Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?

A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is defined on Wikipedia as follows: “In product development, the minimum viable product is the product with the highest return on investment versus risk. It is the sweet spot between products without the required features that fail immediately when shipped and the products with too many features that cut return and increase risk. The term was coined and defined by Frank Robinson,and popularised by Steve Blank, and Eric Ries] It may also involve carrying out market analysis beforehand.” In short, it is a (often first) product with all fundamental features, from which to elaborate, and which can grow into a full product.

HereGerry Claps, very nicely illustrates it with a donut. Beautiful.


Still on twitter, every now and then the following image passes by (for example in this tweet by user testing). Can we please trash this image, or at least stop sharing it? It is wrong. Misleading.

Poor description of a MVP

Yes, developing a MVP is not the same as developing a sequence of elements which eventually combine into a product. A wheel does not excite or interest a user wanting a personal transporter like a car, as illustrated by the first line.

Instead, developing a MVP is about developing the vision. This is not the same as developing a sequence of intermediate visions, especially not, of these are valuable products in itself. I am not sure a skateboard will excite or interest a user wanting a personal transporter like a car, as illustrated by the second line. Basically, if you develop a skateboard as MVP, and test it with customers, you would be overwhelmed about the response, trash original vision (or at least stall it) and become skateboard-king.

How_To_Build_A_MVP_smallSo, in my opinion, developing a MVP means developing a sequence of prototypes through which you explore what is key for your product idea and what can be omitted. This means that if you are planning to develop a personal transporter like a car, the very first item you develop will be a personal transporter like a car, but stripped down to what you think at the time of developing the prototype is the bare minimum. Testing and sounding may result into a new prototype etc until you have your product which you feel is minimally viable.

Nowhere in developing a personal transporter like a car, you end up developing a full motorcycle, and I seriously doubt that the starting point will be a skate-board or a children’s scooter. In my vision, a MVP is as shown below. What do you think?

I asked the same question, ‘what do you think’ to my friend Tom, and he answered simply; ‘well, that depends on whether you look at the UX or not’. This resulted in a bit of discussion,  and the outcome basically was that if you are developing an end-user product, then the user experience should be key from the start and any technical considerations not directly related to the user experience can be – for now – ignored. To illustrate that important point, I changed the first image of the last row and replaced it by a situation where there is not yet an engine, and instead, people are pushing the care. Basically, applying the Wizard of Oz methodology to car design.



So, what do you think?

OK. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.

powered by Spreadshirt
powered bySpreadshirt
Not a Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

Hello value proposition – what about product design?

Preparing for a presentation on the Business Model Canvas and Design Thinking for a major bank in Switzerland, I ran the slide-deck by a good friend and talented designer; Tom Djajadiningrat. His feedback was crisp and to the point; “Nice! Waar ik me druk om kan maken is als developers de value proposition uitsluitend zien als wat voor het bedrijf waarde creëert… en totaal vergeten om value te zien uit het perspectief van de gebruiker.” which translates into something like: ‘Nice! What worries me is when the developers see the value proposition only as something that creates value for the company… and completely ignore the point of view of the end-user”.

To some extend this is due to misuse of the Business Model Canvas; where the value proposition is mapped against the customer needs (and not the company needs), but this is clearly a risk when using the Business Model Canvas early in the design process, i.e. to map out the business model and identifying the value proposition before designing the actual artefact.
Yes, value proposition is a bit tricky, especially when it should drive product design. It is not automatic that the thing that makes a product successful also is recognised as what generates profit. Focus on value proposition is a constraint within which to do product design.

The example that came to mind is the one of the first iPod. The ‘value proposition’ of the iPod was ‘1000 sings in your pocket’. But that was not new. I mean, at the time you could buy a variety of MP3 players. You needed to almost have a Masters in informatics to manage your (portable) music.

Equally important for the iPod’s success was the easy management of songs via iTunes, and the access to the songs while on the road with the ‘click-wheel’. Most importantly, the iPod was just gorgeous, and made all of us ran out to discover the amount of our ‘disposable’ income and whether the iPod was priced accordingly.


Creativity and design is often ignored or discarded as something trivial. We all recognise when something is ‘good’ which gives us the feeling that we all are experts on ‘good’. But being able to recognise what is ‘good’ does not mean we are able to create something that will be recognised as good. That takes special skill, a particular eye and a creative mind. Designing a ‘good product balances overall design with elegantly crafted details. Challenges do not come more wicked than that. Starting from the value proposition of ‘a 1000 songs in your pocket’, the iPod and it;s success was not trivial.

Some products succeed whereas many products fail. Designing a successful product talkes more than defining the value proposition, and certainly more than defining what makes a profit for the company. The click-wheel did not make a profit for Apple. But would the first iPod with up/down buttons instead of a click-wheel be equally successful? Doubtful. If it is not identified as ‘value proposition’ does not diminish it’s importance for the product success.

Also interesting in this context is ‘iTunes’ itself, which was not developed from scratch by Apple, but obtained through the acquisition of the company Soundjam.  More importantly, the main activity of the Soundjam developers after having become part of the Apple family is said to have been ‘simplifying’ the iTunes interface; making it more user friendly. Thus, what creates ‘value proposition’ and for whom?

So, yes, the canvas helps us to strategyze based on value propositions, customer segments and other business constraints, and yes, the BMC should be used early in the process. The business model canvas helps to set the constraints within which to design, and also to understand the constrains that design could challenge. But the canvas is a tool to assist in the progressive elaboration of the project and we have to realise (and remember) that 1) having identified the value proposition is not a substitution for designing the product, and 2) product design goes far beyond the – often abstract – value proposition.

Design Thinking, what is core?

the-flower-of-design-thinkingCore to design thinking is prototyping & testing. If you browse around the web you find many aspects linked to design thinking, one more fancy than the other. But central to all; prototyping and testing.

The reason is clear; designers think differently then the rest of us (let’s say the engineer). What differentiates a designer from an engineer is that an engineer creates a solution to a carefully analysed and understood problem, whereas a designer creates many solutions as a means to understand the problem. For a designer, a prototype is a hypothesis. Well, that is how I see it.

The image shown aims to illustrate my view on Design Thinking.

It tries to bring across 3 main points:

  1. Core to design thinking is prototype and test, serving the design process, of which evaluation (learning) is a core element. It does not say anything about time to market (speed to get it out there) nor about the quality of the prototype. This is a skill in itself. Talk to a designer to get a feel for this.
  2. Contextual to design thinking are the many tools and methods that you can apply to get a better understanding of the problem space and help you to identify the solution space. These tools are not core, and often distract from what design thinking aims to achieve, which is to make ideas tangible to find out why they do not work (which is a different way of saying “do I understand the problem”). Some even go as far to say that design thinking by itself may not be enough anymore. For example, “In the era of Living Services, Fjord have created their own design system – Design Rule of 3 – which consists of design thinking, design doing and design culture.” Yes, I agree. The larger the (scope of the) project, the more difficult it is to understand the problem space, so you need to scale up on your exploration, and manage expectations concerning time to market.
  3. Basis of any design project, at least in my experience, is a business opportunity and/or a business model. Only in rare situations, a design project is performed completely outside any business context. For that reason, I place the business model canvas as a leave of the root of the flower.

OK, I admit. I just wanted to create a nice illustration and immediately came up with a flower, so I tried to fit Design Thinking to the idea that I had and make it work. I think it does, more or less. What do you think?


On banks, touch-points and technology

In the process of digitization and automation, it is easy to loose touch with your customers, especially if the ‘stuff’ you are dealing with is something as abstract as an exchange item; money. Restoring touch-points becomes main focus.


Grocery stores went through the process of digitization and automation. Starting as small shops, they where used to serve each client in person, and would know their clients in person. Then, in the beginning of last century, long before digitization and big data, they went through the process of first introducing self service, and afterwards, with the introduction of digital tools, through the process of using data (and loyalty cards) to understand client behaviors. Grocery stores had the luxury of a step wise introduction, first automation/self service, and then the introduction of advanced analytics to understand client behavior from data by means of data collection and statistics.

Grocery stores have one big advantage; they deal in physical goods. You, as a client, need to go out and get it, or someone needs to pass by and bring it to you. In short, intrinsic (still) is a personal transaction. This means that the whole process of digitization and becoming a data driven industry was developed while having a personal contact with the client.

Banks do not have had that advantage. Banks deal in somesthing abstract; a means of transaction. In the process of digitization and automation has removed the need to actually visit a bank or talk to a bank agent. The ‘transaction means’ in the past may have relied on physical goods (paper money, coins, remember Scrooge McDuck swimming in his money) nowadays it is digital and growing more and more abstract. Clients have access without ever having to enter a bank filial or meet a bank agent. On top of having lost contact with their clients, banks also have 1000 and 1 technology driven start-ups with innovative business models eating away at the basis of the bank’s income. Ideas such as peer to peer lending and robot advice (where investments are driven automatically by computer models following market trends instead of by human analysts).

Not surprisingly, banks have two important interests: touch-points and big-data.

What I find surprising is that the banks strategies are technology driven. For example, the UBS (or here, see page 9; the great transformation) list the following as main trends; privacy, self fitting products, wealth assistant (robot advise) and decomposed wealth management, all of which increases the reliance on technology and reduces the need for personal contact. Credit Suise, another major Swiss bank, “… announced that it is committed to making significant investments in expanding its client facing technology globally”

Why is technology seen as the solution for a problem created by technology? I am assuming of course that the main challenge of Banks is the growing distance towards their customers, which was created by automation and technology. You may dispute this. But if the problem of the banks are lack of contacts with their customers, shouldn’t the strategy be ‘getting in touch with the customer’’. Yes, technology may be a means in itself, but certainly not an objective.

Maybe it is sufficient to reduce MBOs to the following simple questions; When did you last ‘speak’ with a customer and what did you learn?

Btw, I thought the cartoon at the top of this page was funny and original. I was wrong;


Fred Voorhorst works as consultant for the FinTech industry, focussing on optimizing/improving wealth management advisory processes.

voice of the customer, helpful for innovation?

Is innovating supported by a user-community, or the voice of the customer useful? Yes. Absolutely! Although, no. Well, maybe. It depends. Basically, as always, it depends on what what kind of innovation you are pursuing. In this post I try map my experience with community supported development/innovation on the well-known “Innovation Management Matrix“, to indicate in what situation you will make most out of the community.

What is the Innovation Management Matrix? This is a marketing 1-to-1 on innovation management. Vertically, we plot extend in which the problem is defined (ranging from not, to well) and horizontally we plot how well the domain is defined (also from not to well). Greg Satell in Forbes gives a good overview.  He starts from two basic questions “How well is the problem defined?” (for example, Steve Jobs defined the problem for the iPod as “1000 songs in my pocket.”) and “Who is best placed to solve it?” (or what is critical for solving the problem) to arrive at the Innovation Management Matrix, as shown below.



So where are you in this matrix? Or where will you be with your project? Of course, in hind-sight, it is always easy to draw a straight line from problem to solution. Looking back, the road always was clear. Going forward, unless you work with a great visionary like Steve Jobs, the road might look a bit hazy. foggy, unclear, or even non-existing. And even if you do know where you are, then what? If I know I am disrupting the business, how does this help to make my innovation successful?

Allow me to side-jump for a moment and talk about on-line user-communities. A user-community to sound ideas is gaining popularity. “Sophisticated online crowdsourcing platforms are making it ever simpler to manage and support distributed workers. In essence, the crowd has become a fixed institution available on demand.” Advantages are clear; you can actually ask your users what the think. Better, you can ask what they think while you are working on your project. Not completely real-time, but close enough. This speeds up the process tremendously. Raving forward at virtually light speed towards the light of innovation is the kind of image you should be imagining now. The ‘only’ challenge is to create a community, which is time and resource intensive. But once you have established a community, you can just ‘throw in’ ideas and see what sticks. Well, sort of.

Personally, I had very good experiences working with STREAM-Research (offered by ATOM-Design), to create a user-community to support the UBS WM innovation team in understanding customer needs and driving one of their innovation projects forward.

Preparing a presentation on the success of the project, I came to the conclusion that “The Innovation Management Matrix” depicts the solution space, but not really helps to define a strategy on how to get there. However, placing this matrix in the context of user-community supported innovation, the options for each of the cells of the matrix become clear. See the image below.



Let me run you through the cells.

Problem space defined, but domain not defined. Basically you are transferring knowledge from a master domain to child domain. This situation occurs when for example, a product that is a huge success in on country is planned to being introduced in a different one, or when one business model (e.g.  ‘Uber’) model and validating whether it would work for the room rental business (couch surfing).  The strategy that might work best here is to run through a sequence of user-stories (as known from the mother domain) and see which applies or what problems you encounter.

Problem space is defined, and domain is defined. This is your incremental innovation. A user community might be an over-kill here, or at best to validate acceptance of changes and improvements. Still a valid use-case for community based innovation, but maybe not the most exciting one, or the best use of resources. Also, risk here is that the project slide off into either disruptive innovation or break through innovation, simply because of all the insights obtained through the community.

Problem space not defined, but the domain is defined. This is the basis for disruptive innovation, and a user community may be instrumental for finding-out undiscovered user needs and wishes. This situation occurs when for example new technologies or new approaches challenge the common way of doing things.

Neither the problem space nor the domain are defined. So, this basically is phishing. No need to consult a community here.

In sum. Innovating using a client community usefull? Absolutely. From my experience, taking the innovation management matrix as reference, there are two situations in which community based innovation are especially effective; the more straight forward transitioning from one domain to the other (Problem is understood, but the (new) domain is not) and, more challenging, using the community to gain insights and validate hypotheses (the domain is understood but the problem is not). Incremental innovation and more basic research seem less likely scenarios for which to apply community based innovation.

Stickiness template – Creating products/services for which users return

what adds stickiness to the value proposition?

The stickiness template adding to the Business Model Canvas to help add stickiness to services and products being defined

Why do customers come back? What creates the stickiness of products or services? Why are Apps sticky? Why do customers continue to use certain service while abandoning others? How do you make something sticky? It seems to me that the service or product needs to be ‘of value to the person’. Ok, a no-brainer. I know. But why then, if this is a no-brainer, is it so difficult to create products that are of value to people? Maybe not a no-brainer after-all?

In this post we introduce a template that helps to understand the aspects of the service that will create stickiness , which in turn may help to design products that have this stickiness property we crave for to ensure continuity of business. More insights may be obtained if we split the ‘of value to the person’ in two factors; value and personal.

What is valuable? Valuable can be insights or simply monetary value. Information about how the current status of investment markets is valuable to a trader, and he probably is willing to pays for getting that information early, or better, for getting the information about the investment markets that impact the trader’s current investment portfolio early. Valuable is also simply the price-tag. If a magazine subscription costs X, and by becoming member of a certain club will give me 50% discount, then that club become valuable by the amount of 50% of X.

What is personal? Some skin in the game makes it personal. The more I share, the more whatever it is becomes an extension of myself, ergo personal. By definition what I as a person produce is personal. It comes from me. It is the result of my, my interests, my experiences, my reflection on the world. Companies like Amazon utilize this by profiling clients, to make suggestions fitting your interests. You can even take it a step further, as Douglas Adams pointed out back in 1999 in his column “Build It and We Will Come”. “And on the basis of another – not entirely disinterested – suggestion of mine they [Amazon] are going to start a running poll on which books people would most like to see turned into movies. This is information that no one has ever been able to collect before.” And we happily tell what we are interested in, if that helps to make it easier to find what we are looking for.

In other studies both there may be referred to product meaningfulness and product superiority. Product meaningfulness concerns the benefits that users receive from buying and using a new product, whereas product superiority captures the extent to which a new product outperforms competing products (Rijsdijk, Langerak, and Jan, 2011, as referred to by Robert G. Cooper)

If you put the two parameters, valuable and personal, in a simple marketing 1-on-1, you get the following ‘stickiness-template’, that may help helps you to decide how to make your product or service more sticky.

The stickiness template goes a step further than the business model canvas and the value proposition canvas. The business model canvas is an excellent tool to explore new business opportunities or – when altering an existing – the impact of possible changes. This helps you to define a business that is sustainable. The value proposition canvas focusses on service design and aims to link the customer needs and wishes (positive and negative) to the service/product offering. This helps you to design products and services that customers need and want. With the stickiness template I try to zoom in to what customers want again, what makes customers come back.

Building on this previous post, where i looked at the user journey of a WM Client Advisor and evaluated opportunities for digital and print channels. Specifically, I tried to check what the digital and print channels would be competing with, at each step of the user journey. That, I think, is a powerful approach; evaluating not only the opportunity/possibility, but also the risk, in the sense of what else is competing for attention. The updated template has boxes where you can list the competitor for attention.

UBS house viewThis template has been the result of my work at, Here is one of the examples. The UBS CIO MyHouseView tool  I will use the example of the UBS CIO Year Ahead and the CIO House View tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the template. At the end of each the year, the UBS publishes an outlook on market developments and onto the new year. This is the CIO House View Year Ahead publication. Other WM service providers have similar publications.

As part of last year’s CIO House View Year Ahead publication, we took part in conceptualizing and implementing a tool to offer curated content based on which visitors could browse the content in the light of their portfolio, i.e. content that is maximally relevant. The goal was that visitors would not just read the CIO Year Ahead content, but that they would be presented with content that was of special interest for them. To achieve this, the visitor was invited to indicate their portfolio structure (percentage bonds, equities etc). Based on the entered portfolio, the tool would show relevant content. You could then proceed and print out your personal version of the CIO Year Ahead publication, including the for your relevant content.

The images below show the sequence. Alternatively, you can try the tool here.

As far as we could tell, the tool was a success. It was well received by the Client Advisors, frequently visited and many visitors printed their version of the publication.

whiteboardUsage of the tool dropped after january, and thereafter basically laid idle. What was wrong? Why was the tool not ‘sticky’? Why did visitors not return, or why didn’t it attract new visitors. So we worked on a stickiness-template on the whiteboard to look at the tool, to find its weak points. Are there any?

There were not may points to ensure stickiness’ therefore the template is quite empty. But it was not bad. considering we did not consider this in detail when designing and building the tool.

Entering the portfolio information is clearly putting some ‘skin into the game’, and to our knowledge there is no other tool that offers something remotely similar. A missed opportunity here is the possibility to comment on the articles for other visitors to read.

Curated content, portfolio based, also clearly is adds to the stickiness. For this, there are alternatives. For one, the visitor, if a client of the UBS, can simply call his or her wealth management advisor. Alternatively, editorial reviews in financial newspapers and/or services like Bloomberg could also provide similar information although maybe not curated to the visitor’s portfolio.


So, if there are stickiness factors in place, why was the tool not sticky? As mentioned, as far as we could tell, the traction was good for a month of two, but the quickly dropped. The answer appeared painfully simple; no new content. The content was not updated. Originally intended, but never executed, the content remained unchanged. The project as over taken on the inside lane by other activities, reducing the long term vision to a single shot effort. This means that after a few visits, you probably have read most interesting to read. Moreover, coming february, the content written a few months before, would be largely outdated, virtually removing all incentives to ever return. It will take another 100 years before the content may be interesting again, for historic reasons.

The update frequency, is not captured by the template. Update frequency of curated content nor the expected return frequency; both important if trying to maximize the stickiness factor. So these were added to the template.




  • Rijsdijk, S.A., Langerak, F., & Jan, E. (2011). Understanding a two-sided coin: Antecedents and consequences of a decomposed product advantage. (2011). Journal of Product Innovation Management 28(1): 33–47
  • Cooper, R.G., (2013) New products – what separates the winners from the losers and what drives success. The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. K.B. Kahn, Ed. 3rd edition.  pp. 3-32 .

Broadband: how wide should the pipe be?

Broadband, digitisation, digital transformation, big data, it has been a long process, mainly driven by technical innovation. Still. Back in the day, in 2001 working for The Fantastic Corporation, I wrote this Spoof article on digital fascination and how it is driving business descisions. Well, in all honesty, I did not know it then, my focus was on using the scientific method as a tool (which it just is), so the article was meant to illustrate how a fool with a tool remains a fool (you can freely exchange tool for ‘new technology’ or ‘technology focus’, or….). Anyhow, here it is. Enjoy.

Broadband: how wide should the pipe be?

Investigating end-user constraints on big-data accessibility

Broadband, the next generation Internet is at our doorstep. Technical advances have created fast connections, so called pipes, with even the most remote location possible. Anywhere, you will have the information highway at your fingertips. But what will this new technology bring us? Will it improve the end-user experience? This paper describes an experiment investigating the influence technical aspects of broadband such as pipe dimensions on the end-user experience.


Broadband is maturing from an experimental stage and becoming within reach of every consumer. Fibre technology is dominating the market, allowing for data delivery with near speed of light. Over the last years network operators have invested a lot in high- speed glass-fibre technology, even more than there is demand for. As a consequence the prices for high-speed connections have dropped and have become affordable for every consumer [1]. Broadband is truly getting out of the labs and into the market place. The type of connection determines the speed in which you can send and receive data. The connection is commonly referred to as ‘pipe’. In particular, the dimension of the pipe determines the amount of data you have access to per time interval. There are two factors of the pipe influencing the transmission rate (see Figure 1), its lengths and its diameter.

Figure 1: an illustration of the factors pipe length and pipe width. Either a shorter pipe or a large diameter reduces transmission time. Length T results in larger transmission times. Pipe width D, due to the possibility of parallel transmission, results in reduced transmission times.

Figure 1: an illustration of the factors pipe length and pipe width. Either a shorter pipe or a large diameter reduces transmission time. Length T results in larger transmission times. Pipe width D, due to the possibility of parallel transmission, results in reduced transmission times.

The length of the pipe influences the access speed. The longer the distance, the more time it takes to receive or distribute data. Already running at the speed of light, the distance may be the least important factor. The diameter of the pipe also influences the access speed. A large diameter allows for parallel transmission of data, increasing the amounts of data per time unit received, whereas a small diameter allows for mostly sequential data transmission. Obviously, compared to parallel transmission the sequential data transmission results in a lower connection.

The end-user experience

The influence of the pipe dimensions on the end-user experience is still unknown. Not surprisingly, technical advances are driving the broadband market, ignoring the importance of information about the end-user experience. Contrary to technical aspects, the consequence for the end-user experience of these parameters never has been investigated. However, unless end-users experience benefits from technical advantages, all investments in these systems may be in vain. Reports from the market, such as [1], suggests the need for an alternative approach: using the end-user needs as basis for broadband rollout and development. This means answering questions like ‘What is the influence of the width?’, and ‘What is the effect of pipe length on the consumption of a so- called ‘compelling’ site?’ ‘Does the amount of joy the end-user experiences depend on the speed with which the data is consumed?’ This paper aims to systematically investigate and by doing so give insight into the effect of pipe dimensions on the end-user experience.

Experimental set-up

This paragraph describes the prototypes used and the experimental set-up and the task the users had to perform.

Figure 2: The largest (left, 80% percentile) and smallest (right, 20% percentile) of pipes normally available in the environment of consumers. These dimensions were used for the prototypes.

Figure 2: The largest (left, 80% percentile) and smallest (right, 20% percentile) of pipes normally available in the environment of consumers. These dimensions were used for the prototypes.

Apparatus used

As the focus for broadband is the consumer market, the sizes of pipes used for the experiment reflect those that commonly are available for house appliances. Figure 2 shows the two extremes (taken are the 20 percentile and 80 percentile of dimensions found). A prototype to control the information pick-up by end users was constructed. This prototype will be referred to as ‘GLobal Information SenSitive Experience transducerS (from here on referred to as GLASSES-TM). Figure 3 shows the prototypes used during the experiment. Various versions of the GLASSES-TM were created, to match the experimental conditions.

Figure 3: The four prototypes of the GLASSESTM, developed for the conditions of the experiment. Each prototype matches a specific combination of pipe width and pipe length.

Figure 3: The four prototypes of the GLASSESTM, developed for the conditions of the experiment. Each prototype matches a specific combination of pipe width and pipe length.

Experimental conditions

Table 1 shows the prototypes and the experimental condition for which it was used.


Subjects were presented twelve different tasks, and asked to grade the page on a seven point scale running from highly interesting to extremely dull. Subjects were given as much time as they considered required.

Dependent and independent parameters

As stimuli a twelve web pages were selected ranging from full multi-media experience to a page with text only. The stimuli were presented in random order. Six subjects participated in the experiment. All subjects were member of the Fantastic Corporation R&D department. After making participation to the experiment part of their MBO1, subjects were found to participate willingly and voluntarily. An aside, using the MBO to motivate the participation in such experiments might be the only useful application for the still controversial MBO [2]. Stimuli and conditions were randomised for each subject. Measured were the grading of the web pages and the amount of time used viewing the page.

Table 1: An overview of the experimental conditions and the GLASSES-TM’s used for each of the four conditions.

Table 1: An overview of the experimental conditions and the GLASSES-TM’s used for each of the four conditions.


This section gives the results of the experiment. Given the novelty of the broadband media, the data was recorded using Reverse Engineering techniques2 and analysed using Bistromatcis3 [3, 4].

Interaction: grading and pipe dimensions

Figure 4: results of the grading of web pages for the pages with multimedia content (left) and for the text only pages (right)

Figure 4: results of the grading of web pages for the pages with multimedia content (left) and for the text only pages (right)

Pipe dimensions were found to have most effect with multimedia content (see Figure 4). For text only pages only a small effect was found if the differences between conditions are extreme (a small and long pipe verses a short and wide one). For the grading of the pages, the best condition was found to be a short and wide pipe.

Conclusions and further research

For multimedia applications the dimensions of the pipe preferably is short and wide. For non-multimedia applications the benefits of a short but wide pipe are less clear.
During the experiment it was noticed that with narrow pipes end-users start to compensate the reduced information flow by active exploration, by making head- movements. It is known that information pick-up closely relates to possibilities of action [5]. Based on our observation it is believed that there is room for improving network and web technology by linking the behaviour of the user to the data transport. Further research will focus on how active exploration of the end-user can compensate for the dimensions of the pipe.
Also, additional applications of GLASSESTM are being developed. Especially promising are preliminary experiments conducted with additional filters GLASSESTM with a short but wide pipe. Depending on the end-user, the same information has to be presented in a different format to enhance it application and consumption. For the creation of these filters an Extremely clear yet Motionless Liquid (referred to as XML) was found, and successfully applied. Figure 5 – left shows a first prototype using a short and wide pipe encapsulating such a filter.
Further investigations will also focus on data filtering by using semi transparent reception, the so-called Partially OccLuding trAnsmission pROtocolair Information Device (also known as POLAROIDTM, see Figure 5 – right). However, as the results of the experiment show, to reduce data access, one could also use a longer and/or narrower pipe.

Figure 5: Two examples of possible applications of GLASSESTM. Left, a subject wearing a preliminary prototype incorporating a personalized XML filter for optimal information pick-up and right, subject wearing a prototype incorporating POLAROIDTM based semi transparent filtering techniques.

Figure 5: Two examples of possible applications of GLASSESTM. Left, a subject wearing a preliminary prototype incorporating a personalized XML filter for optimal information pick-up and right, subject wearing a prototype incorporating POLAROIDTM based semi transparent filtering techniques.

In sum, despite its slow roll-out [e.g. 1] broadband shows potential, and may have an extremely interesting and promising future, provided technical constraints are investigated and developed taking into consideration end- user needs and constraints.


[1] Karlin Lillington (2001) A ninety billion dollar mistake In: The Guardian. August 23, 2001
[2] Milkovich, G.T. & Wigdor, A.K. (1992) Pay for performance, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.
[3] D. N. Adams. (1982) Life, the Universe and Everything. Pan Books
[4] D. N. Adams (1986) Mostly harmless (the fifth part of the hitch hiker’s guide trilogy). Pan Books
[5] Gibson, J.J. (1979) An ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, London. [Reprinted in 1986].

You can download the original paper here

‘3D’ vision, by linking action and perception

Illustrations of space through movement, ‘3D’ on a single screen by linking action and perception, to insiders in Delft also known as the Delft Virtual Window System, (DVWS). This page shows some examples freely exploring around the topic of ecological perception and action/perception coupling, which was the basis for my PhD thesis work. An ancient archive of system designs, prototypes and experiments. Most movies are the result of a collaboration with ‘partner in crime’ dr. ing. Tom Djajadiningrat, the best industrial designer known to men, well, known to this man at least. Great times, great memories. Small and short movies. Remember, this was last century.

In this day and age, most of the illustrations below are mainstream ideas, and new technology would make implementation much easier. I mean, using two pendulums to measure the orientation of a monitor (which was an transparent LCD screen used to place on an overhead projector to share your computer screen – whoa…) ad link it back to the images shown on the screen. ‘Rocket science’ back in 1994….

Depth through movement. This movie shows the basic principle. At the time created in PovRay, rendered on a Quadra (over-night), and then imported in macromedia Director to create a QT movie.
Just fun. Using a Mondriaan picture ti highlight the difference between static information and the ability to move. Without movement the image is perfectly flat. Add some movement and you see that it is actual a spatial structure.
Wobby – Exploring a spatial object by changing the orientation of the monitor. The orientation of the monitor is measured with two pendulums.
Exploring the spatial structure of a Rietveld Red-Blue-chair, showing what you see as observer and how you interact with the screen (inset).
Wobby – Exploring the depth map of the northern part of the Netherlands. One of the possible applications we were exploring. Again,shown is what you see as observer and how you interact with the screen (inset).  
Interactive MRI. Moving the monitor allows navigation through the MRI slices, allowing you to get a better understanding of its spatial structure.  
Wiggly – in most situations you sit on a chair behind a computer. The sensors or your chair can estimate the orientation of your upper-body, and therefore the position of your head position. Linking this estimation to the camera movements makes it possible to explore a virtual space in an elegantly simple manner; just sit down and explore.