Search

Prakkypedia

Corporate communications + Public Relations Adelaide

Month

February 2013

Seeing the world through Google-coloured glasses

Yesterday a car did a burn-out in my street. It was noisy and disruptive and smelly and offensive.

I could see the car doing it. I could read the registration number. And I thought: if I was wearing Google Glasses right now, I could record this. And then perhaps pass it onto the police for them to follow up. Or post to YouTube for the audiences who like that type of thing.

I’m excited by Google Glasses.

I love the idea of easily being able to capture and share images and video. This includes sharing imagery with others live.

But I’m also pondering what could go wrong.

If Google Glasses become widely used, there’s potential for a massive impact on our behaviour and in particular the way we interact with each other.

Imagine somebody wearing Google glasses and sharing their experience while they’re:

  • being sanctioned in the workplace
  • in a classroom where a teacher is reprimanding a student
  • witness to a street fight
  • having an argument with their spouse
  • being interviewed for a job
  • at the scene of an accident where a resuscitation is taking place
Mega artistic vision of a Google Glasses future by Prakky
Mega artistic vision of a Google Glasses future by Prakky

If you and I are having an important conversation – even a dispute – and I put on my pair of Google Glasses, how would you react?

Some spaces – schools, workplaces – may ban such devices. But what’s to stop a person walking down a street capturing that image of you littering / jaywalking / falling over/ picking your nose?

Sure. We’re all going to be super well behaved so it won’t matter.

Which raises the question: could Google Glasses’ content be the subject of witness accounts and therefore court proceedings? What does that mean – not just for us but for Google as a company?

Think sexting is a problem now?

Imagine the ease of filming – and live sharing – your girlfriend or boyfriend disrobing, showering, dancing around naked and so on. (Sure, wearing Google glasses may reduce your chances of reaching said intimacy, but hey …)

Do celebrities wish the paparazzi and Twitter and Instagram hadn’t been invented? Just wait until the world’s wearing Google Glasses!

There were complaints when Google Streetview was relatively new, and captured images of some people doing embarrassing things. We seem to have learned to live with Streetview now. (The Google Streetview capture of our house shows one of my son’s putting out the rubbish bins. A rare moment captured for the world). And yes, we already have the technology to be able to share images and video quickly and easily. But we’re talking about glasses here, people! Minimalist-looking glasses which could become ubiquitous and make us think twice about what we do in our everyday lives for fear of being on the world’s stage or having our recorded actions pored over later by others without context.

Don’t get me wrong. I can see that Google Glasses can be used for good rather than evil.

Google Glasses cartoon
Not that I cook .. but, envisioning Google Glasses future at the family dinner table

It’s the same case with social media. We have wonderful supportive communities online. We also  have horrendous and hurtful trolling. It comes down to unpredictable and wide-ranging human behaviour.

For some, the glasses may have sensational impacts:

  • Medical practitioners might share what they’re viewing and seek advice from colleagues
  • Coaches and teachers can impart advise and knowledge over distances
  • ‘Citizen journalists’ could share footage
  • Families can share special moments with those who can’t be there: cutting the birthday cake, saying I Do, sending a grandchild to their first day of school
  • We could more easily document our lives for future generations

Here in Adelaide, roving radio reporters like ABC radio’s Spence Denny could capture what they’re seeing. Today, Spence describes events on air for the studio journalists and listeners, and also shares images on social media. But if he can capture that burst water main with his Google Glasses?

Of course, I’m not the first person to ask these questions and envisage a scary future. The Next Web said: “The glasses situation comes down to each of us deciding how much is too much sharing and when we’ve finally lost too much privacy” .  But most criticism seems to revolve around the potential of ads being pushed at us, and Google storing data about our behaviour and movements, rather than an examination of how it may change us.

Jonathan Macintosh made a video about the privacy implications of Google glasses, demonstrating what it might look like to the wearer, should Google layer the experience with advertising:

Sure, you don’t have to wear Google glasses.

But our Google Glasses experience can be impacted by others.

We may not be the wearer. But we may be star of the film.

Instagram or Pinstagram? Who does it better?

So, Instagram has finally given users a way to view their photo feed on its official website.

But why bother?

I’m a big fan of Instagram and have been using it for a long time. I visit the app daily and share my own photos regularly.

But the new site has disappointed me. Especially when I compare it to Pinstagram, a site which was developed to fill the gap in Instagram’s offering on the internet. See for yourself in the examples below. Which layout do you prefer?

Prakky's Instagram feed on web
Prakky’s Instagram feed on web
Prakky's Instagram feed via Pinstagram
Prakky’s Instagram feed via Pinstagram  on the web

And note that the screenshot of my Instagram feed above was taken after reducing my screen size to 50%. Usually, it would show only one image (and probably a partial image at that).

Both sites give me the ability to like an Instagram picture and to comment. So why on earth would I ditch Pinstagram, when its layout is so much more attractive and offers more at a single glance?

What do you think?

What you should know about your Facebook cover image

Facebook cover photos are the main visual device on Facebook pages, but did you know there are terms and conditions which govern their use?

I was happy when covers were introduced along with the new Timeline, because they provide more visual real estate at the top of our pages, they’re eye-catching and give us an opportunity to be creative.

But like a lot of things on Facebook, it’s important to be aware of the rules.

Facebook doesn’t want us treating cover images like billboards or supermarket catalogues crammed with pricing information. Rather, we’re encouraged to view them as aesthetic design elements which can support a brand without yelling about the latest discounts a business offers.

According to Facebook’s cover image guidelines, our mastheads cannot contain pricing information such as “40% off”, contact information like your email address, or calls to action like “Get it now”.

Facebook cover sample one: compliant? Or not?
Facebook cover sample one: compliant? Or not?

Why? It’s my guess that the company would prefer to see our discounts and calls to action in Facebook ads and promoted posts, rather than a free-for-all in cover images. Why give us all that free real estate in our business page? (Although of course most of our page fans don’t visit the actual page and see the cover image after their initial Like; rather, they interact with us sporadically via any updates in their newsfeed. They can also view the cover image when they get a preview by hovering over our page names).

Related reading: The 10 worst things you can do with your Facebook business page

But wait, there are changes coming.

More recently, Facebook  advised that there must be a set ratio of text versus imagery on the page. It aims to reduce the amount of text in cover images – again, think ‘pretty picture’. This has been called “the 20% rule” and has a lot of Facebook marketers frustrated.

“The gist of these changes is that you can’t promote images with more than 20% text in them as page post ads, sponsored stories, or cover images. Facebook will be releasing a tool to help quickly determine whether your image satisfies the 20% limit”. – Somebodymarketing.com

Facebook cover sample two: compliant? Or not?
Facebook cover sample two: compliant? Or not?

Some blogs have attempted to help us determine what constitutes 20% of our cover images including Business of Awesome and Sublime Web Design.

The YouTube clip below from Smart Social Media For Biz outlines the 20% rule with examples of cover images that haven’t complied …

You might have seen cover images that break the rules.

That’s not unusual on Facebook – and it doesn’t  mean it’s okay! It’s just that those pages haven’t been reported yet. Facebook doesn’t have the resources to patrol its massive network continually looking for contraventions; it relies in part on other Facebook users reporting pages that have broken the rules. And often, that reporter might be your competitor or a professional (online) community manager who is tired of adhering to the rules while others flout it.

Have you seen any cover images that flagrantly break the rules?[ Hint: often, they are just plain ugly].

Facebook cover image three:  compliant? Or maybe not ...
Facebook cover image three: compliant? Or maybe not …

Blog at WordPress.com. | The Baskerville Theme.

Up ↑

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,076 other followers

%d bloggers like this: