#physicaldigital

Am I the only one getting pissed off physical/digital pricing : xbox

Reply Share ReportSave Source link

Deep integration of digital is changing retail. Here’s a few highlights from the new Nordstrom flagship:

The 7-story store in the heart of the nation’s fashion capital features the Nordstrom norms — top brands; good customer service; food and drink (seven restaurant and bar options!); on-site tailoring; etc.

Technology is sprinkled throughout, such as the augmented reality lipstick finder or the phone charging stations. There is a focus on picking up online orders, which have become a key part of Nordstrom’s growth strategy.

It's easy to find fault in things like Google Wearables because they're new. New platforms have potential for novelty, but their use cases aren't really understood; they haven't been defined and certainly haven't matured. Prototypes like this video raise ideas, here are mine.

1. At first, it's going to be a smartphone on a watch rather than a wearable device. Building in versions of existing apps allows new platforms to get up and running more quickly. The depicted use cases for the watch are pretty direct carry overs from smartphone apps (with less screen space). These scenarios don't design for the fact that it’s a watch, or that it's wearable.

2. The watch is advertised as "incredibly fast, incredibly glanceable." Unless the amount of accessible data is severely restricted, it's hard to believe people will limit themselves to just glances. For the most part, I don't think people expected we'd be willing to write important business emails and read really long articles (and books!) on four-inch phone screens, but we do.

We're in an ambiguous area between the smartphone as “a computer on a phone” and it as something more generic and invisible—a portable, sensor-enabled device that's connected to the internet. We heckle people walking on the street with their heads in their phones because they're using the phone as they would a desktop computer. In the same manner, we’re going to create a new set of curious rituals around the model of a computer on people's wrists. People will go to dinner with friends and be glued to their watch. People on the freeway will sneak peeks at their forearm to read new messages. People are going to awkwardly cover their mouth to whisper into their wrist without being overheard.

3. I'm simplifying, but it's always been curious to me that we care about the current temperature (we know this information, we’re there!). Because of this, it's a little odd the two pieces of data the watch prioritizes are the time (data my non-smart watch is quite adequate in providing) and the weather (data I already have). At the very least, a forecast makes more sense than current conditions.

4. What I loved about the iPod Shuffle (and then the Nano) was really simple: it had a clip. It was one less thing to carry. The device stayed with you, but you didn’t have to carry it. Not having to tote an iPod is a bit trivial (and a bit of a #firstworldproblem), but there’s a mushy psychological benefit to empty hands; to me, this is an important unburdening that shapes our experience with an object. Computers moving from desktops to laptops to smartdevices meant fewer tethers—to offices, to electrical outlets, to wifi, etc. The advantage of a wearable is another degree of freedom and a more seamless physical fit into daily activity.

5. Voice input interfaces use these types of commands: “Okay, Google. Toy stores nearby.” A phrase like this requires prior experience with the platform. In this example, it implies experience with Google Maps. We know this type of sentence fragment command will shortcut us to the information we want because we've used Maps (from other devices) before. Speaking this way isn’t “natural”, but that’s a good thing. This garbled form of English suggests the machine we’re talking to. It’s an affordance. Rather than use the human secretary metaphor most companies have been trying to get to, it suggests a pet dog—a loyal companion that wants to help, is generally neutral, and understands, but in a very limited way. It's more accurate.

6. Part of the rationale for the secretary model is a notion that it's more "natural"—the narrator says, "You can respond naturally just by speaking." I'm not sure we want "natural" or what that means necessarily, but for me, one sign of voice interfaces becoming more usable will be when they're forgiving of our inability to fully formulate commands ahead of time. When we compose a text by hand, we don’t just type away. We pause frequently—to think about what we want to say and (sometimes) to consider things like grammar and tone of voice. We're currently required to command in one long string—any "ummm"-ing gets caught in the message and brief pauses are interpreted as end-of-statements. This approach (MindMeld demo begins around 14:00) accommodates for some of it.