Results

More and more small and medium-sized businesses are turning to Google Apps to avoid Microsoft Office’s stiff licensing fees. Google’s Premier Edition of Apps is just $50 per year per user, and they also offer a free version which has slight differences in service levels, but all the same applications. I’ve been using the standard edition for the past month as the guinea pig for our small office, and so far I’m impressed with the ease of learning, the features, and the convenience of online file-sharing. I’m very close to “drinking the Kool-Aid”, so to speak, but there are a few things about Apps that still irk me, and I hope they might be fixed in future upgrades. Take notes, Google; here is my wishlist:

• First, the biggest drawback to using Google Apps is that you cannot work offline. I’ve only run into this problem a few times, and I didn’t lose any data because of the fantastic auto-save function; in fact, many industry experts point to Google Apps as the wave of the future because of its disaster recovery possibilities. If all files were stored online, a fire or flood wouldn’t be as damaging to a business’s record-keeping. As for offline access, Google’s website suggests a workaround: “you can export your documents and spreadsheets, work on them offline, then reimport them to Docs & Spreadsheets.” In my book, that very much defeats the purpose of an online document center in the first place, but it may be a temporary problem. Rumor has it that Google is working towards limited offline functionality with Apps. So it seems that wish number one may someday come true. In the meantime, I’m of the opinion that being able to access your documents from anywhere or any computer as long as you’re online far outweighs being unable to access them when you’re offline.

• My next biggest pet peeve is a small luxury that, as a MS Word user, I had no idea I relied on so heavily. I am a sucker for auto-correct! I want my common typos, like “teh” and “taht” to be fixed for me (Word wouldn’t have let me type that sentence!). It’s a convenience to which many of us are accustomed, so I’d be surprised if it isn’t offered in the future.

• Special characters are very limited in Docs. There are just 220 characters shown in the box, and any others must be looked up by their Unicodes. I also had trouble getting it to recognize a Unicode, and I ended up having to copy and paste from a Word doc to get a subscript 2 (as in, CO₂). This will be a big limitation for businesses who produce documents and presentations in languages with accented characters or non-Roman alphabets.

• Google Apps offers no thesaurus function. It’s been an adjustment to not be able to simply right-click on a word to get a synonym. In addition, there are no footnote or endnote functions, which is very limiting for academic papers and educational use. My guess is that this will also be an added feature in a future upgrade of Apps.

• One of the greatest things about Docs is that you can save your document or spreadsheet in a myriad of different file types (.pdf, .rft, .doc, .txt, .html, .xls). Unfortunately, the same is not true for Presentations, Google’s answer to PowerPoint. You cannot export or save a presentation as a .ppt file, which is limiting for meetings where you cannot access the web or where PowerPoint is the only presentation software available. You can, however, save it as a .zip file.

• Google Apps does offer a number of shortcut buttons, and most of the standard keyboard commands work fine. The limits of these shortcuts is most clear when using the spreadsheet app. So much of what businesses do in MS Excel is memorized (and Excel is a bear to learn in the first place), and while Google mimics a lot of these commands it might not be similar enough to attract new users. Excel’s familiar toolbar is a lifesaver for spreadsheet users, and I’m afraid that Google’s spreadsheet app won’t be as smooth a switch as Docs is.

Google, as always, is very conscientious about offering support for these products. Users who are stuck can find helpful, easy-to-understand answers at http://google.com/support/a/users/. Less easy to find is a feedback forum where I can air my grievances, small and insignificant though they are. I’ll keep looking, though, because Google is one company which is always interested in user opinions. Though this wishlist is hardly exhaustive, it is a representation of the types of issues Google Apps users are having with the service. Perhaps its simply due to our over-familiarity and comfort with Microsoft products, but like it or not, Microsoft is the industry standard. Google has made obvious concessions in design and function based on MS Office suite, and I suspect they will continue to do so with upgrades to Apps in the future.

Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have asked the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to investigate recent actions by internet service providers. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have all been involved in widely-publicized scandals that affect how ISPs are filtering or censoring the content their customers can see on the web. These telecom giants not only have the power and technology to control content, but they seem to be using their power more frequently. These gaffs have re-energized discussions of net neutrality and the government’s role in policing the businesses who provide individuals access to the internet.

AT&T has been criticized for censoring Pearl Jam lyrics on a webcast in August of this year. Frontman Eddie Vedder had his anti-Bush lyrics silenced by the telecom company, who believed they would be offensive to listeners. Pearl Jam complained about the move on their website, and AT&T apologized and simultaneously blamed a webcast vendor. Another controversy for the company emerged from their Terms of Service, which seemed to threaten to cut off customers who criticized AT&T. “AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service…[for] conduct that AT&T believes…tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.” This wording effectively prohibits any negative commentary by customers, a policy that is very unlikely to hold up in any type of court action. AT&T was quick to change the policy, stating that they will not in fact terminate the service of those who express unflattering opinions about the company.

Verizon has also suffered a blow to its reputation when it blocked a mass text message from a pro-choice organization called NARAL Pro-Choice America. Company policy allows the wireless provider to block text message content that could be considered controversial or unsavory. Laws are now in place that prevent telecom companies from censoring calls or individual emails, but they do not apply to text messages. NARAL’s message was accepted by other wireless providers, but Verizon initially said no until a public outcry forced their hand. President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy Keenan released a statement saying, “We must remain vigilant in preventing corporations, business interests, and other third parties from blocking Americans’ ability to participate in the democratic process.” Verizon eventually decided to support the text message, and was adamant that the censorship was based on the topic of abortion itself, not a particular side of the debate. “The decision not to allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” said Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson in a press statement.

The latest scandal to erupt is Comcast’s apparent disruption of of BitTorrent and peer-to-peer traffic. Applications such as BitTorrent and Gnutella malfunction on the network, and while Comcast stops short of blocking the applications entirely, they have not denied a role in causing downloading problems for customers. One has to wonder if Comcast is in collaboration with other telecommunications companies in delaying or corrupting file-sharing of copyrighted materials. In addition to BitTorrent and Gnutella, Lotus Notes users have experienced bumps in functionality, and it would not be a surprise to see more applications in the future which don’t work properly on a Comcast connection.

At this point, there are relatively few regulations governing companies that provide internet or wireless access. Both the FTC and the Department of Justice have declined to take the lead on the issue of net neutrality, thought the FCC is still a possible candidate for taking action. The support of congressional leaders like Senators Dorgan and Snowe is encouraging to net neutrality advocates; looking at the violations of free speech and censorship in the past few months alone, it appears that someone will be forced to step in and confront the major telecom and ISP companies. So far, the consumers themselves have policed these companies, as evidenced in the cases of Verizon and AT&T. Time (and further abuses) will tell if government agencies will need to protect the public from the unconstitutional policies of of the ISPs.

No longer is web video content the playground of bored high school students and wacky YouTube “stars”. NBC and News Corp have gotten in on the game with the launch of Hulu, a website which gives viewers access to full length television series’ and movies, including popular shows like Heroes, The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live, The Office, and 24. The content is pulled from more than just NBC’s programming; Hulu has partnered with E! Entertainment, FUEL TV, SciFi Network and USA Networks to offer a diversity of shows from different providers. The content is not just pulled from the current prime time schedule either. Older classic shows, including Miami Vice and Alfred Hitchcock Presents, will also be available through Hulu.

Hulu has designed a customized viewing screen, allowing viewers to adjust the size of the window, the brightness/sounds from the browser, and the placement of the screen in the browser for multi-tasking. While not the typical video sharing site like YouTube, you can embed Hulu clips on your website and select start and stop times for custom clips. Content is also available at partner sites AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace, and Yahoo, all of which have their own video players for seamless viewing. The interface is sleek, yet familiar, and the picture quality is much better than your average web video.

Beta testing is being conducted privately, with a waiting list for users who want to test out the site (you can see a sample video by visiting the “blog” page). It seems, however, that feedback from a small test group is about as much viewer input as Hulu wants. The user participation stops at “thumbs up/down” functions, written reviews, and playlists. They have reportedly enlisted students from film schools to create content from existing offerings: one clips is a montage of the many times Homer Simpson says “D’oh!”

Is the user participation level at Hulu undemocratic? Hardcore YouTube fans might say so. The younger generation of Web 2.0 users have certain expectations for new sites, and those expectations generally include high-level customization/personalization, a forum where one’s own creativity or thoughts are showcased, and a highly interactive community surrounding the site (read: Facebook, MySpace, Second Life, or YouTube). Hulu might be fighting against that aspect of web culture, but they also might be aiming at a different audience entirely. Older web users tend to seek static entertainment from the web. Casual internet users in their late twenties and thirties have trouble buying into sites like Facebook because they can’t understand how to customize a page. They feel that by interacting with a website they might “break” something permanently. Perhaps Hulu is planning to cash in on this demographic, who feel more comfortable absorbing web content than creating it. This user might catch up on last night’s episode of House on a lunch break at work, for example.

Hulu will be free to users with revenue coming from ads. This is a smart move if they plan to compete with outfits like YouTube. Their press kit states, “Hulu’s (ambitious and never-ending) mission is to help consumers find and enjoy the world’s premium content when, where and how they want it”; this suggests that they don’t see themselves as competing with user-generated content sites, and I agree. They offer a different product entirely in the form of mainstream TV and movies. I, for one, hope the venture proves successful. How else will I catch up on all those missed episodes of The Office?

Most of us are familiar with the provisions businesses make to accommodate employees and customers with disabilities; wheelchair ramps, accessible restrooms, and Braille products are just a few examples. However, many of us have never considered how someone with a visual disability would be able check their email, conduct a Google search, or find directions on Mapquest. Freedom Scientific offers a solution with JAWS (Job Access With Speech) screen reader, which allows users with blindness or low-vision to output the content of the web page to a speech synthesizer. JAWS can read content in a variety of languages, and it will also output refreshable Braille displays, making it one of the most popular accessibility tools. Other leading applications include Window-Eyes, compatible with all Windows 9x and ME versions, and Hal from Dolphin Computer Access.

More and more businesses and web designers are taking accessibility into account due to the recent guidelines requiring all U.S. federal web sites to be accessible to the disabled. Careful web design can maximize the accessibility of your web page and allow screen readers to function at their peak. Some usability checkpoints to consider include:

• keyboard equivalents for mouse-driven commands
• captioned audio portions of multimedia files
• clear and simple language and images
• synchronization of visual, speech, and Braille display
• user control of style sheets (i.e., for color-blindness)

The U.S. government’s Access Board guidelines for web accessibility can be found by visiting http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm.

Even users without visual impairments or other disabilities may soon benefit from screen reading applications. Think about the commuter who wants to check email while driving, for example. A program like JAWS would enable a user to access the web without the distraction of handling a PDA or physically reading a computer screen. Voice recognition software could be integrated into car computer systems, allowing a user to “search” Google maps for a nearby restaurant while keep their hands and focus on the wheel. While traveling to a meeting, the organizer could review his/her PowerPoint presentation one last time, and hearing it spoken, may find ways to improve it. The possibilities are exciting, and they are closer to implementation than you might think.

Psychologists and human behavior specialists are the envy of the web design world: they have the knowledge and tools to determine what people look at, do, and like about almost anything. As early as the 1870s, behavioral psychologists were tracking eye movements when reading, discovering on which words the eye stops and why. They discovered that eye movements directly correspond to thought process, meaning that we look at things which interest or engage us. It is the mystery of what stops our eyes that web designers are trying to solve, and how this relates to where we click. Many businesses are turning to tracking hardware and software packages to help reveal the motivation behind their website’s visitors.

One such company, Seeing Machines offers faceLAB 4, an integrated hardware system complete with analytical tool Gazetracker, which helps interpret the data you collect. Gazetracker comes with a webpage analysis mode for clients focused especially on usability. faceLAB 4 operates on many different levels, tracking not only eye movements, but also mouse and keystrokes, scrolling, and even pupil dilation.

Recent web-focused reading studies have shown that eye movement differs when reading web pages compared to printed materials. We read more quickly, scanning the page instead of reading word for word, and our eyes gravitate towards color, lists, and we take in content in an F-shaped pattern (see http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html for more details). Because so few web surfers actually read websites, other eye-tracking software packages focus on clicks and navigation rather than physical eye movements.

Clickdensity provides users with heat maps of their web activity, literally showing hot spots that were of greatest interest to visitors. Crazy Egg also uses heat maps to record clicks, but offers a more comprehensive product called Confetti, which can provide data on the types of users who visit certain areas of your site. Clicktale actually records visitor’s actions like movie and allows you to replay their every move. Most of these packages are priced by subscription, costing less than $100 per month.

While everyday eye tracking is not necessary in every situation, it is invaluable to gain an understanding of how your user is viewing and consuming your website. You will be amazed at how the color of a box or the density of a paragraph can change the way your user interacts with your site. Is one particular graphic or Flash animation clicked on more than another because it’s colorful, informative, in the top corner of the page? These seemingly insignificant details can throw off the balance of your page, causing users to overlook important features. Some form of eye/click tracking can highlight and help you solve these problems.

This process also helps reach that magical combination of social science research and web usability. Social scientists ask the “why” questions of human behavior, not just the “what” questions. In using eye tracking technology, web designers are prompted to do the same; heat maps and movies answer the “what” questions for us, and we are one step closer to determining why one particular part of the site is stickier than another. These are the questions that eye tracking software pushes us to answer, and if we take that extra step, our web designs to become truly user-centered.

The web world is eagerly anticipating Google’s new cellular phone, but no one can quite agree on what exactly the internet juggernaut has in the works. Many of the articles written on the subject are full of wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumors, and hopeful daydreaming. Indeed, the positivity of bloggers will likely turn any potential Google phone into an instant success even greater than the iPhone. I will attempt to lasso all the rumors that are true, while still giving air to some of the anticipated feats of which Google is fully capable.

First, it appears that Google may cross over into the hardware industry. Several credible sources have reported that there will be a proprietary Google handset which will work with any wireless provider (unlike Apple’s iPhone, which was designed to be used exclusively on AT&T’s network). Google has a partnership with Samsung, and they have bundled phones with Google’s applications in the past. BusinessWeek reports that Google has been secretly showing off prototype phones to consultants for a few months, and leaked photos (possibly fake) show a touchscreen interface.

Google will also likely use wireless tracking technology to improve your search results when using Google’s applications. For example, if you were traveling to Boston and did a search for “duck”, your phone would spit back local results for the famous duck tours, rather than, say, a Wikipedia entry on aquatic birds. The application will likely include Google Maps, Docs, News, Gmail, etc.

Something that seems very likely is that Google’s services will have ad-based revenue and be offered at a fraction of current wireless plans rates from major carriers. Google recently announced the release of AdSense for Mobile, which displays ads relevant to the mobile users. The same technology that is used to improve search results will likely also track demographics and user locations and display ads accordingly. Major carriers are not likely to give up their draconian service fees, so Google stands a good chance of competing, even though advertising is fairly new on mobile networks.

The last piece of the puzzle is an auction to sell the old analog UHF spectrum, which will be taking place in January 2008. Google has reportedly offered to meet the $4.6 billion dollar minimum bid, and if they win the auction they could decide to become a wireless carrier in their own right. Using an ad-based revenue system with free monthly service could potentially put the current carriers out of business, as they have all spent billions building their networks. Though no one likes the idea of watching an ad before logging on to a wireless device, offering free service in exchange creates a huge incentive. At least the ads will be carefully selected to appeal to your profile. Google has also recently expanded its ad services to the television market, “running a trial to deliver better ads to viewers and help advertisers, operators and programmers more efficiently buy, schedule, deliver and measure ads on television.” (Google Press Center). Ads could be selected based on the programming you watch. Experts expect that Google’s powerful search capabilities will soon be available on your TV as well. For example, you might see a commercial for Dunkin Donuts, click a button on your remote, and see a Google map of all the locations near you. The speculation suggests that rather than creating programming of their own, Google is more likely to enter the TV market by doing what they do best: selling relevant ads.

It’s all a part of Google’s larger goal of bringing a seamless internet experience to users no matter what device they’re using to go online. It will be fascinating to see how this all plays out. In the meantime, we’ll keep watching the rumor mill turn around and around.

Do you use Six Sigma or use some type of innovative/creative process instead? Both have their proper places, and both bring a sense of quality and creativity to the workplace, but you have to know when and how to use each of them. Six Sigma is designed to identify problems or defects, then use rigorous measurement standards to reduce variation and eliminate defects. Without quality programs like Six Sigma, the new Apple iPhone would have cost closer to $5000 if the efficiencies in mass production and defect reduction were not managed. On the other hand, excessively rigid Six Sigma standards would squash the very creativity needed at a large company to dream up an innovative product like the iPhone.

When these types of initiatives become ingrained in a company’s culture, creativity is usually the first casualty; an inventive and imaginative atmosphere is squelched. However, the value of Six Sigma-type programs is to help cut costs and improve quality while cutting down the time it takes to launch a product.

While process excellence demands precision, consistency, and repetition, innovation calls for variation, failure, and a bit of anarchy. Six Sigma is a great process but the right balance of creativity has to survive in the organization as well; otherwise new inventions will never see the light of day. By its very nature Six Sigma fosters a very low tolerance for risk. This is because risk increases variation. Can you imagine the iPhone coming out of a company which focuses primarily on repetition and removal of defects instead of celebrating innovation and creativity? Out-of-box thinking and new ideas cannot prosper in environments where the primary goal is to count defects.

A combination of the two cultures would be ideal for any company’s success. Take design and development. A strong design team needs to innovate and try different things, but a development team could meet disaster if the same approach was taken. A great design can be constructed by taking risks and iterating concepts in the form of live brainstorm. Development, however, needs to be a more repetitive process; it can only be effective if certain methods or concepts can be componentized and streamlined. The beauty of a mixed methodology is clear when you bring both of these worlds together as an innovative, quality product that can be constructed and distributed efficiently.

Process vs. creativity? Maybe you don’t have to make that choice. I would rather think of it as the process of creativity.

Imagine my surprise to be welcomed to work first thing Monday morning by an email subject line reading, “OK…you are now leaving your comfort zone.” My boss had the great idea of testing and reviewing Google’s stripped-down answer to Microsoft Office, and I was the chosen candidate for this assignment. His email went on to say, “By the way, I am not going to train you either. You need to figure this out on your own.” Wonderful, I thought, rolling my eyes. Me, the only non-techie in our office, nominated as the sacrificial lamb.

Seriously, though, I am an ideal candidate for this kind of experiment. I know how to navigate the web decently, I’m comfortable with MS Office, etc., but I’m far from ingenious when it comes to learning new applications. If I could gracefully make the switch to Google Apps, then our growing company would potentially follow suit. I obediently logged on and begun my explorations.

Google Apps is a series of programs which mimic Office Suite, including email, calendaring, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, and messaging. Initially conceived in 2005, Apps matured in early 2007 with a Premier Edition marketed to small businesses that added more features and functionality. The whole package is priced reasonably at $50 per user per year, much less than your typical costs for licensing Office. Standard and Education editions of Apps are offered free of charge.

Though I experienced the initial bumps that are expected when learning new software (where on earth is the spell check function?), I’ve become acculturated quickly. I’ve been using Google Docs for all of my blog compositions for a little over a week, and I love that I can have my boss review and make changes without creating different drafts. I find it easier to use the formatting and stylistic options without searching through obscurely-named drop-down menus, though Docs is considerably (and purposefully) less sophisticated than Word. My biggest pet peeves so far are the lack of a thesaurus and the limited number of special symbols (looking up Unicodes is no fun). I suspect, however, that functionality will increase as more and more businesses begin using Docs as a replacement for Word.

One of the biggest shortcomings of Apps is the fact that it is entirely web-based. Your work is archived online much like your email, and you can only access it if you’re connected to the internet. This is especially problematic when traveling, and Google is rumored to be working on a “work offline” open source option similar to that which is already in place for Reader. This would allow users to access their archives on long airplane flights, for example.

Apps has a long way to go before it gives Microsoft a serious run for its money, but I’m of the opinion that its a viable alternative for low-needs users like myself. It perfectly reflects Google’s grassroots culture aimed at changing our expectations of internet technology. After all, most of us have been using Office Suite for so long that anything different seems foreign and unintuitive. Objectively, MS Office is only usable because its so familiar, not because it truly utilizes the principles of user-centered design. With a little elbow grease, Google could make switching to a new business software package easier and more economical than sticking with the old guard.

Stay tuned for more of my adventures with Google Apps.