In 1984, Dr. Egon Spengler gave birth to a proverbial booger on the end of your finger—a meme that simply cannot be shaken off:
Print is dead.
It’s been a rallying cry of technologists for decades, but when I hear it today, the meme sounds more like a Stuart Smalley daily affirmation. Doggonit. But I suppose that’s just the print bias in me speaking.
A few years after Dr. Spengler’s quip, Thomas Woxland asked 20 legal publishers and 4 law librarians to reflect on the role of a law publisher and what each of them saw to be the future of the legal publishing industry. He collected the responses in his centennial reprise of the American Law Review’s 1889 Symposium of Law Publishers. There were some important names in the business who responded, and from those responses Woxland identified several recurring themes, one of which concerned the future of print:
The first recurring theme is that the occasionally prophesied ‘death of the book’ is not going to soon occur. No publisher, even those who are substantially involved in electronic publishing, see books relegated to the museum of quaint oddities of the past, along with buggy-whips and bustle-dresses, 3-D glasses and hula-hoops. Collections of books—or as we call them, libraries—do have a future; they are not expected to become just arcane reliquaries visited only by adamant Luddites and unreconstructed bibliophiles. Libraries and books will continue to be central to the legal information needs of the legal profession and our society as a whole. [¶] But books are no longer the sole format for legal information. The new information technologies are on the minds of all the publishers; either they are already involved in electronic publishing or they are considering entry into that field very shortly. Again though, a common cautionary theme is present: technology is not an end, only a means to deliver to the legal profession the information that the profession needs in ways that are faster or more comprehensive or more inexpensive or more accessible.
Twenty years later, where are we? More importantly, is print finally dead?
Sure, we (and that is the royal We, meaning law librarians, practitioners, professors, law students, paralegals, etc.) have been talking about the decline of print for those twenty years. And yes, library listservs are now riddled with the ubiquitous “free books with postage” emails. And, of course, there’s no shortage of law libraries reporting that they are dumping print subscriptions due to the high costs of maintaining serials. And the largest legal publishers continue to report a decline in print sales. All the while, technology has continued to evolve, becoming more … human. But does all of this spell the end of the future for print in law?
Before we can answer this question, we should probably consider how we got here.
For several hours now I’ve been using a little Java applet called Mousepath that tracks your mouse movements over a single screen. The lines represent the drag, the black circles represent the mouse at rest (the larger the circle, the longer pause), and the white circles represent clicks. It’s an interesting diagram to me because it shows that the center of the screen is “home.” It is where I focus my attention, rest my mouse, and click. The drag moves from the center to the upper corners, and then down again to my task bar. But the movements are only relevant when you consider that I was using Outlook, Word 2007 (ribbons off, customized quick view), Lexis, Loislaw, and Google today. I would be interested to know what other legal researchers’ mousepaths would look like, and if common visual data points could mapped. One of the things I noticed about my drag is that I tend to read text on the screen with the help of my cursor, but I didn’t know it. In a touch-based environment, I won’t be able to do that anymore. Does that seem weird to me? I don’t know yet.
In thinking about the use of programs like these for UI design, I wondered about Thomson Reuters eye-tracking surveys they did for the new WestlawNext. Did they track lawyers’ eyeballs when they were sitting in front of their normal operating environment? Do you tend to look for information in an “F-shaped” manner? Does it even matter? When you look at the mousepath images for other types of users (check these images out on Flickr), it seems like the center of the screen is where it’s at. I’m beginning to think more and more that context menus you can activate in the middle of the screen might actually save time, rather than having to travel to the edges.
Note, the applet does not record travel over dual-monitor setups. I wish it did so I could have a better understanding of travel over the two screens, but as it is, this gives me a good sense of where programs and websites I use on a day-to-day basis focus my attention.
From Techcrunch, a link to 10/GUI, a concept video for touch-based interaction that reconceives our traditional keyboard + mouse combination and overlapping windows UI. What is interesting to me about the UI portion of the video is how much it reminds me of sites like Lumifi that use horizontal tabbing to change the way information is accessed on the screen. Whether this is a better fit for touch-based interaction is debatable, but it is, at least, another idea.
On a related note, I’m going to assume that the panorama/horizontal content navigation scheme seen on the iPhone and most noticeably on the new Windows Mobile 7 will continue to assert its influence over desktop UI design as we move towards more consumer-oriented touch-based inputs.
I recently had the displeasure of having to talk to a partner of a well-known firm about a publication they produced, posted as part of their online collections, and used as part of client development. The problem? The partner had signed off on a document that substantially copied and borrowed from one of our publications without any attribution. As I learned, and had already assumed, the publication was put together by several associates in the firm (presumably looking to make a name for themselves) and the partner was not directly involved in drafting it. It was still his problem though, and his name.
As I spoke to others about this, the question was raised as to whether the firm involved had a plagiarism policy. I didn’t know the answer to the question, and wasn’t about to call back to inquire about the severe punishment that surely would be meted out to the associates. So I polled some of my colleagues, and none of them had such policies in their firm or business. After all, everybody knows you don’t plagiarize.
Turns out the problem is that everyone is thinking about plagiarizing in very specific contexts, for example, a law review article or book. After all, you’re attempting to gain some advantage by submitting those types of documents, like prestige or money. But everything else is a gray area, even though it is really easy to attribute. Here, let me show you:
This is another person’s original thought, and is either a verbatim copy or a tight paraphrase of it. Person, My Original Thought at p. 1 (Winter 2010).
Spectacularly simple right? Hmmm, perhaps on second thought, no.
I’m sure that readers of this blog have already thought this, so forgive me if I’m a bit slow, but with the release of the Apple iPad, it finally struck me that in my lifetime one of my employees will actually say:
What is a mouse?
At that moment, I will think of tube socks, Michael Jordan Nike Airs (the originals!), Polaroids, Commodore 64s, vinyl records, eight-tracks, cassette tapes, VHSes, CRTs, rotary phones, the Motorola StarTAC, the original Star Wars, and so on. I will be amazed that an entire generation of humans will never know that we used a device to move a cursor in 2D space. And then it will really hit me: comic books are dead.
Of course, it won’t come as a complete shock to me as I wave my hand in front of {insert name of whatever we’re calling computer screens at the time} to close my open applications. Certainly by then everything I use will receive 3D input.
We are, according to Bill Buxton, in the final throes (i.e., the next 5 years) of flushing out multi-touch innovation. Assuming, of course, it follows the course of what he considers the “long nose of innovation.” Frankly, given what the iPhone has already done, and what the iPad (and the alleged touch iMac) assumes to do, I can’t say that I disagree with him. More importantly, I’ve been thinking about the extension of multi-touch to online legal research, and whether it will usher in a new paradigm for discovering, researching, gathering, interpreting, or sharing results.
Here are some preliminary (and very rough) thoughts about the matter:
- Website GUIs should be thinking about touch now. Apple’s iWork suite was revamped for touch. In much the same way, publishers who deliver their content online should be thinking about touch interfaces, and not just for mobile phones. For example, are your menus too tight? Do you continue to use textual menus that could be reduced to icons (”Home” instead of a home button, or “Tools” instead of a wrench)? Remember, fingers are not transparent, like a cursor. If the vast majority of legal researchers are right-handed, should we be placing menus on the right-hand side of the screen? This would be contrary to current eyeball-tracking analysis that says we look at screens in a decidedly “F” shape pattern. But does touch change where we look on a screen? (I have an entire journal already dedicated to mock ups trying to anticipate GUI changes based on simple multi-touch gestures. It’s fascinating to think about the possibilities.)
- Does touch change the way we interact with our digital information? How many hands or fingers do you use to read, highlight, copy, create notes, etc. when you are researching a topic? How many books do you have open or documents in print lying around on your desk when constructing an argument? How does your physical (finger) interaction with this material translate to the web? It seems to me that we will see a greater use of context menus that change based on our input stimulus (e.g., one menu when you press and hold, a different one when you drag your finger across the screen, yet another when you use two or more fingers). Right now context menus are very limited, unless you combine mouse action with keyboard commands (something usually reserved for more sophisticated or “power” users).
(My desk on any given day. What is this going to look like in a multi-touch environment?)
- Does touch change the way I present my digital content? What I’m referring to here specifically are the containers legal publishers tend to put their secondary sources into for purposes of search. For example, some publishers limit your search results to a specific subsection of a section of a subchapter of a chapter. Do I display a larger selection of content (e.g., an entire subchapter) because it is easier to scroll or flip through it, much like reading a book?
Having seen and used WestlawNext, it is a modern system to be sure, but it is also several years old already. And the new Lexis system will undoubtedly be much of the same. These systems are going to satisfy the vast majority of legal researchers tethered to the old mouse and keyboard, but we are fast approaching the point on the horizon where multi-touch, like search, becomes a big part of the debate on researching efficiencies. I can’t wait for this debate because I think it will provide opportunities for start-ups to create better mouse-traps for secondary source material, which if Richard Leiter is correct, may be the biggest selling point for Westlaw and Lexis in the digital future.
[Image (cc) by Plastic Revolver]
The last keynote presentation at LegalTech 2010, titled The New Convergence of Intelligence, Intuition, and Information, featured Malcolm Gladwell (author of Outliers, Blink, and The Tipping Point), Dr. Lisa Sanders (Internist, NYT Columnist, and author), and David Craig (Chief Strategery Officer for Thomson Reuters). Below is a curated and edited collection of live tweets by V. Mary Abraham, Jenn Topper, Adrian Dayton, and Michele Kersey. I suggest you check out their Twitter streams for a more complete picture of what is presented below. As part of the process of putting this information together, I also took great liberties in reorganizing it according to topic (read: not necessarily chronological).
My password to the private beta for WestlawNext is set to expire tonight, but before it does, I have some final thoughts on the platform for you to consider.
First, the browser. If you are running IE6, you will need to upgrade to IE8. If you are running IE7, you’ll get by, but there are definitely a few glitches I’ve experienced, so you’ll probably want to upgrade. Best performance currently is with Firefox, but IE8 runs a close second. Last week we were told that Google Chrome is the most stable browser for WestlawNext, but that won’t be rolled out until February 18th. For most of you, however, that won’t matter because you won’t see this thing until much later anyway. But why is this important? It’s just another cost to adopting the platform. If you need to upgrade, then you just have to factor in the IT time to do so. I’m still surprised at the number of firms running ancient-ass browsers. Really folks? Do you not care about online productivity?
Second, secondary sources. I started thinking about the fact that WestlawNext gives you access to over 6,000 secondary sources. And while that is a big number, it’s nothing compared to the primary source material made available, which is to say, search for secondary sources probably could be a lot better if it was a stand alone product. I suspect that relevancy in secondary sources could be much better if all a user was doing was searching those databases with WestSearch. I’m actually thinking there should be a two-step portal, where WestlawNext tries to help you find an explanation to your question first before sending you on to discover the answer for yourself through primary material. This first portal could also be optimized for reading secondary sources that is different than how we try to consume primary data.
Third, WestlawNext SEO. I didn’t think of this, I think Greg Lambert did. But after playing with the system, there are some inevitable questions as to whether the WestSearch algorithm could be gamed by users. If WestSearch is updated weekly with customer log information, as was indicated by the design team, then there must be some sort of potential for increasing the rankings of certain cases over others. Why would this be important? Well, I think Greg posited that if you found a case more favorable to you on a point of law, you might be able to increase its relevancy (for other users looking for the same or similar information) by creating artificial “meaningful relationships” (see my last post on this topic), such as, placing the case in your folders, printing, etc. You could actually encourage the entire firm to do it as a matter of practice. I’m not sure it would work, but it’s certainly something worth considering as more consumer-user data is incorporated into the search algorithm. Lastly, there’s also the problem of law students to consider. Once this platform is rolled out academically, I think it is fair to ask whether law students’ log data will be added to the algorithm mix. Honestly, I think they could screw it up faster than the concerted effort of a few lawyers.
Fourth, social tools. I’ve stared at this platform, and while I know that WestlawNext will be able to let users “vote” and “make comments,” that functionality appears to be specifically limited to the user communicating with Thomson Reuters Legal (TRL) through the “Next” link off the home page. It’s basically a way for you to tell TRL what you’d like to see in later releases. But that is it. An entire community of lawyers across the country, or in the same state, or same city, logged in at the same time, cannot communicate with each other, at all, other than through shared folders and sticky notes. I’m not belittling those advancements, which are important. I’m just puzzled why a company that wants to increase engagement for their site doesn’t find a way to leverage something no one else has, namely, the brain power of tens of thousands concurrent users online at any given moment. If you could connect to someone or more than one person reading the same case you were, would you? Would you ask, What does this passage mean to you? What if your identity was kept anonymous, or just showed Jill, Houston, Texas? Could we—can we—have meaningful conversations about the law in real time, or is it a waste of that precious resource? What has Twitter, or Google Wave for that matter, taught us about our capabilities for social?
Finally, search routine. Like most legal researchers, I’m a Boolean user. So, it is hard for me to abandon it. But I was committed to giving WestSearch the benefit of the doubt, so I always defaulted to the standard “plain language search.” Most of the time I was given relevant results, and my initial research expectations were met. However, I wasn’t satisfied I had gotten everything. So I would scan the first 10 to 15 entries, perhaps viewing 8 of those, and then narrow my results using Boolean in “Search within results,” probably two or three times with different queries. Only then would I be satisfied with what I’d found. This is important because it changes the value equation. I suspect that most users will be like me and feel compelled to narrow the results using Boolean. Now, I know that filtering (e.g., court, published or unpublished opinion, date range) is not an extra QuickView charge, but I don’t know about “Search within results.” You should probably ask your rep because if it does cost extra, then the value proposition for the service is also changed.
[Image (cc) by Kaptain Kobold]
At the beginning of this week, I was fortunate enough to get to spend some quality time with fellow legal information professionals at the Thomson Reuters headquarters in Eagan, Minnesota to discuss the history and future of the new Westlaw, which we now all know as WestlawNext (on February 8th, it will be found at “next.westlaw.com”). [Disclosure: Thomson Reuters paid for the flight, hotel accommodations, and incidentals.] And over the last two weeks, I have been lucky enough to use WestlawNext in my own research, and have learned a fair bit about its capabilities beyond what we were told this week. If you haven’t seen Jason Eiseman’s video of me, the always entertaining Tom Boone, and the desperately in need of hair coloring Greg Lambert, at Jason’s blog or on Henderson Valley Eggs, I suggest you skip over there for a bit and spend some time watching it because the video is perhaps the most honest, off-the-cuff assessment of the product you’ll find on the Tubes right now.
QUICK TAKE.
I like it, a lot. Thomson Reuters Legal (TRL) has put together a pretty solid offering that tackles, in my estimation, what Seth Godin calls the “paradox of the middle of the market:”
The middle of the market is a paradox because of the inherent contradiction between the ease of reaching the nerds and the geeks and the need to reach the middle. The solution, if there is one, is to enter a market to the enthusiastic cheers of those in search of the new, but to build a product/service that appeals to those in the middle. After the initial wave of enthusiasm, you hunker down and ignore those that first embraced you, obsessing instead on the needs and networks of the middle. It’s a difficult balancing act, but it’s the only one that works. Seth Godin, The paradox of the middle of the market (June 28, 2009)
WestlawNext does a good job of satisfying those who want a new, modern interface with some Web 2.0 bells and whistles without sacrificing core functionality. Not everyone is going to be satisfied though, and that’s the point because most users will. And the loudest voices won’t come from the nerds and geeks wondering where all their social media tools are, it will come from the established among us, the Boolean diehards. In fact, if you listen carefully now, you can already hear their rising cacophony of shouts, “Give me Terms and Connectors, or give me Death!”
Forgive me if I’m late to the party on this one as the debate seems to have been going on for the last decade (at least in some circles). Last week Physorg posted about an article in the inaugural issue of WIREs Cognitive Science, titled “Neurolaw.” The following passage caught my attention:
One of the most controversial ways neuroscience is being used in the courtroom is through ‘mind reading’ and the detection of mental states. While only courts in New Mexico currently permit traditional lie detector, or polygraph, tests there are a number of companies claiming to have used neuroscience methods to detect lies. Some of these methods involve electroencephalography (EEG), whereby brain activity is measured through small electrodes placed on the scalp. This widely accepted method of measuring brain electrical potentials has already been used in two forensic techniques which have appeared in US courtrooms: brain fingerprinting and brain electrical oscillations signature (BEOS). Brain fingerprinting purportedly tests for ‘guilty knowledge,’ or memory of a kind that only a guilty person could have. Other forms of guilt detection, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), are based on the assumption that lying and truth-telling are associated with distinctive activity in different areas of the brain. These and other potential forms of ‘mind reading’ are still in development but may have far-reaching implications for court cases.
A quick search of Westlaw unearthed a number of cases on “brain fingerprinting,” and for those courts squarely faced with the issue, the results appear to be similar:
Brain fingerprinting purports to measure certain patterns of brain activity to determine whether the person recognizes or does not recognize offered information, thus revealing what the person has stored in his or her brain. We agree with [the trial judge] that no authority exists in this jurisdiction to establish the reliability of such testing, and the results of any such testing would not be admissible in evidence. And, defendant did not proffer any competent expert opinion to establish the reliability of brain fingerprinting evidence. (Citations omitted.)
State v. Bates, No. 34-2007 (Sup. Ct. N.J. 2009) (unpub.; 3-23-09). Many of them cite to Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 n.6 (Iowa 2003), which characterized the process as “novel computer-based brain testing:”
This testing evidence was introduced through the testimony of Dr. Lawrence Farwell, who specializes in cognitive psychophysiology. Dr. Farwell measures certain patterns of brain activity (the P300 wave) to determine whether the person being tested recognizes or does not recognize offered information. This analysis basically “provide[s] information about what the person has stored in his brain.” According to Dr. Farwell, his testing of [the defendant] established that [the defendant]’s brain did not contain information about [the victim]’s murder. On the other hand, Dr. Farwell testified, testing did confirm that [the defendant]’s brain contained information consistent with his alibi.
It does not surprise me that I have been unaware of neuroscience developments as they related to guilt or innocence in the law, as I spend almost all of it in the civil arena. But I did find several helpful articles on the subject, one being a note from the Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Roberts, Everything New Is Old Again: Brain Fingerprinting & Evidentiary Analogy, 9 Yale J. L. & Tech. 234 (2007), another by Deborah W. Denno titled Crime & Consequences: Science & Involuntary Acts, 87 Minn. L. Rev. 269 (2002), and an article from the NYT by Jeffrey Rosen titled The Brain on the Stand. Unfortunately, in the time I alloted myself, I couldn’t find anything on fMRIs or other forms of “guilt detection.” This seems like an interesting area of the law, and I’ll be curious to see if it progresses beyond junk.
[Image (cc) laimagendelmundo]