I used to call web surfing a good cure for insomnia.
Back in the pre-broadband days I could barely stay awake for the length of time it would take to download an average web page. Many web sites defied the odds and loaded their pages with luscious graphics but it was sheer torture to watch them trickling miserably onto the screen. Imagine being very hungry and sitting in a cordon bleu restaurant watching your Vichyssoise brought to your table, one spoonful at a time. Argh!
Around 2000, when DSL starting making big waves, I spent some time speculating on the future of broadband applications. Back then it looked like broadband was the big saviour because it could carry such large amounts of data across the pipe. Aah, Vichyssoise piping, uh, cold - but an entire bowl of it!
Fat pipe thinking was logical for the telecom folks who had created the amazing network infrastructure that we rely on today. It was a no-brainer for the telecom industry to expect to reap greater profits from moving more massive amounts of data through a technology like DSL.
But what intrigued me mostly about this emerging technology was not the broad bandwidth but the 'always on' feature. Being always connected was not a quantitative change but a qualitative leap forward. What would people do if they were always connected to the Net - or more accurately, to each other?
The topic of connectedness as it pertains to human relationships has been a primary interest (no, make that an obsession) of mine for as long as I can remember. Among other things, this is the aspect of technology that defines the art and science of user interface design. So it's not surprising, I suppose, that I chose to focus on the 'connectedness' of DSL.
My thoughts back then had a certain quaintness by today's standards:
From a usability point of view, the most important aspect of Broadband technology is the 'Always On' aspect. This characteristic means that the user can be constantly connected to a network. This is very important because it means that the usability cost for accessing information on that that network drops considerably. It means that the computer is more like a phone (an indispensable device) in that one can interact with it immediately (in contrast to pre-Broadband technology which typically had a high cost for both making and keeping a connection).
But on the other hand, in retrospect, I had hit the mark bang on:
So a big part of the definition of Broadband applications involves understanding the implications of that degree of 'connectedness'. It will open the door for a wide array of more subtle and ubiquitous applications. It is at this level that we can begin to speak of such things as a 'Virtual Village' in which an entirely new set of relationships can be established across what have previously been barriers of isolation. These relationships will have a sense of depth and tangibility that can make each individual user a significant member within each of their social and professional communities. The subjective benefits of this increased connectedness may well redefine contemporary urban life in such a way that it has the closeness of traditional small communities - i.e. villages.
Again, it is quaint to read the overly descriptive phrase 'community of interest' and to conjure up the metaphor of a village, when today we commonly use short hand terms like 'social media', 'social networking', 'blogosphere' and even specific brand names for connectedness vehicles such as 'My Space' and 'Face Book'. But the point remains that underneath all these clusters of connected persons are sets of common values, or subjects, that really do define countless communities of interest.
So what is my reason for dwelling on old visions of the future? I suppose I am preparing myself mentally for the discussions that may (or may not) arise at the 2007 Mesh conference in Toronto that starts tomorrow. The conference will have many thinkers and insightful minds engaging in conversation, debate and general networking in an attempt to peer into the new future beyond the 'Web 2.0' world.
For me, the bottom line will still be about how we define ourselves as clusters of value-bonded individuals and how technology can enable (or cripple) our growth as individuals and as 'communities of interest'. We are the subjects of our own lives and I believe technologies that foster connectedness can and should evolve along a 'subject oriented' path. I'll have more to say about that in future posts.