Election night technology, redux

Two years ago, I wrote about how impressed I was by CNN's use of technology in their election night broadcast. They employed iPhone-inspired multitouch screens to access and browse data visually (the iPad, sadly, was but a dream at that point). The screens could display charts, sorted data, maps, results... anything the anchors required.

One disappointing gimmick at the time was the "hologram interview," an absolutely worthless technological "feat" which essentially allowed to people to engage in an interview without being able to see each other. Viewers were able to see them as if they were standing next to each other, at only a few multiples of the cost of actually putting them in the same room.

Over the last two years, CNN has pushed those screens from "cool and informative" to "overused and stupid" as they have pervaded every aspect of the newscast. Learning nothing from the hologram stunt, the company has used multitouch screens to display information that requires no interactivity. Listen up: multitouch requires touch, which means the screen is blocked temporarily. Moreover, CNN frequently failed to sync the refresh rates of the screens with their cameras, resulting in an unpleasant flickering and shearing.

I'm happy to say that last night CNN rolled out a roster of technological enhancements which actually helped the broadcast. In addition to giant touchscreens and video walls, they used augmented reality to solid effect. The video walls were sensitive to the camera's location, and updated as the camera moved. So if the camera moved to its right, the background of the wall shifted left to give the illusion of depth via parallax. It was a very simple but nonetheless immersive effect which added nothing substantial to the information presented but saved the giant video screen from feeling like... a giant video screen.

A second augmented reality device was helpful but not quite a smash success. Instead of presenting charts on screen, charts materialized on the ground in front of the anchors, who coexisted with them in 3D space (think: the first down line on a football field). The downside of this approach was that the charts, which were "life-sized", frequently fell off-camera, dampening their utility. But it was a good attempt at incorporating data directly into the broadcast and I applaud CNN's efforts.

On the flip side, NBC toned down their augmented reality. In 2008, their entire set was virtual - the effect was jarring, making me feel like I'd seen the "uncanny valley" of virtual sets. This year, they more elegantly incorporated virtual information into the live broadcast without overwhelming the audience (though at times, the virtual "blue room" was just as distracting as the "temple" was two years ago).

Update: In the comments, Greg pointed me to the BBC's coverage of Parliament (you can see the opening here) - and I have to say this is my favorite. The open, circular set and giant, raised video-screen mean that data and information is presented cleanly and without obstruction. A nice mix of static charts (on the big screen), interactivity (for comparisons to prior elections as results come in) and augmented reality (a virtual Downing St) fill out the presentation. The grass is ALWAYS greener!

Tagged as: broadcast, cnn, election, tv