Im Back. But not back

I was on vacation last week, and just got home. But sadly I brought sickness with me.

I had a long talk with a friend (ben) while I was gone that started with the same old question about the “value of software” but soon moved to value in general.

We were at the “The Art of Shaving” store looking at finely designed razors when I asked the saleswoman if I could take a closer look at a razor they had showcased behind glass. I was expecting it to be light aluminum (the finish seemed to be) but was delighted to feel the weight of steel.

So as Ben and I talked while walking around in search for ice cream and creps, and  I mentioned this razor we had seen earlier that day. I was telling him how I was in search of weight in software, (You know, that extra sensory-nudge that adds value to the product) when ben moved it away from software completely. Ben had me take a step back and unknowingly ask myself “why is it that the weight gives the razor value?”. He then went on about how value is only in the eye of the beholder, and is only in the context of your life. The things you associate with value give an item value. But the item itself has no real value on its own. Things you don’t know, have no value to you, and so on.

So the perception of value, right? The razor felt more valuable because it was heavy. But weight is no more valuable than color, unless through society we associate it with value.

So my wedding ring. I looked at a lot of rings before I decided on one. What I got was a very inexpensive tungsten carbide steel band. To me it had 3 things I was looking for. The color, shine, and hardness. I didn’t want  it getting scratched, and I really like the color/look of polished steel. But the cost of it compared to any other metal used is nothing. If I got anything else, it wouldn’t have met the goal of the ring. But it lacks one thing needed to give it a higher price, right? Of course I speak of rarity. Platinum and gold are much rarer, and therefore have higher value, even though they scratch easily, and so on.

But what about palladium? Palladium is a precious metal 30 times rarer than gold. It shines and looks similar to platinum, but is less than a third of the cost of gold. So what we have is something that on paper should be of a much higher value, but isn’t because people don’t see the value in it as they do gold. This is known by Dan Ariely as “The Fallacy of Supply and Demand”

Granted, the weight of the razor played to my memories of weight equating quality, but this is very rarely actually the case, and if we look in the consumer electronics area, it is often is the complete opposite.

I think what happens is that we build personal dictionaries of overly simple ways of determining value in the objects we interact with. It allows us to make decisions about what we want without spending too much time hashing over it. And even though these dictionaries are ofter wrong, and many parts are actually dictated by society, we knowing accept this because it beats spending a week to make each decision. I know that steel is inexpensive, but I still get the feeling of quality.

We as designers use these commonalities about the perception of value all the time when working in the physical world. They help us craft better experiences for our users. So may the problem is just that software is too new, and our dictionaries are just empty.

Then the question becomes: How do we help build the perception of value around software?

it’s a service!

Ok, so just as I’m about to go to sleep last night, it hit me. TiVo is a service. Services are intangible, and the hardware items are just touch points.

So while you may love the service, the connection is with the intangible, and not with the touch points. I even said in the post that the hardware was generic. So it makes perfect sense that I wouldn’t feel attachment to it. After it stopped working, or the service is turned off, that part I love is gone. It’s not like I could keep it on my shelf if I wanted to.

What about my TiVo?

Have you ever used a TiVo? Not a DVR, but a real TiVo? This may be the best example of interaction design I can think of, and it has been under my nose for a good 10 years. (I got my first one when it was brand new).

The tivo is… Well to me it is a system. But let’s break this down. The tivo is a great remote, pretty generic hardware, software running on it, and a subscription service. But when you talk about it, you really are talking about the entire thing. I think regular DVR customers may not understand this, but if you replaced the remote with something generic, you just have a great DVR and lousy remote. If you replaced the software, you have a so so DVR with a great remote, and if you replaced the hardware or service, you have a tivo with an ugly box. I think most DVR owners think of the box as their DVR but tivo is the system not the item.

Just to note. The remote is not special. It does not do anything a normal remote SHOULD do, but it does do something most remotes do not do… work well, and allow you to use the system well.

So anyways… This could be software I really enjoy using, and actually rave about. It has actually made me hate watching regular tv.

But what is it about this that makes it so great to use? When watching live tv, it is completely transparent. Changing channels is actually made easier, as you can read what is on other channels before you leave that one. I haven’t channel surfed since I bought it. But really, when it comes down to it, it is the fact that hitting that tivo button at the top of my remote brings me to a list of the shows I want to watch, and have been recorded for me that makes it great. (I know other DVRs do this too)

So when I turn on the tv, im not doing so because I want to watch just anything, Im turning it on because I want to watch something I like. And tivo turns my tv into something that does just that. So in the end the tivo, actually just makes my tv a better tv, and that’s why I love it.

But… doing this is half the battle. Now that we have enabled the experience, we cant ruin it. We need to ensure follow through for that experience reflection. So this is where the the typical DVR tends to break down. When you begin to watch your show, the tivo software disappears and the tv takes over until you see something you want to see again or a commercial comes on and you want to skip it. Tivo went through such great lengths to make sure that this works so well, you will never notice it.

Fast forwarding on a tivo has three settings of speed as many other systems. But it is when you hit play again that this really shines. Tivo knows that you hit play not when you know the commercials about to end, but when you see the show has started up again. So instead of leaving you a few seconds into the show, it actually jumps back a few seconds knowing your reaction time is not perfect. So when you hit play again, you see maybe the last 2 seconds of that last commercial, and never miss the show. It is these subtle polished areas that make tivo shine.

To recap… What is it that makes it so great? It gets out of my way when I want it to, helps me accomplish my goal faster and easier than without it, enables a better experience, and doesn’t ruin it in the middle.

But sadly, with it being so great, I have had several, and have upgraded through the years.

I still feel no attachment to it.

————————————————————

If you are interested in physical electronic products, and why we lack connection to them, I highly recommend following Matt Cottam – http://www.openarts.org/matt/

Did I miss the point?

A few posts ago I wrote about wanting software that was as nice to use as a great steak knife. But last night I was out with a friend, and after talking it over with him, I think I may have missed the point, or what really happened.

Donald Norman talked about three ways we experience products: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Visceral: being your initial feelings about the object, behavioral: using the object, and reflective: your memory about the object.

Well looking back at the steak knife, I believe I assumed that it was the steak knife that I was impressed with. But I paid no attention to its build, its weight, hold, material or anything that would fall under the visceral. When I started the use, it was just another knife. But in its use, the experience it allowed, transformed the knife into something great.

Objects rarely have value attached to them without some sort of physical interaction. Diamonds, rubies,  and other precious materials’ value is solely in the visceral, but almost everything else gains value on contact. Bang and Olufsen have been know to add weight to their products because the weight adds perceived value. Car doors are design to sound good when closed because it has typically been an area where we assume quality.

I believe that Donald would consider these examples to be part of the behavioral, but I disagree. I think that using a car door, and making assumptions based on the sound, or lifting a remote and assuming value based on weight are part of the visceral. It’s really their ability to do their job well that is the behavioral? Maybe not… let me rethink that.

Yes, it was the knifes ability to do its job so well that made me love it. But as I stated above. It was actually the experience that it afforded that transformed the knife from “just a knife” to “Wow! that’s a nice knife”. So maybe the sound of the door and the weight of the remote are just some of the first experiences you have while using the product. It’s all about the experience. And this isnt something software lacks, is it?

Granted you cant add weight to software to change its perceived value, and the sound really wont attest to its value or build quality. So how do we add value to software? The same way we do with physical products… Experience.

I have had great experiences with software before. So why don’t I feel connected to it in the same way I do the knife?

Just something to think about: Can you look at or use a piece of software and  assume an accurate cost? What is it about software that makes you feel its value or cost? Complexity, functions, look and feel?

software as a status symbol

Tools impress me. Well… Great tools do. I love when my friend takes out the (new to him) antique micrometer that is precise to one ten-thousandth of an inch -Ill find my self measuring a book, just to see. Or a stand of hair. But as I was talking about yesterday, there is a lack of love for our software. Something I wanted to cover was this idea of being impressed or “status symbols” by software products.

When was the last time someone said “Oh man! You have Microsoft word?” As I noted before, precision tools make me happy, but why not Autocad? Surly any CAD software is 100 times more precise than any micrometer I have ever used. This seems easy to answer though. There is the lack of craft. Physical tools need to be made, and many times hand made, but software lacks this. Sure thousands of hours went into the original creation of the software, but we dont see that. And actually it could be argued that the best software hides it the most. People dont want to see the craft of software.

So what about status symbols? Usually these are based on price. “Hey there, check out my new BMW!” The point is that there is importance in someone that could afford such a car. Well there are software products that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. But is that impressive? No, not to me at least. Maybe it is the ability to pirate it that makes it less impressive… after all, anyone could have it if they really wanted to. Maybe it is the lack of care of the product. After all who really cares about a $50K CAD system? But honestly, people are often impressed by art that costs a ton even if they dont like it.

Software seems to lack the ability to impress or seduce. Buy why? What is it that make us act so differently with our software products? Lack of perceived value? Is it the screen that keeps us from touching them, their intrinsic buggy nature, lack of human touch in an obvious way? Lack of space taken up in your living room?

—–Tacked on—-

Could it just be about the lack of perceived value? Often people complane about the cost of software, like it is a rip off… After all, all you are getting is a CD, how hard is that? What people often miss is the insane amount of time that went into crafting that. The really funny thing is that we have no issue with paying a thousand dollars for a machine to run it, but without the software it would just be a lame box.

But even though I work for a company who makes software, and I design said software… I still don’t feel the craft. And if I have this much of a disconnect… what hope do others have?

As I said good night to my wife just now… I asked her. “Do you find value in software?” She said she didnt. But she felt it was because of pirating. But then she said she does see value in music, that people also pirate. I wondered… Maybe it’s just that we find value most in things we want to use, and see little value in things we have to use.

So how can production software make you want to use it?

Where is my wusthof steak knife?

Yes, it has been awhile. My sister was in town, and my birthday… yada yada it has been 2 weeks.

This isn’t a recap of the bildr work I have been up to, this is actually more about something I have been thinking about for awhile and im going to try to tell the story.

It was almost a year ago, 3 friends and I are on our way to a Florida for spring break. Leaving mid-afternoon we planed to drive to our friend’s house and spend the night before we would jot down the rest of the way non stop.

That night we arrived at friends house to find that his sister, new to culinary school, would be cooking up some steaks for us. So sometime around 11pm we sat down to dinner, steak and and next to it, a new wusthof steak knife. I took my knife and sliced into the steak……….. For the first time in my life, I was able to slice the steak as thin as I wanted to, it was just so wonderful. The knife was so good that the steak dinner stopped being about food, and became all about the knife. The steak was great, but it’s not something Im still talking about almost a year later.

Once in a while I will use a product or a tool that just makes me stop and take notice.

So this is what I have been thinking about. When is the last time a software product wowed me this much? When was the last time the software was an actual pleasure to use, that you actually look forward to using?

Wow… what?!? bildr Code is in alpha?

Ok. So after

• 7 months
• One complete redo
• 2802 lines of PHP
• 1370 lines of CSS
• 1726 lines of JavaScript

bildrCode is in alpha. I know, I know. It’s probably a lot to think about. You have been reading about this for such a long time, and it felt like it would never happen, but it’s true.

So… Without further ado, Lets see a video!

addition without modification

As always, I have working on bildr  a lot. But much of what I want to do is not possible with the applications I installed as the base (wiki forum and blog software). With RISDpedia, I modified the wiki software to make it to what I wanted, but it basically made it so I could never update, because it would undo everything I had done. With bildr, I am taking a new and different approach that has some really nice benefits, and one major problem.

With bildr, all modifications at this point are completely separate mini applications that are injected into the page. For instance the portal for bildr code is placed in the wiki with a single line.

<code project=”nameHere” />

This actually gets rendered into the page as

<script src=”http://code.bildr.org/nameHere.js” type=”text/javascript”></script>

Happy New Year

Happy new year!

I just got home from vacation. Well back from visiting family, it was so busy Im not sure how vacationy it was.

I always try to read a book when I go away, and this time I read Emotional Design by Donald Norman. Good book. Norman is always a great writer, and after reading his best (IMO) “The design of everyday things” (DOET) a few years ago, this went on my list. Sadly, I think he could have taken the 2nd half further, but I understand why it changed tones when talking about robots. But I felt that DOET was a game changer, and the primer for interaction design. Emotional design was almost the primer for experience design. (Except that the term was used before this book was written).

I thought something was funny though. Im a huge believer in usability design. HUGE! And somehow people including Norman feel that aesthetics are not part of usability. Norman talked a bit about this, but without going into too much detail, he basically said that there is proof that people perceive better looking interfaces to be easier to use. They give a better experience.

Well yes, they do. But I knew that. But Norman said that without changing the usability of the product, and only making it look nicer, it was easier. Personally I believe this totally neglects the importance of several major things. First what about information design!?!?

By changing the way the interface looks, you ARE changing the way it works. The way an interface looks completely determines how a person sees it, and therefore changes the way they will think of interacting with it.

Id like to do this experiment myself, give me 200 people, and a confusing UI (with 2 skins (1 nice, 1 ugly)). let 100 use the ugly, and 100 use the nice. Video both. Im 100% sure that people will interact with them differently.

Also, by giving the user a better looking interface, the user approaches the system in a better mood. This alone as (Norman pointed out )is enough to change the way people think. When the user is happy, they see the forest, when upset, only the trees.

Last, but not least is what I tall people…

The hardest to use interface, is the one so-ugly people refuse to use it.

Major Limitations of the browser

Im currently building a web application that works more like an application on your computer than it does one on the web.

We all know that everything is going there, but there are currently a lot of major limitations in the browser that are holding it back from coming quicker than it could.

First: I know a lot of this poses security problems, but ignore that for a second.

Id like to be able to:

1. • Ask the user if they would like to save before closing the window (and even allow them to cancel)
2. • Add menu items, or control the file menu.
3. • Customize the contextual menu system
4. • remove the address (and others) bar to control the look of the entire page.

But maybe, just maybe, I need to stop making an application on the web, and go back to making a web application.