Uncommon Sense (for Software)

Death of the Desktop: The Movie

I just watched a very eye-opening video from the makers of Enso. Aza is giving a talk to the folks at Google.

One of the knee-jerk reactions with the rise in popularity of AJAX was to run around trying to make all Web 2.0 apps look and behave like desktop apps. While some of this was necessary just to bring web-apps "up to speed" with their desktop cousins (since we lost a lot of capabilities like: undo/redo, cut/copy/paste [for objects instead of just plain text]), rather than stopping to think if there was even a BETTER way.

One of my favorite lines in the early portion of this video is:

You can't be better without being different.

One very subtle item I noticed as Aza was demo'ing some of the features of Enso, which among other things, is a command-line interface for your computer: Most command-line interfaces, even the good ones like QuickSilver for the Mac, expect that you conform to a certain grammer - like "verb" before "noun". Enso seems to look for character combinations as you type, even if they appear in the middle of a multi-word command, and starts auto-suggesting even from the middle of a sentence fragment, rather than just from the beginning, where the verb would be. It also seems to use synonyms!

Another interesting point he makes is about the Toolkit Straightjacket. The idea is that while toolkits are great for "mass producing" the status-quo of design, the are the antithesis of the evolution of design, because they provide so much incentive to simply pump out the same-old same-old that the toolkit enables you to do. I've always preferred to roll-my-own software rather than relying on too many off-the-shelf libraries, because of very similar thinking.

This is inspiring stuff. I wonder how to make use of this in main-stream web-apps in the mean time, 'til they get scooped up and stuck into the OS...

Caution: Feature Matrix Ahead

I recently had an email conversation with someone who asked me if I had a feature matrix for Devshop versus the competition. After I thought to myself, "What competition?!" ;) my very next thought was a moment of silent panic. Crap! Where's our feature matrix?! Did anyone do a feature matrix?!

Then, as I often do in those moments, I took a breath, thought for a minute, and realized it was a good thing there was no Devshop feature matrix. I hadn't gotten around to one because I didn't think it was important. I mean, I've generated those things many times over for the companies I've worked with in the past. It just seems like "what people do." After consciously thinking about it though, I decided that unless someone is holding a gun to my head, I'm not going to do one.

The trouble with feature matrices is that they are probably the #1 cause of "missing the forest for the trees" in a software purchase decision. Let's face it, unless they're actually generated by the customer themselves, as a means of comparing specific products they're looking at, then they're all biased anyway. It's kind of like asking an interviewee for references. Who's going to give you the name and phone number of someone that hates them? No-one. Feature matrices developed by vendors are always stacked to show their products in the most positive light.

As I went on to explain to the person that was asking for the matrix, this (the feature matrix) is not an approach that we would ever take in selling our product. Our design goal is to make it so incredibly obvious when you put Devshop side-by-side with any other product, that Devshop is the one you want. It should take you a whole 10 seconds to realize that. If we were to have to pull out a feature matrix to make the decision, then we've failed as designers.

Feature matrices come from this habit that we all have about wanting more "features per dollar". It's the "biggie-size" mentality where for 10 cents more you can have twice the fries with that burger, even though you don't need the extra fries and may not even eat them anyway. This consumer purchasing behavior has led to product developers cramming in more features without too much thought about how they fit together, how relevant they are to solving the problem at hand, or what impact they have on usability (which is the one thing that ultimately decides the success or failure of a product in the users' hands). You see this thinking embedded in the "less is more" philosophy that is finally starting to take hold in the software industry.

The real design goal should be to solve the customer's problem with as few features possible (therefore guaranteeing the easiest adoption and lowest learning curve). As sales people, we should all be able to define why our product design is better equipped to solve the customer's problem without resorting to a spreadsheet crutch.

There will be times when a customer demands a matrix as part of their purchasing process, particularly for large sales. To the degree that you can re-focus their attention on what matters (why your product's design is better suited to solving their problem), you and your customers will be better off.

The Geek Manifesto

I just saw this video about BarCamp San Francisco on Tara's blog.

I was one of the 4 organizers of BarCamp Ottawa this spring, and it was nice to see that this BarCamp in San Fran wasn't unlike the Ottawa one. I even learned a couple things from this video:

1. The first BarCamp was only 10 months ago... (not sure when this video was taken though)
2. 32 (and counting) have happened world-wide since. Holy crap that's pretty fast. If people don't yet believe in the "viral" potential of community and a good idea, take notice!

My favorite part of the video is the last couple minutes, when someone is reading some kind of geek manifesto. Pretty funny. You should watch it just for that.

Geek power!

PS. Now that I think of it, I have a new goal in life: To be recognized on a first name basis on the 'Net. How cool would that be. There's Tara, and Joel, and Jason, all of whom you probably recognize. I can't think of a techie-famed Craig yet. Maybe it's still open...

The Apple of My Eye

Gotta love Apple. Do I mean the new PowerBooks? Or the iPods? Or the Mac Mini's w/Front Row to run your TV? Nope. Although they are all fantastic products. I mean Apple the company.

The Intel Announcement

A few months ago I watched Jobs' keynote announcing that Apple would be running on Intel chips. It was so weird to watch. Here was Steve, surrounded by hundreds of his fans, hanging off every word he says, giving him a standing ovation and cheering practically every time he pulled out one of his Jobsian surprises, and yet, it was almost like he was apologizing. He meekly let loose that Apple was moving away from its roots and towards Intel. It was the first time I've seen him publicly deflated. He's usually so, well, compelling and passionate. And the audience? Well for this little tidbit, they politely clapped because they love Steve and they love Apple, but as the cameras swept over the audience, you could see the puzzled and disappointed looks on their faces. Should we be happy about this? Is this a defeat?

"Sharability" used to hold Apple back

I've often chastised Apple over the last 10 years for "not getting" a significant piece of the computer market dynamics - that having a closed ecosystem puts you at a significant disadvantage. Who wants to buy a computer that has only 5 to 10% of the available software, costs twice as much to buy, and has no retail presence (a.k.a. support infrastructure)? Sure, they've always looked better and have been better designed, but the big thing driving the computer industry over the last decade has been "sharability" - I want to use the same software that all of my neighbors use, and pass my files along without having to worry whether or not their software can read my data. In fact, without so much as saying so, people have even been willing to accept lower quality products just to get that level of sharability. Apple products have long been of better overall quality, but I only gave them part marks for that, because it's a LOT easier to keep quality up in a smaller, closed ecosystem with less dependencies, less players and a lot less complexity. The barriers to entry to build software for a Mac were higher, which I think led to higher quality developers and designers getting involved and those that didn't measure up couldn't survive on that platform - whereas with the PC platform, every Tom, Dick and Harriette can hack together a piece of shareware and at least make a couple of bucks.

These past couple of years, many of the "sharability" issues have been resolved thanks to the 'Net. Computers of different types (Mac, Linux and PC) all surf along and bump into eachother fairly smoothly (though varying support for CSS and Javascript is still fundamentally broken).

Falling in love with what Apple stands for

I find myself falling in love with Apple this year because I see some big changes happening, and I can see that Apple stands for some things that are becoming increasingly important to me (so important in fact, that these factors are now driving forces in my decision making)...

The move to Intel was long over due. I absolutely applaud it. In one single move, Apple sets itself up for a future of significantly more developers making software for their platform because of the easier time they'll have writing cross platform code (PC/Mac). Good move. Their latest operating system is built on top of an existing kernal (Unix), which presumably makes writing cross-platform code with Linux and Unix systems easier as well. So they've decided to leave kernels with the experts as well. Another good move. Although I love the designs Apple comes up with for the "form factor" (the physical casings) of their products, I don't think they have any business building the fiddly bits that go inside them. Don't pick the underdog for your CPU's, memory, hard-drives or motherboards. I don't see Apple as a hard-core hardware company anyway. Their biggest strength is their vision and product design (particularly software design). When I think of Apple, I don't think of a computer company any more (particularly because of the success of the iPod), I think of them as the design company. I could see a very bright future for Apple breaking into many other consumer product categories and just beating the pants off the incumbants because of their fresh perspective on product design.

Apple as the consumer advocate

When I think of Apple now, I think of a consumer advocate. I know they have really high standards for design and quality and I feel that I can trust their instincts. I picture Apple designers saying to component manufacturers: "Sorry, not good enough to go in our products. Make it better." Or: "Sorry, our users don't want to have to surf to Toshiba's site for video drivers and Western's site for disk drivers, and so on - make it more seemless." Or: "Sorry, having to shut down and restart to fix a problem isn't good enough - fix it or it doesn't ship in our product." I like the idea of them pushing back on anyone that wants to ship anything inside or along-side an Apple product, so that I as a user don't have to. They just make it work. That's now a significant enough value that I'm willing to pay for. I'm tired of having to debug shit myself and deal with a dozen different manufacturers for a single PC and have them all point the finger at eachother, or even more commonly, at Microsoft.

Supporting the "whole" product - what a novel idea (/sarcasm)

The other thing I really love about Apple recently is a lot more subtle. I noticed that when they showed off their swanky new 5th Avenue store in New York, one of the things they bragged about is 24/7/365 customer service. 365? 24/7? Wow. I am really freaking impressed. Every day I grow more and more frustrated with "used to be good" companies like DELL trying to squeeze every last penny out of their model at the complete expense of quality and customer service. Outsourcing support? Big mistake! Overall support and satisfaction levels in monster companies like this is taking a nose dive. I think it'll take a good chunk of the decade for certain companies to realize it, but there's an army of people like me who are now quietly (and very seriously) looking at alternatives where we can expect higher initial quality (isn't that a J.D. Powers award category?) and dramatically improved support. We aren't going to bother fighting through your $4/hr phone reps to speak to a manager to log a complaint, we're just going to quietly take our money elsewhere. That is why a policy of 24/7/365 support is so appealing. I'm getting to the point where I'm no longer satisfied with mail-order computers to spec and being nothing more than a nuisance to the company I bought it from. I want the manufacturer and retailer to figure that stuff out and just sell me something that works. And while I realize that these products are complex and shit happens, assure me that I can pick up the phone or better yet, walk into a store get get somebody's attention - in the best case, the same person I bought it from! (Kudos to the whole Apple Store phenomenon. Where's the DELL store?) Don't get me started on the wave of manufacturer rebates - this is ridiculous. I have to give the store $300 up front for a $150 item, and then mail 2 different companies to get my other $150 back in 8 weeks? Come on guys. Get real. I simply refuse to buy products with mail-in rebates. Manufacturers and retailers need to figure this stuff out before it gets to the customer.

Go Apple go!

I think with a level playing field (being on the same hardware platform), we'll move back to a game of "may the best designed and supported product win" - a game I believe Apple will play very well. Look for a dramatic jump in the number of PowerBooks you see walking down the street or in your local cafe. I'm not talking about a jump from 2% of overall PC sales to 4% or anything as underwhelming as that (afterall 100% growth when you're only a tiny sliver to begin with isn't really impressive - which is why I'm never impressed with Linux growth statistics), I'm talking growth potential of 10 times or more. Apple as 20 to 30% of overall PC sales? The Mac is back, with a vengeance.