inputs/outputs

I went to one of those bookswapping sites today to find a Thomas Frank book.  I searched for stuff that I’d have to trade in order to get it.  I figured with the amount of books I have, there’s bound to be someone who wanted to trade with me.

How many books showed up in my search?  None.  Only video games, and really expensive ones too.  Maybe the people getting rid of the books don’t like to read, and the people getting rid of the games don’t play very much.  It reminded me of trying to put the negative sides of two magnets together.  Granted, this could be a completely isolated instance, but it was intriguing.

What causes procrastination when it comes to computer based work?

Sure, you’ve got all your typical reasons for procrastination, but I think that there’s most likely a correlation between the more functional tools and the amount of work that is produced by the people who use those tools.  Call me crazy.

For instance, I work in production support, which involves a ticketing system for helpdesk calls.  I’d clear out the tickets much more frequently if the site we manage our tickets on weren’t mind numbingly slow.  That’s obvious to you and me, so surely it’s obvious to the people who made the ticketing site.  Right?

Twitter, the concept, works.  Twitter, when used via a third-party application, does not.  I probably wouldn’t use Twitter as much if they didn’t have a Jabber screen name that I can send updates to.  That functionality broke down a little while ago, with no resolution, so I stopped using Twitter and resorted to Facebook for my status updates.

Then, Facebook integrated with all of the other web 2.0 units, and I can now twitter from Facebook.  Except, I can’t.  That functionality is broken, too.  I’m not venturing to the main site to make my updates.  Since I tweet when my fingers are itchy and I don’t have much time, I don’t mind just using Status updates on Facebook.

But that makes me ask myself:  for those of us who enjoy status updates, what value does Twitter add if all of our friends are on Facebook anyway?  Off the top of my head: an organized list of one line journal entries - Facebook’s status updates get covered in a bunch of Web static.  Nonetheless, would I have asked myself that question if I could’ve updated Twitter and Facebook simulataneoeously?

Broken down functionality gives just enough pause to question whether or not I need the system.  Surely that’s bad news for Twitter.  As it is, most of my friends that have tried the service didn’t get it.

When the iPhone came out, I wonder if the mobile phone industry had a giant “I-could’ve-thought’ve that” moment.  Same with songwriters when they hear any Timbaland song.  Same with IBM when Outlook appeared.

If the task looks too simple or too complex, then it loses credibility or it gets shrugged off.  But simplicity seems to work pretty well for Timbaland, and the iPhone’s complexity is what makes it more versatile than the Razr because the iPhone’s extra features aren’t silly gimmicks.

The argument may be that Lotus Notes wasn’t supposed to be a simple email client, and that the Razr was only supposed to primarily be a mobile phone.  But how useful is an all-around collaborative package when the web has better free tools?  For someone who likes to carry all of their data in one device, how useful is the Razr’s gimmicky MP3 and internet functionality?

Yes, we could’ve thought of that, and we probably did at some point.  And I don’t know about you, but most of my thoughts go whizzing by into oblivion unless I make a record somehow.  And maybe that’s the solution to “I-could’ve-thought-of-that.”  A pen and paper (notecards, textfile, basecamp, etc.)

The stores that have donation boxes at their checkout stations have the right idea.  I think all stores should do this.  Just find an organization who needs support, or one that your company is interested in helping, and put a donation box for them on the counter.

I end up accumulating a good chunk of change throughout my work week.  It weighs down my pockets and I’d honestly rather get rid of it.  Not everyone agree of course, but sometimes it feels good to rid yourself of the extra weight.   Having the option is the most important part.

Imagine if all stores had a donation box for an organization focusing on cancer research, or Darfur, or whatever.  All stores across the nation, or in other parts of the world.  Cost to the company is virtually nothing.  You could use a shoebox.

Those electronic devices that spit out your change could offer the choice to have that money be deposited directly into the donation box.

It may seem a little silly to want a donation box based on the desire to create convenience for your customers, but I don’t feel that the reason behind a donation matters as much as the donation itself.

The cancel/kill button is one of those most essential elements in any piece of technology, even if it’s never used.

When we input, we make mistakes.  We should be able to change the output before our request has been processed (or gets stuck in processing).  Why don’t elevators have a cancel button when you hit the wrong floor?  Why don’t all printers have an off switch as opposed to a button which has to interact with the firmware, which could be non-responsive anyway.

The following is a sketch of an idea for a social/technological revolution.  I’ve been trying to write this post for a while, but it’s never sounded articulate.  It still doesn’t, but it’s important to get this out.  Feel free to contribute.

Something finally dawned on me today.  In general, users don’t like systems.  This is why we try to work our way around most of the time, and why we come up with “hacks.”  But I suppose another way to look at it is that it’s not really the systems that we don’t like, it’s the amount of systems we’re required to deal with on a daily basis.

I use Gmail because I like Gmail, but in the office, I’m required to use Outlook, or something worse.  Sure, we could set our emails to be forwarded, but we wouldn’t be able to use the address book.  We have a user/pass for the app we use for our work, a user/pass for the app we use to manage our work, a user/pass for the time-keeping software we use… and it goes on.

It seems as if we’re yearning to break our data down into bits and pieces so that the bits can be read by anything.  You could use Outlook if you want, or Gmail.  The address book data would be compatible with both.  My manager tracking my time in Excel is fine if I can input my time in Gmail.  You should be able to see what available time I have in your Outlook interface, even if my calendar is in Gmail.  Almost like RSS, applied to everything.  The content remains the same, but it’s the medium that’s up to the user.

The bottom line:  we follow our career paths because we want to help people and we want to be creative in doing so.  We don’t like being bogged down by admin tools, but we know that it’s a necessary concession, even if we have a personal assistant.  Better communication means we’re more productive when we have time to be productive.  The more spread out those admin tools become, the worse it gets.  The less we want to do, the less we remember to do, and the less we care.  Less brainpower goes to the work that actually matters.

And this doesn’t mean that we need to get rid of certain technologies.  We just need to make sure that users can pick one to get everything done with.

More to come on this topic.

My friend PJ went on a trip to Australia and told me about a bar-owner who allowed customers to pay “whatever they wanted” when they had finished their drinks. The bar is still in business, and PJ ended up spending some good cash there. The bar-owner’s ability to stay afloat has to do with the type of people who come to his bar, of course. It’s the same with most industries: we generally pay what we feel a good or service is worth. If it’s not worth the price, we stop buying until the price is right.

This particular Australian just happened to trust his customers. In a way, this is a brilliant bit of marketing. Radiohead is releasing a new album in 10 days, and their marketing will not be done through any label or PR firm. They will rely fully on the relationship they have with their fans.

Ever since we figured out how to squeeze audio into a tiny file playable on any computer with a soundcard, we started breaking down the walls of the music industry. The industry leaders stood strong as Napster, CD Burning, MySpace, BitTorrent, iTunes, and other technologies started tearing down their walls, leaving them cold and naked inside.

The system consists of a listener who buys a compact disc, whose money goes to an assortment of companies and people. Everyone from the people who manufactured the disc to the artist who designed the cover gets their cut, leaving the artist with a small amount for themselves. Digital music seemed so detrimental to this model because without a physical CD, the good became intangible. The industry, after a lot of pushing, finally embraced digital downloading, if they could restrict the sharing of files with DRM.

If Amazon broke the rules earlier by selling cheaper, quality, non-DRM digital downloads, Radiohead just rewrote the rules. The release of their new album was announced today, as well as the news of how it will be distributed. It’s available for download only, and it costs as much as you feel the album is worth. Yes, this means you can enter in any value when you order the downloads. They’re not signed, so they’re probably seeing most of the cash you spend on them (or they’re at least seeing more than they would on a label).

My guess is that most people will choose to get it for free. My second guess is that many will pay more than they normally would for a CD. It probably won’t be enough to outweigh the amount of people getting it for free, but it doesn’t matter. Radiohead will make a profit, and they will do so without a label backing them.

They won’t even need to pay for traditional advertising. They won’t need posters, banner ads, promo CDs, or anything of the sort. The internet’s social networks will carry the entire thing, and this remarkable story will spread like wildfire in the next week. Their message will be clear: we don’t need you, music industry.

Way to go, guys.

EDIT:  It would be cool if Radiohead gave this concept a name, like “variable value” or something.  That way, other bands can copy them without feeling like poseurs.

I was doing some coding today on my PC, and I realized that I hadn’t done web work on a PC in a really long time. Most of it I do on my Mac, using a combo of Transmit and Textmate. I was getting really frustrated about not being able to easily edit the files on the server directly, and I was sorely missing Expose to get back and forth between all the windows, and the tabbed windows in the task bar. Alt-tab just doesn’t do it for me, especially if I have a lot of windows open.

It got me thinking about how the platform we develop on influences the type of software we build. I once heard David Heinemeyer Hansen say that OS X inspired him to write creative programs, which was interesting to me.

I suppose that if I was trying to create a piece of art for a room, I would need to be in the room for a little while to gather inspiration, and to get the feel of the place. Surely working in an efficient operating system would make your work easier, or more fun - but does it make the work better?

Here are a few quick lessons that consulting has taught me so far.  I like these because they’re applicable to life outside of work.

1.  Learn to listen to what people really want, rather than just hearing what they say.  One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned from being a consultant so far is that people rarely say what they really mean, and it’s not something that happens on purpose, either.  When you deal with technology, oftentimes there are barriers to be broken, walls that have to come down.  Things like terminology (the internet vs. a browser, system tray vs. task bar).  Outside of technology though, there are lots of time where this same technique is applicable.   You have to probe a little bit to find out what they truly mean before making an assumption.  Those assumptions can be deadly sometimes, and they can wrap you up conflict.

2.  Politeness is free.  You can simply help your users (or your friends, relatives, etc.) or you can help them and make them feel welcome.  It doesn’t cost anything, and it always makes for a happier ending.  For instance, if I speak to someone who’s having SAP troubles, and I can’t help them immediately, I can always neutralize it by being as polite as possible.  Again, this technique applies to everything.  When my friend PJ would get a rude gesture while driving, he would always respond by giving the peace sign.  My guess is that the other driver would probably be confused, and then go back to being relaxed again.  The alternative is anger and blame - it’s all worthless, especially when you can just skip over it.

3.  Be a person with a personality.  You can read a “Hello, may I help you?” script or you can be yourself (within the limits of professionalism!).  This happens a lot over the phone.  People are expecting a scripted greeting.  What if you made it more interesting?  For instance, today I’ve been answering the phone with a “Happy Friday!”  This is nothing groundbreaking, but it still makes a huge difference.  Real life experiment:  don’t ask anyone how they are unless you’re really prepared to hear how they are.  And when you ask it, mean it.  The inflection in the tone of voice of someone who wants to know how you are is much different than the tone of the scripted “how are you.”  And then you should really listen.

4.  The customer is not always right.   There, I said it.  I include this because it’s important to realize that you can be as helpful as possible without getting walked on.  If your clients/customers expect you to walk on water, they’re going to be disappointed, so it’s important that you explain the reasons as to why you can’t fix something, or what policy prevents you from carrying out a given demand.  You should make it clear when you’ve done everything in your power.  When I was in college I worked at the front desk of a dorm, and during my 5-7am shift, a student came asking for Tylenol.  We didn’t have any behind the desk, and there was a convenience store down the road, but this student clearly stated she wasn’t leave until  I solved her problem.  So I called my girlfriend, and had her wake up and hand this girl pills at 5:30 am.  Did I have to do this?  Absolutely not.  What did it cost to make this girl happy?  2 minutes out of my girlfriend’s night (she’s forgiven me).

5.   You can’t bear the weight of the world.  Being on a Tier 1 team definitely teaches you that asking for help from the people above you is not only useful, it’s straight up necessary.  I could spend hours trying to help a user solve a problem that a Level 2 could figure out in minutes.  Sure, I’d learn a lot, but why waste a user’s time?  Similarly, we’re presented with situations everyday where asking for help is the only way to get things done.  Experiment:  write down all the skills you have (as a worker, friend, etc.) and then match yourself with a friend/colleague who has a complimentary talent.  Imagine what you could do as a team, and imagine the time that you could save.

6.  Pull out chairs, hold doors.  The idea is to make things as easy as possible for your users.  If this means redesigning the UI multiple times, then so be it.  For my current job, it involves not what I say but how I say it.  Most of the users I deal with don’t know their way around a computer as well as I do, and it’s easy to get caught up in computer jargon.  A lot of times they’ll pretend that they understand what I’m talking about so that they don’t seem stupid (they’re not, of course).  But it does lead to confusion when you think you’re on the same page, but you’re actually on different chapters.  You have to find the middle ground between hand-holding and no-training-wheels.

I’m sure that I’ll think of more later.