Dear Technology Section Editor: Ten ways you know your tech journalists should be switched from covering Apple Inc. to say, Microsoft or RIM

Dear Technology Section Editor ,
Mainstream Media Publication,
Anytown, Anywhere

Dear Sir/Madam,

After many years of observing your publication in operation and as it attempts to make the transition to a digital news flow, may I offer the following reasons why some of your syndicated, featured, or freelance writers, be they journalists or bloggers or members of the kommentariat at large, may cause you to shift their fields of interest. Or:

Ten ways you know your tech journalists should be switched from covering Apple Inc. to say, Microsoft or RIM:

1. They refer to any success Apple enjoys as being due to its legions of “iSheep”, “fanbois” or cult believers who will indiscriminantly buy anything Apple due to Apple’s vast marketing budget and prowess. They will perhaps give a very brief mention to design and production qualities, but keep the focus on slavish followers.

2. They damn Apple for not having the courage to enter the enterprise market and compete head to head with Microsoft, thus revealing they haven’t seen or heard Steve Jobs’ metaphors of trucks and cars, and a post-PC world, nor do they understand the term “flight to the bottom”.

3. They rabbit on about “market share” and how low is Apple’s with respect to the desktop OS, while conveniently ignoring Apple’s quarterly profits, growth and customer satisfaction surveys. Oh, and its market share with respect to the iOS-powered devices.

4. They hold up examples of failed Apple products as to why Apple might fail with its next rumoured product… “remember the Pippin, the Newton, The Cube? See, Apple doesn’t get it right always….”

5. They admonish Apple for releasing or spreading rumours there will be a product “soon” but one which Steve Jobs said Apple would never do. This is used  as an example of Apple’s lack of trustworthiness, but bald-faced lying. iPod Video 5th gen., anyone?

6. They report on how worried Apple should be because they really believe RIM is about to turn the corner and blow the tech world out of the water with the next Blackberry with its new OS. Or Microsoft will do it with Windows 8, or Nokia will… you get the picture.

7. They do “exclusive” product review “showdowns” between vapourware products no one has been able to put side by side e.g. “Who will win? We compare Microsoft’s Surface RT versus Apple’s iPad 7 inch.”

8. In predicting Apple’s future, they can’t help themselves from referring to Microsoft “saving” Apple from oblivion at the time of Steve Jobs’ return in 1997, with an investment of $150 million in non-voting stock, thus perpetuating demonstrably untrue folklore.

9. They include current quotes from Steve Wozniak about contemporary Apple issues like design, functionality or competitiveness, things he would be best to leave alone for oh…  the past 20 years, and the next 20 to come.

10. They continually present you with articles about Apple which are lists of ten things Apple could do differently, should be doing, are not doing, are doing worse than anyone else, etc., etc. And they spread all ten over 5 pages to demonstrate how they are truly clickwhores, which badly reflects on your publication.

These are my ten. Dear Reader, I’m sure I’ve missed a few… can you assist with your own, and assist Dear Editor out of this dilemma?

About these ads
Aside

I took a recent opportunity to drop into my nearest Apple store at Chadstone, a major shopping centre in southeastern Melbourne. It was the first Apple store to open in Melbourne and even at 11am midweek it was buzzing with new purchasers, one on one training, and sales of accessories.

I hadn’t stepped more than a metre or so into the store when I was welcomed by an Apple employee, to whom I said I’m just looking, and proceeded to track down the new Retina display Macbook Pro.

I’m a year off updating my April 2011 Macbook Pro 15″, having just given it a big speed boost by removing the standard 500GB hard drive (albeit the 7200RPM model), and replacing it with an OWC 120GB solid state drive. I didn’t stop there, removing the optical drive, placing it in an OWC USB-powered case, and using an OWC datadoubler cage to place a 750GB Seagate momentum hard drive. The SSD contains my operating system and applications, while the Seagate has my documents and other files, as well as used as a scratch disk. How fast is the system now? Well, Microsoft Word now opens with one bounce, as does iPhoto with 3500 pictures.

More importantly it shuts down and boots up much more quickly, and I’m estimating the Macbook’s battery endurance has also increased significantly.

It will do fine for another year.

Equally important, it gives Keynote – my presentation application which I discuss frequently on this blog – a speed boost too, and it has a snappier feel to it when I’m in the process of creating new presentations.

Which all brings me to discuss the future of Keynote and its brethren apps which make up the iWork suite, which has not seen a significant update for more than three years. Meanwhile, Powerpoint for Macs and Windows have seen major version updates, Prezi is growing in popularity, and iWork apps for the iPad have seen several significant improvements, bringing them closer to the capabilities of the desktop versions.

Keynote users, which we can guess are growing in number to judge by the sales figures Apple publishes on the App store (it’s currently in the top three of paid apps), are asking the following questions, mystified by Apple’s seeming neglect of their favourite app.:

1. Is an update – or more plainly – a significant version improvement due some time this decade?

2. Will it have the same look and feel as the current version, or will Apple switch it to its “professional look”, seen in apps such as Final Cut X, Motion, Aperture, etc.

3. Will Keynote fully utilise Airplay in Mountain Lion such that in either Presentation or Mirror mode, a true wireless data projector connection may be made, either with the latest wifi-equipped projector, or via connecting AppleTV to an HDMI equipped setup

4. Will Keynote instead be dumbed down so as to provide greater compatibility with the iPad version?

5. If not, what new features will Keynote emphasize? Clearly, new transitions or build styles will come along, but is this sufficient to sustain interest in Keynote or are new useability features to be the name of the game in 2012?

6. Will Keynote make it easier for third party developers to come to the party, not just with new themes, but this time with new transitions and builds?

So what new features are the most desired and have any recent official Apple keynotes given a hint of Apple’s thinking about presentations?

After using Keynote for almost a decade, when it was almost featureless when compared to Powerpoint 2003, experienced users have developed their own workarounds for the application’s deficiencies, even if they must do so with clenched teeth.

The lack of a useful timeline remains for me the most glaring need to be fixed. Currently, rather complex slideshows, which Keynote begs to do due to its cinematic capabilities, are hobbled. The go-around is to create Quicktime movies of complex single slides, perhaps using iMovie, Motion or Final Cut to manage exact timings and mixtures of images, video, and sound.

Grouping images into a single image file is still troublesome, as Apple has yet to find a way to name each group on the one slide with its own name, rather than a generic, “Group”. Moving these groups forward or back with respect to each slide item, something novice users are unaware of, is part of elevating presentations to another level. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it taken advantage of in scientific presentations featuring Powerpoint. In Keynote currently, it’s particularly kludgy, and Powerpoint for Mac has a 3D view which Apple could think about improving upon. Using layers within a presentation slide raises presentations from ho-hum to something special.

The most recently observed Apple keynotes haven’t shown any easily detectable new features. For the next section, I’ll refer to the WWDC 2012 keynote of June 11 where new Macbooks were shown together with previews of Mountain Lion and iOS 6.

There were a couple of very neat effects displayed which can be reproduced using the existing feature set, but which require several steps rather than built-in effect generators. Let’s start early in the WWDC when CEO Tim Cook is describing how many more countries are will soon be able to access Apple’s App store.

If you download the video via the iTunes podcast feature, you’ll see a world map at 05:50 where Cook has several new countries “fly” in, overlaying in a different shade of blue those countries new to the app store service. I was able to reproduce this on one slide using the move and scale build in feature, but to do it over 30 countries is a pain.

It means utilising the shape feature to outline, then “cut” the country, use the Adjust image to shift the shade of blue, place the image off the slide, then create and combined “move and scale” to slide the new image in and over the country. Lots of work but quite an effective visual. Here’s Greenland (circled) flying in:

Image

The hope we have is that the next Apple will make such efforts much less intensive, requiring much less mousing about. It’s easier of course if the map is built of separate country images, but the cut method I refer to is how I used the display above as a proof of concept that the fly in effect can be achieved in the current Keynote.

The next feature I want to highlight is just that - highlighting. While the map sequence shows elements flying onto the slide, an important feature of contemporary presenting is doing away with those awful laser pointers so favoured by those who won’t put the effort into preparing both their stories and slides ahead of time, preferring to appear “spontaneous” while wiggling green or red lights in dizzying circles.

When I visited Apple’s Keynote team in Pittsburgh a few years ago, I made it a special point to discuss the need for the team to understand the importance of “call outs”, ways of highlighting elements on the slide. This could be a set of cells in a Numbers spreadsheet, or an element of a photograph, or a line of text from a scholarly publication – something you want to stand out from the rest of the slide elements as something requiring the audience’s attention which you speak to, but by enlarging it or shadowing it or somehow calling it out, you still allow the audience to see where it belongs on the slide. This adds to your authenticity by showing the source of the quote, rather than merely typing it onto a slide.

Take a look at the slide (below) I created to get the idea visually:

Image

Notice a few things: I have enlarged the main graphic which is taken from a PDF of a journal article I am discussing with the live audience. It’s intentionally pixelated and thus hard to read, because I don’t want the audience to race ahead and read it. It’s purposely difficult because within a moment of its appearance I am overlaying a much clearer image of the paragraph I am going to read to the audience.

What, you say, read a slide?

As I tell Presentation Magic audiences, the only time I read a slide is when it is a direct quote from a source I am displaying – never my own words on a constructed slide unless it’s a single word or phrase, but never sentences.

Remember – once you display a slide with words on it, your audience will read it whether you ask them to or not… so any time you put words on a slide it’s because you want them to read the words in preference to listening to you or because they read while you say the say words. Vision and sound work together to make it more memorable.

In the slide above there are two effects: As the main page appears, it immediately goes to pixelated form while the paragraph leaps off the page (notice the shadow effect) to grab attention. And as I read the slide, I say “and here’s the main point I want to make with this slide” and use the red shadowed box to highlight the sentences in the highlighted paragraph. This double handling take some effort to create on the slide, but in the presentation it runs seamlessly and produces an engaging sequence. It shows your audience you’ve really put some thought and effort into it for your audience’s erudition.

As much I tried to show the Pittsburgh-based Keynote team the importance of callouts, I reinforced this a few years ago at a Macworld Presentation Magic workshop when two senior members (one a new hire specialising in interface design) of the Keynote team attended my training. I didn’t announce their presence to the other attendees, as I wanted them to sit in as regular attendees. During the workshop, I spent considerable time discussing callouts, why I think they’re important in contemporary presenting, and some of the techniques I use to create various call out effects. I know the Keynote team members were very interested in what I did, and went away thinking about how to create these effects as part of the Keynote app attributes, rather than create them using a multitude of keystrokes and mousing about.

I am pleased to say, if I may judge from the WWDC keynote, that at least the concept of the call out has made its way into Apple’s keynotes. I have no idea if we’re watching a new Keynote which makes callouts easy to create, or the current one using the same or similar techniques I am using. Let’s take a look at these features from the WWDC:

Image

Discussing the screen resolution of the new Macbook Pro, Apple Senior VP Marketing Phil Schiller uses a magnifying callout to highlight the resolution improvements in Apple default apps, such as Mail.

This is not the first time this call out has been used, but it’s certainly the largest. Nor is it a built-in shape; the annulus is a 3D graphic selected to emulate a magnifying glass without the handle. Apple included such a glass with Keynote 1.0 as part of a selection of bundled clip art, not to be confused with the chintzy art included with Powerpoint (until the most recent Powerpoint for the Mac, when Microsoft included high res photo images.) I learnt it was Steve Jobs who stopped the inclusion of clip art.

Later, in the keynote, Apple SVP software engineering, Craig Frederighi, demoes various new features of upcoming Mountain Lion, due in a few weeks.

Notice below how he calls out a feature of new Safari, leaving unneeded areas greyed out compared to where he wants the audience to look:

Image

This call out is repeated several times, as more features are displayed. This is easily done by transiting over several slides and seeming to animate the move simply by going from one slide to the next. This sequence occurs at 54:30. Here’s what the next slide highlighting the same feature set looks like:

Image

If you go to the keynote to see the sequence, you’ll see it’s a rather plain slide to slide transition.

I’ve taken another section of his talk which features a pulldown, and I’ve shown how to animatedly highlight various sections. Can you guess (below) how I did it?

Craig shows us a few more call out variations, which furthers my belief that if we are watching the new Keynote in action there will be a new call out feature in the next Inspector – watch:

This is the area of his presentation where Craig is demoing the iCloud sharing of Safari tabs across platforms, from Mac to iPhone to iPad. Alongside the URL entry area is a sharing and icloud icon. In the next illustration below, the call out of the icloud icon begins:

I’ve circled the cloud icon beginning its enlargement, part of the call out sequence, which concludes below:

While it may be a variation of the magnifying glass previously demoed, the former was not animated, so I’m tempted to think this is a build effect, which of course one could do now with the available feature set. But I’d like to be optimistic in thinking the Keynote team have really thought more deeply about the importance of call outs to give it a place in the next Inspector.

(Funny aside: Craig demoes a car racing game to show AirPlay in action in Mountain Lion. From his previous keynote appearances, he has developed quite a following it seems for his lush abundance of hair. Note in the highlighted picture below his racing nickname – click to enlarge:)

More evidence is available when Apple SVP for iOS, Scott Forstall demoes iOS 6.

We start with Scott and two images of iPhones. Note I’ve captured Scott looking down at his confidence or vanity monitor, a presentation skill he has yet to master (at least compared to the much missed S. Jobs).

Next, out pops a callout of an area of interest featuring Facebook. No grayed out areas, but an enlargement which pops. Again, one can do this with current build styles, but I’d like to think one could outline an area, and a build option would give you choices as to how it would be called out:

Now, another sequence to show this same call out style in action:

This is Scott demoing the new “Do Not Disturb” feature. Notice how the effect is to float the panel above the iPhone. Apple loves 3D!

This series of call outs in this year’s WWDC really highlights the feature, so if I may connect all the dots mentioned so far in this blog entry, I remain hopeful Keynote is about to be refreshed, perhaps soon after Mountain Lion is released in a few weeks.

There is more information to consider however, not all of it good.

Early in his demoing of the new Retina Macbook, Phil Schiller mentions how the system apps have been updated to take advantage of the extra pixels, such as Mail, Address Book and so on.

He then goes on to show how a select group of Apple’s “professional” apps have also been updated, and we see Aperture and Final Cut X. We even hear that Adobe apps are due to be updated for the Retina display too, as well as Autodesk.

Adobe Photoshop on the Retina Macbook

Autodesk on the Retina Macbook

But where is the mention of Apple’s other “professional” apps, like iWork?

Let’s not give up hope however. When I went to the Apple store in Chadstone I opened up Keynote on the Retina Macbook. I took a picture with my iPhone of the Theme Chooser, and I’ve overlayed it on Keynote on my current Macbook Pro. You’ll need to take my word that Keynote on the retina Macbook is quite observedly pixelated, much like an iPhone app which is blown up 2x on the iPad is pixelated (Click on the image below to enlarge it):

In conclusion, I wonder how long Apple can live with itself allowing Keynote to look so… impoverished and uncinematic on its premier Mac. Let’s hope not for long, especially if Retina display iMacs and other Macbooks are allegedly not far away.

UPDATE: I’ll be in the USA (New York City) and Canada (Toronto) in late August/early July of you’d like to set up a Presentation Magic training day or seminar. Email me at les(at)lesposen.com or tweet @lesposen

Pilots, presentation skills and preparation: The crash of Air France 447 into the Atlantic – The official French investigative report shows what pilot training and presentation skills have in common

If you’ve attended a workshop or seminar of mine, whether about presentation skills or technology or health, you’ll know I sooner or later introduce something about commercial aviation.

I have a passion for this, and partly earn my living from working with patients who suffer fear of flying, which affects a significant number of people, and cuts across profession, gender, intelligence and age amongst notable variables.

Above, you will see the cover of a just published technical report into the causes of the total loss of an Air France Airbus A330 a little over three years ago, while making its way from Rio De Janeiro to Paris. There were no survivors when the aircraft was lost over the Atlantic having entered a quite severe weather pattern.

Very modern and ultra-reliable aircraft like the A330 don’t just “fall out of the sky”, and its mysterious loss was compounded by the difficulty of locating the tell-tale cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the “black box” which records the total flight experience with respect to the aircraft’s performance. These two devices when recovered usually enable investigators to piece together likely causative factors, together with recovery of as many aircraft parts (and human parts for that matter) in order to put together a plausible story.

Sometimes, mechanical failure is the total reason for catastrophic failures. But it is rare when there is no human involvement in such failures, whether it be on the flight deck, in a radar facility, in an engineering maintenance facility, in the original aircraft supplier’s building facility, including all the sub-contractors supplying parts, or an airline’s navigation and flight planning department, all of whom can contribute to the ultimate loss of the aircraft.

Each of these involves humans, and so the field of Human Factors is an important one in both the prevention of incidents, training of personnel, and helping to explain when all seems to fail, as it did in Air France 447 in 2009. Total hull losses of modern aircraft are very rare when pitched against the total number of flights undertaken each year. Indeed, as I show my patients on my iPad (projected onto my wall in a 6ft x 6ft picture via an AppleTV), there are thousands of aircraft in operation at any one time, 24/7. The app I use is FlightRadar24 ($2.99) which shows traffic, airport info., aircrafts routes, and various aircraft parameters in real time. You can see what it looks like below:

Notice in the very bottom right corner it says: “Showing 72 of 2063″.

This is because the app has detected 2063 flights worldwide, and this is at 3:30pm AEST, which is early morning in Europe. I usually say to my patients that at any time, there are on average 7000 commercial aircraft flying, going from and to departure and destination points at any one point in time. Essentially commercial aviation is the safest form of mass transport, after elevators and escalators.

For some patients, this is comforting; for others it’s not where the action is. But when events like AF447 occurs, everyone in commercial aviation sits up and pays attention, especially airlines which operate the same aircraft type. It’s an anxious time, especially when it’s the first total loss of an aircraft type, for fear some design fault or build issue has finally shown its ugly face, and potentially means the entire fleet of such aircraft across all airlines needs to be grounded.

I recall working with Qantas pilots in Sydney in the months after AF447, and later visiting their A330 simulators, where I learnt the world’s airlines including QANTAS were attempting to simulate the known events of the Air France loss, to see the potential contribution of pilot versus aircraft systems. Here’s me at the simulation centre near Sydney International airport:

This was about a year after the loss, and only speculations were being entertained as no recovery of information systems had occurred.

Ultimately, using very advanced and expensive equipment, recovery of parts and telltale recorders miles beneath the Atlantic surface occurred, and investigators began to meticulously piece together the contributing events to AF447′s final moments.

I’ve downloaded the French investigators’ (BAE) report, and it is a very detailed, technical report which owners of A330s will be poring over this weekend.

One of the regular aviation blog sites (Flightblogger) I read captured my attention with its current entry, reporting on the investigative outcome:

Two short paragraphs of the Air France AF447 investigation report offer an (sic) curious insight into the brain’s response to aural alarm signals – and might go some way to explain not just the crew’s failure to recognise the A330′s stall but why terrain-warning systems sometimes seem to bark at pilots to ‘pull up’ in vain.

Stall warnings on the ill-fated Airbus sounded continuously for 54 seconds. But the inquiry report, sourcing seven different research papers, states that aural warnings demand the use of cognitive resources already engaged during periods of high workload.

“The ability to turn one’s attention to this [aural] information is very wasteful,” the analysis says, adding that the rarity – and even “aggressive nature” – of such warnings might lead to their being ignored.

Studies on visual-auditory conflict, it states, show a “natural tendency” to favour visual over auditory perception when information acquired by both senses appears to be contradictory.

“Piloting, calling heavily on visual activity, could lead pilots to a type of auditory insensitivity to the appearance of aural warnings that are rare and in contradiction with cockpit information,” the analysis adds. Visual-auditory conflict during heavy workload translates into “attention selectivity” which accepts visual information but disregards critical aural warnings.

Those of you who have been to a Presentation Magic workshop will acknowledge almost instantly why this sub-section leapt off the page at me.

In the course of the workshop, attendees learn about the multimedia theory of persuasive presenting, using research from the field of affective neuroscience to promote this understanding.

It follows a model of Don Norman, formerly an Apple Fellow in Apple’s early days, a psychologist and engineer now part of the Neilson-Norman group, who speaks of our emotional relationships with technology.

He reminds us that we have at least three ways of interacting with and understanding the world outside of ourselves. Here is the final slide I use, having built it up discussing in turn each of the three elements you see below:

It is Norman’s plea to industrial and software designers (link to his 2003 TED talk) to take all three into account when designing everyday things for humans to use. Those technologies that seem to attend to these elements become indispensable and beloved by their owners, such as the iPhone and iPad.

When we drop down a level from thinking and planning – a top of the brain phenomenon, literally – we use our senses to make sense of the world. For humans, the sense we primarily use is visual, and between 40% and 60% of brain real estate is devoted to processing visual cues. Think of all the things we do with vision. We detect:

1. Size and difference in size between objects

2. Distance – is one object further away or closer than another

3. Speed – how fast is an object travelling, a combination of 1. and 2. above

4. Colour

5. Motion – coming closer, or moving away from us. In aviation, this is helped by colour because a silouhetted aircraft can fool us in terms of its direction. So the left (port) wing tip has a red light and the right or starboard has a green light, remembered by the mnemonic, “There is no red port left.” 

6. Transparency, or we can see the spatial orientation of objects behind or in front of each other.

7. Texture – our eyes pick up edges, smooth areas, folds, etc., and our brains can assign meaning to these elements in a haptic fashion, meaning we can assume what the object will feel like when we run our hands over it.

8. Sameness or likeness, such as with faces. There is a region of the brain, the fusiform gyrus, whose task it is to recognise faces. See neursoscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran’s fascinating TED talk for what happens when this area is damaged.

9. Balance – our visual system works intimately with our vestibular system so we know what’s up or down, or where we are in space at any one moment. Disagreements between the two senses, which is what happens when you’re momentarily weightless – rollercoaster, fast moving elevator, sitting in the back seat of a car with limited vision, on a boat in heavy swells – will usually have you feel very uncomfortable and nauseous.

Our other senses – hearing, taste, touch, and smell are all important too – but not at the level of the visual sense. On the other hand, in terms of priorities, your dog makes sense of its world in this order: smell, hearing, vision.

They have nostrils which smell in stereo so they can detect location of a smell in very small amounts. In working dogs, their outer ears, the pinnae, can independently swivel to act as funnels to give extra location detection too.

If you go back to the Air France investigative report, it confirms what I’ve been teaching in Presentation Magic talks: give priority to the visual display of information in a timely manner, building up a complex story so as not to overload the viewer, and keep words on the slide to a useful minimum. Audiences don’t just read words (more quickly than you can physically say them) but they sub-vocalise them so they “hear” the words. This can put their automatic actions in competition with the visual sense, and a mixed or diluted message is perceived.

Here’s what the Air France report said (p.105):

In addition, studies on the visual-auditory conflict show a natural tendency to favour visual to auditory perception when information that is contradictory and conflicting, or seen as such, of both senses is presented [4, 5, and 6]. Piloting, calling heavily on visual activity, could lead pilots to a type of auditory insensitivity to the appearance of aural warnings that are rare and in contradiction with cockpit information. A recent study in electrophysiology on a piloting task seems to confirm that the appearance of such visual-auditory conflicts in a heavy workload situation translates into an attention selectivity mechanism that favours visual information and leads to disregarding critical aural warnings [7].

If we generalise this to presentations – or if only the pilots and their trainers had attended some presentation training which featured sections on affective neuroscience – it reminds us once more to stop piling words on slides, or too many pictures for that matter, because we unwittingly ask our audiences to engage in cognitive overload. A narrative flow of ideas, using both spoken word and images consistent with those words, minimise overload and allow for greater information management abilities.

In aviation, that means you stay on task managing what’s called “situational awareness”, while in presentations it means your audience stays engaged, curious and likely to eventually “connect the dots” in a meaningful way.

Personal connection

I first learnt of the primacy of human factors in commercial aviation following the total loss of an Air New Zealand DC-10 on the Antarctic plateau, when in 1979 this most sophisticated aircraft for its day crashed into a dormant volcano.

This despite the presence of a very experienced crew and commentators on board with significant experience of the region.

This total loss has proved significant in many ways. The New Zealand Royal Commission, led by Justice Mahon became a model for such investigations. The initial findings by the nations’s Chief Investigator, with his experience limited to lighter aircraft, and which placed the blame principally on the flight crew, were overturned in the Royal Commission, which (to make a complex story rather simple) found the correction of a long term navigation error itself to be an error, placing the aircraft on a direct path to the 16,000 foot mountain, covered in snow.

(Aside – some have held Mahon’s investigation in high regard as a worldwide turning point in hull loss investigations including human factors. The Erebus disaster also shifted the field of traumatology in rescue workers, looking at how such workers can be helped to recover from the awful sights and smells they witnessed. The key psychologist who investigated this is New Zealander Tony Taylor.)

Unaware of their situation, which the pilots likely believed was 20 miles from the mountain as per their briefing and charts, the aircraft headed down its plotted course. The trained observers looking out the flight deck windows did not see anything out of the ordinary, an example of confirmatory bias: we see  what we expect to see…

But two questions ought to leap out at you if you do not know the story of this crash on Mt. Erebus in 1979.

1. Why didn’t the pilots see the mountain?

2. Why didn’t the radar warn them?

To answer 1., again rather simply, it appears a polar visual event called White Out was present at the time, creating an illusion of cloud ahead and obscuring the mountain. Unless they knew a 16,000 foot mountain was dead ahead, the flight crew would have been deceived by this polar optical illusion that all was safe, and they remained 20 miles away from a direct line to the mountain. Again, they saw what they expected to see. This is because our eyes are merely data detectors. The data is sorted into useful information in our brains, where it is compared to known past events, and sense made of it.

The Royal Commission called numerous experts to give evidence, but the evidence on white out was given by Ross Day, who was my psychology professor in my undergraduate days. He was an experimental psychologist with an interest in perceptual illusions, and his evidence was convincing. When Justice Mahon visited the crash site on the one year anniversary of the incident, he serendipitously the white out phenomenon onboard a Hercules aircraft, confirming the illusion as discussed by Professor Day. In 1974, when I was Professor Day’s first year student participating in his lectures and experiments, I had no idea what he was teaching me – dry experimental science – it would one day became a subset of what I would teach others in Presentation Magic workshops.

To answer 2., one needs to know the Bendix weather radar on board the DC-10 had two “mapping” modes. One, with the nose-located radar aimed downwards, scans land terrain for features. At the 6000 foot cruising altitude of the DC-10 over Antarctica, it would likely instead have been set to locate weather activity directly ahead, looking for water droplets indicating rain and thunderstorms, something to be avoided for the comfort of passengers.

So why didn’t the weather radar detect the snow on Mt. Erebus? Because the density of the snow would have absorbed the radar signals, meaning it was a dry location compared to the individual moving particles of water in rain, hail or falling snow. Mt. Erebus would not have been perceived ahead unless the flight crew knew to look for it directly in front of them. Eventually, as the aircraft approached the mountain at significant speed, another set of radar instruments detected low ground clearance, and an automated voice called out “Pull up! Pull up!”. (See the section from the French BEA report, above).

From the recovery teams’ information, the crew responded as per their training (to judge from the full power “go around” settings discovered), but to no avail.

With aircraft becoming more and more automated, the tasks of flight crew continue to change, and the more important human factors become in terms of human conditions such as attention, engagement, activation, and rehearsal. These bear an uncanny resemblance to the skills needed if presenters are to conduct presentations which are engaging and make a difference in their audience’s lives.

How the New York Times technology blog, Bits, perpetuated the myth of a mental illness due to mobile phone use: Or, Follow the money

You may not have noticed it, but lately the New York Times has been running a series of long feature articles taking Apple Inc. to task. Whether it be about the human conditions of its manufacturing plants in China, or about its employee welfare in its US-based retail stores, the NYT has been casting a stern eye over Apple’s operations.

The Times also maintains its own set of technical blogs and writers, some producing rather hip columns about all things technical and gadgetry. A coupe of days ago, one of its writers whose Twitter account I follow, Nick Bilton (@nickbilton) tweeted the following which caught my psychologist’s eye:

Clicking through to the article Nick cites reveals a piece in the Times Bits technology blog for June 21, 2012:

The picture you see is of a rather contented Jerry Hall in the Broadway production of The Graduate where she plays Mrs. Robinson.

The article, by Nicole Perlroth, focusses on how smartphones, such as Apple’s iPhone or Samsung’s Galaxy III to name the two most popular examples, are changing certain behaviours, previously taken for granted.

She cites a number of published surveys looking at how Americans’ relationships with their technologies are changing, such as the Harris survey conducted for online security company Lookout. One of its products is an app you can employ to find your lost cellphone. Here’s the opening paragraph which sets the stage for the survey findings:

Perlroth in her opening remarks states:

“Americans are clearly addicted to their smartphones.”

To non-Americans, it seems Americans are addicted to calling many things which they perceive to be outside the range of “normal” behaviour an “addiction” with all the stigma and negative stereotyping that goes with it, along with the eventual 12-step program modelled on Alcoholics Anonymous.

I get enquiries from local Australian media about such “addictions” and related dangers on a regular basis, being as I am a “go-to” person for journalists seeking local flavour for internationally-sourced articles such as the Times.

Perlroth to her credit reminds us that Harris-type surveys are not scientific in nature, citing Harris’ own spokesperson. Later in her article she introduces us to a new psychological concept, the fear of losing one’s cellphone:

Psychologists recently tried to coin a name for the fear of losing a cellphone. It’s called nomophobia — which stands for “no-mobile-phone phobia”— and apparently it’s on the rise. The vast majority of survey respondents — 94 percent—said they lived in a perpetual state of fear that they might lose their cellphones. A similar study of cellphone owners four years ago found that only 53 percent felt that way.

The first line of the quote caught my attention because it’s the first I’d read that my professional colleagues were at it again constructing neologisms. This is an important concept at the moment as much vigorous debate continues in the world of mental health as the American Psychiatric Association prepares for publication of the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The Manual is frequently cited in courts of law and insurance precincts as it defines illnesses which can explain illegal actions, provide or restrict workers’ compensation, and allow for admission to hospitals, either voluntary or involuntary. These are some of the purposes to which it is expected to be put, as well as its use in research so as to make sure experimental subjects meet the criteria for inclusion in studies which say might compare various treatment regimes. Thus the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry is an interested stakeholder, and some of the misgivings being voiced have centred on those who are developing the DSM and their connections to “Big Pharma”, as it’s referred to often.

So, I wondered who these psychologists might be who are “trying” to come up with a new diagnostic term.

To find out, one does what one does in mid-2012: You Google the term, and see what first comes up in the search results. Here they are:

The two returns that caught my eye as I cast my view down the list were the Wikipedia entry, and the entry of February 20 from the local Sydney Morning Herald: Nomophobia – fear of being without your phone – on the rise.

Local entries for me are important to follow up on, to see if any colleagues I know have been sourced, or if something I have blogged about has been cited.

What we find is in fact a Los Angeles Times reprinted article, and my journey around the internet echo chamber begins.

The term Nomophobia seems to have its most recent mention from an online survey, conducted by yet another online security company, SecurEnvoy from the UK. Like US-based Lookout who commissioned Harris, Securenvoy commissioned OnePoll to do its online survey, replicating an earlier survey conducted in 2008, when apparently Nomophobia was first “identified”. We’ll come to that original article in a moment.

So far, no mention yet of any psychologists giving the term any credence, although the LA Times piece offers the following:

So, this is how you go from a fun and light piece where we can all have a little laugh at ourselves and our relationships with technology to a real and treatable illness possibly requiring medication.

If you go the Securenvoy’s website where its CTO and co-founder Andy Kemshall discusses the survey results, the impetus for the polling becomes clear by virtue of mentioning his company’s product:

And once more showing the echo chamber in full force, here is a section of allaboutcounseling.com’s article on nomophobia:

The original survey says nothing about “symptoms”, but now we have a “real illness” with symptoms not unlike other well known phobias, such as they ones I treat in my psychology practice. The conclusion that “53% of cell phone users, based on the Securenvoy polling will suffer from nomophobia” is plain laughable.

So what was the original 2008 article which first mentioned Nomophobia?

Well, it seems to come from the UK Post Office who also commissioned a study of more than 2,000 mobile phone users by YouGov.

It’s “telecom expert”, Stewart Fox-Mills said:

“Nomophobia is all too real for many people.

“We’re all familiar with the stressful situations of everyday life such as moving house, break-ups and organising a family Christmas.

But it seems that being out of mobile contact may be the 21st century’s latest contribution to our already hectic lives.”

So this is the inventor of the term, it seems, as even Wikipedia shows no earlier citation than this 2008 UK survey.

And my brief research into Mr. Fox-Mills suggests he isn’t a psychologist, but the Head of Marketing for the UK Postal Service. (I tried to locate the original research at the Royal Mail’s website, but the link was dead).

So it seems every few years, as smartphones continue to evolve and become the standard communication device, we will see these same surveys dribbling out, the mainstream media echo chamber leaping onto it, dial a quote researchers and dare I say it psychologists asked for their opinion to give the fluff piece gravitas, and more members of the public either thinking they have an illness, or poking fun at psychologists for making up illnesses to drum up business.

What is true it seems is that the old saw of “Follow the money” holds true for Nomophobia, and it’s a pity the Newspaper of Record, the New York Times, has got itself caught perpetuating nonsense when a little research could have steered the story to something more useful and interesting, such as the history of moral panics due to generational adaptation to things technological.

UPDATE (June 26, 2012):

I located the ZOMM bluetooth-powered device while googling around looking for Bluetooth 4.0 specifications for an upcoming blog post. I so like this easy and inexpensive potential solution for lost iPhone and Android devices (as well as iPads, and more) I thought I’d include a promotional YouTube video, below. Enjoy!

Aside

If memory serves correctly, reality TV shows have been around for about a decade starting with shows like Survivor and Big Brother. Others may argue that shows like Candid Camera, started and hosted by Alan Funt, were the real beginning in the 1950s, in the very early history of American TV.

What Funt did was place ordinary people in situations designed to reveal something about them, where hidden cameras captured their unprepared responses to the sort of social situations social psychologists would love to set up, if only human ethics departments would allow.

Just to remind here’s a brief clip, where you’ll not see Funt but hear his commentary. Notice too his sense of narrative as he lets us know what to look for:

In the next generation of such shows, once more TV producers took “ordinary people”, meaning they weren’t yet TV celebrities, and placed them in extraordinary situations, such as Survivor and Big Brother. These have since crossed borders (Big Brother is one of a number of reality or talent shows produced and franchised by Dutch company, Endemol) and each culture has found its own way to reproduce the essence of each show to suit the nationality.

This comes down to choosing the “contestants”, and the tasks they are given.

Given the popularity of these early shows which had high production standards and resulted in high ratings, especially for the final episode where even those who hadn’t followed the whole series would watch to see the eventual winner, many new shows spun off. Some better than others of course.

Please see Wikipedia’s voluminous entry here for a listing of the variety of shows working a similar formula.

I want to draw your attention to two reality shows from co-producers Steven Lambeth and Eli Holzman. The first is a US version of an original British series called, Undercover Boss (UB). It first aired in 2010 and concluded its third season a few weeks ago.

It has rated surprisingly well, confounding some of its critics, who see it as too unreal to be a reality show. The essence of the show is simple and straightforward: CEOs, Founders, or a senior executive of a large, national corporation agree to go “undercover” with both a physical disguise (some much much implausible than others) and with an alleged “cover” of being a contestant in a series looking at getting the unemployed or career changers back into the workforce. This explains the presence of a film crew covering the UB’s progress.

During the show, the UBs travel to various corporate outposts and take on various “jobs” under the supervision of a carefully selected cadre of low level employees.

In general, the UB comes down several rungs (the corporations are almost always multilevel from hardworking blue collar employees through several levels of middle and upper level management), and he or she takes on usually menial, physically challenging tasks, often working directly with customers, and for which they are pitifully unqualified and unskilled.

This of course talks to our fantasies of bringing down the boss to “our level”, to see what life’s like for the other 99%. (The show invariably starts with a visit to the UB’s palatial home, usually complete with charming, adoring family). But to balance this schadenfreude, we consistently see two backstories occur in parallel.

The first is the story of the low level employee who is to supervise and allegedly evaluate the UB, which sets up their transport to corporate headquarters where the UB reveals their true identity, one of the show’s reliable, emotional highpoints.

The employee (we meet several as the UB travels the country) and UB usually take a break during the “training” and here we observe their story, usually one of heroic hardship, which tears at the UB’s heartstrings, setting up what happens in the last part of the show. Here, in usually tearful scenes, is when the UB reveals themselves, and turns the tables on the misled and shocked employee, espousing their worth to the company, their personal indomitable qualities, and the esteem they are newly held in by the UB.

The second backstory is the UB’s own life hardships, usually framed within a family context, where the UB, most often a male, seeks to have the approval of their father, living or dead, who may in fact have been the company’s founder. There is a legacy to be managed, and rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi or proletariat rehumanises the UB, brings them down to earth, and hopefully improves the company, within and without (i.e. its customer service).

After the UB reveals themselves, there is usually some kind of reward to the lowly worker: perhaps some money for a child’s college fund or hospital treatment, or a charity donation or trust set up to help with a family member’s chronic illness, or the worker if young is offered further training or education at the company’s expense. Perhaps a marriage ceremony is afforded.

These are usually tearful scenes with a surprised and grateful worker expressing astonishment that “I thought these things never happened to people like me”.

The final minute of the show is spent telling us what has happened to the UB, the company and more importantly the employees in the weeks since.

I think you can see from my description that while I am entertained by the show, it does become predictable after a few repetitions, with some UBs more compelling than others. How  long the show can continue before employees twig is also a complication.

The second show from the same executive producers is an original now in its early first season on the AMC network, the same cable channel which took a risk, ultimately hugely successful, with the period drama, Mad Men, devoted to Madison Avenue advertising companies of the late 1950s and early 1960s. That show has a cult following now, and I use various sections of it in my Presentation Magic workshops, featuring its main character, Dan Draper, and his descriptions of certain emotional states and how advertising exploits them to sell its clients’ wares.

Lambeth and Holzman have now given us The Pitch, a reality show featuring in each episode two very different advertising agencies competing for the business of one significant client, who is releasing a new product or service, or repositioning or rebranding their iconic product. The show started six weeks ago and airs straight after Mad Men late on Sunday nights.

Pitching for an advertising contract is standard practice in the corporate world with several agencies often approached and asked to make a formal presentation of their ideas after being briefed of the client’s requirements. Full fledged campaigns are not required, but sufficient understanding of the product and the market place is, and so the post-brief presentation to the decision makers is vital, given they will not see a fully formed advertisement but more a sketch outline demonstrating the agency’s concepts, often in storyboard form. They need to be convinced not just that the pitching agency has understood the brief, but has a means by which to achieve the desired results, whether that be increased sales or brand awareness.

For the pitching agencies, it means putting talented staff to work with the strong possibility they will come away empty-handed without any payment for their pitch. But the lure of a possible multi-year, multi-million dollar campaign which if successful will also bring the agency attention and kudos, is very strong for even the most celebrated of agencies.

The storyline for the The Pitch is quite simple: We early learn about the three central “characters”: The two agencies and their leadership group, with some personal backstories as well as information of previously successful campaigns; and the third of course is the client to whom they will individually pitch a week after the brief. The client may comprise the company CEO or Founder, and usually senior management, such as VP of product marketing, or an internal account director.

Something a little unreal however occurs in this process, where the competing agencies are brought together face to face in a shared briefing session with the client. Each is deeply suspicious and withholding, perhaps not asking as in-depth questions as they could or ordinarily would lest they tip off the competition. It’s always amusing to see underlings racing to their Macs to check out the successes of the competition to know what they’re up against, in an effort to differentiate themselves. They then have a week before delivering the pitch, and invariably things start very slowly while ideas brew and ferment, then reach fever pitch, pardon the pun.

There have been six episodes so far in Season 1, each of which is made available in iTunes TV the day after being shown (again, US iTunes store) for $2.99, or a season pass can be had which works out a little less per episode. I downloaded the first episode free, something iTunes offers to give new, untried programs a kick start.

The Pitch is worth blogging about here for a variety of reasons:

1. The dominance of Apple equipment as the platform of choice in this creative industry, no big surprise here.

2. The use of iMacsMacbooks and Keynote (the latter acknowledged by careful watching of Keynote-only transitions and animations) in each episode, where almost all the agencies bring in their own Macs to the client’s office to run the presentation visuals. No using USB drives with Powerpoint files to plug into the corporate Windows boxes. But additionally, the pitches do not rely solely on the Macbooks, with newspaper and magazine advertisements, and billboard mockups also shown.

3. The producers often misdirect us. There have been a few shows where the technology has fallen over, a wrong button is pressed, the TV displaying the ad doesn’t switch or the audio heard, or the presenter chosen by the agency – often new to the job and needing to impress – appears so anxious that we worry if they will freeze mid-sentence. Ultimately, this has nothing to do with the decision we eventually see portrayed. A poor man’s tension builder we can do without after a few episodes.

4. We do get a little insider’s view of the behind-the-scenes creative process, as the creative individuals and teams struggle to get across the brief. It’s edifying to see how the two agencies go about dissecting the brief in quite variant ways, and the internal battles the creative teams they must deal with to get their ideas into the final mix.

5. We see little evidence-base marketing except from the client themselves who often come to brief the agencies with focus group and market research. They are usually very clear and firm with what they want to see happen and the rigidity of sticking with the brief. Within the agencies, there seems little testing, and much self-confidence that their ideas will sell themselves, almost self-evidently. Perhaps that’s the only way to survive in the advertising industry, and pointing at your awards on the office shelf, something conspicuously filmed by The Pitch producers.

6. While older, experienced heads lead the agencies in terms of hearing the brief, they usually assign the pitch to teams of much younger staff, each of whom is very IT savvy. They in turn compete for the old heads’ attention, and who will ultimately do the pitch.

7. In the most recent episode (#106), we see two very different agencies, one specialising in multicultural issues (with a culturally diverse team) in Culver City, CA, and another from the mid-west (Omaha), and each compete for the job of rebranding a not-for-profit health service, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF).

8. The multicultural group, Muse, named after its founder, eventually goes for a very edgy campaign to draw attention to the half dozen and more times, those with juvenile diabetes must self-test their sugar levels each day. This means before and after meals use of a glucose device, similar to the one shown here,

chosen because it can be paired with an iPhone using a specific cable and software to record measures, which can be forwarded to treatment specialists.

Users must draw a small sample of blood from a finger tip using sharp device and the drop of blood is placed on a small strip inserted into the measuring device (at the black dots on the strip).

The edginess of the campaign, an effort to combat the rise of diabetes 1, is symbolised by its theme: “One less prick”, referring to the daily grind of multiple stabs to draw blood.

For conservative America, when I watched this plan hatch, my immediate thought was it would be shot down in flames by JDRF. The mid-west agency, Bozell, went with a more vanilla approach, “Be the voice of One”.

I won’t reveal who won, which – spoiler alert – you can discover if you go the AMC website.

I want however to draw your attention – those of you who want to learn about the applied skills of presenting – to what occurred in this episode, which might encourage you to see it for yourself.

One of Muse’s young creatives, Marcus, who came up with the “One less prick” theme, is short of presentation experience, yet is encouraged by agency owner Joe Muse to conduct the pitch to the JDRF. It will be his idea and his presentation that will be crucial to Muse’s success or failure. We are once more misdirected by the producers because Marcus presents initially as self-confident, if not cocky.

Joe Muse however, recognising Marcus’ lack of experience, brings in a heavy-hitting presentation training guru, Tim Hart, (left) who Muse introduces as an “Executive Presentation Expert”.

Hart is actually a very experienced advertising guy and C-level coach. Here’s a section of his LinkIn entry:

Specialties

Customized Presentation Skills training and presentation skills mastery, Automotive Marketing and Advertising expert, Keynote Speaker, Personality Profile training, C-level Coaching and Consulting, Expert Group Facilitator, Generational Differences Training, Personal Image consulting, Personal Branding Expert, Branding CEOs, Expert in creating Vision, Mission, Purpose statements for companies and organizations.

In front of his assembled team, Marcus is to practise his presentation under the guidance of Hart. Now I’m not sure whether the next part is played up for the camera or whether this is how Mr. Hart prefers to work, but poor Marcus has strips torn off him in front of his peers, making numerous false starts which get quickly corrected. The advice and guidance is all fine and dandy, but perhaps the stripping bare is part of the toughening up process in the hope of helping Marcus deal with any performance anxiety when it really counts.

Here’s Marcus during the actual pitch to JDFR, from a picture on the AMC website:

[Now, you may have noted the picture of Tim Hart in The Pitch, above, is actually a photo of my Macbook desktop. Why? Because the iTunes media is DRM'd, and even taking a screenshot of the downloaded movie file renders the picture a bunch of gray and white squares. So I had to use my iPhone to take a picture to upload it.]

At one point in his presentation to the client, Marcus freezes, seemingly overwhelmed by the task. He rescues the situation, but will it be enough for Muse to win the project?

In each episode of The Pitch, before they deliver their verdict to the agencies, the client evaluation panel is seen discussing the pros and cons of the two pitches, but we never see them making their decision. We only know what it is when, in turn, they ring each agency with the good or bad news. For me, that’s a huge gap, and I’d rather see more depth given to the feedback and evaluations, rather than each weekly generic “we felt the other agency came closer to what we wanted in a our brief“.

Fortunately, on the AMC website for The Pitch, and also on other websites which cover the advertising industry like The Next Wave, the clients do go into more detail in a streaming video. Here it is for this episode, but be warned it contains spoilers, and if your connection is not in the USA, the AMC site will block the video, as it did for me in Australia (where the show isn’t seen, and probably won’t be):

Luckily, there are some very clever people who can assist, and as it turns out prior to watching the video, you are assailed by a 15 second advertisement. Having someone in Australia count as a viewer of a local product advertisement, perhaps selected by the IP address the site recognises, would distort the advertising metrics, I presume.

What comes out of the video is the emphasis the client placed on the stories told by the agency, and how those stories could be extended into a variety of scenarios the client hadn’t considered previously. That’s a great match, because it says the agency truly understood the brief, and actually went beyond it in their storytelling and presentation.

In essence, it’s a little like how Apple works: Underpromise and overdeliver and let the end user ask how Apple “knew” more than they what they really needed. I think a few more agencies would do well not just to study how Apple markets, but also Apple’s ethos in delivering quality products which, when first introduced, have the tech pundits giving a thumbs down, but the buying public usually saying otherwise – with their credit cards.

I plan to incorporate more of The Pitch in my future Presentation Magic workshops to illustrate a variety of presentation concepts. If you’re in the US, you can further study the pitch concept on TV with shows like ABC’s Shark Tank, which was derived from a UK show called Dragons’ Den. Here, budding entrepreneurs bring their product and pitch to five self-made wealthy individuals from whom they seek seed money for a percentage of the profits or equity.

Because I feel a little guilty for leaving my blog unattended for so long, may I reward your wait with this mashup of what might have happened if Steve Jobs had pitched the iPad in the Dragons’ Den. Enjoy!

As expected, iWork was beefed up for the new iPad, bringing Keynote closer to parity with its desktop older sibling. But don’t fret, Keynote users: I think we saw some hints of new features of the next Keynote for the Mac.

So the new iPad has been released (I ordered two of the top models), along with an updated AppleTV to take advantage of its retina display.

I will not at all be surprised when the tech pundits today boohoo the new iPad, from its failure to cure cancer through to its ungainly name, which I predicted would be the case in a previous blog entry, just because Apple can. And indeed likely enjoys playing the punditry for fools, while it laughs all the way to the bank.

Before I get to the main points of this blog entry, a couple of non-appearances are worth noting.

1. Where was Scott Forstall? I can’t recall an Apple keynote where the iPad and iOS were featured and he was not given a place on stage. Given he reports direct to Tim Cook, was this Tim’s way of further asserting his new CEO status? Or hopefully, a much more simple explanation.

2. Where was the much anticipated Microsoft Office for iPad which had the tech punditry all atwitter in recent weeks, once today’s keynote invitations had been sent out?

Instead, what we did see but not demonstrated were beefed up iWork apps, which like iPhoto for the iPad allowed Phil Schiller to drive home the message that “don’t let anyone tell you you can’t create on an iPad”. (You can see him refer to this at 1h:15m:20s, after you download the keynote podcast from the iTunes store ).

Indeed, Schiller emphasised the parity that now exists between iPad and Mac OS X devices like the iMac and Macbook since the Apple creative applications – iLife and iWork – now exist on both platforms with an extremely similar feature set.

I downloaded the Keynote update, now in V1.6, with the most important and obvious additions being  the near match between builds and transitions. It’s not quite 100%, and of course the iPad font set is still limited, so error messages may crop up after importing  desktop Keynote file with esoteric fonts.

In a previous blog post I had predicted that an updated desktop Keynote would not be released into the wild until there was much greater feature parity between the two versions, and this would require an improved iPad with respect to CPU and graphics. The hint Apple gave us that this was on the cards can be seen with the placement of the Keynote app icon in the tray for the keynote invitation illustration. I don’t know anyone who leaves Keynote there, myself included.

Which leaves desktop Keynote users to ask: : “Whither Keynote? You’ve not been updated for more than three years, so what gives?”

Clearly, much of the iWork team’s efforts have been directed to the iPad versions plus iBooksAuthor which also received an update today (V1.1) to account for the new iPad’s retina display.

There are clues however, and in today’s keynote I believe we saw hints that a new version – or at least some feature additions to the current version – are present.

Let’s go to the video replay…

In recent keynotes, Apple has been overenthusiastic about its use of the Anvil build, something which was last added to Keynote in a point update, as well as some new text builds. It’s been used when keynote speakers wanted to drop a bomb on us, so as to demonstrate “incredible” numbers of apps sold, or stores opened, or some other fact where expectations were crushed.

In the March 7 keynote, we didn’t see it at all. Perhaps it was a favourite of Steve Jobs, and here is Tim Cook asserting his status once more. If there was one build we saw quite often in today’s keynote, it was a variation of the “move” build, but this time two elements came in almost simultaneously, while pushing other elements no longer up for discussion, out.

If you have the podcast, go to 20m:14s, and here are some screenshots of what I noticed:

Here Tim is discussing how iPad users rate the device for various activities, such as reading books. He’s now going to discuss it as a favourite for playing games, so in the next click of his remote, the iPad image and text slide to the left, but not quite synchronously:


And now the new image and text slides in from the right, the text in the lead before the previous image has left the building:

And the rest now slides into place, the text once more leading the way:

And now the image aligns centred above the text:

Now, each of these could be performed with “move” builds – in and out – but some of these slides would require four of these, two each for text in and out, and two each of image in and out.

Because this effect was used several times in the keynote, I’m going to assert that it represents a new transition, similar to Magic Move, where you create each slide with its picture and text, and the transition does the work for you, such that you can control the delay and speed. Who wants to guess what Apple calls this new transition?

I suspect, however, this is was not the only transition. For some time now, I’ve been watching my AppleTV when it goes into screensaver mode. As with iPhoto, there are several very interesting ways that new photos can be brought in, including Origami. If you have an AppleTV, check in Settings for your screensaver options:

(Brian Burgess, at Groovypost.com has a nice set of screenshots and elaboration upon AppleTV screen saver options here).

When I noticed these in action, it caused me to wonder how nice they would be as additions to the Keynote transition set, especially as more people are using full size pictures, as well as multiple illustrations in Keynote.

I think I saw one new addition in the March 7 keynote, at 18m:22s:

It starts at the time Tim Cook has said Apple sold more iPads in the last quarter of 2011 than any PC maker sold all their PC products, and says iPads are “showing up everywhere in the daily lives of people”:

"It's showing up everywhere in people's lives"

What looks like an regular flip build out commences...

.. and we see the image on the flip side now...

Now more fully formed, but only occupying a section of the previous image's space, because...

.. a moment later it's joined by a second flipping image...

... which remains for a moment while the first flipped image now builds out with a flip...

... and now the second image begins its flip out...

... and now both images are replaced by four smaller images flipping in...

... and here is the final montage, this whole sequences taking about four seconds...

Now it’s quite possible to do all this with the current Keynote, but why would you? It’s not Apple’s way to make itself, and the user, work so hard, when it can create transitions to do it for you, with you merely selecting the images (or presumably, text).

I suspect there is one more new build or transition but the camera work was too poor to pick it up. It occurs about 20m:40s and here is the images I can grab but they are certainly uninformative:

Icons of the thousands of apps start popping in...

I suspect this popping of apps as a build in was in fact similar to what was shown at the Education keynote to introduce iBooksAuthor January 19th, and used the Object Zoom transition.

It’s a very underutilised effect, bit I did manage to use it myself at Macworld in January. See below.

If you think you saw some new Keynote effects, please add your thoughts in the comments section below.

Hey, Apple: If you can stream Paul McCartney over iTunes Live on my AppleTV, when you can start streaming your keynotes live (like the one in a few hours)? Especially if you release an upgraded AppleTV – heck, I’d even pay a few dollars from my iTunes account and get up at 5AM rather than wait for the delayed replay