Joshua Porter makes a good point about Amazon’s product pages:

The reality is that Amazon has designed themselves into a Local Maximum. They’ve tested and tweaked the same product page over and over and they’ve optimized it as much as possible. They can’t improve it significantly at this point without making a big change. But they can’t make a big change because the only changes they can make must increase revenue (or some closely related KPI). So any big change is a very, very scary thing when that page is driving billions of dollars in revenue. So it makes sense that Amazon only makes small changes to their product page design.

Amazon’s design is often held up as a gold standard in e-commerce, but at some point we have to realize that maybe the emperor has no clothes – and we need to start calling it out so clients can stop asking us to “just make it like Amazon”.

Geoff Livingston wrote a great essay called Is Existing Online a Quest of Loneliness or Giving? It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt that stuck out for me:

We exist in a time where anyone can determine and create unique lives online, accountable to no one, yet visible to and dependent upon all. Digital existentialism extends the sense of modernistic distress. There are so many red herrings and lost pursuits that distract. You can drug yourself digitally with almost any pursuit, and at the end find yourself nano-famous and alone.

That last line is so spot on. I thought about it again when I saw Shimi Cohen‘s excellent video The Innovation of Loneliness, which is making the rounds this week:

Later in his post Geoff says this:

We exist in the moment. Every effort spent, every tap on the keyboard provides a chance to impact an individual, contribute to the world, and add light to the picture.

Sure, efforts can lead towards darkness. Sometimes when we awaken to our outcomes, we realize the fruitlessness, or worse the destructiveness of our actions. What are you going to do, condemn yourself to the desert for a long march of hermitage? Or get up?

This is another good point. We’re all going to make mistakes. We might look at that video and feel like helpless victims. But that’s not true. We do have the power get up, to connect with people in a way that doesn’t just ignore the bad bits (I tried to do that here, and it worked out ok).

Related to this, I really enjoyed Chris Bowler’s Congestion, in which he discusses some ideas on how we might deal with this new reality of overload and over-connection:

To create is better than to consume.

But create for the few, not for the many.

Create for those you can see face to face.

Consume, but remember that the dose makes the poison.

When you consume something that is good, great, transcendent, consume it over and over … meditate on it, then act on it, be changed by it.

So much has been written about this topic, but I really like the common theme that runs through these posts and video: we are not victims of technology. We have a choice.

Ainsley Wagoner shares a story from architecture school in How We Measure Success. She describes a lecture in which their architecture professor first painted a picture of what it’s like to chase the best internships straight out of school, and work oneself to death. And then the professor contrasted that option with this one:

Or you can stop right now and ask yourself what kind of life you want to have. Look around you and figure out where you can make a real impact as designers and architects. Become developers, change the zoning laws, get involved in your communities to affect real change, you can do so many things besides being a cog in the starchitecture mega-firm machine. But whatever you do, you need to ask yourself what your priorities are. What do you want your life to look like in ten years? And allow the answers to that question influence your picture of success.

I don’t think this is a question you ever stop asking yourself…

My thanks to PDFpen for iPad for sponsoring Elezea’s RSS feed this week.

Sign and return documents without printing or faxing, directly from your iPad. Fix typos and correct price lists immediately while an issue is foremost in your mind. Take PDF documents with you, and add notes, highlighting, and other markup during your mobile downtime. Sync with your Mac via iCloud or Dropbox. Retrieve and save documents via Evernote, Box, and Google Drive.

Edit your PDFs anywhere you are with the complete, feature rich, mobile editing power of PDFpen for iPad.

Get $5 off PDFpen for iPad, only $9.99 on the iTunes App Store, this week only.

Sponsorship by The Syndicate.

Quentin Hardy has some interesting thoughts on what happens in a world of perfect recollection in his essay What’s Lost When Everything Is Recorded:

There is much to be gained from storage, of course. Who would not thrill to hear Lincoln at Gettysburg, or Shakespeare playing even a lesser role at the Globe? But Shakespeare’s plays were also reconstructions from the memories of diverse actors, some years after a performance. Our greatest literature was generated by an imperfect collective recollection, as much as it was written by one person.

I wrote about this issue before in The unnecessary fear of digital perfection.

About two years ago Marc Andreessen proclaimed that software is eating the world (beware the WSJ paywall):

My own theory is that we are in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy.

We’ve seen this shift toward software in the content arena too, where it’s impossible to ignore the constant stream of stories about the struggles of print media. And lately, it seems that Medium is emerging as the first major successful content platform since the shift started. It feels like every second or third link on Twitter points to a Medium post, and somehow being on Medium gives content the perception of a certain level of prestige.

Why is that? Why is this platform so successful, and why does it have such a strong brand? I don’t agree with the direct comparison and the premise that Quora vs. Medium is an actual winner-takes-all situation, but AJ Juliani makes an interesting point about this in Why Medium May Succeed Where Quora Did Not:

Medium is about stories. Quora is about answers. And people love stories. Our favorite way to learn is through stories and narrative.

Medium is certainly a great platform for reading stories, and the tools available to writers make it a great creation experience as well. But there’s also been pushback recently on Medium’s apparent dominance in the individual writer domain. The biggest concern is that we don’t know what Medium’s plans are, and that authors are therefore giving up their words to an unknown entity. Here is Glenn Fleishman in Why You Should Be Your Own Platform:

I’ve written a few things on Medium (not paid) because I liked the experience of their writing tools, their statistics, and their reach. […] But it’s not mine. It’s theirs.

I can’t control the URL. I can’t embed. I have no idea about what their ultimate plans are. They could delete all non-owned/paid content in the future with no notice. They could rework the design and it would be ugly. My words’ persistence, both in appearance and permanent location, are dependent on factors beyond my control.

Marco Arment takes this argument further in Medium and Being Your Own Platform

Treat places like Medium the way you’d treat writing for someone else’s magazine, for free. It serves the same purpose: your writing gets to appear in a semi-upscale setting and you might temporarily get more readers than you would elsewhere, but you’re giving up ownership and a lot of control to get that.

As for me, I love the writing (and reading) experience on Medium. But I do have concerns that are big enough to make me take a step back:

• Medium seems to be more about Medium than about authors. I don’t think we should move our personal blogs there — it’s already getting too crowded, and I still believe we should all own our own identities online.
• Related to the last point: the idea of organizing content around topics (collections) is great, but there is no way to follow collections easily. RSS feeds are difficult to find, and it seems the only way to see what’s new in a collection is to go to its URL. This makes me worried about a walled garden approach to the content, similar to how Twitter and Google+ restrict how you can add and extract content.
• There’s some great content being surfaced by the editorial team, but there are also a lot of duds when you dig a bit deeper into the collections. And by expanding the platform so quickly the noise is becoming louder. I’m worried Medium is quickly going to outgrow their initial focus on providing quality over quantity.

If we’ve learned anything over the past few years, it’s that we should be wary of platforms that offer large audiences at a price of admission that is not immediately apparent (See Facebook, Instagram, Twitter…).

The barrier to setting up your own site has never been lower (if you’re not into WordPress, try Scriptogr.am or Octopress). Yes, building an audience on your own platform is much harder than hoping to get picked by the Medium editorial team. But the longevity and the satisfaction you’ll get from maintaining your own voice is so much higher. Don’t give that away.

Cliff Kuang discusses wearable tech and ubiquitous computing in Why a New Golden Age for UI Design Is Around the Corner:

In the wrong hands, this is a dystopian prospect—technology’s unwanted intrusion into our every waking moment. But without the proper design, without considering how new products and services fit into people’s day-to-day lives, any new technology can be terrifying. That’s where the challenge comes in. The task of making this new world can’t be left up to engineers and technologists alone—otherwise we will find ourselves overrun with amazing capabilities that people refuse to take advantage of. Designers, who’ve always been adept at watching and responding to our needs, must bring to bear a better understanding of how people actually live. It’s up to them to make this new world feel like something we’ve always wanted and a natural extension of what we already have.

I’m currently travelling in the U.S., which means I can finally drag some of my favorite apps from the graveyard screen on my iPhone to the home screen. I’m now happily exploring around in Yelp and Fandango, which I haven’t been able to do in a while. Even Foursquare — which I’m already a huge fan of — is suddenly on steroids.

At the same time, there’s one part of Don Norman’s The Paradox of Wearable Technologies that I keep coming back to:

I am fully dependent upon modern technologies because they make me more powerful, not less. By taking away the dreary, unessential parts of life, I can concentrate upon the important, human aspects.

I realize that when apps work well — really well — they do just that. It’s not that they get out of the way in an invisible UI sense. They are extremely visible, and they consume all your attention while you’re using them. But they take away the boring parts of life so you can focus on the exciting bits.

I apologize in advance to those of you who live in the U.S., but please allow me to gush a couple of examples to illustrate my point.

Fandango

Buying movie tickets online is a mission in most cases. Even if you can figure out how to use the site, you’re not guaranteed that the payment gateway is going to work, and there’s often no way to save credit card details for future purchases. But before I came on this trip, I saved some movies I knew I wanted to see in the Fandango app. Once I got here, I just tapped on a movie, the app showed me nearby theatres and times, I bought a ticket using my PayPal account, and I showed my phone at the door to scan the ticket.

All the app does is take the mundane parts out of buying movie tickets — the search for a theatre, the payment, the ticketing process. It lets me focus on what I really want to be doing — watching a movie.

Foursquare

I expected Foursquare to be better in the U.S. than in South Africa, but I’m blown away by its usefulness. Here are some things that really helped along the way:

• Foursquare knows I live in Cape Town and that I check into a lot of coffee places. So when I arrived in San Diego the app told me welcome, and recommended some coffee houses nearby (a friend, who checks into a lot of Mexican restaurants, got that as her recommendations).
• After you check in somewhere, the app tells you where people are likely to go next.
• Because the data set is so huge, I find that the ratings and recommendations work much better across the board.
• For example, the time of day affects the recommendations — breakfast places in the morning, lunch places around noon, etc.

Again, this isn’t earth-shattering stuff. But it takes away just enough of the mundane parts of being in a new city to make your visit that much more enjoyable.

And that’s what good technology does. It’s not necessarily invisible, but it performs a disappearing act on the things you don’t want to do. There are certainly major, wicked problems to solve in the world. But there are also thousands of small, tedious tasks we deal with every day that we can solve with technology.

That’s what’s inspiring to me about these products, and why I’m going to pay much more attention to “small annoyances” as a way to get product ideas.