If you use an Android device, you’re familiar with installing apps. Each app has a set of permissions that it requests. For instance, the screen capture at left shows the permissions required by the Google Maps app. As you can see the list is extensive and some of them might give you pause, like “Services that cost you money” or “Your personal information”.

Before you install an app, all of its requested permissions are listed, along with the short descriptions you see here and you can decide whether or not you want to install the app, thereby granting it those permissions. That’s good because unlike iOS, you can see specifically what it wants access to and at least have some knowledge about what it might do and decide whether or not you want to install it. The app cannot access permission-protected functions in the API without this express approval at installation time.

This is good as far as it goes, but it could be a lot better. First, it’s all or nothing. You either accept all the permissions or you don’t install the app. Second, the terse and generic explanations are frequently not sufficient to determine if you want to grant the permission or not.

Developers could provide application-specific explanations of permission use

It would be great if there were explanations of why the permission is needed in terms of the app’s functions. For instance, an app I’m writing requests the “Phone calls” permission because it needs to know the hardware ID of the phone to do some database functions. But it’s not going to make any phone calls. That would be nice for the user to know before they installed the app.

Google Maps would explain why and when it needs to “directly call phone numbers.” After poking around in Maps a bit, I discovered that the “Places” activity locates things like restaurants and gives you a “Call” button right on the listing. This is the kind of when, why, how information you need that is specific to the application in order to decide if you want to grant the permission.

Android could allow permissions to be individually granted

When installing an app, it would be much better if, coupled with the application-relevant explanation of the permission’s use, you could individually grant or withhold a permission. This would require the app developer to identify which permissions were minimally necessary and which were optional, if any. Further, it would require the app to be gracefully tolerant of missing permissions.

For instance, with Google Maps you might choose to deny access to your contact data. When choosing to deny this permission, you should have full knowledge of what functionality you would be missing by doing so. This would make application development more difficult, but would yield significant benefits to the user.

Edit Tweets after they’ve been posted

For some reason, people often don’t see errors in text they’re editing until the text is posted publicly. I think this has to do with the fact that publishing often changes the line breaks, font, background, foreground text color, formatting or whatever so that the error suddenly becomes apparent.

This happens to me once in a while when using Twitter. In Janetter, the edit box for composing a tweet stretches the text out in one long line. But after being posted and appearing in a stream column, it’s line-broken into 4 or sometimes more lines depending on column widths. Once posted of course, there’s no way to correct the error except by deleting the tweet and re-entering it.

Now, what would be really great is to be able to edit a tweet after you’ve posted it, like you can edit a post on Google+. Twitter doesn’t support this, but Janetter could make it appear that it was simply by putting an “edit” button or link on the posted tweet and letting you edit the tweet (ideally, in place in the column) and then reposting the tweet and deleting the old one, all in one step. The new tweet would appear at the top of the column with its correct, new post time and the old one would disappear, reflecting what was actually done behind the scenes. This doesn’t do anything you can’t do yourself manually, it just makes it more convenient by combining several steps into one and corresponds better to the user’s mental model of “where” the tweet is, so to speak. The picture below attempts to illustrate how I think it could work. Click on it to get the full-size version.

I wouldn’t expect Janetter to try to maintain the conversation links to the old tweet, or anything else that gets deleted along with the old tweet. That would make the problem much more complicated and probably impossible, given the twitter API. The user just gets what they get when they manually delete and repost now.

The people I know on Twitter would love this little convenience feature. How about you?

Enable the ESC key to cancel photos and profile dialogs

This is a consistency and convenience issue. I instinctually hit the ESC key to cancel dialogs and I think it’s always good to give the user the choice of using the keyboard over the mouse when possible. Please note I would add this key response to the current method of clicking outside the dialog and not replace it! It doesn’t have to be an either/or choice. Both can work, right?

Mouse Rollover pauses column update

One of the things that drives me crazy about all auto-updating Twitter clients is that they inevitably update just as I’m about to do something with a tweet. The tweet I’m interested in gets scrolled away, and I end up clicking on the wrong tweet!

Now, I know that clicking on a tweet in a column in Janetter will stop updating in that column, but that’s not exactly what I want. I only want updating to pause while the cursor is over that column and to restart automatically when the cursor moves off, OR when the cursor hasn’t moved for say, a minute. Here’s a simple illustration of how it might work. Again, click on the picture to make it full size.

Janetter has built a really good product. I hope they’ll consider these improvements. I happily offer myself as a development tester.

The way AdTraqr works is that you create a “target” record in the database that contains a URL you want the user to be directed to when they scan the code.

The alpha test, which just ran in the New London, CT local paper The Day contained a QR code for each of three properties belonging to a realtor friend. These went into a 1/4 page size ad in the real estate supplement that is inserted in the paper on Fridays. To my knowledge, this is the first use of QR codes in advertising in The Day.

Click on the image first to get the full-size version and then try scanning the codes with your smart-phone.

What you should see is the agency’s property page for the listing you scanned with all details about price, square footage, etc.

The “tracking” part of the service comes in when you place different codes for the same target in multiple papers, real estate flyers, on the property sign or any other place. Each placement for the same target has a different QR code. When someone scans the code, it actually goes to a URL on AdTraqr.com, which increments a count in its database of how many times that particular QR code was scanned, and then redirects the user to the actual target page, in this case a real estate listing. The agent can then look at their account page on AdTraqr and see how many times each placement was scanned. This gives them direct information about the effectiveness of each placement, which can help them decide where their advertising dollars are best spent.

And of course, any business that advertises can use QR codes in this way, not just realtors. A retail store that advertises in a wide area could tell which town produced more customers by putting a different code in each local paper or flyer version that they publish.

There are many ways to use QR codes and AdTraqr. A web-savvy business will create different landing pages for each QR code or target that they produce. Coupons or discounts can be implemented this way or information on new products or services.

The exciting thing about QR codes is that they make print an extension of the internet, and that’s an intriguing concept.

AdTraqr.com is in private alpha right now. I expect to go public in maybe another month, at which time, I’ll update you. Thanks for reading, and go find a QR code to scan!

Today, I received the following letter from my US Senator, Joe Lieberman (D-CT). I don’t have a lot good to say about Joe on many issues, but this letter does summarize nicely a lot of the important reasons we should all be on the side of an open mobile phone environment, in addition to keeping the Internet free and open. I’m hoping Sen. Lieberman is on the side of the consumer along with President Obama on this one.

July 29, 2009

Dear Mr. Cascio:

Thank you for contacting me regarding exclusive cell phone sales and distribution contracts that limit the services consumers can access on their wireless devices, a practice commonly referred to as “handset exclusivity.” I understand that this is a difficult issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you mention, many wireless device manufacturers have reached agreements with large wireless companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, in which they agree to sell a certain phone exclusively through a particular carrier’s network. For example, those who purchase Apple’s iPhone can only use it to access AT&T’s phone and Internet service. Currently, nine out of the ten highest selling phones are locked into such exclusive deals. In addition, there have been allegations that service providers have prevented subscribers from accessing web content and downloading applications that directly compete with their own services. For example, many users have complained that they have a difficult time using the Internet phone service Skype because it competes directly with their carrier’s phone service.

Critics of exclusive device agreements argue that they adversely affect consumers by limiting choice and increasing prices. They point out that because many phones are sold through only one network, many consumers have to forego purchasing the device that best fits their needs so that they can sign up for a service plan they can more easily afford. In addition, critics contend that exclusivity allows carriers to charge more for popular devices than they would if the same device was being sold by multiple providers. Furthermore, many rural phone carriers assert that such arrangements unfairly prevent consumers living in rural areas that are not served by one of the major carriers from being able to use some of the more advanced phones on the market.

On the other hand, wireless service providers contend that exclusivity agreements result in lower prices for consumers because it allows providers to offer package deals in which customers can purchase a handset device at a reduced price in return for agreeing to subscribe to a carrier’s service. For example, they cite that the average price of the iPhone has declined by almost $300 since Apple first agreed to sell it solely through AT&T almost two years ago. Industry officials also suggest that exclusivity deals help to spur innovation because carriers will continuously request that manufacturers develop new features in order to stand out from their competitors.

You may be interested to learn that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology held a hearing on this topic entitled the “the Consumer Wireless Experience.” For more information on this hearing, I suggest you visit the committee’s website at: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=03b81ffd-ba9f-42e6-8331-7c28f6d112b0.

Recently, Michael Copps, the Acting Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced that FCC would take steps to examine handset exclusivity agreements to determine whether they “adversely restrict consumer choice or harm the development of innovative devices.” Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s nominee for FCC Chairman, has also indicated that he believes FCC should investigate this matter. In addition, there have been reports that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened an initial review into whether large service providers are abusing their market power, including the use of exclusive agreements with handset makers. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor this issue.

Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit my website at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman

UNITED STATES SENATOR

JIL:gjz