Mind the Gap!
Jimmi Bram Nielsen Mar 7th
What is the best constellation for creating easy-to-use, highly sophisticated and flexible software? I don’t thinks there is one. It very much depends on the task at hand and those involved. But one thing is for sure, the interaction between parties needs to be a huge priority.
It is something that has been rumbling in my mind for the last couple of weeks. The expanding mental gap, growing between “designers” and “developers” especially in the public forum. Developers tend to, as my colleague Pelle describes in his post ‘Everyday is a whining read’, have a more calm attitude towards designer buzz words like web 2.0, AJAX etc. This is a result of “the Gap”. No designer has ever been euphoric from the fact that .Net 2.0 is a revolution in rapid development, and SQL Server 2005 Analysis services is setting new standards for data mining. And no developer will ever be over head and heels hearing about a technology that topped ten years ago, just used in another way. The enthusiasm must come from purpose, in both cases that is. The purpose has to be obvious and give meaning to the eye of the beholder.
Here in 2006, we have some of the best technical tools available, allowing us to build ever more flexible and advanced software solutions. The increased focus on usability and simplicity enables us to create this software, with interfaces that allows the technology to be accessible to everyone. The tools are there, the ideas too. That’s why we need to focus even more on the interaction and understanding between Designers and Developers/System Architects.
This Blog is a one of the tools we here at TraceWorks use for the purpose of closing the Gap.
Entries (RSS)
I don’t regard myself as a designer (remind me to write a post about what I actually do for a living), but you can count me in when you talk about the persons “not so euphoric about .Net 2.0″.
This was the issue I was trying to address in my post: I don’t care about technology, I care about possibilities. Philosophically speaking we will never agree on what Web 2.0 is and is not, but as far as innovations go let me put it straight forward: Innovation does not come by using technologies the same ways it’s always been used, but by combining two technologies or by using existing technology in a new way.
I am not into Web 2.0 because it is hyped; I’m into it because it is user driven and flexible. I like to make the users, not the developers set the standard of what can be achieved within a program. That is exactly why Firefox is smart and Internet Explorer an outdated application from the last century. If you can do the stuff I want with Visual Basic or even with FrontPage, well that’s just great.
There is essentially nothing new in Firefox – we’ve seen some of its features in Netscape, some in Opera and some in IE, but the combination is so much better than the parts themselves.
So let me put it another way:
1) I don’t care if all designers in the world are talking about going to the beach, because I can’t afford to buy a surf board
2) I don’t care what you call the (r)evolution that is happening right now – for me Web 2.0 is a concept, a mindset or just a different approach that makes the user – not a designer or programmer – set the standards for what is possible
Pelle, I think I finally begin to see where you are going with this. You only care about the possibilities lying in the new paradigm Web 2.0 and not the hype.
In that case, you still have to seperate the word “Web 2.0″ from your comment. Firefox is not Web 2.0, usability is not Web 2.0, new possibilities are not Web 2.0. The point is, that Web 2.0 IS nothing. It is a set of ideas. Some new, some older, but they hold no actual value and ever will.
Take XMLHTTP (AJAX); it can do some things cooler than what we did before. Does it make things smarter or easier (usable)? No. It does the same things as before, but differently - not necessarily better.
Overall though, I agree with you.
At some level I do agree with you. The thing is that from a linguistic point of view it is very hard to discuss something that doesn’t have a name.
Since I’m not given adamistic power (the power of pointing at something and name it) I have to navigate in the chaos of everyday language.
Everyday language is far from perfect and never will be. It is ambiguous and that is the beauty of it.
This is where “Web 2.0″ comes in handy; we almost agree on what it is. That is why I referred to Wittgenstein in my last reply; we will never agree entirely.
Maybe we should just calm down, get back to our jobs/drink a beer, celebrate Jimmi’s birthday.
One thing is for sure - the discussion will continue!
I think it’s safe to say that we agree overall. The thing that we disagreed upon was the linguistics used in our discussions. We probably agreed from the beginning, but we took the discussion from two very different places and went at it from there.
I still haven’t heard you opinion about the change in development life cycle and paradigm as I stated might be happening in The buzz word hype and web 2.0