Seams

You can listen to an audio version of Seams.

“The function of science fiction,” said Ray Bradbury, “is not only to predict the future, but to prevent it.”

Dystopias are the default setting for science fiction. It’s rare to find utopian sci-fi, and when you do—as in the post-singularity Culture novels of Iain M.Banks—there’s always more than a germ of dystopia; the dystutopias that Margaret Atwood speaks of.

You’ve got your political dystopias—1984 and all its imitators. Then there’s alien invasion dystopias, machine-intelligence dystopias, and a whole slew of post-apocalyptic dystopias: nuclear war, pandemic disease, environmental collapse, genetic engineering …take your pick. From the cosy catastrophes of John Wyndham to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, this is the stock and trade of speculative fiction.

Of all these undesirable futures, one that troubles more than any other is the Wall·E dystopia. I’m not talking about the environmental wasteland depicted on Earth. I mean the dystutopia depicted aboard the generation starship The Axiom. Here, humanity’s every need is catered to without requiring any thought. And so humanity atrophies, becoming physically obese and intellectually lazy.

It’s not a new idea. H. G. Wells had already shown us a distant future like this in his classic novel The Time Machine. In the far future of that book’s timeline, humanity splits into two. The savagery of the canabalistic Morlocks is contrasted with the docile passive stupidity of the Eloi, but as Jaron Lanier points out, both endpoints are equally horrific.

In Wall·E, the Eloi have advanced technology. Their technology has been designed according to a design principle enshrined in the title of a Dead Kennedys album: Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death.

That’s the reason why the Wall·E dystopia disturbs me so much. It’s all-too believable. For many years now, the rallying cry of digital designers has been epitomised by the title of Steve Krug’s terrific book, Don’t Make Me Think. But what happens when that rallying cry is taken too far? What happens when it stops being “don’t make think while I’m trying to complete a task” to simply “don’t make me think” full stop?

Convenience. Ease of use. Seamlessness.

On the face of it, these all seem like desirable traits in digital and physical products alike. But they come at a price. When we design, we try to do the work so that the user doesn’t have to. We do the thinking so the user doesn’t have to. Don’t make the user think. But taken too far, that mindset becomes dangerous.

Marshall McLuhan said that every extension is also an amputution. As we augment the abilities of people to accomplish their tasks, we should be careful not to needlessly curtail what they can do:

Here we are, a society hell bent on extending our reach through phones, through computers, through “seamless integration” and yet all along the way we’re unwittingly losing perhaps as much as we gain. The mediums we create are built to carry out specific tasks efficiently, but by doing so they have a tendency to restrict our options for accomplishing that task by other means. We begin to learn the “One” way to do it, when in fact there are infinite ways. The medium begins to restrict our thinking, our imagination, our potential.

The idea of “seamlessness” as a desirable trait in what we design is one that bothers me. Technology has seams. By hiding those seams, we may think we are helping the end user, but we are also making a conscience choice to deceive them (or at least restrict what they can do).

I see this a lot in the world of web devlopment. We’re constantly faced with challenges like dealing with users on slow networks or small screens. So we try to come up with solutions (bandwidth media queries, responsive images) that have at their heart an assumption that we know better than the end user what they should get.

I’m not saying that everything should be an option in a menu for the user to figure out—picking smart defaults is very much part of our job. But I do think there’s real value in giving the user the final choice.

I remember Jake giving a good example of this. If he’s travelling and he’s on a 3G network on his phone, or using shitty hotel WiFi on his laptop, and someone sends him a link to a video of some cats, he doesn’t mind if he gets the low-quality version as long as he gets to see the feline shenanigans in short order. But if he’s in the same situation and someone sends him a link to the just-released trailer for the new Star Trek movie, he’s willing to wait for hours so that he can watch in high-definition.

That’s a choice. All too often, these kind of choices are pre-made by designers and developers instead of being offered to the end user. We probably mean well, but there’s a real danger in assuming that just because someone is using a particular device that we can infer what their context is:

Mind reading is no way to base fundamental content decisions.

My point is that while we don’t want to overwhelm the user with choice overload, we also need to be careful not to unintentionally remove valuable choices that can empower people. In our quest to make experiences seamless, we run the risk of also making those experiences rigid and inflexible.

The drive for a “seamless experience” has been used to justify some harsh amputations. When Twitter declared war on the very developers it used to champion, and changed its API and terms of service so that tweets had to be displayed the same way everywhere, it was done in the name of “a consistent user experience.” Twitter knows best.

The web is made up of parts and there are seams between those parts: HTML, HTTP, and URLs. The software that can expose or hide those seams is the web browser. Web browsers are made by human beings and it’s the mindset and assumptions of those human beings that determines whether web browsers are enabling or disabling users to make use of those seams.

“View source” is a seam that exposes the HTML lying beneath every web page. That kind of X-ray vision can be quite powerful. Clearly it’s not an important feature for most users, but it is directly responsible for showing people how web pages are made …and intimating that anyone can do it. In the introduction to my first book I thanked “view source” along with my other teachers like Jeff Veen, Steve Champeon, and Jeffrey Zeldman.

These days, browsers don’t like to expose “view source” as easily as they once did. It’s hidden amongst the developer tools. There’s an assumption there that it’s not intended for regular users. The browser makers know best.

There are seams between the technologies that make up a web page: HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. The ability to enable or disable those layers can be empowering. It has become harder and harder to disable JavaScript in the browser. Another little amputation. The browser makers know best.

The CSS that styles web pages can be over-ridden by the end user. This is not a bug. It is a very powerful feature. That feature is being removed:

I understand that vendors can do whatever they want to control how you experience the web, because it is their software, their product, but removing user stylesheets feels sooo un-web to me, which is irony. A browser’s largest responsibility is to give people access to the web. It’s like the web is this open hand, but software is this closed fist.

Then there’s the URL. The ultimate seam.

Historically, browsers have exposed this seam, but now—just as with “view source” and user stylesheets—the visibility of the URL is being relegated to being a power-user tool.

The ultimate amputation.

The irony here is that the justification for this change is not the usual mantra of providing “a more seamless user experience.” Instead, the justification is supposedly security.

This strike me as really strange. Security is the one area where seamlessness is definitely not a desirable characteristic. A secure system requires people to be mindful and aware of their situation. This is certainly true on the web, as Tom points out:

Hiding information away makes me less able to make decisions: it makes me a less informed user.

The whole reason that phishing is a problem is because users don’t pay any bloody attention to what they see in their location bar. Putting less information in the location bar makes the location bar less useful and thus there’s less point paying any attention to it.

Tom has hit on the fundamental mismatch here. Chrome is a piece of software that wants to provide a good user experience—“don’t make me think!”—while at the same trying to make users mindful of their surroundings:

Security requires educated, pro-active, informed thinking users.

Usability is about making the whole process of using the web seamless and thoughtless: a child should be able to do it.

So from the security standpoint, obfuscating the URL is exactly the wrong thing to do.

In order to actually stay safe online, you need to see the “seams” of the web, you need to pay attention, use your brain.

Chrome knows best.

Making it harder to “view source” might seem like an inconsequentail decision. Removing the ability to apply user stylesheets might seem like an inconsequential decision. Heck, even hiding the URL might seem like an inconsequential decision. But each one of those decisions has repercussions. And each one of those decisions reflects an underlying viewpoint.

Make no mistake, all software is political. We talk about opinionated software but really, all software is opinionated, whether we like it or not. Seemingly inconsequential interface decisions are actually reflections of assumptions, biases and beliefs.

As Nat points out, like all political decisions, this is about power:

There’s been much debate about whether the URLs are ‘ugly’ or ‘beautiful’ and whether people really understand them. This debate misses the point.

The URLs are the cornerstone of the interconnected, decentralised web. Removing the URLs from the browser is an attempt to expand and consolidate centralised power.

If that’s the case, then it really doesn’t matter what we think about Chrome removing visible URLs. What appears to be a design decision about the user interface is in fact a manifestation of a much deeper vision. It’s a vision of a future where people can have everything their heart desires without having to expend needless thought. It’s a bright future filled with seamless experiences.

Welcome aboard The Axiom.

Buy n Large knows best.

Have you published a response to this? :

Responses

Shane Hudson

And not only is it so well written, but details one of my biggest fears. “Buy n Large knows best.” Terrifying. @adactio

Mariusz Ciesla

@adactio yes, I’ve read your article. Agree with some of the points. Still think it’s not as bad as you put it for average users.

Michael Horn

@adactio Chrome, Safari and FF have been greying out URLs past the domain for a few versions, and no one batted an eyelid.

Michael Horn

@adactio what of URL shorteners, the URL equivalent of mystery meat? I would rather see the full URL, but I don’t think it’s disastrous.

Daniel Schildt

Jeremy Keith adactio.com/journal/6786 reminds that improvements in the user interfaces can lead to a situation where tool replaces essential parts of thinking. When people no longer have to think what they are doing (or can’t see the process), a lot of other issues are created.

Hans

Good to re-read this. Great reminder how UX can turn evil.

# Posted by Hans on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 7:28pm

Mandy Michael

I use the urls in search results all the time, I’m sad to hear they might be removing them.

Daniel Schildt

Web browser usability: “Hiding information away makes me less able to make decisions: it makes me a less informed user. Putting less information in the location bar makes the location bar less useful and thus there’s less point paying any attention to it.” adactio.com/journal/6786

blog.jim-nielsen.com

For many years now, the rallying cry of digital designers has been epitomised by the title of Steve Krug’s terrific book, Don’t Make Me Think. But what happens when that rallying cry is taken too far? What happens when it stops being “don’t make think while I’m trying to complete a task” to simply “don’t make me think” full stop? — Jeremy Keith, “Seams”

Steve Krug’s book “Don’t Make Me Think” is a wonderful book. Unfortunately, I’ve often seen its contents narrowly distilled to a slogan revered as the great commandment of software design: don’t make people think.

Have you heard of the the cognitive reflection test? It’s a test “designed to measure a person’s tendency to override an incorrect ‘gut’ response and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer.” More from Wikipedia:

According to Frederick, there are two general types of cognitive activity called “system 1” and “system 2” (these terms have been first used by Daniel Kahneman). System 1 is executed quickly without reflection, while system 2 requires conscious thought and effort. The cognitive reflection test has three questions that each have an obvious but incorrect response given by system 1. The correct response requires the activation of system 2. For system 2 to be activated, a person must note that their first answer is incorrect, which requires reflection on their own cognition

Here are the three questions from the test:

  1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
  2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
  3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?

The intuitive answers are:

  1. 10 cents
  2. 100 minutes
  3. 24 days

The correct answers are:

  1. 5 cents
  2. 5 minutes
  3. 47 days.

What’s interesting, Malcolm Gladwell points out in his book David and Goliath, is that there is an easy way to raise peoples’ grades on this test: make the test questions difficult to read.

The psychologists Adam Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer tried this a few years ago with a group of undergraduates at Princeton University. First they gave the CRT the normal way, and the students averaged 1.9 correct answers out of three. That’s pretty good, though it is well short of the 2.18 that MIT students averaged. Then Alter and Oppenheimer printed out the test questions in a font that was really hard to read—a 10 percent gray, 10-point italics Myriad Pro font…

Translated to digital, that would mean a question that looked roughly like this:

What happened when the questions received this kind of visual treatment?

The average score this time around [went up to] 2.45. Suddenly, the students were doing much better.

Wait, but I thought we were supposed to not make people think? Present things to people clearly and simply and they’ll do better. Why is the opposite happening here? The typographic treatment of the question made reading difficult. You likely had to squint, possibly even read some words (or the entire question) multiple times. Interacting with the question in this way required you to stop and think. It made you work. Gladwell comments on this interesting result of the study:

As Alter says, making the questions “disfluent” causes people to “think more deeply about whatever they come across. They’ll use more resources on it. They’ll process more deeply or think more carefully about what’s going on. If they have to overcome a hurdle, they’ll overcome it better when you force them to think a little harder.” Alter and Oppenheimer made the CRT more difficult. But that difficulty turned out to be desirable.

Look at that: purposefully making something more difficult turned out to be desirable.

A Product Example

A little while ago, I knew some folks building a product touted as an “anonymous job platform for your ideal next role”. I was able to get a sneak peak at using the app and one of the things that struck me was how difficult it was to use. Not “difficult” in a human/computer interaction kind of way, but rather in a critical thinking kind of way. It was hard because it required me to stop and think. It required introspection. I half-jokingly noted to the the designer in my feedback “I probably thought harder…when creating a profile than most any other time in my life.” He responded by saying, “We heard that same feedback…I’m loving that part of it. I think we’re gonna try to encourage that even more.”

What I found ingenious about the product was that it didn’t shy away from being difficult. Again, it’s not that the product was difficult to understand or the UI tricky to use. No. In fact, the UI and instructions were quite clear, helpful, even empathetic to the task at hand. There were moments of suggested pause, followed by probing questions meant to draw out the best kinds of thought, which would then power the product to deliver the best kinds of value.

After more use of the product, I wrote my feedback to one of the owners:

[To do this right] I realize that I’d really need to sit down and think about:

  1. What do I want? And not just a general “what do I want out of life?” but a very precise set of details “I want to be doing this kind of work, on this kind of team, with this kind of business”…

[I think you’ve done a] really good job on the way the app makes me think. I found myself multiple times thinking “this is too hard. You people who made this app, you’re making me think too much!” But then an inner voice said “hey stupid, this stuff that’s hard, it’s for YOU. It’s for YOUR benefit. Are you telling me you don’t want to work hard for YOURSELF? You get what you put into it.” And then I was like “ok I’ll spend whatever amount of time this takes.”

Turns out, this “disfluency” I was picking up on was a kind of intentional friction by the product designers, one of whom responded to my feedback in this manner:

We’re hearing similar things from other folks. I’m a little scared we’re gonna lose people because it is difficult, but that might be OK? It’s the antithesis of most internet things these days. Instead of go-go-go, fast-fast, more-more, we’re asking [people] to slow down, take their time…[I think we’ll] reiterate as much as we can that…it’s OK that it’s hard.

Conclusion

Why am I writing all of this? I don’t know. I guess as a reminder to myself. “Hard things are hard”. Great software allows people to do the actual thinking of the task at hand. If computers really are a “bicycle for the mind” we should make sure we don’t remove what makes bicycles great: human-powered motion. Too often our propensity is to make software that turns bicycles into motorcycles: all that’s required of you is to twist your arm on the throttle and boom, automated motion.

The removal of all friction should’t be a goal. Making things easy and making things hard should be a design tool, employed to aid the end user towards their loftiest goals. As @dhh has stated

Instead of always chasing the erasure of friction, it’s worth thinking about how friction can help people

# Monday, August 24th, 2020 at 7:00pm

26 Shares

# Shared by Jeffrey Zeldman on Monday, May 12th, 2014 at 10:59pm

# Shared by Jimmy Chandra on Monday, May 12th, 2014 at 11:14pm

# Shared by Dave Zombie on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 4:05am

# Shared by DannyDB Stellar Feed on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 7:21am

# Shared by frank on Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 10:38pm

# Shared by Baldur Bjarnason @baldur@toot.cafe on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:38pm

# Shared by Roger Mitchell on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:40pm

# Shared by Sander van Dragt on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:40pm

# Shared by Shannon Moeller on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:43pm

# Shared by Timothy Miller on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:56pm

# Shared by Robert Weber on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:05pm

# Shared by Clearleft on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:06pm

# Shared by Perry Rajnovic on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:06pm

# Shared by Nevin Lyne on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:20pm

# Shared by Stuart on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:27pm

# Shared by Israel Flores DGA on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:31pm

# Shared by Raph D'Amico on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 4:18pm

# Shared by Michaël Vanderheyden on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 5:38pm

# Shared by Bramus! on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 12:19am

# Shared by warrenlnaida 💻 on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 5:40am

# Shared by Fronteers on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 8:36am

# Shared by Michael Houmann on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 9:03am

# Shared by Jess Budd on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 9:31am

# Shared by Dave Lens on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 10:13am

# Shared by Scott on Wednesday, November 6th, 2019 at 1:09am

# Shared by Sid Vishnoi on Sunday, April 5th, 2020 at 9:54am

55 Likes

# Liked by Jeffrey Zeldman on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 12:06am

# Liked by Jimmy Chandra on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 12:15am

# Liked by Barnaby Malet on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 12:27am

# Liked by Erick Patrick on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 1:18am

# Liked by Dan Mouyard on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 1:36am

# Liked by Harry Roberts on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 1:58am

# Liked by Vladimir Dorokhin on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 3:55am

# Liked by Tim Rourke on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 4:22am

# Liked by Brett Evans on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 6:14am

# Liked by Philip Brown on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 7:13am

# Liked by gareth53 on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 7:43am

# Liked by Henrik Ammer on Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 at 8:14am

# Liked by Aral Balkan on Wednesday, June 4th, 2014 at 11:42am

# Liked by Stephen Hay on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 10:59pm

# Liked by Owen Campbell-Moore on Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 10:53pm

# Liked by Dale on Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 10:54pm

# Liked by frank on Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 at 10:54pm

# Liked by Baldur Bjarnason @baldur@toot.cafe on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:47pm

# Liked by Jan Skovgaard on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:48pm

# Liked by dies das 🦂 content on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:48pm

# Liked by Joschi Kuphal 吉 on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:48pm

# Liked by Everyone Hates Journalists & ZQ is a murderer on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:48pm

# Liked by Dale Stillman on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 2:48pm

# Liked by Andy Bell on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by Evandro Santos on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by Nevin Lyne on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by Robert Weber on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by Kelsey Ray Banerjee on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by tommy george on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:23pm

# Liked by Clearleft on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:24pm

# Liked by Fabio Venni on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:24pm

# Liked by Bart Vandeputte on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:24pm

# Liked by Daniel Schildt on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:24pm

# Liked by Radoslav Sharapanov on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 3:51pm

# Liked by underfakelights on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 4:23pm

# Liked by Raph D'Amico on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 4:23pm

# Liked by Michaël Vanderheyden on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 5:50pm

# Liked by 7-kurgan-d on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 6:15pm

# Liked by survey firm on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 6:15pm

# Liked by Toon Vanagt on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 7:38pm

# Liked by Batbayar B. on Monday, November 4th, 2019 at 11:41pm

# Liked by Ariel Burone 🇦🇷 on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 4:01am

# Liked by warrenlnaida 💻 on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 6:07am

# Liked by Stephan  on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 9:17am

# Liked by Michael Houmann on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 9:17am

# Liked by Dave Lens on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 10:23am

# Liked by Eva ✨ on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 10:57am

# Liked by Arun Kumar Dadhwal on Tuesday, November 5th, 2019 at 12:23pm

# Liked by Aaron Davis on Friday, November 15th, 2019 at 11:05am

# Liked by bene on Monday, November 18th, 2019 at 3:42pm

# Liked by Neil Gateley on Sunday, April 5th, 2020 at 10:40am

# Liked by Benjamin Parry on Sunday, April 5th, 2020 at 10:40am

# Liked by Sid Vishnoi on Sunday, April 5th, 2020 at 10:40am

# Liked by Maxim Leyzerovich on Sunday, April 5th, 2020 at 10:40am

# Liked by Paul Robert Lloyd on Monday, April 6th, 2020 at 2:41am

Previously on this day

15 years ago I wrote End of the endeavour

My cruise around Alaska’s Inside Passage has come to an end. The Spirit Of Endeavour docked in Juneau and we disembarked this morning.

17 years ago I wrote And again.

I give up.

18 years ago I wrote Web services, Weblogs and Wired

Here’s an excellent article in The Guardian by all-round good guy, Ben Hammersley all about web services.