- Episode AI notes
- Lists are overused for information organization, hindering control over how information is presented.
- The dominant thinking in tech may not always be applicable universally, especially in open source projects.
- Designing for oneself allows for a faster and more accurate feedback loop compared to designing for a different audience.
- Being the user of the software provides a powerful advantage in design, eliminating the need for traditional design processes like user testing.
- It is important to adopt technology thoughtfully and selectively, analyzing its impact on experiences.
- Faith is viewed as a dynamic relationship with God, aligning with the concept of tacit knowledge.
- Knowledge shapes perspective and expands problem-solving capabilities.
Learning from user behavior can provide valuable insights for designing better solutions. Time 0:00:00
Challenging the Use of Lists for Information Organization The speaker believes that lists are overused as a way to present information, emphasizing that lists hinder control over how information is organized. Lists lack flexibility in grouping related items, adjusting spacing between items, or determining the order of items. The convenience of using lists on the computer or in various applications often guides their adoption, yet the speaker advocates for exploring alternative, more innovative ways to represent information that go beyond the restrictions of traditional lists.
Speaker 1
I mean, whenever I kind of say these things like the Tierney of lists or whatever, I don’t want people to think that I’m making some generalization. Like, I think all lists are bad all the time or anything like that. But I think people probably lean too much on the side of lists. Like, it’s sort of an easy out. Like, oh, I have a bunch of stuff. I’m going to make a list of it. And often, you know, I’m going to tell the computer to sort it or whatever. I often say these things because I want to push back and get people to think about more radical ways of presenting information. But I think that the problem with lists is that you’re basically giving up a lot of control over how the stuff is organized. Often, if you have a list of emails, you know, you can’t put emails that belong together together. You can’t space some different distances from each other because everything is uniformly spaced. If it’s sorted, then you don’t even have control of what order they’re in. And I think often the reason people use a list is like, it’s not a great reason. It’s that a list is something that’s easy to do on the computer because iOS gives you a list control or you can make an HTML list element or your Mac finder uses lists by default. Or a list is easy to type in your word processor or a note-taking app. Like, if you were trying to pick the best way to represent the information, maybe you wouldn’t pick a list if you actually kind of had a choice and had other options that were equally straightforward.
Speaker 2
I guess even applying that because we were trying to make a list, I guess, of the tweets. And then I was already saying, why can’t I drag these around and create categories in space? So that’s kind of funny. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Sometimes when I’m looking at my email, I see an email from a week ago, an email from a month ago that are kind of about the same thing. I’m like, why can’t I drag these to be together?Challenging Dominant Thinking in Tech and Open Source The dominant thinking in tech assumes certain solutions as the right way without considering different contexts like small projects or data analysis. The focus on tools that work for big system engineering might not apply universally. Additionally, in open source projects, hobby projects can evolve beyond the original vision when taken over by corporate contributors, highlighting a central issue in open source development.
Speaker 2
So it kind of makes me think of how in tech, I guess maybe that the dominant thinking is sort of assumed to be the right way or the neutral thing. Like, say, we all think, well, obviously, you’re supposed to use a list, right? Yeah.
Speaker 1
And I think like these kind of dominant ways of thinking, they often make sense in like a specific context where there’s like technology companies and they’re doing software engineering And they’re making these big systems. So they want their software to be well tested and correct and they want it to scale a lot. And I think there are a lot of solutions to those kinds of problems that don’t necessarily apply if I’m just playing around with software or if I’m making a little hobby project or even If I’m like a scientist and I’m like trying to do data analysis, I think like there should be a different set of solutions for that. But I think often what people end up talking about and what gets all the investment or these tools that maybe make sense in one context, which shouldn’t necessarily get generalized To other places.
Speaker 2
I guess that also makes me think of open sources. So a lot of times it could be a hobby project that someone’s doing on their own, but it gets almost taken over by people that work at companies and it turns into this thing that you might
Speaker 1
Not envision at first. Yeah. And it feels like that’s like almost a central story or problem of open source.Evolution and Influence of Culture in Open Source Open source projects encompass a wide array of tools and functionalities, evolving from one form to another over time. The culture in the tech industry often prioritizes learning and discussing tools that are in demand or culturally prestigious, potentially overshadowing simpler solutions. This culture influences individuals to care about certain aspects they may not have initially prioritized, ultimately shaping their work and potentially impacting funding opportunities.
Speaker 1
Yeah. And it feels like that’s like almost a central story or problem of open source. Just like people mean different things when they say programming and programming is a lot of different stuff. Open source is also a lot of different stuff. And it kind of evolves from one kind of thing to another. And one other example that I always think about other than the lists thing is this is I think a lot of what the discussion in the front end world is about is that there are these big tools For management, managing packages and compiling other languages to JavaScript and testing and type checking and stuff. And I think a lot of those tools make sense if you’re Facebook, but maybe they don’t make sense if you just want to throw a web page together. But I think that because of the way that culture works, everyone wants to learn and talk about the tools that will get them a job or are culturally prestigious so they can kind of crowd Out other ways of doing things. Right.
Speaker 2
I guess it’s all related because say you want to get funding, then if it’s just like this thing that isn’t scalable or is more like for fun, who’s going to pay you for that, right? Yeah. It makes everyone incentivized to care about things. They might even not care about it at first, right?
Speaker 1
Right. I think once you start working on something, a lot of the time you kind of end up caring about it. I sometimes think it’s kind of dangerous to start working on something where you’re a lukewarm on it, not because you might hate it, but because you might love it and then you kind of turn It into a different person.Design for Yourself Apple’s success in design is not just about brilliance but also about creating products that its own employees can use daily, eliminating the need for extensive user testing. Designing for oneself allows for a faster and more accurate feedback loop compared to designing for a different audience, as users struggle to articulate their needs and behaviors accurately.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. We were talking about this on Twitter, I think, last week, where there’s this idea that Apple is really brilliant at design. And the way to do great design is to learn from what Apple does. And I mean, there’s certainly some truth there. But I think an aspect of Apple’s success that is really underrated is that Apple makes products that anybody can use, including the people who work at Apple. If you’re working on the iPhone or you’re working on the Mac, like an iPhone is something that you can actually use every day. You’re not making a product for other people who are not like you to use. And that means that you don’t need to go do user testing or any of these kind of traditional design processes where you’re trying to figure out what to put in the product. You can kind of just like introspect. And I think that’s a really powerful advantage and an advantage that doesn’t really port that well to a lot of things people try to make where they’re often trying to make something for
Speaker 2
Some other audience. Right. I guess it just shows how hard it is to design if you’re not the target user.
Speaker 1
And even if you’re going out to users and trying to learn from them, it’s like a way slower feedback loop, I think. Whereas if you’re using it yourself, your feedback loop can be down to seconds.
Speaker 2
And people are really bad at describing how the user think about things. Yeah.
Speaker 1
You need like all these really intense kind of anthropological skills to even figure out what people are thinking when they use if they’re people who aren’t you.Design Advantage of being the User Being the user of the software provides a powerful advantage in design, eliminating the need for traditional design processes like user testing. Introspection allows for faster feedback loops, as users can immediately sense what works for them, unlike external users who struggle to articulate their needs or thought process effectively. The design process becomes more efficient and accurate when users are also the programmers, eradicating the need to understand different user perspectives.
Speaker 1
And that means that you don’t need to go do user testing or any of these kind of traditional design processes where you’re trying to figure out what to put in the product. You can kind of just like introspect. And I think that’s a really powerful advantage and an advantage that doesn’t really port that well to a lot of things people try to make where they’re often trying to make something for
Speaker 2
Some other audience. Right. I guess it just shows how hard it is to design if you’re not the target user.
Speaker 1
And even if you’re going out to users and trying to learn from them, it’s like a way slower feedback loop, I think. Whereas if you’re using it yourself, your feedback loop can be down to seconds.
Speaker 2
And people are really bad at describing how the user think about things. Yeah.
Speaker 1
You need like all these really intense kind of anthropological skills to even figure out what people are thinking when they use if they’re people who aren’t you. And this is part of my argument for this sort of dynamic land style and user programming where the people using the software are actually reprogramming it or they made part of the software. In the kind of dream world where everybody programs their own software, you don’t really have this problem because everybody knows what their own needs are.
Speaker 2
You don’t need to go out and learn from people. I guess in the early days of computing, when there’s less people, that was probably true because the only people that used it were people that making it.The gap between using software and modifying it is narrowing as natural language interfaces make programming more accessible to non-programmers. For decades, programmers experienced a unique frustration: they had the skills to reshape unfriendly software but lacked easy tools to do so. Now, as programming becomes more democratized — whether through low-code tools, AI assistants, or projects like Dynamicland that reimagine human-computer interaction — users gain the power to adapt technology to their needs rather than conforming to rigid interfaces.Adopting Technology Intelligently Technology and software structures are additive in nature, requiring the addition of code for new features. Rather than blindly embracing technology like religion, it is important to analyze its impact on experiences and adopt valuable aspects while discarding others, treating technology as any other tool to be used thoughtfully and selectively.
Speaker 1
Yeah. And I was wondering if part of the reason for this is that this sort of structure of the technology or the software is actually additive, right? Like to add a feature, you add code. And so like because you can add code and kind of think of the effect of the code is also being additive.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I think so. Something I was thinking about was like how religious institutions see technology. I was reading about Marshall McLuhan. He had a lot of warnings about technology and how a lot of church people just embrace it wholeheartedly. Right. Rather than kind of analyzing how that changes the experience of being in a building. Right.
Speaker 1
Almost even like treating technology as like this separate category from rituals or art or culture, like almost that alone, there’s already something there where you can feel like You either have to adopt it wholeheartedly or reject it wholeheartedly. I think you should treat technology like anything else where you kind of take the things that you think are valuable and maybe you don’t take the things that you don’t think are valuable Instead of treating it as this like autonomous force. I have a friend who talks about how using BitTorrent to pirate movies or music or whatever, it was only practical after people had already used Napster and Kazaw and these other services To pirate stuff because the audience had to learn these interactions and these way of doing things before you could introduce this BitTorrent way which builds on the knowledge of the Existing way.Faith as a Dynamic Relationship and the Concept of Tacit Knowledge Faith, particularly in Christianity, is viewed as a dynamic relationship with God where the sense of knowing grows over time rather than just being a fixed belief. This idea aligns with the concept of tacit knowledge proposed by Michael Plonney, which suggests that knowing is an act of trust and understanding even when words may not fully express it. In education and learning, there is a shift towards constructivist approaches, emphasizing that true understanding is built individually in one’s mind rather than simply transferred through tutorials or texts.
Speaker 2
At least in Christianity, we talk about like faith being a relationship with God, meaning that it’s like a dynamic thing. It’s changing. Right. Your sense of knowing increases over time. You might not really feel that. And that’s why there’s this push against the idea of faith is only belief.
Speaker 1
Right. It’s just like logical predicates. And I think that’s like more accurate to like most things that are actually worth knowing, right? Like programming or playing a musical instrument or playing sports or whatever. These things are not like with some set of facts.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I think that speaks to Michael Plonney’s thinking around tacit knowledge. He’s basically saying knowing is an act of trust. You learn to be able to express, but even when you don’t have the words for it, there’s something that you know, right? Yeah.
Speaker 1
And a lot of the original work on small talk sort of came out of this idea of constructiveist education, where the idea is to learn something you have kind of have to build it yourself in Your head. You know, making programming tools so that people can build the stuff they’re learning about. And I think it’s a similar idea. Even if you’re writing down a tutorial or a textbook, and that’s the way you’re communicating it, it’s not like the knowledge is being transferred through that people are using that To build their own version of the knowledge in their own heads.Prompt engineering is closer to the idea of learning how things work and the embodied nature of this will make us more connected with technology rather than trying to rely on things other people build for us ecology-of-technologyKnowledge Shapes Perspective Knowledge is not just a piece of data but can change how one perceives the world. Learning can reveal new paths and perspectives, such as noticing bike paths after learning to ride. Understanding technology expands problem-solving capabilities and provides an expansive view of knowledge. Computers have influenced and constrained economics by impacting the way calculations are done.
Speaker 2
Yeah. It makes it feel like it’s somewhat magical, but in a like positive way.
Speaker 1
It’s like this sort of creative spark that can be shared.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Actually, this is similar to what you’re talking about how people think technology is just something you add on to. So, Blonnie says that knowledge isn’t just like another piece of data that you add to your brain, but it sometimes may change how you see the whole world, right? Mm-hmm. What was the other term? Like, desire lines, right? Once you learn how to ride a bike, you’ll actually notice in your mind bike paths, but if you didn’t, you might not see them because you’re just used to walking or taking a car. That’s a really good analogy.
Speaker 1
And that also gets to what we were talking about earlier, about like the more you kind of know about computers, the more paths you kind of see to fix the problem or to look at what’s going On.
Speaker 2
Yeah, yeah. Right. And that’s an expansive view of knowledge rather than the reductive one.
Speaker 1
I have a thread somewhere on Twitter where I was looking at this idea of tractability. There was a blog post that an economic historian wrote a year or two ago where she was talking about over the last hundred years, how have computers affected economics and how have they Constrained economics? Because, you know, if you’re an economist, you often are doing a lot of calculations on data.Learning from User Behavior User behavior, like using inline CSS or covering desktop with screenshots, can offer insights into what users want to do. Instead of trying to prevent or educate users, it is valuable to learn from their behavior to design better solutions. By understanding users’ actions and preferences, we can adapt technology to align with their needs and desires, rather than trying to change user behavior to fit established norms.
Speaker 1
I think one of the examples that I had was if somebody making an HTML page and then just using bold tags or just like putting in line CSS everywhere and like that’s not what you’re supposed To do. Like if you go on any tutorial, they’ll tell you you should make a separate CSS file or you should put everything in the style tag at the top and use classes. But the fact that people want to do that, like there’s something to learn from that about what kinds of things people want to do and how those aren’t suited to the prescription. Whenever you see people doing things like that, where it’s like you kind of want to guilt them into being like don’t do that. But I think the reaction should be opposite, like we should be trying to learn from them. Or people taking tons of screenshots and covering their desktop with screenshots. Why is that? I think it’s because there’s something better about screenshots.
Speaker 2
Right. The impulse would be like, oh, we should find a way to prevent them from even doing that in the first place. Or we should like educate them to not do that. Right. Because it’s a lot easier to just say that and to really maybe even talk to them and be like, hey, why are you doing that? Like a clue to like how we could design something better.
Speaker 1
Yeah, exactly. And you know, like the point of computers is to help people do what they want to do. And so if we can change the computer instead of changing what people are doing, I always feel that’s a better option. The other example that I always have in mind is spreadsheets, which are used for so many things. And sometimes you see this impulse, especially in kind of tech startup circles that every time you see a spreadsheet, that’s like a potential business because you could replace it With customer software.
