|
|||
|
|||
|
PERFECT PITCH Your interview with Quincy Jones [“Perfect Pitch,” April/May 2001] was right on the money. I’ve always held Quincy in the highest regard. He is a very special person and a total joy to work with. His great musical talents, his respect for fellow musicians, and his warmth always permeated the studio. It was always an honor to get a call to work for Quincy Jones. His music was beautiful, challenging, and grooving all the way. He was “all business” at times, but he also found time to kid with the musicians or let go with a witticism. The days I spent working with him were some of the most fulfilling of my career. In that regard, I’ve been very fortunate. —Carol Kaye
‘RAMPING’ UP THE WEB Making Web Sites more accessible to people with special needs [Virtual Horizons, April/May 2001] has been in the media spotlight in the U.K. recently as a result of new legislation. One area that has been neglected, however, is Internet access in the workplace. Companies have spent a lot of time and effort on employees’ physical environment but now need to start addressing the employees’ virtual environment. When designing corporate intranets, most organizations have subordinated usability to the demands of the corporate message. The special-needs user requires simple navigation and intelligent and accessible information architecture rather than a sophisticated look and feel. —Johnny Mone
PLEASE STAND BY I enjoyed reading Bob Diddlebock’s piece [“Please Stand By; We’re Experiencing Technical Difficulties,” June/July 2001] about the slower-than-expected development of a gaggle of highly hyped new technologies. But rather than kick the tech business when it’s down, I’d rather cheerlead for the arrival of some of this stuff. There was a bunch of stuff on The Jetsons [the 1960s television series about a 21st-century family] for which no one is even talking about release dates yet. Where’s my little jet car? Where’s my Rosie the Robot maid? Why can’t I just put my kids in a little capsule to drop them off at school? The heck with a Web-enabled phone—I want an automatic easy chair that comes and knocks me in the butt when I get home at night, like George had! Point is that I’m pretty sure we’ll all be talking to our personal computers someday and having cool little Dick Tracy two-way televisions on our wrists. It’s all coming, and when I’ve got my grandkids on my knee I’m going to tell them about having to drive to work in the freezing cold with only an analog voice cellphone to keep me warm. I can see their eyes rolling now. —Dave Maney
As a recovering industry analyst, I have no more painful reminder of my tarnished past than in reading the always ebullient forecasts for consumer technology’s relentless march forward. The formula, as I recall, goes something like this: Take an emerging technology breathlessly proffered by public-relations agents and venture capitalists, assume 23% growth in years two through five, and go to lunch. The resulting prognostication should seem precise and must unfailingly suggest Big Potential, the better to pepper those securities registration documents and use at investor roadshows to keep the cash flowing in. Remember the last time you read an analyst’s report that prescribed doom for an emerging technology? Thought so. The problem is that there is this bothersome intruder formerly known as a person (today, a “consumer”). Somebody much wiser than I once observed, I suspect correctly, that to convince a meaningful slice of the Consumer Republic to change its behavior requires a tremendously daunting confluence of events. You can’t offer just an incremental improvement over The Way Things Are. You must deliver convenience and rewards that are 10 times superior—the automatic washing machine vs. a scrub-board down at the creek is a dandy example. And just to spice things up, nowadays your solution can’t be just a little bit cheaper. Ideally, it will be free, or close to it. Then, you might have a shot. Diddlebock’s candid assessment of an assortment of consumer technological goodies foisted upon the market by venture-backed hopefuls is particularly interesting. What’s more fun for a PR-exhausted scribe like myself than watching millions of dollars of investment capital flitter out the window as doomed technologies fail to register even a “one” on our 10-fold scale? Wireless devices with input keys smaller than Skittles? Nope. Voice-activated computers that botch simple commands? Don’t think so. Telephone calls that require barking into a computer microphone? That might be interesting except that we already have these handy little devices called telephones. It may be intoxicating within the confines of the espresso-scented corporate conference room to contemplate that the glass screen in my family room might do more than simply display television programs. Arm it with a digital processor and a network connection, the thinking goes, and it could let me handle all manner of interactive applications, e-mail included. So, let’s see, a rerun of Baywatch or a PowerPoint attachment from my boss? Call me old-fashioned, but I’m thinking Pamela Anderson here. —Stewart Schley
I thoroughly enjoyed Diddlebock’s amusing and, alas, all-too-true article. Having just tackled buying a new cellphone to replace my antique NEC, I can attest that sometimes old and clunky beats new and gimmicky. It’s nice that business associates can no longer stare at me in disbelief—as they did when I used my previous phone, which was roughly the size and weight of a standard brick. But my nifty, new three-inch phone requires a degree in electronics to program. And the buttons are so tiny that it’s virtually impossible to hit the right numbers without using a toothpick. My husband convinced me that only Luddites used anything less than electronic date books. They eliminate paper and (here are the magic words) “save time” in hunting up phone numbers and messages. But not only have I been unable to find the time to program in the many “labor-saving” techniques touted, I still need to use a pocket calendar to avoid missing meetings when I’m either away from the office or the computer is down. Tell me these new products are fun. Tell me they will make me look “cool.” But don’t tell me they will save me time. —Pamela Avery
BLUETOOTHLESS What a ridiculous article written by David Reed about how Bluetooth technology is being developed [The Great Lie, June/July 2001]. To say that “Bluetooth development is being done as it might have been in a Stalinist economy” is absolute rubbish. As someone talking to Bluetooth developers every day from all over the world, I find it quite incredible what some people are doing. Please research the topic in greater detail next time. —Hugh Sheridan
|
