Living in a Networked World: Is Less More?
New, easy-to-use applications make it seem like “Less is More”. But is Less really More? I don’t think so. The new wave of applications are great because they’re networked, not because many of them just happen to have less features.
Human needs rarely change. We need to be watered, fed, exercised, sheltered, talked-to, challenged, appreciated, paid-attention-to, loved. We need to interact with other humans and be protected from nature. (including of course, other humans) But we need each other: without other people making things interesting for us this world would be a horrible place to live. We would be stripped of that idea called humanity. Not even technology, the great change-agent, can change our humanity with any noticable speed.
So each day, as we struggle through our daily lives, we do a lot of the same activities. We watch TV, talk on the phone, surf the Web, interact with others, trade time for money, and sleep. Though technology has changed the devices and applications with which we do these things, we’re still entertaining ourselves with games, sports, humor, tragedy, gossip, and conversation. The advent of computers hasn’t changed that, it’s only changed the stage upon which we perform those activities.
The Best Software Models Human Behavior
In my post A Social Revolution by Modeling Human Behavior, I suggested that the best design models human behavior. What is TV but modeling how we observe the world? What is the telephone but modeling how we have a conversation? What is a computer but modeling how we read and write?
Ever-Increasing Expectations
What does change, and what we as designers don’t talk about enough, are people’s expectations. The moment we get broadband we never want to go back to dial-up. The moment we get Skype we never want to go back to paid-for phones. The moment we get 15″ for a laptop screen we don’t want to go back to 14″. We expect for progress to continue. Always. Undoubtedly it was the same when phones first arrived, when people first read from a book, when people first wrote on papyrus. Almost overnight, the old way of doing things was gone, and we expected more.
Such is the way of it in software. We’re always headed for the next release. In Web 2.0, however, we’ve seen a return to applications that seem to do much less than what we have become accustomed to on the desktop. Where Word and its millions of features is the mainstay for the desktop, blogs and their small feature set are the mainstay for online.
Is “Less is More” Always Better?
Interestingly, however, this is being recast as a “Less is More” revolution. Take Jason Fried of 37Signals, who evangelizes the “Less” principle as well as anyone. He’ll tell you that people like software with less features, software that does less than their desktop counterparts, and software that is made with fewer people.
Although the Less principle is a great way to focus on problem solving and becoming disciplined in managing projects, it doesn’t tell the whole story of what’s going on in Web 2.0. The problem with the push for “Less” is that it doesn’t take into consideration our ever-increasing expectations. Just as today we are happy with our blog posts showing up in HTML, tomorrow we’ll want mail-merge. In our quest for efficiency we expect more this week than last.
So how come these new Web 2.0 applications: Jotspot, Flickr, Basecamp, Del.icio.us, and Digg are so successful? How is it that they do Less and we like them more? Is it as simple as “Less is More”?
The Real Issue: Networked Applications
Well, it is true that these applications do Less of stuff we don’t want, an undeniably good thing. But it isn’t true that they do Less of everything. In fact, they do More of a critical function of Web 2.0 applications. What is it that they do that’s so critical?
What’s critical is that they’re networked, and that makes them tremendously valuable, even more valuable than non-networked applications with tons more features. Being networked allows them them to accurately model our social behavior. Almost overnight, we are using these software applications to better fulfill our basic human needs of communication, gossip, collaboration, sharing, and Attention: all the things we do in our human network. The difference is that now we’re doing them using networked software.
So we’re not doing Less, we’re doing More with more people. You see, features don’t really matter to people. What matters is the activities that you can do with the software. Features enable those things, of course, and people say that they want this feature or that. But what people really want is to be able to do something they couldn’t before. The software is the tool to do that. And this makes sense, because few people ever wanted Less, despite some of the horribly bloated desktop applications we’ve had to put up with. In fact, we want our software to do More for us. Unfortunately, the More that we want isn’t the more we were getting. Now, with most applications being networked and with developers focusing on things like collaboration and sharing, we’re getting the More we want!
Trading Siloed Apps for Networked Ones
In essence, we have traded siloed applications for networked ones. The featuritis we lost was merely a fortunate casualty of the move. So it’s not just cutting features and having less of them. It’s about adding the right features at the same time.
So imagine we take away the networked functionality of the Jotspots, Flickrs, and Basecamps…what then? Even if they were still easy to use and followed the principles of “Less”, they wouldn’t be worth a second look. They would be stuck in the siloed world of Web 1.0. If your users can’t collaborate or share with people in the software you release nowadays, you’ll quickly be doing something other than writing software. Think about the most popular software on Earth right now. BitTorrent, Skype, Flickr. It’s all about collaboration.
New Platform = Less Software
The reason why most of these new applications tend to have Less features is because developers are working on a relatively new platform: the Web. As a result, our expectations as users are generally low because we’ve had very few web-based applications to raise them. In time, though, the web-based, networked apps will grow to be as sophisticated as desktop software, once the dance between our expectations and what developers can do matures that far. This is already apparent in Flickr and Basecamp. They’re turning into pretty sophisticated applications. Still easy and fun to use, but I wouldn’t consider them “Less”.
But that’s not to say that the Less principle is bad. On the contrary, it’s good and very necessary at this time because user expectations are low and we don’t have much experience yet with networked software. In time, what is Less will change as our expectations change, just as it always has. Undoubtedly, we’ll add new features to the existing ones. But we should still do that judiciously, paying attention to the details and keeping things simple for people. Simple is different than Less.
A Unique Moment on the Web
We won’t always be able to strip away features like we’ve done in the switch to Web 2.0 networked applications. Just try to take away a network-enabled feature from your favorite application and see how people react. How about the comments feature from all the blogging tools? Wouldn’t that be a sight! Moving from a two-way conversation to a one-way conversation is a sure way to kill Attention. Once we have something useful, once we’re part of the conversation, our expectation is that we’ll continue to be part of it.
A Challenge
So here’s a challenge: go make a successful software application that isn’t networked. My bet is that no matter how few features it has, how “Less” it is, it stands to fail. Make it networked, and you stand a chance.
As technology evolves, so does what we come to expect. We expect to be able to write. To publish. To watch TV. To talk on the phone. To talk on our computer. To model our social lives online.
We’re a networked world now. Our expectations have been poured and are solidifying.
Previous
Passing Along Some Pointers
Links to this Post
Comments
1. CM Harrington 10:09am, Thu 1st, 2005
I don’t think the “less is more revolution” is about software that does less than the desktop counterpart. I think it’s more about harking back to the UNIX days where an application really only did one thing, but it did that thing well, and could talk to other applications either locally or on the network through standard, well documented protocols (STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR). So really, this is less about a new way of doing things, and more about making sure that the principles of good software design make it to the modern W2 era.
It’s the same stuff all over again. Give me an app that is solid and virtually unbreakable because it only attempts to do one thing, and give me and the application a standard means to talk to other applications. It has been stated that W2 isn’t so much a new way of thinking. I would go as far to say W2 concepts exist today as a reminder of how well software worked back in the days where closed file formats weren’t the norm, and that we should embrace the good things (the things that were effective) about the old ways in a more modern setting.
2. Josh 10:47am, Thu 1st, 2005
CM, I’m not sure I buy the claim that you want software to only do “one thing” but I certainly buy the networking bit. How about the browser you used to type in your comment…that does many, many things. It’s got bookmarks, history, popup blockers, tabs, private browsing, all in addition to letting you browse.
I think this gets right to the point, though. Simplification is a virtue, but Less is not necessarily so. My ideal email application does today many more things than it did 5 years ago, and I’m not pining for the old version.
Do you really want to go back to command line email? I daresay your expectations have moved on.
3. CM Harrington 11:28am, Thu 1st, 2005
Yes, the browser does all those things, but really, it doesn’t do them well. In this networked world, doesn’t it make sense to have an application that will allow you to have your bookmarks available to you whenever you’re online, regardless of the machine you’re currently using? In an ideal world, you’ll have your browsing engine (webcore/mozilla/etc.) and several supporting applications (call them plug-ins, if you wish) that focus on doing their job well (well being defined as “interacts properly with other applications). You’ll have your engine, your ad blocking tool, your bookmarking tool, etc.
Take a look at email. Pine and Elm are more similar to modern GUI email readers than they are different. Now I am not saying that I want to go back to a CLUI mail client, but I do want to point out that the only real advances in email over the last 20 years is the ability to send rich text/html in the body of an email and have it display in the mail application. If you look at the other “advances” such as spam filtering, you will notice that they were originally plug-ins (separate applications that talked to your mail programme, like spamseive).
I suppose it also depends on what that “one thing well” is. For a browser, I want that “one thing” to be “correctly render HTML/CSS/ECMA Script”. For mail, I want it to “send/recieve/view email”. Old school apps like “sed” and “awk” did text processing really well. You could say these are all “multiple things” but for me, they are the atom (indivisible core) of functionality.
Oddly enough, I think the Apple folks had some interesting ideas when they started the OpenDoc initiative. What we’re seeing in the W2 space is similar. Here, our document is actually the HTML page. In it, we’re creating little parts that do stuff. In the near future, we’ll see the ability to use a rich text editor component from one site, a dynamic map component from another site, results based on input from both components from yet another site, all within the same URI. This is exactly what OpenDoc was about, and it’s exactly what the old UNIX concepts still are. I am really pleased that people are starting to remember what things worked well, what things didn’t, and mash all the good bits (and make the bad bits better) from the various computing eras into what is becoming W2.
It’s a good time to be alive.
4. Kevin 6:10pm, Tue 6th, 2005
When the things go more complicated, they become less reliable. It is happening everywhere, the same here…
Anyway, thanks for an interesting rant.
Extra thanks to CM Harrington for useful comments )))
5. vanderwal 1:54pm, Fri 9th, 2005
My favorite bit of this excellent piece is the “what we as designers don’t talk about enough, are people’s expectations”. People expect and want far more than we are giving them. The web moved from an I go get web to a come to me web. As designers and developers we have yet to catch-up to this. AJAX and other rich interface enhancements are cute, but do not really make the tools more useful.
Integrating the information and/or media into people lives so they can use and reuse them as they need is what nearly every designer and developer is still missing. Things are still not easy to integrate into people’s lives. We have the technology, but most are not thinking about the situation in the right way, which makes the problems that must be solved easier to see. We will not get even close with findability, but we can with refindability, use, and reuse. What do people want and need to do with the information to help them.
One of the first steps is understand the user expectations. Understand the user complaints. We need to start solving the problems that matter and not just the problems we know how to solve. We need to reframe the world to start asking far better questions.
Keep up the great work.