Leaves of code

Artware

2011-11-14T22:47:00.000-08:00

I often mull over the question of artistry and development in the dimmer parts of the night when my software designs feel especially uninspired or vapid. I find myself in an endless logical loop between two points:

1) Software exists to solve specific problems
2) Art exists to vaguely question

This simplification is, I think an accurate assessment of a logical hole in Steve Job’s explanation that Apple’s design is ‘the intersection between the liberal arts and technology.’ Something that is true only in so much that Apple designed software that solved artists problems. It wasn’t art itself.

Tools are not Art

Tools are not art, they exist for functionality. They may have craftsmanship which, over the course of history, is eventually considered artistry, but if they were designed for use at inception they are not an explicit form of artistic expression.

I’d guess most developers would agree with me at this point. When I talk with devs they get excited by big problems, and the equally big (or elegantly small) solutions they have created to solve them. Vaguely questioning the purpose of humanity is not even on the map. They might admire the craftsmanship or ingenuity of their solution, but it is doubtful they would call it a definitive statement in the great dialog of the liberal arts.

What does software gain, if anything, from artistry

Human expression can be many things, efficient or inefficient, beautiful or ugly, functioning or broken, specific or vague. All these can be attributed to a work of art and, for better or worse, not detract from defining it art.

Tools do not enjoy such luxury: a broken tool or a tool that does not perform its intended function is no tool at all. A tool lacking in any specificity -- not created out of a need to accomplish or otherwise fix a problem -- isn’t.

So what does software gain from art? Poets, in their abstract efficiency, can’t teach a coder new tricks, because development is built on specificity, and a coder can’t use a juxtaposed metaphor to get around a specific need.

A designer, while often drawing on artistry to create textures and type, is a slave to the functionality of their system. While they may inject some whimsy into their designs, ultimately they are researching the science of human-machine interface, not holding a mirror up to society.

The social web is art

Would a social network qualify? Consider what it does -- it is a reflection of its participants in context of their community through metaphorical mapping of our relationships. It records human expression en-masse through still images, text and video. It houses expressions, desires, and hopes in the form of ‘likes’.

It could be, in some sense, the fulfillment of Warhol’s art factory -- a joint project of many voices, constantly producing, to arrive at a yet to be known statement.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google many other social systems may qualify under these same lines as well. While the constructs themselves, upheld by servers and software, are not art, the final product: the recording of the human condition on a mass scale, is.

In the a coming series of posts, I’ll explore each of these networks from art critics perspective. What does Facebook tell us about ourselves, how does Google question community and what if anything is beautiful about Twitter.

And, are they any good?

The problem of abandonment and the value of endurance

2011-08-30T16:16:00.000-07:00

When I found out HP was abandoning the hard work of the WebOS team by ditching its associated tablet my heart sank. When I then read on to see that HP was (dimly) lighting a future of consulting and enterprise technology I became infuriated. So many companies seem to quickly swerve with an intial product launch failure without calculating the brand destruction caused by such a brash action.

Abandoning your product is abandoning your brand

When a big brand abandons consumer technology to get into the enterprise space they might as well waved the white flag of surrender. They are basically broadcasting, ‘Yes we don’t get it, so we’ll get into a meta-sales space where we pretend consumers don’t really matter.’ Yes, IBM succeeded by slowly winding down its consumer products and moving fully into the enterprise space, but that was a controlled evolution – not an impulsive U-turn. Besides, copying your soon-to-be direct competitor is about the worst strategy for entry to market.

Quit kidding yourself HP, your problem isn’t the consumer space, your problem is that what you just did: abandoned a major product merely a month after its release – annihilating years of research, development, manufacturing labor and man hours. You just lit a big pile of money on fire in front of the entire technology world, and then acted like it wasn’t a big deal. Now you want to tell my business what we should be doing?

Here’s a lesson: Abandonment is a big deal. When you abandon something quickly, it tells your peers you lack the follow-through and self confidence to value the hard work of thousands of individuals. You broadcast to your customers (yes enterprise and consumer) that you’ll bail the second something looks like it might not work and you lack the initiative and character to fix something.

Endurance is the core of brand strength

It speaks deeply about your corporate culture. It says you believe innovation is cheap, an accident that happens when you throw a few things against the wall. That ideas come out of thin air and don’t require real world success to prove.

Ask any of your engineers, innovation is not cheap and it is certainly not easy. It’s a long evolution of refinement and failure. It’s a test of endurance. You know what would have been a far smarter move? Choosing to endure the initial failure of WebOS in order to realize the possible future tablets in the enterprise space.

Many people seem to praise brands like Apple and BMW for their astounding success in the consumer product space, but they also regularly fail to apply the basic principals of their success.

1) Long term R&D

2) Investment in talent from various skillsets

3) Evolution of simple products over a long period of time, followed by brief revolutionary steps

These things are not difficult to grasp. Make a simple product for a market need, research the hell out of it, and then release it. If it fails, its likely due to a small calibration error rather than a massive misunderstanding of the product. Your research and hard work will prove worth the cycles of iteration and eventually breed success.

Every line in its right place

2011-07-11T18:44:00.000-07:00

I live in a tiny house, its approximately 550 square feet and wonderful. I’ve lived in a lot of different homes over the course of my life, in many different places. I’ve inhabited sprawling suburban mansions, minuscule dorm rooms, cramped 300 square foot studios (with a roommate), and now in a microhouse. In most of those places I was disorganized, messy individual. It wasn’t until I acquired a brand new, well compartmentalized home that I began to get organized. And that did a funny thing to me, it started organizing my code too.

Organized, compact living affects your thought

I don’t know how the rest of you think, by my thoughts wander around the room. A space can quickly become crowded with my thinking and I need to step outside. A cave of a dorm room was sometimes effective at trapping my thoughts and forcing me to process them in time for late night deadlines. In those days, the items I needed, food, books, fuel, computers -- were all within arms reach. I essentially let a pile of efficiency develop the diameter of my arms. I knew a lot of other students who lived this way too. This centrifuge was great for getting things done -- but not for getting things done elegantly.

When I lived in large spaces my thoughts ran freely and I found them difficult to pin down. They could inhabit all the rooms in a house or fly right out the window an on into the sky. This was wonderful for relaxing, but not very helpful when it came to getting things done. For that I often found myself wandering down into the basement, thinking in a dark, cramped space.

Letting thoughts wander the space

For the most part, I script your standard web languages, design, and on occasion dive into development languages like ObjectiveC to better understand my iPad apps.

In my new home layout, I have a separated bedroom, so I don’t sleep where I work. I have kitchen that is shared with a living room, but the spaces are distinct. Again, I don’t work, sleep, or eat in the same space. I also have a deck, perfectly for letting my thoughts float away when they get to dense.

I’ve found that these open but distinct spaces allow to to focus when I’m scripting, designing or developing. I files my code away neatly, just like the elements of my life are filed away nicely in each compartment of my home.

More than just growing up

It could be that as I get older I’ve learned to be more responsible in the way I live and also in the way I code, but I have the distinct feeling its more than that.

The spaces we work in do matter. Our thoughts wander throughout them and mimic what we see around us. Why else did the romantics wander nature, or the realist set their work in the dank, cramped cities of the early-century, or the modernists on sparse planes of existence. The settings we choose for our bodies affect the output of our minds.

Designing on the iPad for the iPad

2011-07-05T19:30:00.000-07:00

I decide to do something slightly radical last month and I haven't turned back since. I began doing all the UI design for my iPad apps on my iPad. It's been such a breath of fresh air that I'm going to recommend it to everyone. In fact I will go so far as to say, you should design everything for a touch interface within a touch interface.

Touching your designs

All of you know what I mean when I say you can 'feel' designs on a touch screen. It's that hint of something you sense when a texture or a pattern is interpreted through your eyes and on down to your fingers. It's a cognitive dissonance that makes sense of the otherwise perfectly smooth touchscreen. This, more than anything else, seems to be the most important part of designing for a tablet. So why oh why would you ruin that experience by designing your interface with a mouse and keyboard.

Realtime testing

The most important part of this process, which has dramatically sped up my prototyping and spec period, is that I can create something that works on the screen I'm working with. What I mean is, I needed to do my designs on my MacBook Pro, then dropbox them to the iPad to see if the dimensions were appropriate for fingers. When designing on the iPad, I don't need to offload for visual testing, I'm already on it.

Don't underestimate what this does for the creative process. When I'm creating UI element, I can visually test it as I'm creating it, going through hundreds of eyeballed variations in a minute or two. I would have never taken the time to tweak these elements so finely if I was constantly interrupted by uploading it to another device.

It's a sketchbook that goes with you

I can't take a 28 inch screen everywhere with me, for that matter I can't take a 15 inch one with me everywhere either. But a 10 inch screen, I can work on my deck, on the sofa, out in nature. I can even photograph textures on a hike, upload them to my iPad and play with them for a UI element right there -- or wait until I get home. It's the modern sketchbook that scales to a powerful design and drafting tool.

This is astounding new feature for creative computing work. An artist can record their observations, apply them, and test them, in minutes -- on site. No waiting to go home and losing the inspiration, just an immediate, powerful impression right then and there.

Also, it's just better

Let's face it, drawing with your fingers is far easier than drawing with a mouse. What's that you say, you need precision editing? Pinch and zoom in and you've got it. Wait, you say you need a stylus? Pick from one of the many already available for the iPad and draw right on your screen. Be careful, once you've tried it, your liable never to go back to that expensive desktop.

Apps are gradually changing everything

It wasn't until iDraw was available for the iPad that I was able to do this. Up until that point Illustrator and Photoshop were my only design options. But now that a nine dollar app is here to solve that, I no longer use those expensive other guys. I've quit them, cold turkey.
This doesn't bode well for Adobe. But it bodes very well for the rest of us, cheaper apps that let many of us do more, far more easily. It's a great time to be computing.

We need a programming language for the rest of us

2011-06-13T16:40:00.000-07:00

Recently I took on the enormous task of learning Objective-C from the bottom up and I was struck by something I couldn’t shake: this is too hard. An experienced developer might scoff at me for saying that, but it’s true. I’ll be honest about my education, Calculus II was the most math I ever took, I have an advanced degree from Berkeley in Journalism. I am a proficient HTML/CSS developer and can glue enough javascript together to solve almost any problem that has presented itself. My first encounter with C was at a community college when I was 13, and found the syntax so repetitive and purposefully obscure that I hid from it for years.

Now, many years later trying to restart, you might accuse me of not trying hard enough, but that simply isn’t true – I’ll continue plugging away at Objective-C until I’m functionally competent. However, I can’t but help that C is a syntax which refuses scalable learning and hides behind overly complex system.

Shield of Complexity

Saying C is too complex betrays that it takes a very specific syntax to define all the functions (or possible functions) of a computer. I acknowledge that its specificity is required to interact with hardware across many platforms, but learning C shouldn’t have to be a bottom up affair. I want to start with the big ideas and make my way down, and I suspect I am not alone. I can’t help but think a language founded by PhD’s suffers from the ‘shield of complexity’. In other words, those who know it have little interest in simplifying it as it devalues their own knowledge.

This is an unsustainable attitude in a society so tightly integrated with technology, where code is growing to the importance of literacy.

It can be easier if we just had better code grocery stores

I was struck recently while I was at the grocery store with my girlfriend, ruffling through stacks of fresh fruits and vegetables to find all the ingredients for a meal. Why can’t coding be more like this? I thought, more like picking ingredients for a meal. Learning C is like learning the genetic sequencing of a tomato. While it certainly is required for the tomato to exist, I don’t need to be familiar with it to slice it and put it together with a list of ingredients. It’s outside the resolution of knowledge required for preparing a meal.

On top of that, if every would-be chef needed to know the genetic sequence of a tomato before he or she constructed a meal, they’d probably never get around to the cooking. In fact, they’d probably never become a chef in the first place, because they, naturally, would not have been a very good geneticist.

Libraries, code-bases, and other niche hangouts aren’t enough

What I’m talking about is beyond some visual basic for the new age or a wysiwyg for C, but a natural language syntax which calls on object libraries within C which form a simpler foundation for learning.
As programs become an increasingly essential part of our day to day lives, we need to help kids learn code which will aid them for the rest of their lives. Mandating that they learn highly advanced mathematical skills mixed with a non-natural linguistics (asterisks as pointers, period condensed syntax, c’mon!) just is not realistic. It’s keeping curious children from learning the basic skills which they could later build on if they get as far as multivariable calculus. In the meantime, the rest of us could benefit from a programming language which doesn’t require years to learn. In short, we need a language for those of us who are skilled in fields other than mathematics. We need a language which embraces a more natural syntax (yes its possible) and a language which allows junior developers to both define and script without using a term-base which has grown to an astronomical size. Have you looked at the number of method calls in all the various branches of C lately?

Making code as simple as possible is charity for the rest of us

Can the complex branches of C be condensed into a series of objects which can be strung together using natural language? I think so, but for the moment it’s far beyond my ability. I do know that we cannot continue down a path of increasingly complexity in programming languages, if only that it will eventually become impenetrable to all but the most dedicated users. This artificial barrier will keep the expression of thousands or maybe millions of voices from reaching users.

Startups need to solve problems, not boredom

2011-06-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

This may seem obvious, but for some reason, when I survey the list of recent startups I see in the Valley, I can’t help but wonder what the hell they are thinking. What I’m talking about is beyond the old adage 'a solution in search of a problem'. This is more serious. This is an enormous number of startups focusing on one infinite black hole of a single ‘problem’: boredom. This is a shame for two reasons: 1) boredom is not a problem – it is a motivator; and 2) since boredom is not a problem, it cannot be solved for – only procrastinated. This makes boredom an incredibly tempting target for entrepreneurs, because we can all procrastinate. And on top of that, boredom seems to be solvable, according to the Valley, with only one tired tactic – endless communication.

There are plenty of other problems

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that we don’t need another communications platform to inundate us with a never-ending stream of user-generated content. There are a lot of great ones today, and I’m sure a few more great ones will exist in the future, but it should not be the majority focus of Silicon Valley when so many other problems exist in the fabric of our society.

To list a few that pertain to the United States:

A degrading education system
A struggling job allocation structure
A stagnant, opaque political environment
A growing divide between deep skills (economics, science, philosophy, art)
An autistic digital business environment relying on marketing
War

Software is not merely communication, it's philosophy in action

If I were to venture a guess, it would be that many entrepreneurs think of the internet as a vast communications network, rather than a software-hosting ecosystem that can communicate. They function with a deeply ingrained marketing assumption that intercepting and redirecting interpersonal communication is the ultimate way to invigorate commerce. They are wrong or perhaps simply inadequate.

The ultimate way to invigorate commerce is to make a great product that introduces a new, intrinsic value to a consumer’s life.

This may be an overstatement. Commerce can be invigorated through logical categorization, self-selection and a variety of other things, but an economy cannot function on these alone. What, if anything, are they selling? If it's products and services, I’ll give you a tip: the space is owned. And even if you are able to tip over one of the giants, you’ll be one in a million. The energy of the rest of the nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine would be better spent creating products and services to sell, rather than increasingly convoluted marketing platforms masquerading as social networks.

How do you do that? Think of software as philosophy in action. When you code using an object-based language, you create libraries that define a universe. When you script, you order your created universe into an extremely malleable environment, limited only by your libraries and the input of users. This is a universe that runs, whether you realize it or not, on your own philosophy. Objects are what you call them, and they do what you tell them. A user who engages with a compiled version of your language is submitting themselves to your structure.

Tools are productive philosophies

In case you haven’t figured it out, I’m talking about tools that help individuals create. This isn’t about ‘creating’ pithy tweets or ‘building’ profiles. This is about developing software that passively and actively teaches users to organize and discipline their thinking into more productive structures. The definition of ‘productive’ is up to you, and I think changes based on a relative environment, but that is the goal. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I’d hope for many different software tools that promote dueling or even contradictory philosophies.

Why communication is not always productive

Communication is not productive when it is relative only to other communication. Re-tweeting is not productive; it is replication. Using a tool to create an organized structured element, which can be communicated, is productive. But fundamentally, when an ecosystem becomes mostly about self-promoted communication and replication, it is no longer productive and eventually loses its value. When a community has a strong foundation of productivity, augmented by communication, its value will grow.

I have spent time working on productive tools and communication products, both supporting and designing them. I work now with the hope that my tools for the iPad, my philosophies enacted through software, will help children learn (I’m focusing on educating right now). They might not, they might fail, or they could succeed. Whether or not I produce wealth from them, I will teach through them, imprinting systems that will affect the way children see the world around them through how they write. I take that responsibility very seriously and so should you.

Sony’s problem is memes, not security

2011-06-04T17:24:00.000-07:00

I often think of memes as an astonishingly powerful, abstract force that flows through individuals on the internet and in real life with a shocking fluency. Within a surprisingly brief period, a 4chan meme can become a joke played on the world's stage. It reminds me of the wind, a force of innumerable particles smashing into each other in a massive wavelength, which eventually results in a brief gust that trails through a field of wheat. If watched closely, it turns and spins, wanders about, and moves in a generally unpredictable manner in a confined sense. Of course, we know there is a system that causes this abstract motion, pushing the wheat down into undulated patterns, known as particle theory. Strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces cause particles to exchange gluons, bosons, photos and mysterious gravitons by the gazillions, resulting in a light puff of invisibleness. Or a strong puff of destruction.

Regardless, the wind is, like memes, functionally invisible -- observable only through its interactions with other objects.

I think memes are also influenced by observable fundamental forces: humor, sexiness, sadness, outrage, fear and cuteness. It might seem a bit absurd to compare sexiness to strong nuclear force or gravity, but those who disagree might take a moment to rethink exactly how powerful these forces are on the arrow of human history. These elementals prod humans to pass on items strongly charged, and as they pass them on, a social wavelength develops.

Social wavelengths are not new. Revolutions, movements in modern thought, love, etc. have all commoditized them to achieve physical goals. But not since the internet have they moved with such speed, and in such surprising hybrid forms. And much like scientists toiling away at Hadron colliders, marketers, artists and programmers define the elementals of social wavelengths.

Sony has no excuse

So with the resources Sony has toiling away in marketing labs, it has no excuse for being so utterly terrible at managing its memes. For years now, Sony has conjured up an image of arrogant stupidity in the world of meme-makers. First it was humor, with the ‘massive damage’ meme; then anger, when it removed features from its Playstation 3 console, and finally pursued legal prosecution of a meme folkhero, Geohot, for opening up Playstation’s closed firmware. Sony might have thought these moves didn’t do much damage to their general market, but how likely do you think it is that the hackers in this case were at least partially motivated by the irritating and inconsiderate tactics of the multinational company? In fact, the entire thing reeks of a revenge case for the lulz.

It’s not karma, it's stupidity that charges forces

This isn’t some karmic force where Sony got what it deserved. There are plenty of companies that will get away with far worse and never see this type of public retribution. It’s the fact that Sony did not recognize the rules of elemental memes and, on occasion, misused them. This is easy fodder for charging individuals with a dangerous combination of humor and outrage. Now, as Sony rolls on the floor with shut-down services, it is repeatedly kicked by noncooperative hackers who share in a memetic hatred for the company's mismanaged internet image.

As Sony falls to hack after hack, looking increasingly incompetent on the public stage, it might consider simply learning to admit when it is defeated. Fighting to keep its system closed, to keep users from doing something as innocuous as installing Linux on their hardware, is not worth the trouble at this point. Learn when the winds have changed, and go with it.

Creating a healthy design from cells

2011-05-29T00:27:00.000-07:00

In the last post, I talked briefly on using fractals to define a fundamental space to built a multi-platform adaptable UI. As I established, this is the most efficient way to serve content or services via the web with the coming platform agnostic ecosystem. Now that we have this cell, we can begin designing a tissue structure to navigate.

Life is flexible, UI should be too

Design in the earliest stages was a function of inflexible definitions. In the print era, by its very nature, designs were a one-time fixed run. Design a page, print it, and you were done. Rather than point to the loud, muscular designs of modern magazines, I’d point to the designers behind some of the most famous naturalist authors. Wind in the Willows, Peter Rabbit, and Winnie the Pooh told rich tales with chunks of large text interspersed with gracefully painted images. And once they were printed, they became rules set in stone.

In the digital era design, we are forced to be more flexible. Unlike books, which were printed and then distributed, the ‘printing’ process of a UI or content exists on the user end. Control is not subject to a guaranteed set of rules (e.g. browser) nor even now, a device.

Adopting the metaphor of a fundamental design cell to fit into every possible form enables a complex UX to develop without worry that it will not adapt healthily to whatever environment it might be viewed in.

Scaling cell designs with layered data

A set of square cells will fit on a cell phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, television and projector. However, each of these palettes invites a user to interact with the cells differently. For example, when a scrolling column of cells is viewed on a phone, only two cells might be on a screen at any given time. This invites the user to interact closely with the cells on an individual level. On a tablet, two columns could fit, with as many as six or more cells. On a desktop, several more could appear as a function of the resolution. On a 1080p television, as many as a hundred cells would appear.

How a user would interact with these design cells on the phone would be dramatically different than how they would interact with a group of 50 or 100 cells together. One invites direct interaction, while the other invites an overview.

Cells that adapt to their environment

So lets create an example. Each cell has two elements that define it: text and color. On a phone, a user would interact with each cell, reading and manipulating the text (inputting data). On a television, the user would be unlikely to read the text, as it is very small and overly dense with so many cells on the screen. Rather, the user would look for symbolic interaction through a variable color on the cell. A red cell would alert the user to needed attention, while a green cell could inform the user that the unit is working, but not in need of attention. Grey could inform the user that the function of the cell is currently dormant. Gradients of green to red could also be established to show a varying degree of function. A cell could show these attributes on any device, scaling the usability of the cells. A high resolution television output would allow for a ‘strategic view’ or a heat map, and a cell phone would allow for detailed information analysis and manipulation. This way, the fundamental UI both scales and takes advantage of the native strengths of each palette.

Interface design using fractals

2011-05-25T23:26:00.000-07:00

A short time ago, I was challenged by a mobile development group to outline an interface that would eliminate their dependence on native apps, and allow for one web-based solution for their (not insignificant) SaaS. It needed to function in a similar fashion on any device, regardless of screen resolution or interface. My solution: recursive squares.

The problem of multi-platform interface

The problem in our new multiplatform hardware ecosystem is simple. For each new rectangularly-inclined computing device that launches – phone, tablet, desktop, television or projector – a new way of interacting with information arises. Simple scaling of interfaces does not work for obvious reasons; fonts, buttons and so forth become too small or too large depending on the device. The logical solution is to develop a native app designed particularly for the nuances of each device's screen size and input. Unfortunately, in a real world scenario where software updates, wave releases and general support take an enormous amount of money and man-hours, it is unlikely that any but the most wasteful development teams would support the projected software ecosystem required to maintain this type of compatibility. Beyond that, the fragmented UI that would develop from such a targeted approach would hinder users drifting from device to device smoothly. A workflow on a desktop computer would suddenly be different on a tablet and again on a phone.

In order to efficiently support a multi-platform environment, and to a lesser extent, maintain a consistent UI for a Webware SaaS, a single universal interface solution must be devised.

The natural solution

In order to find the simplest possible solution to this problem, we can overlay each anticipated interactive space in order to derive a fundamental UI element to build an architecture.

The result is a rough approximation of the Fibonacci sequence, ignoring DPI and exact scale and focusing only on aspect ratios (perceived scales are relative to the user-device distance anyway). Extrapolating one step further regressively provides a small square.

This square is the lowest common denominator among all three devices and will fit, in some combination, into all three. This is an information space that should form the fundamental building block of the interface and data display for a multiplatform SaaS.

In my next post, I will outline how this relates to interaction distance and points out how fractals can usefully layer data for many display types.

Animal search patterns and why bad UI can be good

2011-05-24T20:46:00.000-07:00

I think there is a good case for bad UI*. In fact, if you are a text content provider, I believe bad UI might be your greatest asset. However, Let me define what I think good UI is first, or at least how its often perceived. I'll define good UI – or perfect UI – as the simplest way to find and ingest information or execute a predetermined task, in the briefest period of time. It’s a basic definition; good UI is easy and fast. So to invert this, bad UI would be hard and slow, though not broken.

I think bad UI can prove especially useful and even delightful in certain circumstances. But in order to talk about that, we need to talk about the perfect UI: Search.

Levy Search Pattern

There is an important phenomenon that you can observe by attaching a GPS device to an animal and tracking its path as it searches for food. Over the course of a short period an obscure, squiggly circle with some tight knots in it will appear. This circle can at first glance, appear random, but in reality it actually has a bit of logic to it. It’s called a Levy search pattern and it’s the subject of a great deal of research among certain biologists and mathematicians.

It is the result of process known as intermittent locomotion, or from an animal stopping their movement, reassessing, and starting again in a new direction for varying distances. The finer path movements are also the result of limited perception, external stimuli, topography, and many other things but the importance of all this is: Levy search patterns have been found to be measurably more efficient than a grid based search pattern and are even more effective when interspersed with Brownian (random-ish) patterns. In other words, searching randomly or without and overarching structure can be more effective than using a linear plan.

Direct search

Google, undisputed overlord of the search, would beg to differ. Their crown jewel is not a levy search pattern, but rather a direct line between two points. Type in a search and in the vast majority of cases, click the first link listed to go to the intended destination. This is, by my earlier definition, the closest example of perfect UI I have encountered and its by this technique that Google has engulfed the over 90 percent of search market. It is practically the UI paradigm for the internet.

The price of not wandering

When using Google, a search is not the same as searching. In fact using a Google search is more akin to charting on a map. In its most ideal form Google is directing you around a map of the internet in which robots have already done the cartography. The user is following UI instructions based on the most direct route between two points generated by an algorithm. And its an instantaneous route, a wormhole.

So whats the problem with this?

Genuine searching is dependent on exploration. It requires that the searcher not know the entire region, but rather explore it to eventually arrive at an intended destination.

Exploration is not instantaneous but it is delightful and, I think, healthy.

Bad UI, good exploration

TVtropes is a wiki with a terrible UI. It has barely any nav links and no large categories. Its not broken, per-say, just not very search friendly, and certainly not organized in a predictable, intuitive manner. Instead, the site relies almost entirely on a series of self-referential contextual links. While navigating in this manner, the user is unlikely to know where they are relative to any other content, nor have a picture of the architecture of the content as a whole... but I doubt they would care. Instead ‘tropers’ as they are refered to jump link to link, constantly consuming content which interests them at the moment. If you were too attach a ‘GPS’ unit to a tropers pathway through the site, I’d suspect it would look a bit like a Levy search pattern, circling back on itself, then setting off in a new direction. This yields a wonderful thing -- an enormous amount of time spent engaging with content on the site.

In the digital world, where an any region on the internet can be known, a user can utilize search to jump instantly between any intended point. Exploring is then rendered logically worthless, except when users are looking for a more fulfilling experience than simple knowledge aggregation can provide.

Content producers and exploration

This is why Google eats the lunch of every news site on the web. It is a universal UI which works to instantly skip readers from any intended destination to another. News sites derived from newspapers, depend and assume the serendipitous activity akin to their paper counterparts. This is why so many were keen to adopt a native app model on tablets, a way to disaggregate their content from Googles UI wormholes. However, many have now eventually surrendered to Google's UI and play to their algorithm hoping that good SEO will turn enough readers their way. That is probably a necessary evil for the time being, but I'd suggest something a bit more radical once users have slid onto a content site. Do your best to get them lost, and then entice them to explore through great content and 'bad' UI. Don't emphasize a users ability to visualize an entire site, but instead focus them on the content stream and link them through a path. This exploration, or true searching, will be both rewarding to the reader and ultimately for the publisher as well.

* I am using purposefully blurring the line between UI and UX here. I also am aware that I am using UI in more a navigational paradigm rather than a tool-based SaaS paradigm.

Planting design, for growth

2011-05-22T18:57:00.001-07:00

I’m going to put my foot down and say that the simplest blog is best, but I’d like to explain a little about creating a simple blog, a simple communications platform, and a simple way to share ideas. And a caveat.

Growing life, not Astroturf

First of all, communication is not easy. Launching a blog is easy, and easier with each successive platform launched today, but communication is not easy. While weaving well-written posts under a personal brand, while keeping in mind search-ability, mobile compatibility, platform scalability, and while pursuing ‘good looks’, many well intentioned products get lost in a convoluted design. Widgets and ‘interactive elements’ sprinkled around a page, doing little but filling space.

When a producer wants to begin work on a new product, they often have a long list of features which are designed to solve for each one of these problems. However, a producer (and the developer) can fall into the trap of creating a new feature for every percieved problem. This presents its own, larger problem. Even if each feature is well designed, well executed, and simple, en masse features begin to overwhelm the product purpose. Tweet trackers, featured articles, comment promotion, media management – by the time it is completed, it has already collapsed under its own scale. That’s not yet mentioning the manpower that needs to go into properly curating or creating new content for each of the features which intend to engage the audience.

The result is a planned community lined with astroturf in the midst of the desert.

Simple seeds

The simplest form of web communication is text. It’s not always the best, it’s often the fastest, but it is most definitely the simplest. Pictures are nice, they can be fast, but they are certainly not simple to produce. Videos are difficult, expensive, slow, and have a low potential for viewership – on occasion, they can be great. Mostly videos are not simple – they are cumbersome. Other interactive elements I will address later. For some products, like SaaS, obviously interaction is the core of the product. This presents a different model I will address in several dedicated posts.

So text is the best place to start, the best chance to grow. It solves a great deal of problems with one, very malleable feature: readability.

Growing and eventually pruning

If you happen to plant seed in good earth, water it with plenty of text, maybe fertilize it with some social promotion, and give it time you can, just maybe, see something grow. What it grows into is very much a matter of what you planted, and to a lesser extent a matter of how you prune it.

Wild-lands (4Chan)
Seed planted in very fertile earth, 4chan is a simple forum which is allowed to grow, nearly unregulated. As with any wild-land, it poses very real dangers. It is messy and overgrown in almost every sense of the word. The ecosystem flourishes from seed blown in from all corners of the earth. It is free and adventurous. You will encounter new ideas in wild-lands that you may never see in any other part of your life. They are not always bad.

Unkempt meadows (Digg)
Again, the product of fertile earth, unkempt meadows are mostly free ecosystems with some natural limitations imposed on the inhabitants. Digg allows users to self-regulate through a karma system, which generally puts everyone on an even level – much like a meadow. Seed is blown in, but also carried in by the native wildlife. When healthy, seed becomes self propagating. While these places are prone to creating beautiful content on occasion, the ecosystems limitations do not sprout dramatic growth and much like meadows, are predictable. Sudden changes to theecosystem (redesigns) are akin to wildfires and can suddenly destroy them.

Farmland (Nytimes.com)
This is healthy earth that has been tilled, and planted to produce a predictable crop. Farmland exists so both the producer and the audience knows exactly what to expectand how to interact with the content. The New York Times produces predictable, commodity-like, growth which is consumed regularly by a constant set of readers. Seed is provided by professionals.

Perfectly mowed lawns [or golf courses] (McKinsey Quarterly)
Highly controlled, authorized, and sometimes premium, ecosystems which produce content for a very specialized user. Comments are regulated and approved, sometimes even edited by administrators who watch carefully to control the appearance of the land. Only what is planned will grow.

Astroturf (Branded blogs)
This is ultra controlled, purpose-built, fake life which is created to appear as an ecosystem. In reality it is fake, plastic, plant-like images which have been layered on top of any surface. Brands use these to create the appearance of a community for marketing purposes. There is no seed. Often more fertile unkempt meadows or even farmland exists around the brand as well, simply outside of the control of the parent company.

Much like a real ecosystem, a product can go through stages which resemble any one of these. Farmland can decay into wild-land once it is no longer catered to by farmers, and unkempt meadows can be tilled over and turn into farmland a producer believes they are ready.

Starting out: grow what you know

Find good earth (subject matter) in areas you know well, plant seed, and vigilantly watch over its growth. Prune as you see fit or as the ecosystem deems appropriate.

Here’s where I’ll share my caveat: this simple metaphor does not apply forever and can be ultimately constricting. For the rest of this blog, I will try to adapt simple, natural, solutions to complex software design problems – the systems we work with have grown to such a size that simplicity not an option. The designs, workflows, and executions are, by nature, complex and to reduce them would cripple their functionality. That being said, when problems arise in these complex systems, a strategy in its most reduced form often repairs the most, with the least amount of damage.