Hvorfor skal virksomheder interessere sig for social software?:

NÃ¥r vi i Connecta ikke bruger begrebet Web 2.0, er det fordi det er mangetydigt.

og

Putting Web2.0 to Work:

Knap så mange taler om Web2.0 i virksomheder, vi har gjort det i en rum tid

;-)

Instead of looking at the whole picture and settle on a distinct style, they are all over the place, adding bits and pieces they hope will improve their expression. The ‘more is better’-crowd. I bet you’ve seen them around. Usually they are more than willing to include you in the process of deciding what to do.

Compare that with unfocused applications with lots of features. Highligts and bling bling — featuritis … is about insecurity. In the hope that someone will like them, they try to have a little something for everybody — and leave no area empty. Fear of whitespace, fear of focus.

So next time you see a web app standing in a bar looking nervous all pimped up, resist the urge to have a quick shag. Go for the hot one standing to the side, with a relaxed look and an eye for combination and color. Your future you will thank you.

Bare et lille gnavent pip: ComputerWorld har fået nyt design, Business.dk findes, Version2 findes. Avisen.dk er der osv osv.

Det er snart noget tid siden. Og de har blogs og kunder, der må bestemme ting. Og brugerne har bare så meget 2.0-magt at det er en fryd. Sidstnævnte kan man mene forskellige ting om. Og det er interessant, her hvor de traditionelle medier finder deres fodfæste i en verden, hvor alle andre har de samme muligheder som dem. Udfordringen er at fordele opgaverne, så de kompetente får gjort det de bør gøre.

Men hvad angÃ¥r kolonner og design og layoutet pÃ¥ de forskellige ‘2.0′-features: Er det det bedste I kan byde ind med? Jon Lund gennemgÃ¥r CW og peger pÃ¥ flere af de ting jeg selv finder problematiske: Jeg har som læser lidt svært ved at regne ud, hvordan ting er prioriteret, hvordan jeg selv øver min evt. indflydelse og hvad det er jeg bladrer i. Det gælder flere af de omtalte sites — og især C.W.

Og noget mere konkret: Jeg er ikke designer, men selv pÃ¥ et tidspunkt, hvor man har prædiket simplicity sÃ¥ længe at det er blevet hype i sig selv, upÃ¥agtet de gode intentioner, sÃ¥ har jeg svært ved at forstÃ¥ man kan stÃ¥ ved det rent grafiske og typografiske arbejde. Der lader ikke til at være noget særligt system i fonte, afstande osv. De fleste ligger tydeligvis stadig under for faste bannerstørrelser, en Windows XP-fascination i udviklingsafdelingen og en generel foragt for alt, hvad der hedder overskuelighed. Gnidrede smÃ¥ kolonner med lister blandet sammen med blog-style nyhedsuddrag, indrammede kasser i alt for mange farver osv. Min pointe er: ‘Den nye stil’ har designmæssige konsekvenser, hvis det skal gøres rigtigt. Og de fleste af de nævnte sites (bedøm selv, hvad der er hvad) overholder ganske ikke, hvad der mÃ¥ anses som god praksis. Designet hjælper i bedste fald med til at kommunikere — det er ikke kun eyecandy.

Og hvis nogen har svært ved at regne ud, hvad der er godt og hvad der er dårligt, så tag et kig på Microsoft, der stadig hænger fast i en meget tech-tung designstil. Tommelfingerregel: Når dit brugerinvolverende 2.0-site ligner MS-promotion, så er det tilbage til tegnebrættet.

Disclaimer: Nyhedssites er en bitch. Der ER meget man gerne vil på især forsiden, og bannere og lister af forskellig art forsvinder ikke bare fordi man har lyst til designe noget lækkert og brugbart. Omvendt: Luftskibet har formået at lave et site, der ikke får øjnene til at gøre ondt.

Så med mindre jeg skal til at sprøjte webcam-oplæsninger af tilfældige julehistorier ud dagligt, så hjælp mig. Pretty please.

Er der tekniske problemer, så mail mig på anders (at) gzr (.) dk. Og ja, jeg synes også allerede at projektet er et smukt stykke kunst; et vidnesbyrd om alt dårligt der kan siges om 2.0/beta/community. Det har også værdi. Se mere i alle præsentationer jeg laver næste år.

I find too much buzz everywhere I look. And already, I’m spending a lot of time joking about a lot of the terms that reflect the things we are doing, just as I find myself explaining to clients that “this is not hot air” when they’re curious about some of the new ways of thinking. I’d like for everyone to think about what they say and write, how they portray their own field of work and how and what they sell.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Manifests should only be made, when there’s a revolution around the corner. This is a list.
• Words are important. Simplification equally so. but you don’t say ‘beta’ when you mean ‘agile’ — or ‘web 2.0′ when you mean ‘ajax’ — or ‘social software’ when you mean ‘community’, do you? Don’t worry about missing out on all the good buzz, your customers will thank you in the end.
• Words are important. Be careful with terms like ‘economy’, ‘revolution’ and ‘paradigm’. New opportunities don’t make a revolution, something involving money doesn’t constitute an economy. It sounds cool but these words have a meaning already. Maybe your customers get confused when they know the original one. Iook it up — and use with care.
• When pointing to technologies marking a new beginning, make sure you’re pointing to the actual one making the difference. Blogging might not mean shit — easy publishing in general might do.
• Show value. Telling customers that “it’s new”, “everyone else is doing it” and that they should “jump on the train” remind me of the early dot-com years. You’re selling hot air based on fear.
• Buzz is better than hype. Both, however, have a tendency to end up as selling points in their own right. They’re not. When you say “web 2.0″, do you know why you do it? Do you think it is a fitting container for a new way of doing things — or a clever marketing tool?
• That something’s ‘new’ isn’t a reason for anyone to do anything. To refer to the speed of which information travel and gets generated and to claim that ‘things are happening really fast now’ is to ignore how most civilizations evolve. I would be very surprised if things didn’t continue to develop this way from here to eternity. So that’s not the problem you should say you’re solving.
• What happens when all your customers have bought your services? Does your company name or profile imply that what they’re buying is just a way to ‘get up to speed’ or implement ‘that new thing’? Can your see yourself and your company in two year’s time? Are you honest about that you can’t?
• Is it clear from the way you’re communicating that you didn’t invent all the terms you’re using? Is it clear who did? And what it is you’re adding on top?
• Framing is important. In many ways, our core service is to enable people to use new technology and provide new ways of thinking about a lot of the things they would normally do by giving them a vocabulary; a way to think and talk about things that are new to them. Think hard about how you use terms. Are you drawing on known concepts to make things clearer where you should make a clear distinction? If you didn’t know what you know, would it make sense? Is there a risk your terms could obscure a good intention? Have you thought about metaphors lately?
• Networks are cool. Being in more than one is not bad. Is the foundation of your network based on values you’ve made an effort to explain — or is your profile ‘new’; hinting that this is the new black without further proof?
• When you explain the possibilities with technology and the ways we use it, do you attempt to transfer industry terms to a business environment uncritically? Are you confident that term x, known and debated within the industry, provides any real value to a corporate client — or would they be better off getting your take on some of the values?
• Would you rather not worry about all this hippie-nonsense and force your customers to swallow the blue pill — as it is
  movie wall street: money never sleeps online

  good for them?

I might add to this list, i might not. That doesn’t mean it’s in beta. It just means that maybe i find some time and some more input — and maybe i don’t.

Update: Gunnar Langemark posts what I believe is a comment to this post. Some different views…and some of the same conclusions ;-)

Jeg er i færd med at købe Matas og fuldende det metroseksuelle emperium pollas.dk er.

Se frem til en relancering af kæden under navnet Pomatas; stribene bevares, men vil fremover bestÃ¥ af web2.0-farver, ligesom produkterne vil udvikles i beta. Good enough, I ved…

Overvejer også et Genious Bar-lignende koncept, hvor de uendelige mængder af viden, der i dag er gemt bag første-dag-på-frisørskolen-frisurerne hos det kvikke personale, sættes fri: Kom forbi mmed dit cremeprodukt og bliv power user.

PÃ¥ web-fronten var planen at lave Creamhost.com, men den ide viste sig at være taget, dog med et twist…

It prevents it from licking its 2.0 — we wouldn’t want it to get infected with dotcom 2.0, now would we…

aj-case2-synkron.mov — 17:12

Andreas Johanssen in “Case2: Synkron”. Notes at Synkron.

ps-diktatur.mov — 15:50

Peter Svarre on “Web 2.0 — Nørdernes dikatur”. Blog post at Peter Svarres Blog.

aj-case2-synkron.mov — 17:12

Andreas Johanssen in “Case 2: Synkron”. Presentation notes at Synkron.