Though it looks pretty simple, the technology behind the iKat opens up a lot of possibilities for augmented reality apps. The technology allows a phone to recognize spaces in 3D and add virtual objects into them in realtime, which could be used to show directions in perspective, play games based on your local environment, and everything in between.

TechCrunch has a somewhat related article, In Mobile, Fragmentation is Forever. Deal With It. With new platforms and OS’s come new design and development challenges. Graceful degradation, which never worked well to begin with, won’t cut it when you have many, many levels of degradation to support. User experiences will have to be more specific to a platform. And the fragmented nature of devices outside of the conventional PC will likely not go away.

I remember way back in 1999 observing my first user test, I was working for frog design on a web site for a large direct sales computer manufacturer. The client had taken it upon themselves to hire a third party to conduct user testing on the site which frog, in collaboration with the client’s own web team, had just launched. It was both awesome and horrifying to see users actually using that which we had created. Some of our design decisions succeeded exactly as we thought they would while some, that we had thought were pretty simple and straight forward, baffled users to point where they could not complete necessary tasks. The whole experience was very enlightening.

When I got back from user testing I talked to one of the managers at frog about user testing and asked why frog didn’t as a matter of process include it in their projects. I was told that frog doesn’t do user testing. Period. The argument against it was users often do not respond well to new or innovative ideas (and frog had built its reputation on new and innovative ideas.) New or innovative work will rarely test well, thus negating the relevance of user testing.

Since I left frog I’ve heard that they have changed this policy (if it ever was an official policy, rather than just a general stance by the management.) And since I’ve left frog I’ve gotten to work with a lot of user experience professionals. Some of which have insisted that everything be tested. Every decision should be in some way be run by users. I’ve seen the User Centered Design methodology be taken to great lengths, where paper prototypes, then wireframes, then design comps, then the finished site are tested revised and retested until the data shows what the usability experts are looking for. If a user does not figure it out on the first try, it’s a fail.

I’ve also worked with user experience professionals who have demonstrated that there are ways to test new ideas and that not all data from user tests should be taken at face value. Just because someone doesn’t figure something out on the first try doesn’t always make it wrong. Sometimes it’s when a user doesn’t figure it out on the second or third try that it means something is wrong, and the fact that the user found something compelling enough to try to use it multiple times should be given some weight. Innovative ideas introduce a learning curve, it’s whether or not users are willing to overcome the learning curve that should be paid attention to.

Designers should always listen to their users. Designers should really listen to everyone, you never know where a good idea might come from. But being a good designer means knowing which ideas to use and which feedback to listen to. Good designers also know when to take a risk and try something new and when to stick to convention. My own philosophy on the subject is based on a quote from Charles and Ray Eames, “Innovate as a last resort.” If an method exists that users are familiar with, use it. Use it unless you think you’ve really got something new that works, and when you do, test it. And if no one gets it in testing, weigh the costs versus benefits before going forward anyway.

A few years back, Levis opened the new and improved Levis Store in San Francisco. Along with tailoring your jeans, the store would also remember your measurements. You could go into the store, walk up to a terminal, and via a DHTML interface, place an order to have new jeans made up on the spot, just for you. The system would let you choose between relaxed fit versus snug, black versus blue, strait leg versus tapered, etc. And you could bet that this info was stored for marketing purposes. I think this info was even available online for a while, so you could order more custom fit jeans. But the idea of storing info about customers in retail outlets never really caught on.

Now, the world of online/offline commerce is a little older and a little wiser, and a little greedier. CNN is running a very interesting article about the use of smart shopping carts and loyalty/discount card programs in grocery stores. Both of which are designed to collect information on, and in some cases make recommendations for, what individuals buy. Some of this info is collected anonymously, most of it not. This info is then used to determine how people shop, what they shop for, which promotions work and who the most loyal customers are. Much like online cookies, the potential to use and abuse of this information is huge. Is this information kept confidential, or is it sold to various marketing data collection groups? How complex are the customer profiles, do they know I’m a vegetarian? If I buy Tide, lighter fluid and a box of nails all in one visit to the store, are they going to call the cops? Or are they going to give me, and me alone, special discounts on oatmeal raisin cookies cause I buy them so much? Or how about reminding me when I haven’t bought toilet paper in a few months, so I don’t have to deal with the ugly and embarrassing consequences of completely running out? Should we fear or embrace this technology?

Marketers often use teenagers’ behavior on Facebook as anecdotal evidence that they do not mind handing over information. But 55 percent of respondents from 18 to 24 objected to tailored advertising.

The fact that there are people who are willing broadcast things like their location and current state of mind, but are not comfortable with tracked ads, leads me to believe that there is a large disconnect between what people say they are comfortable with and what they are actually comfortable with. That and companies like Amazon and Google have largely been built using user data to drive marketing and sales, and they’ve been very open about it. Amazon tracks users in all kinds of ways to give you recommendations and related products, and people like those features. G-mail reads your e-mail (reads your e-mail!!!) to serve you ads, and it’s the most successful web e-mail service. And none of this is new. Retailers have been using discount loyalty cards and coupons for decades to track what people buy.

One thing I’d like to know is do the people surveyed believe that they are being identified by name by online tracking? Online tracking (ideally) does aim to identify unique people, but does not identify people by name. So, the companies doing the tracking know that user 092389 likes the band The Cure, but they don’t know exactly who user 092389 is. It’s the difference between possible invasion of privacy, and group tracking and reporting. The next question I have is, is my above assumption correct, do the companies doing the tracking stick to ID’ing people anonymously, or are they really trying to determine a user’s name? If they are, then there is cause for concern.

I’ve been a long time fan of the concept of a super PDA. I had a iPaq pocket pc back in the day, I have both an iPhone and a netbook now. I always thought there was a market for something that was as functional as a laptop, but would fit in your pocket (or maybe small hand bag). Ideally what I had always envisioned was something that was as small as a PDA and as fast as a laptop, that could be used on its own while on the go and used with a dock with a monitor and keyboard when at a desk. One computer that does everything everywhere. Or at the very least one computer that could take the place of my laptop and PDA/smart phone.

When the Ultra Mobile PC (UMPC) platform was unveiled a couple years ago, I thought maybe my dreams had come true. But UMPC’s never took off, I’m guessing because they were too expensive and overpowered for a PDA but underpowered for most everything else. The iPhone/iTouch is easily the best phone/PDA I’ve used, but it’s not going to replace my netbook. There are still a lot of things I need a bigger screen and a little more processing power to do. Netbooks got the price right but, but not the form factor, they are still too big, I still have to have a laptop bag. With that said, my main complaint with netbooks is that the screen resolution is too low, 1024 x 600 is just a little too low to be practical.

Which poses the problem, how do you make a small, reasonably fast computer with a usable screen resolution. I think Microsoft maybe on to something with Courier. It’s not the the dock-able super PDA I was hoping for, but it’s still looks pretty cool. A tablet that can be folded up means it’s much easier to carry when not in use. And when it is in use, you have the real estate of two 7-inch-ish screens to work with. And with the nifty UI possibilities shown in the demo and I could see this being a killer device. The Courier could fill that awkward gap between PDA/smart phone and laptop, or for a lot of people, replace them all together. Assuming MS can keep these things cheap (like netbook cheap), they might have a winner on their hands.

As someone who works for a B2B company where a large percentage of our audience are still using IE6, I really hope this catches on. IE6 has become on the bane of the existence of both web developers and designers alike.

When Google released the Chrome Beta they positioned as more of a web app development platform than a browser, I wonder if that’s RockMelt’s plan as well. I could see room in the browser market for browsers that are for specific uses and end up being transparent to the end user.