1996: The Year in Review

Interaction

Lastly, what of interactivity? After all, wasn't the Net supposed to be interactive too? You wouldn't know if from the bulk of what is available on the Internet, but this is interactive media and not television nor publishing. While everybody has heard--and repeated--that this is just the beginning of a new medium--analogous to television or radio at it's start--and thus, nothing like what it will eventually become, few people seem to practice this viewpoint when it comes to planning--or innovating--their sites. Interactivity isn't about building "limited choice" software as the CD-ROM industry found, to its dismay. It also isn't about building lab-experiment television delivered in little morsels where, like white rats, we have to keep pushing the "more" key to get another bit of the experience. Interactivity is the least understood, least evolved part of the whole Internet experience, and this is supposed to be interactive media.

While we've learned what interactivity isn't (it's not simply selecting among predetermined choices, it's not a subscription to regularly sent email notices, it's not waiting for a Shockwave movie to download in order to watch gratuitous animation that is ancillary to the experience but necessary because the site has no text navigation, and it's not navigating an empty, sorry-looking 3D landscape that serves as a poor metaphor for site navigation) we haven't really learned a whole lot about what it is--certainly not what makes this medium unique among all others.

To learn this, it might be useful to examine which companies are not on the web, which ones for which their customer interactions are so precious and fundamental to their success that they are not yet satisfied with the technology (or the ideas) as to trust their businesses to the medium. In particular, Nordstroms and Nike are nowhere to be seen. Nordstroms' entire brand, for example, is built around interactivity, only in realtime with real people and not mediated through computers. They wouldn't even be able to survive online as they could not offer the kind of service that is the hallmark of their success. For now, they could only dilute their brand with the kinds of interactions offered by their competitors. They have not missed the boat, but have refused to sail on it until it is seaworthy.

Nike, as well, views itself--and rightly so--as more than merely the sum of its sales. It has become a movement and not just another merchandising scheme. Nike plays to people's aspirations and helps support those aspirations where they intersect--and interact--with sports. These companies do not view interactivity as anything new--except to computers.

Interactive media have characteristics different than other media. They differ in their Control, Feedback, Communications, Productivity and Creativity, and Adaptivity. They differ in more than this, but let's take these to start with. Think about how books are used and how they respond to use. Think about television, newspapers, and conversations. What interactive media has to offer is a never-before-seen level of adaptability to each user, of individuality, of communications, and the ability to be more creative, yet most websites offer none of this.

 

This is what we must concentrate on over the next year. Rather than spend 1997 redesigning our sites yet again to reflect another corporate reorg or objective, we should spend our time and money on offer interactions that truly help our audiences and customers do something of value. This might be something as simple as checking on an order, or as important as sharing an opinion. We need to come to understand our audiences well so that we may serve them experiences instead of merely pages. We need to serve their needs and desires if we expect them to be satisfied, moved, or grateful, instead of merely our own interests.

Unfortunately, I don't have many good examples of sites that do this well. There are some glimmers of hope, but not many an no complete ones. What I can tell you is that the technology used is not what differentiates these sites. They are fundamentally about creating interesting, valuable experiences, and not showing whiz-bang technology. Perhaps Java or Marimba will make these experiences easier to achieve, but they will definitely not guide the decisions about what makes interesting interactions. They will not inform us about what is appropriate to do for a particular audience. And they will not point us toward the future of this medium, because that future lies in what people need and want to do in their lives and not what technology happens to be on their computers.

back

www.nathan.com | experience design | thoughts | projects | inspirations | photography | me