I find in Google’s search engine significant irony. Let me explain.
Have you considered how they can possibly index so much of the web so often and make it available coherently to the entire world and deliver individual results quickly and consistently? The Google engineering team deserves our immense respect for such an accomplishment. It is truly amazing.
Of course, the “Page Rank” algorithm is an equally amazing feat of engineering–a core idea with millions of tweaks to deliver the amazingly accurate results we have come to expect.
And yet, when you use Google, the interface is amazingly simple and effective. We forget about all of the complexity underneath, and we are compelled to return to Google time and again because we have such a great experience with it.
As a software engineer by background, I’ve spent a great deal of time in my career pondering how to build a scalable infrastructures, considering what languages to use to create my algorithms, and wiring together plumbing. Those are all important, but I’m thrilled that I also have the opportunity to work on the most important aspect of software creation: crafting an amazing user experience.
Does it sound arrogant to say that the user experience is that important? Yes, but when you consider that statement, isn’t it true? We can have amazing code and compelling server infrastructures, but if users don’t enjoy using our software, we’ve failed indeed–but if the users enjoy our software, does it matter if our code is crap or our infrastructure isn’t the best?
How many of the popular web properties and successful businesses of the world were built on famously hackish codebases? Facebook and MySpace, as does the wild popularity of PHP in general.
This reminds me of the Nintendo Wii. I have some friends in the video gaming industry. They can’t stand the Wii. They scoff that some people find it fun. They can’t get past that it doesn’t have the horsepower of some of the other consoles. Its the same as us scoffing at PHP.
Or is it? This is actually a bit different, because the hardware limitations of the Wii bleeds into the interface. Games *are* limited. Cross-console games always look worse on the Wii, and even Wii-specific titles make a point of focusing on the interaction instead of the graphics.
It’s one thing to say that the user interface is more important than the hidden guts of a system, but that internal heart of the system affects the user interface, so the two are obviously quite related. I’m just saying we need to maintain our perspective and remember which is the tail, and which is the dog.
You know, when you start to focus on refining the user interface, you realize that it’s quite a bit of work. GUI interfaces–as distinct from text-based user interfaces–are especially labor-intensive. If you’ve ported an old green-screen app to a GUI technology, you know what I’m talking about.
One of the reasons for the labor-intensiveness is simply because more is possible, and therefore, much more is expected. It’s not that there’s anything particularly complex about asking GUI toolkits like Java Swing and JavaFX, Adobe Flex, the browser, etc. to render a text box as compared to some text-based toolkit, but it can be a lot more complicated to add asynchronous data validation, to deal with concurrency in the interface, progress notification of background asynchronous tasks, creating rich and complex tables to display summary data in, dealing with hundreds more choices for skinning the UI, and so forth.
There are all these details involved in getting it right. I love the term “craftsmanship” for describing a devotion to getting the details right in creative acts.
Alan Cooper, author of “The Inmates are Running the Asylum” and “About Face”, has talked about craftsmanship recently in the excellent talk “An Insurgency of Quality“:
But you know what? Most of us in the software industry work in IT departments. Our bosses don’t talk to us in these terms, do they? They usually talk to us in terms of “getting it done”, don’t they?
I think Joel Spolsky captures the way many in IT view craftsmanship:
So does that mean those of us in IT are doomed to create crappy software for the rest of our careers? Well, in the same talk, Alan Cooper maintains that Joel is wrong:
There’s a lot more to say on this topic, but let’s suffice for now with agreeing that whoever you are wherever you’re working, you can make the decision now to care about the quality of what you do. Various cultures will tolerate various degrees of craftsmanship, and that’s okay. Do the best you can within your own constraints.
Four snapshots of the Firefox logo revision effort
By the way, one of the things I love about Mozilla is the level of craftsmanship that goes on there. For example, Alex Faaborg, one of our UI designers, has recently been driving a revision of the Firefox icon. He’s gone through fourteen iterations and still isn’t done, all for a bit of polish that isn’t immediately obvious. I can’t tell you the number of times I seen him here at the office past midnight working away on this and other details out of his love for the craft.
Going back to the Wii thing. It’s a great example of expectations. If you expect video games to look like this:
…then the Wii is going to let you down. On the other hand, if you expect people who play video games to look like this:
…you may find your enjoyment of the Wii a pleasant surprise indeed.
It’s funny–my friends who hold the Wii in such contempt, even when they have fun playing the Wii (usually with family), they still proclaim such hatred for it. They expect their video games to have amazing graphics, and even when such games deliver a valuable service–entertainment–the disappointment of missed expectations detracts from the experience. (Whereas those whose expectations are exceeded by the Wii, they just love it!)
The comedian Louis C. K. explores this area of our psychology in a popular video clip that’s gone viral on YouTube, Hulu, and others. It’s hilarious but it demonstrates something very true: our expectations for our life’s interactions are constantly on the rise–and we get very annoyed when our expectations are not met.
I think the first key of creating a compelling experience for your users–of practicing effective craftmanship in software–is to understand what their expectations are, and to meet or exceed them as often as possible.
What do you think?