.  Indelible Blue will evolve into a publisher of one or more
"how-to" books that show users how to solve problems by using particular
meterware products.  Your revenue will come from agreements that give you a
small percentage of the payments that IFO makes to the individual authors.
You will need to organize a company (maybe), but the individual authors will
not.


>> What do you do?  Do you continue to program and improve your product and
ignore the other opportunities?  Do you take on the other immediate
opportunities and let your product development slip behind schedule? If you
are truly successful, you end up having a support staff.

I'm facing these pressures right now with IdeaFarm Operations.  What I
envision is that IFO becomes a complex organization of OS/2 users who receive
incentive payments to perform the services that are needed.  Rather than
building a company, my ambition is to build a complex interconnected OS/2
community of independent authors, testers, translators, marketers, and
writers, who all cooperate in the production of desktop objects and parts.

So you see, I really am serious about making it possible for people to bring
products to market without forming companies.  I hope that you will stay in
touch as Terry and I launch this.


#: 69585 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:09:33
Sb: #69575-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

According to Moore, the discontinuity attracts Innovators but is a negative
for everyone else.  For Early Adopters, discontinuity is an irritation; for
the Early Majority, it is a show stopper.


>> Who defines what is "simple" and what is not?

Our millions of years of human evolution define what is simple.  Our brains
are hard coded to classify unfamiliar objects that we encounter.  The way that
we explore and probe newly encountered objects to discover what they can be
used for is also hardcoded.  (Just watch any 2 year old who is given an
unfamiliar toy.)

Jerry, IMO, we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts
with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop objects that can be
encountered in the same way.


>> the interface must have the capability to adapt to the needs of the
individual.

Perhaps this is equivalent to saying that the object must be sentient.


>> Does the world really want to take the time to learn a new interface?

In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all.  They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, and (2) that they are sentient.  Roughly speaking,
they are alive, aware of their surroundings, including you, and can be trained
in roughly the same way that a dog can be trained.


>> What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

The only general answer to that is that the marketing should target the
innovators first, as Moore advises.  IOW, you target the "children".  Look at
Moore p.17.  Let's replace the labels as follows:

Innovators: Children;    Early Adopters: Teenagers;    Early Majority:
Parents;    Late Majority: Empty Nesters;    Laggards: Retirees.

Is it a coincidence that the Chasm falls right where we'd expect it, between
the Teenagers and the people who are now parenting?  Think of the Chasm as
another word for Generation Gap.  Moore's categories seem to correspond
closely to the human life cycle.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69707 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    29-Dec-95  22:28:31
Sb: #69585-#framing the problem
Fm: Buck Bohac 70670,2352
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Hi Jon,

 > Our millions of years of human evolution define what is simple.
 > Our brains are hard coded to classify unfamiliar objects that we
 > encounter.  The way that we explore and probe newly encountered
 > objects to discover what they can be used for is also hardcoded.
 > (Just watch any 2 year old who is given an unfamiliar toy.)
 >
 > Jerry, IMO, we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler
 > interacts with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop
 > objects that can be encountered in the same way.

I definitely think things should be simpler, but people are different.  I
think your analogy is too simple.  For example, my wife and I almost always
come to the same conclusions, have the same goals, and make the same
decisions, but our paths are radically different.  Given a circular path to
travel, she would start exploring clockwise, I would start counterclockwise.
We both end up in the same place.  Given an unfamiliar object, she would try
feel it, touch it, try to activate it, etc. whereas I would try to figure out
how to take it apart.  We both eventually figure it out decide if it's useful
to us.

I can't see how any sentient object can anticipate every interaction.  One of
the things I really enjoy is seeing how end users wind up using software
products.  Very often it is completely out of the realm of what the developer
had in mind.  People all have similar characteristics, but when it comes down
to the detail, the hard coding has a lot of loose wires and stray bits and
bytes.

Buck

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69805 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:24:53
Sb: #69707-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Buck Bohac 70670,2352

>> I can't see how any sentient object can anticipate every interaction.

They don't.  A sentient object has a personality.  You and your wife would
each have different experiences while encountering the object, but the result
would be the same:  You would both become familiar with the object.  That
would be possible because the object would be "sane", i.e. its personality and
behavior would be consistent.

I hope that we're not building castles in the air here.  Perhaps we should
suspend this conversation about sentient desktop objects until we have a real
live one to play with and discuss.  I've claimed that it would be possible to
demonstrate the technology today without much work.  Perhaps I'll be able to
do that sometime in 1996.


#: 69575 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  12:44:41
Sb: #69528-#framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

 > the tremendous power that OS/2 puts into the hands of programmers
 > to design simple things.
 >
 > We really -can- craft simple products that cut the Gordian Knot,
 > and eliminate the -chasm- by eliminating the -discontinuity-
 > altogether

Well said. There is elegance in simplicity. End-users don't need more
features, they need better features.

However, this leads to a couple of questions:

1) Who defines what is "simple" and what is not? IMO - that choice must be
left to the ultimate user of the interface, i.e. the interface must have the
capability to adapt to the needs of the individual.

2) Are end-users, of the current generation guis/oouis, satisfied with their
current environment? Does the world really want to take the time to learn a
new interface?

3) What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

4) Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

But, I must admit that I find the notion of small, modular, simple, objects to
be appealing.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 28-Dec-95 03:51]


There is 1 Reply.


#: 69755 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  13:49:16
Sb: #69575-#framing the problem
Fm: Charles Stirling 100010,1433
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

 > But, I must admit that I find the notion of small, modular, simple,
 >  objects to be appealing.

Why?  From the developers point of view or the users?  As a user, do I want to
have the bother of integrating, of keeping up to date, of tracking bugs, of
even finding all the simple objects I need to do a job?

In a way what I want, as a user, is almost the opposit.  One application that
does everything ever conceaved and which I can simply ignore the bits I don't
need now.  Updates that update everything at once, etc.  Maybe the reason the
fully integrated office suits actually do sell better then the mix to get the
best.

This may suggest the situation of developer ->integrater ->customer.

Charles

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69794 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  04:40:33
Sb: #69755-framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Charles Stirling 100010,1433

 > In a way what I want, as a user, is almost the opposit.  One
 > application that does everything ever conceaved and which I can
 > simply ignore the bits I don't need now.

I think that there are a couple of points here:

1) Part of the problem, IMO, is that we keep thinking about applications. MS -
has a concept of document-centric computing. While I may not agree with their
implementation, the concept makes sense. However I would change the phrase to
"object-centric". Objects are much more neutral it what they may reference.

2) While objects are implemented in code, the end user should not be exposed
to the fact that they are code. IOW - Administrative functions should happen
with no more bother than having to change the battery in your wrist watch.

3) Writing one large program that does every thing just won't work. a) No
program will ever have every thing, and b) as the number of functions
increase, the set of users that require access to all the functions decrease
which c) means that a great amount of personal system resources will be
required to hold the entire program. eg: Consider the system resources
required to run today's desktop systems and compare them to the one's from 6
years ago.

4) To better leverage the raw hw power on the desktop we must be able to
provide "focused" environments that are better tailored to the needs of their
users. Failure to do so means a constant state of expansion to bigger and
bigger systems with no significant ROI. eg: does the "typical" office worker
write more memos today than 6 years ago?

5) Consider the office desktop computer as nothing more than an "office
supply". We buy office supplies (ie: staples, photocopy paper, pens, pads)
from many different suppliers (though frequently we use an "integrator", ie: a
retail office supply shop). For items that may require maintence (ie: a PBX or
a photocopier) we buy the service. The tech comes in as required and performs
the service, either proactive or reactive, as required. Our computer desktop
objects should be treated the same way.

6) All this leads me back to my original issue re: the ability of today's
technology to implement such an integrate, seamless, "playing field". That is
why your way, may be the best way, for the moment.

But for myself, I will avoid that "single large program" for as long as
possible. That is unless some would like to donate a fully-loaded 133MHZ P5 so
I could check it out for an unspecified period of time. <g>




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 31-Dec-95 03:20]


#: 69528 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    27-Dec-95  23:52:28
Sb: #69518-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

>> we need to transcend the limits of a physical desktop and offer the user
objects that are more user friendly than what he is used to.

What can be more user friendly than a pad of paper?  Let's use pads of paper
and ball point pens as our standard of simplicity and intuitiveness.  Let each
of us devote the next two years to disciplined study to learn how to craft
software objects that meet that standard.

Moore's book can tell us how to sugar coat discontinuous innovations to
minimize the -chasm-.  But before we delve into the gory details of how to
reach the mass market with the idiotically complex monsters that are today's
software products (including my own), let's reflect for a moment on the
tremendous power that OS/2 puts into the hands of programmers to design simple
things.

We really -can- craft simple products that cut the Gordian Knot, and eliminate
the -chasm- by eliminating the -discontinuity- altogether.


#: 69780 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  21:26:03
Sb: #69528-#framing the problem
Fm: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

>> What can be more user friendly than a pad of paper? <<

VI <g, d & r>

The fact is that I don't find a pad of paper to be particularly friendly. The
retrieval engine stinks. The hypertext links don't work Etc. How many times
have you tried to find a telephone number, a price or whatnot that you had
jotted down and spent an inordinate amount of time looking for the right page.
A decent PIM is much more user friendly. Not even BG could write a PIM less
user friendly than that disorderly pad of paper.

>> Let's use pads of paper and ball point pens as our standard of simplicity
and intuitiveness. <<

Lets. But lets discuss finding the information on demand, not just entering
it. From that perspective, the pad of paper is neither simple nor intuitive,
unless you have a better memory and are better organized than most people.


Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg & JOAT, Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69801 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:02:11
Sb: #69780-framing the problem
Fm: Herbert Ice 72370,2501
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

Shmuel,

  >  Not even BG could write a PIM less user friendly than that
 > disorderly pad of paper.

 Oh yes he could<g>, first he would start with 8.5x11" cut it into roughly 20
pieces, then sell you the 20 pieces, and some tape, paper clips, rubber bands,
and chewing gum, have you reassemble the paper (using MSN for the techincal
support), prior to usage.<G>.


 Jay Ice
 Iceware Inc.


#: 69585 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    28-Dec-95  14:09:33
Sb: #69575-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011 (X)

>> Is it wise, or even necessary, to eliminate the discontinuity? Does not the
perception of change motivate individuals to seek it? Would Win95 prove an
interesting case study, in this context?

According to Moore, the discontinuity attracts Innovators but is a negative
for everyone else.  For Early Adopters, discontinuity is an irritation; for
the Early Majority, it is a show stopper.


>> Who defines what is "simple" and what is not?

Our millions of years of human evolution define what is simple.  Our brains
are hard coded to classify unfamiliar objects that we encounter.  The way that
we explore and probe newly encountered objects to discover what they can be
used for is also hardcoded.  (Just watch any 2 year old who is given an
unfamiliar toy.)

Jerry, IMO, we need to think deeply about how a 2 year old toddler interacts
with a new object, and then learn how to create desktop objects that can be
encountered in the same way.


>> the interface must have the capability to adapt to the needs of the
individual.

Perhaps this is equivalent to saying that the object must be sentient.


>> Does the world really want to take the time to learn a new interface?

In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all.  They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, and (2) that they are sentient.  Roughly speaking,
they are alive, aware of their surroundings, including you, and can be trained
in roughly the same way that a dog can be trained.


>> What value can be offered to cover the cost of migration?

The only general answer to that is that the marketing should target the
innovators first, as Moore advises.  IOW, you target the "children".  Look at
Moore p.17.  Let's replace the labels as follows:

Innovators: Children;    Early Adopters: Teenagers;    Early Majority:
Parents;    Late Majority: Empty Nesters;    Laggards: Retirees.

Is it a coincidence that the Chasm falls right where we'd expect it, between
the Teenagers and the people who are now parenting?  Think of the Chasm as
another word for Generation Gap.  Moore's categories seem to correspond
closely to the human life cycle.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69781 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  21:26:10
Sb: #69585-#framing the problem
Fm: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

>> In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all. They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, <<

The problem is that the user won't pay good money to have random interesting
things happen; he has tasks to perform, and he wants the object to do useful
things. If you provide a means for the causer to cause the object to do the
things that he wants it to do, then that means is an interface, regardless of
whether it involves a mouse, a trackball or an EEG.



Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg & JOAT, Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69793 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  04:40:23
Sb: #69781-framing the problem
Fm: Jerry  Golick 71175,1011
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

 > The problem is that the user won't pay good money to have random
 > interesting things happen; he has tasks to perform, and he wants
 > the object to do useful things.

This is true, but before productivity can occur the user must understand how
to effectively use their environment. Its the process of learning, and the
quality of the final interface, wrt the personal preferences of the user,
that, IMO, is the issue.




Be seeing you,

Jerry    [Road Warrior 31-Dec-95 02:54]


#: 69780 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  21:26:03
Sb: #69528-#framing the problem
Fm: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

>> What can be more user friendly than a pad of paper? <<

VI <g, d & r>

The fact is that I don't find a pad of paper to be particularly friendly. The
retrieval engine stinks. The hypertext links don't work Etc. How many times
have you tried to find a telephone number, a price or whatnot that you had
jotted down and spent an inordinate amount of time looking for the right page.
A decent PIM is much more user friendly. Not even BG could write a PIM less
user friendly than that disorderly pad of paper.

>> Let's use pads of paper and ball point pens as our standard of simplicity
and intuitiveness. <<

Lets. But lets discuss finding the information on demand, not just entering
it. From that perspective, the pad of paper is neither simple nor intuitive,
unless you have a better memory and are better organized than most people.


Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg & JOAT, Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69806 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:24:55
Sb: #69780-#framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

>> VI <g, d & r>

I can't decode this!


>> The fact is that I don't find a pad of paper to be particularly friendly.
The retrieval engine stinks. The hypertext links don't work

This is a complaint about what you can do with a pad of paper.  It is not a
complaint about how easy it is to master the usage of a pad of paper.  IOW, do
you think that pads of paper need to be shipped with a user's manual?  Pads of
paper -are- limited in what can be done with them.  But they are a good
example of products that do not need user's manuals.

There is 1 Reply.


#: 69840 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  22:44:23
Sb: #69806-framing the problem
Fm: Des Dougan 100553,2152
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

Jon,

 >> >> VI <g, d & r>

I can't decode this!  <<

VI (or, more correctly, vi, because Unix is case-sensitive) is an extremely
user- unfriendly full-screen editor used in the Unix world. Once you learn its
commands (various upper and lower case letters, in most cases), it _is_
powerful, but the learning curve is steep (at least in this user's case <g>).

Happy new year to all OS/2 users, vendors and journalists. (God, that last bit
was hard..).

Des Dougan at 19:39:28 PT 31-Dec-95


#: 69781 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    30-Dec-95  21:26:10
Sb: #69585-#framing the problem
Fm: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066
To: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361 (X)

>> In conventional terms, our new objects won't have an interface at all. They
will just be objects that you can pick up, drop, throw, chew on, lick,
inspect, shake, touch.  When you manipulate them, you will discover that (1)
interesting things happen, <<

The problem is that the user won't pay good money to have random interesting
things happen; he has tasks to perform, and he wants the object to do useful
things. If you provide a means for the causer to cause the object to do the
things that he wants it to do, then that means is an interface, regardless of
whether it involves a mouse, a trackball or an EEG.



Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg & JOAT, Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

There are 2 Replies.


#: 69807 S20/Marketing OS/2 Apps
    31-Dec-95  12:24:56
Sb: #69781-framing the problem
Fm: Jon Duringer[IdeaFa 71732,3361
To: Shmuel Metz (Atid/2) 71054,3066

>> If you provide a means for the causer to cause the object to do the things
that he wants it to do, then that means is an interface

Consider two employees, a good one and a bad one.  To use an employee, you
must learn her interface.  The difference between a good employee and a bad
employee is that, with the latter, you are painfully aware of the presence of
the interface and of your need to learn it.  With the good employee, you
aren't aware of an "interface" at all; you just interact with her in a natural
way and she produces results.

Today's software products are analogous to bad employees who are also
brainless.  In addition to dealing with recalcitrancy, the user must deal with
insubordination and mindlessness. <s>