Buzzkill

I’ve been struggling for days to put into words my reaction to the launch of Google Buzz. But the phrase I can’t get out of my head is “HOW could they screw up THIS MUCH?”

Well here’s how: Google took Gmail, one of the most widely used web services on the planet, and modeled a quantum change in its behavior with an insulated, private, corporate, top 1% tech-savvy user base.

Google Buzz creates an instant social network based on your email history. Google engineers wrote an algorithm to analyze years of correspondence in users’ Gmail accounts. At launch, by default, these associations were automatically linked and shared with everyone else in your "network." [Google has already modified the default behavior twice in response to criticism].

Apparently, Google tested Buzz internally for months prior to public launch last week. Unfortunately, the controlled conditions of corporate email are a poor stand-in for conditions “in the wild” of a public email service.

You could imagine that the post-launch backlash could have been anticipated with a bit of forethought, even an afternoon meeting that went something like this:

AGENDA
1. What types of people use Gmail?
2. What do they use it for? Who do they communicate with and why?
3. Does our internal beta account for those types of uses?
4. If not, how do we introduce this service to people who aren’t like us?

At a bare minimum, identify a set of people who represent a cross section of users: A grandparent who switched from AOL; a high school junior with an active and evolving social circle; a struggling factory worker in a hostile political environment; a professional with a secretive private life.

Then, just as a sanity check, ask “Is there anything problematic with mining the history of their person-to-person emails and creating a single transparent group from that list?”

For many things, Google’s approach—develop, internal beta, release, measure, adjust—is an adequate way to stumble towards a better experience. That approach takes good ideas, puts them in play, then sands down the rough edges and suggests enhancements. For something as significant as combining email and social networking, it’s toxic.

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Thinking outside the boxee

Yup that’s right. First they had the idea to get the Internet on your TV (remember WebTV?) then it was all about TV on the Internet (Hulu, CBS, CNN, etc. ) and now we’ve got TV on the Internet put back on your TV (boxee).

For those of you not already in the know, boxee is a multi-platform media center with a 10-foot interface for aggregating video, music and photos that exist both offline and online. Others have failed in this space, but the boxee offering pushes the paradigm of content distribution and consumption in some interesting ways.

Continue reading...

Book review: Designing Gestural Interfaces

If you've been to the stunning new California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, you may have noticed a number of interactive exhibits in the halls on the first floor. Among them are two game-like pieces by Snibbe Interactive that allow visitors to physically interact with a projected "natural" environment via motion sensors.

Bug Rug by Snibbe Interactive at the Cal Academy of Sciences, from a video of the installation.

One is called Bug Rug and is set on the floor of a Madagascar forest with insects running around under fallen leaves and branches. Visitors can scare the bugs by stomping around, or they can trap them to learn more about them by guiding bait into traps with a very specific gestural interaction. In the other, Arctic Ice, visitors use their shadows to block the sun's rays, allowing ice to form so that a baby polar bear can find its way back to its mother.

After watching kids play with both, and speaking with someone intimately involved in the installation of the works who's watched people interact with both quite a lot, it's pretty clear that visitors tend to be more engaged and successful with Arctic Ice than with Bug Rug. In pondering why this is the case (beyond the obvious fact that for most people, baby polar bears are a lot more compelling than bugs), I've landed upon the theory that the physical interaction of using one's shadow to block the sun's rays is a lot more natural and discoverable than placing one's hands next to each other palm down, with thumbs touching to move things around on the ground.

With the increasing prevalence of physical and gestural interactivity, from the iPhone to Jeff Han's election night Magic Wall spectacle on CNN, to the Wii, it's likely we're all going to be faced with the excitement and challenge of interacting with and designing devices and environments in new ways. One of the biggest challenges associated with physical interactivity is the lack of transparency into the "commands" or actions available with a given device or environment. The graphical user interface was, in many ways, a huge improvement over the previous idioms of the command line because it made it much more obvious what commands were allowable in a given context. Looking into the brave new future of physical interactivity, we're confronted with the need to create idioms and vocabulary that are as discoverable and useful as possible to avoid stepping back into command line-like arcana.

Continue reading...

Are programmers tiny gods?

Tim sparked an interesting discussion around the office last week when he circulated a post from Derek Powazek's blog called "Programmers are tiny gods." It offers a provocative analogy for the designer/programmer relationship:

Programmers are the Gods of their tiny worlds. They create something out of nothing. In their command-line universe, they say when it’s sunny and when it rains. And the tiny universe complies ... So if you’re working with a programmer, you have to treat him or her like a God. You have to pray. You cannot issue edicts. You have to come on bended knee. “Here’s the problem I have. I need a solution. Please help.”

It's from a series called “Things I learned the Hard Way.”

Tim McCoy: It's a nice insight into the psyche of many development organizations. This is meshing with a sentiment I’ve heard a lot lately: “Don’t tell me what to build. Tell me what you need built.” It’s a subtle distinction that replaces the feeling of micromanagement with one of empowerment.

David Fore: Right. But this sentiment begs a fundamental question. When a programmer objects to being told what to build, how can biz decision makers ensure they aren't wandering into the weeds, building a taco stand rather than a playground, let's say. In other words, taken to the extreme, this sentiment means the inmates shall run the asylum. Alan, do you want to rewrite your book?

Tim McCoy: For me, it doesn’t challenge the notion that design has the responsibility of describing the product and development the responsibility of creating it.

I recently had a conversation with a developer who said “I want the definition of behavior as soon as possible, and I want to delay the definition of implementation for as long as possible.”

The issue is that being told what to build is a command, not a dialogue. Being told instead what needs building is an invitation to collaborate. That acknowledges programmers as professionals with expertise designers don’t generally have. (In turn, it assumes programmers acknowledge designers as professionals with expertise they don’t generally have.)

Programmers then have the flexibility to assess what building that thing would entail, express concerns over feasibility, timeline, motive, etc., and offer alternatives or adjustments that impact their ability to be successful.

So it’s about removing the friction to object to in the first place. Derek is being sensational with the bended knee bit, but the sentiment is sound. The payoff of his post is this:

The good news is, programmers want their work to be used, and the good ones know that the design matters. So programmers and designers actually have the same goal: getting the stuff used. If each can honor the talents of the other, great things can happen.

It’s about approaching developers as co-conspirators in producing great work: designers know what needs to happen and developers know how it can.

Lane Halley: I think you’re right on when you say “being told what needs building is an invitation to collaborate” and that designers and developers can be “co-conspirators in producing great work.” However, there are some nuances to the situation.

I think that when SW developers are removed from business decisions about what they are building (e.g. work for a salary, or code for hire), there’s a sense of relief when someone, anyone, steps up and takes ownership for the “what” of the product. However, at many companies, this responsibility for the “what” isn’t totally owned by Designers, it’s a space shared with Business Analysts, Product Managers and other folks.

I’ve also seen small teams of collaborative generalists at Web 2.0 companies and startups who have a different attitude. Those folks don’t think of “design” as a separate role, it’s more like an activity, or a skill set that has to exist within the team, somewhere. SW developers who work in this environment feel a greater sense of ownership of the product, and expect to be involved in defining the “what” too.

Tim McCoy: That’s a great point. The dynamic in a small team, startup, or indie development shop is usually much different from the situation Derek describes. I think it’s a side effect of the traditionally down-stream role developers have in larger established organizations that leads to this outlook, and why it’s design’s responsibility to say “hey, I’m not coming down here to drop a spec on your desk, I want to talk about how we can solve this thing.”

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Thinking outside the inbox

There’s a meme floating around the interWeb called “Inbox Zero, the gist of which is that we should not be slaves to our email. That’s a fabulous sentiment and I agree wholeheartedly.

Merlin Mann, the creator of Inbox Zero, has some truly excellent advice on how to think about your email, your inbox, and yourself. In particular, not feeling guilty about deleting messages or sending terse, one-line-replies are golden rules. Not to put too fine a point on this, but I agree without reservation with the principles and practices of Inbox Zero.

Yes, and.

I believe that Inbox Zero is a human operational method for dealing with fundamental shortcomings in the software we are forced to use. The very fact that we have an “Inbox problem” is prima facie evidence that the software bringing our email to us isn’t really designed with our goals in mind.

Continue reading...

Feeling passionate about Amazon’s Frustration-Free packaging

As my fellow Cooperistas will attest, I’m passionate about a lot of things: interaction design, birthday cake, shoes… But product packaging? No, I wouldn’t have included that last one in the list - at least, not until I caught myself swooning over Amazon’s new Frustration-Free packaging.

Suddenly, it all came back to me in a rush of emotion: the anger, frustration, and threat of serious injury when struggling to extract a tiny memory card from its giant plastic “clamshell” package. The tedium and anxiety of twisting countless plastic-coated wire ties in a seemingly never-ending effort to release toy components from incarceration before the child loses interest and starts playing with an empty box instead. The disbelief and disgust over the trail of excessive plastic waste left behind after opening a single product. And I am not alone. To tap into the packaging-frustration zeitgeist, Amazon has encouraged customers to post pictures and videos of their worst experiences to the Gallery of Wrap Rage, and the responses are pouring in.

These consumer-hostile packaging practices are a perfect example of business needs trumping user needs. For far too long, companies have designed packaging that serves only two masters: product marketing and theft reduction. Mark Hurst's This Is Broken features a particularly rich example of product packaging that fails to address the need to get the item out of the package.

Because Amazon doesn’t have to deal with retail display or shoplifting, they were in a unique position to sidestep the usual drivers for package design and think (pardon the pun) “outside the box”, focusing on customers’ goal of liberating products from the package so they can actually use them! And as Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos notes in his letter to customers introducing the program, “in addition to making packages easier to open, a major goal of the Frustration-Free Packaging initiative is to be more environmentally friendly by using less packaging material.” According to their FAQs, products with Frustration-Free Packaging can often be shipped in their own boxes, without an additional shipping box.

Just in time for the holiday consume-a-thon, Amazon delivers human-friendly, eco-friendly package design. Now really, who wouldn’t be passionate about that?

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Tyranny of the majority

I'm a big fan of democracy. I believe that every citizen should have equal access to power, that a community should express its values and priorities through elected officials, and that the outcome of an election is a critical expression of the state of that community.

Still, there are limits to the utility of democracy. You don't ask your friends to vote on the probable cause of your stomachache. Newspapers don't poll their readers when they're deciding what leads to pursue. Our elected officials don't ask us to decide whether a complicated bailout plan is the right course of action for stabilizing our financial system ... (Umm, actually, I take that back).

Makers of the excellent publishing platform Wordpress recently asked their users to vote on certain UI decisions in its next release. They didn't ask users to design the UI from scratch, but they did ask some strategic, fundamental UI questions:

Q.2: The La-Z-Boy goes: (a) to the left of the TV; (b) to the right of the table with the pizza on it; (c) under the reading light; (d) other: [please explain]

Here's a screenshot of the whole survey. The survey authors tried to be helpful by providing rationale for each option, but it sounded a little like the engineers at BMW asking me where I want my steering wheel and what intervals I want on the wiper switch. On one hand, it's a nice gesture; on the other, these questions are fundamental to the user experience of their product. Shouldn't it be the business of BMW to determine the appropriate implementation?

The point is: There ARE right answers to these questions. They are not matters of taste. The key to determining the answers, however, is deeply connected with a long-term strategy for the user experience. Does Wordpress have a long-term strategy for its UI? To use a counter-example: Facebook could have asked its users whether the News Feed was a good feature. (As you may recall, users initially hated it). Facebook kept it, with a slight modification, and it is now the foundation of the tool. That's strategy at work.

On a more philosophical note: When there is expertise in a field, why pretend that there isn't? When Wes Anderson makes a movie, he doesn't revisit the first principles of filmmaking and decide anew whether film editing is really something that an "expert" should be hired to do. He hires an editor because he knows that the editor will bring out the best in the film. I would argue that UI designers have a similar effect on the technology underlying a product. They're able to craft a cohesive whole from the disparate elements. Search is a disparate element that needs a place in the cohesive whole; why ask the community to decide where it fits in the experience?

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Folkware

In his recent article for TechCrunch, salesforce.com CEO and chairman Marc Benioff frames the web 1.0 revolution as “Anyone can transact” with great 1-to-many online transactional applications like Google and Amazon. The 2.0 revolution was “Anyone can participate” with a host of many-to-many online applications like LiveJournal, Flickr, and YouTube that really put the focus on user-generated content.

Continue reading...

Google Chrome: The interface is beside the point

There's been a lot chatter around the office and internet about Chrome, the recently launched (or leaked) Google Web browser. I've got to say that much of it misses the aspect of the application that I find most inspirational. Google Chrome exists for one reason and one reason only: To provide a framework for web-based applications to look, feel, and act like desktop applications.

It doesn't seem that Google has real interest in replacing IE or Firefox as the dominant web browser. (The tech business press can't see beyond this point). Instead, Google wants to see the technological underpinnings of Chrome adopted by mainstream browsers. The Chrome team is explicitly inviting other browsers to use their code base — they've open sourced everything — and they have explicitly acknowledged adopting best-of-breed UI features from others.

So how does Chrome elevate web apps to desktop app status? Six ways: Separate processes for each tab; Google Gears for local storage, offline functionality and "native app" behaviors; application shortcuts; a modern JavaScript virtual machine; and minimal-to-absent browser interface, aka "chrome". Let's look at each one in more detail, with snippets from Scott McCloud's fantastic graphic novella product tour.

Continue reading...

Beautiful Monsters: The odds are in

Beautiful Monsters is a series by David Fore, head of Cooper's consulting practice. It is intended encourage conversation about how interaction designers can grow more sustainable practices, with the goals of improving our fortunes, our relationships, and the health of our planet. Start at the beginning, or read the latest installment below.

Critics may charge that I’m loving on WunderMap too much. But these guys have vision. They provide fantastic resources for visualizing many of the changes afoot, which is a necessary precursor to visualizing solutions. But what they haven’t done yet is provide us the coordinates of our honeybees, one in three of which have disappeared from these parts. Without honeybees we don’t have agriculture as we know it — and, ipso facto, culture.

Continue reading...

Beautiful Monsters: Why on earth does this matter?

It used to be that everybody talked about the weather, but nobody did anything about it. Not anymore. Through the magic of technology, I am empowered to make better decisions about where not to breathe. That’s because the good people at WunderMap have devised a smoke map. For a few days there, the smoke from local wildfires were absorbed by our (formerly) infinitely capacious atmosphere. So I didn’t think I’d need the smoke map. But then temperatures hit new epochal records, humidity took a dive, and the wind began fanning the flames again.

Should our misfortunes expand to include plagues of frogs, boils, and gnats, I know WunderMap will have my back.

In other news last week, the U.S. continued to emit vivid plumes of interactive graphics displaying our industrial might, which nobody can deny … it’s just that my emissions are necessary, while yours are not. World leaders at the G8 Summit in Japan, meanwhile, decided to postpone serious action on climate change for another few decades. Tomorrow’s always the best day to begin a diet.

Why on earth should such things matter to interaction designers? Put another way, why does earth matter to interaction designers?

Continue reading...

Everything smart is dumb again

Once upon a time, Google made the dumb interface look like the smartest thing to ever hit the Internet. By removing the blizzard of navigation that characterized Excite and Yahoo — and by actually delivering reliable search results — Google removed huge hurdles for millions of users. Still, Google-style search is far from the end of the road; it has always had limitations and drawbacks, and it seems like these things are cropping up a lot in conversations and in the media recently.

Just yesterday, my team and I heard something interesting during some research into a really complex system for analyzing corporate finances. When we asked what had been discovered in previous user research efforts, we were told:

Whatever we build has to be stone simple. It can't be like Google, where you type in how you think about it, and I type in what I think about it, and we both get different sets of results.

Constructing good Google search strings can seem like a black art, but individual users develop personal techniques and styles that help them get more reliable results. Still, the fact that others must craft their own path toward reliability creates a lack of confidence that others will get a similar view onto any given topic.

Search results: Skimming the surface

My mind isn't going — so far as I can tell — but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I'm reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore.

Andrew Sullivan at The Times echoes the above author's sentiments in a blog review of the article:

The experience of reading only one good book for a while, and allowing its themes to resonate in the mind, is what we risk losing. When I was younger I would carry a single book around with me for days, letting its ideas splash around in my head, not forming an instant judgment (for or against) but allowing the book to sit for a while, as the rest of the world had its say — the countryside or pavement, the crowd or train carriage, the armchair or lunch counter. Sometimes, human beings need time to think things through, to allow themselves to entertain a thought before committing to it.

These reading-related pains remind me of writers' critiques of word processors, and the growing popularity of interface-free tools like WriteRoom. There are certain behaviors that require some radical reconsideration of current UI norms. Few would propose that we go back to a pre-search world, but the question seems to be: How to appropriately apply UI and technical smarts to retrieval technologies to foster the confidence and comfort that comes from predictability and structure?

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Beautiful Monsters: With such a late start, we best get moving

From our position at the confluence of human desire, technology, and business, interaction designers can make a tremendously positive—or negative—impact on the biggest issues facing us today: the sustainability of commerce, human societies, and natural systems. Despite these opportunities, software makers are discouraged from thinking outside the aspect ratio of the computer ’s monitor.

This is the first in a series of articles intended to serve as an ongoing conversation about how interaction designers can move the industry toward an Ecosystem Centered Design to improve our fortunes, our relationships, and the health of our planet.

Continue reading...