On the ideal of computing utility

There’s a layer of meta observation and enthusiasm for the iPad that rarely addressed: those who are focusing most on the ‘computing experience’ (Use one for a couple hours and your desktop or laptop will seem clumsy, arbitrary, and bewildering. It is, simply, how (most) computing should be. — Alex Payne, though it should be noted that he’s more of skeptic than most; I could find any number of claims similar, but this just happened to be the one I was reading this minute) are people who have embraced, for better or worse, and with enthusiasm, that their experience of the world is predominantly via a screen, and that this is a good thing. Others, such as professional gadgeteers, are demanding more robust and clever experience for the rudimentary processes of distraction (would you want to have to play with poorly designed gadgets all day?). Of course they want eye candy and smooth transitions between web pages. They aren’t actually doing anything, so why shouldn’t it be as pretty as can be?

This very moment I’m designing a postcard. There is nothing bewildering about the process, except for the fact that I need to use a computer at all. But it makes the process much more efficient in some areas, and that is the way of the world for what I do. Occassionally I lose track of the focus point, so my click and scroll zoom and moves are a little wonky, or I press the wrong key and paste instead of pasting in place, but basically, for the next hour, everything I do, aside from design decisions, will be exactly as I expect it, vis a vis the computer actions. Someone could carp about confusing key patterns, but I challenge you to design me a haptic interface that gives me access to the 20-30 commands I will use in the next 60 minutes that can be performed all while manipulating the visual elements with an input device (the mouse).

It’s a dangerous game to focus on the marginal aspects/experiences of computing. And by marginal, I mean ones that take little to no advantage of the power a computer provides. Most websites are inherently marginal. It if weren’t for rich media — and let’s be honest, 90% of the time, ‘rich’ media is no more complex than a VHS tape — and JavaScript, you could comfortably browse the web with a 10 year old computer.

Remember, these people mostly exist in an artificial universe funded by speculators (or, worse, self-funded). I’d like a browser that was maybe a little slicker, but mostly I’m just reading blogs anyway. But telling me a device that can only perform one task at a time, and a very few that don’t constitute some version of FourSquare, is the future of my computer experience? I guess the simple way of saying it is some people in this world thinks SXSW is heaven, but in point of fact, most of us think it’s hell (or just sad). Unfortunately, that small subset is making all the decisions for the rest of us.

(Oh, and for those who argue that most people don’t utilize higher power functions, well, you’ve never seen an office full of Excel jockeys, and the things that should really advance the conversation, such as eBooks, are, based on early reports, outright failures relative to what was claimed at announcement — in other words, the iPad provides an eBook experience that is at best equal other eReaders from a UX perspective)