imageVisible

Talking Semantics

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:47:35 CDT

In the future, the Internet may be hooked directly to everyone's brains, feeding them information at the first sign of light at the end of their mind's many synaptic tunnels. Before even realizing they're craving shrimp gumbo, the locations of the nearest Cajun restaurants will be downloaded to their brains. Scary? Cool? Invasive? I probably agree with whatever your feelings are on it.

The current state of the Internet is structured to display information visually to people. Unless a user has a disability and uses special equipment such as a screen reader, they generally get all of their information from seeing it on a computer screen. This is one of the reasons having information downloaded directly to our brains sounds so weird - even from a developmental standpoint. If the five senses are removed, how could the word "movie" be conveyed to someone? What about a specific movie, playing at a specific time, at a specific place?

Computers, in most cases, cannot see. Even if they're equipped with a camera, they're only relaying what the camera sees - they don't understand it. This is an interesting juxtaposition between man and machine. Whereas machines think in the way that we can't, we think in the way machines can't. This is one of the many major roadblocks between mankind having a symbiotic thought process with machines: we understand and process information in completely different ways.

Enter what's being colloquially called the Semantic Web. Groups of web developers, designers, psychologists and philosophers are all combining their efforts to develop this. In addition to deconstructing and describing every imaginable aspect of existence, they're also creating the means with which the computers can understand all of this information.

A simple example of this would be color. Currently if you type "blue" into Google, it comes up with half a billion matches. But it still doesn't understand that the word is used to describe a color. In the future, Google will know that blue is used to describe a color, a character in the movie Old School, a feeling, a dog on a children's TV show, and that it's the misspelled name of a character on a cartoon that I like.

That's just one word though. A more complex example of this would be that you want to buy a blue vintage washing machine made by Maytag in 1978 being sold by a store in the 75207 zip code which will be open in the next 12 minutes.

Initially for consumers, this will add a little more of that 21st century Jetsons-style convenience to our lifestyles. But there are other much more important applications than just buying appliances. Semantic Publishing, for example, will be enhanced by allowing scientists to share research data with each other more quickly and easily.

The practicality of an "information utopia" is still debatable though. The hurdles are humorously outlined in Cory Doctorow's Metacrap essay, and they largely boil down to the fact that people will be populating the information on the Semantic Web. My girlfriend leaves subject lines in her eMails blank. Past coworkers have given me documents with names like "UNTITLED.DOC". My parents have a thousand items on their computers' desktops, and more within folders on said desktops named things like "stuff on desktop". I myself am guilty of giving ambiguous names to my blog entries that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm writing about. In addition to all this, retailers are quick to stretch the truth in order to sell their product. Lose a thousand pounds in six hours! Click here for a free planet filled with gold-plated diamonds! This is what the Internet has turned into, rather than the clean, concise, idiot-free zone it was once destined to be. A Semantic Web isn't likely to be much different.

We're a far cry from having computers read our thoughts, let alone give us what information we want at the first sign of a thought. But the idea of the Semantic Web, no matter how well or poorly it's implemented, will be an important stepping stone toward a more advanced Internet. How far it will go and how useful it will be can only be determined by the people creating it. Like it or not, this will inevitably include you.

The Eyesores of the Internet

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:31:40 CDT

Typically, I pay no attention to ad banners on websites. This isn't the case with other advertising - I enjoy looking at magazine ads, television commercials and billboards. But with some of the garbage that manages to slime its way into my sight, is it any wonder why I turn a blind eye to Internet advertising?

I'm surprised the quintessential "strobe light" banners haven't caused more lawsuits since they've surely made countless epileptics go into seizures. What about the banners "cleverly" disguised to look like computer alerts? Are people still fooled by images that don't even match the rest of their operating system's GUI? And let's not forget the early attempts at advergames where users are told they'll win a billion dollars if they click a certain target. (All the while, this was just one big image linked to a page, and no amount of clicking skills would tip the scales in the user's favor.) Like a celebrity who pulls weird stunts for the paparazzi, banners have stooped to extreme lows by embarrassing themselves with pathetic cries for attention.

The other day I saw an ad that said, "Shave Britney's Head!" When I moused over the banner, my cursor turned into an electric razor. Upon clicking, locks of hair fell off of a cartoon Britney Spears' head. For some reason, I was unable to resist. I immediately stopped what I was doing and clicked away. After her head was completely shaved, the banner opened a new window with the advertised site. While this isn't much better than the "click here to win" banners, it's a step in a much better direction -- especially if it got me of all people to click through.

The biggest problem with past web ads was that they didn't utilize the medium on which they were released. This isn't print, radio or television - it's the web. It may have not been feasible in 1999 to have a fully animated Flash banner, but we're way beyond that point now. Technology has evolved to allow for banners that harbor higher levels of interaction, and smart companies are replacing static banners with videos and advergames. In my opinion, this is exactly what advertising on the web has been destined for since its inception. If we can redirected a user to a book of number puzzles after completing a banner-sized sudoku grid, we should without question! That's exactly what the web is about. Shaving celebrity craniums may not be the most elegant foray into the world of interactive advertising, but I can't help but applaud the effort.

I've seen other executions similar to this. Click the swimmer to make him win the race. Punch George W. Bush. Shoot the moving target. Lift weights with Arnold Schwarzenegger. The "Shave Britney's Head" advergame was the first one that compelled me to click, probably because of my demographical disposition. This is something I think these banners need to focus much more closely on, as well as the quality of the games themselves.

As someone who grew up playing games nonstop, I can tell you exactly what I like about them: possibility of outcomes due to my actions. Players finding themselves in situations where they're rewarded or reprimanded for their actions is what games are all about. The more variables there are, the more engaging the game is.

Advergames are a new frontier for both advertising AND games. Coming up with a game concept targeted to a specific demographic that's easy to play, quick to understand, and relatively easy to win is hard enough. But making it engaging by adding various possibilities is even harder, and this seems to be where Interactive advertising is missing out the most. Many advergames have one of two outcomes: the user completes a repetitive or simple task and is sent on their way, or they lose and are asked to try again. Let's face it, they have so much more potential than that.

Unfortunately as long as advertisers try to make money without spending it, and as long as people try to pass ugly blinking squares as advertisements, the web will retain its stagnant, ugly side. But as a believer in the idea that consumers ultimately choose the better product, I'm hopeful the eyesores of the Internet will slowly but surely be replaced by something web users actually want there.

I'm Not Joking

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:52:39 CDT

You know that feeling of being 'in the know'? That feeling of telling your friends about something cool they had not heard yet? Being able to say, 'Oh, you hadn't heard?' or 'Yeah, I saw that last week. Isn't it great?' Maybe it is a news article, a new product, a new musician, or a new movie. Or an advertisement.

How many times have you heard, 'I saw this great commercial...'? Some commercials are still worth talking about, like that terrific Skittles ad with the singing rabbit. They're called viral ads because they practically advertise themselves. But due to our obsession with political correctness, our insatiable urge to be constantly entertained, and the FCC's regulations on what can and cannot be shown on television, it is tough to get a good TV ad out in America that gets people talking but still emphasizes the product. On the Internet however, the sky is the limit.

Recently, Warner Brothers deployed a viral marketing campaign that advertised the upcoming Batman movie, The Dark Knight. Fans of the series (like myself) whose gnashing jaws have been hungry for even the slightest bit of information about the upcoming movie know that Heath Ledger will be playing The Joker, Batman's arch nemesis and arguably one of the greatest fictional villains of all time. With Christopher Nolan's grittier, more realistic approach to Batman Begins (and the amazing cliffhanger at the end that still gives me chills when I see it), every fan wanted to know: what would The Joker be like in The Dark Knight? Clearly if Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale could do such an incredible job with Batman, Joker fans were in for a tremendous treat.

A month or two ago, there were fake photos put out on the Internet by a fan with too much time on his hands. Most people (admittedly, myself included) were convinced they were real until the creator came clean. Warner Brothers must have watched this unfold and realized how highly anticipated this aspect of the new movie was. Unlike some studios that might work harder to keep it a secret, they used it to their advantage.

First, they updated TheDarkKnight.com to link to IBelieveInHarveyDent.com, a fake political campaign ad for a pivotal character in the upcoming movie. This alone was enough to get people talking, but it wasn't long (maybe a week) before something else happened - Joker playing cards started showing up in nooks and crannies of comic book stores, unbeknownst to the shopkeepers. Maniacal handwriting on the cards read "HAHAHAHAH, I BELIEVE IN HARVEY DENT TOO". It wasn't long before someone went to IBelieveInHarveyDentToo.com to find a duplicate of the Harvey Dent site, but with trashy MS Paint scribbling all over the campaign ad that defaced Harvey Dent with red lips and dark circles around his eyes. The Joker's trademark.

There was also an eMail field. When users submitted an address, they were eMailed a link which pointed them back to the site they came from. After returning, one pixel was then removed from the campaign ad to reveal part of a photo beneath it. What was being revealed? Heath Ledger in his gritty, deformed, psychopath serial killer persona that would make John Wayne Gacy squirm.

Later while there were still people (me) hearing about this, the image was replaced by a fake "Page Not Found" error. Pages worth of sadistic laughter were typed out in black text, but placed on a black background so as to conceal it to the average viewer. By highlighting the text or turning off the page's style sheets, users could see what was really going on. Some fans even took the time to read through the page, and discovered a hidden message amongst the madness: "See You In December". Since the film's scheduled release is in 2008, fans are now asking a new question: what do we get to see in December?

With a little bit of careful planning and creativity, more hype was drummed up for The Dark Knight than any other kind of advertising could have possibly hoped for. It likely costed the studio less, and because of the target audience's level of involvement, it proved to be more engaging and entertaining as well. When you pit this tactic against the slew of redundant television commercials that utilize deadpan cubicle humor, it is hard to believe that only a handful of companies are taking advantage of it. Hopefully in the near future, it will catch on and everyone will benefit.

In the meantime, I have a lot to do. I just read confirmation that a new He-Man movie is being made. And rumors of a Goonies II. When can I expect Indiana Jones IV? I can't believe I hadn't seen the Iron Man photos yet...