Dear Friends,

A most worthwhile human being and hero of mine, Christopher Hitchens, passed away yesterday.

I began reading Hitchens at a time when I was coming to grips with what it meant to be a humanist and an atheist. Amongst Wilde and Orwell, there was Hitchens with the unrelenting argument, impossibly researched and beautifully phrased.

Hitchens was always certain. He was certain of the truth (on Kissinger, on Mother Theresa, on Clinton, on Iraq, on God) that existed irrespective of political allegiances, religious morality, arrived at only through individual thought and an understanding of the facts. His conclusions were controversial, but one could not deny his facts. And he stood certain of his truths, knowing that a life spent struggling for them is what brings it meaning.

That certainty (whether I have agreed with him or not) has kept me in good company for the past thirteen years and his passing leaves me somewhat bereft for someone to carry that on.

There are many lessons to be learned from Hitchens (some of which he wrote down in Letters to a Young Contrarian), one quote, one lesson was burned into my mind, a fabulous quote from a debate over the potential trial of Henry Kissinger.

Faced with the question of whether the outcomes of a trial of Kissinger’s crimes would not just be a fait accompli, that his actions could be chalked up to the ordinary accepted wickedness of super powers, that personal accountability would be too difficult to establish, Hitchens responds:

But once you’ve established that money was paid to the murderers after the murder’s been done, than all the stuff in Isaacson and the Church Commission is sure to be nonsense and a euphemism. Because once that final bit is in place, all the A words kick in: aiding, abetting, accessory, accomplice. And that’s a murder case. And there’s no law, as far as I know, that allows someone to say, “Well, OK, I did have this guy who’d never done anything to me or to anyone else killed in another country. But I did it because the president told me to.”

If that can be entered as a defense, I would like to see it entered as a defense. But first somebody has to say you can’t do that. I would just as soon hear them say… very well then, let us have it said that that is legal as long as you are an American. Let’s have that clarified, too. What one cannot go on doing is living in this semi-opaque world of multiple standards, if standards they may be called.

This quote encapsulates for me what is worth struggling for. As humanists we understand innately what is justice, what is the right thing to do, and we often forget it’s there or there is a gap between this and the accepted wisdoms of the world, a dulling of the senses to injustice. Hitchens was about the abolishment of the gap and he did it on the grandest of scales.

It is my hope to take his lessons and fight for them at the scales of my own life.

 

Some links and reactions:
New York Times posts a selection of Op-Ed articles and letters written by Christopher Hitchens
Friend Ian McEwan writes about his last days with Hitchens (NY Times)
Stephen Fry offers a few words
Christopher Buckley writes about their enduring friendship in the New Yorker

 

I recently took a trip to Fukushima, Japan to measure radiation levels in the area with Safecast.org.

I’ve written a story about my experiences at my photography blog, Spectral Alphabet.

Earlier this month, I rode with the Safecast crew out of Tokyo and onto Fukushima Prefecture. It was raining and in the back of the van we each had Geiger counters for the radiation measurements we planned to take throughout the day. Read more…


At the Sketching in Hardware conference this year I spoke about a few subjects I’ve become very passionate about: the history of the steam locomotive, behaviours that foster innovation and OpenIDEO.

I somehow found a way to string these things together into a cohesive whole, looking at the building blocks of innovation that allowed the steam locomotive to be invented. It was a fun presentation to research and deliver, so I thought I would share some of it here…

Let’s start in the 1st century BC… at the Aeolipile!

The first recorded steam engine was the Aeolipile, a bronze sphere filled with water, when heated, steam emerged through outlets causing the sphere to rotate.

Alas, “such a device was for the Greeks only a curiosity, not a source of power.” *

Here we see the first instance of an innovation as curiosity. The steam engine had no killer app. Sure, let’s give the Greeks a break it was the first century BC after all, but you could argue that steam was relegated to curiosity due to both a lack of complimentary technologies (knowledge and abilities to harness steam) and lack of market demand for the functional benefit that steam offered.

We see this pattern of innovation as curiosity with another great invention… Electricity. In the early days of electricity, inventors (such as Ben Franklin) amused themselves with tricks like the dangling Electrified Boy for lack of a practical application of the new technology. The dangling Electrified Boy trick, by the way, involved hanging a boy upside down, covered in non-conductive clothing, leaving his hands and feet bare. When someone touched his feet with an electrified glass tube, the boy could create sparks with his fingers or cause a pile of brass leaves on the ground to float towards him. As far as electricity tricks go, it was pretty cool.

Electricity was the unyielding mistress of showmen, magicians, tinkerers, scientists, who created ever-more curious parlor tricks in an effort to discover practical applications. At one point Franklin wrote his friend in London, “If there is no other use discovered of electricity, this however is considerable, that it may make a vain man humble.” *

For electricity, the killer apps came one upon another, the battery, the incandescent light.

For steam power, the killer app came as a response to new market demands of the 18th century, that of coal mining…

Coal mines had become serious business by the 1700′s, with innovations that meant mines could be dug deeper. In these deep mines, water seepage became a major hazard and there needed to be a way to drain the water out of mines that worked better than animal power.

In 1712, Thomas Newcomen built the first stationary steam engine, The Atmospheric Engine. He was a blacksmith and a tinkerer. He built his engine to pump water out of coal mines, responding to the market need at hand and, as a result, propelled us further forward into the industrial revolution.

For those of you raising your hands at this point, don’t panic, in the next installment of this blog I’m going to talk about James Watt and further innovation building blocks that led up to the steam locomotive.

In terms of the innovation work we do today, there are many curious innovations looking for a killer app. I’ve spent time on a lot of projects gathering and surveying these in the hopes of creating killer apps and on OpenIDEO we collect curious innovations amongst other inspirations at the start of any design challenge.

Sometimes the market isn’t quite there yet, or our knowledge isn’t sufficient enough. But it’s good to know that inventors before us had similar problems.

Innovation as a build

Perhaps the biggest breakthrough in steam technology came 50 years after Newcomen first invented the Atmospheric EngineJames Watt, an instrument maker at the University of Glasgow, tinkered with Newcomen’s engine and saw a flaw in its design. Watt built on Newcomen’s design by adding a steam condenser, a vacuum chamber that condensed steam without having to lose energy in heating and cooling the surrounding metal cylinder. It was such a huge breakthrough that James Watt is often referred to as the inventor of the steam engine.

Innovation & entrepreneurship

The steam condenser was only Watt’s first step in establishing the power of the steam engine as the driving force of the industrial revolution. Very importantly, after prototyping the new engine, Watt formed a partnership with James Boulton to manufacture these engines reliably and at scale. The availability and increased power of the steam engine led to its adoption in other industries such as to power weaving looms for textile factories.

Here we see Watt’s transition from engineer tinkerer to entrepreneur, under the guidance of Boulton, and that invention needs business in order to sustain itself and to create impact in the wider world. At the same time Victorian laws empowered the entrepreneur through the invention of legal concepts like limited liability, which allowed individuals to invest in ventures such as the Boulton & Watt engine.

Ideas that inspire

Watt continued to build upon the steam engine design, next creating the steam engine governer, a feedback mechanism that detected the steam produced by the engine and using that as input regulated the machine itself to produce a steady supply of power.

Here we see the power of an idea and its ability to influence inventions in other fields. The concept of a self-regulating mechanism that required no human intervention inspired other inventors like Charles Babbage and influenced the creation of feedback loops in other types of machines. Babbage himself wrote of the governer, “”that beautiful contrivance, the governor of the steam-engine … Whenever the increased speed of the engine would lead to injurious or dangerous consequences, this [the governor] is applied; and it is equally the regulator of the water-wheel which drives a spinning-jenny.”‘
Herbert Sussman. Victorian Technology: Invention, Innovation, and the Rise of the Machine (Victorian Life and Times) (p. 13).

Technology driving innovation

From the Boulton & Watt engine, we go to the technology of high-pressured steam. Richard Trevithick was fascinated by the potential of pressurising steam, in 1804 he invented the first high-pressure steam engine, delivering much more power than Watt and Newcomen’s Atmospheric engines.

Evaluating the qualities of his new technology, Trevithick reasoned that the engine could now be more compact, lighter and small enough to carry its own weight even with a carriage attached.

Trevithick proceeded to follow this train of thought by putting his engine on wheels to become carriages for people. When roads did not prove to be efficient and safe surfaces for the steam carriages, Trevithick came up with the idea to put the wheels on railway tracks. He built a circular track, set his steam carriage on it and charged people money to ride around. It was called “The catch me who can” and sparked interest and imagination, but technologies and infrastructures surrounding the engine were not ripe to take the idea fruther.

Innovation as a system

In 1830, George Stephenson unveiled what Trevithick’s breakthroughs had promised, it was The Rocket on Rails, a passenger railway locomotive that ran between Liverpool and Manchester. Here Stephenson understood that in order to create impact with the steam locomotive, he had to build an infrastructure with tracks that spanned the country.

A fare system was also introduced to charge reasonable prices to ordinary people and each person would pay at the level they could afford, receiving the level of service in accordance. This creative business model expanded the market and meant that everyone could ride the train, not just the rich.

Over the next 20 years, the amount of railway would expand to 6,600 miles. Stephenson would also have to work towards standardisation, a term familiar today in technology and unheard of then. As railway tracks and engines were being manufactured by competing companies, each had their own standards for the gauge size of the tracks. During a long journey passengers had to get off the train when different size tracks met and board another train to continue the journey. Stephenson helped to set a gauge standard so that all manufacturers produced the same set of parts, cooperating to further their own industry.

Innovation proliferating upon innovations

The proliferation of the rail network meant that time had to be standardised across England. Prior to this, time was set by the position of the noon sun in each village, causing inconsistencies across the country. This need led to the creation of Greenwich Mean Time and the widespread adoption of the telegraph to communicate this standard time (with telegraph lines running along the railway tracks).

Thus in order to make the holistic system of steam travel work, entire industries had to be born so that all the pieces worked together to create the experience of seamless rail travel.

With the history of the steam locomotive we see the evolution of a raw technology to being built upon and improved into a stable technology, to development into a business and finally the creation of a holistic system to deliver value to society. I’m sure there are a lot of inventions that follow this same trajectory and many more to come. My interest and aim is to understand the nature of innovation in the past in order to drive it in the future – and also I am simply in awe of the stories of tinkering & happenstance (from not so long ago) over things that we think of as being set in stone today.

By the way, you can also view a timeline of this entry on Prezi!

I’ve been doing some readings on ‘pop culture economics’ recently, with books such as Freakonomics, Superfreakonomics and Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational.

The combination of stats and storytelling in these books make my data viz nerd brain go a bit gooey. They’re so good, I managed to read all three books in about 4 days. (Aided by Kindle and the beach).

The Freakonomics series explores how statistical methods can be used to shed light on social phenomenon, sometimes revealing an insight that goes against the conventional wisdom. Like… does the amount of campaign funding contribute towards a candidate’s chances of winning? Or does the winning candidate just attract more campaign funding? (The answer, according to the numbers, seems to be the latter).

One story that stood out for me is the one about Paul Feldman and his bagel deliveries. Feldman basically started a business delivering bagels to offices and selling them on an honour system by leaving a box where people could deposit money if they took a bagel.

“So by measuring the money collected against the bagels taken, he found it possible to tell, down to the penny, just how honest his customers were. Did they steal from him? If so, what were the characteristics of a company that stole versus a company that did not? Under what circumstances did people tend to steal more, or less?”

Each office had their own percentage return, which formed an index into how honest the office was. This index said a lot about the office (smaller offices had a higher honesty index than bigger ones, probably due to the familiarity and social bond between people), managers and executives have a lower return than workers. What’s interesting to me is that through Feldman’s experience with these offices, he saw the index as an indicator of the morale of the office.

For a measure that is soft and intangible like employee morale or how your office is doing, what could be 2nd or 3rd-hand indicators? Feldman’s honesty index isn’t, of course, a scientific measure, but it’s one that could be tracked over time to indicate when something might be going wrong… or as a comparison tool with other offices.

What are soft, intangible things about your office that you can’t measure for? And what indexes could we create to measure them?

 

 

Twitter has been adding a few new features to its core service recently, features that fold in what other startups have been trying to do in order to make using twitter easier. Little did these startups know, their flagship product was just user testing for Twitter to figure out what new features to add.

One of the features recently introduced is the Twitter URL shortening service (t.co) which automatically shortens your urls, so there’s no need to go via the bit.ly site and shorten your url there, then paste it over.

Here’s two great points about the impact of this feature based on this story from The Next Web:
- All twitter traffic will now be aggregated in your analytics so you can see the real reach of the platform.

On OpenIDEO.com we already see the majority of our traffic coming from Twitter, with Facebook coming in a close second. However, we have noticed that bounce-rates for Twitter are higher as users are more likely to click on something just to see what it is, but those 140 characters can only do so much in terms of communicating what you’re about to open up.

- Twitter is now primed to launch an analytics product.

This is one of the key areas where startups have thrived in the Twitter ecosystem. We’ve seen lots of analytics software to help your brand understand its reach, or see the impact of a message. Now that Twitter has all links going through its own URL, it can collect the best data in order to deliver analytics.

The 2nd feature being integrated is image upload and sharing. Previously services like yfrog and instagram allowed you to seamlessly upload, store and share images. Now Twitter has rolled its own, where you can upload directly from its web interface.

Interestingly, we saw Apple introduce iCloud recently, taking cloud synchronisation (made easy and popular by startups like Dropbox) and turning it into a core feature integrated with their other flagship products (iTunes, iBooks, Pages).

So what does this mean for innovation and competition? It certainly drives up the stakes for these fledgeling startups and dares them to out-innovate the mothership.

Can twitpic, yfrog and Dropbox now develop even more amazing features and tie into other communities and platforms?

Also it’ll be interesting to see if first-to-market really means a new service can gain enough momentum to survive in the face of big competition, or will users just adopt the more integrated features if it means a few less clicks.

 

 

The Japan Geigermap is in its 5th week and a lot of activity has happened around the map and this crowd-sourcing phenomenon. In fact, a loosely connected community of enthusiasts and (dare I say it) obsessives have sprung up to drive forward the effort of providing crowd-sourced information on radiation levels around Japan.

Here’s a quick update of what I’ve seen in the last few weeks…

  • The Geigermap has seen over 182,000 visits. About 62% of visitors have come from Japan. People also seem to be tweeting about it regularly (mostly in Japanese), though I’m not sure how they’re hearing about it.I’m glad to see that people within Japan are making use of the map to get an overview of the nuclear situation in their country, which is what the map was intended to do. My friend, Shigeru Kobayashi has very kindly provided Japanese translation for the site and I’ve been constantly updating the visuals to make it more useful.
  • Shigeru and I were invited to speak on the BBC Radio4 program, Click On, to shed light on this phenomenon of crowd-sourced radiation readings in Japan. We talked about both sides of the equation, the value of crowd-sourcing and the need to provide better visuals and information to the public.
  • The map was featured in The Atlantic, in an article by Alexis Madrigal, who discussed the power of crowd-sourcing as a way to verify official government data. Be sure to read the comments section to see an added perspective from Usman Haque, founder of Pachube.
  • There have been a number of community efforts to source Geiger counter readings from around Japan and to visualize this in meaningful ways. As a result, Shigeru and his team setup in the Geigermaps.jp portal, a wiki to capture all the knowledge and resources that is being accumulated on this issue. I’ve been a contributor to this effort to help collect maps and articles.
  • Shigeru interviewed me for the Geigermaps.jp blog, where I discussed the power of design & visualisation to help people decipher the radiation information. I also urged geiger projects to standardise on calibration of their geiger counters so that the readings gathered could be comparable to eachother and to government values.
  • As a result of my mapping work, Sean Bonner and Joi Ito asked me to join the Safecast.org team (formerly RDTN) to help in mapping and visualisng their data. Here’s Sean Bonner’s blog entry on what the team is up to in creating home-made geiger projects and doing reconnaissance missions to the evacuation zone. I’m looking forward to contributing to this effort and making information clear to those people on the ground and to those of us concerned from afar.

I’ll be sure to keep you updated on the community efforts and work, Cheers all! – Haiyan

 

Inspried by Shigeru Kobayashi‘s work and the desire to just make something, I created a google map visualisation of radiation readings from across Japan.

These are crowd-source readings from numerous geiger counters hooked up to the Internet. The folks at Pachube have aggregated these readings and made them available for people to play with. The readings come from sources such as local councils, motivated individuals and official readings from Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).

My aim with this map is to make the data easily readable and understandable, so people can very quickly get an overview of the radiation levels across Japan and are able to drill in to get further details per region.

From a user experience point-of-view, I wanted the numbers to be at a glance, avoiding the extra clicks that these mashups usually ask of the user. So you see the readings highlighted in yellow on the map. The orange circles are coloured based on the severity of the reading (the darker the orange, the higher the reading). Clicking on these circles will also bring up more details about the reading (location, timestamp, millisievert).

The toughest part of this visualisation is really understanding what the numbers mean and what impact they have on human health. The first step to this process is standardising the units of measurement, as the crowd-sourced measurements and visualisations may use a number of representations. Units here are in µSv/h (or microSieverts) and we’ve been hearing CNN and NHK World refer to the unit Milisieverts (1 miliSievert = 1000 microSieverts). I also urge other mappers out there to use the µSv/h unit, so we speak a common language.

Next we have to know what normal readings might be and what doses would result in impact on human health.

I’ve seen a few different references to ‘average background radiation’ on the web. But it’s been hard to decide which ones to use and what factors were included in these considerations of background radiation.

On the map, I’ve opted to refer to the average geiger counter reading across Japan, calculated from values provided by MEXT – 714.929 µSv / year. (http://notice.yahoo.co.jp/emg/en/archives/np_jp.html). When you click on a reading to get further details, you’ll see each reading compared to the national average. I’ve also included the US natural background radiation value from Wikipedia (3000 microSieverts / year), however, the calculation of this value is unknown and may include more types of exposure than just open air geiger counter readings.

Time is also a factor as exposure is cumulative and we normally measure how much radiation we gather in our bodies based on annual exposure, rather than hourly.

Here’s a quick table to better understand the impact of millisievert exposure (gathered via Wikipedia):

  • 3 milsiv. average annual background (US)
  • 10 milsiv aircrew annual exposure
  • 50 milsiv current legal annual max
  • 100 milsiv carcenogenic annual level
  • 250 milsiv damage bone marrow, spleen
  • 1000 milsiv 5% death

 

Monday, March 21, 2011

There were some elevated readings in the Ibaraki region last night. One area reported levels of 2 microSieverts / hour.

Here are 2 screenshots 12 minutes apart. The first one is March 20 @ 21:14 (GMT) and March 20 @ 21:26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some great links to other resources:

- Pachube blogs about their crowd-sourced feed and the ‘Internet of Things in action.’

- @fleepcom has some amazingly detailed graphs of data coming out of Japan, including radiation levels and earthquake

- Marian Steinbach has been laboring to scrape radiation readings made public by the Japanese government website (MEXT)

- RDTN.org is tapping into multiple radiation feeds and urgent Japanese citizens to contribute their own geiger readings

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has an update blog on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

 

Following on from my last post about designing for social engagement on OpenIDEO.com, I’ve started playing with our user data to better visualise the make-up of the community.I thought that DNA sequencing might be a nice visual analogy for the unique signature of a social ecology and so created a DNA sequence of the Maternal Health challenge.

The DNA is really interesting, revealing a few things that I found surprising, and very likely many more insights that are hidden within.Below, the Community DNA shows each user as a vertical column. If you’ve participated in the Maternal Health challenge at all, you’ll be a vertical column in this map! The colour-coded rows show each of the interactions available:

  • If you’re following the challenge
  • If you’ve applauded anything
  • If you’ve made a comment
  • If you’ve submitted an inspiration
  • If you’ve uploaded a concept (our challenge is still has another week to go of concepting to go so this DNA is still evolving)

Intensity of the color indicates number of interactions for that user. Note that this DNA doesn’t reveal the number of submissions to the site, only number of users and what they’re up to. For example, there’s a lot more individual comments on the site than there are inspirations, but in the DNA they look relatively the same.

Insights for me personally:

We’re engaging a new set of people in each phase! You’ll notice that with the Concepting phase, a chunk of people that didn’t participate at all in Inspirations has started submitting their ideas. This confirms our initial design ideas about breaking up the design process into phases to cater to users with different skillsets and inclinations. It’s essentially how the Design Quotient works, breaking out the 4 different types of contributions you can make on the site and allowing users to gain points along the dimensions they’re most interested in.

People are engaging with multiple interactions on the site, from submitting a new piece of content, to commenting on other people’s work, to applauding. We still have a portion of the community that submit and then don’t participate socially. It looks like these people are submitting multiple items, but perhaps lurking the rest of the time.

About half the people who’ve participated at all on the site have submitted something! Great news. This turns my pyramid model on its head a little, or at least suggests a few more classes of users:

  • Passionate contributors – Those that do everything from concepting to inspirations, commenting, applauding.
  • Engaged contributors - Those that contribute new content and engage socially on the site.
  • Contributors – Those that just contribute new content but don’t engage.
  • Collaborators – Those that just comment and applaud, build on other people’s ideas.
  • Regulars – Those that just come to applaud.

Over time, I hope to make a few more of these DNA sequences for our various challenges. In the meantime, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Community DNA, what you see in the sequence and how we could improve this view…

The OpenIDEO platform launched 7 months, 2 days ago and since then we’ve seen an amazing collective of people gather around the site and adopt it as their own (12,000 members and counting). I think out of all the outcomes of the platform, this has been the most meaningful for me: to design a tool which users will adopt and feel ownership over and are now shaping along with our team.

I thought I would share some of the initial thoughts that went into the design of the platform and continues to drive its evolution. In a way, this feels a little premature because we’re in the middle of a period of platform refinement, applying the same framework, to both features and layout, in order to drive better user engagement.But this is really just an excuse to talk about a topic I’m passionate to share and would love to continue conversing about: designing for a social ecosystem.

Online community is a word that comes up a lot these days, for me it’s happening across many different projects in education, media, financial services. One of the first reactions to the creation of a community is always… ‘Who would come and contribute? I just can’t see myself doing it.’The answer is your online community isn’t a mob that forms a single entity with a single set of goals and expectations. Your community is an ecosystem of many user types, driven by varying motivations. There will be a small handful users who will passionately contribute and there will be a lot of users who will come to see the results.Here’s one of the most useful diagrams I’ve seen to explain this social ecosystem:At the top of the social ecosystem pyramid you have your small core group of Passionate Contributors. These users are the heart of your community. If your platform is like an empty house, these are the users that fill the house with their creations and take up residence. On OpenIDEO, these are our most passionate members who take the time to submit an inspiration or a concept, or visit the user forums to suggest a new feature.

But you can’t, and shouldn’t expect to, have a hundred thousand passionate contributors. Unless you’re Wikipedia and your userbase is 80% of the planet. When there’s even a handful of passionate contributors, it can signal a larger portion of Collaborators who comment, vote and generally keep the conversation alive. On OpenIDEO, we built bite-sized interactions such as a quick ‘Applaud’ or posting a comment on someone’s idea. The hurdle for clicking a button or typing in a comment is much lower and therefore attracts a different set of people who perhaps aren’t ready to submit something, but can partake of the other ways to interact.

At the base of the pyramid, we have the largest numbers of users, Regulars and occasional Visitors, and (in my mind) the most challenging to design for. It may be enough to surface these users somehow in the design of the site (by revealing their footprints across the platform) and to level them up through smaller, more lightweight interactions (ie. A quick Facebook like or tweet).

Finally, the tiers of different user types form an ecosystem where there is social interaction across the tiers, where Passionate Contributors and Collaborators create conversations that Regulars and Visitors return to consume.Here’s how the current spread of OpenIDEO features cater to different tiers of the ecosystem. They range from bite-sized interactions (click to applaud) to more involved interactions (submitting a concept).You can also see that converting someone from a Visitor to a Regular is a bit of a hurdle (raised higher by the process of actually having to sign up for an account). I’m not sure if I’ve seen any sites that do well at helping users level up from the bottom of the pyramid, except to make the value of the site so high as to drive signup.

As OpenIDEO is in this current phase of Living in Beta, it means we’re also trying to level-up users across all the tiers, through building intermediate features that turn Collaborators into Passionate Contributors and Regulars into Collaborators. Our latest Inspiration Assignments feature is an attempt to turn the rather nebulous Inspiration phase into more specific questions so as to overcome the hurdle of a blank piece of paper, where guiding questions can prompt Collaborators to start contributing.

So whether you’re a Visitor, Regular, Collaborator, Passionate Contributor, or social design geek, what are examples and ideas you’ve seen to level up user engagement?

Recently, I’ve returned to playing one of my favourite video games, Warcraft 3. I’ve always been a fan of the real-time strategy genre and specifically Warcraft as it embodies 2 aspects of video games that really appeal to my sensibilities: resource management and wanton death & destruction.

It’s a solid combo.

As I was spending another night building up my Night Elf village and amassing my army, I began to think about why this game (and similar games) appeal so much. What’s the satisfaction that I really got out of the hours spent there? I drilled it down to the fact that when creatures die in Warcraft (usually by my hand), they give off a really hearty, satisfying shriek, keel over and begin slowly decomposing into the ground. It’s a simple driver. That sequence of aural and video effect gives an immense, visceral satisfaction. When the effect is multiplied ten-fold as my invading hoard army over-runs the enemy camp, it signals a satisfying end to an hour spent overcoming a game level.

Designers have been talking for a while now about the gamification of everything. This idea revolves around giving activities other than gaming a score, or a game mechanic like collecting or customization. It’s a great way to drive user activity and competition. We even have our own scoring system on the web platform I’m currently designing, OpenIDEO.com, called the Design Quotient.

Beyond the game mechanic, there are other aspects of games we could also plunder. In the case of why I enjoy Warcraft, it’s about the ‘visceral payoff’. After all, when I kill enemies, I could just be watching my points accumulate. But the visceral experience of a slow, decomposing death is my experiential reward for achieving something… and sometimes, it’s more powerful than a score. Case in point, the new XBOX arrived pre-loaded with Peggle and oh-my-gosh what a visceral payoff. At the end of every level, as your peggle hits that very last marble, the visual effect is pretty damn cool and drives home the achievement of finishing up a level.

 

So how can we bring more visceral payoffs to the web? When I ‘like’ something on Youtube, can animatics fireworks go off to make me feel like I’ve made a worthwhile contribution? Can we make earning currency in whatever web service feel like an experience rather than a point?