Numerous studies have shown that we do not naturally multitask. An often-cited University of Michigan study used an MRI scanner to examine brain responses during complex perception tasks—like identifying colors or sizes of a series of objects. Most subjects’ brains had to pause between different problem-solving tasks—suggesting that we cannot simultaneously process, but instead switch from one task to another.

This and other studies strongly suggest that rapid task switching is rarely accomplished without great loss of efficiency. (If you doubt this, try moving your finger clockwise your foot counterclockwise—simultaneously.)

Such research indicates that true multitasking (simultaneous input processing and decision making) is rare or non-existent. A minority may be able to function fairly well with rapid task-switching—as is the case with a really competent short-order cook. However, for most of us, our “inner CEO” can only make high-quality decisions when our focus is undivided.

The question is: Why do so many of us think we can multitask? Sometimes, the answer is just our species’ inherent optimism and self-confidence—like Keillor’s tag line, “all our children are above average.” It may also be that the consequences for believing this fallacy are not as dire as they were in our prehistoric past. (“Relax; I can cook dinner and watch for lions. No, really I can.”)

Another part of the problem is our technology, which actually can process multiple data sources simultaneously—albeit without making conscious decisions.

Perhaps the most charitable explanation for our multitasking illusion—our subconscious process—is also part of the technology solution. Within limits, we can actually do more than one thing at a time, so long as the extra tasks are subconscious or habitual. Most of us can “walk and chew gum at the same time,” because such tasks do not require much in the way of executive function. Many of us can drive a car without being consciously aware of the details, because we’ve learned the routine; it’s part of our habit patterns. A moderate amount of conscious decisions can be made while doing these “automatic” tasks.

Here’s where information technology can take a cue. Our conscious mind can really only process and decide on one task at a time, but our subconscious can undoubtedly handle more. UI designers are starting to get this concept, as they create subliminal ways to communicate intent. Weather or stock market icons can also communicate to the subconscious, even while the conscious, decision-making mind is elsewhere. Perhaps we need to consider other ways to communicate the “sense” of multiple information threads, without fighting for primary attention.

It’s a challenge worth considering.

–John Parsons

I was vividly reminded of this at a recent reviewers’ session for Adobe’s latest incarnation of Creative Suite—number 6, to be exact.[1] Having used many of the component applications since their respective version 1.0 days, I was pleased to see a great deal of innovation and genuine creativity with this release. I did notice, however, that with some applications there was a fair amount of “it’s-a-nail-because-I-have-a-hammer” talk.

Let’s take Web creation tools, as an example. Adobe has arguably the most powerful Web design tool on the market—Dreamweaver, which it acquired in a merger with Macromedia in 2005. Like many mature applications, Dreamweaver is big, and complex, and frankly a bit scary for anyone new to the Web design scene. Recognizing this, Adobe has also introduced a more user-friendly Web design program: Muse. Unlike many ill-fated attempts to create a more accessible Web design program,[2] Adobe Edge seems to fill a need that Dreamweaver cannot.

Features and benefits aside, I was struck by the differences in the two products’ presenters’ approaches. Each advocate viewed the world differently. The Dreamweaver guru (whom I’m sure is a very nice guy), was all about the challenges of multi-device mobile Web sites, and how his particular hammer was the awesome answer.[3] His rapid-fire demo left many of us in the dust.

The Edge presenter was more engaged with the ordinary mortals in the room—although still enormously proud of her team’s accomplishment. Her demo felt more like a consultation, and less like a pitch for the hottest Harley Davidson bike on the planet.

Yes, I know that software demos are supposed to be magic shows. But in the end, content software is a tool, not a religion.

When we try to understand which information tools are best suited to our needs, the operative word is “needs.” Even the coolest, most esoteric new feature in an information system cannot endure if it doesn’t meet a human need in a reasonable amount of time—and at an affordable cost. Gadgets that gather, filter, and display information are no different from the gadgets that create and package that information. Both must be connected to actual humans.

– John Parsons

May 08, 2012 – Santa Cruz, CA – Nimbleware Consulting today announced the release of a new topic-based information app for the Apple iPad. Dubbed nūzmūz (www.nuzmuz.com), the app is an RSS feed reader that moves away from the source-based approach used by news and content aggregators. Instead, it focuses on user-defined topics, such as current events, career goals, or entertainment. The free app is available in the Apple iTunes App Store.

As a result, the app delivers results that much more emulates the way people want to receive information: according to their individual interests. Nūzmūz gathers relevant items from multiple sources—not limited to the editorial bias of an individual RSS feed source. To make it easier for users, a large selection of common Topics has been re-defined within the app. New Topics can be easily created to follow a current news story in more detail.

Each Topic is displayed in a customizable feed view or newspaper view for easy scanning by the user. Individual items may be shared via email or social networking.
The app allows users to create and customize Topics based on their individual interests.

Topical Approach and White-Label Approach Allows Enterprises, Organizations to Create Their Own Multichannel News Apps

The free, generic version of nūzmūz is only the beginning, according to Hilton. Nimbleware can create branded versions for large companies, institutions, and government agencies—giving individual employees, customers, students, or other stakeholders ready access to important information on their tablet devices. In addition to the visual branding, pre-defined Topics can be created and administered via a secure Web interface. Constituents can still retain the ability to define their own Topics, at the company’s or institution’s discretion.

Nimbleware is discussing branded versions of nūzmūz with a wide variety of organizations, including financial and investment firms, as well as companies with a highly mobile sales force or customer base. Academic applications would allow colleges to convey critical information to students, while allowing them to create and share their own Topics.

“Access to current information has always been a critical part of any organization,” said Nimbleware co-founder Mark Hilton. “Making tablets an effective mobile information gathering point can only improve each organization’s effectiveness.”

For more information on customized, branded versions of nūzmūz, contact Michael DeCaro, Michael@nimblewareconsulting.com.

###

About Nimbleware Consulting

Founded by a team of former Adobe executives, Nimbleware Consulting develops and provides content creation, management and distribution solutions for a worldwide client base. The company is headquartered at 101 Cooper Street, Santa Cruz, CA. For information, please call (408) 505-9583, email info@nimblewareconsulting.com, or visit the company Web site (www.nimblewareconsulting.com).

This is not a lament over the decline of print newspapers in many parts of the world. It’s also not a diatribe on how publishers blew it in the 1990s with free Web content, or a sermon on the virtues (or evils) of pay walls. Instead, let’s look at the container itself.

Newspapers have been around so long that it’s hard to see them as data sorting devices—which they are. Information is prioritized and tagged, using position and visual cues, like headlines of different sizes and eye-catching photos. Information is also categorized by section, and even within a particular section, with unique or urgent or timely stories towards the front, and other data (like sports scores or stock prices) in expected locations elsewhere. Even the classic “inverted pyramid” writing style of a newspaper is designed to give the reader all the basics up front, with progressively more detailed information following.

Newspapers are in fact a non-digital database, which we’ve learned to scan rapidly, and dive more deeply when the content interests us. The fact that they use our subconscious hunt-and-gather instincts does not diminish the fact that newspapers are excellent, albeit uni-directional content tuners.

They also do not require that the user own or have access to a gadget—which explains why newspapers held their own against radio and television, and why they still dominate in less affluent (but literate) countries.

With the rise of mobile devices like smartphones and especially tablets, newspapers are striving to retain their preeminence in the area of useful, current, and easily findable information. It has not been easy. Without the abundance of inexpensive “real estate” that print provides, there is less room for content display (editorial or advertising) that readers can scan and subconsciously process. Our visual habits have to be re-learned, and we have to develop new ones. All this takes time, in the face of our “that’s so 20 seconds ago” world of consumer technology.

The situation is not hopeless, however. In the midst of the flood of RSS feeds, tweets, and all the rest, tools are emerging that actually leverage the same intuitive processes I’ve described above. (Truth be told, our new nūzmūz app is one of these.) By preserving the visual navigation and data sorting of a traditional newspaper, and adding intuitive interaction and customization, the highly portable idea container we call a newspaper[1] is very much alive and well.

– John Parsons

The problem Korzybski and others[1] posited is a notion of false equality—that an object is the same as the word used to describe it. By equating a symbol with the molecular object it represents—without considering the many “levels of abstraction” that make up the connecting reference—we fail to truly communicate.

He goes on to discuss why our neurological makeup makes all this necessary, and how to overcome what he calls a “two-valued” orientation—that something either “is” or “is not”—with a nuanced, multivalued orientation.

Leaving aside for the moment the broader, social implications of how we use (or misuse) words, think about how the idea is reflected in our digital technology. Quite literally, computer-based information is based on the absolute yes/no, on/off, is/is not paradigm that Korzybski and company deplore in our language. Granted, we’re talking about many billions of yes/no decisions, but we’re still talking about absolutes.

This binary approach affects how we classify and process the flood of data we deal with every day. We endlessly count and classify, hoping that—with enough time and clever algorithms—we’ll derive meaning from the maelstrom. Personally, I’ll be surprised if using brute force will work. Moore’s Law notwithstanding, I’m too much of a believer in intuition and inspiration to put much stock in the infinite-monkeys-and-keyboards approach.

Instead, I’d like to see us apply a more abstract, nuanced (read: human) approach to information. In life, the answer is seldom an absolute yes or no, but a multiple choice or essay—with many “levels of abstraction,” to borrow from Korzybski. Instead of “likes” and other easily counted but seldom useful data, let’s come up with truly multivalued means of evaluating data—making it possible to transmogrify it into actionable knowledge.

Can algorithms alone do this? (I’m doubtful, but open to being convinced.) I’m much more confident that human input, while messy, is a far better way to parse information, and make it truly useful. Computers can help, but they can’t do it alone.

–John Parsons

Perhaps negative use is actually easier than positive. Ignorance and bias can be powerful forces—especially when social networking circles self-select on the basis of mutual fears and suspicions.

Professor Mohammed goes on to point out that the rapid expansion of news and information made available by these technologies have made it more difficult for people to tell the difference between facts, opinion, entertainment, and just plain old propaganda. In the competition for people’s attention, he notes, governments, movements, and corporations in particular have to resort to ever-increasing levels of sensationalism—leading of course to lies of various shadings.

Like the industrial age (from which we have not yet fully recovered), the information age is changing us, and that change is too often towards narrowness and ignorance.

Mohammed’s prescription is not to eliminate or restrict information technology—as if were even possible. Rather, citizens should begin to be more skeptical of information and its technology, per se, and to critically assess information sources and tools.

I agree—but with qualifications. The information and its tools are not themselves the problem; people are. If anything, the lack of intuitive tools for “tuning” content makes it easier for the unscrupulous to tilt the information to suit their agenda—since individuals are struggling with the sheer volume of it all, and too often ignorant of the context.

So, it does seem like I’m advocating for a moral or ethical “filter” for information, doesn’t it? I’m not so fatuous as to think it would be even possible. Certainly governments are unprepared—technologically or morally—to create such a thing. Technology corporations might do so, but the profit motive is amoral, and there are often bottom line reasons not to make things clearer to people.

It still begins with choice. In addition to being more skeptical about information and the tools that convey it, we should also be willing to step outside our comfort zones—to consider information that is not immediately comforting or familiar. Any technical tool that helps me make those choices will be a great start.

– John Parsons

I’ve also recently become a huge fan of Scott Stratten, whose UnMarketing site is both hilarious and informative. (It also highlights many of the things I’m doing wrong on this blog. Thanks a lot, Scott.) He points out what my clients usually miss: social media is all about “social,” not about “media.” It’s supposed to be a two-way communication, not another channel for targeting one’s prey—I mean customers.

I’ll leave the marketing implications for another discussion. What the whole two-way vs. one-way idea raises for me are its implications for content filtering and tuning.

Obviously, qualitative feedback from a self-selecting group can build up an effective metadata set for determining personal relevance and credibility. Social media has the potential to be the ultimate content filter—as I’ve said before.

What’s even more interesting, however, is how two-way communication can directly modify our choices—or let us take on new or unfamiliar ideas. We may not know what we want from someone, or some company we “meet” online, especially if they are not already part of our circle. However, if there is genuine two-way communication in play, then we at least have the beginnings of a mutual relationship. New ideas are more likely to get through on that basis than they are in a one-way environment.

MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte once posited a “Daily Me” newspaper—one that was completely user-customizable. Only information of interest to the individual would be published. A drawback to this idea is that user tastes can exclude new or unfamiliar ideas. People already tend to consume information that confirms their beliefs; creating a one-way channel, even a user-customized one, only makes it worse.

Real engagement, via true, two-way interaction, is more like a “Daily Us.” Personal preferences and choices still matter, but there is more opportunity to learn new ideas, and build up the connections that make information meaningful.

There will always be those who abuse the mutuality and openness of social media—just as there have always been sociopaths in the non-digital world. However, that is no reason to abandon social media’s potential for making information more meaningful.

–John Parsons

One of my “takes” from Brooks’ work applies to the way we respond to new information technology. Adherents of the geek persuasion (myself included) take pride in our conscious understanding of gadgets and systems, but the reality is more complicated. A greater part of our minds is responding to all this technology automatically—and not always positively.

Case in point: consider smartphones and mobile tablets. We have reasoned arguments why these gadgets make our lives better and more productive. I’ve made my living championing some of these ideas. However, something about being virtually connected does create an undercurrent of unease.

Millions of years of evolution have trained us to value a balance of physical community (actual, personal contact and interdependence) and personal autonomy (self-determination and integrity). Virtual connections and their devices give us a confusing, sometimes illusory mix of the two. We can have a connection with anyone in the world, but we seldom “know” him or her the way we would through actual conversation. We also have a tremendous sense of power to “hunt and gather” information from anywhere on the planet, but we’re overwhelmed by its sheer, unfiltered volume.

In short, we feel unsettled and unsatisfied—ever ready to jump to a better device, but never seeming to find equilibrium.

This subconscious unease explains—but doesn’t justify—the Luddite impulse to chuck it all, or at least complain a lot and talk about chucking it all. Our Pleistocene selves sense the problems: not enough real connection, too much unfamiliar territory. Our minds say all this technology is useful, even essential, but our subconscious feels like we’re alone on the savannah, and there might be lions about. It’s all too natural to fear the unknown and crave the familiar.

This is not new, of course. We have felt similar unease and alienation at the introduction of the telephone, the train, the printed word, the list goes on. Each new technology can make us feel detached from our comfortable, tribal ways—despite the obvious, rational explanations of progress.

So, what’s the solution—short of just waiting to evolve? I think that technologists themselves have to address these primal needs—by attempting to simulate, and even foster human connection and autonomy. The field of informatics (human-computer interaction) is only beginning to explore this. Perhaps a better understanding of subconscious human feelings would help us create and use technology in a way that benefits all concerned—not just the company trying to sell the next gadget.

–John Parsons

In this blog, I talk a lot about tools for optimizing content—making it relevant and easy to find and prioritize. However, the same tags, metadata, and algorithms that can “tune” content to my needs can also expose my needs and preferences to the unscrupulous.

I’m not talking about a Big Brother government conspiracy here. (I believe that the precedent of law enforcement using user preferences and online behaviors as a warrantless surveillance tool is a bad one, but that’s a different blog.) However, I do think that government breaches of privacy pale in comparison to how personal data can be used unwisely by the private sector.

By definition, businesses should know as much as possible about their prospects and current customers. In theory, knowing individuals’ actual needs will help companies sell the right thing at the right time—to everyone’s benefit. Personally, I’ve appreciated the fact that Amazon “knows” what kind of books I like—so long as I retain the final decision. Having content that is tuned to my needs should include marketing and promotional information, as well as more “neutral” fare like the news. I’m a grownup; I can say no.

Where the danger lies is when companies fail to see that efficient content flow is supposed to be a two-way street. When companies harvest and process personal information in a one-way marketing blast, it not only violates our sense of individual space, it also doesn’t work. People generally want to give and receive information openly—when there is an achieved level of trust and respect. Privacy is not a fortress wall, but a city gate. It can (and should) be closed when the message is intrusive and unwelcome, but open wide to all who pursue a permissions-based relationship.

The tricky part is how to make this work in the broader context of filtering and tuning content. Complex permissions protocols generally will not suffice, nor will all-or-nothing barriers. (If I select a “do not track” or a blanket “unsubscribe” link, I may shut off the noise, but lose whatever value that channel might provide.)

The BtoBonline.com article framed the privacy discussion in terms of government oversight versus self-regulation by marketers and data professionals. I think a third force should be in play: the nuanced choices of the consumers themselves. If the content preferences of individuals are to be known and used by others, then those preferences must be subject to change—and revocation—by their owners. The all-or-nothing view of behavioral targeting should be replaced by something more interactive, putting everyone on an equal information footing.

After all, it’s supposed to be a marketplace, not a firing range.

– John Parsons

Full disclosure: I am a technology pundit, not a scientist. While I often “get” the implications of a new medium or approach, I freely admit that the practical applications will take time, programming brilliance, and a high level of business risk.

In this case, it’s worth the risk. MakeMyPage is a theoretical concept that demands real-world application. Its premise is that ordinary search algorithms can produce large volumes of information, based on page rank and link network factors, that is not fully qualified for completeness, relevance, or credibility. Even when a rankings approach is applied—as in the case of social news aggregators—it is done outside the context of the original article, again producing unqualified or unusable information.

By incorporating a context-aware social networking ranking methodology, MakeMyPage takes automatically aggregated content from pre-qualified sources and refines it over time, promoting higher-ranked content to the top of the list. The numbers of votes (positive and negative) and a “recency” variable (the number of seconds since the article’s publication date) are calculated as a formula, shown here.

In the MakeMyPage prototype, article links, images, and videos are displayed in order, by number of votes and date. Various algorithms are employed to reduce automatically-generated content from the mix, including blog spam and the like.

Experimental results seem to suggest that human feedback via social networking does in fact improve the quality of the aggregated information. Additional work, including content disambiguation within pages and improving voting schemes and algorithms, is ongoing.

My only real question: Why is this not being done more often, in systems we use every day? The project authors indicate that some search providers are beginning to apply user feedback to qualifying information, but this is clearly a new and untried frontier. To a layman like me, it simply makes sense that feedback (positive or negative) should have a ranking or prioritizing impact on computer-collected information.

I’m sure I’ve oversimplified things. It’s probably way more complicated to do in a system what I do in my own thoughts. However, the folks at Northwestern make me believe it’s possible—maybe even practical.

– John Parsons