Charles Gallant

As of yesterday, Google has added traffic reports for major cities to Google Maps. Their growing collecting of data related to physical (mappable) space seems limitless in its potential. They could…

- Integrate this data into their “Get directions” feature on Google Maps, and suggest an alternate (faster) route.

- Allow commuters to subscribe to RSS feeds about the highways that they frequent, making for automatically informed updates.

- Keep track of which particular roads certain users were subscribed to, estimate their traveling needs, and deliver custom ads. For example, if a user’s data suggests that he goes up to Vermont every weekend, show them ads for ski boots on the Friday before the trip.

- Partner with car navigation systems, and offer customized ads/coupons to people stuck in traffic. For example: “Looks like you’ll be here a while, and it’s dinner time. Stop over at the next Bob’s Big Boy. It’s just 700ft ahead”.

- Keep track of regular statistics on traffic conditions, and provide insights to newcomers. For example, major arteries departing from Manhattan tend to slow down on Fridays after 6:00pm. For some highways, they should be able to roughly estimate future traffic conditions.

- Combine their calendar data into this system, and sync it up with events. For example, if a large accident happens close to a particular meeting (Google Calendar can store an event’s location), it can send notices out to all those who share the calendar.

- Create traffic APIs of traffic data to be accessed by car navigation systems for additional traffic info.

- Use the chips that they’ve planted inside the public to start work on a sidewalk traffic system.

A few months ago I wrote a post about a guitarist named John Petrucci. I used to have a section of my site dedicated to posting silly crap, and this fit right in. I called my post “John Petrucci: Gear”, and then forgot about it. Since then, I’ve written about many other things, all unrelated to John and his guitar shredding fury.

In looking at this site’s traffic reports, I noticed something interesting. Apparently, when people search Google for “john petrucci gear”, my site is on the front page of search results. I’m even surprisingly high in the ranks when searching for just “john petrucci”. For a moment, I thought of how easy (and ridiculous) it would be to support this new traffic. In a way, this was a strange way of the community telling me that my site is a useful resource for this guitarist, and that people find what I wrote about him useful. All I did was post a link that makes fun of him… what if I had a whole website that makes fun of him?

Today’s linking/sharing/searching community has the power to dictate importance and relevance wherever they want. If my site’s homepage design fails to display my most important content, users (and search engines) will link to what does. In some sense, the Web2.0 mindset has made the web designer even more passive. Technologies like RSS readers, webclip widgets, and Pipes can let users pull information off this site entirely, reformat it, and utilize it however they want. Sites designers can suggest importance via visual cues and architecture, but in the end, it’s the community’s decision. My ability to react to the community’s indirect suggestions becomes my most important design skill.

So will websites of the future be huge pages of collected content? How can web publishers and advertisers get people to visit their site directly if the indirect method is so much easier? Why would someone want to read my site if the RSS feed did just as good of a job? John Petrucci fans (who may have arrived at this page because of the many occurrences of his name), what do you think about all this?

Facebook just announced “gifts,” which are little pictures that you can post on someone’s profile.  The pictures are small icons designed by Susan Kare, who designed some of Apple’s original set of icons in the early 80’s.  Each one costs a dollar to give, and the net proceeds go to breast cancer research.

This is a brilliant idea, and is another example of Facebook really understanding the type of communication that their network fosters.  It extends the idea of poking, which was the start of a new “safe” method of contacting someone.  In other words, if I want to contact someone, a poke is risk free.  I don’t have to commit to a phone call (where my voice is on the line), I don’t have to commit to an email (where my words are on the line), and I don’t have to commit to a text message (where my message needs to be justified).  To many Facebookers, a poke is the most casual way to let someone know that you’re thinking about them… until now.

‘Gifts’ give the users an excuse to get in touch with someone.  They’re a reason for sending a message.  A reason to remind someone of your existence.  Calling someone you haven’t spoken with since high school is much harder than sending them a little sticker in the name of charity.

And speaking of charity, I think this is a great example of marketing for good.  Social networks have a great deal of untapped potential energy, and this is a great way to harness communication itself for the good of breast cancer research!

A friend at Renegade just sent me this video, and it’s something that deserves a few words.  As a web designer / programmer, I’ve been able to see the narrative exposed in this video unfold first hand.  This video does a terrific job summarizing the change from Web 1.0 to 2.0, and more importantly, the cultural questions that this change in technology is bringing about.  These questions are very connected to the reason I write & publish in this blog.

Check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&eurl=
By Digital Ethnography

I’ve been using LinkedIn for a few weeks now, and I’m pretty impressed at its success. Their network intends to foster your career aspirations, and to help extend your web of “business contacts.” They’ve separated themselves from the juvenile tendencies of Facebook & MySpace, and in doing so, have assembled a powerful toolset for connecting with the people you need for your career.

While it has the advantage of targeting a different demographic than MySpace & Facebook, LinkedIn has taken extra steps to highlight this distinction. Clever messaging like “connect with former classmates,” and “make your next career move” all seem to be hinting at “don’t use this for finding chicks to make out with.”

Their deviation from these networks extends beyond brand messaging & design. The tools themselves help users make connections while reminding them of the LinkedIn mindset.

A perfect example of this is their standardization of the the resume format. Everyone’s list of credentials looks the same, leveling the playing field. This immediately puts the focus on the person’s professional accomplishments, and cuts through the fat of any frivolous visual niceties. There’s no video uploading, no posting your favorite pics, and no “poking” other users.

Other tools include vCard exporting, Outlook plug-ins, and something called “jobinsider,” which is meant to interface with Monster, CareerBuilder, and Craigslist. Most important, however, are the tools related to connecting with someone. The network supports all the things you would want to do with a business contact, such as giving/receiving recommendations, requesting introductions, and inquiring about services. If someone isn’t good to work with, don’t recommend them when your network asks for their services.

I’ll be interested to see how LinkedIn manages its growing number of users, and if it’ll someday be pressured into introducing the more “juvenile” world of media sharing. For now, it seems like avoiding it is a great idea.