Is there a future for email?

3204310433_3059fe3c74
French company, Atos, cause a stir recently by repeating again its intention to ban internal email from 2014 that was announced earlier in the year. There has been a fair bit of misunderstanding on the Web about this so I suggest you read this BBC interview with ATOS CEO, Thierry Breton, that explains his thinking behind this strategy.

Most of the critical responses to this idea have expressed an incredulous attitude towards the idea of eliminating what most people consider to be a critical business tool (remember the reaction to the BlackBerry outage a few months ago?). In some respects, many of the arguments against banning email are reasonable:

  • Can you ban email if your customers and clients are using it? (to be fair to ATOS, they aren't planning on banning external email).
  • Rather than banning email, users just need to manage their inboxes better.

However, on balance I think there is good reason for aiming to effectively ban email. But rather than outlawing it, we need to reinvent how we utilise email as a software protocol and also the ageing paradigm of the inbox, particularly where the assumed effectiveness is built on false assumptions around utility and information ownership. At a software level, email offers a number of important features - such as:

  • Interoperability and extendability.
  • It can work offline (although this is becoming less important).
  • For the sender, it costs no more to send messages to 1 or many people where ever they are.
  • Both sender and receivers can store and organise copies of messages exchanged independently of each other.
  • Email addresses act a simple proxies for identification.
  • Email accounts can be created for individuals, groups and also non-human systems.

These features provide a great deal of utility, although we can look at each feature and find many negatives too - for example:

  • Email standards and extensions aren't implemented homogeneously, so users may have problems reading or processing an email.
  • When you go online after an extended absence, your inbox is flooded with new messages.
  • People send many messages that for the receiver are just transient or ambient information - but your inbox treats them as all the same.
  • The independent nature of email messages contributed to fragmentation of the information chain, making it hard to know who knows what and people who should know made end up getting left out of the loop.
  • An email address doesn't actually tell you anything about the user, who they are or why you should trust that identity.
  • High volumes of automatically generated notification emails from non-human systems contribute to information overload.

In summary, we can say that email works as a pragmatic solution, but not without creating numerous problems for individual users and organisations a like. As a result there many solutions out there that help us to deal with everything from email processing to email data management. Some solutions are technical in nature, like help desk ticketing software or records management systems, but others focus on the user as problem and attempt to fix individual behaviours. But ultimately none offer a way of making email the perfect tool and it will take a leap to improve how we communicate and collaborate.

So, what is stopping us taking this leap? Thinking about this from a social experience design perspective, I think there are four key issues that need to be addressed to create something better than the email we use today:

  1. Move to open work as the default. Email provides users with a simple system of directing messages at people - this falls into a mental information sharing model of open only by exception that is the default in most organisations, but it is also supported by a false perception that email is owned by the sender and private if we restrict the names included on the To, CC and BCC lists. Of course, this doesn't mean we stop supporting some private communication entirely!
  2. Everything is Miscellaneous. Centrally designed information systems that enforce fixed, common models for organising information and work process don't work. These were designed with good intentions, but they aren't effective and only encourage the use of personal information stores.
  3. Collaborate by staying apart. We need the same ease of interoperability between different social business software platforms that email offers - I shouldn't be forced to use your system, when I have my own, and neither should you.
  4. Who are you? We need to shift from email addresses as identifiers towards a model where organisations can offer a better user identifier and profile that will enable messaging to take place through the right channel or system.

Its entirely possible that email protocols will continue to play a role in this new environment, but I think it will also depend on other Web 2.0 protocols like Activity Streams, Open Social, and ATOM. This actually hints that the death of email will come incrementally, if we wait for the technology to rise up and present better alternatives. In practice, the tide of data created by other social business software tools will make the traditional email inbox an unsustainable proposition.

The water is rising slowly right now, but don't doubt that the inbox will need to be reinvented at some point - the question is really when and how, not if.

BTW if you found this interesting, you might enjoy this presentation, Architected for Collaboration.

Image credit: Inbox Art CC BY-SA

Google is retiring Sidewiki

Sidewiki: Over the past few years, we’ve seen extraordinary innovation in terms of making the web collaborative. So we’ve decided to discontinue Sidewiki and focus instead on our broader social initiatives. Sidewiki authors will be given more details about this closure in the weeks ahead, and they’ll have a number of months to download their content.

Do you remember the fear and outrage about Google Sidewiki? It was all just FUD in the end... the technology was completely misunderstood by most people. Now, if the Sidewiki concept was incorporated into Google+, that could be interesting.

What Google+ could learn from About.Me et al

Basically, about.me enables you to create a centralized personal profile page that links to your content around the web. Sound like a Google+ profile page? It's different for quite a few reasons, but mostly so due to the "splash page" look of the site (where I usually choose to show a large picture of what I look like).

In addition to the slick front end content management tools, about.me also provides analytics so you can see who viewed your profile, where they came from, and where they've gone afterwards (your facebook, linkedin, flickr, twitter, blog etc). The only thing that's missing right now is domain mapping, so I can use my domain name.

They also have a partnership with moo.com (the business card and sticker folks) that let's you get free business cards that feature a QR code that will link to your about.me profile.

Highly recommended.

I'm a fan of about.me and also flavors.me too. Google isn't know for the visual aspects of its user experience and I really think they could learn something from the visual design and ease of use of these profile sites.

Intranet, Internet, Extranet merger imminent?

It’s clear that the once clear distinctions between intranets, internet sites and extranets are blurring somewhat as the technology evolves and business needs develop. Traditional distinctions between internal and external communication teams (and outputs) will also likely diminish, mirroring this application of technology. This merger though will bring some clear advantages.

  • A single design with a single user experience for all places, giving a clarity of corporate identity with smaller overall design bills
  • Publicly listed companies are obliged to publicly reveal some materials to the markets before telling employees (see our intranetizen post on laws and intranets). A single merged space could limits the chances of a mis-timed publishing.
  • Employees read the corporate site too! Merging ensures that there is no chance of mixed messaging especially if the former intranet and internet materials were managed by different teams. Consistency of content is critical when information consumers can compare and contrast.
  • Reduced licensing and support costs as to you move to using a single technology foundation.

We are definitely heading down this path - I'm seeing this issue come all the time during the planning stages for social intranets.

However, in practice right now it doesn't necessarily deliver all these benefits - e.g. licensing models for external and inward facing versions of the same platform can throw a spanner in the works. In some companies, the public internet site is also a more reliable source of information than the intranet - so some users might not see this as an improvement.

But there is not doubt that in the medium term, the intranet is definitely going to be a victim of extranet-isation; meanwhile organisations are also building external facing spaces where staff and customers will mingle. Just a question of if and when these will merge.

Google Plus - email re-imagined?

In the last few weeks a lot has been written about whether Google Plus is the ultimate killer social networking site of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or several others, you name it. Perhaps we have seen far too many articles and blog posts on the topic and while I do think it’s just a bit too early to make such kind of statements, even if Google Plus has just reached over 25 million users already. I still think it’s a bit too early to be announcing the painful death of each of those social networking environments. Let’s not forget how long it took both Facebook and Twitter to become mainstream and reach that tipping point of no return, of rampant progress, of gaining enough relevance and importance to stick around for a while, in short, of having enough global impact that almost everyone has heard, or knows about them. G+ still needs to reach that level. I do know though it will reach it eventually, perhaps even sooner than anyone else!, but what I am rather surprised about is the fact that hardly anyone has talked or blogged about the fact that Plus does present a real threat to the king of communications, collaboration and knowledge sharing: email!

For me, one the interesting things I've found about the Google+ experience to date is how much it resonated with my experience of enterprise microblogging platforms.

Now, Google got things right with Gmail (right now, it still is IMHO the best email app available and I love my ninjas), but stumbled with Wave. Google+ may well end up being the evolution of Gmail into email being re-imagined, perhaps later combined with the elements of Wave that did work (and also Open Social). But for that happen, Google+ will need to support a seamless, minimum level of compatibility with current email systems and other social tools.

Being open could be a recipe for success over the longer term, rather than trying to make Google+ the single social network. The unstated goal should also be to retire Gmail in its current form (although I'd like to keep the ninjas!). And that's where I see the enterprise going too - who will be first?

Web Prototyping Government - the Alpha.gov.uk experience

So then, how did the experiment go? First, let’s remind ourselves of the prototype’s primary objectives

  1. To test, in public, a prototype of a new, single UK Government website.
  2. To design & build a UK Government website using open, agile, multi-disciplinary product development techniques and technologies, shaped by an obsession with meeting user needs.

The prototype was developed in 12 weeks for £261k. It launched 1 day late, but given the need to recruit and gel a suitably skilled project team from inside and outside government, Objective 2  can reasonably claim to have been delivered. A boundary-pushing experimental prototype (aka a Minimum Viable Product ) was delivered by an in-house team working in an openagile way, placing user needs at the core of design process.

This isn’t a new approach, but it’s one that still all too rare across government...

But what about Objective 1? The reaction to the prototype itself?

...

...the reaction that really matters came from real users. Actively asking people what they think about a new product is always chastening yet ultimately rewarding, akin to a visit to the stern dentist. And we were thrilled with the volume and quality of user feedback garnered. People are so keen to help Government improve our products. We just have to ask for help, listen and respond.

The prototype was by no means perfect - and the Alpha team recognise that. But it was a prototype and that's the important difference - a completely different approach to IT in government is on display here.

Online customer service tools for government

New Web 2.0 customer service tools such as Get Satisfaction offer government an opportunity to connect with citizens online and real time in the most transparent way possible. While adoption is slow, Texas.gov and the NYC Comptroller’s Office are formally leveraging these options to address citizen service issues, share ideas, report problems and even accept praise.

I'd previously looked for examples of Get Satisfaction being used by government and couldn't find them, so I'm mostly bookmarking this for future reference. RightNow also offers a similar service and also has government clients.

What is Pinterest?

Media_httpd3io1k5o0zd_fujfr

Pinterest is a visual social bookmarking site. I'm not a Pinterest member, but I'm fan of the site none the less - both the concept and execution. They've done a great job of nurturing a positive, like minded community. I'm almost nervous about mentioning it here - this could be one to keep secret, so people discover it for themselves!

Google Apps will only support modern browsers from 1st August

For web applications to spring even farther ahead of traditional software, our teams need to make use of new capabilities available in modern browsers. For example, desktop notifications for Gmail and drag-and-drop file upload in Google Docs require advanced browsers that support HTML5. Older browsers just don’t have the chops to provide you with the same high-quality experience.

For this reason, soon Google Apps will only support modern browsers. Beginning August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

As of August 1st, we will discontinue support for the following browsers and their predecessors: Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 7, and Safari 3. In these older browsers you may have trouble using certain features in Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, Google Docs and Google Sites, and eventually these apps may stop working entirely.

+1 Google.

Hat tip Scott Vine.

Stowe Boyd: Our Mosaic Social Web

Apps are the tiles of the new mosaic, our composite life on line.

And Google+ is a deft straddle, with one foot in the old world and the other in the new. Google+ is currently a browser based system, but it is relatively easy to imagine the core functionality implemented in a next generation Android, and all the tools running as apps on top. Circles and Hangouts accessed as complementary apps, along with dozens or hundreds of others, built by Google or a growing ecology of developers.

Of course, Apple will respond in kind, and is perhaps a step or two ahead with its Twitter partnership, and its plan to integrate Twitter into iOS 5. So we can expect a similar flowering of iOS 5 apps that build on a core of social capabilities, and that will allow app developers to leverage profiles, following, streams, and other foundational social componentry at the OS level.

By lowering the core elements of sociality into the infrastructure, Google and Apple will be setting the stage for a new generation of app development, and therefore, user experience. Which will mean an acceleration of the transition for us, as users, from monolith to mosaic.

I find myself agreeing a lot with Boyd's impressions of Google+, particularly as I wrote a few days ago about resisting the desire to create what he describes as monolithic platforms.