I came across an interesting (though mostly off-topic) tidbit this morning while reading David Landes’ very excellent The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, regarding the island of Java, and the meaning that its name has taken in popular speech. Java, as you probably all know, is an island in the Indonesian archipelago, which has become so known for its coffee exports over the centuries that the word “java” has practically become synonymous with the beverage. The interesting thing is that coffee trees aren’t even native to Java, and were actually brought over by the Dutch colonizers from Ethiopia in the 17th century (originally called “Mocha,” after a seaport).

Now, try to imagine what the world would be like if the Dutch had decided to grow the coffee somewhere else, like say, Ceylon (which is where they had instead chosen to grow cinammon). Assuming Ceylon enjoyed a similar success in growing the coffee trees, it stands to reason that the word “Ceylon” would take the place of the word “Java” as being the de facto coffee source.

Now extend that thinking even further, about three centuries down the road to the year 1991, right around the time James Gosling at Sun Microsystems was hard at work developing a “virtual machine” that would allow the same code to be run on practically any platform or operating system. Codenamed “Oak,” this virtual machine had some trouble getting a good name, and the development team compiled a list of 20 decent ones, with one of the top choices being inspired by the kind of coffee they were always drinking at the office. Eventually that virtual machine became so popular that it is now currently deployed on about 2.5 billion devices, and enjoys one of the biggest development communities in the world.

Yes, I’m talking about Java, but the point is that “Java” the programming language could very well have been named “Ceylon” if the Dutch had made slightly different choices 300 years ago.

Hell, we might even be developing our mobile applications with C2ME, writing our DHTML with Ceylonscript, or building interfaces with ACAX. Positively mind-boggling, isn’t it?

Joshua Porter over at Bokardo has been writing some excellent posts lately. A common thread seems to be surfacing that the current method for designing sites is now not suiting the needs for a social web. Social interface design (which I covered previously) is becoming crucial.

Information Architecture now needs to adapt to also suit the changing environment.

Joshua’s recent post on Thoughts on the Impending Death of Information Architecture has some interesting thoughts coming from some of the big names in IA. These names realising the changes that are coming and the need to react to them (although not liking the change).

With the growth of things like folksonomies and search, the structured (preplanned) web is becoming less important. Things like the perpetual beta and understanding desire lines are changing the way that sites are developed. Developing a completely resolved site that is locked in, unchanging from day one does not work. Only through adapting, fine tuning and understanding the desires of the users of a site, that a site can be constantly relevant.

I think the “death” of IA is a little too strong. Like the sites that we are now building, it too has to understand and adapt to the changing environment.

Google is in a race to continue to be relevant to advertisers, publishers, and searchers.

They have wonderful opponents, SPAMMERS. Individuals trying to make money by “Gaming” Google. These SPAMMERS are always a few inches faster.
The first step was for Google to increase ad prices to the advertisers by introducing a new metric when buying keywords. Calling it “Quality Score” a metric on landing pages to determine relevance.
No on page relevance equals higher keyword click prices for the advertisers.

This increased the cost per click for many of the advertisers which increased Google’s profit, but increased relevance to the searchers.
This was just the first step.

Next, they added “Quality Score” to the pages of where the ads are placed in non-google properties, A.K.A. Publisher sites.

This will decrease Google’s revenue, but increase relevance to the advertisers.

Thus, creating more relevance to everyone (-SPAMMERS) and producing similar revenues as before.

Google’s Quality Score
Definition: Quality Score is the basis for measuring the quality and relevance of your ads and determining your minimum CPC bid for Google and the search network. This score is determined by your keyword’s clickthrough rate (CTR) on Google, and the relevance of your ad text, keyword, and landing page.

We believe high quality ads attract more clicks, encourage user trust, and result in better long-term performance. To encourage relevant and successful ads within AdWords, our system defines a Quality Score to set your keyword status, minimum CPC bid, and ad rank for the ad auction.

Sources: Google Revises AdSense Formula

Social interface design is becoming very important in the current development of the web. We are really only now discovering that our old assumptions are not always correct. As the web matures we start seeing that we have to look at our users differently. Its not just an individual but a whole ecosystem around that individual that needs to be considered.

Bokardo has a great post with gives a very clear idea of the changing landscape…

Gone are the days of traditional usability testing. Almost all testing assumes that 1) people want to use your software and 2) people use your software alone. Each of these things is becoming less true every day. There’s so much software! A much bigger problem, at this point in time, is how to get people and the social groups of which they are a part interested and keep them interested in your software.

You’re not convincing just one person, you’re convincing one person and all their friends.

Now I’m not talking about Social Search but social networks.

The Cyworld’s, MySpace’s, and other hundreds of niche networks are turning into the “new search”.
“Ad Spending in Social Networks will reach $865 million in 2007.”

MySpace getting at least $525 million leaving the rest to the niche networks.

Will Social Networks be dominated by the big gorillas, or will smaller players have a stronger play?

What will happen in 2010 when Ad Spending in Social Networks reach $2.15 billion.
Internet consumers are embracing social networks the way the present and past consumers have embraced search.

November 14th is World Usability Day, Luis and I will be speaking at De La Salle.

Details below.

Manila Events:
De La Salle University (940am-12nn)
Venue: Y407-409, DLSU Manila

• Hans Koch & Luis Buenaventura – Web 2.0 and Usability


• Dr. Lloyd Espiritu – Usability Engineering

a. Desire lines
b. Heat map
c. Keyword usability
d. User at the center

a. Context and Purpose
b. Designing for a specific demographic
c. Responding to User Feedback