Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Nick Trendov

Nick Trendov — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:13:54 GMT

How left brain is this?

Colloboration is a label not an action.
Passing documents back and forth or engaging in conversation is just that.
Chipmunks don’t collaborate with themselves by leaving nuts in the ground, they store and retrieve nuts.

If you want software to make it go faster then give up now or force everybody to adopt the same interaction processes.
After all, software is just the manifestation of process, simple as that.

Cheers,
Nick
http://www.scenario2.com

Nick Trendov — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:46:42 GMT

I do the ‘wireframing’ manually and would enjoy looking at different techniques.

This is an overview of my approach:

1. Build Persona and understand their Story Lens
http://www3.sympatico.ca/nick.trendov/Persona%20and%20Sto…
2. Document the Product and/or Brand Story lens
http://www3.sympatico.ca/nick.trendov/Persona%20and%20Sto…
3. Build Map
http://www3.sympatico.ca/nick.trendov/Find%20Customers%20…

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Trendov — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:34:23 GMT

I created a dashboard from the visual elements of a report.
This will be used to measure current state with objectives, a classic KPI.
My next project will be to create a web site from all of the elements.

My site: www.neuropersona.com
Original report: http://neuropersona.wordpress.com/web-persona-analytics/u…
Visual Dashboard: http://brandwarfare.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/visual-brand…

In one sense I do something similar with a persona construct which I call NEUROPERSONA
http://www3.sympatico.ca/nick.trendov/Persona%20and%20Sto…

I would say that photography creates the impression of being immersed.
Many companies are working hard at immersion, Second Life and other on-line communities are examples.
However, I am a storyteller and I believe simple stories with complementary photographs can do better.
Video of course is sexier as it contains voice and/or music but for me the stories and photos are far more flexible.

Great article.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Trendov — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:12:34 GMT

In my view there has to be a simpler and faster way to get the job done.

One option may be setting up the game for the user to self-select their environment and spend a lot less time ‘hard-wiring’ the story. This has been done successfully in many other areas of design and software development.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Trendov — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:34:44 GMT

On the other hand the CMS is the manifestation of process, in other words a coded version of what someone believes is required to get the job done.

I my experience the issue about a CMS centric view of the world is that it cannot adapt as fast as the changing needs of users. This is both obvious and counter intuitive.

It may be that most systems try to do too much an fail different user personas.
Eventually more features are added and they fall by their own weight.

Cheers,
Nick

....oh, by the way, this appears to be a community that only wants to hear the rah, rah..not this post, which is quite good.

Nick Trendov — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:37:38 GMT

I forgot to mention the myth of taxonomy and ontology.
Again these are command and control labels which tend to hamstring any CMS.
Add the ‘T’ and the ‘O’ to the general inability to accomodate users and you have major pain.
Simple appears better in this case.

Which reminds me of the NASA joke where million(s) was spent on an intrument to write in space.
The Russians used a pencil.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Trendov — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:55:43 GMT

Simple observations expressed clearly combined with a recognition that other diciplines cover most of the user experience already. Oh, he also notes ”... it is always about people and how they relate to information.” .

A huge difference from what is normally posted.

That’s a breath of fresh air.

Cheers,
Nick
www.neuropersona.com

Nick Trendov — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:34:13 GMT

Great summary!
While it is a brilliant text, in my experience the multiple perspectives and story telling is the universal value here.

Page presence and harmony preferences change over time and environment that people find themselves.
For example a mobile interface requires a different sensibility of presence and harmony.
While some may note that mobile interfaces were not considered by the author, let’s go to audio.

Consider a storyteller that has the text and is conveying the knowledge to an audience.
It may be possible to use a different page presence to cue the storyteller.
On the other hand the multiple perspectives and story values are intact.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Trendov — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:46:22 GMT

I concur with this post…” It’s not important that the two reviewers aren’t judging the product by the same metrics. In fact, I’d say it’s desirable. “

The issue with the ratings is the perspective and in my experience it can be accomodated with a little effort.
Consider a datacube used in analytics where the perspective can be changed at will.
The way I approach it is by using stories and Metics with 5 dimensions—Story, Process, Software, Brand and Metrics.
Either google Story Lens and Neuropersona or visit my site if measuring from multiple perspectives would help.

Cheers,
Nick
www.neuropersona.com

Nick Trendov — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 05:46:17 GMT

It’s the Content not the Reputation

Currently valuing reputation depends entirely on the perspective of the judges who value the contribution whether it is one person or thousands and the problem here is that a single judges perspective will be different than every reader and more judges will hold perspective that may appear close to but will not fit any reader, past current or future.

Going back to first principals for the value behind reputation systems may help. Reputation confirms content value.

While reputation systems appear to help focus on content from a trusted source, one with a good reputation, it is important to note the command and control nature of the system. The judge rules, context is fixed.

Take any story with a low reputation value and you will find any number of readers who rank it very high. Why?
It fits their context and objectives, which were apparently unimportant to the judge at time of rank pronouncement.

Are reputation systems helpful? Maybe.

On the other hand it appears to me that they are another filter and should either work with common filters such as search engines or context engines rather thant being held to high esteem.

Would you place more importance on a reputation system than a google ranking?

Cheers,
Nick
www.neuropersona.com

Nick Trendov — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:56:39 GMT

Good summary of your experience, most others I’ve seen are sanitized.

Rocket appears to have the capability to turn the sometimes tired approach to Wikis, or prescibed blogging, inside out.
Why not automate the posting to the Wiki and remove the people?
While this may seem silly as it removes the ‘collaborative’ component, it saves time and stress and you will be able to add virtually all of the value after the posting with a tag or meta data or sticky note approach.

Then you put the values in a datacube and allow users to navigate in multi-dimensional space.
Simple enough, I’ve been prescribing this approach for two years.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Nick
www.neuropersona.com

Nick Trendov — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:53:25 GMT

There are simpler ways of exploiting value from Semantic Web processes described here http://tinyurl.com/semantic-blog1 by a semantic expert with BBC and wikipedia experience. —his post is here http://tinyurl.com/semantic-blog1

While the company links above are still good—one is dead and the other appearch to have embedded their approach in applications—there is a simpler approach which I have used for almost ten years here http://tinyurl.com/semantic-blog

It was early this year that I was able to take a classic semantic based software and wrap it with Excel to improve user interaction in order to automate the ‘semantic’ raw material useful for creating better, faster and cooler navigation options as well as semantic markers to facilitate blogging and adding semantic links to backlinks in anticipation of the move in that direction by Google and BING.

Why wait.

There is now a tremendous user interface opportunity as keywords are on the way out and semantic relationships are on the way in. Specifically, maps are an easier way to choose where you want to go but the conditioning around user interfaces is around words.

Cheers,
Nick
http://www.speedsynch.com