Essays

2 years ago

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Thoughts on Clay Shirky’s “Arrogance and Humility”

If you’re not following A Brief Message, the new venture in insight, brevity, and forward-thinking presentation masterminded by the inimitable Khoi Vinh and Liz Danzico, do yourself a favor: visit the site and absorb the complete archive. Don’t worry, it’s only five posts long at the moment, and each one runs about 200 words. (The average so far is exactly 210, actually.)

The latest article in the series is Clay Shirky’s “Arrogance and Humility,” wherein the esteemed author discusses the extremes on the spectrum of motivation in design and how those values manifest on the web and in society at large. It’s one of the better posts so far, and like all good writing, has spurred some interesting dialogue. What follows are my thoughts on Clay’s column.

Why I Think Good Design is Not Arrogance

I don’t like calling good design “arrogant.” Designers can be arrogant, of course, but a well-designed thing shouldn’t necessarily imply an inflated sense of importance on the part of its designer or its owner. That great designers can tell what people want better than the people know themselves isn’t arrogance; it’s talent. And it’s something for which we should all be thankful.

I would also argue that the iPod is objectively better than MySpace. The form and functionality of the iPod are so brilliantly and complementarily designed that they have, as Clay put it, “created, then owned, a category.” (Which category? Todd G. put it best in his comment: “The category is ‘MP3 player that millions of people would actually buy and be able to use.’”) The iPod is a cultural phenomenon for a reason.

MySpace, on the other hand, just happened to be the site that caught on early in the social networking space, due mainly to situational factors and the realization that customization was a key to the user experience. The idea behind the site is a useful but unoriginal one, and its social networking aspects are neither innovative nor impressive. What makes MySpace special is the ability to completely customize one’s profile, which is ultimately an aspect of functionality, not design. And that’s especially true of MySpace: the tools that make that customization possible, like the rest of the site, are an abomination of usability, and their shortcomings very likely engender the poor results we love to hate. Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way, and if MySpace hadn’t provided the option, another site would have, potentially with a well-designed implementation. But now that MySpace and its myriad features have crystallized into a relied-upon vehicle for social networking, the chances of an extensive repurposing and redesign are zero. I would question the long-term success of this model, but the millions of other poorly designed things to which we’ve all grown accustomed prove that people make a lot of allowances. Clay is spot-on in this regard, pointing out: “MySpace demonstrates that users prize participation, even at the expense of clarity.”

The iPod and MySpace are not opposites. MySpace is useful but ugly. The iPod, however, isn’t pretty but useless; it’s pretty and useful. This is why the age-old contraposition of “Function vs. Form” is misleading — I don’t like the implication that the two are at odds, and I believe the most perfect products are those that wed good design and good functionality.

The hideous result of putting users in charge of aesthetics doesn’t mean they resent good design — it’s simply evidence that most people are not talented designers and don’t care about design at all on a conscious level. Of course, that doesn’t render it unimportant to them. I’d wager a healthy majority of MySpace users own at least one iPod.

My concern is that this widespread attitude is actually regarded as evidence that good design is inherently a product of arrogance. Instead, I believe it’s an unfortunate trend in which design is unjustly cast as a pretentious artistic endeavor, rather than a craft focused on the harmony of functional elegance — that is, making the things that allow us to do what we want to do quickly, easily, and with eminent aplomb.

Note

Clay Shirky’s research and wisdom in these matters far exceeds my own, and I feel honored to share this space in such a way that allows me to respond to his ideas so easily. Indeed, without his post I never would have been inspired to spend a few hours organizing my thoughts here. I recommend taking the time to read a few of the essays on Clay’s website for a sampling of his intuition and intellect.

Trackback Comment

Perhaps MySpace isn’t as stuck as I might suggest. Founder and president Tom Anderson recently posted a potential new default design. I’m not too impressed, but it’s a step in a direction. Maybe or maybe not the right one. Pressure from Facebook is surely sparking this sort of thing, and it will be interesting to follow!

Well said, sir. What’s upsetting is that Facebook, which previously served MySpace-like function with a cleaner, more simplified design, is going the way of it’s competitor by provided absurd customization with these ridiculous applets.

The iPod and MySpace aren’t directly opposed, as you say. (The problem with the 250 word limit is that all arguments become either banal or telegraphic.)

However, the important detail about MySpace is that it _wasn’t_ the first SNS, or even the first successful one — there was 6degrees in ‘96, which tanked, and then Friendster in 2002, when did fantastically well and _then_ tanked. What MS did right was to hand it’s users much more control over context and self-presentation than Abrams had done with Friendster.

The problem with my piece, which I think you nailed, is comparisons between hardware vs software or UI vs social presentation prevent it from being a clean comparison. However, I still think that knowing when to hand control to users and when to make a shiny perfect thing with no user-serviceable parts inside is both a key question for designers and one that can’t be answered in the abstract.

If I’d written that 3 months later, I’d probably have used the iPhone — the best thing about it is its perfection, and the shittiest thing about it is its lack of extensibility. If it gets seriously challenged in the next 2 years, it won’t be because someone makes a more perfect phone, but because someone makes a less perfect one that is more open to user-context.

Yes, I’ve noticed that it’s difficult to write a thorough argument in 200 words. Recent posts on A Brief Message have seen a fair amount of incredulity in the comments. Writing that succinctly is huge challenge; I think you handled it beautifully.

“I still think that knowing when to hand control to users and when to make a shiny perfect thing with no user-serviceable parts inside is both a key question for designers and one that can’t be answered in the abstract.”

Indeed. I’m sure you’d agree that the degree to which control is handled to the users is important as well — do I make my product completely customizable, design-wise? (MySpace.) Or do I make it preferentially controllable within the basic confines of the platform’s design, so that everything looks relatively uniform? (Facebook’s apps, for example.)

It’s interesting what you said about the iPhone. I’ll bet the first company to challenge the iPhone’s current paradigm is Apple themselves. That officially-sanctioned web app directory launched on Apple.com today, and there are lots of rumors of opening up the platform to selected third-party developers.

I think then we’ll start to see whether my argument is really possible — to develop a thing that is beautiful, brilliantly functional, _and_ satisfactorily customizable. Perhaps the level of desired customization really depends on the device. I mean: people buy iPhones in great numbers, and the most customizable aspect of that would probably be playlists. (I suppose special plastic or leather cases and case mods are another level of that.) In fact, that leads me to wonder if people would be so keen to customize MySpace if the default interface weren’t so ugly in the first place. Facebook is mostly elegantly designed, and I’ve never heard complaints that it isn’t customizable enough. (And, getting back to the playlists, that’s just an extension of iTunes itself… I might even say iTunes is to WinAmp as Facebook is to MySpace.)

Saturday, July 31, 2010
07:03pm