The Flicker Blog and Podcast

My, my, my – haven’t I been slack?
I feel like I should be making excuses here, but I don’t have any adequate ones I’m afraid!

However, I did download and install the latest version of Apple’s iTunes last week. I have to admit to becoming very interested in how this once straightforward software is evolving into an interesting product.

I’ve also been marvelling at the ingenuity of many individuals at work. The shared music library in iTunes is one of those really straightforward ideas that on a large scale LAN, suddenly comes into its own. On a daily basis, there are new ‘libraries’ appearing online that I can browse. These are the music collections of individuals all across the organisation, whose identities I do not know. It’s interesting how something as intimate and personal as your music collection can, if you wish, be shared whilst you yourself, can remain anonymous.

Around the time that this sharing started to become a more common aspect of the iTunes experience, I started wondering why there wasn’t some kind of IM client built in. There are so many unknown individuals on the network whose music I can browse and play, yet I can’t communicate with them.

Funnily enough, as a consequence of the upgrade (and the rather sneaky sharing limitations that Apple built into it) I saw user’s initiative demonstrate that I wasn’t alone in this need – users want to communicate! Put simply, the early adopters amongst us were disconnected from those running the earlier version. We could still see one another, but could no longer share music with users of prior versions.

Within hours, those of us who had upgraded started editing the name of our shared libraries so that rather than giving a name or alias, they now made a statement. So ‘Paul’s Music’ became ‘Early adopter Paul(who upgraded to 4.5 too soon)’s music.’ Another user simply became ‘Everyone upgade to 4.5 now’ and so on.

Very shortly after, user names became questions, and subsequently, answers. I found this user behaviour fascinating – not least because it clearly demonstrated that my own thoughts on inter-user interaction were not isolated.

(clearly I think there will be more)

Cycling into work yesterday, I was considering experiences gained from the last two weekends – it’s been the first time I’ve really seriously used OSX for music production.
It’s definitely more stable, and a pleasure to run several audio apps simultaneously, all sharing the same audio hardware.

However, I really, really loathe the new ‘improved’ finder in 10.2.8. My working method involves lots and lots of navigating very deep folder structures both to save and locate many files, instrument settings, samples etc. I’ve witnessed much questioning of the relevance of the desktop metaphor in relation to today’s computing experience – and for the first time, I’ve started to question the notion of files and folders myself.

I’m not blaming Apple for this necessarily – Logic (largely out of functional necessity) points to specific locations for certain file types, just as I (for equally good reason) prefer to keep them elsewhere. The result – everytime I wish to save or open a new file, I’m being forced to navigate a slow, clunky interface that requires me to scroll horizontally and vertically in order to navigate from one ‘end’ of my system to another. I’m not being pedantic here in refusing to follow the file structure necessitated by Logic. In order to backup projects, which frequently run to hundreds of Mb, it makes sense to group all the files used by a project together. The default behavior of keeping all files in the application folder would make backups an error prone, and time consuming task.

Not that it was perfect, but in OS9 I could navigate a file system far more quickly by double clicking through folders. Obviously, with this model, you’re required to know where you’re going, but I’m not convinced that that this is so big an issue (guess I’m biased towards the ‘organised’ user). Currently, in order to give the user more information, they are being forced to do more work. The depth of content within the window grows with every click. As an increasing number of files and folders are shown, the user inevitably has to scroll to get to their destination.

As we move towards working methods that involve the use of many files (some of which are shared by other projects) the issue of quick, easy file navigation becomes increasingly complicated.
I tend to organise folders by what object type they contain, or the project they relate to. In so doing, it’s inevitable that with the current tools, I am frequently required to ‘run’ up and down very lengthy corridors.

Maybe the new, faster G5 and the improved finder of Panther will make me feel differently. Guess I can hope!

Funny thing about this blogging lark – the more that goes on in your life, the less time you have to write about it. Actually, this week’s not exactly been crammed with exciting events. It’s just involved an awful lot of writing (and clearly not here). I’m hopeful that I will continue to find the time to write here on a regular basis – but it’s not likely to be daily.

I spent most of last weekend working on a new track called “Dumb Key” which sounds to my now weary ears, pretty unusual compared to our normal stuff. As ever, I find the whole process rewarding but draining. The nature of the music production software we use (or is it my nature?) tends to involve looping small elements over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

After a couple of days of this you really do feel that a part of your brain has been worn down by the continuing march of sounds across it. Simple activities (like socialising) become quite hard until you’ve reset your brain with a good nights’ sleep.

The point I’m making here is that last weekend was very busy, and tiring (seeing Mazi on Sunday night didn’t help). This week’s also been crammed – spent much of my free time working on the application for a course at work which a has a pretty competitive selection process. Clearly a different type of writing to that which I’d do here (why is it so hard to write about the positive aspects of oneself?) but writing nonetheless. And very time consuming. So here I am, making excuses to myself for not posting more frequently!

Tonight, Gareth will be down to work on more music with me. I predict another tiring weekend involving the consumption of much Stella Artois. Hopefully, it’ll be a productive one. I’m really keen to try and get more stuff out the door and signed (as ever). The release of Demon Tweaks has reminded me that if you generate any kind of buzz, you need to sustain it. Otherwise, it’s more click than buzz.

Random thought #001 – Cycling home the other night I wondered why the indicators and hazard lights on cars are one and the same? To be able to recognise that a car has it’s hazards on, you need visibility of both sides of the car. In London, that’s pretty rare. So, whilst pushing through the driving rain on a cold, wet February evening I wonder “Is that car about to pull out in front of me, or is he unloading?”

Maybe it’s because it’s a Monday, and I’m tired and grumpy. Today, as a result of discussions I’ve been involved in, I’ve felt a little frustrated. Hopefully, documenting it here will help me make sense of the root of this frustration (which I believe to be the consideration of style before content).

Frequently, I witness (and get involved in) discussions about minor details of a site’s design. This is often frustrating, because energy needs to (or could be) spent on bigger issues. I’m not saying that such detailed observations are not valid, but that they are often observations of a symptom – and treating them does not cure the disease. Worse still, treating things at this level can often have unforeseen, and problematic side effects.

More specifically, I have witnessed discussions about unique cosmetic treatments that are given to objects (dependant upon the section of the site they reside in). I’m writing this to try and clarify (and hopefully justify) my negative feelings:

a) The creation of (arguably unnecessary) work for the designer

b) The increased likelihood of errors – where once existed a straight road, there’s now a fork

c) A large site needs fewer variables, not more. Any sighted person can tell black from white, but ask them to differentiate between numerous shades of grey and your success rate will fall off. Obviously, I’m not against systems of organising, or creating hierarchies – but I do think that the success of such systems diminishes as variables grow.

d) This method of working assumes that artefacts are created on a per-section and not per-site basis. There may be such occasions where the distinctions aren’t so clear and, as a result, a variant of the artefact now needs to be made for the rest of the site. Two versions of the same thing – not one good reason.

As designers, we need to ask why these variables need to exist – not why they look better than their counterparts. I suspect that issues like this often arise because a designer (or design team) are unhappy with a system that exists, not because they feel a visual distinction is required.

Instead of addressing the issue of the system (which may not be possible/practical) a locally acceptable variant is created that allows the team involved to feel proud of the work they have achieved. This work may be world class, and a clear improvement on the rest of the site. However, it has also created one more variant that undermines consistency – and provides a defence to those parties who don’t want to follow guidelines. If one party is allowed to create a variant, why can’t the others?

I’ve seen this time and time again – successful, well thought out systems crumbling rapidly as more and more people take it upon themselves to ‘modify’ their part of the offering to their own tastes. The decline increases exponentially!

As designers, we naturally want to make things better. I feel that our energies are better channelled into problem solving and improving the unified whole, than inventing new ways of dressing up what is, essentially the same content.

Two recent photographs that would probably look good on record sleeves

Woke up ridiculously early this morning with several things on my mind. My first thoughts were of this blog (kid with a new toy I guess).

Seconds later, I recalled Dan Hill’s ‘Insanely great, or just good enough?’ piece on Apple and their design strategy. In outline, he suggests that because Apple products are designed with little user tampering possible – that an adaptive design process is at the back of the engineers minds, and that Apple expects users to trust them to do what’s right.

In particular, he discusses the recent iPod Battery furore, and how what was seen as a design classic, has become sullied as a result of disgruntled users wanting to know why it has to be so hard to replace a battery. What was on my mind was whether this was an oversight on Apple’s part or a conscious decision (I suspect the latter). The view that Apple seek perfection in their designs suddenly becomes questionable – this particular issue suggests quite the opposite.

There’s no question that at the time of release, Apple products may seem akin to perfection to the buying public. I’m sure Apple never views them as such however – at the time of any launch, subsequent models are already lined up. Built in obsolescence is what keeps any company so profitable. Despite the seemingly noble (user centred) intentions, Apple exists to make money, and they can’t do that by shipping perfect product that no one need upgrade.

If Apple were to make the iPod truly adaptable, they may well improve the product, but would limit future sales too. As a user wishing to upgrade my iPod, the most desirable part to update (to add usefulness rather than sustaining life) would of course, be a larger hard drive. More than any other tweak, this could affect sales of subsequent models. I’m sure that none of these things are oversights – but business decisions. I think Apple hints at a perfection, but intentionally keeps it out of reach. How else do they sustain and fuel user desire?

Comparing the adaptive design of a virtual object to a physical one raises some interesting questions. At what point do incremental changes you’ve made to a virtual product effectively constitute a wholly new offering? In the virtual world, there’s no significant cost to replacing everything as part of an ongoing design ‘refit’. It could also be argued that a new model of iPod exists as a result of an adaptive design process, rather than in spite of it. Would the inclusion of ‘a removable panel, flush to the back of the casing but with a fingernail-sized catch for release’ demonstrate this? In fact, the virtual consumer is also expected to ditch a perfectly serviceable piece of software for a newer model – Photoshop 6 – 7 for instance. Granted, in this case the old verion doesn’t ‘fade away’ and force the issue. My point is that an adaptive design process isn’t excluded by (or necessarily related to) a marketing one. Incremental change happens to most products – the variable is the pricing model.

I do find these ideas very interesting, and I’m often seduced by the consideration given to the Apple Products (hockey-puck mice and CD eject buttons that only appear on the keyboard excluded) that could constitute a quest for perfection. I also happen to think that Apple is just as cynical and business minded as Microsoft. Sure, they use “design” to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace – but whenever they make a sale, they’ve already one eye on the next one. The notion of an adaptive design process is, to me, akin to Darwinism. Any product will, over time, adapt and (theoretically) be improved upon. In a capitalist society, this remains true, but you’ll pay for those poseable thumbs.