If you want to know when new articles go
online,
subscribe to the WebWord.com
Usability Newsletter!
The
Next Development Platform
by John S.
Rhodes
Summary
Technology is not
stable. It changes over time; it is a moving target. In contrast, humans are
quite stable. Each human might not be stable, but as a whole, humans are
very constant. Stability and predictability are good things. Therefore,
development and design should be based on humans. Specifically, development
should be based on a human platform not a technological platform.
Technology is
Around Us, All of the Time
The world is a strange place. Over the last few years,
indeed over the last decade, there has been an incredible emphasis on
technology. There is an old meme
floating around that technology makes the world
go around and around. It goes something like this: Without technology where would we be? What would we
do? Think of all the jobs that rely on technology. Think of all of the jobs
that have been created by technology. In any single day you can't do
anything without technology.
By the way, I take you up on the challenge.
You live with
technology. It is your second skin. Not convinced? Did you wear your glasses
today? That's technology. Do you take your medicine? That's technology too.
Did you use some form of transportation today, such as a car, bus, or
bicycle? All driven by technology. Technology drives your life. To some
extent, it is true.
Now, take a step back from this insanity. The technology-is-life
meme might not fit with your perception of reality. However, I bet that you
are sharp enough to get my point. From day to day you rely on stuff.
All that stuff is basically the result of some form of technology. I would
be inclined to say that this stuff is technology.
My main point is that technology is all around you, day
after day. It is in your face. It is on your face, in the case of
glasses. That is the backdrop. That is the first part of my story.
But Technology Changes
The problem is that
technology can go away. It can die. It
can morph into something that we don't want. It is true that it can improve
productivity. It is also true that technology can improve your life. But, it
can go away. And, almost by definition, it changes. Technology is not even a
stable concept from one moment to the next. It is chaotic, exciting, and
dynamic.
Why is this important? Because when the economy hits the
toilet and people lose jobs and companies can't turn a profit, technology
cannot help you. Technology can't save your life. Technology can turn its back on you. Technology is limited.
Technology helps you live your life, but it isn't all of your life. You and
technology are not the same thing. It is only part of your life. It is
removed from your very essence.
I could say the same thing about your husband, wife,
partner, or kids. Or your uncle,
or mother, or even your friends and colleagues. They are only part of your
life, they are not literally part of you. You might pass along some genetic
material, but they do not share your exact atoms. So, you
are not merged with technology, and you are not merged with the humans
around you. (At least not yet. Someday, I think we might all become Borg.)
This is an important concept. Hold with me for a few more
paragraphs...
Human Nature is Stable
I could go on. I
could continue to talk about things that change. However, I will stop and get to my main point. I
would like you to understand that although technology changes and goes away,
and although humans are not always with you, there are still important
constancies we can depend on. Humans, as a group and as a species, are
stable. Much more than technology. That is the core idea. If you want
stability, look at humans. From generation to
generation, human nature doesn't change. People are people.
However, because technology changes, we have the false notion that we have
changed as well. We have not changed.
There was love
five hundred years ago and there is love now. It hasn't changed much. Pascal
and Hailstorm and IBM didn't exist. Computers didn't exist. Math was around,
but it has changed. It has been more stable and more reliable than
technology itself. It has been an engine. But I digress. Math has changed,
technology has changed. People have not changed.
It is true that we
have increased our ability to transfer data, information, and knowledge.
And, our tools help us pass along more and more every day. We are able to
pass along our essence, in the form of technology. We literally pass
along photos, for example, which was impossible a few hundred years ago.
Despite this fact, we are not living forever. And,
more importantly, we are still human.
We are what I would consider
"pure human" for the most part. If you have an artificial heart,
however, maybe you are a little bit less human. That isn't meant to be a
hostile comment. Indeed, depending on how you define "human" you
could be more human with an artificial heart. That is something
philosophical to discuss. It gets away from my main point, which is that
humans are human but technology changes. Humans should be the basic
foundation of development. Design and development should center around humans
first, since they provide a stable foundation.
If we know that
humans are stable, in that they need or desire food, affection, sex, and
other stuff, then why do we build technology for the sake of technology.
Better still, why do we continue to drive product development based on the
notion of technological change? Why is development couched in terms of
technology? Why is the focus on products not people?
The Next Platform for Development
If technology
changes, and we agree that it does all the time, then maybe it is not a stable
platform. Yet, designers, developers, and even usability professionals are
focused on technology. We continually build new gadgets and gizmos because
we have a set of tools that makes this happen. We are also infatuated with
electronics and mechanical design and science to the point that our
development platform is technology itself.
We use technology to build technology.
But does that logic make sense? Does it make sense to use clay to make
clay? Does it make sense to make wood out of wood? I don't think so. We use
clay to make products for people. We use wood to make products for people.
Technology should be built for people.
You might argue that technology is
already built for people. However, I would say that we have put the cart
before the horse. We have built technology and we have forced it on
people.
This has created a sense of progress. Build it and they will come! But, if
we instead first knew what people really needed and then built the
technology for them, the benefits would be much greater for everyone.
Companies would sell more, and people would buy more. Everyone would enjoy a
greater level of satisfaction.
I can't tell you
what the next technological platform for development should be. However, I can tell you
that it should be based on what humans really want and need. It should be based on
how humans operate. It should be based on how we communicate. It should be
based on how we think.
I'm not asking for
the impossible. We know that humans are stable in many ways. We know an
awful lot about psychology, sociology, anthropology, and so forth. Why not
base our development platform on the stable things we know about humans? For
example, humans have limited memory capacity. Humans don't like pain. Humans
desire attention and affection. Humans like to spend time with other humans.
Humans are social creatures, and we know a lot about how we operate. Why not
capitalize on that? Shouldn't technology fit us, and our attributes?
The Real Deal
On a tactical
level, this might mean that we build new programming languages based on the
factors I just mentioned. Or, maybe it means that we force development teams
to focus on humans first in virtually any project. Find out how people work
and what they want, perhaps using more task
analyses, and then move
forward.
If this sounds
like usability, you are right. Instead of getting involved with a
development project and helping developers and designers, why don't usability
professionals start and run projects? Why don't they force designers to cry for
time on projects? Why
don't they get developers to beg to write code? If you think about this, it
isn't all that funny. Doesn't it make sense to first figure out what people
want and need and develop from that point of view? Doesn't it make sense to
base your technology on people first? Why should we all be forced to work
with a technology platform first, before we start with the human platform?
Put humans first, because that is the whole point of technology. Technology should be built
around humans. Human
traits dictate what can and cannot be done. At the core of each technology
project is a human who has some problem, challenge, need, or desire. Start
there. Start with humans.
What next?
|