After watching Bill Buxton’s talk about Microsoft starting to understand design better, I proceeded to view the comments, knowing full well what I would endure. It was pretty much the standard fare for any talk about technology when Microsoft’s name gets brought up: people missing the point and then valiantly defending their OS of choice while vehemently bashing any others. I have seen it a million times before, and this time it sparked the following thoughts.
I feel that buying into the “my OS can beat up your OS” mentality hurts everyone. Instead of critiquing a piece of technology on its individual merits and shortcomings, we now must choose sides in order to function or converse in the technological world. Thanks greatly to Apple’s successful marketing, we have reduced our technology down to political alignment. To me this is scary stuff. It is exactly what politicians do in order to make voters forget about their shortcomings, and instead focus on identifying with a set of values. The image and branding of Apple and Microsoft have become more crucial to the success of the technology than its actual usefulness, usability, and accessibility. This is why politics never changes, and if technology continues to adopt this philosophy I fear it will stifle creativity.
This leads me to my second point, which is that the OS-Battle Royale prevents us from asking the simple questions. Why do we have to choose an OS? Why does my machine need an OS? Why should I care about this OS? Or for many computer users, what the hell is an OS? Surely, from a programming or engineering perspective these questions sound nearly sacrilegious. But why? If we want to be truly human-centered then why should anyone care at all what an OS is, who made it, or what values they might convey by choosing one over another? We should be trying to figure out what is wrong with all OS’s, not picking and choosing the most tolerable. If we only critique based on comparison we are blinded to what could be possible outside the confines of the argument.
The third point is that most technological conversation is saturated with condescension against anyone without the appropriate disclaimer and use of techno-jargon. People who wish to state their opinion must include some statement about their experience with all the OS’s in various situations in order to legitimize their opinions. Then they must speak the appropriate language If they don’t want to get sidelined or flamed for not being “computer-literate” enough.
This is wrong. It is that type of thinking that Alan Cooper addresses in his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. Our technology is not as good as it could be because the only opinions that get heard or taken seriously are the opinions given by “experts.” In this instance “experts” are those that are “tech-savvy,” “computer-literate,” and the like. This leaves out the older generation or anyone else that doesn’t want to spend their lives learning techno-speak, even though their opinion of technology is of equal value.
I pose this question: Who is more of an expert about whether something is usable, or more importantly useful, than the person using it? I don’t care if that someone explains their opinion in jargon, plain English, or pictures drawn in crayon. Anyone, no matter their amount of experience or grasp of technology acronyms and language, is an expert when it comes to their own individual experience. It is my job as a designer to develop the skills and aptitude to understand that experience and make it better. This is what being human-centered is all about.
