{"id":20362,"date":"2015-09-07T07:00:34","date_gmt":"2015-09-07T11:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=20362"},"modified":"2015-09-07T09:28:30","modified_gmt":"2015-09-07T13:28:30","slug":"the-power-user-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2015\/09\/07\/the-power-user-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"The Power User Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Image<\/a>
Image Credit: \u201cSpinoza in a T-Shirt\u201d \u2013 The New Inquiry<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

While listening to a techie podcast<\/a> the other day, one of the hosts, who happens to be the designer of a popular podcast app<\/a>, got into a discussion about his design approach. New features in a forthcoming version necessitated new customization settings, but introducing them was complicated by a paradox he affectionately dubs the \u201cpower user problem.\u201d He describes the problem (at 26 minutes in<\/a>) as this:<\/p>\n

If you give people settings, they will use them. And then they will forget that they used them. And then the app will behave differently from the default because they changed settings and they forgot that they changed them. And then they will write in or complain on Twitter or complain in public that my app is not working properly because of a setting they changed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For this reason, the designer defends his inclination to keep user customization to the minimum necessary.<\/p>\n

Through iteration, user feedback, and intuition, the designer had arrived at what seemed to him a reasonable compromise between customization and simplicity. Yet, in accomplishing this goal, the design inadvertently leaves some users, even so called power users, out of the loop. (And, in fairness to the designer, he is hardly the first<\/a> to make this point<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

That is, as a result of its pragmatic simplicity, the design precludes users who cannot navigate\/tweak the system from enjoying the product\u2019s full functionality. Therefore, this particular software fails to adhere to \u201cinclusive design,\u201d or design that attempts to resolve the counterposed aspects of technical functionality and accessibility for a physically, biographically, and experientially diverse user population.<\/p>\n

Inclusive design has been a rallying cry for disability rights communities, and reads like a gold standard for widespread technological accessibility. However, a recent piece <\/a>on design and embodiment pushes inclusive design and its proponents to think about what \u201cinclusivity\u201d looks like in practice.<\/p>\n

Bodies that are farther from the standard body bear the weight of [environmental] forces more heavily than those that are closer to the arbitrary standard. But to resolve this design problem does not mean that we need a more-inclusive approach to design. The very idea of inclusion, of opening up and expanding the conceptual parameters of human bodies, depends for its logic and operation on the existence of parameters in the first place.<\/strong> In other words, a more inclusive approach to design remains fundamentally exclusive in its logic (emphasis added).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The article<\/a>, a self-described manifesto for \u201cdesigns that do not know what bodies aren\u2019t,\u201d presents a real challenge to the conventional wisdom of software design, which has \u2013 much like mass market clothing and architectural design \u2013 always assumed a default user, with customization options provided as-needed (if at all). On the flip side, allowing user configuration of every conceivable part of the interface would only exacerbate customer support and still doesn\u2019t accommodate everyone (hence the power user problem). This is the central question of the manifesto: how can design trouble its own exclusionary boundaries without creating new ones?<\/p>\n

\"Image<\/a>
Image Credit: \u201cSpinoza in a T-Shirt\u201d \u2013 The New Inquiry<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The author identifies the jersey knit cotton T-shirt as one example of design that comes close to solving this problem. That is, the cotton T-shirt adapts to its user.<\/p>\n

The jersey knit cotton T-shirt\u2014a product found across the entire price point spectrum\u2014is accessible and inhabitable by a great number of people. Jersey knit cotton is one of the cheaper fabrics, pliable to a broad range of bodies. Jersey knit cotton T-shirts really don\u2019t know what a body isn\u2019t\u2014to this T-shirt, all bodies are T-shirt-able, all bodies can inhabit the space of a T-shirt, though how they inhabit it will be largely determined by the individual body.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This example raises the question: what would the software equivalent of the jersey knit cotton T-shirt look like? What qualities would constitute a software design approach that, as the article says, \u201ccreate[s] built environments that are pliant, dynamic, modular, mobile?\u201d<\/p>\n

Before identifying software that adapts like a t-shirt to its user, looking at a couple examples of highly customizable (but ultimately insufficiently adaptable) software may be helpful to set the parameters.<\/p>\n

Web browsers, even the simplest ones, allow considerable customization. Most browsers let you install extensions that augment the browser\u2019s default functionality, whether it\u2019s visual themes or ad blocking. But as useful as blocking annoying, battery draining ads is, for those less technically savvy who don\u2019t install AdBlock, their attention and their data effectively subsidize their more technically savvy peers. Therefore, traditional web browser design (and, indeed, website design<\/a>) assumes that, among other things, the user either knows how to customize their environment to meet their needs (through extensions, like AdBlock and similar resource managers<\/a>) or that the user has a reliable, relatively fast data connection (or imminent access to power outlets).<\/p>\n

\"Web<\/a>
Web browser extensions allow considerable customization, but for whom?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Email clients are another highly customizable technology, but like browsers, control over how one interacts with email depends heavily on one\u2019s willingness and capacity to tinker. Many social media apps use email as their first contact and dumping ground for notifications: Facebook, for instance, has notifications for seemingly everything\u2026 there are, in fact, 61 different kinds of email notifications Facebook can send users, many of which are enabled by default. The user who lacks the technical know-how, time or patience to disable these notifications may be inundated with emails relative to the more technically savvy user. Not only do these more casual users pay Gmail\/Google and Facebook more data and attention, but are often incessantly hounded by their phones, which by default notify them of every email they receive. The solution to user frustration, advocated by designers and their software, is for us to dig into the settings or to acquiesce to more surveillance and algorithms<\/a>; even Google\u2019s reconfigured tabbed inbox and its offshoot, Inbox, don\u2019t obviate customization, but mandate customization as the default mode of interaction.<\/p>\n

\"Enjoy<\/a>
Enjoy customizing Facebook email notifications… all 61 of them, enabled by default<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For a more timely example, following the horrific on-air slaying of two TV news anchors in Virginia last week, many people tracking the story on Twitter were exposed to the footage due to Twitter\u2019s auto-playing videos. That videos on Twitter auto-play by default reflects what its design expects: that the viral videos users encounter are likely to be banal, that the user isn\u2019t personally triggered by graphic content, and\/ or that users know how to disable auto-play content via settings. Therefore, to misrepresent user requests for adequate warning and control over the nature of their exposure as self-coddling<\/a> isn\u2019t just wrong, it overlooks how conventional design\/designers deprive users of making these decisions for themselves.<\/p>\n

If these examples demonstrate what typical inclusive software design misses, Popcorn Time, the \u201cNetflix of piracy<\/a>,\u201d provides a refreshing alternative, one that comes close to a truly adaptable design approach.<\/p>\n

\"Image<\/a>
Image Credit: Wikipedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To start with, Popcorn Time is open source, but unlike typical open source software that requires installation of external libraries or knowledge of the command line, Popcorn Time is as easy to install as a web browser; just download and go. The most popular version is less than 30 megabytes, installation requires a reasonable 114MB of disk space, and versions are available for every major desktop and mobile operating system.<\/p>\n

A Netflix-like thumbnail gallery represents Popcorn Time\u2019s central interface metaphor for browsing movies and TV shows. Content can be additionally sorted by metadata (popularity, year, rating) and filtered by genre via prominent, unambiguous menus. If the desired content isn\u2019t featured in the main menu, built-in text search is conveniently accessible, fast, and accurate.<\/p>\n

\"Popcorn<\/a>
Popcorn Time\u2019s intuitive interface offers a model for what open source design should aspire to<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

As intuitive as Popcorn Time\u2019s interface may be, evaluated on this criteria alone, the program would be little more than an open source Netflix clone. What distinguishes Popcorn Time from other commercial video streaming services is its affordances for video distribution and playback.<\/p>\n

That is, Popcorn Time facilitates streaming a la peer-to-peer torrents. Compared to centralized services like Netflix, p2p distribution offers several obvious advantages, namely service reliability and redundancy. If you\u2019ve ever tried to stream something from Netflix on a weeknight, especially in a neighborhood served by one oversaturated node<\/a>, you know what a frustrating experience it can be. Videos intermittently stutter and stop, frames drop, the stream oscillates between standard and high definition. You\u2019re lucky if you finish what you started. Centralized distribution favors those areas and users with the best connection to the distributor\u2019s servers and necessarily privileges those users with more reliable connections. Netflix therefore assumes a fast and reliable Internet connection. Popcorn Time does not.<\/p>\n

\"Where<\/a>
Where high usage of centralized services like Netflix often degrades video streaming for users, Popcorn Time leverages peer-to-peer distribution, which improves the more users there are<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Popcorn Time not only provides, in my admittedly anecdotal experience, a consistently more reliable streaming experience, but also allows one to queue up and download content for later playback. By allowing the user to decouple video playback from its transmission, Popcorn Time accommodates (if imperfectly[i]<\/a>) a wide range of socio-technical contexts and users for whom streaming isn\u2019t feasible.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Playback<\/a>
Playback options \u2013 streaming or downloading \u2013 allows users to adapt Popcorn Time to their situation<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Like a T-shirt, Popcorn Time requires no expert knowledge of how it works in order to try it out or use it successfully. Crucially, as a networked technology, Popcorn Time does not presume a basic level of technical knowledge or speed of connection[ii]<\/a>. <\/em>\u00a0By enabling multiple modes of interaction \u2013 intuitive and reliable p2p streaming and also<\/em> downloads for when streaming isn\u2019t feasible \u2013 Popcorn Time allows the user to adapt it to them, rather than demand the user adapt to its standard.<\/p>\n

That a handful of volunteer developers and designers have brought adaptable design to something as relatively complex as video torrenting<\/a> suggests the failure of mainstream inclusive software has less to do with resources or compassion on the part of designers than, as indicated by \u201cSpinoza in a T-Shirt<\/a>,\u201d with the misguided, if often well-intentioned goals embedded within inclusive design itself.<\/p>\n

Rather than try to \u201cfix\u201d software designed to meet the demands of certain (power) users and shareholders, it might be more fruitful to reimagine software whose default user is not a composite of focus testers, the designers and their imagined user types, and demographic\/usage data, but a potentiality of users\u00a0willing to adapt software to their particular needs and desires.<\/p>\n

Everyday encounters with software are characterized by degrees of banality, annoyance, frustration, and anxiety. As a recent essay on email, \u201cthe most reviled communication experience ever<\/a>,\u201d testifies:<\/p>\n

Email is just as \u201ceveryday\u201d as coffee pots and doorknobs, but most people don\u2019t fantasize about throwing their espresso machine into a black hole or sawing the knobs off all their doors. Don [Norman, design expert and author of the classic handbook The Design of Everyday Things] has no love for email: ‘The problem is in trying to make email do everything when it’s not particularly good at anything,\u2026’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As a utilitarian messaging protocol developed by \u201cprogrammers trying to make their lives easier,\u201d email in many ways epitomizes the insufficiency of customization as a substitute for adaptable design.<\/p>\n

Instead of offering suggestions myself, I would like to open up this topic for discussion. Taking on the perspective of would-be designers, how might we redesign email or some other instance of everyday software design to afford true adaptability?<\/p>\n

Nathan promises not to steal your software ideas, he just wants less email. <\/em>@natetehgreat<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> While Popcorn Time embodies adaptable design, it falls short in two ways. First, and this is a major omission, Popcorn Time affords no interaction by users who are blind. Secondly, to download, rather than stream, the user must have installed a separate torrent client of their choice. The program\u2019s download button is also relatively small and nonobvious for those unfamiliar with magnet links<\/a>. Alas, even Popcorn Time, for all it gets right, still presumes a particular user: sighted and somewhat technically savvy.<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> Xiao Mina’s informative paper, \u201cMapping the Sneakernet<\/a>,\u201d and her post, \u201cMoving Beyond the Binary of Connectivity<\/a>,\u201d are the basis of this point.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While listening to a techie podcast the other day, one of the hosts, who happens to be the designer of a popular podcast app, got into a discussion about his design approach. New features in a forthcoming version necessitated new customization settings, but introducing them was complicated by a paradox he affectionately dubs the \u201cpower […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2038,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9967],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2038"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20362"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20362\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20382,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20362\/revisions\/20382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}