Good and bad software

I'm going to start with an argument.

Software exists because people are lazy; not that it's a bad thing. Throughout the history, it's been one of the greatest sources of ingenuity. A wonderful catalyst for ridding inefficiency.

It all started with a lazy person, defining a set of instructions for a machine, for it to do something people are bad at, and machines fantastic.

Those lines of code, running on a piece of hardware, helped that person to get more work done. Ideally, the time invested in instructing a machine to work for us, is far less in a long run compared to us doing all that work ourselves, impeded by human limitations.

Software exists to use computer's potential on tasks which people struggle with. People simply need to focus on instructing it. Sadly it's the focusing part where things usually take an unexpected turn from the ideal road. Right through the safety rail of professional training. Over and off the cliff of common sense. Straight into the bottomless pit of irrational. I visualized the problem below.

Given that a same amount of people, with equal skillsets, are working on a software project with identical goals, it's more likely that they end up with what I personally think as bad software.

Such software doesn't do what software is supposed to do. If you get stuck on the user interface part, you're missing the reason why people use your product. You have just instructed the machine to play hopscotch with the user, instead solving a user problem. The balance is just way off. Bad instructions, bad software. No amount of excuses change that.

Beautiful, well performing and behaving user interfaces can be built with relatively little amount of code, if you know what you're doing. If not, you easily end up with a complex and overdone interface; a monstrosity that needs even more complex customization options to tame -- or fire to kill, as it depends.

Still, game over.

Becoming blinded and trapped by the user interface iteration loop is very easy. It's the most visible thing for everyone in the project. That's why it's so important to be aware of this danger. Adding more interface easily feels like adding more value. How wrong can people be. You only waste resources on things that:

• end up eating even more resources since you're stuck with maintaining it
• restrict your options for potential devices and businesses in the long run
• distract user from the real value your product offers = less appealing product

"But Jaakko, isn't there many other areas as well that affect software goodness / badness?"

Yes. There are. A lot in fact. However, this one is something everyone can and should understand. It doesn't take a computer science PhD to figure this stuff out. It's especially important for companies whose business depends on software quality. Even more so with startups and small companies.

I'm going to end with an argument.

Your company exists because people are lazy. Make sure your product focuses on helping them, like a good software does.

 

Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.

What is keeping Sailfish OS alive

Image by Jolla

In my previous post, I used Windows phone as an example of how focusing too much on design can hurt your product. This post is a follow-up for it, focusing on the importance of design intentions and the overall reasons to do things in the first place.

Be realistically ambitiuos

For the sake of comparison, let's pretend that Jolla chose the strategy everyone expected it to choose: follow iOS and Android to join the mobile OS and smartphone business. Just close your eyes, and picture Jolla offering the same experience what Apple, Samsung and others already do.

Wonderful, here's the thing: that strategy has been perfected by Apple, Google (later Samsung et al.) since 2005. They will keep doing so in the future, without any intentions of slowing down. 7 years later Jolla was ready to compete against industry giants, with the announcement of Sailfish OS.

Enough pretending. Competing with this strategy, against these guys, is like trying to race against a bullet train, with a bicycle, without pedals. You will get nowhere; even if you pretend to. It's utterly silly to think you can beat them in their own game they've rigged beyond recovery.

You'll be spending all your time on things you can't compete with. And since everything you implement has a cost, it's more logical to find a simple solution for all those things that make your product a reality. Move through the mandatory feature list as fast as you can, so that you can save time and effort to use on what, in your vision, makes you relevant.

This is where Microsoft stumbled. WP tried to create value too close to competition, instead of building on top of and strengthening existing ones; those that made Microsoft relevant. In the end WP sabotaged Microsoft's opportunity to not limit its users to stationary computing. Their ambition to build a smartphone OS ended up instead limiting people also on the go. Looks like they're finally fixing this with Windows 10, so let's move on.

Be honest to what you exist for

Three years after the Windows phone launch, Sailfish OS rolled out as a very limited and rough experience. You were all set, if you had enough interest and patience to wade through tutorials, reviews and forum posts. It worked if you knew exactly what you were doing, but it didn't leave any room for user errors. There was hardly any guidance to help user. To be open about things, we shipped it with a beta stamp. Digital pioneers and average consumers alike received their copy, installed on the finest hardware we had access to; a mid-range phone on all accounts. A failure by industry standards.

But the thing is, we're not competing solely within industry standards; things what others already master. We have our minimal solutions for those, but our real business is where others cannot easily go. Either because they're too scared, lack the required vision, or don't really care as long as they can convince people buying their next wave of latest and greatest.

People deserve more natural and focused interfaces than current industry standards require. We need more openness, collaboration and sustainability =  a thorough value domain reset. Automation and computing in general are less about the technology, and more about finding a common direction to increase human potential; everyone deserves more time for things that are defining humanity.

What makes Jolla and Sailfish OS relevant, is our reasons to exist in the mobile space, and what our actions stand for in contrast to the competition. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what keeps Sailfish OS alive. Not what it can directly offer, because it's not much at the moment. There's a mountain of work remaining -- actually -- make that two mountains; the operating system alone is not what you need for your computing tasks. It's merely a start.

We still need apps, more supported services and other natural functionality integration points. They are paramount in making sure Sailfish OS also stays relevant. There's a big functionality debt we owe our community. It's through their passion and trust, that we've given this chance to make a difference.

Respecting that debt would not only be human, but also an exception that this industry sorely needs to change.


Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.

Too much design

www.wpsauce.com

A Windows phone design article by Paul Thurrot, summarizing a "ask-me-anything" thread in reddit, reminded me about something that easily goes wrong in design: the design itself becomes more important than the product or medium it's applied to. Meaning, that more work goes into sustaining design as an activity; instead of treating it as an integrated part of making a competitive product.

What kept popping up throughout the article, was the need to differentiate Windows phone from others, through Metro's unique visual and interaction design (mainly focusing on application side though). This resulted in design importance raising out of proportion, disturbing the actual product work (make a great product). The focus was on finding a striking and novel design (too much), instead of making a relevant alternative to iOS and Android.

Alternative can mean being different, but it doesn't have to. A product that's just different for the sake of being different, is bound to have a design overdose. The only way to deliver an industry-breaking products, is by not designing it for the industry (remember what Apple did when it entered the smartphone market). That alone requires you to focus on problems that the industry tries to hide. Too much design will just make things worse.

The mobile industry has a significant ability to resist changes. Look at any usability studies. They all basically state that Android and iOS have reached the pinnacle of touch screen interaction. To put that in some perspective: they say that majority of desktop interaction patterns (the way you use mouse and keyboard to do things) are just as usable on mobile devices, as they were 40 years ago. Nonsense.

Usability studies like that show how amazingly well people adapted to our messy past with computers. Studies can always help to spot problems in both design and implementation, but the they tell nothing about our potential, our hopes, dreams or what we'll do tomorrow.

So, at the end of the day, those studies tell that the industry doesn't want to be broken.

"To go against it (industry) you need to earn it. You need to be far, far better." Being different for the sake of difference, is not enough.

With Metro, Microsoft experienced the hard way what happens when you put in too much design, at the expense of end user value. It failed to be relevant.


Thanks for reading and see you in the next post. In the meantime, agree or disagree, debate or shout. Bring it on and spread the word.