Archive for May, 2010

Books With Bells and Whistles?

Monday, May 31st, 2010

Arguing about the iPad versus the Kindle isn’t just for the tech press anymore. Now the debate has even made it to the New York Review of Books, with an article by Sue Halpern, ‘The iPad Revolution.’

One of the things I keep hearing about is enhancing e-books with multimedia. I admit a bias: That word sends me looking for a link to somewhere else. ‘Multimedia’ evokes every website that wastes my time and slows Firefox to a crawl with bad Flash animation. It has a whiff of marketers who want to make everything more like TV, the better to sell me stuff.

People who read for pleasure generally want to ‘get lost in the pages,’ as Halpern puts it. The last thing we want is distractions that pull us out of the story, fiction or nonfiction. Certainly I would not pay more to get an e-book larded up with video clips of the author typing away, or whatever. And good multimedia costs money to produce.

Of course there are exceptions. Graphic novels obviously depend as much on the images as the words, perhaps more. The same for some kinds of nonfiction pleasure reading, say books about art.

And I can think of a few other possibilities. A hundred years ago even adult fiction often had a few illustrations, beautifully done sketches. If e-book economics allows a return of that charming custom, not many readers will complain.

As always, content is king. And content isn’t just information, it is information we actually want, such as words to get lost in, with perhaps an graceful sketch now and then. But don’t expect us to pay for needless clutter.

Further Adventures in Social Networking

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

Is Facebook evil? Just as I finally opened a Facebook account and dipped my toes in, that question suddenly bubbled up across the tech blogosphere and beyond.

My own first Facebook experience was vaguely unnerving. No sooner did I log in than up popped four names of people whom Facebook thought might be friends. One I know, but the other three names were unfamiliar. A quick Google showed that one lives in the same county and belongs to a group I’m active in. We’ve doubtless met, even though I didn’t recognize her name. The other two have no apparent connection to me.

I have a decent online footprint; ‘data mining’ doesn’t need to dig very deep to find me. So what was unnerving? I think it was the hit and (mostly) miss nature of the connections offered.

Facebook did not come up with any commenters on my blogs, nor bloggers I regularly visit and comment on, nor in fact anyone who is part of my actual online social network. The one ‘hit’ is someone I’ve done work for; he’s mentioned on my LinkedIn page, but our connection has otherwise been by email, and the work I’ve done for him is not online.

So, why those particular names? The list wasn’t merely random, but it was odd enough to make me wonder how Facebook came up with it.

That said, I’m not terribly worried about my online privacy – what is genuinely private I don’t put on the Internet, and you shouldn’t either. But the experience was odd enough to leave me just a bit uncomfortable with Facebook.

And there is a more practical concern: For the most popular site in the universe, Facebook is confusing and not very easy to use. When I go to ‘my’ page (I just logged on), I see a couple more recommended friends I never heard of, pitches for some commercial websites, and no hint of how to do anything interesting or self expressive. WordPress and Blogger were a lot easier to figure out!

For now, when it comes to adding ‘channels,’ I think I’ll focus on Twitter.

In other news, we will be making some changes at TecTrends over the next week or two, and I will keep you posted as they take shape.