Cumulus vs. Portfolio: An interactivity slam-down between two Digital Asset Management Applications

Theories and Practice of Interactive Media7 December 2004

Don Wilson

Agenda

• Introduction• Consumer Features• Definitions• Purpose, Significance, Objective• Tasks and Results• Interactivity comparison• Discussion• Conclusion

Introduction• A picture is worth one thousand keywords, that is if

you ever want to see it again• Task based comparative analysis between two

computer mediated single-user Digital Asset Management applications

• Does interactivity enhance usability and efficiency?– How and why?– Which is the better application and why?

Consumer Features• Display thumbnails, larger previews and view metadata• Organize your subjects into categories, galleries, use keywords• Records are representational, originals can be stored anywhere • Create slide shows, print contact sheets, publish galleries to

internet• Portfolio can batch convert, rename and move files• Portfolio can burn CD catalogues and include browser so user

can view and sort files just like application• Cumulus 6 ($99.95), Portfolio 7 ($199.95)

Definitions

Digital asset:Any digital file – image, text, video, PowerPoint, multimedia, audio, layouts – which holds potential value through reuse.

Digital Asset Management:The technology that enables access to existing digital assets and their potential reuse for profit.

Definitions

Interactivity:“A cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think and speak.”

“Conversation is a loop through which information flows, changing its content and character with each pass through the loop (Crawford, 2003).”

Purpose• Compare the interactivity of Cumulus and Portfolio using

identical tasks• Determine best single user application

Significance• Manage digital assets to save time and make money• Digital assets are only assets if they accessible

Objective• Learn and apply theories and practice of interactivity to my

business

Task 1: Download software

Cumulus• Roughly one hour to download, confusing interface,

finally had to go to online help (that worked)– Very confusing feedback, I was lost, not user oriented

• -2 on a scale of 10

Portfolio• Downloaded in five clicks, very simple, immediately

offered link to 15 online Flash tutorials– Interactive loop, great navigation,

• 10 on a scale of 10

Task 2: Add imagesCumulus• Two hour struggle – back and forth from online help – I still can’t

make it work – Too many small steps, not easy and open, heavy memory

commitment– Many choices but unclear feedback and strict hierarchy

• Still -2 on a scale of 10

Portfolio• Looked at 7 tutorials, browsed Quick Start PDF and I’m in

business making catalog, galleries, dragging & dropping– Intuitive, paths are obvious, great feedback, many choices

• Still 10 on a scale of 10

Task 3: Keyword search

Cumulus• Keyword search works great, better than Portfolio

– Al keywords listed alphabetically, keyboard shortcuts– Many choices but unclear feedback and strict hierarchy

• 2 on a scale of 10, the only thing I can do is search keywords

Portfolio• Keyword search is case sensitive (Mac)

– Weak control in search interface, intent to help user slipped

• 7 on a scale of 10

Interactivity comparison• Cumulus

– Confusing interface– Poor navigation– Many choices– Confusing feedback = no

meaning– Memory dependent– Good control with

keywords– Strict hierarchy– Not user oriented

• Portfolio– Interactive loop– Clear navigation– Many choices– Great feedback– Intuitive (not memory

dependent)– Weak control with

keywords– User oriented

Discussion• Cumulus plagued by large Gulf of Evaluation

and Gulf of Execution– Crippled productivity– No flow

• Portfolio– Good feedback (Schramm, 1982)– Had moments of flow– Actively involved, in control – intent realized (Uses

and Gratifications)

Conclusion• Cumulus is the anti-Elvis of DAM applications• Interactivity made Portfolio far superior in

terms of usability and efficiency

• “If the tedium can be separated from the creative effort, therein lies a potential for application software (Crawford, 2003).”