Sure… That write-up was a pure brain dump written on a plane about 3 hours after I started sorting through the model of attraction.
Think less of the push and pull model, as internet connectivity is a synchronous activity, but more of bringing things closer to you than go it to things.
Navigation metaphor frames things in a model that we travel to things following a trail, map, scent, etc. But, in reality my digital explorations do not physically take me anywhere, my behind is in the same chair in the same place. The model is a very simple framework of going to places with out having to consider travel or getting there and embracing that consideration leads to the model really fracturing.
But, when thinking with a model of attraction mindset you are drawing things to your screen. If I drop a term in to Google search box it brings things relevant to that to my screen, similar to dropping a catalyst into a solution and things attracted to that catalyst aggregate around it, while equally other things are repelled, making it clearer to see things relatively attracted to that catalytic term.
In doing this attracting we are actually bringing representations or copies of that to our screens, or links to those items. But, as we move about with a laptop or a mobile device we are still attracting those same items. But, different devices require have different properties the model of attraction allows us to think about. Drawing things to us requires grappling with mechanical components: bandwidth, understanding processing power, screen size, etc. It requires intellectual components: what did the person mean by that term, can the person understand what is being returned (same language, written in a manner they understand, etc.). It requires grappling with physical: does the person have access to the information, what physical properties do they need to interact with it (if in a car and querying info we would you voice and aural feedback or if on a standing on a bus reading a mobile in one hand while holding on for dear life with the other). Lastly we need to think about perceptual attractions: what is the person expecting this to look like or what are the perceptual cues that have positive values (in some South American cultures sites that play music are the norm and trigger trust with the visitor to that site, while a Flash designer would never trust Jakob Nielson just from the visual cues from Jakob’s site).
These receptors are valuable to grasp and are something the model of attraction adds to thinking through designing and developing.
But, the biggest thing for me, was it triggered the idea of how do you hold onto this information? I have attracted something I have been seeking to my screen. How do I keep it attracted to me? Across devices? I found music I like and I would like access to it from everywhere. I want in in my own Personal InfoCloud that follows me around.
Findability for many things is getting decent. Refindability still sucks. It is one of the great technical pain points that really has not been adequately addressed.
Changing the focal point, via the model, allows things to be more naturally considered as, ‘oh, of course’ understandings, rather than a long series of things that matter to how people use information and digital media/objects in and around our lives.