Since returning from Key West I’ve significantly cut back on the amount of time I spend goofing off in front of the computer. This has allowed me way more time for guitar, reading, writing, etc. It’s amazing how much I missed those things. Anyway, having been only plopping down in front of the keyboard when I’ve absolutely needed to has made me realize how close we are to actually having somewhat decent information management that actually makes life better instead of just different.

I’ve also realized that there are a few missing pieces to totally close the loop in some acceptable way so that technology, once you make the commitment to learning how to use it, can make some areas of our life not only more convenient but richer and more interesting. There are a couple key conditions that need to be met for this to happen:

1. The potency of any technology used to make life more convienient, interesting, richer (henceforth, just better) is directly related to the number of people with whom you interact who also use it.
2. When the barriers to adding, modifying and sharing content are low more people will be able to use it and, as such, the potency referred to in #1 is increased.
3. There is a temporal nature to sharing information in that some information is only useful in a certain context. Having information in that context is critical. The ability to not be distracted by that information when it’s out of context is equally critical.

Tools like Backpack, iCal, weblogs and their desktop corollary, the blogging client have brought us very close to reaching a maximum audience (#2) and hence maximum potency (#1). What’s lacking though is the ability to retrieve this information (or even better have it pushed out) when the correct contextual conditions are met. The richness of the data we can share (input) is limited by the ability to access that data in a variety of conditions. Clearly there are tools that a minority of power users like myself can utilize to better meet condition #3 but the more obtuse the method for retrieving contextual information, the higher the barrier (#2) and hence the lower the potency (#1).

Item #3 presents the limiting condition and it becomes the lowest common denominator for #1 and #2. With devices like the Treo and other PDA/Phones we’re getting closer to having a way to display contextually important shared data but the tools are not there to push it out (unless you’re an uber geek).

The Willisbros weblog has so totally exceeded my expectations as a tool for keeping a group of people in constant contact with one another. I live hundreds of miles away from my family and some of my closest friends and yet I feel connected to them in a way that I don’t think would have been possible were it not for the weblog. By design, the information on the weblog though is qualitative and anecdotal. Meaning, I can keep track of Hempstead’s fishing or Nav’s fire stories but when Jer posts that a good band will be on SNL or that I need to pickup a new album, that bit of quantitative data is lost among the qualitative, meaning the SNL event doesn’t show up on my Palm or Calendar to remind me and the album suggestions doesn’t show up on my “Music To Buy List.” This is because the tools available to manipulate this type of quantitative data are not sufficiently easy to use when it comes to inputting data(#2) nor is there a low-barrier way to get the data to be available in the right context (Palm, Calendar, emacs, email, sms, etc.) (#3).

Mac users have it easier and have a much higher lowest common denominator than PC users. At Hart to Hart (the home office that kel and i share), we’ve got calendar sharing setup so that kel knows when I have band practice and I know when we’re going to NJ, etc. We also are experimenting with Backpack as a virtual “Refigerator Sticky Note” replacement for things like pick up paper from staples or we need milk. This works because the application set or tools that are on the Mac are things that Kel uses independent of our need to share this type of data so she doesn’t need to learn anything new so we’ve got strong scores in #2 and hence an increased score in #1.

The Betterness Scale
Betterness here being the impossible-to-measure qualities that good technology can bring to life.



What all of this is pointing to is that there is a point where time spent learning and using technology intersects with the ability of technology to make life better. At the far left of the scale is what happens if you don’t take the time to learn some of the core tools; you have a lower return on the Betterness scale. However, towards the far right of the scale you start getting less and less returns on Betterness for the time you spend learning new tools. I think the amount of Betterness that can be gained through a minimal amount of learning has increased exponentially over the past few years. It is time to take advantage of that and start unplugging a bit and taking advantage of all that Betterness ;-)