Humans and Chunking.Some would call this Agile but at the end of the day we humans tend to break things down into small pieces as way of coping with scale (kind of like Neurons in our body aren't complete end to end cycles, they are really just iterative linkages of energy). Sure we build ceremonies around the problem and often swear “this is the winning formula” but in truth all we are doing is taking a really big lumpy problem and breaking it down into manageable pieces. There is strength in doing this but there is also problems that often outweigh the positives. For instance in software I’ve noticed teams always almost get caught up in the idea that once you break an object into small pieces it becomes more manageable. In reality this often leads to context or peripheral awareness of the problem being lost due to the fragmentation. That’s the issue it’s not the idea of breaking things down its when the breaking things down gets obfuscated or leaves others out it in turn gives the developer or designer a small amount of information to work from. This in turn creates problems as without context of the problem, intended audience or even why the problem should be worked on… well…. More problems emerge. To put it bluntly you always almost end up doing keyhole surgery - some can make it work others, end in a painful career stunting failure.
A Product Manager is like a Military General.We often in the delivery teams (developer/designer) roll our eyes at times at the role of Product Manager. We at times have this distrust for anyone that can’t develop or write code to therefore be in charge of the products direction. Then on the flipside I’ve seen teams punish a Product Manager for having the development background because that person can’t resist from checking in on their code base and outlining solutions to problems before they arrive (oh btw, Scott Guthrie used to check name spaces on code before the devs could release…so don’t fault people for that!) A bad or good product manager is like a General in an army, should they give you bad orders or send you down the wrong path you can easily take a winning high performance team and run them into the ground in under a month. It’s very easy to kill the moral of a development team under the vision or guidance of bad product management (including release management).
Release Management is the same as horoscope reading.I’ve seen way to many teams be held hostage to a deadline they have little or no control over. Sure Agile processes get placed on a pedestal that is until the business throws a tantrum and says “I need it now” in which case agile will not be a safe haven to hide behind if it even hints at being a reason for delays. Agile however is often used to manage this and it can work to hold back the release date demons but I’ve also seen Agile become this lumpy carpet in which bad product design or strategies hide under. It’s easy to bury a team with no thinking or strategy behind feature development as all you have to say is “We’ll iterate our way out of this” and unless someone in the room is sharp enough to catch them in the act (empowered as well), guess what…that beloved agile just became that noose around your career necks. Agile also is a funny and interesting thing I’ve noticed in probably 8 years or so travelling around Australia/World. I’ve honestly never seen teams actually do it right to the letter of the law. I always see them cherry pick it to death and I’ve lost count at the number of times I’ve seen teams argue “well we like to keep it simple” as their rationale for its adoption hackery. I’ve also seen teachers of agile rant “You’re doing it wrong!” to which I now wonder if the builder blaming the tool is the right course of action here? Suffice to say Agile + Release Management is always an amusing sociological experiment to witness. It often is in many ways like watching the TV show “Survivor” + “Amazing Race” inside the cubicle.
Design is on a pedestal until pressure builds.As a UX person now (also now studying psychology), I’ve come to learn that we humans are actually quite adaptable to change and experiences. We often place ourselves in compartments and use personas as a shield to hide behind the various matrix’s that we assume or intend users to uphold. It’s as if we assume out loud that our users will self-divide into sub-tribes that fit in with our mental models around usage & expectations. It’s an ongoing science HCI without any hint of complete understanding but in the mean time we’ll continue to evolve design in a way that hopefully proves probabilities and our internal monologues about what users like or don’t like in designs. Design is the term though as at the end of the day despite all the research it comes down to the hand of a designer either using a mouse or Wacom graphic pen (most designers I know don’t use a mouse). We can craft the ideas or belief system but its not until these folks grind the pixels out that we have a well formed output that the users can appreciate and be drawn into. Marketing also play a role in this and they’ll often want more influence or say into what the design composition upholds – in fact everybody wants input as because its visual this means everyone gets a say!. Yet nobody volunteers to have input in that line of code you wrote or even that decision you made around a campaign. A designer is Queen/King that is until he/she accidently and stupidly shows the rest of the business what they made and then you watch a positive or negative feeding frenzy take place. The feeding frenzy often however is used by developers as now they to have a safe haven to also hide behind as all they have to say out loud is “I can’t do design, so I can’t finish this until the designer finishes”. Hiding behind that means they have to take no risks or never fail in both their execution of an idea or worse keep their efficiency returns high (i.e. why bother trying to do a design ahead of the designer when all it would mean is wasted time, time…in agile….time…you say)
What have I really learnt?That despite all the knowledge and experience I’ve acquired over the years it’s really rare I see the business, technical and design equation balanced. Almost every company I’ve consulted with, worked in, contracted for and observed have always managed to have an imbalance in these three areas. If the balance tips in say technical favor it usually means business & design are at a loss and likewise if the other two do the same. You may find one or two areas where the balance stays true or looks balanced but it usually is a false positive as seemingly its usually the “design” that’s the one bluffing (ie crap design experiences being palmed off as “good enough”). My theory or something I’m going to devote I guess the rest of my life to is finding a way or rhythm to debunk this equation in that there has to be a way to balance the three without cubicle combat. Today I’d simply say this, if all three parties aren’t sharing the risk of change or failures, then that’s the starting point. In 20 years I’ve rarely seen all three take that on willingly and accepting that failure has rewards as well as losses. That giving a deadline to a developer is like yelling at a tornado to turn around, it may feel good to do so but you will always most certainly get creamed anyway. A designer is the user advocate and they have instincts built in that are well honed towards how people deal with vast amounts of information & cognitive load. An Engineer can work in literal form better than lateral but a designer has only lateral so the balance has to be struck (form vs function wars begin). Lastly a Product Manager without a 2+ year roadmap isn’t a product manager, they are just the business development suit running around pretending they are in charge of an empire that has enormous of opportunity that continues to go wasted. If you haven’t got a forward thinking General then maybe the competitor does and that’s why you seemingly keep looking at what they did for visual cues on success vs fail (Microsoft we agonized at Apple/Google/Oracles growth. I doubt it was a two-way process hence the huge leads they have gained in 8 years).
"..The only way you win an argument is if you get the other side to agree with you.."Is what my dad would say when he & i used to get into the thick of it. Its a fairly simple statement as in the end when you have two opposing ideas on the same problem, well it comes down to either compromise or an impasse. If its an impasse then it probably will come down to the title you have on the day, in my case being Head of User Experience. A title like mine carries some weight that means i can ignore your opinion and proceed onwards without it, but doing so means that i need to qualify my arrogance more. Being the top-dog in UX land isn’t an excuse to just push past people on their “I think” statements and supplant your “I thinks” ontop. Instead what it means is we have to be more focused on establishing the “I know” statement that absorb the two opposing ideas. My way of thinking is this, when I reach a point where there isn’t any data to support the opinions / ideas its now a case of writing multiple tests to get them fact checked and broken down until we do have the ideas transformed into behaviour facts. I think the users will not like the start menu removed so don’t touch it. Now lets remove the start menu is my immediate thought, screw the statement what happens when we do it. I’m assuming there will be some negative blowback but can you imagine the data we can now capture once its removed and how the users react. The users will tell us so much, how they use the menu, where they like it, why they like it there, who they are, what they use and so on. That one little failure in Windows 8 is a gold mine of data and online there are discussion forums filled with topics / messages that centre around “ I think “ but nobody really has “I know” except Microsoft. My point is this. If you’re not in a role that has User Experience in its title then fine, knock yourselves out with the back and forth of “I think” arguments. If you are in UX your job is to not settle with “I think” and instead hunt for “I know” for you will always get rewarded.
A respondent is asked to walk on a path through a forest from A to B. The respondent is asked to count how many “blue” objects are lined along the path, and the said respondent’s heart rate will be also monitored (also base-lined / zeroed out). Before the respondent takes off the testers place a stick that has similar shape to a coiled snake midway on the path. The respondent is then asked to proceed on the journey, and they begin to count the blue objects and at the end of the path when they arrive, they give an accounting of their blue object findings. Their heart rate was normal in line with normal physical activity. Respondents were less likely to notice the stick. Next round of respondents are asked to the same, only this time the seed of fear is planted in their subconscious with “oh others noticed a snake a few hours ago along the path, be careful and if you see it sing out, it should be gone by now and we couldn't find it earlier so just take note”. Respondents begin the journey on the path, they notice the stick initially and a lot of messaging between the optics and brain are moving at lightning speed trying to decipher the pattern(s) needed to place a confirmation on “threat or non-threat” levels. Heart rate is spiking and eventually they realize its a stick and proceed, as they walk past the stick still keeping a very close eye and proximity buffer between the stick and them.The point of that story is this, that with an introduction to the standard test of a new variable (fear) you’re able to affect the experience dramatically to the point where you've also touched on a primal instinct. In software that “stick” moment can be anything from moving the “start button” on a menu through to moving the way a tabular amount of data has been traditionally been displayed. As a User Experience creator, we typically move the cheese a lot and it’s more to do with controlling change in our user(s) behavior (for the greater good). Persona(s) don’t measure that change, all they measure is what happened before you made the change. All you can do is create markers in the experience that help you map your initial persona baseline back to the new in the hopes it provides a bounty of data in which “change” is made obvious. It doesn't… sadly… it just doesn't and so all we can do is keep focusing on the past behavioral patterns in the hope that new patterns emerge. Persona(s) aren't bad, they aren't good, they are just a representative sample of something we knew yesterday that maybe still relevant today. The thing i do like about personas from marketing folks is this, it keeps everyone focused on behaviors they’d like to see tomorrow re-appear and that in the end is all i ever really needed. Where do you want to head tomorrow? Last example - NBC Olympics were streamed in 2009 to the entire US with every sport captured and made available. At the time everyone inferred that an average viewer would likely spend 2mins viewing time. In actuality they spent 20mins average viewing time and sent massive ripples in the TV/Movie industry in terms of the value of “online viewing”. If we had of asked candidates back then both as content publishers and consumers, they’d probably have told us data that they asserted to be relevant at the time. In this instance the Silverlight team were able to serve up HD video for the first time too many people online, and that’s what changed peoples experience. Today, its abnormal to even contemplate HD video streaming online as anything but an expected experience for "video" ... 5 years ago, it didn't exist. Personas compared to then and now are all dramatically different now, so while change can in some parts be slow... they can easily expedite to days, months as well as years. I don't dislike Persona's, i just remain skeptical always of the data that fuels them - but thats my job.
I have noticed in a few places discussions comparing the UI and API of WinRT with Silverlight, and suggesting that it (WinRT) is preferable. Mostly, these were quite old posts (a series of 6 or more at SharpGIS was my first sense of this).
It does raise the possibility that Windows / Microsoft will rebirth or rethink some technologies.
Related (in my eyes, anyway), apparently there is a wider discussion about Windows 9 (based on leaks and conjecture) suggesting that there is to be a complete rethink of Windows market segments in Windows 9 “Threshold”.
It’s summarised here in InfoWorld (December 2013) in an article by some bloke named Woody Leonhard.
He sets the tone in his first sentence:
“If independent leaks are to be believed, Windows chief Terry Myerson appears to be dismantling the Jekyll-and-Hyde monstrosity that is Windows 8, instead replacing it with a triumvirate of products that people and companies will actually want.”
I’ll be interested in Scott’s comments on the triumverate of products, including the quote that refers to Terry Myerson’s supposed intentions.My thoughts/Reply I don't know much about the future of Microsoft because I suspect not many INSIDE Microsoft themselves have a clear definitive handle on that (not to sound jaded, i honestly do believe they are still haggling over how to raise the broken into fixable solutions). I would say this, the company has built up enough equity in the past to make a full focused run at Consumer adoption for products that would typically sell reasonably if not better in enterprise/smallbiz but they in the end hit a wall. I think it was mainly they didn't understand the consumers needs and were to busy trying to graph compete strategies they have used on Enterprise into the same space as consumers (Internally Microsoft can be quite aggressive and paralysed with fear around competitive events - its a huge weakness imho). If you were to unpack Windows 8 today and really take a step back from it all, there's not a lot of negativity associated with what they have done. I look at Windows 8 as the parity release between Silverlight/WPF and all the fixes customers (devs) wanted but it was delivered in a way that traumatised the base. It could have been delivered with a softer approach to change management in that instead of holding a gun to our collective heads with the intent of "upgrade or else" simple things like namespace / sdk related issues would have been enough to build confidence with the developer base around migration / roadmap. A developer would be fine with with Windows 7 WPF/Silverlight development today provided they know eventually with a Windows 8 upgrade the performance and scaleability issues would naturally resolve themselves (ie devs dont spend to much time haggling over the rendering pipeline). If you then combine Windows Phone 8 (which is really still in many ways the Silverlight behaviour) you again then tick the other box around reach on mobility devices. You are still locking them down into a world called "windows" which doesn't piss a lot of enterprise companies off, especially with the current turbulence in the device market we see today. Enterprise companies right now are a little paranoid or scared about their mobility adoption strategies because its one thing to say "I want breadth" and another to say "i want breadth and depth' when it comes to User experiences that count. If a company wants to get their "mobility" story together, they often associate mobility with web because breadth is far more attractive story than a depth discussion. Breadth means HTML/JS because it means I don't have to have specialist teams (Java, ObjectiveC, C#/Mono etc). Depth requires the opposite because you can only put off that problem for so long before someone within a team suddenly comes to work wearing his/her "Java Conference 1998" t-shirt and smells funny because they do Android development. Microsoft had an opportunity to do a simple rinse/repeat on the "Embrace/Extend" model with Windows and like I said, Enterprise would likely have been fine to play in that sandpit (of course they'd keep pushing on the "make my C#/XAML apps work on all" angle every step of the way). In keeping Enterprise bellies full that would have stabilised at the very least their largest piece of the profit share pie, in that they would have bought themselves another 2-5 years to focus on Consumer more without having to pay the tax on losing hearts/minds of business grade solutions. This would have also given them more adoption metrics around the mobility + desktop upgrade story because if a company buys 10-100 units of one piece of hardware because it was easier to develop against well thats 10-100 forced adoption(s) on users which after a while could turn into positive/negative evangelist for those products (Forced adoption is not a bad strategy ...its just ethically horrid). But.. sadly none of the above has happened, instead Sinofsky wen't rogue, went aggressive not just internally but externally and let his own self-inflated arrogance steer the ship in a direction of aggressive change management which has backfired. Now the new heads of state have to figure out how to salvage what they have left into meaningful pieces that can essentially tap into the above behaviours. The article is right, you have really three options - fade out you core business (enterprise) and go full retard on consumers adoption, reverse the namespace/SDK engines and build a bridge between old and new but lose what small foothold you have on consumers - or - abandon consumer focus and retreat back to safety around enterprise/small business. I'd place my money on the 2nd option, bridge building but that's going to be filled with a lot of apologies and the only way they can even attempt to make that work is to ramp up their DPE practices beyond where it is today (that is a lot of people on a lot of planes, apologising and seeding a new/existing audience with solutions). The head of DPE (former CEO of Skype) is a business development numbers guy who clearly has no real passion for DPE, so i don't see how even if they find a way to build that bridge can make that happen (it's an attitude issue as well as a technical one). Building a bridge between old and new is not as scary as one would assume (well i don't anyway), there is a lot of positive work put into the Windows 8 SDK's .. i don't think anyone can say out-loud that Microsoft doesn't get their shit together technically when given the chance, there is and has always been more positives in their technical abilities than negatives - it just always always always comes down to the way in which they deliver the message and react to developer/customer issues of the day. Is it really a case of just refactoring Windows 8 namepsaces or proxy classes of some sort to convince Developers to continue on WPF/Silverlight path? ... Is it a matter of just investing more in that "devigner" tooling problem (Expression Blend makes a comeback but with less reliance of "reflection" based property grids). *shrug* .. i can personally see a way they could rebuild and get on with the Windows 9 approach and I don't think it requires a radical overhaul but more architectural common sense.
Take the freaking call. 😳In ignoring this, they in turn let the message around what this all actually means fall into the hands of the horde, which in turn means a lot of assumptions, assertions and most importantly anti-Windows Phone fuel for the rumor mill fire(s). First reading you will take a pass at this being a case of Microsoft looking to rub their greedy hands together and go for the ye olde replenishment model. If you shift all your energy & focus onto a new release for new phones, only you can replenish your profit margins with the existing user base – as that is exactly what Apple does. After careful consideration however and you continue to read on in this saga you may stumble upon a link or two that points you to the real story in around the upgrade future(s) here, in that Microsoft will promise to give you a 8.x update.
“..Distribution of the updates may be controlled by the mobile operator or the phone manufacturer from which you purchased your phone. Update availability will also vary by country, region, and hardware capabilities...”I could sit here and go all Troll/FUD on that last comment but in reality its like kicking that sick puppy again. I will simply say this; the messaging for this got lost yet again and now Microsoft have to spend cycles trying to put this genie back in the bottle. The only real way they can do this is by giving concrete assurances & specifics in around what 8.x vs 9.x will look like, specifically what does this whole Windows “Blue” strategy likely to become? They will not do that, as that would be as if again someone in Microsoft + Wagged were actually taking a proactive stance on Public Relation(s) – Probably reading their PRIME scores upside down still. To quote Tom on my facebook thread:
“..Microsoft used to control the messaging of updates a lot better, putting the blame on carriers. Carriers didn't like this, so Microsoft removed the tables they used to supply. Some phones in the US don't even have Tango right now, let alone 7.8. Have Microsoft committed to supplying 7.8 for every existing device? No. They've remained silent consistently about 7.8 and even pushed versions with buggy live tiles without a PR strategy. This support document with life cycle information has never been published before, and yet Microsoft has not managed the message well once again. It leaves people waiting for Tango or 7.8 concerned they will be left in the dark once again. Don't defend it, ask for change…”Simply put, this isn’t a story about Windows Phone upgrade good vs bad its more about how the hell does a company like Microsoft constantly forget to sit down and write a PR Strategy that actually makes sense. If you know you are about to launch a phone, then start campaigning now and furthermore do something about the release in a more visible / visual way that covers off your talking points of concern. The fact Microsoft are constantly trying to figure out a way to pander to the carriers in order to push more units is probably a strong indicator as to why Surface Pro has failed to go outside handful of zip codes as they still haven’t figured out what “logistics” and “partnerships” really look like. Apple is also being constantly used as baseline for success/failures for Microsoft in that all too often I see “but Apple do…” stop right there, Apple firstly have a strong history of success not simply because they had first move advantage on a touch-enabled phone but they have a very tightly controlled release strategy. When Apple sit down and release a product post, its actual design/development they focus in on the important areas such as:
- “How do I get this phone to some kid in outback Australia and New York at the same time?”
- “How do I control the entire PR noise around this launch so everyone takes queues from me not bloggers”
- “How do I convince consumers to move to the next phone without them realizing I’m replenishing my market”.