Mary's talk & the research/light of day problem
Mary Czerwinski's SIGCHI talk was great, but also reminded me of a reoccurring frustration I have with research and academia... the fact that awesome, helpful work can take so long to manifest itself into something useful.
The talk was mostly an overview of the projects in the VIBE group over in MSR. Their main focus is making the Windows environment a more conducive place for productivity on tasks that require concentration. Their most recent projects involve improving group collaboration as well as the work I mentioned on EEG utilization.
From my vantage point of HCI research, I think Mary's group is doing some of the best work out there. Why? Because it's all about giving users back more of this...
and if you've been following this blog for awhile, you may recall that returning time (and mental energy) back to users is the most exciting part of HCI to me.
While seeing Mary's talk was extremely inspiring, the frustration I experienced is best illustrated with an analogy...
Suppose someone working for a major pharmaceutical company were to discover a promising drug that would help cancer patients fight off the disease. The drug goes through several clinical trials and the results all look positive. You, the cancer patient, hear about this discovery and want to get your hands on the drug. Unfortunately, the company that backed the research decides it's better to fund a new erectile dysfunction pill, "Miasma," since it knows it will be a solid money maker (and increased R&D on the cancer drug would take longer and entails greater risk). All the while, you are left sitting there, dying of cancer, while some old guy is able to get more boners.
I feel this is a similar scenario to what goes on in large corporations that fund beneficial research like that found in Mary's group.
Just replace "cancer" with "information overload" and "Miasma" with "Vista," the "Zune," or whatever your favorite software whipping boy may happen to be.
Every single person who uses software is losing their most precious resource on Earth, time, due to inefficiencies in design. MSR holds some of the keys to improve this situation, but it's difficult for them to get any of it out to the public in a major way. Two of VIBE's proejcts, GroupBar and Scalable Fabric, are examples of significant improvements to the desktop that were close to shipping, but eventually got cut from Vista... an inclusion that could've had a huge impact on user productivity. Now, all we can hope for is seeing this tech in the next version of Windows (or in a competitor's OS)... and lord knows how long that might take.
By the time a new version of Windows ships (not service packs, but a brand new version), will gigantic OS's even make sense anymore? For now, they do since the concept of working offline is still necessary. But what happens when internet connectivity becomes just as widespread and expected as electricity? It's hard for me to estimate the number of times I've been in software design discussions when the constraint of "well, what if the user wants to use this on the plane?" comes up. We're continuing to build an entire industry on the back of an old model that (for most users) takes up less than 1% of their lives (sitting on a plane and needing access to files).
This "offline devil," as I like to affectionately call it, is a gigantic albatross around the neck of user experience. Once that constraint goes away, things like storing all your music locally, worrying about backing up files, and software updates will be a thing of the past. Your OS will be tiny and update itself, in the background, as needed. Of course, there will be privacy and security concerns, but there always are as technology advances... solutions will evolve, but the general trajectory seems headed in this direction.
If Microsoft's priorities were more benevolent, they'd stop investing so much in reach businesses and focus on the bread and butter. Things like the traditional file folder metaphor, managing windows, finding files, stopping interruptions, and other basics that still prove problematic. I'm not advocating something new just for newnesses sake, but even small improvements can make a huge difference as evidenced by the results that MSR consistently comes up with in their research.
If it were up to me, I'd make Mary's group the most well-funded and staffed group in the entire company, with major tentacles and influence in Office and Windows... the two teams where productivity benefits matter most. The impact on daily life, happiness, and in aggregate... the world, as a result of increased productivity could be very significant.
During the talk's Q&A, I asked Mary what her thoughts and predictions were for getting this tech into the hands of mass market users. She reiterated that they were close with Vista and that Office 2007 incorporates a bit of her team's thinking by "rehydrating" (aka re-opening) emails when you close Outlook, but ultimately, it boils down to the quote she closed her answer with:
"That's why they call it research."
and this is where I'm stuck. It's clear to me that research and academia are needed to push the boundaries of problem solving and exploration. If saddled with implementation as well, they'd never have any time to actually work on researching their ideas. But having their work fall at the tender mercies of a gigantic team such as Windows or Office seems like such a waste as well. There has to be a way to get the best of both worlds... perhaps this is what Google Labs strives to accomplish and countless other start-ups that work hard to get their projects into the world.
Just to be clear, this post isn't to diminish the efforts of anyone who chooses to go down the research path... quite the opposite. It's the larger system that allows such important work to sit on a shelf that has me upset. Research trapped in a world of conference papers and geeky UI meetings isn't enough. This stuff belongs out in the world where moms, kids, busy office works, scientists, and artists can get their hands on it. It troubles me to see the short-sightedness of the industry's focus on things like new ad technologies or DRM systems at the expense of services that empower users.
There's no easy answer to any of this, but I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the problem... perhaps you know of some examples where research and product development had a more harmonious relationship?
In the meantime, I'll try to quiet my internal Aimee Man the next time I hear about great research staying under wraps.
(this rant was just an excuse to post this video)
The talk was mostly an overview of the projects in the VIBE group over in MSR. Their main focus is making the Windows environment a more conducive place for productivity on tasks that require concentration. Their most recent projects involve improving group collaboration as well as the work I mentioned on EEG utilization.
From my vantage point of HCI research, I think Mary's group is doing some of the best work out there. Why? Because it's all about giving users back more of this...
and if you've been following this blog for awhile, you may recall that returning time (and mental energy) back to users is the most exciting part of HCI to me.
While seeing Mary's talk was extremely inspiring, the frustration I experienced is best illustrated with an analogy...
Suppose someone working for a major pharmaceutical company were to discover a promising drug that would help cancer patients fight off the disease. The drug goes through several clinical trials and the results all look positive. You, the cancer patient, hear about this discovery and want to get your hands on the drug. Unfortunately, the company that backed the research decides it's better to fund a new erectile dysfunction pill, "Miasma," since it knows it will be a solid money maker (and increased R&D on the cancer drug would take longer and entails greater risk). All the while, you are left sitting there, dying of cancer, while some old guy is able to get more boners.
I feel this is a similar scenario to what goes on in large corporations that fund beneficial research like that found in Mary's group.
Just replace "cancer" with "information overload" and "Miasma" with "Vista," the "Zune," or whatever your favorite software whipping boy may happen to be.
Every single person who uses software is losing their most precious resource on Earth, time, due to inefficiencies in design. MSR holds some of the keys to improve this situation, but it's difficult for them to get any of it out to the public in a major way. Two of VIBE's proejcts, GroupBar and Scalable Fabric, are examples of significant improvements to the desktop that were close to shipping, but eventually got cut from Vista... an inclusion that could've had a huge impact on user productivity. Now, all we can hope for is seeing this tech in the next version of Windows (or in a competitor's OS)... and lord knows how long that might take.
By the time a new version of Windows ships (not service packs, but a brand new version), will gigantic OS's even make sense anymore? For now, they do since the concept of working offline is still necessary. But what happens when internet connectivity becomes just as widespread and expected as electricity? It's hard for me to estimate the number of times I've been in software design discussions when the constraint of "well, what if the user wants to use this on the plane?" comes up. We're continuing to build an entire industry on the back of an old model that (for most users) takes up less than 1% of their lives (sitting on a plane and needing access to files).
This "offline devil," as I like to affectionately call it, is a gigantic albatross around the neck of user experience. Once that constraint goes away, things like storing all your music locally, worrying about backing up files, and software updates will be a thing of the past. Your OS will be tiny and update itself, in the background, as needed. Of course, there will be privacy and security concerns, but there always are as technology advances... solutions will evolve, but the general trajectory seems headed in this direction.
If Microsoft's priorities were more benevolent, they'd stop investing so much in reach businesses and focus on the bread and butter. Things like the traditional file folder metaphor, managing windows, finding files, stopping interruptions, and other basics that still prove problematic. I'm not advocating something new just for newnesses sake, but even small improvements can make a huge difference as evidenced by the results that MSR consistently comes up with in their research.
If it were up to me, I'd make Mary's group the most well-funded and staffed group in the entire company, with major tentacles and influence in Office and Windows... the two teams where productivity benefits matter most. The impact on daily life, happiness, and in aggregate... the world, as a result of increased productivity could be very significant.
During the talk's Q&A, I asked Mary what her thoughts and predictions were for getting this tech into the hands of mass market users. She reiterated that they were close with Vista and that Office 2007 incorporates a bit of her team's thinking by "rehydrating" (aka re-opening) emails when you close Outlook, but ultimately, it boils down to the quote she closed her answer with:
"That's why they call it research."
and this is where I'm stuck. It's clear to me that research and academia are needed to push the boundaries of problem solving and exploration. If saddled with implementation as well, they'd never have any time to actually work on researching their ideas. But having their work fall at the tender mercies of a gigantic team such as Windows or Office seems like such a waste as well. There has to be a way to get the best of both worlds... perhaps this is what Google Labs strives to accomplish and countless other start-ups that work hard to get their projects into the world.
Just to be clear, this post isn't to diminish the efforts of anyone who chooses to go down the research path... quite the opposite. It's the larger system that allows such important work to sit on a shelf that has me upset. Research trapped in a world of conference papers and geeky UI meetings isn't enough. This stuff belongs out in the world where moms, kids, busy office works, scientists, and artists can get their hands on it. It troubles me to see the short-sightedness of the industry's focus on things like new ad technologies or DRM systems at the expense of services that empower users.
There's no easy answer to any of this, but I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the problem... perhaps you know of some examples where research and product development had a more harmonious relationship?
In the meantime, I'll try to quiet my internal Aimee Man the next time I hear about great research staying under wraps.
(this rant was just an excuse to post this video)