I’m attending the Breaking Development conference in San Diego this week, and will be posting my notes from a few of the talks here.

I really enjoyed Cameron Moll‘s talk entitled “Pitfalls and Triumps of the Cross-Screen Experience”. One of the things that I appreciated is that it’s one of the first talks here I’ve seen that looked a bit more critically at Responsive Web Design. Not that Cameron isn’t a fan of responsive design, but he does bring up some interesting questions about its limitations. Here are my notes.

The need for multi-device experiences

• “We don’t know what will be underneath Christmas trees two years from now, but that’s what we need to design for today” – Brad Frost
• The best interface is the one that’s within reach.
• Forget mobile. Think multiscreen.
• At any time during the day, I may have 2-5 screens in use.
• Would be more if you include screens in cars, other internet-enabled devices.

Five guidelines for multi-screen experiences

• Discrete: an experience on one screen independent of, but ideally cohesive with, experiences on other screens
  • Twitter.com and NPR.com have great multi-screen experiences
• Sequential: An experience capable of flowing from one screen to another
  • Amazon.com cart is available across multiple devices
  • 67% use multiple screens sequentially for online shopping
  • 90% use sequential for online activities in general
  • Up to 49% email themselves a link for continuing the activity on another device
• Complementary: An experience complemented by a device’s unique capabilities
  • Day One and Google Maps apps utilize device capabilities of desktop browser and native apps
• Extensional: An experience that controls, or is controlled by, another source
  • Instagram photos can be reposted to other networks, or pulled into apps like Flipboard
  • APIs essential for these types of experiences
• Simultaneous: An experience involving multiples screens used simultaneously
  • Watching TV while going online with phones or tablets

Some do’s and don’ts for cross-screen experiences

Don’t:

• Stereotype devices (or their owners, for that matter)
• Fall prey to the convenience of device silos — we’re using multiple devices for multiple purposes
• Unforgivingly force your app on users — let them use the web if they want to

Do:

• Respect users’ mental models, aesthetically & functionally
  • Flipboard iPad and iPhone apps have different scrolling directions (left-right vs. up-down)
  • The iOS App Store “Update All” button is on opposite sides on iPhone and iPad
  • Simplenote has a “Done” button on iPhone, but not on iPad
• Sequence tasks across screens (to the extent possible)
• Make it vertically responsive, too
  • Gmail: row heights adapt as you change the screen size vertically
  • Check out Vertical Media Queries & Wide Sites
• Leverage outside expertise

A closer look at Responsive Web Design

Don’t believe responsive design is a one-size-fits-all solution:

• RWD is a must… for the browser, that is
• How did native app development escape the same scrutiny?
• Why don’t we have Media Query Snippets for native apps?
• Amazon’s lack of RWD is not a concern — most of us rarely use their web site on mobile devices
• You have to figure out the cross-screen experience for your product, because there’s not a single solution that applies to everyone
• Remember, No One’s Forgotten How to Pinch and Zoom
• What if pinch & zoom utilized media queries to render the layout differently (for those wanting denser content) vs. one size fits all? Demo: Gesture-Enabled RWD Proof-of-Concept

eBay CEO John Donahoe gets it:

We understand mobile to be just another screen…

It was a great talk with lots of food for thought.

I’m attending the Breaking Development conference in San Diego this week, and will be posting my notes from a few of the talks here.

Luke Wroblewski kicked off BD Conf 2013 with a talk entitled “One Design to Rule Them All”. It was a bit of a State of the Nation on what’s going on in the device landscape today. Here are my notes from the talk.

• It’s impossible to determine what kind of experience we should design for by looking at standard device types (phone vs. tablet vs. laptop, etc.)
  • For example, smartphones now go up to 7″ screens and even a bit above.
  • Tablet sizes are equally all over the map, and to make things worse, you now have devices that are basically giant desktops that can transform into tablets or even phones.
• What is the difference between a phone and a tablet anyway?
  • Pixel densities are not that different any more
  • Can’t reliably determine how big the device is
  • Can’t rely on feature detection (like if it makes phone calls or not)
• We can no longer rely on knowing what type of device it is to figure out what to build.
• It’s not clear any more what a mobile device is, what the difference between a tablet and a laptop is, and whether it’s touch-enabled or not (see Leap Motion).
• We have to stop thinking about designing for phones, tablets, and laptops (device-specific).
• Instead, what makes more sense is to look at the ergonomics of each device:
  • You get eye-sized or wrist-side devices, palm-sized devices, lap-sized devices, desk-sized devices, and wall devices like big-screen TVs
  • Each of these types require subtle differences in the interfaces, which is where responsive design come in.
• This brings us to the principles of multi-device design:
  • Work mobile first
  • Support a continuum of screens
  • Account for high resolutions
  • Optimize for touch (can’t use mouse/cursor easily for touch)
  • Support cursor & keyboard
• Good news: you only need one web design.
• Bad news: it’s a new and different way of doing web design.
• But wait, do we compromise the large screen experience if we go mobile first?
  • No, we’re creating a good experience everywhere, and we enable people to do more things in more places.
  • Look at Currys, Skinny Ties, and O’Neill as good examples.
• And what about “the mobile context”?
  • Children’s Museum of Pittsburgh: on mobile, they bubble up relevant content like how to get there, and they deprioritize that content on larger screens.
  • So you can still have one design, but use different priorities on mobile.

Smaller screens show important information about visiting like directions, hours, and contact details:

On larger screens that information is deprioritized:

It was a great high-level introduction to the conference, and I’m looking forward to the rest!

From Mark Boulton’s great post I’m not a Craftsman:

I’m more often than not in a place where my own job, as a designer, is not to make something I love, but to make something appropriate. Something that does the job well. Something that responds to a hypothesis and serves a need. Not necessarily something loved and beautiful. And that’s ok.

In many cases, especially when it comes to client work, pragmatism beats idealism in design.

John Ciancutti explains how Netflix uses data to make product decisions in How We Determine Product Success:

It can be frustrating to be in a product development environment where force of personality or hierarchy determines product outcomes. At Netflix the focus on customer value makes a teachable moment of those times one guesses wrong. My product intuition is vastly better today for the benefit of my mistakes.

It’s a great read on the importance of listening like you’re wrong when you develop products.

My thanks to Digg Reader for sponsoring Elezea’s RSS feed this week. If you haven’t settled on a Google Reader replacement (or even if you have), check it out!

Digg (yes, that Digg) has released a new RSS Reader for the web, iPhone, and iPad (Android coming soon). The design is sleek and clean, and the apps are speedy and efficient.

Whether you’re a hardcore RSS junky or simply want all your favorite online reading in one place, Digg Reader is for you. It’s free and available today!

Sponsorship by The Syndicate.

Clayton Cubitt starts his fascinating article on how photography is changing with a definition of what French photographer (and the father of modern photojournalism) Henri Cartier-Bresson called “The Decisive Moment”:

Cartier-Bresson believed that the photographer is like a hunter, going forth into the wild, armed with quick reflexes and a finely-honed eye, in search of that one moment that most distills the time before him. In this instant the photographer reacts, snatching truth from the timestream in the snare of his shutter. The Decisive Moment is Gestalt psychology married to reflexive performance art in the blink of a mechanical eye.

It is the creation of art through the curation of time.

Cubitt goes on to point out that we now live in the Constant Moment, where it’s possible to take endless photos of everything, and edit (“curate”) later. Yet, notably, he doesn’t believe that’s a bad thing:

The Constant Moment doesn’t end [what characterizes the Decisive Moment]. All it does is capture the billion missed Decisive Moments that previously slipped through our fingers, by expanding the available window of temporal curation from “here and now” to “anywhere and anytime.” The Constant Moment eliminates dumb luck from photography. It minimizes, as much as anything ever can, the Hawthorne Effect caused by a lifeless camera between our interactions. It continues the photographic tradition of artistic democratization by flattening limits of time, of geography, of access.

It’s very interesting to follow Cubitt’s article by reading Dave Pell’s excellent This is You on Smiles, which essentially argues that the Constant Moment is changing how we experience life and create memories:

During a presentation on happiness at the Ted Conference, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman makes a distinction between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Digital photography gives additional dominance to the remembering self. […]

The digital age gives a new (and almost opposite) meaning to having a photographic memory. The experience of the moment has become the experience of the photo. […]

Snapping and sharing photos from meaningful events is nothing new. But the frequency with which we take pictures and the immediacy with which we view them will clearly have a deep impact on the way we remember. And with cameras being inserted into more devices, our collective shutterspeed will only increase.

Both pieces are worth reading this weekend.

Ethan Zuckerman in Reddit: A Pre-Facebook Community in a Post-Facebook World:

Because Reddit connects strangers, it has certain advantages over Facebook, which connects friends. Ideas may spread more widely from Reddit than from Facebook despite a smaller pool of users. An idea shared between Facebook friends may peter out quickly as social networks reach saturation: an idea spread through friends who went to the same college may lose momentum when all alumni have heard about it.

Reddit users are connected to many different communities, and an idea spread on Reddit’s front page may go on to spread in thousands of different groups of friends on Facebook. This power to disseminate ideas to many different social subnets may explain why Reddit memes often go viral and why Reddit has emerged as a key node in online activism.

In social network theory terms, Reddit has figured out how to tap into “the strength of weak ties”¹, whereas information on Facebook tends to keep getting recycled among people who already share strong ties offline.

Luke Kingma also touches on this strength in his interesting post The Next Great Social Network Will Not Put Relationships First:

The vast majority of us are not fortunate enough to have an incredibly diverse and interesting network of friends, family, and colleagues. Reddit works because the measure of a user is the content he shares, not the company he keeps. Moreover, visibility on Reddit is directly proportional to one’s utility in a given conversation. As a result, we are exposed to more interesting people, ideas, and perspectives.

This access to experts on any topic imaginable is what makes Reddit so powerful. The principle of content > relationships is probably also why Medium doesn’t have a follower model for its authors, but instead organizes content in topic collections. But Medium is a different topic altogether — I’ll post some thoughts on that platform soon.

I’ve been using Google+ a bit more frequently over the past few weeks. Of course, if you read this blog you wouldn’t have noticed. I know this because referral traffic to the site from Google+ is virtually non-existent. I find the whole narrative around Google+ extremely strange, so I’d like to get some of my random thoughts out in the open to see if anyone can add some insight.

First, viewed purely on its own merit Google+ is a fantastic social network. The interface manages to bring together all the best parts of Twitter (short updates, follow model), Facebook (pulling in short article summaries, good conversation mechanism), App.net (longer updates), and Flickr (beautiful photos). At the same time, it leaves out most of the annoying parts of those respective networks (like advertising, lack of context, and the inability to carry on a conversation). It’s my favorite social network to post links to, because I can add short commentaries or pull quotes from the article, and it automatically pulls in important metadata (sure, Twitter Cards also do this, but those aren’t supported by all sites and in all apps).

Second, Google+ feels like a parallel universe. As an active user of both Twitter and Google+, my experience has been that there is almost no overlap between the people who use those two networks on a daily basis. Further, users behave very, very differently depending on the platform. Twitter users comment more about Apple (well, the ones I follow anyway…), whereas Google+ content is much more slanted towards Google/Android news (not surprising, of course). Twitter users are more angry and combative, whereas Google+ is more like summer camp. Twitter feels frantic, Google+ feels relaxed.

And the weirdest thing — to keep beating a dead horse — is that the users on each network seem blissfully unaware of each other. It’s like going to a farmers market full of hipsters and young parents. Both are present, but it’s as if each group is invisible to the other¹.

Getting actual numbers to compare the size of the networks is a fool’s errand. I don’t think we’ll ever really know how big each of the major networks are. But one widely reported statistic says that Google+ is now the #2 social network globally, behind Facebook but ahead of Twitter.

And this is why I’m confused. I think Google+ has a superior product in terms of its features. There appears to be lots of traffic on the network, and people are still reasonably nice to each other when they interact. And yet there’s no way I can even begin to think about moving off Twitter, because most of the people that I interact with and want to keep up with are on Twitter and not on Google+.

Does it mean that Google did too little, too late? Does it mean that the major social networks are all syphoning off their own unique customers that will never overlap? Is Google inflating the numbers artificially and it is, in fact, dying a slow death? Or, most disturbingly, does it mean that having a superior product doesn’t matter as much as strong network effects?

But then again, perhaps Google+ is not competing with who we assume they’re competing with. In line with Google’s vision to organize the world’s information, the focus on Google+ seems to be shifting to content more than relationships. And as Luke Kingma points out, the foundation of the next great social network will probably be the quality and relevance of the content, not the person who posted it. In that sense, I wonder if Google is more interested in being Reddit² (the front page of the Internet), than it is in being a Facebook/Twitter clone (what your friends are up to).

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this… on Google+, of course.