vanderwal.net

Google Plus Social Model Facepalm

I was watching Vergecast this week, (Google’s AI shake-up: What’s next for Demis Hassabis and DeepMind | The Verge) and in it David Pierce brought up Google+ again. Pierce uses it as a call out when large organizations jump into things they don’t fully understand.

Google had some understanding, but the biggest problem was their going with “Circles”. Circles were akin to groups, but the Circles were largely a construct from a user’s perspective. The individual leaning perspective of “Circles” is really odd and broken as each person has a different idea around who should be or is in a Circle, but also what gets shared in and out of the Circle. There were semi-closed groups / Circles but the boundaries weren’t clear at all. Who was in a Circle? What could be shared out (seemingly most anything) and its lack of clarity was deeply problematic as it was very porous.

A core element of social that is closed or semi-closed groups have very clear boundaries. Knowing how those boundaries work, who is allowed in, and the process to get allowed in. Google+ started at a time when those running social platforms were becoming abundantly aware there were some really toxic people and had learned how to handle them (to some degree). Google+ started with a foundation that made it really difficult to handle this, but also lacked the well known concepts to have clear boundaries for groups and interactions.

When you talked with anybody if they were using Google+, who were in many other platforms that were either fully open (like Twitter), and in closed group environments where the boundaries were clear and methods for dealing with bad actors (intentionally bad or accidentally) in clear means. The lack of comfort with the who and what is done with what is shared in Circle had a lot of people really uncomfortable with the oddly structured Circles.

Google+ didn’t last long and is long enough ago that it doesn’t come up often. Occasionally the Google+ getting woven into the Google applications like Sheets and Docs brought the really odd social structure with it, which made things really odd. Other services have done really well integrating these, but they have really solid and structured boundaries and groups with clarity as the core.

While I am one of the odd ones who really enjoyed Google Wave - Wikipedia and its wild flowing stream of interaction, the odd Google+ is one I don’t miss. Hearing David Pierce bring up Google+ and how always makes me chuckle. I always wish Google had spent time to sort out Google+ properly, but that didn’t quite happen.

Swan Song's AR Design and Creation

I have a serious soft spot for the movie Swan Song (which stars Mahershala Ali and Glenn Close that is set in the near future in the Pacific Northwest. I was a fan of its soft and deep thought invoking exploration of life and replication, but also its near future view of technology. While others have been excited by the Minority Report’s manic augmented reality (AR) interface, the design and use of near future AR as part of work and personal life was really good. To say I was fascinated, may be putting it lightly. Swan Song (2021 Benjamin Cleary film) - Wikipedia was released in 2021 and Apple had yet to have announce Apple Vision Pro with its visionOS and really good graphics and workable interface. The visual and interaction design of what the main character (Cameron) worked in was incredibly good. Once Apple Vision Pro was out it felt like Cameron’s interfaces and interactions were part of the future road map.

The Design Studio Behind the Digital Interfaces and Interaction Design

Being that Swan Song movie was part of Apple Studios - Wikipedia I was believing Apple had a part in the creation of the user interfaces and interaction design of the AR in the movie. But, poking around in Vimeo I stumbled on the design reel for Swan Song - Territory Studio, so I finally found the studio that created the AR and digital design elements in the film.

Territory Studio’s Design Overview

Territory Studio’s page for the high level design overview of what they created for Swan Song is really good. I had been feeling like Swan Song’s design and AR team were more closely tied to Apple as their AR interaction design is very much like Apple’s sensibilities, with a more muted palette from a calm future. A lot of things that are in Apple Vision Pro’s user interface and interaction design patterns seem to have been hinted at, if not felt like they were previewed in Swan Song. But, I’m not so sure of the connection or how specious it may be.

The Territory Studio page has highlights of their visual / virtual design language, personal UIs, home office AR, AR home gaming, speculative hardware, smart watch UIs, and virtual mimoji. I really would love an even deeper dive, as this is much of the virtual interactive world I’ve been waiting for, and been hoping to see come to life for years prior to the film.

There is a whole lot in Swan Song that I loved from the time it was released, which was a couple years or so ahead of Apple Vision Pro being released. The headset-less AR and interaction design is one piece. But, I also was deeply taken by the whole story, cinematography, and feelings the film evoked, but also the keep thinking and consideration it evoked.

Swan Song Demo Video from Territory Studio

The show real from Territory’s work on Swan Song is in Vimeo: Swan Song Breakdown Reel - Vimeo

More XTech 2006

I have had a little time to sit back and think about XTech I am quite impressed with the conference. The caliber of presenter and the quality of their presentations was some of the best of any I have been to in a while. The presentations got beneath the surface level of the subjects and provided insight that I had not run across elsewhere.

The conference focus on browser, open data (XML), and high level presentations was a great mix. There was much cross-over in the presentations and once I got the hang that this was not a conference of stuff I already knew (or presented at a level that is more introductory), but things I wanted to dig deeper into. I began to realize late into the conference (or after in many cases) that the people presenting were people whose writting and contributions I had followed regularly when I was doing deep development (not managing web development) of web applications. I changed my focus last Fall to get back to developing innovative applications, working on projects that are built around open data, and that filled some of the many gaps in the Personal InfoCloud (I also left to write, but that did get side tracked).

As I mentioned before, XTech had the right amount of geek mindset in the presentations. The one that really brought this to the forefront of my mind was on XForms, an Alternative to Ajax by Erik Bruchez. It focussed on using XForms as a means to interact with structured data with Ajax.

Once it dawned on me that this conference was rather killer and I sould be paying attention to the content and not just those in the floating island of friends the event was nearly two-thirds the way through. This huge mistake on my part was the busy nature of things that lead up to XTech, as well as not getting there a day or two earlier to adjust to the time, and attend the pre-conference sessions and tutorials on Ajax.

I was thrilled ot see the Platial presentation and meet the makers of the service. When I went to attend Simon Willison's presentation rather than attending the GeoRSS session, I realized there was much good content at XTech and it is now one on my must attend list.

As the conference was progressing I was thinking of all of the people that would have really benefitted and enjoyed XTech as well. A conference about open data and systems to build applications with that meet real people's needs is essential for most developers working out on the live web these days.

If XTech sounded good this year in Amsterdam, you may want to note that it will be in Paris next year.