BASEMENT.ORG
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 31, 2007, 09:04AMPaste Magazine Subscription : $1.00
Paste Magazine, a cool magazine focused on alternative culture (film, music, etc.) is available via one year subscription for US$1.00 (which is like $1.50 $.50 Canadian these days). Just go here and put in the amount you want to pay (a la Radiohead). (via the cheap bastards at Slickdeals).
Blue Screen Of Arrogance
Anil Dash calls Apple out for their obnoxious little jab at non-Mac operating systems. I agree with his points. It's odd to see negativity in such otherwise elegant design. I'd be interested in hearing the real story behind it.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 26, 2007, 10:20AMEnough With The Lists
As if there aren't enough examples of information overload in our lives. Our iPod's hold 50,000 songs. Our cameras take 2,000 pictures. And the list goes on. And speaking of lists, I've grown to hate the list-ification of information. "10 Things That..." or "20 Reasons Why..." And so on.
And then you've got the grandaddy of all lists: Smashing Magazine. Mostly geared towards web design and development, their lists are frickin' huge. I dutifully bookmark half their lists because...umm....I swear I'm going to need them later. I'm sure of it.
And so, I'm left with this big list of lists (or links to lists) that serves more as a sort of security blanket than as some valued information source. Just as Americans keep piling on stuff and putting it into storage (the storage business is booming these days), we just keep accumulating stuff with the desired intention to consume it later. The problem is we can't possibly consume at the pace we're producing.
So do we throw it all out? Nope. We store it. The same goes for information on the web. There's too much of it...and in a lot of cases the stuff is actually pretty good. So we collect it for umm...future consumption (at least that's what we tell ourselves).
The result is the de-valuation of information. It's less about the quality of any discrete piece of content and more about the numbing consequence of sheer abundance. I'll close with a quote from Will Sheff, the front man for the rock band Okkervil River. Here he's talking about file sharing, bootlegs and digital media in general, but he stumbles on this very topic:
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 25, 2007, 09:24AMThe Internet – with its glut not only of information but of misinformation, and of information that is only slightly correct, or only slightly incorrect – fills me with this same weird mixture of happiness and depression. I sometimes feel drowned in information, deadened by it. How many hundreds of bored hours have you spent mechanically poring through web pages not knowing what you’re looking for, or knowing what you’re looking for but not feeling satisfied when you find it? You hunger but you’re not filled. Everything is freely available on the Internet, and is accordingly made inestimably valuable and utterly value-less.
Blog Bumper Stickers
Yes, they're as useless as real bumper stickers. That's the point. Polish your chrome and slap on some Blog Bumper Stickers.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 24, 2007, 02:29PMJQuery Plugin : Auto Line Height
I like this: a JQuery plugin that increases line height as you adjust width and font size. Very thoughtful.
The Enterprise Software Hostage Crisis
Khoi Vinh has a thoughtful post on why enterprise software seems so far removed from anything that has to do with good interaction design. At Signal vs. Noise, Jason Fried adds that the buyers aren't the users and as such the users are left with these bloated monstrosities that may get MIS guys all giggly but bring nothing but pain to the actual user base.
To take the conversation further, I'd add that this apparent disconnect hinges on the distinction of what drives software. In the product-for-the-masses scenario, companies like 37 Signals think long and hard about what the masses are going to value. They must apply an enormous amount of scrutiny and re-factoring to deliver something that resonates with potential customers. What's critical in this scenario is that 37 Signals is in the driver seat. They've taken it upon themselves to learn and understand a potential market and deliver something of value to that market. In some instances, they may even introduce innovation - i.e. things the market failed to articulate as a real need but embrace after the fact.
This is hardly so with enterprise software. The product maker-to-market dynamic isn't at play. Instead, you have a three-way dynamic between enterprise software makers, their customers - the MIS decision-makers, and finally the "customers" within the enterprise whom the MIS guys answer to. In this scenario, the enterprise software maker is singularly focused with making sure a critical goal is met: that the MIS guy has complete flexibility to meet just about any need, however ridiculous, that comes along.
If anyone has glanced at a gap analysis matrix that often precedes a big purchase of enterprise software, they'll know exactly what I'm alluding to. In the enterprise world, all users are not created equal. If an investment bank's managing director that is responsible for billions on revenue wants a feature, he's going to get it. And so, the drivers in the enterprise software world, ironically, are the users. The MIS guys? They're just hostages who's sole purpose is to make sure they meet the needs of their own "customer base." IBM and SAP know this all too well. So they deliver them what they need: a do-it-yourself Frankenstein kit.
Jason mentions that "[t]he people who buy our products are the people who use our products." He's right, but he's still selling 37 Signals short. The value they bring to the table isn't just delivering software, it's distilling needs to down to something constrained and cohesive. There is no gap analysis. No custom bolt-on that has to be maintained. 37 Signals, not its users, is in the driver seat. Of course, this leaves 37 Signals with the significant task of figuring out where to take their software next to keep their current customer base happy and gain new customers.
So don't blame the poor schleps who have to buy, customize, deploy and maintain enterprise software. They're merely trying to keep the masses in check and relatively happy. They do that by being everything to everyone...and nothing special to anyone.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 23, 2007, 09:29AMNogray's Calendar Component
Nogray's Calendar Component is a nicely documented, elegant and simple Javascript calendar component. I like it.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 22, 2007, 03:20PM"Back In The Day..."
"Remember the time when you had to get hold of a CD or DVD, rummage around for a serial number, go through a 20-step installation process, and wait around for 15 minutes to install some software? How ridiculous was that?"
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's going to inevitably happen: software will eventually stop being shipped on physical media. We're seeing archaic glimpses of that today in products like Google Docs and Yahoo Mail. But they don't feel like desktop applications yet. They're still very clunky and Web-like. The groundwork is being laid to deliver even the richest of applications over the wire. Adobe, maker of some of the most visually-rich and complex applications, is already saying that's where it's all headed.
It'll take time but we'll eventually get there...and we'll look back on the way we do things today and snicker.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 18, 2007, 01:52PMYour Free Multi-Million Dollar Idea For Today
We all SMS these days. Either we're thumbing away on a smartphone with the little Chiclet keyboard or we're T9ing ourselves to death on a conventional mobile phone. Also, we're often near a computer during the work day. We stop working, leave our big finger-sized keyboard and go over to our phone and thumb away. It's dumb.
Just about every phone today has Bluetooth. There are also numerous keyboards out there that work/connect via Bluetooth. So the question begs to be asked:
Why hasn't anybody come out with a keyboard with a little toggle switch: in one setting, it lets me type into my phone via Bluetooth; in another setting it's in standard, PC input mode.
It makes a lot of frickin' sense and I'd easily pay $100 for it. So come on Logitech? Microsoft? Anyone?
Note, if anyone thinks this is a good idea and has the means to make it a reality, then by all means go ahead. Just send me a free keyboard when you're done.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 17, 2007, 11:52AMDesign Dictatorships
Speaking of design dictatorships, Gerd Hildebrand, chief designer of the Mini, on the new Mini Clubman:
"It was design by dictatorship," clarified the somewhat autocratic Mini chief designer, Gerd Hildebrand. "All else, this marketing, these focus groups, what have you, is bullshit."
Heh, ya gotta love it. (via Metacool).
Improving The RSS Reading Experience
Last week, I blogged about how the RSS reading experience in feed readers is lacking because we're deprived of the full visual experience of actually being at a web destination. In a feed reader, we get just the filtered content without the look and feel of the source.
So I got to thinkin', since Google Reader (or any feed reader for that matter), knows what I've read and I what I haven't, and knows the title & description of the feed entries, it could easily dice up the DOM of the originating site and inject the titles and descriptions coming in off the feed into the original page.
Below is a concept screenshot. Notice it's the usual Google Reader trimmings but the actual content view is swapped out with Brand Spanking New's actual look and feel. Note also that the three "read" entries are collapsed and slightly faded below the unread entry:
There are other issues that arise out of this approach (e.g. single entry-per-page blogs) but I'd be very curious to experience something like this - a sort of hybrid web browsing/feed reading experience.
An alternative approach would be to look for some sort of codified hinting to feed readers of what to do with their content - something like a referenced CSS embedded in the feed XML. It would be important to constrain what can be done - things like colors, fonts, better logo handling, but not much more. A feed reader could then spice itself up slightly as we navigate from source to source.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 16, 2007, 10:04AMArc90 Lab : Taking RSS Beyond Headlines With RSS Traits
Arc90 Lab : Taking RSS Beyond Headlines With RSS Traits. Sketchcast included for your convenience along with a draft spec.
Newsweek Redesigns
Newsweek has joined other big media brands and redesigned its web presence. It's a definite improvement. Heavy use of CSS and a sprinkle of JQuery. And...rounded corners everywhere!
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 12, 2007, 09:46AMJQuery Crash Course
For the less enlightened among us, Digital Web has a JQuery crash course queued for mass consumption.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 10, 2007, 02:40PMIf The Web Is TV, Then RSS Is Radio
One of the snazziest new destinations on the Web is A Brief Message. It "features design opinions expressed in short form—200 words or less." What's neat about it is that each brief essay is accompanied with some nice illustration.
Here's a snapshot of a recent post:
Notice how nicely the visual aesthetic of the article lends itself to the entire reading experience. Now let's take a look at the same article in Google Reader:
It's not exactly the same effect. Yes, the words are there, but the piece has been gutted of its personality.
Let's look at another example, Cameron Moll's beautifully designed Authentic Boredom:
Here's Authentic Boredom seen through the lens of Google Reader (list view):
Again, Google Reader (as would any feed reader) has stripped an otherwise attractive, stylish blog of all its...style.
Be Careful What We Wish For
This isn't a jab at feed readers. I'm as guilty as anyone for subscribing to countless feeds and gulping down tons of information in a highly efficient manner. All that increased "bandwidth" comes at a price. If we rely on feed readers to consume information from the web, we no longer actually see the web. We just "hear" the raw data, triple-filtered and stripped of any intended style, character, personality or meaning beyond the words.
If the real Web is rich and colorful and visual, RSS consumption is anything but. It's just the data, just as old radio was the words without the pictures. An occasional image will seep through in the feed itself, but that hardly captures the aesthetic of the originating site. I recall when FeedDemon (a great Windows desktop feed reader) started pulling in the site's favicon (that little icon that shows up in your browser's URL box). That little icon did a whole lot by giving the slightest bit of context to where I was in my sea of subscribed feeds.
Can We Have It Both Ways?
Is it possible for us to gain the efficiency of RSS reading while still enjoying the web in all its glorious Technicolor? I'm not ready to give up my 300 feeds at 200 MPH. In short, I want it both ways. When I "visit" a feed I want to feel like I'm really visiting. I want the style and mood of the original site to frame the content.
I'd answer the above question: yes, I think we can have it both ways. In an upcoming post, I'll outline a potential approach to marrying the high-volume/high speed experience of feed reading with the visual appeal and sense of "destination" that comes with visiting a web site.
Stay tuned!
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 9, 2007, 02:00PMCreate Sexy XHTML Forms With pForm
pForm is a really elegant web-based three step wizard that generates nice XHTML/CSS form code. Very lean and very nicely done (via etc.).
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 8, 2007, 02:12PMArc90 Lab : Flex Modules & Cairngorm Play Nice With Modular
Andy Lewisohn, resident Arc90 Flex guru, just released Modular to the Arc90 Lab. It allows Cairngorm to play nice with Flex's built-in Modules framework. Slick.
Climbing Out Of Failure
If you're planning on building a product for mass consumption, a customer facing web application, a piece of software or software service, a social network-style service, really anything that involves throwing your hat into the free market, know this: your product will fail.
Ok, that sounds fatalistic and slightly melodramatic, but it's a hard reality. Most, check that, just about all products fail. It's even worse: good products fail. Quality products that seem to solve real problems will fail. But wait, it gets even uglier: some really lousy products succeed. Sometimes due to really sly marketing and PR and sometimes due to dumb luck.
The Simple "Success" Of Services
At Arc90, we're incubating some products that aren't tied to client work. The measure of success (or failure) in the services business is very different, and far simpler: if the client is happy, you've succeeded. While we bitch about the ball-busting client, we can't deny one thing: having a sole arbiter brings clarity and direction towards any effort. The customer isn't just always right, they're also always around and ready to tell you what they want. Yes, we often get urges to murder them and hide the bodies, but that tangible, real and finite feedback is often taken for granted.
"Almost Done" Does Not Equal "Almost Successful"
Building a product for mass appeal is not for the weak of heart (or stomach). While the initial high from an idea may carry you some way, the buzz quickly dies. It's replaced with a long road that brings little gratification. You may have nailed five of your eleven requirements, but you will not be rewarded until you're near the end. It's the "almost pregnant" problem. A viable idea is borne out of a complete vision.
Once you buy into and bet on that vision, you need to strap in and be ready to go all the way...or don't bother. You'll have failures along the way. You'll expose that half-executed (or quarter-executed) effort to some people, and it'll fall flat. And it'll feel like failure. You'll inevitably ask: "should we stop?" You'll burn through money, energy and people's morale. So why keep going?
You keep going because until you fully execute on that vision, you'll never know of its viability. Do you need to reach 100%? Not really, but you do need to cross that line where the vision - in the case of product, the answer to the problem or pain you're trying to attack - is before you in tangible form. Only then will you know if you've got something worth keeping (or abandoning).
The Moving Finish Line
There's yet another rub in all this. As you're trudging towards that finish line while you endure those pangs of failure, you begin to notice that the finish line is...moving. This "answer" to the problem you're trying to solve needs to change and morph into something slightly different than you'd envisioned. As it starts to come into focus, you begin to realize that things (sometimes some fairly fundamental things) need to change. It turns out that "perfectly clear vision" of yours isn't so perfect and clear.
If a team isn't open to considering and folding in that new knowledge into product's evolution, it can rarely succeed. A product effort evolves as it comes to fruition. There's nothing instantaneous about it. The only fixed variable is the problem, and as we navigate towards that problem our product (our "solution to the problem") needs to change.
"What Are You Prepared To Do?"
There's a memorable scene in 1987's The Untouchables. Elliot Ness, the federal prosecutor put on the case to crack down on the Chicago mob, is partnered up with Jim Malone, a tough, weathered Chicago cop that knows the mob all too well. They meet in a church and Ness (played by Kevin Costner) is lamenting about how tough its going to be to bring down the mob. He rambles on for a bit and then Malone (played by Sean Connery) resets the conversation and asks bluntly: "What are you prepared to do?"
His question isn't meant to be melodramatic. He's laying out an important threshold. He's asking Ness if he's serious about going after the mafia and if so, is he willing to go the extraordinary lengths to bring it down. In other words, he's saying "if you're not willing to go all the way with this, don't bother."
I see new products crop up all the time these days. The Web 2.0 ecosystem is exciting because it affords small groups with very little money the opportunity to build something for the masses. But the realities haven't changed: it takes a lot to translate a good vision to a good product. It takes patience, flexibility, open-mindedness...and a strong stomach.
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 5, 2007, 09:16AMNo Excuse Not To Sketchcast
So now that sketchcast.com is out in the wild, all the software and hosting tools needed to sketchcast are ready to go. There was however, one more snag: you can't sketch with a mouse. You need either a tablet PC or a drawing tablet. Now if you're feeling extravagant, the Wacom tablets (pronounced "wack'em!" I think) are great.
Of course not everyone wants to spend $300 on a tablet so they can occasionally scribble. Well have I got a deal for you (read with a late night infomercial tone). Computer Geeks has USB tablets for as little as $29.99. Yes $29.99!
Now mind you, I can't vouch for the quality of such devices but hey, it's $30 bucks. That's what, four cups of coffee at Starbucks?
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 4, 2007, 11:30AMAwesome Person Wanted
Do you enjoy solving design problems? Do you enjoy interacting with others to learn about, probe, investigate, experiment with, and finally create awesome, game-changing, paradigm-shifting, knee-buckling user experiences that make others sob with joy (and a tinge of envy)? Do you want to see your ideas, concepts and creations come to life once you share your blueprints with a best-of-class team of architects and technologists?
If you found yourself screaming "Yes! Yes! Yes!" with each "Yes!" louder than the last, then we need to talk to you ("we" being Arc90; our lab is here; our blog is here). We're looking for a (or two) talented information/experience/interface architects/designers/experts to join the team.
In short, we're looking to arm someone with a mandate to create experiences that blow people's minds on a regular basis.
We're based in New York City, USA. If you think you've got the proverbial goods, don't hesitate to drop me a line.
Some Thoughts On Adobe Max
I'm writing this post on a flight back to New York from Chicago where I attended the Adobe Max conference. It was an interesting and engaging conference overall. Adobe has a lot going on and looking back on the three day event, I thought I'd share some thoughts:
Adobe OS
Adobe, for the first time, is hocking a platform. It's a confluence of technologies that include Flash, Flex, AIR and PDF and don't be fooled, this isn't just some more software. It's a portable and very powerful and compelling software platform. It's what Java was supposed to do five or ten years ago but never did. The Flash runtime as a real software platform has arrived.
How powerful is the Adobe OS? Check out Buzzword. It's a web-based word processor that puts Google Docs look like...a web-based word processor. Buzzword runs in your browser (and soon on your desktop via AIR) but it ain't no hacked-together Javascript word processor. It's a user experience that rivals - and in many ways surpasses - that of full-blown desktop word processor. It's an incredibly thoughtful and engaging user experience.
Software A La Carte
Photoshop Express. Share. Buzzword. Connect. Adobe is making a serious play towards service-based zero-install software. Don't expect Photoshop in all its glory over the wire any time soon, but the pieces have been put into place. Adobe is no longer only about the 40 minute, two DVD installation process.
These sorts of initiatives pit Adobe against the likes of Google and Microsoft for delivering software-as-a-service value. It'll be interesting to see how far they take things.
It's also worth nothing that Adobe is investing heavily in establishing this ecosystem without a lot of near-term returns. Unlike Microsoft, which charges for both the ecosystem (the OS) and the tools, Adobe gives the OS (the Flash player and AIR effectively) away for free.
A Building Frenzy
Generally speaking, I was pretty amazed at how much Adobe has going on all at once. Some of it is compelling. Some of it you're left scratching your head a bit. Much of it is the fusing together of technologies that were previously separate before Adobe and Macromedia merged. In this regard, they feel a lot like Microsoft: betting on every number at the roulette table and just seeing what hits.
Executing On The RIA Vision
You have to give Adobe credit. They saw a vision of where media was evolving into richer, more interactive media. Where the static, klugey web would give way to richer more dynamic experiences. Where these experiences would finally become unshackled from the browser chrome. That vision is coming together as we speak and its impressive to watch a company the size of Adobe navigate towards this vision.
The Missing Ingredient
As a partner in a young services company that leverages many of Adobe's technologies, I see one piece of the puzzle missing: talent. The hack-and-get-away-with-it web developers are not invited to this party. The complexity of the RIA world coupled with the pace at which Adobe is moving ahead is leaving (at least from where I'm sitting) a serious talent drought that is materially reducing the pace at which the ecosystem can evolve. The tools need to keep getting better...and easier. The Adobe OS's biggest competitor is Ajax, not because its better but because it is closer to the web application building experience that most enjoy today.
Generally speaking, it was a good time. We met some interesting people and learned some new things. It's fun to see this community forming around all these new technologies, especially the bringing together of design and software development backgrounds into a single "space" where we're all both experts in some ways and novices in others.
Now let's sit back and see what comes out of this world...
Posted by Richard Ziade on October 1, 2007, 02:17PMApple Knows Best
Since the iPhone's release, hackers have been pecking away to try to unlock the power of Apple's little portable computer. iPhones could be fake activated (so you can use the Wifi capabilities and iPod features), homebrew and custom applications can be installed, and your iPhone can be "unlocked" to allow it to work with other SIM cards.
By now, everyone is aware of Apple's latest iPhone firmware update and what it does to hacked or unlocked iPhones. If your iPhone is hacked and you throw down update 1.1.1, your hacks and installed applications will no longer work. If your phone is unlocked and using another carrier, it apparently wreaks havoc.
The motivation for targeting unlocked iPhones is pretty straightforward: Apple shares service revenue with AT&T and is contractually obligated to keep other carriers off the iPhone.
The motivation behind breaking the hacking/custom apps on the iPhone is not so clear. Also, it's pissed a lot of people off. Gizmodo is not recommending that people purchase the iPhone. So the question begs to be asked: why would Apple break applications that make the iPhone more valuable to its customers?
I see two possible answers to the above question:
- Apple didn't intentionally try to break anything. I don't know a lot about the software cycle process for portable devices, but I'm guessing its not a cakewalk. Unlike computers, the tolerance level for a phone crashing or not functioning properly is extremely low. Apple has enough to worry about in dealing with software updates. They simply can't commit resources to make certain the iPhone will continue to support a constantly changing software ecosystem that is outside of their control.
- Apple seeks to maintain total control of the iPhone experience. The iPhone is an inspiring piece of technology. It's powerful, intuitive and is the product of enormous control exerted over the software and hardware design process. You can't create an experience that good without exerting that kind of control. If Apple chose to, even passively, allow the homebrew community to flourish, the result would be less control in Apple's hands.
Reason 2 is intriguing to me. In many ways, it highlights a rarely cited reality in design: most people aren't good at it. The iPhone is not the product of a democratic process. It's the outcome of the labors of a team of extremely talented designers, architects and developers.
If you stop and look at Apple's development and design guidelines for OSX, the need for control is there as well. Just about every OSX application shares a common aesthetic and flow. Apple aggressively enforces and recommends design "guidelines."
So stated in a less than friendly manner: Apple doesn't want other people mucking up their stuff. "Thanks, but no thanks" is the message. Taken to its end, this is about their lack of faith in democracy. Apple believes Apple knows best...and in many ways, they do.
This highlights another seemingly obvious-yet-not-so-obvious trait of Apple: they care about their customers more than they care about developers. I'm guessing the great majority of people (95%? - I'd be interested if there are statistics out there) don't know about nor have even heard of the iPhone hacking scene. They've got their iPhone and iTunes and that's it.
Reasons 1 and 2 above speak to Apple's true loyalty. While there are a lot of great applications written for the iPhone, nobody knows (or much cares about) SSH or IRC. Nor they want anything to do with "Jailbreaking" their iPhone. They just want it to work as advertised.
As designers, we all know about the dreaded "design by committee." Design's inherent subjectivity can quickly turn a tightly-focused effort into an ugly free-for-all. The reality is tough and somewhat unfriendly: it's hard to democratize a vision. While we want to invite all sorts of stakeholders to the party, the outcome is rarely good and oftentimes bad.
This leads back to the title of this blog entry: does Apple know best? Based on their track record, they probably do. People love their products because they design great products. They don't ask for feedback. They don't have betas. They don't do the focus group thing (at least that I know of).
It's a design dictatorship. Their products just show up, all polished and ready for sale. Version 1.0 and ready for consumption. And the customers, not the developers, vote on their success. And as long as Apple keeps succeeding, they'll hold onto that power.