funkatron.com

Normally I try to chew on an idea for a post for a few days; it lets me sort out my thoughts and form some kind of thesis. I’m totally not doing this here, though, so I should preface this with a note that I could be completely off-base. But I don’t think so.

Discussion about how we interact with computers heated up recently with the introduction of the iPad. Lots of nerdy types (myself included) were frustrated that Apple had introduced not a tablet “computer,” but a big iPod Touch. They’re both computers, of course, but the way we interact with them is different: the modern computer interface uses a multitasking windowing motif, and the iPod/iPad interface is fullscreen and single-task focused.

As a Nerdy Power User, I am well-versed in how to navigate a multitasking interface, and for the most part I understand how and why it works the way it does. I, in fact, enjoy learning about the intricacies of these kinds of systems. So when I use a single-task interface like that of the iPod Touch, I frequently bash my noggin against the barriers it imposes. Copying a URL from the web browser to my Twitter client takes orders of magnitude longer than it would on OS X or Windows, for example.

What I’ve learned from interacting with most computer users, though, is that they do not give a rat’s ass about how computers work. They want to accomplish certain tasks, and will do this in the way that is most sensible and direct for them. And the way they end up accomplishing these tasks within the multitasking window motif is typically not the way I would do it.

The recent fiasco on ReadWriteWeb, where a RWW article became the first Google result for “facebook login,” is a classic example of this. And, unfortunately, so is the reaction of most Learned Computer Fellows: one of mockery and derision, admonishing the confused users for being stupid, incompetent, or lazy.

I’ll admit that I took some glee when I first saw the numerous comments on the article; I love a humorous clusterfuck as much as the next guy. But seeing some of the reactions by the Very Smart Computer People, I began to realize that We Are Not Getting It. Consider:

• Isn’t this really a failure of Google? How did it become so easy to game search engine results that an article about Facebook and AOL became the first result for ‘facebook login,’ instead of the obvious thing people are actually looking for?

• How is it the fault of the users when we present them with multiple, barely-differentiated text fields within the same window. Is it really surprising that they don’t understand the differences between each? And is it surprising that they choose to use the one which works with more natural language, rather than entering syntactically-unnatural domain names?

• There is LOADS of anecdotal evidence that most users simply use search engines as a sort of natural language CLI. Shouldn’t we be designing interfaces that work in the way most natural for the majority of users?

These people have better things to do with their days than tweaking out the spacing in their browser toolbars. A computer for them is a utility. One that is increasingly complex, and one that is used because it’s the only option for accomplishing certain things – not because it’s a good option.

It’s kind of like the Photoshop Problem: when people want to crop a picture, we give them Photoshop. Photoshop is a behemoth application with nearly every image editing and touchup function imaginable, and it is terribly complex. Now Photoshop is an impressive tool, but only a very tiny percentage people need the power it offers. The vast majority just want to crop their ex-husband from the photo and let their friends look at it. But even iPhoto, the poster child for Apps So Easy Your Grandparents Can Use Them, continues to pile on features and complexity.

When folks need an elevator, we should give them an elevator, not an airplane. We’ve been giving them airplanes for 30 years, and then laughing at them for being too stupid to fly them right.

I think we’re the stupid ones.

Update

As I said at the start, I wrote this piece a bit off the cuff, so upon further review I think I could have made it a bit clearer. First, a couple great rebuttals I read:

• Reply to Funkatron’s Analysis of the RWW/Facebook Debacle of 2010
• No, We’re Not The Stupid Ones

I posted a comment on Phil Crissman’s blog, which I think explains a bit further what I’m thinking, and addresses the notion that some learning may still be required. To copy and paste myself:

I certainly don’t think that the computer can become (anytime soon) a magic box that determines our whims, nor do I think that people shouldn’t have to learn some things.

What I do think is that the current interface modern OSes on computers provide is simply overwhelming for most users, to the point that it’s very challenging to learn how to accomplish tasks without a very significant investment of time. Driving would be a good example of a task that does require investment of time, but is not so overwhelming that the vast majority of people fundamentally get it wrong: you don’t see people steering with their feet, or accelerating and braking with the radio. I’d argue that modern computer interfaces, in a rush to offer flexibility and capability, make it possible to steer with your hands, feet, teeth, and knees — and don’t make it particularly clear which one is best.

Update 2

Some more responses:

• Really? Are we the idiots?
• Some People Can’t Read URLs

Feel free to forward me others; I think I’ve given up trying to track them down for now.

I am super proud to announce that Elizabeth Naramore has agreed to become Support Lead for Spaz. Liz is an accomplished PHP developer and a tireless community organizer for open source. I am honored that she’s chosen to help Spaz.

If you are interested in helping with user support for Spaz, please check out the Spaz User Support Team Google group, and tell Elizabeth you want to help.

I’m really happy to announce that Ron Devera has agreed to become the UI Lead for Spaz Desktop.

Spaz has been a very informally organized project since I began it back in spring 2007. A number of people have contributed important pieces of code, and support was primarily handled by @kibitzer for over a year.

So why a title and all that? It seems like a good idea at the moment. I’ve been trying to establish more structure in the development and support efforts of Spaz to make it easier for others to contribute, including Lighthouse (development coordination) and Tender (user support) sites where volunteers can see who needs help and what needs to be done. Adding an “official” team member is a part of these efforts.

Ron is a smart, talented developer, with a diverse set of skills, and he’s demonstrated an ongoing commitment to making his contributed “Leopaz” theme very high-quality. He’s a strong JavaScript, Ruby and HTML/CSS dev, and his attention to detail has made Leopaz the strongest theme Spaz offers. I’m very excited about having him a part of the team.

I really don’t like to toot my own horn. Well, actually I do, but I’m also embarassed by it, so writing the title for this post was a bit painful. Nevertheless, I do think it’s accurate: Spaz webOS 1.0 is now available in the Palm App Catalog, and that’s a significant milestone for the project, and for open source on webOS.

I first started playing with webOS a year ago, over Christmas break at my day job. In June, Spaz webOS was in the App Catalog at release, and back then I was quite proud of the fact that we’d been able to ship a truly open source, transparent app on the first day of a new platform. And now, a year since I first cobbled together a Hello World in Mojo, Spaz has reached a reasonable level of maturity – at least as mature as something called “Spaz” will ever have.

Originally I was going to call this release v0.6. I am shy of using 1.0 because I am painfully aware of all the flaws in my software, and it certainly never feels “done” or “ready” to me. However, a recent discussion with Keith Casey led me to think more seriously about using the “1.0” designation – Spaz webOS is very much Safe To Use, but a pre-1.0 version might make some potential users to think otherwise.

And potential users are a bit more of a consideration now, because in a couple weeks (probably the week of January 11), Spaz webOS will start charging $2 for App Catalog downloads in the United States. This is something I’ve been planning for a while, but it’s still stepping out a bit, both for me (I’ve never charged for software before) and for open source software in general. To be clear, here’s how it will work:

1. Spaz webOS will cost $2 to download in App Catalog markets that support payments. Right now the only market that supports payments is the US. It will be free in all other markets.
2. Spaz will still be completely open source. The full source code will always be available.
3. I will not stop users from packaging and installing Spaz webOS themselves. In fact, I encourage it! I always need more testers, designers and developers. Hacking, patching, and messing with Spaz are fully endorsed. If you can’t help in one of these ways, consider donating to the SpazCore project.
4. Revenue made from paid App Catalog downloads will be used to support development and offset equipment and hosting costs. I’ve never made any money from Spaz, and despite some generous donations over the past couple years, I’m still well in the red. I don’t do this for the money (obviously), but lightening the burden and compensating myself and other people who have given their time for Spaz is reasonable, I think.

Another thing that isn’t changing is the principles that guide the Spaz project. I wrote up a statement of purpose a while, back, which I’ll replicate here:

1. Spaz was built for the sake of building it. It is not a means to an end. However, creating it has had several good consequences.
2. Spaz demonstrates that making things is good, and sharing how you make them is better.
3. Spaz is a necessary counter to closed, hidden technologies. Spaz must always be open.
4. The value of Spaz does not lie in the judgements of others, but in the process of building it, and the enjoyment derived by those who use it.
5. We welcome anyone who wishes to participate in the Spaz Project with open arms, as long as they understand and respect the purposes of the project.
6. The Spaz project values clear and open communication between participants.

This is how I think software should be made. If you agree, I hope you’ll consider supporting what we’re doing in a way you see fit. We always need help!

Thank you for making Spaz far more than I could have imagined.

No more travels for me until SXSW in March, I believe. I’m far too tired.

Did I say that? I actually knew very well that a week later, I would be traveling to San Jose for ZendCon 09. Foolish me.

I spoke at ZendCon on Building Desktop RIAs with JavaScript and PHP. I’ve given this talk other places, but this time I showed off some fun PHP-powered jQuery within Titanium. Here’s a snippet:

<script type="text/php">        
    /**
     * run the passed function when DOM Ready event runs 
     */
    $jQuery()->ready( function () use (&$jQuery) {
        /**
         * set some CSS properties 
         */
        $jQuery('#phpjQ')->css('display', 'none')
                        ->css('background-color','#333')
                        ->css('padding','10px')
                        ->css('border','2px solid #000');
        /**
         * bind a delegated click event to the passed function 
         */
        $jQuery('#invokePHP')->live('click', function () use (&$jQuery) {
            /**
             * set the text color and reveal 
             */
            $jQuery('#phpjQ')->css('color', 'red')->slideToggle(500);
        } );                
    } );
</script>       

Building Desktop RIAs with JavaScript and PHP

• Slides
• Code: Server-side PHP, AIR, Titanium