Yes! Yes! Yes!
Our efforts to measure and improve UX are packed with tragically ironic attempts to love our users: we try to find ways to improve our app experiences by bloating them with analytics, split testing, behavioral analysis, and Net Promoter Score popovers. We stack plugins on top of third-party libraries on top of frameworks in the name of making websites “better”—whether it’s something misguided, like adding a carousel to appease some executive’s burning desire to get everything “above the fold,” or something truly intended to help people, like a support chat overlay. Often the net result is a slower page load, a frustrating experience, and/or (usually “and”) a ton of extra code and assets transferred to the browser.
Even tools that are supposed to help measure performance in order to make improvements—like, say, Real User Monitoring—require you to add a script to your web pages …thereby increasing the file size and degrading performance! It’s ironic, in that Alanis Morissette sense of not understanding what irony is.
Stacking tools upon tools may solve our problems, but it’s creating a Jenga tower of problems for our users.
This is a great article about evaluating technology.
The headline is terrible but this interview is an insightful look at evaluating technology.
I remember Kevin Kelly referring to the Amish as “slow geeks”, and remarking that we could all become a little more amish-ish.
It’s not that the Amish view technology as inherently evil. No rules prohibit them from using new inventions. But they carefully consider how each one will change their culture before embracing it. And the best clue as to what will happen comes from watching their neighbors.
I had a chat with some people from Name.com while I was in Denver for An Event Apart. Here’s a few minutes of me rambling on about web development and the indie web.
I think this is the best delivery of this talk I’ve ever given. It was something about being in that wonderful venue.
I got quite worked up around the the 32 minute mark.
At the 14 minute mark I had to deal with an obstreperous member of the audience. He wasn’t heckling exactly …he just had a very bad experience with web components, and I think my talk was triggering for him.
Here’s the closing keynote I gave at Frontend Conference in Zurich a couple of weeks back.
Here’s the video of the closing keynote I gave at the Frontend United conference in Athens.
There’s fifteen minutes of Q&A at the end where I waffle on in response to some thought-provoking ideas from the audience.
I wasn’t supposed to speak at this year’s Beyond Tellerrand conference, but alas, Ellen wasn’t able to make it so I stepped in and gave my talk on evaluating technology.
Laurie Voss on the trade-off between new powerful web dev tools, and the messiness that abusing those tools can bring:
Is modern web development fearsomely, intimidatingly complicated? Yes, and that’s a problem. Will we make it simpler? Definitely, but probably not as soon as you’d like. Is all this new complexity worthwhile? Absolutely.
I agree that there’s bound to be inappropriate use of technologies, but I don’t agree that we should just accept it:
I think we can raise our standards. Inappropriate use of technology might have been forgivable ten years ago, but if we want web development to be taken seriously as a discipline, I think we should endeavour to use our tools and technologies appropriately.
But we can all agree that the web is a wonderful thing:
Nobody but nobody loves the web more than I do. It’s my baby. And like a child, it’s frustrating to watch it struggle and make mistakes. But it’s amazing to watch it grow up.
Calum’s write-up of the workshop I ran in Nuremberg last week.
Here’s the opening keynote I gave at the Render Conference in Oxford. The talk is called Evaluating Technology:
Luke is a live-blogging machine. Here’s the notes he made during my talk at An Event Apart Seattle.
If it reads like a rambling hodge-podge of unconnected thoughts, I could say that you had to be there …but it kinda was a rambling hodge-podge of unconnected thoughts.
This ties in nicely with the new talk I’m doing on evaluating technology. Zell proposes a five-step process:
- Figure out what [insert tool] does.
- Figure out what sucks right now
- Determine if it’s worth the investment
- Learn it (if it’s worth it)
- Differentiate opinions from facts
Jeffrey likes the new talk I debuted at An Event San Francisco. That’s nice!
Summarizing it here is like trying to describe the birth of your child in five words or less. Fortunately, you can see Jeremy give this presentation for yourself at several upcoming An Event Apart conference shows in 2017.