Interoperability is a clear example of a complex innovative feature that users of web-based services now take for granted. Like many such concepts, for a time, interoperability was seen as innovative and the leading edge of user experience, introducing seamlessness for the user in transition from one service to another. As ever-demanding consumers, we have accepted this as an obvious extension of functionality and now we want to have it for every service we use.
One of the simplest examples of this concept is the now-traditional "share on Facebook" link that appears on many forms of web content. In that instance, owners of content platforms want a wide distribution of their content. One of the most effective means of achieving that goal is to permit Facebook to interoperate with their platforms. It also works for Facebook, which wants people to utilize its services for sharing as wide a range of content as possible.
Obviously, the user benefits of interoperability are significant, too. As a user of multiple services and devices, my music can be streamed from one platform to another, all of my email contacts are uploaded onto the social media services of my choice, all of my personal content is effortlessly uploaded to cloud storage, and I can view my content, emails and any other other feeds on multiple devices at multiple times. My books can be read on my Kindle, my phone, my iPad, and, if I want to be boring, I can read them on my laptop. I can access my content wherever and whenever I want, using whatever service I feel most comfortable with.
So far so good - this notches a win for content publishers, a win for service platform owners and a win for users.
What most users don't realise is that beneath the layer of the smooth and blissful convenience of their user experience there is a complex interplay of legal rights and technical wizardry. The technical wizardry consists of myriads of scripts and engines that allow each platform or device to speak to the other and transfer the content or information seamlessly. To maintain this, software engineers and designers have to keep abreast of the technical practices of the other parties and ensure that all operations will continue without a hitch. It's a cooperative exercise, and there is a lot of fine tuning involved.
But the delineation of legal rights is even more complex. Who is responsible for what? For example, as content owner, can I object if my content is modified, presented or utilized in a way that I don't approve of? Who is responsible for a copyright breach, or an infringement of moral rights? Should I look to have recourse from the publisher, the user who did the sharing, the owner of the platforms that the sharing occurred on, or perhaps someone else? Are the interoperable platforms merely content conduits, or should their operators be considered liable for how they are used? What about security and privacy?
Most of these questions can't be easily resolved without clear contractual terms between the relevant stakeholders. At a minimum, specific user terms governing these issues are needed - however, the usual clickwrap acceptance methodology for such services has meant that users, simply accept the lion's share of the risks even though they have the shallowest pockets.
Sometimes the complexity of these questions can cause operators of such services to withdraw from the discussion. Not seeing the benefit in continuing a symbiotic relationship, they discontinue support for interoperative functions.
One recent example of this is the way LinkedIn recently dropped support for Xobni, a useful Outlook add-on. The Xobni LinkedIn gadget enabled users of Outlook to quickly see if the people emailing them had a LinkedIn profile, and connect with them on the LinkedIn platform. For many professionals it was a real time-saver, because it meant that they didn't have to sign in to LinkedIn, find people on the site, and invite them using the traditional methods.
The withdrawal of support provoked a significant user backlash. It remains to be seen whether the decision will backfire or whether in fact there is a deeper strategy in play. In the meantime, for Xobni users, the Xobni service is no longer as useful as it once was.
Interoperability will remain a significant function of our lives in the years to come, but the maze of associated technical complexities and rights should be navigated with care.
No comments:
Post a Comment