We sometimes catch flack for the text-heavy appearance of our conversations. “Why don’t you use video?” we have been asked. And I guess it’s a reasonable question. Video is inherently more active than text. I mean, look at these words here. They’re just sitting on the screen. Oh, sure, you could scroll up and down, but that’s not really the same thing.

But you can make text dynamic: make it move and fill the space in a way that gives the words themselves personality. In fact, enough people have done this that the technique has earned a name: kinetic typography. Audio files from Fight Club to Maroon 5 to Hitler (I’m not gonna link to that one) have been brought to life entirely through their words. Here’s one of my favorites:

The classic Abbott & Costello “Who’s on First” routine.

If anything can disprove the notion that text isn’t compelling, this should be it. Consider how much information you receive through just the combination of sound and text. For one thing, the two characters are immediately delineated through the font choice: Costello’s comic book bubble typeface easily outclassed by Abbott’s Wall Street Journal banner. There’s also the way the screen mimics Costello’s breathless babbling by filling up the entire window, while Abbott’s simple rejoinders literally drip off the screen.

We don’t use this technique all that often but we can, and it’s remarkably effective when we do. For a recent project I was working on, I needed to convey that a service being provided was absolutely free. That’s always a nice thing to hear, but it wasn’t really conveyed effectively until Chris created a giant zero that plummeted onto the screen, landing with a bounce, a screen shake, and a tremendous explosion. It was by far the most effective piece of onscreen text in the conversation.

I don’t necessarily agree that text by itself is inherently boring. We’ve got tools at our disposal to make it more dynamic and eye-catching, and it’s one of the things I need to keep in mind as a writer.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Interactive conversation is really becoming more popular all the time. Need proof? Now you can find it in a theme park.

The folks at Disney recently revamped their Spaceship Earth ride at Epcot, in Florida. You know, this place.

Until last year, the ride was a slow-moving journey through the development of human communication over the ages, from cave paintings to the internet. That’s all still there, but the audio-animatronic set pieces now serve a narrative about humankind developing new technologies to improve life. And it culminates in this presentation about Your Own Future.

Okay, truth be told, it’s not really a conversation. Given the “A or B” answers, it’s really more like a Choose Your Own Adventure. But the idea is definitely there. Each answer leads you down a different branch and towards a different recommendation – in this case, it’s a projected future – for the individual user. And the questions are pretty well phrased, too. “What are you most interested in?” “Which sounds like more fun?” The conversation acknowledges that there are many answers out there, but hey, it’s a theme park ride, so let’s just try to cut it down to a handful of key choices. Now, if they’d gone ahead and had Judi Dench actually ask the questions, they’d have been a lot closer to us.

Admittedly, they have gone and one-upped us in the personalization department. Thanks to a strategically-placed camera, the ride can take pictures of the users and superimpose them into the end product.

I’m pretty sure we can’t do that. (Note to self: check with the engineers and see if we can do that.) But the girls’ comments suggest that this level of personalization still has problems. Even setting aside the one girl’s inadvertent cyclop-ization, the whole thing is a little, to use their own word, “creepy.” Maybe we’ll hold off on that innovation for a bit.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Jump into the wayback machine, faithful Jellyfollowers, as I recount an incident from my early days with the company. The year was 1939. Gone with the Wind was tops at the box office, Amelia Earhart was officially declared dead, and a massive earthquake killed 30,000 in Chile. In the midst of these tragedies, I was learning the ropes of Interactive Conversation.

I had written a path that included the following question:

“Do you ever need to track down information or consult with colleagues to do your job?”

1. Yeah, often
2. Sure, sometimes
3. Nope, never

Let’s overlook the fact that that’s kind of a crappy question in general, and focus on the larger problem, which was quickly brought to my attention. What happens if the user picks option three? As I had written it, the host would respond with: Really? You’re an island, no outside info at all? And then I would give the user a chance to say “You know what, you’re right, I DO perform research….” So this conversation, which is supposed flow naturally from the user’s responses, is now second-guessing them and insisting that it knows best.

My defense was “Yeah, but no one in our audience would choose option three,” to which Harry (founder and guru of all things IC) responded “Then why is it an option?” After discussing it, I realized there were two possibilities: either the choice really was unnecessary (cut it) or it was legitimate and should have a legitimate response.

We were able to brainstorm a job or two that really might require no research, so the choice stayed and the host dialog became much less incredulous. Of course, we ultimately replaced the entire question with the far superior How much of your time is spent doing research?, but the point stands.

And that point is this: In an interactive conversation, the user can only say what you let them. So, if you’re making fun of them for saying it, you’ve probably done something wrong.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

As I was shopping for a new bicycle recently, I stumbled upon Kona’s bike finder. It’s not a full-blown interactive conversation, but it’s heading in that direction. As you select responses to a few simple questions, you’ll see which bikes fit your criteria:

As you can see, previous answers are tracked (i.e. “Man,” “Road,” etc.), and if you click on them, you can switch easily. All in all, it’s MUCH easier than trying to choose from a list:

So, in general, I am a fan of the bike finder. However, there are limitations to the approach taken here, even aside from the fact that you’re limited to only one brand of bikes. This tool works quite well if you know what you want, and just need to find the right bike to fit your needs. However, if you have more detailed questions (maybe you’re an experienced cyclist in search of specialized expertise or a beginner who doesn’t know where to start), you need something more. But I’d guess that most people are well-served by the bike finder. I was—the Sutra was the only one that would have worked for me.*

*Although, after tracking down a few competitors’ bikes, and taking them all out on the road, I went for a different brand entirely. The Internet will never be able to replace test rides. At least in the foreseeable future.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

The last conversation I worked on featured three different color backgrounds. It rotated between a dignified navy, a rich green, and a royal purple. With white and butter-yellow text, the contrast was strong and quite pleasing. And the reversal of the typical black-on-white scheme grabbed attention.

My current conversation looks a little different. It features a sky-blue background, and I knew there would be trouble pretty early on when I saw the white text almost fade into nothingness. Fortunately, that’s a problem with an easy solution. The addition of a dark shadow behind the text makes it pop out. (At least, we hope that’s the plan. One of our resident engineering wizards is working on this right now as we speak.) But the issue highlights an important concern: an interactive conversation has to look as friendly and familiar as it sounds.

What’s the most pleasant color combination to look at? Not surprisingly, people have done research into this subject. (And they seem to have chosen the most irritating color combo themselves. Which may prove a point, in some roundabout way.) The conclusion seems to be… nobody knows. Consider the assessment found here:

“There is no one ’best‘ combination of text and background colours. Different sight conditions can result in widely different needs - some users may be comfortable with black text on a white background, others may prefer white text on a dark blue background, others yellow text on a back background, etc.”

Well. Not very helpful, although I guess it does give us some leeway.

I’ve seen Jellyvision projects with black backgrounds, red backgrounds, blue backgrounds, white backgrounds, green backgrounds… can’t remember if we’ve done brown or not. We experiment for artistic variety, but we also remain on the lookout for the most visually-pleasing approach. If you have a combination you particularly enjoy, we’d love to hear about it.

Hmm. Perhaps the black-on-white look you’re viewing now could use some work.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Automated IM experiences are proliferating these days. But so far, I have not seen an example of one doing something that couldn’t be accomplished just as well in a more traditional way. Here are some examples of what’s out there:

1. Talk to ALICE. She’s a chatbot whose ostensible purpose is just entertainment, as far as I can tell. She succeeds for a little while but after asking a couple probing or risqué questions, it gets pretty old.

2. Next IT attempts to harness IM technology for corporate purposes. Their products are more focused than the standard chatbots. Jenn, the Alaska Air assistant, serves the same purpose as a phone tree, except she’s website-based. If you type in a question, she’ll direct you to the page most relevant to you.

3. Sgt. Star is Next IT’s virtual recruiter for the U.S. Army. He responds to your IMs with dense paragraphs of information. He can tell you about entrance requirements, expectations, and what advantages the Army offers over the other armed forces.

Jenn and Sgt. Star are neat little toys, but they do little more than an effective search tool would. Eventually, I think IM will achieve something that could not be accomplished in another manner, but as of now…

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

If the New Yorker is writing about talking computers, well… they’ve got our attention.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Real quick, go check out I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!’s website. I’ll wait.

Good. Now, let’s examine this ad campaign. We’ve got three women in 1950s-era, “June Cleaver” getups, representing society’s view of women at the time. One’s in the kitchen, one’s waiting for a bus, and one’s serving coffee at home. That middle example is okay, but the other two seem a little sexist, right? Not to worry. The banner reads “Now we know Better. Click on Dana, Laura, or Emily to find out how we know better than we did in the past!” All right, I wasn’t expecting social commentary in my margarine propaganda, but let’s give it a shot.

Mousing over each woman triggers a tinkly sound effect and the transformation of the 50s gal into a modern woman. However, this change is more subtle than you might expect. Dana has a slightly newer stove. Laura gains a cell phone. And Emily is still entertaining, but she’s gone from serving coffee to serving martinis, which is at least a step up.

Clicking on one of the women brings up a couple of paragraphs about how, way back when Mom was cooking, we didn’t know that all the saturated fat and cholesterol we were stuffing our gobs with would eventually make us fat, bitter, and manless. Well, it doesn’t say that exactly, but the general theme is that the “nutritious oils” in “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” are a huge improvement over the crappy ingredients women were stuck with in the past.

Women, mind you. The whole thing is still very clear that women are the ones who cook. Sure, their lives are more active now, what with all the manwork they’re monkeying around with, but their primary duty is to get home in time to prepare delicious, healthy meals for the family.

This is what we call “making assumptions about your audience.” Let’s itemize the assumptions ICBINB has made:

• The three primary concerns of a woman are as follows
  1. Nutrition
  2. Errands
  3. The recipe for a memorable “Caribbean Castaway Party”
• Men don’t cook, bake, or care about butter substitutes.

So, we’ve got an impressive score on the “insulting stereotypes” meter. Apparently, ICBINB thinks that no male would ever set foot in the kitchen, and that all females stepped straight out of… well… the 1950s. Actually their knowledge of the 1950s is pretty pedestrian as well, but I’ll let that slide.

Now, you don’t have to use Interactive Conversation to avoid pigeonholing your audience, but being able to ask someone what their lifestyle’s like and what’s important to them sure makes things easier. The point is, don’t tell your customers who they are. If anything, let them tell you.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...