I was going to write about the Google Reader shutdown but Brent Simmons beat me to the argument I was going to make. In Why I love RSS and You Do Too he sums up why we should all care about Google Reader’s demise:

Even if you don’t use an RSS reader, you still use RSS. If you subscribe to any podcasts, you use RSS. Flipboard and Twitter are RSS readers, even if it’s not obvious and they do other things besides. Lots of apps on the various app stores use RSS in at least some way. […] And those people you follow on Twitter who post interesting links? They often get those links from their RSS reader. One way or another, directly or indirectly, you use RSS. Without RSS all we’d have is pictures of cats and breakfast.

Killing Google Reader doesn’t kill RSS, for sure, but it’s such a big part of the ecosystem that we should be concerned about the health of the platform. From the perspective of a guy with a blog this is pretty depressing news. RSS subscribers are extremely difficult to grow, but they are, by far, the best kind of readers. I’ve written about this before, but to reiterate: they’re loyal, they read almost everything, and they share your stuff. It’s the best way to build an audience. Hunter Walk makes this point succinctly:

Google Reader impact also undercounted if you strictly look at # users bec many power-curators/sharers use it as a discovery system

— Hunter Walk (@hunterwalk) March 14, 2013

But Scott Stein has perhaps the best TL;DR version of the whole debacle:

Google Reader is to Twitter as a well-labeled filing cabinet is to a bag of insane cats.

— Scott Stein (@jetscott) March 14, 2013

So, what now? For a bit of nostalgia, Buzzfeed has a great history of Google Reader. It’s a fascinating story, worth reading. And then, Om Malik has an interview with the original creator of Google Reader. Once you’re done grieving and ready to move on, Lifehacker has a very comprehensive post on the alternatives.

Frank Chimero has a great follow-up to Tino Arnall’s excellent post No to NoUI. In The Cloud is Heavy and Design Isn’t Invisible Frank explores what’s appropriate (and what’s not) about using “The Cloud” as a metaphor, and then he makes a great point about the Invisible Design trend:

Sometimes I wonder if the desire to obfuscate production and make the resulting design invisible or seamless to users diminishes their appreciation for the craft of building systems. I think there’s a strong likelihood that metaphors like “The Cloud” and sayings like “It Just Works™” reduce a user’s appreciation of the software/hardware they are using. “Magic” is a great word for selling product, but it also can cheapen all the sweat it takes to get there. If the seams have been covered, you can’t admire how things connect.

I completely agree with Frank on this. As I’ve mentioned before, I think our goal shouldn’t be NoUI (or YesUI or AlwaysUI or whatever we want to label the other extreme). Our goal should be appropriate visibility.

Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed is a punch-in-the-gut piece by David Cain. Consider this paragraph:

We’ve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don’t have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing.

Feeling indignant that he would insinuate that you of all people have been indoctrinated by a consumerist culture? Before you close your laptop in disgust, hear the man out. Haters gonna make some good points sometimes…

Josh Emerson offers some words of advice that we should all take to heart:

But perhaps the most important thing I want to highlight here, is that the answer to most questions is it depends, and very often in the grey area between black and white. Try not to take extreme views on things, and perhaps see that there is always another level of complexity to be discovered in any decision you make.

We just came out of a season of arguing whether or not Flat Design is the answer to everything. We also heard proclamations that wireframes are dead, designers do in fact need to code, and Photoshop is on its last legs.

But you know what? Screw that. We have to remind ourselves that the vast majority of design is done by people who don’t have Twitter accounts and large public followings. Out there in the trenches they shouldn’t have to worry about what’s cool or what styles they’re allowed to like. They should only care about getting the job done, and using whatever tools they have at their disposal to do the right thing.

Doing the right thing is complex, and messy. Sometimes it has the luxury of involving a content-first approach with interactive prototypes, but other times it involves having to make static wireframes and designing before any content is available. It’s not ideal, but who are we to judge a designer based on what we perceive as the quality of their process? What do we know about the complexity of the project, the relationships they are trying to navigate, and the users they are designing for?

My advice is this. Yes, follow the design zeitgeist. Study the big ideas and explore the edges where the industry is being pushed forward. But don’t get caught up in whatever the cool viewpoint is about any methodology or style. Only you know what your project needs. So be confident, ignore the extreme viewpoints, and use whatever tool will be most effective to help you do the right thing.

In The Guardian Tom Meltzer asks, Are our household appliances getting too complicated? Despite violating Betteridge’s law of headlines he makes some good points:

“The innovation is obviously being driven by manufacturers’ desire to add value and to differentiate themselves,” says analyst Neil Mason, head of retail research at market research company Mintel. “But from a consumer’s point of view, what they want is convenience and simplicity. When you run into trouble is when you add all these extra functions and consumers just get perplexed as to how to actually use them.”

He cites some classic examples of technology-driven innovation — asking “What more can we do with this technology?” as opposed to “What goals do our customers want to accomplish with our product?”

Figuring out what to read (and what to believe) about Big Data is becoming a Big Data problem in and of itself¹. I wrote The hype, benefits, and dangers of Big Data a while ago to give an overview of what’s out there, but there are two more interesting articles from the last week that I’d like to highlight as well.

First, on the HBR blog Jake Porway talks about Big Data and social entrepreneurship and makes the point that You Can’t Just Hack Your Way to Social Change:

Any data scientist worth their salary will tell you that you should start with a question, NOT the data. Unfortunately, data hackathons often lack clear problem definitions. Most companies think that if you can just get hackers, pizza, and data together in a room, magic will happen. This is the same as if Habitat for Humanity gathered its volunteers around a pile of wood and said, “Have at it!” By the end of the day you’d be left with half of a sunroom with 14 outlets in it.

And on Wired, Does ‘Big Data’ Mean the Demise of the Expert — And Intuition? is a very interesting excerpt from Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier’s new book on the topic:

In the same spirit, the biggest impact of big data will be that data-driven decisions are poised to augment or overrule human judgment.

The subject-area expert, the substantive specialist, will lose some of his or her luster compared with the statistician and data analyst, who are unfettered by the old ways of doing things and let the data speak. This new cadre will rely on correlations without prejudgments and prejudice. To be sure, subject-area experts won’t die out, but their supremacy will ebb. From now on, they must share the podium with the big-data geeks, just as princely causation must share the limelight with humble correlation.

It seems like an obvious conclusion, but everything I’ve read so far about Big Data confirms that if we think cutting the “messiness” of human decision-making out of data analysis will result in better decisions, we’re sorely mistaken.

I just came across this great interview with Edward Tufte from 2011. I love his description of bad information design, and how it’s not the data’s fault:

Overload, clutter, and confusion are not attributes of information, they are failures of design. So if something is cluttered, fix your design, don’t throw out information. If something is confusing, don’t blame your victim — the audience — instead, fix the design. And if the numbers are boring, get better numbers. Chartoons can’t add interest, which is a content property. Chartoons are disinformation design, designed to distract rather than inform. Thus they reduce the credibility of your presentation. To distract, hire a magician instead of a chartoonist, for magicians are honest liars.

Chartoons. Heh.

Anyway, I find this particularly poignant in our current infographic age, where Mashable recently posted — without irony — an infographic on infographics. Here are some of my other favorite infographic takedowns:

• Ending the Infographic Plague (The Atlantic)
• Data Art vs. Data Visualization: Why Does a Distinction Matter? (Stephen Few)
• How Infographics Are Ruining The Web (SplatF)

(link via @ericatjader)

In Students to e-textbooks: no thanks Nicholas Carr reflects on a recent study (PDF link) out of Ryerson University in Toronto which shows that students still prefer paper textbooks over electronic textbooks:

What’s most revealing about this study is that, like earlier research, it suggests that students’ preference for printed textbooks reflects the real pedagogical advantages they experience in using the format: fewer distractions, deeper engagement, better comprehension and retention, and greater flexibility to accommodating idiosyncratic study habits. Electronic textbooks will certainly get better, and will certainly have advantages of their own, but they won’t replicate the particular advantages inherent to the tangible form of the printed book.

What makes this interesting is that it’s not the usual “I want to smell the pages” argument we see in most stories about the yearning for paper books. This study shows that paper textbooks help students learn better. That’s not to say that electronic textbooks won’t eventually catch up — they will — but it’s a reminder that in some spaces, e-books still have a long way to go.