I Have Seen The Future And It Is PicLens

For the uninitiated, PicLens is a full screen visual browser of photos and videos. It's available for Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari. It is a very fast, very slick, frankly awesome way to view visual assets on your computer. I'm not one to play fan boy of any technology, but Piclens is just too good. Here's their promo video:

The progress loading of Google Image search results is really something. PicLens works with Flickr, Youtube and other photo and video sites. The beta (found here) lets you browse and view news, sports and photo assets. It's a great way to glance at news stories.

There's been a bit of buzz lately around "visual browsing." Apple has made coverflow a major part of Leopard's Finder and companies like Searchme are betting their future on "visual searching." I don't think visual searching or browsing works for all types of assets, but for pics and videos, it really is great...and nothing does it better than PicLens.

Now if we can just convince the PicLens guys to add RSS feeds...

Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | : piclens google search visual ui firefox addon

The Utility Computing Myth : The Real Reason Why The Sight Of A Fedex Truck Makes Me Giddy

So here's the crux of the utlity computing mantra: all that processing power and hard drive space on your desk isn't needed for a great majority of applications. Instead, we'll have big, huge datacenters serve up applications over the web that help you get your work done. You'll pay either a subscription fee or stare at ads to subsidize their existence. No more $199 for a box with a CD in it.

The days of downloading, unzipping, installing and and then "loading" software are numbered. Instead, we simply visit a URL and bam...instant application and away we go. So watch out Microsoft and Intel, we don't need kick ass PC's anymore. Watch out Seagate and Maxtor, we don't need your hard drives anymore. We just need a thin client good enough to run a browser. The revolution has begun. Right?

Wrong.

Anyone that's messed with web-based word processors like Zoho Writer or Google Documents knows that they're nowhere near as impressive as their desktop counterparts like Microsoft Word. They lack the responsiveness and fidelity and are short of a multitude of features. We're ok with it in some cases because it's damn convenient,

Still, web applications have come a really long way. They're getting better and better. If you want to see the future, check out Adobe's Buzzword. It's a very impressive, Flash-based word processor that gives anything you'd install on your desktop a run for its money and it requires you to just visit a URL. So maybe this is the revolution, right?

Wrong.

Let me put this in a not-so-subtle way: regardless of how you got your software, software still needs to be impressive and competitive. That datacenter is doing two distinct things, and neither are very revolutionary (in my opinion):

1. From Pony Express To Fed-Ex Next Day

First, they're eliminating all the Old World steps that were once necessary for delivering software to you. CD's. Registration Keys. Big, huge installable downloads. All those features don't need to be sent in one big crate anymore. The prerequisites to using software are virtually gone. Just go to a browser, wait a few seconds and off you go. This is how Youtube took over the world and Real Player died an ugly death.

2. Real Estate For Your Bytes

Second, the datacenter will house the assets we create with these tools. Images. Documents. Spreadsheets. They're all stored centrally and available to me wherever I am. This opens up new opportunities for collaboration and sharing and of course, it's very convenient. There's still an important privacy barrier but let's assume privacy is a non-issue for the sake of this post.

I Don't Need A Mult-Billion Dollar Datacenter In North Carolina To Resize An Image

For whatever reason, everyone is equating this with the end of traditional software as we know it. As far as I see it, that CPU on your desk is needed more than ever because it's still doing all the work. Yes, the software is being delivered differently, but the processing is still happening locally. Yes, Buzzword fires up in your browser, but it's your computer that's doing all the magic. In fact, one could argue we need faster processors on our PC's because so much of today's software is interpreted on the fly.

The Adobe AIR platform is all about delivering desktop convenience through a seamless (or near seamless) install experience. AIR is about leveraging what your PC can do, not what some monolithic datacenter in Indiana can do. Of course, your data can still be stored centrally and there's no longer a need to go through cumbersome installations, so the advantages are clearly there.

Many have argued that this notion of utility computing will transform the software industry. Computing power will be metered out like electricity as pay-as-you-go infrastructures take over. Undoubtedly, this shift will have an impact on business infrastructures. Small businesses will no longer need to host mail servers and web applications. They still have to make platform choices and still have to either buy, build or subscribe to software, but the IT headaches, to a large extent, will be outsourced.

Back To Square One

Even so, you still need and want great software. It's important to distinguish the "utility provider" role that Google plays for example (providing storage space, support, uptime, high-bandwidth) with the "software provider" role that Google plays (providing spreadsheets, word processors and email). Amazon, Google and Microsoft are going to provide the utility infrastructure. That's a given. As a result, the "utility" end of the value proposition will quickly commoditize, if it hasn't already done so. The differentiator lies on the "software" end of things - in effect where its always been.

Regardless of where your software originates and its means of delivery, if it's better than a competitors, it will win. This key fact has not and will not change. And to win, you will still need to take advantage of the power on people's desktops and laptops. Technologies like Silverlight and Adobe AIR reaffirm the need to marry a click-and-run experience with the richness and power of desktop software. But more importantly, they validate the importance of delivering better software than the next guy, however way it gets there.

We may well pay for hosted software like we do electricity today. But the real variety of experience and innovation will not lie in the power outlets, but rather what we plug into them.

Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | : technology web soa utility google microsoft adobe air

Needs, Wants And The Great Wall Of Human Fickleness

User-centered design is arguably the single most influential framework by which interfaces are created today. The core of UCD is to meet the needs and wants of end users of a system. Few would doubt that UCD is a good thing. Machines that pass off the illusion of patience and sympathy and a prescient anticipation of what we want to do next is in fact, a very good thing.

When we decide to introduce new product, it's a very tricky proposition because we're effectively trying to bring something new and most likely frivolous into a user's world. This is distinct from a project whereby a team has been hired to meet needs or wants that a user community is conscious of and seeks help on. One of the most formidable and often-neglected obstacles towards successful product adoption is the lack of appreciation for how high and thick that user's wall really is.

When assessing the viability of your new product, it's important to weigh the core reasons and motivators of why people would consider and potentially use your product.

A new product aimed at a broad audience must peg these "wants and needs" with little validation. In this post, I'm going to humbly attempt to categorize the types of needs that may motivate a user to try a new product.

Basic (Primal) Needs

This is the easiest to peg and thus requires the least design work because the needs are so obvious and strong. If I created a complex and painfully confusing sign-up process that led to a $100 check being mailed to you no strings attached, people would tolerate it and go to great lengths to trudge through that process.

If we're providing a service that meets a basic and obvious need or desire, then we can worry less about the user experience. Pornography is another good example of this category (though I'm not going to spilt hairs here between needs and wants).

Organizational Or Financial Pressure

Here, the motivation to use your product materializes from the top on down. If you're able to sell an enterprise CRM application to a CIO or IT manager, their population will have to use it. It's part of their jobs. They may get trained on it and they may have their gripes about it, but there's an implicit understanding that you need to work with this tool to get your job done.

While you should still care about the user experience because bad buzz can still catch up with you, the value proposition is different here. It's more about return-on-investment and "number of transactions per hour" that a decision-maker is going to weigh. In this case, the "needs and wants" are more organizational than individual.

Social Connection

This category is a close relative of the Basic Needs category above. We love to be connected to, talking to, sharing pictures with, befriending (quote-unquote) other human beings. We are social animals and any tool that highlights and enhances our social connections is appealing to us.

If my good friend from high school is on a particular social network, I may well sign up to whatever service to connect with her. Myspace and Facebook are the most obvious examples of products that feed off this need.

Utility Applications

This is the toughest category to define because it's so broad. The products in this category rarely serve their own end but rather help us meet a multitude of needs. Word processing, email and web searching all fall into this category. They lie somewhere in the middle of the assembly line that leads to our goals.

Be very wary of introducing products into this category because utility applications are used heavily and constantly. As a result, the patterns and habits run very deep for many users. People get good at bad habits. When you're thinking through your product's value proposition and if it falls into this category, be sure to apply a heavy tax.

"It's Just So Darn Perty"

There are other, less critical factors that may drive one's needs. A product may be emotionally or aesthetically appealing. For example, Apple's hardware is intuitive and speaks to our desire to be associated with physically attractive objects.

What Is Your User Plan?

You'll often hear that a good business plan clearly states the problem or "pain" that its addressing. After all, without defining that need or want, why bother executing on a product? This is all well and good for business plans and overarching strategies, but it's critical to carry through that analysis down to the humans that need to interact with your product. What is the source of their existing pain? How will your product help? Which category of need are you going after and are you ready to disrupt their current way of doing things, however flawed it may be. It's great to have a business plan, but what's your user plan?

If people are going to touch your product, then be wary of their fickleness, tolerance and sensibilities. They may not seem like much, but when they work in concert against you, they are nearly insurmountable.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | : design ui ux ucd user-centered interface

Core Value And The Package It Comes In : What The Record Labels Can Learn From Tony Montana

Core Value & The Packages It Comes In

If I purchase a Playstation Portable, I own it. It is my property. So what motivates me to buy a PSP? Well, to answer that question, we have to consider the core value that is inherent in a PSP. Yes it's really just a physical object but its core value is it's a great little entertainment system.

One could argue that there are other values to be derived from possessing this physical object, e.g. it's a status symbol that boosts my popularity with my friends, but few would dispute that it's inherent value lies in its capabilities as a video game machine, portable movie player and handheld web browser. It's impossible for me to replicate or share that core value with anyone else unless I give up possession of the physical container that houses that core value.

This is all just a long-winded way of saying that the core value of the PSP cannot be decoupled from the physical container that carries it. While this all may seem like metaphysical babble, this inextricable pairing of perceived value and physical representation is what creates business opportunity. Without that lock-in of value, Sony can't slap a price on a PSP and generate money.

Sixty-Eight Glorious Minutes Of Wonderful Core Value

When I purchase a compact disc, I own it. It is my property. I can lend my CD to a friend. When I do so, I no longer enjoy its use. Let's assume for a second that its 1982, and I really can't easily or affordably replicate the music on the CD. So applying the same test as the PSP, why is the CD valuable to me? Is it because it has great cover art? Is it because it's shiny and round? Obviously not. Nearly all of its core value comes from the music encoded on it. Take away the music, and it's pretty much worthless. And so, the physical CD is really just a container. It's no more valuable than the PSP that is never turned on.

Here Come The CD-R's!

Fast forward 20 years, and hand us 50X CD burners, MP3 encoding and 100 blank CD-R's for $12, and the proverbial plot thickens. Today, anyone can easily decouple the music (the core value) from the container (the CD). CD's used to cost $18 or $20 because the ability to extract that core value wasn't there. This barrier to decoupling created an incredible business opportunity. In other words, a large portion of that $18 wasn't derived from packaging or paying artists, it was derived from the tight entanglement that once existed between the music and the physical container that housed the music. It's sort of like a tax that's been artificially slapped on after the fact.

Now that we've untangled things, the opportunity for record labels to tax us is disappearing. So what is that core value really worth? $3? $5? $10? Who knows. We need a reappraisal because the world doesn't need the containers anymore. Or stated differently, that physical artifact which gave record labels a place to slap on a price tag is disintegrating.

What we're witnessing now is the flailing and screaming of an entire industry drowning.

Laws Shmaws 

The laws that everyone points to: copyright, "fair use", DMCA and such are hardly worth entertaining because they really amount to feeble attempts to reconcile laws that protect creative works that are indelibly tied to some physical representation (like a painting or sculpture). Nobody's bothered to speak of how to deal with creative works that simply don't need physical objects. Our economy is primarily grounded on the ability to buy and sell goods and services. To date, we lumped in creative works with "goods." Well, we don't need the goods anymore. Now what?

When In Doubt, Load The Shotgun

I'm a premium MP3Tunes customer. MP3Tunes allows me to store my music online so I can access it from anywhere via a web browser, Winamp or iTunes plugin. A few days ago, I received an email from them stating that they were being sued by EMI records for what I guess is copyright infringement. EMI is freaking out because their core value is now flowing over wires. They're trying to somehow apply the container tax when we don't need their containers anymore.

"Say hello to my...(eh, you know the rest)"

It really isn't surprising that record labels are putting up a fight here. It's a very large and slowly dying industry that is going to go down swinging. There's a lot to lose here. Still, the carpet bombing approach is just plain ugly. It reminds me of the closing scene of Scarface, where Al Pacino, surrounded on all sides, decides to go out in a blaze of gunfire. College students, grandmas, storage services, software companies. The whole thing borders on silly. It's sort of like to nut who goes into the mall and just randomly starts shooting.

It would serve the record labels well to replace litigation with dialogue and a broader view of intellectual property. Lawsuits suck. They require time and money. They create stress. They rarely result in a positive outcome. EMI and other labels should put their guns away and start to embrace this inevitable shift.

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | : music drm mp3tunes emi lawsuit dmca copyright

The Antidote To Big, Obnoxious Web Ads : The Off Switch

Recently, I've noticed that the front page of the New York Times on the web had given way to a more, how should I put it, Times Square sort of feel:

This is an above-the-fold snapshot. As you can see, the ad is grabbing nearly 40% of the available real estate.

The New York Times web presence is, in my opinion, one of the best-designed news sites on the Web...and then these obnoxious ads get slapped across the whole thing. It's a challenge for ad-driven sites like the New York Times. You want to present information in a useful, readable and constructive way, but you also need to pay the bills. When American Express or Apple comes knocking, you don't want to shoo them away. So what to do?

Well, why not let the reader decide? Near the top-right corner is a click that actually hides the ad:

It's an interesting tactic and one I'd never seen before. I wonder if their advertising clients are OK with this or if maybe they paid a little bit less for this functionality to appear. It seems to be universal.

A content-driven destination as successful as nytimes.com will inevitably have to draw a line somewhere because too much advertising undoubtedly detracts from the perceived value, reputation and prestige of a publication. Everyone has visited sites that splatter ads all over, under and in-between their content. They make you feel icky about being there. It's a difficult tension between good design and good revenue opportunities. The New York Times has done a great job so far. The Minimize Ads button further highlights that tension.

Thankfully, the Web in general has gotten better. I still remember the days when balloons or dolphins would come flying across an article I'm reading. It's pretty awful. Thankfully, the market seems to correct itself. Publishers have a better appreciation of finding that balance today. The New York Times is going one step further by empowering the visitor with the ability to put ads away.

Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | : nytimes design ia ui

Microsoft's Home Field Advantage : Mesh

As technologists, we can't help but pay attention to the walls and obstacles that litter the technology landscape. We think about them. We curse them. We go to great lengths to navigate around them. What we have to be wary of is allowing that landscape, obstacles and all, to forcibly narrow our view of what is or is not possible.

A great example of this is the distinction between what would call a "desktop" or "OS" and the Web. The Web has taken on application-like characteristics, and the desktop is becoming increasingly Web-like. We spend an enormous amount of mental labor thinking about how it's all going to come together. Where's the data? How do we sync it? What about mobile devices? Other devices? Game consoles? And how do we share things? How do we allow people to collaborate? These are all difficult problems that are shaped by the constraints we assume are immovable today.

Microsoft has let loose the PR machine on Live Mesh. The news wires and blogs are just now digesting the news. A glimmer in Ray Ozzie's eye just a couple of years ago, Mesh is unique and ambitious because it's based on a premise that most technologists feared working back from: people neither care about nor are aware of where their digital assets live.

People simply want everything to be everywhere. Their phones. Their media centers. Their laptops. They want everything to simply be incarnations of a single digital identity. They don't care about the "cloud", the syncing puzzles, the challenges of making offline work seamlessly. Mesh is the first initiative I've come across that is working back from that notion.

In essence, if you plug anything into your Mesh, everything is everywhere. The music in your living room will also be on your phone, on your laptop and in your car. This all happens by virtue if being plugged in. Not because you're moving files around on portable drives.

What's really interesting about Mesh is that it isn't just about files. Lying within is a syncing protocol that any application can tap into and enjoy the ability to sync everywhere.

And what of the coming age of utility computing? Here's my take on it: nobody cares about how an application gets to you. We're moving from CD's and DVD's to installable executables to zero-step installs. So what? Yes, we may be headed towards a world of subscription applications, but that's a business model shift, not an end-user experience shift. The real significance for end users is:

• The ability to get rich, compelling applications quickly and with little effort. That's happening today on the Web (Ajax, Flash) and it's going to get better. And...
• The ability to get to your information assets from anywhere with zero effort.

Mesh is attacking the second bullet head on. Its vision sees all these clients and devices - the web, mobile, desktops - as simply nodes of a larger representation. Of course, to tackle such a vision, you need to be able to exert enormous control over the wide array of devices and platforms out there. It's arguable whether anyone else can even consider it. Mozilla is sort of trying this with their lab initiative called Weave but there are certain hard realities that Mozilla and anyone else is going to have to face.

Microsoft is working with what they got. Windows. XBox. Windows Mobile. The list goes on and while they've mentioned support for Macs and such, you've got to believe that this is all about leveraging their position on their current platforms. What's interesting here is that the web and the browser is marginalized within this vision. It places players like Google in an odd position. While Microsoft has tried (and failed) to play on Google's turf in the search engine wars, Mesh hints at a shifting of the playing field. In this vision, Microsoft has home field advantage.

Of course, there's still execution. It takes a lot of guts and a hell of a lot of resources to go after such a grand vision. Microsoft obviously has the resources. There's still a lot to do and prove out before this vision is realized.

Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | : microsoft mesh web ria ray+ozzie microsoft+mesh

Journalism, Information Design & The Ability To Mold The Minds Of The Masses Like Big, Heaping Lumps Of Clay

Take a look at this chart from Time's March 31, 2008 issue:

You'll often hear about the importance of journalistic integrity and the importance of objectivity and impartiality when reporting news. The above chart may well convey nothing that can be construed as inaccurate or skewed. Words are words. But alas, the art of marketing, however slyly introduced, is clearly at play.

Some observations:

• The questions are posed such that McCain answers in the negative. They could have easily been rephrased such that the reverse is shown. In the final question, McCain responds with "Maybe" (and yes, to a reader, it is McCain "responding"). "Maybe" can be perceived any number of ways: shady, indecisive, secretive or simply lacking clarity. 
• This one's a kicker: in response to the Hedge Funds row, all three candidates are assigned "No's." I'll admit I didn't even notice this until the third or fourth time I glanced at the chart. The visual power of the right-hand column colored in red overwhelms the actual content.
• The No's and Maybe are colored in red while Hillary's and Obama's responses are in a gray-blue. So what do colors mean? Read means: no, stop, angry, hot-tempered, emotional, simmering. Blue means: calm, soothing, stability, wisdom, trust, confidence. Red is hell. Blue is heaven. (There are numerous articles out there on colors and emotions.)

I'm not going to go so far as to say that there is a sinister plot brewing at Time magazine. But the above illustrates just how powerful even the most subtle tweaks on how information is presented can affect not only how we digest information but how we perceive it and digest it. Such tactics are well known and used extensively in marketing and campaign circles, which is OK, because to most the caveat is already in place. "It's just marketing." The above reminds of those in-between advertising links that look like articles when they're really just more ads masked as such. Except with the above, it isn't. It's just Time magazine reporting.

Note: this post isn't meant to convey a preference or bias towards a particular presidential candidate. It's merely put forward to illustrate how information design can be used to shape perceptions.

(I found the above on Last Psychiatrist. He gives his own thoughts on the above as well).

Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | : design ia ui president election

From Web To Desktop : Respecting The Mental Barrier

In the latest issue of Portfolio magazine, there's an article about the rise and fall of Joost. Joost, backed by CBS, seeks to bring TV-quality programs to the Internet. I myself remember the buzz around Joost about a year ago. I badly wanted a beta invite after hearing the tech blogs praise Joost as the perfect marriage of great content and Internet convenience. When I finally got one, I'll admit I was impressed at first. Eventually, the impetus to load it up at all faded and I uninstalled it.

Recently, Joost has been beset with tougher times. In short, Joost just hasn't caught on and is in danger of fading out as yet another tech venture lesson-learned. The article cites numerous reasons for Joost's hardship: the Internet TV space got suddenly crowded, Joost suffered its own internal growing pains, among other reasons. The one reason that hit me across the head when I re-visited Joost today. After seeing an attractive, content-rich landing page at Joost.com, I was directed to this:

While the install is fairly trivial and requires just a few clicks, the ease-of-use bar has already been set by Youtube, and this user experience doesn't meet it. The problem was nicely summed up by the co-founder of one of Joost's competitors (emphasis mine) :

"The download may seem like a small barrier," says Brad Hunstable, co-founder of user-generated video site Ustream, "but it's a huge mental barrier."

That's right. Joost's content is only available via a downloadable application. You can't watch Joost videos in your web browser. Contrast this with Hulu and you quickly realize that Joost's own user experience strategy proved to be one of its most debilitating barriers. Joost is already onto this. They'll be delivering content via a web browser some time in 2008.

As platforms like Adobe AIR proliferate and as end-user web experiences are delivered to the desktop, there are some key concerns that any product designer or product manager must heed:

• Users equate the browser window as access to the Internet. And just as importantly, the desktop is not the Internet. Most people have no clue about technology or Internet trends. The Internet is "the window to the rest of the world" and my desktop is...not.
• Gauge your value and assess whether people will tolerate the "work" to get to it. This is critically important. If Flash-based click-and-play video were not available on the Internet, Joost would be competing within a completely different competitive milieu. Instead, they're asking users to jump through hoops without the value differentiation that would make it worthwhile. If the series finale of The Sopranos premiered on Joost, I'm guessing a lot of people would've tolerated the experience.
• Do not forego the social power of hyperlinks. Internet-powered desktop applications must support the equivalent convenience of URL locations. Via email or chat, we constantly hand out our exact location on the Internet for others to share. The use case is obvious but worth repeating:
  • I find a cool video on Youtube that I know my friend Chris will enjoy.
  • I copy the URL out of my browser window.
  • I paste the URL in my friend Chris' chat window.
  • Within seconds, Chris is watching the same video.
• It's not just "a few more clicks"; it's 500% more clicks. We might as well call this the "Realplayer Lesson." Does anyone remember the epic battle between Windows Media Video and Real? Flash came along and put videos one click away and the battle was over in months. Adobe AIR, for example, does an admirable job of making the install experience much less painful than usual. Still, we have to be wary of these artificial steps that a user is forced to go through.

The prospects of Internet-powered desktop applications is very exciting. Speaking to the second bullet above, I genuinely believe there is a a lot of value to be had with marrying the desktop experience with web applications. Features like offline use, file interactions (uploading, syncing etc.) and notifications would greatly enhance the experience around web applications.

Still, that "mental barrier" mentioned above is a formidable one. If we're to successfully bring new experiences to the desktop we must tread carefully as we deliver the experience that leads to it.

Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | :

Source Of Inspiration : Brooklyn, New York

For most of my life I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. After traveling around a good amount, I can confidently say Brooklyn is an amazing place. It's wildly rich and diverse. It's unique from Manhattan island in that all these cultures and nationalities plant roots in Brooklyn (rather than just pass through as many do in Manhattan).

Brooklyn is the antithesis of everything we've grown to loathe about suburban sprawl and American homogeneity. Like anything or anyone with real character, it's flaws are what make it so unique and memorable. After experiencing the sterility and predictability of Anytown, USA, I've come to really appreciate what Brooklyn is all about. It's in a constant state of transformation and change, all the while retaining it's dizzying kaleidoscope of culture and ethnicity. It is, at its core, a very human place.

The New York Times has a nice write-up and slideshow on Brooklyn Storefronts. It's a new book of photographed Brooklyn storefronts taken by Paul Lacy. From the publisher: Brooklyn’s storefronts are a vibrant canvas that reflects the changing trends and distinct character of this dynamic community.

If you're a designer, artist or just someone interested in how people from just about everywhere live and interact in the same place, do yourself a service and make it out to Brooklyn. It's not only about the Dodgers and Coney Island.

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | : brooklyn design inspiration

Arc90 Lab : Subversion Notifier Apple Dashboard Widget

Subversion source control is the tool of choice for many software development shops. It's slick, fairly straight-forward, and free. One of its biggest benefits is that it's so loose, allowing anyone the ability to grab a file and start working on it. Of course, this can cause some snags if two people start modifying the same file.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a little widget that taps you on the shoulder whenever a file you're working on is modified elsewhere by someone else? That's exactly what's been added to the Arc90 Lab today: an Apple Dashboard Widget SVN Notifier. It "monitors working copies and repositories to make sure that it's always clear what's what." If a file is changed, your OSX desktop will show a notification with details of who changed it, when, and any notes they left behind. Sweet!

If you love it (or hate it), be sure to let our very own Chris LoSacco know!

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | : arc90 lab subversion apple dashboard widget