Interview 5

Name: Mark Billen

Role: Freelance journalist and editor – previously editor of Web Designer magazine.

Web: www.markbillen.com

Twitter: @Mark_Billen

What type of technology and software journalism have you been involved with?

During my time as journalist I've tended to focus most on web design related technologies. So in terms of software for a while there was a focus on Adobe's suites, Dreamweaver and Flash predominantly. With the web though and certainly the front-end creative design side of things, it's really more about open standards like HTML, CSS, JavaScript and definitely jQuery these days. With WordPress and the adoption of HTML5 we have seen the browser become much more like a developer environment, whether as a viewer for cloud-based services or via the kinds of debugging tools found within Firefox etc. The beauty of web design in many ways has been that commercial software has never been essential, you just need a text editor and a browser and an idea.

What factors make a topic worthy to cover in your journalism/publications?

Unsurprisingly the business of commercial journalism relies on covering topics that cater to a buzz. Within that you should also seek the kind of credibility whereby you create the next buzz topic and it's your job to be ahead of the curve. So much of today's journalism is about creating content that also fulfills a purpose online, which is an environment that obviously moves so quickly – it's out of date as you click Publish. So you need to be reactive and able to respond with great ideas for covering those trending topics. I think here often the critical thing is being imaginative enough to give people the inside track on those stories they can't get from any other outlet. You tend to find these days that in the hectic swirl of coverage we get a lot of surface information but not much focus or detail. If you can find that new angle or spin you can often almost make new news out of the old.

What makes something newsworthy?

Similarly when something is deemed newsworthy, often the critical factor is that it is new in the sense people haven't necessarily read or heard about it yet. That's the ideal but with such media saturation today this is getting tougher to the point of impossibility. Like I say you have a duty of care to strive for those things that are at the very least in the public's consciousness at that moment in time. Much of this is driven by social media rather than broadcast or print news, so chances are you'll get a wealth of topic or news tip-offs within the community you are trying to reach. Although the crucial thing is in the analysis, opinion, style and investigation your coverage alone can bring to the table.

What factors do you use to judge credibility of professionals you speak to?

I think if you're planning to speak to a certain professional you do your homework on their credibility. Read their website, follow their profiles on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn especially for getting a feel for background. It's a good sign if they are a prominent voice in the trade, perhaps a prolific speaker at conferences or a recognized spokesperson of some kind. Many will have been asked to contribute to similar media coverage, perhaps enabling you to put a face to a name from other articles. Like most things it will inevitably come down to trust and to be fair this will depend largely on your publication and the kind of content you produce. For niche stuff people tend to be genuine and so enthusiastic about the work they do that they revel in the opportunity.

You have to also make judgements based on the actual feedback you get and be clued up enough not to be taken in, fooled or exploited. In many ways, certainly as a journalist and editor, you are a filter for information and it's vitally important you are honestly as confident as you can be when putting stuff out there. At the end of the day it will be your credibility that is compromised and not the people you say you've spoken to.

What is your definition of a brand?

My definition of a brand is ultimately a highly recognizable trademark. It is a company name that is sufficiently well known to be in some way thought of as iconic. The brand is a commercial identity that is often reinforced by a pedigree, a history and has fond association within people's minds. You don't always even have to be particularly knowledgeable or keen on a brand product for the most successful brands to penetrate your awareness. Brands tend to command an often unjustified trust and devotion purely through familiarity. They try to make you feel part of something bigger I suppose, but you have to be savvy enough to realize that this doesn't always equate with better.

What type of brands do you like to reference in your journalism?

Personally I like or prefer brands in a journalistic sense that genuinely justify the readers attention. It's ideal for me to know enough about them to believe that they believe in what they are doing before I implicitly recommend them to someone else. Don't insult your audience enough to handle brands in a cynical way. Modern day readers or viewers are far more intelligent than many outlets treat them, so again your credibility will take a nose dive if you unjustly align yourself with brands. Be objective and above all honest, which works both ways – if the brand or brand product is worthy then don't feel embarrassed to praise it. Much of how your audience perceives your agenda will be about the language you use and the overall context of presentation. Take to the time to evaluate what all the elements are pointing to when conveying the message you want to convey.

Are you finding that people's expectations for what is achievable with apps and web apps are growing?

I think consumer expectation of what apps can achieve is healthy but I also think the perception has plateaued somewhat. There's a sense that smartphone apps are so prevalent and integrated into people's lives they are taken for granted. As an early adopter of the iPhone I was impressed by the novelty factor of apps, almost just to collect them without any thought for how useful they were. Subsequently I've decided I only really use two or three at most and those were preloaded into iOS! So for many the browser remains the best mobile app, while ironically in-browser web apps are a rare commodity. HTML5 was meant to underpin development here but of course native language based apps for iOS and Android undeniably lead the way. So web apps really depend so much on developers getting the tools, API's and monetization platforms before expectations can really grow – if they indeed exist at all.

In your opinion, what differentiates software, apps, web apps and websites?

Well software always tended to be a self-contained standalone chunk of executable code, at least in the traditional sense. Software was tied to a platform or a very specific computing environment for it to even run, typically an operating system. So I tend to think of software in those terms, much larger and sophisticated programs. Apps are really just modularized pieces of software, kind of the take away or 'lite' version for modern devices. They have really kicked against the bloated idea of using and buying expensive software, making the experience more streamlined and convenient. They also owe a lot to the way we view websites and smaller more focused bursts of content. Many of them are websites and web services repackaged and optimized for the specific device after all. Lastly, websites to me are still dynamic documents. They are essentially still defined by a markup language owing more to the notion of publishing than building applications.

What makes a good app?

What makes a good app is wholly subjective but technically it comes down to being fit for purpose. Good design in software, apps or websites really is traced back to fundamental principles that can be evaluated for success. Does it do what it says on the tin? (or in this case app store) Is it open to be used in an accessibility sense? Much of these things exist on a subconscious level but chances are that if you keep going back to it on a regular basis then it's doing something right by you. Conversely however, more often or not, it can be the sheer banality of an app that makes it 'good' in an enjoyable way!

Where do you think the industry is heading?

If I could confidently say where the industry is heading I would be doing it and not just writing about it! No but that's always the golden question and tough to predict, which is normally a good sign in a funny way. I think the things I'd like to see develop and spread out are innovations like Microsoft's Kinect. Perversely it doesn't interest me for gaming but for general digital interaction around the home and linking those kinds of systems to all devices, smartphone, tablet and TV etc. I think a bit like Augmented Reality apps have suggested, it's this notion of delivering more natural and pervasive experiences. In the short-term I think innovation here is confined to increasing screen resolution than anything truly revolutionary. Funnily enough I do see the next boom being in the evolution of web-enabled TVs and a more comprehensive app model for home entertainment. There does still seem to be a curious disconnect between the flat screen TV market and the tablet fetish. Surely just a matter of time before Apple wades in here with an iOS television isn't it?

What are the biggest differences between being employed by someone and being employed by yourself?

The biggest difference in working for yourself is that you have to find the work, it tends not to find you. This process becomes a big part of the work of course and you have to be prepared for that. I think also you feel very independent, which has massive benefits, but perhaps you don't get the same feeling of being part of something bigger. That's not a negative and in fact you gain a freedom from that for variety and flexibility. As with anything there are two sides to both coins and I'd only encourage people to do what feels right by them and wish them luck!