When you’re trying to work out what your customer wants, you have some options. The simplest is to ask them directly – which is of course easier offline. Problem is, people often won’t answer, and even if they do, they may not tell you the truth.
All other choices are implicit – you can look at them (offline), you can watch them doing things, you can track what type of products they seem to like, you could (in a parallel world) take them to a lab and insert electrodes into their brain to see what their thoughts were telling you.
Color affects us all the time - from a red traffic light to the placebo effect of a pill(yellow chalk pills are the most effective antidepressants it seems). And we all know that the meaning of color varies based on where you are in the world, or in what sort of society or religion. The recently created ”Colours in Cultures” chart brings this to life (click on the image to view the original)
Reading has had a long history, no doubt. But here’s why I think it’s future may be shorter than its past. The stages of reading:
Reading = interpreting drawings Writing in symbols or pictures to communicate messages started some 70,000 years ago they reckon, with the first proven examples about 7,000BC. An example of such writing from the “Tartaria Tablets“, dating from 5300 BC:
So at that stage reading was about cartoons, pretty much…
Reading = interpreting symbols
Symbols (otherwise called glyphs) that stand for something abstract – like letters, then emerged around 3000BC. The “Vinca Symbols” are one of the first steps towards what we know today as an alphabet:
Phonetic writing (where characters represent sounds, which in turn represent names for things) then evolved from tablets (oh yes, the iPad of its day) to books to newspapers to magazines. Through rock to papyrus to paper, from printing press to colour laser.
Reading = text + image + video But letters aren’t enough. Reading today means getting informtion from a screen full of text, images and video. Ebooks aside (more about that in my next post), that’s what the current generation means reading.
NEAR FUTURE: Reading = interacting Even today’s state-of-the art reading (the internet) is lean-forward and stare, with the occasional click (or finger swipe) to navigate around content. We like to think of it as interactive, but really its static. It may be targeted or personalized, but usually barely so.
For the first step towards truly interactive content, and the next phase of writing and reading, take a look at the Microsoft Courier demo below. Apart from making Apple’s iHype (iPad) seem like a brick, it feels to me that this is the dawn of Personal.
Reading = dead? Let’s not forget reading is just a way of getting information into our brains.
The problems with text (specifically our Roman alphabet) are:
Too many languages, too much translation effort. We all travel to much to not share a language
Text doesn’t convey tone/intent/emotion/color
Text is slow to absorb and inefficient
Spelling is clumsy (like txt spk, which iznt gr8, u no)
Text, images, audio and video wil merge – into something new. Something more efficient. “Reading” will be what slow-minded people of the past did.
Communication will happen in its most efficient possible way (which has always be the case) – likely directly into our brains in a format perfectly suited to our neurons.
Reading, as we know it, will be dead. Even the written word may fall by the wayside.
At university I did a thesis on how people react to movies (part of which went into a chapter I co-wrote with Julian Friedman for his book How to Make Money Scriptwriting). Turns out, if we empathise with a character on screen, we mimic what they’re doing with small (undetectable) muscle movements – if they’re running, our legs twitch, etc.
What’s even more fascinating is how we SEE the movie. When we blink, we lose up to 10% of our viewing time. So it’s really important that we time those blinks to moments when we won’t miss anything too important happening on the screen. And that means that in an average movie (or YouTube clip), most of us will blink at the same time.
A recent study discovered that it’s not always when expected (i.e. a scene break), but at points where something has completed, or the main character is off the screen for a moment. So the result of a natural moment of low interest, when our brain calculates it can give the eyes a break.
Part of that seems obvious to me (our eyes would dry out if we waited for scene endings), but the fact that almost everyone anticipates the same best place to blink is pretty interesting.
Watching where people blink could be a pretty strong indicator of interest not just in movies, but in video ads (if we blink when they show the brand, opportunity lost), in top-level sports (especially fast-moving sports like table tennis) in warfare (when do fighter pilots blink?), and so on.
Every so often, a story comes a long within the field of psychology which underlines just how far we’ve still got to go.
In a study at UCLA, subjects were asked to do one of 8 different tasks – from saying whether words rhymed, to counting the number of tones they heard. So – very different, varied tasks.
Investigators using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) – the very cutting edge of brain scanning – and then had to guess from the results of the scans which tasks the subjects were doing.
Chance alone would get 1/8 or 12.5% of guesses correct. They managed 80%. Pretty good – but let’s just remember that they were looking at tasks that were very (very) distinct. And they still got it wrong 20% of the time…
How did they do it? With machine learning math (the same kind of math that we use at Cognitive Match). And yes, it’s a bit of a good result for this field of technology. But far from perfect, and very far from mind reading.
Of course, all this means is that fMRI and the way we interpret the results from that technology could be better. Much better.
But more importantly – maybe it’s just the wrong thing to do (which is my take on it). It’s a bit like working out whether the stock market is up, based on satellite weather images. The brain just doesn’t work based on large areas of electrical activity on a scan. It’s complex, enmeshed, multi-layered, abstracted and part of a body of integrated biological mechanisms. And I hope that’s clear.
Alex Kelleher, CEO Cognitive MatchAgree, Microsoft now has some pretty great products:- Windows 7 (successful but just accepted as standard)- XBOX (successful, but somehow not seen as Microsoft)- Bing (getting better, gaining adoption)- Windows Phone 7 (great, but people see it as uncool, so unwilling to try)They are unrivalled in the enterprise areas they o […]
Alex Kelleher, CEO Cognitive MatchAside from Taco Bell valuing a facebook like as 1 Beef Taco (http://www.computerworld.com/s/a...), I would echo a lot of the answers here that hedge their bets based on two key things:1. The value of an action for each business/vertical2. The attribution of an actionFor 1 - the 'same' facebook like might be worth $ […]
Alex Kelleher, CEO Cognitive MatchGoogle should re-enable face recognition (disenabled for privacy reasons). Face.com has the technology too, but no-one has enabled it for the simple purpose of recognising individuals. When I see that person whose name I just can't rescue from the tip of my tongue, I should be able to take a pic, and get Google/Bing/Fa […]
Alex Kelleher, CEO Cognitive MatchEileen Burbridge (White Bear Yard) - few people do as much, for as many (invested or not). Having her on your side is a secret weapon for any startup she chooses to supportSee question on Quora […]
Alex Kelleher, CEO Cognitive MatchTweetdeck, though sadly not available for Windows Mobile 7 yet - seesmic is (although the platform needs a refresh so that live updates are supported...)See question on Quora […]