Goodbye, TV Channels — And Hello, TV Apps

How a small change in language represents a universal shift in the television experience.


When I was a kid, my brother graciously taught me what a half-Nelson was. It was a lesson learned from our nightly wrestling matches over the remote control, which was essentially the scepter in our little game of thrones. I suppose that made our old tube TV the Lee family version of Westeros.

Part sport, part habit, fighting over a remote was a clear by-product of the way people watched television. Entertainment moved in only one direction, as anything flowing down through channels tends to do. So whoever controlled those lanes had all the power.

But television is evolving. Increasingly, it’s all about the apps now—browsable, downloadable, interactive TV applications. You can thank the swelling ranks of streaming services and devices for that.

The software applications they’re delivering to our living rooms are growing in number and prominence. And they’re starting to eclipse the passive, one-way broadcasts we once fought over for two-way, interactive experiences that let you share democratically among multiple users (née viewers) across mobile devices and computers.

It’s about time.

Changing Channels

We were long overdue for a change. In essence, television hasn’t changed for more than half a century. TV channels have always been pipelines for broadcasters to transmit programming along particular frequencies or bands in different regions. But as analog signals moved to digital, and those signals flowed through cable and satellite as well as the airwaves, channels remained channels.

Back in the 1990s, WebTV made an unconvincing argument for adding Internet TV to your living room like another channel, sort of. It was an idea before its time. But it succeeded in doing one thing: It seeded a notion that eventually grew up and became today’s app-fueled living room.

According to research firm NPD Group, the smart television business has begun to boom. In the beginning of 2013, there were 140 million Internet-ready TVs in American homes. By 2015, it will grow 44 percent, to 202 million. And by that time, nearly two-thirds of them will actually be connected to the Internet, compared to just 56 percent now.

How they connect is important. When it comes to television, “apps” are where it’s at, not ye olde “TV channels.” It’s just a shift in language, true—but it’s also a shift in thinking. Watching TV used to mean sitting back and absorbing whatever broadcasters—and later, cable or satellite providers—would deign to send through those pipes. It’s a passive experience, one that spawned mindless channel surfing and vegging out in front of the TV.

Thanks to smart TVs, streaming boxes and cheap TV sticks, users don’t have to sit around and wait for cable packages to update with new stations. We seek out and download apps. We browse, search or hit our playlists, so we can stream.

And we don’t just change channels anymore. We cast videos and songs, or switch apps, from one to another—bouncing between online videos, music, games, photos and home movies.

That’s not to say that there’s no place in this brave new world of television for passive viewing. Personally, as a long-time couch potato, I think tuning in (or, maybe, tuning out) has its place, and binge watching is certainly an acceptable substitute. But it may not look exactly the same for everyone. For instance, companies like startup QPlay—from the founders of TiVo—are working on merging passive viewing with streaming. Their premise: creating always-on “playlists” of online entertainment.

The Rise Of The Machines

Roku may be the only popular streaming TV box or stick that still calls its offerings “channels.” But make no mistake—they’re really apps. You download them. You can sync them. You can control them from your phone or, in some cases, cast them. (Users can fling YouTube, Netflix and PlayOn videos from their mobile devices to the TV.) You can even play Angry Birds on a Roku box.

Apps have become a major selling point—or its opposite—for streaming TV devices. When Google’s Chromecast came out last summer, only its ridiculously cheap $35 price tag could overcome its severely limited selection—just four apps at launch. Amazon’s Fire TV debuted last month with more choices. But its highly promoted voice search is drawing criticism for practically nonexistent support from non-Amazon apps (though that will change eventually).

As for smart TVs, the approaches vary widely. But since TV channels are pretty much the same, manufacturers can only differentiate their products by their hardware and apps. Some, like Roku’s upcoming Roku TV, will use proprietary platforms, while others, like Panasonic, use more open platforms, such as Firefox OS.

These products and platforms just scratch the surface. Fire TV, Chromecast and Roku top bestseller lists for streaming devices, along with Apple TV, whose maker finallystopped treating the box as a hobbyafter selling 20 million units for $1 billion last year. They’re joined by innumerable other TV dongles and gadgets, as well as full-fledged smart televisions from the likes of Samsung, LG, Sony, Vizio, HCL and others.

Clearly, there are numerous ways to stream to our living rooms now. And all that is powered by apps.

As if that weren’t enough, we may see another new contender before long: Google is rumored to be working on another streaming product, likely a new take on Android TV. No one knows precisely what that will be yet, but we’re pretty confident that apps will take center stage. Hopefully we’ll know more when ReadWrite goes to the Google I/O conference next month.

Streaming Apps And TV Networks: “I Wanna Be Like You!”

As for the app developers themselves, they’re stepping up to become bigger players in the TV industry in their own right.

Original content is like the new black, with Netflix’s Emmy award-winning series House of Cards grabbing the public’s attention, as well as hit Orange Is The New Black. Amazon has also been hotly pursuing original programming with a slew of shows, while Hulu trotted out original programs in its very own “Upfronts”—an event usually hosted by TV networks to parade new programming and celebrities in front of advertisers.

As streaming companies mimic the TV and cable networks, the latter have been working on their streaming offerings—from local apps like KTVU (which is the only way I get my local news these days; I never watch the TV broadcast) to online video from major cable channels like HBO.

The Game of Thrones purveyor has become such a breakout TV-to-streaming crossover hit that Amazon Fire TV’s omission of HBO GO marred its product launch. (Take a deep breath, Fire TV hopefuls: Turns out, Amazon will at least offer some “older” HBO programming via its Prime Instant Video subscription. The HBO GO app will reportedly follow later this year.)

Even cable and satellite operators—which were an online holdout for a long time—are now rushing to stream so they can complement, even save, their on-demand, pay TV services.

The Longshot: A Merging Of The Two?

It’s hard to talk about broadcast channels and streaming without bringing up Aereo.

The startup may have the ultimate solution for bringing these two content pipes together—that is, if it can prove that its model of grabbing over-the-air signals via tiny individual antennas and streaming them to users over the Internet is legal. If Aereo wins its Supreme Court case, it would be a rather huge blow to broadcasters, which charge cable and other TV providers to carry their stations.

TV channels could have an unlikely savior in Netflix as well. The streaming giant struck deals with a handful of cable providers to add its online video service to their set-top boxes, as part of their guides and channel lineups. The idea is to let users channel surf their way in without going into a menu to launch an app or switching inputs on their TVs. If others follow suit, it could re-position the software into streaming app channels, effectively blending the two.

And maybe that’s the best scenario, because it could preserve some measure of passive viewing while making streaming apps more convenient. On the other hand, the prospect of adding even more channels to the hundreds of standard ones could be the worst idea in the world. What’s crazy is that, on average, people only tend to watch 17 of the 189 channels available to them as it is.

There’s still a lot of uncertainty over how all this will shake out. After decades of stasis, television is suddenly a rapidly evolving space—fueled as much by ambition as advances in hardware and software. But through it all, one thing seems certain: The TV channel, as we know it, is destined to change.

Flickr images by users Robert S. Donovan (feature image), Sarah Reid (vintage TV) and Omar Bárcena (broadcast tower); Samsung smart TV and Amazon Fire TV images courtesy of respective companies; Kevin Spacey/House of Cardsimage courtesy of Netflix; streaming boxes image by Adriana Lee for ReadWrite.

by  May 09, 2014



 May 09, 2014


Appetite For Smart TV Grows

A new U.S. study into the impact of Smart TV advertising and consumer behavior, by YuMe and LG Electronics, to better understand how consumers are engaging with ads within Smart TVs, includes data on the Smart TV audience’s behavioral, lifestyle and psychographic profile. With global Smart TV shipments reaching 12.7 million units in the first quarter of 2013, the appetite for Internet-connected TV is growing among consumers, creating a thriving platform for brand advertisers, says the report.

The study examined consumers within a natural living room environment, interacting with and sharing their perceptions of different Smart TV ad formats, while testing brand metrics including recall, favorability, and purchase intent. 67% of respondents indicate that they have engaged, or would consider engaging with, a Smart TV ad because it advertises products/brands they are interested in.

Youngjae Seo, Vice President of Smart Business Center at LG Electronics, says “Smart TV… a unique and exciting opportunity for consumers to interact and respond directly to an ad in-screen… brand advertisers find better ad campaign effectiveness and ROI on Smart TVs… accompanied with traditional TV…”

Big screen convenience is the most common primary advantage, say the respondents.

Advantage of Smart TV AD
Benefit % of Respondents
Big screen more convenient to watch


Large variety of different types of ads


Can purchase the product right away


More trustworthy


More informative


Ads are intriguing and interactive


Ad format is innovative and interesting


Source: YuMe/Nielsen, August 2013

Picture in picture ads on SmartTV leads to increase in most campaign metrics.

Key Campaign Metrics
  (Positive Response; % of Respondents)
Measurement Traditional TV SmartTV
General recall



Brand recall



Message recall



Ad likeability



Purchase intent






Source: YuMe/Nielsen, August 2013

The Smart TV is being used for more than just TV. Many users report high app usage and 17% are likely to decrease or cancel their cable subscription in the upcoming year, a 13% increase from last year.

Features Used At Least Once A Week
Feature % of Respondents
Watching free Internet video content


Browsing the Internet


Watching paid Internet video content


Connecting to social network service


Use application


Playing online games


Downloading application


Using video telephone (Skype)


Source: YuMe/Nielsen, August 2013

90% of Smart TV owners are satisfied with their devices and 81% prefer using a Smart TV over a traditional TV set. 63% would like a 2nd Smart TV for bedroom.

Viewers of Smart TVs are generally young, higher income professionals. Smart TV users are tech savvy, professionals with an influential role on household purchase decisions. They are also likely to pay a premium for the latest technology and brand names.

Respondent Profile

  • 42% under 40 years old
  • 35% over $120K HH Income
  • Most Smart TV households are multiple person dwellings
  • Smart TV purchasers have high purchase decision responsibility within their household
  • 78% are Married or Living with partner


Age            % of Respondents

  • 25-29     15%
  • 30-34     14
  • 35-39     13
  • 40-44     12
  • 45-49     12
  • 50-54     12
  • 55-59     13
  • 60-64     10

Source: Source: YuMe/Nielsen, August 2013

The report indicates that users of Smart TVs can be categorized in four distinct user segments, finding that affluent technologists and social youngsters were most receptive to Smart TV advertising. The four segments are described as:

  • Affluent technologists
  • Social youngsters
  • Traditionalists
  • Mid-life families

Segmentation Overview

Affluent Techie (22 %)

  • Enthusiastic about new technology and entertainment
  • Willing to pay more money on new products and technology
  • Younger and well educated
  • Higher household income
  • Have strong responsibility for supporting family
  • Make good use of Smart TV features and react actively towards Smart TV ads
  • Have purchased products advertised

Social youngster (25 %)

  • Interested in new technology and entertainment
  • Regard social bonding important and use social network service frequently
  • Younger and well educated
  • Medium household income
  • Sometimes use Smart TV features
  • Accept Smart TV ads by searching more info. of the products advertised

Traditionalist (19 %)

  • Don’t have a lot of interest in technology
  • Less focus on family and social network
  • Don’t want to pay much additional money for new products
  • Older and lower household income
  • Sometimes watch TV alone
  • Use Smart TV like traditional TV (concentrate more on only TV, don’t use Smart features often)
  • Rarely click on Smart TV ads

Family oriented midlife (35 %)

  • My family is always first
  • Don’t have a lot of knowledge in technology
  • Purchase goods for family
  • Practical in spending
  • Older and highest household income
  • Spend more time watching TV and satisfied with current TV
  • Don’t use Smart TV features skillfully
  • Rarely click on Smart TV ads

Michael Hudes, Executive Vice President of Emerging Markets, YuMe, says “… results… affirm a growing Smart TV market… opportunity for advertisers to increase brand engagement through Smart TV… understanding how people engage with Smart TVs… “

For additional key findings from the YuMe-LG study, as well as methodology and a copy of the full report, please visit here.

by , Yesterday, 17 September

Smart TV – Smart experiences!

Um novo território a ser conquistado.

Smart TV – Smart experiences!

O mercado das novas tecnologias tem registado nos últimos anos uma grande evolução, quer do ponto de vista da própria tecnologia em si, quer na forma como os utilizadores experimentam novas sensações e emoções que levam a novos desenvolvimentos, melhorias e a uma constante geração de valor.

Este facto sente-se sobretudo ao nível dos smartphones e tablets, com uma predominância para a solidificação de conceito emergente de equipamentos “smart” – equipamentos multifuncionais capazes de melhorar a nossa experiência no dia-a-dia, aliando os fatores mais utilitários da vida pessoal do utilizador à vertente profissional e do entretenimento. Desde ouvir música, à visualização do e-mail, passando pela gestão de tarefas do dia-a-dia, trabalho e cooperação em redes de trabalho, acesso a noticias, leitura de livros, aceder a redes sociais, ver filmes e uma vasta oferta de diferentes tipos de jogos, tudo é acessível e assente num conceito de APP – aplicações que agregam em si as diversas ações possíveis que o utilizador pode aceder comodamente a partir do seu equipamento.

Todo este campo experiencial acabou por sedimentar a ideia de que para tudo pode haver uma APP, ou que há uma APP para tudo e mais alguma coisa, à distância de um click na palma da nossa mão, justificando cada vez mais esta tendência de SMART Users, que usam equipamentos SMART num novo estilo de vida também SMART.

Este processo acaba por alavancar outras áreas das indústrias criativas que encontram assim várias oportunidades de desenvolver conteúdos SMART, para os diferentes tipos de equipamento, assente numa visão abrangente de desenvolver conteúdos de uma forma integrada, para estar disponível e ajustado a vários equipamentos, sob o conceito a que também se pode chamar SMART Media.

A televisão, a caixa que mudou o mundo, continua a surpreender numa altura em que muitos já haviam ditado a extinção da sua relevância, aliando-se a esta tendência SMART, seguindo as boas práticas e o sucesso de outras áreas, procurando o seu espaço e criar o mesmo tipo de ligação afetiva, utilitária e de entretenimento com os utilizadores, permitindo até, muitas vezes, ser uma extensão de todos os outros equipamentos que o utilizador já usa, como é o caso do Smartphone e tablet.

Embora as SMART TV’s, não tenham a mobilidade que os smartphones e tablets têm, estas permitem outros tipos de experiência complementar proporcionada através de um ecrã maior com uma maior profundidade sensorial e um tipo de relacionamento com o equipamento mais prolongado, bem como a visualização de outro tipo de conteúdos, potencialmente mais ricos.

Aqui também o processo de interatividade é um campo cada vez mais aberto de possibilidades, onde o simples manuseamento de um telecomando pode ser substituído por comandos de voz ou gestos, permitindo explorar outros campos sensoriais do utilizador e ao mesmo tempo, abrir outras áreas de interesse de cariz mais utilitário e de companhia num espaço mais intimista, familiar e privado como é a nossa casa.

Mais do que a atividade de desenvolver aplicações, é importante pensar numa lógica de gerar valor, gerar relacionamento e adoção por parte do público e dos utilizadores, e de criar um compromisso entre o conteúdo e o seu lado prático e utilitário, para assim lhes disponibilizar informação, conhecimento e entretenimento através de um equipamento que há muito tempo faz já parte dos lares.

Com o elevado incremento das possibilidades interativas que a SMART TV disponibiliza é também crucial a análise e estudo sobre a usabilidade de cada aplicação, tendo em conta o público-alvo, os seus hábitos e estilos de vida, os seus comportamentos, identificando também eventuais limitações que possam existir.

No entanto, embora as questões tecnológicas, o lado inovador de interação e a respetiva usabilidade aplicacional sejam muito importantes, o conteúdo em si continua a ser o mais relevante e é isso que move os utilizadores para dentro da SMART TV e para dentro das aplicações. Existem inúmeras aplicações tecnologicamente perfeitas e do ponto de vista de usabilidade bem desenvolvidas, mas que nunca viram a luz do sucesso, entenda-se, grande adesão por parte do público, devido aos fracos conteúdos. Tal como no revés da medalha, existem inúmeras aplicações com um conteúdo relevante e interessante, mas cuja usabilidade e funcionalidade aplicacional compromete a experiência de consumo do conteúdo.

É por isso importante balancear bem as questões de desenvolvimento tecnológico da aplicação, apostar numa boa usabilidade e facilidade de utilização e num conteúdo relevante para os utilizadores, e procurar evitar o erro de ter demasiado texto, que obrigue o utilizador a uma leitura demorada, afinal, perante uma televisão, espera-se uma experiência televisiva, com conteúdos de imagem em movimento, com conteúdos multimédia.

Não se pode esperar que o utilizador de SMART TV procure o mesmo tipo de experiência de navegação e de utilização de um smartphone ou de um tablet, como por exemplo navegar na internet, aceder a redes sociais ou a outro tipo de conteúdos tradicionalmente acedidos por um PC. Embora em alguns casos possa até ser semelhante, a experiência de utilização da SMART TV, a relação com o conteúdo é à partida diferente e deve-se entender como um elemento complementar à experiência dos outros equipamentos, procurando até a sua integração e explorando o conceito da existência de um segundo ecrã com o intuito de intensificar e melhorar a experiência global.

Desenvolver aplicações para SMART TV é assim um desafio multidisciplinar, onde temos a necessidade de unir várias valências que vão desde a programação, passando pelo design e estudo de usabilidade e pela produção ou agregação de conteúdos segmentados, objetivos e devidamente selecionados para os públicos-alvo, dando a opção ao utilizador de controlar a forma como e quando quer visualizar o conteúdo.

Ao contrário do que acontecia há alguns anos, as pessoas paravam apenas perante a televisão, ouviam pontualmente rádio e liam jornais para se manterem informados, ou para meramente disfrutarem de momentos de ócio, recorrendo a conteúdos que aí eram disponibilizados. Com o aumento e dispersão de novos meios, assim como a dispersão da atenção por parte dos públicos, é necessário ganhar novamente terreno no relacionamento com o público, o que significa em si um novo desafio e um novo trabalho de marketing em identificar e segmentar novos territórios, próximos de uma nova geração de SMART Users, que necessitam de ser conquistados.

Mário Cardoso
CICANT – Centro de Investigação em Comunicação Aplicada, Cultura e Novas Tecnologias
Centre for Research in Applied Communication, Culture and New Technologies

Professor / Researcher

Grupo Lusófona

TRL – Technology Readiness Level

File:NASA TRL Meter.jpg
TRL Model

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a measure used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies (devices, materials, components, software, work processes, etc.) during its development and in some cases during early operations. Generally speaking, when a new technology is first invented or conceptualized, it is not suitable for immediate application. Instead, new technologies are usually subjected toexperimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the technology is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.

Original NASA TRL Definitions (1989)[8]

Level 1 – Basic Principles Observed and Reported
Level 2 – Potential Application Validated
Level 3 – Proof-of-Concept Demonstrated, Analytically and/or Experimentally
Level 4 – Component and/or Breadboard Laboratory Validated
Level 5 – Component and/or Breadboard Validated in Simulated or Realspace Environment
Level 6 – System Adequacy Validated in Simulated Environment
Level 7 – System Adequacy Validated in Space

The TRL methodology was originated by Stan Sadin at NASA Headquarters in 1974.[9] At that time, Ray Chase was the JPL Propulsion Division representative on the Jupiter Orbiter design team. At the suggestion of Stan Sadin, Mr Chase used this methodology to assess the technology readiness of the proposed JPL Jupiter Orbiter spacecraft design. Later Mr Chase spent a year at NASA Headquarters helping Mr Sadin institutionalize the TRL methodology. Mr Chase joined ANSER in 1978, where he used the TRL methodology to evaluate the technology readiness of proposed Air Force development programs. He published several articles during the 1980s and 90s on reusable launch vehicles utilizing the TRL methodology.[10] These documented an expanded version of the methodology that included design tools, test facilities, and manufacturing readiness on the Air Force Have Not program. The Have Not program manager, Greg Jenkins, and Ray Chase published the expanded version of the TRL methodology, which included design and manufacturing. Leon McKinney and Mr Chase used the expanded version to assess the technology readiness of the ANSER team’s Highly Reusable Space Transportation (“HRST”) concept.[11] ANSER also created an adapted version of the TRL methodology for proposed Homeland Security Agency programs.[12]

The United States Air Force adopted the use of Technology Readiness Levels in the 1990s.[citation needed]

In 1995, John C. Mankins, NASA, wrote a paper[3] that discussed NASA’s use of TRLs and proposed expanded descriptions for each TRL. In 1999, the United States General Accounting Office produced an influential report[13] that examined the differences in technology transition between the DOD and private industry. It concluded that the DOD takes greater risks and attempts to transition emerging technologies at lesser degrees of maturity than does private industry. The GAO concluded that use of immature technology increased overall program risk. The GAO recommended that the DOD adopt the use of NASA’s Technology Readiness Levels as a means of assessing technology maturity prior to transition. In 2001, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology issued a memorandum that endorsed use of TRLs in new major programs. Guidance for assessing technology maturity was incorporated into theDefense Acquisition Guidebook. Subsequently, the DOD developed detailed guidance for using TRLs in the 2003 DOD Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook.

ESA definition

Instruments and spacecraft sub-systems are classified according to a “Technology Readiness level” (TRL) on a scale of 1 to 9. Levels 1 to 4 relate to creative and innovative technologies before or during the mission assessment phase. Levels 5 to 9 relate to existing technologies and to missions in definition phase.

Technology Readiness Levels in the European Space Agency (ESA)[4]
Technology Readiness Level Description
TRL 1. Basic principles observed and reported
TRL 2. Technology concept and/or application formulated
TRL 3. Analytical & experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept
TRL 4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
TRL 5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
TRL 6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)
TRL 7. System prototype demonstration in a space environment
TRL 8. Actual system completed and “Flight qualified” through test and demonstration (ground or space)
TRL 9. Actual system “Flight proven” through successful mission operations

If the TRL is too low, then a mission risks being jeopardized by delays or cost over-runs. It is a responsibility of the Advanced Studies and Technology Preparation Division to promote the technology readiness at a very early stage in order to make new missions feasible.

Oil and gas industry

The following definition is based on API recommended practice and is used in the oil and gas industry.

TRL 0 Unproven idea/proposal Paper concept. No analysis or testing has been performed

TRL 1 Concept demonstrated. Basic functionality demonstrated by analysis, reference to features shared with existing technology or through testing on individual subcomponents/subsystems. Shall show that the technology is likely to meet specified objectives with additional testing

TRL 2 Concept validated. Concept design or novel features of design validated through model or small scale testing in laboratory environment. Shall show that the technology can meet specified acceptance criteria with additional testing

TRL 3 New technology tested Prototype built and functionality demonstrated through testing over a limited range of operating conditions. These tests can be done on a scaled version if scalable

TRL 4 Technology qualified for first use Full-scale prototype built and technology qualified through testing in intended environment, simulated or actual. The new hardware is now ready for first use

TRL 5 Technology integration tested Full-scale prototype built and integrated into intended operating system with full interface and functionality tests

TRL 6 Technology installed Full-scale prototype built and integrated into intended operating system with full interface and functionality test program in intended environment. The technology has shown acceptable performance and reliability over a period of time

TRL 7 Proven technology Technology integrated into intended operating system. The technology has successfully operated with acceptable performance and reliability within the predefined criteria

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) uses the following guidelines throughout the department in conducting Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) and developing Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs).

Technology Readiness Levels for the DOE[7]
Technology Readiness Level Description
TRL 1. Scientific research begins translation to applied R&D – Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a technology’s basic properties.
TRL 2. Invention begins – Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies.
TRL 3. Active R&D is initiated – Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative.
TRL 4. Basic technological components are integrated – Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will work together.
TRL 5. Fidelity of breadboard technology improves significantly – The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include “high fidelity” laboratory integration of components.
TRL 6. Model/prototype is tested in relevant environment – Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology’s demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment.
TRL 7. Prototype near or at planned operational system – Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment.
TRL 8. Technology is proven to work – Actual technology completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
TRL 9. Actual application of technology is in its final form – Technology proven through successful operations.

TRL assessment tools

TPMM Transition Mechanism

Technology Readiness Level Calculator was developed by the United States Air Force.[14] This tool is a standard set of questions implemented in Microsoft Excelthat produces a graphical display of the TRLs achieved. This tool is intended to provide a snapshot of technology maturity at a given point in time.[15]

The Technology Program Management Model was developed by the United States Army.[16] The TPMM is a TRL-gated high-fidelity activity model that provides a flexible management tool to assist Technology Managers in planning, managing, and assessing their technologies for successful technology transition. The model provides a core set of activities including systems engineering and program management tasks that are tailored to the technology development and management goals. This approach is comprehensive, yet it consolidates the complex activities that are relevant to the development and transition of a specific technology program into one integrated model.[17]



DID YOU KNOW 3.0 – Technology and Future (MC Version)

DID YOU KNOW 3.0 – Technology and Future (MC Version)

Research and original design by: Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, Jeff Brenman. Music: MUSE – bliss other music and imagens from somewhere in the web. All rights reserved.


  • Explore, create and share color themes

    Discover Adobe® Kuler® — the web-hosted application for generating color themes that can inspire any project. No matter what you’re creating, with Kuler you can experiment quickly with color variations and browse thousands of themes from the Kuler community.

  • Visit Kuler, where you can browse and create color themes.
  • To save or download themes, sign in with your Adobe ID. To create an Adobe ID, click Register on the Kuler website.

Pattie Maes apresenta o “Sexto Sentido”

Esta demonstração — do laboratório de Pattie Maes do MIT, liderado por Pranav Mistry — era muito falada no TED. É um dispositivo portátil, com um projector, que abre o caminho para uma grande interacção com o nosso meio envolvente. Imaginem o “Relatório Minoritário (Minority Report)” mais qualquer coisa.

WEB DESIGN : regra 60-30-10








Das diversas tarefas que um marketer tem no desenvolvimento de um web site, a escolha ou aprovação de uma palete de cores a ser utilizada é uma das mais importantes e que muitas vezes acaba por ser decidida com base no gosto pessoal (”gosto mais desta cor”, “acho que assim fica mais bonito”, etc…).


Felizmente existem regras que permitem aos marketers tomar uma decisão fundamentada e encaminhar os designers no projeto.

Infelizmente a maioria dos marketers (segundo inquérito online 9 em 10) não conhece estas regras e continua a tomar decisões com base no “acho que…”


A regra 60\30\10 permite definir um esquema de cores que funciona na perfeição em qualquer site. O conhecimentos desta regra por parte dos marketers permite-lhes orientar os designers na criação de layouts para site que sejam mais apelativos, reflitam os valores da empresa e convertam em melhores resultados.


A verdade é que estando a falar de design, nenhuma regra de escolha de cores é completamente infalível. O design também tem a ver com o gosto pessoal e ai é impossível haver regra.

Mas na parte científica do design (sim o design é uma disciplina que tem regras e valores científicos) existem regras que permitem aos designers criar layouts de sites que funcionem melhor e que vão de encontro ao que os marketers pretendem do site. Uma das principais regras e também das mais desconhecidas por parte dos marketers é a regra 60\30\10 que permite escolher uma palete de cores que dará um aspeto unificado ao seu site.

Trabalhando com um designer que tem conhecimento da teoria da cor, a regra 60\30\10 funciona a 100%.


Não! A regra60\30\10 é uma regra “universal “do design e é aplicada em design gráfico, design de interiores, design de moda, etc…


A regra 60\30\10 estabelece que utilizando 3 cores em percentagens diferentes (60%, 30% e 10%) conseguimos criar harmonias cromáticas perfeitas.

A cor que escolhermos como cor principal do projeto deve ser usada em 60% do espaço do layout. A utilização massiva desta cor criar um tom unificador em todo o projeto. 30% do layout devem ser usados com a cor complementar à cor principal de forma a criar um efeito de contraste com a cor primária. Os restantes 10% serão utilizados com uma cor complementar à cor usada nos 60% ou nos 30%. Esta cor deve ser usada por exemplo em apelativos botões Call to Action.


A regra 60\30\10, apenas serve para definir as percentagens de uso das principais cores no site, depois pode e deve usar outras cores análogas para criar uma maior variedade cromática, ritmo e dinâmica ao seu projeto web.

Autor: João Bem

Digital Marketeer, Web Designer e Designer Gráfico na Sanindusa
Digital Marketeer, Web Designer e Designer Gráfico freelancer em
Gestor de Conteúdos de rede blogs corporativos
Licenciado em Novas Tecnologia da Comunicação pela Universidade de Aveiro
Executive Masters em Marketing Digital no IPAM – Matosinhos