Seen them yet? The paradigm-shifting, hype-infested concept of the decade has shipped in the form of Web channels, and you can get them in either of the Big Two - Netscape has Netcaster, Microsoft has Active Channels. The browsers' channel interfaces are only marginally different, as are their lists of "premium channels." But they are identical in one aspect: The content is miserably boring.
You would expect more, wouldn't you? Considering the blend of bleeding-edge content providers and the behemoth media outlets, you'd think that you could spend hours surfing through gripping multimedia experiences. You would be wrong. Very wrong. The television-meets-the-Web analogy is running along in full force: There are dozens of channels, but nothing to watch.
Why is this? How can something so anticipated fail to deliver on so many promises? There are a number of reasons, not the least of them being a steep learning curve for the plethora of new technologies that make up the competing versions of dynamic HTML. Besides, not only have the browser vendors taken a huge step away from the basic simplicity of a markup language, but there are all-new rules for distributing, designing, and providing content in a "dynamic" way.
Let's look at three areas in which channels are different from Web sites, and consider some issues to keep in mind when you start thinking about creating a channel of your own.
There's a popular idea spreading around as a sort of antidote to all the push hype: For all the posturing and proselytizing of the browser vendors, "push" is nothing more than glorified email. That's right, of course. I've subscribed to Adam Engst's Macintosh newsletter TidBITS for nearly five years now - an unprecedented length of time in the electronic-publishing arena. Why? Because it's delivered to me every week, regardless of whether I remember to visit his Web site or not.
It's a classic example of why push is somewhat interesting. I say "somewhat" because, frankly, there's nothing terribly earth-shattering about a mailing list. If the competing interfaces for push are actually effective, we'll merely be able to build continuing relationships with our audience via our Web sites, vs. simple ASCII email messages.
But there's an interesting side effect to this blasé distribution feature - bandwidth. If content is being delivered automatically, then content providers theoretically should be able to create more bandwidth-intensive presentations for their readers. Maybe we're too early in the adoption curve right now, but nobody - not even the usual suspects, like CNN - seem to be exploiting this yet. Maybe that's a good thing.
There are two dangers hidden in relying on bandwidth. First, unlimited bandwidth is not necessarily a benefit. While Web publishing may not yet have much history, there is the world of CD-ROM publishing from which to glean some lessons. Imagine if our Web-based titles could run to half a gigabyte in size, with data-transfer rates happening at SCSI speeds rather than trickling over a modem. Well, the majority of CD-ROMs offer nothing but talking-head video where text would suffice, and screen after screen of beveled, 3-D buttons with chrome-plated backdrops and corny, MIDI-esque soundtracks. Bandwidth may not be the savior we think it is.
Also, consider the effect PointCast has had on Net traffic. Estimates of bandwidth usage range as high as 10 percent of total Net-wide bits. Why? Because thousands and thousands of PointCast users have subscribed to dozens of news channels, all being updated together every half hour. Who knows how much actually gets used. Now extrapolate that to millions of Web users all sucking down digital video from cnn.com, and you can almost see your network administrator's hair turning gray.
It's important to remember that the technologies behind the channels aren't inherently bad. In fact, one of the most liberating features of channel development is that you can assume a "closed system" when building - you need not worry about what browser your audience is surfing with. Since both Microsoft and Netscape only offer their versions of channel technology to their latest browsers, there's no need to worry about degradable content. You can push whatever limits you desire, knowing full well that every user will be hitting the channel with a completely up-to-date browser.
This means that most content providers, of course, have gone all-out with these new technological innovations. And dynamic HTML is where they start. Headlines swoop in as body copy fades from black. Bullet lists careen off the edge of the screen before neatly lining up in place. It's as if the ultimate goal of all content providers is emulating the atrociously presented PointCast SmartScreen.
Unfortunately, this model for dynamic design is, at its core, completely opposite from the direction we should be moving. Think of the hurdles that Web designers must negotiate when putting together a site. Navigation is difficult - round trips to the server are both slow and conceptually confusing, as users must mentally track where they are within a site. And compared to print or even broadcast TV, the amount of information that can be visible at once is terribly low. There simply aren't enough pixels available; we currently rely on scrolling, which has its own problems.
Dynamic HTML offers solutions to these handicaps. Page elements can be hidden and revealed based on user input or the passing of time. Information can be layered and manipulated on the screen rather than on the server. Content can be visually and conceptually condensed, while the user experience is made faster with less overhead.
Instead, we get the opposite. Once a page loads, we sit and wait as "cutting-edge dynamic HTML effects" unfold before our eyes. Seconds tick by as we're force-fed elements of the page, animating their way into view and building frustration for all of us.
Please, stop the flying headlines.
On top of the distribution and design issues surrounding channels, we have yet another problem - the content is just plain boring. There really are no big surprises in the default channels that both Netscape and Microsoft negotiated into their shipping products. And the reasons they're there come as no shock, either. If browser vendors are going to position themselves as the mainstream media-delivery systems of the future, then it's exactly that lowest-common-denominator, mainstream content that you would expect to find in this venue.
Fortunately, there is hope on the horizon. It's still very early in the lifespans of these technologies - both Netcaster and Active Channels are still in beta. The majority of the content providers out there - both professional and independent - are still getting up to speed on the whole concept. We're witnessing a more traditional adoption rate of new technology, vs. the grassroots publishing model that the early Web was so good at. Instead of the pure exploratory nature of the medium, we're being presented with carefully scripted and executed deals designed to bring credibility to something a lot of people don't yet understand.
What this means for the moment is a rather generic experience. Or, rather, no experience at all. Dig into Microsoft's Channel Guide and click on Entertainment. Notice how there are no entertaining experiences, merely coverage of entertainment in other media. In fact, almost all channels are merely offering TV Guide-type listings and coverage of what's going on in the rest of the world. Nobody is actually creating anything for this medium.
Push media will only succeed if content providers can build new relationships with content consumers. You as a user have to be willing to say, "Sure, send me your Web-based information at regular intervals." It's becoming increasingly obvious that this will not be possible merely by shoveling content from an existing Web site into a channel.
We have to build channels that do more than just pump sports scores and weather forecasts to millions of uninterested users. We have to engage them and provide experiences they can't get elsewhere. We have to start thinking about what this new medium actually means - not just to us, but to the vast audiences that we're currently boring to tears.
Let's get to work.
This article appeared originally in HotWired.
