advocacy

Open conversations (or close them)

Open conversations (or close them):

A guy walks into a shop that sells ties. He’s opened the conversation by walking in.

Salesman says, “can I help you?”

The conversation is now closed. The prospect can politely say, “no thanks, just looking.”

Consider the alternative: “That’s a [insert adjective here] tie you’re wearing, sir. Where did you buy it?”

Conversation is now open. Attention has been paid, a rapport can be built. They can talk about ties. And good taste.

Or consider a patron at a fancy restaurant. He was served an old piece of fish, something hardly worth the place’s reputation. On the way out, he says to the chef,

“It must be hard to get great fish on Mondays. I’m afraid the filet I was served had turned.”

If the chef says, “I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your meal…” then the conversation is over. The patron has been rebuffed, the feedback considered merely whining and a matter of personal perspective.

What if the chef said instead, “what kind of fish was it?” What if the chef invited the patron back into the kitchen to take a look at the process and was asked for feedback?

Open conversations generate loyalty, sales and most of all, learning… for both sides.

[Of course, these simple examples (as important and relevant though they may be in context) are important as a lesson. Many of us get used to closing conversation. What if we were more open even if not directly related to our job? And the flip side. I’ve had many open conversations about a wide range of topics without anyone in the room telling me something important like “I’d prefer you work this way…” or “Why don’t you do more of this?”. Watch out for that…]
Source: Seth’s Blog

Screen size

Size:

Marco Arment:

Android phones have been one-upping each other with screen size a lot recently. It’s an interesting tactic that seems to be working, at least relative to other Android phones. When comparing phones side-by-side in a store, the larger screens really do look more appealing, and I bet a lot of people don’t consider the practical downsides.

Apple generally tries to make it instantly obvious which of its products are better — what the trade-offs are. 16/32/64 GB: pay more, get more storage. iPhone 4S vs. 4: faster, better camera, Siri.

Bigger-screen iPhone proponents are telling me via email that they don’t necessarily want Apple to replace the 3.5-inch models with a 4-point-something inch one — just want a bigger screen model added to the lineup. But then which is “better”? I think it’s likely that many customers’ intuition would tell them that bigger must be better, and they’d make a choice they’d come to regret. What appeals to you in-store, side-by-side, isn’t necessarily what will appeal to you in long-term actual use.

 ★ 
[All true. But the point is subtle one. Many people may not care. It’s the same problem being complained about in other threads that the “4S” is not “5”. That somehow all new internals wasn’t exciting enough for the tech press. But here, tech guys are arguing over whether a 4 inch screen is better compromise than a 3.5 inch screen and whether an individual’s hand (specifically the person looking at this issue) can reach the entire screen as get it larger and is that a problem or not. For some, a larger phone with a bigger screen will be a better solution. For others, and I count myself among them, it wouldn’t be. At some point, a device stops being a “phone” a starts being something else. And with that you’ve now entered a very complex space of tradeoffs and design decisions. Size, weight, thinness, pocket sizes, cost, capability, battery life, experience all weigh in on what a device is… and worse yet, you have to live with the decision for a while before you’ll know whether it works or not and why. That is always an expensive proposition for users. It’s why reviewers who review a lot of “stuff” often seem more picayune than the rest of us… it’s not that they’re more opinionated and more demanding although many of them cultivate that belief. It’s that they’re forced to use many more designs. When you do that, you feel the failure in your hand. (“Man. That’s annoying!”). Yes, in the store a larger screen will have a positive impact, but carrying it in your pocket, not necessarily being able to reach across its surface and other issues may not be noticeable at first. It may feel like a cool drink of water in hell, or it may be one of those things that annoys you many times a day.. Hard to say from here. But that sucks.]
Source: Daring Fireball

SJ

SJ: Ten years ago today, we still had not yet met the iPod. The last of Steve’s five decades on this Earth ended up being his most accomplished by far. Remember that whenever you think your best days are behind you. We can’t control when our lives begin, and we can’t really control when they end. All we have is what’s in between. Make it count.

[Yes.]
Source: Apple Outsider

Occupy Silicon Valley?

Occupy Silicon Valley?: Instead of bundling parcels of mortgages and turning them into derivatives, they bundle up parcels of people and turn them into masses of users, who generate content. Then they sell access to those users for a price, to other businesses. The problem is that as growth levels off, and it’s sure to do that (how many more groups of 800 million can Facebook find, and where will they have to go to find them, and who will they have to sell out to to get there) — they’re going to have to take more from those users. Zuck calls it “sharing.” The rest of us call it “privacy.” [I find it interesting that the vast majority of friends and family have barely any network/social presence at all.]
Source: Scripting News

IDEO: Big Innovation Lives Right on the Edge of Ridiculous Ideas

IDEO: Big Innovation Lives Right on the Edge of Ridiculous Ideas:

“Those skeptics are in every walk of life. You can certainly combat it with the experimenter role. Show people it’s possible, don’t just tell them. It’s always been the seemingly improbable, boundary-pushing ideas that have created this world around us and none of that would have been possible if they’d listened to all the people who said it never would have worked. We’d still be living in caves if we relied on the skeptics.”

Also see: From Ridiculous to Brilliant: Why We Play at Work

How we would be

Noah reminds me, most days, to live closely to who you are. And sometimes you try on new things and see how they work.

Some of this is a question of perspective. I once took a short hike, but it was my turn to carry the load… literally. I carried a large day pack and had food and water and extra clothing for all of us. Not too far in to the wilds of New Hampshire a couple comes hiking down the trail, and we meet over the tussle of who’s coming up, who’s going down, and stepping around the usually close trail.

What they saw was a guy on an adventure… backpack, walking stick, etc. Where’d you camp they asked? Where are you staying tonight? I granted their confusion… I’ve been that guy, I’ve done those things enough for authenticity to remain in evidence. But still, I was not that guy that day. But it was clearly exciting for them to meet someone that was doing that… like they wanted to but hadn’t got there yet.

We see who and what we want. We see problems if that’s what we want. We see Truth if that’s what we need. The power of seeing is in allowing room for others to be seen as they wish, rather than what we wish for them. By seeing, actually seeing, people as they are, we can empower them to live as they choose… or as they wish to, even they’re not there yet.

Changing settings give people that freedom. Move to a new place where no one knows you and it is easy to weave a new story if you choose. The trick, as it were, it to get people to see you as you wish to be seen without that fresh start. Evolving a story is more complicated and requires permission and time.

But don’t let any of this stop you from living how you choose, with a vision for yourself as you wish it to be. Just realize that it may take a long time for others to see it as well. It doesn’t make it less true. People who you see as they wish to be seen could well see you as you wish to be seen. And may help you get where you want to go.

I am a job creator who creates no jobs

I am a job creator who creates no jobs: I should add that I am in no danger of being caught in the net of President Obama’s proposed millionaires’ tax. I pay the accountants a few thousand dollars, and they make sure I am not paying more in taxes than I should be. (Note to the IRS: They do this in ways that are conservative, entirely above-board and so innocuous that they should not attract your interest in the slightest.)

While there is something absurd about being a one-man corporation, it’s a rational response to an irrational tax code. If lawmakers got serious about tax reform that removed loopholes, the money spent on accountants and actuaries (valuable though they are) could instead be used to grow the economy or to pay the federal debt. But that’s a matter for another day.

At the moment, the Ink-Stained Inc. case study, should the Harvard Business School wish to study it, is a reminder to be skeptical of the “job creator” argument in the tax debate. “It’s a good example of the murkiness of what we mean by small business and the connection to jobs,” William Gale, co-director of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution’s Tax Policy Center, told me. “There’s sort of this notion of small-business innovation and job creation that just doesn’t necessarily hold.”

That’s even more so with Obama’s “Buffett Rule,” under which millionaires would have to pay a higher tax rate than a typical middle-class worker. As a practical matter, most already do. Gale said the rule would raise the taxes on only a few thousand people, perhaps as few as 1,000.

In a nation of more than 300 million, that’s not going to make a dent in job creation. Even the data analysts at Ink-Stained Inc. could figure out that one — that is, if we had any data analysts.

[It comes down to… if politicians are talking… they’re lying.]

You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop

You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop: “Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right — and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply. The ACLU, photographer’s groups, and others have been complaining about such incidents for years — and consistently winning in court. Yet, a continuing stream of incidents of illegal harassment of photographers and videographers makes it clear that the problem is not going away.”

[It’s a huge mess. From my perspective this problem has grown greatly over the years…]