Recently I had the pleasure of seeing ‘Cop Car’ a taut and economical thriller with a running time of 88 minutes. Much of the story and characters were expertly defined without the need for pages of dialogue. The obvious skill of the director and screenwriters hinted at backstory using a look, a sentence or a casual conversation. I enjoyed this film a lot and it got me musing that maybe here was a way into to describing the root dislike I have of the boxset or streaming series, a media that usually requires 60 episodes of an hour each to tell its story.
I tried the Wire and gave up after 6 episodes. I tried Breaking Bad and gave up after 1 and half seasons. I managed to trawl all the way through ‘Battlestar Galactica’ even though the last 2 seasons were utter dirge. Everyone told me ‘Galactica’ was good, it wasn’t.
You see these epic series that seem to go on for ever are essentially glorified soap opera. They rely on viewers slowly identifying and rooting for characters and have the time to layer in hours of backstory and circumstance. Its lazy writing and often they have no idea where the story is going, which is often plainly obvious. The aim is to keep viewers hooked, which is very different from telling a good story. Honestly you are probably better of getting into Coronation Street as it’s far more honest in its aims as comforting sofa fodder. No matter how well produced they are you’ve spent the best part of 3 days getting to the end and when you finally pick your arse up off the sofa you have to ask yourself was it worth it? Life is short you know.
On the other hand there are hundreds of brilliant 90 minute films produced everywhere in the world, that have a beginning, middle and end. They don’t need 60 hours to tell a story. In fact the Spanish film ‘Wild Tales’ (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wild_tales/) crams in 6 beautifully done short films of 15 minutes each and has some of the most inventive direction and screenwriting I’ve ever seen.
Some of the best episodes of Breaking Bad were self contained, almost independent movie like in their nature. You could enjoy them without having to watch the entire thing and the producers knew this. Because THIS is what great storytelling is.
So chuck the Soap Operas and start exploring film again.
PS The only one I’ve enjoyed is ‘Band of Brothers’, which was actually more like a mini-series. I suspect if they tried to make it now it would be unbearable.
Anyone who has worked on an agile project usually encounters the question “How do we get UX to fit the process”. However anyone who has worked on a Lean project understands that UX doesn’t fit because the whole notion of what UX is has become vastly overblown and meaningless. UX is now an ageing rock star that demands its own dressing room, groupies and brown M&Ms and has very little to do with making things people want to use.
Agencies love UX as it gives them something to sell. Lots of shiny annotated Axure wireframes that suggest lots of work has been done by lots of people to solve a users problem. The ‘problem’ is however is that this approach is likely to solve nothing.
In a lean developed product the rapid cycles of ‘learn, build and test’ leave little time for faffing about in a wire-framing software environment. The aim of the game in Lean is to…
- Talk to users,
- Create a hypothesis,
- Sketch out some approaches,
- Rapidly prototype
- Then validate.
There are great frameworks out there that mean it’s much faster to build prototypes than it is to create interactive Axure files that bear no resemblance to mobile design patterns. If you are going to build something in a medium then use that medium not something completely different. Remember if you’re not testing with actual unbiased users at the end of each sprint then you’ve failed.
What is Flipboard
Flipboard (https://flipboard.com/ ) has been around for a while now. It appeared around the time of the first iPad and was the first app that I felt really showed the potential of this new medium. Craig Mod (http://craigmod.com/) was the lead designer and the interface reflected his innovative approach and love of clean and almost zen like UI. It came as a revelation to me that content could be ‘scrapped’ from various sources, stripped of its design and aggregated to create an entirely new experience. The native iPad app was a thing of beauty and a joy to use, but over the years other personalised content ‘magazine’ apps have appeared and although they are less beautiful the content they deliver seems more appropriate to me. However I still go back to Flipboard and its shareable magazine idea has become something that I have started to use. Technology savvy teachers are big fans of it for collating content that they can share with pupils.
The ultimate selling point for Flipboard is its beautiful and slick UI and the big challenge for the engineering team is creating a web interface that can reflect this. So I was interested to read a blog post from them this weekend talking about the new mobile web interface they had developed. http://engineering.flipboard.com/2015/02/mobile-web/
The approach they have taken has caused a fair amount of controversy as they have ignored the Browser DOM completely and built the entire app within a <canvas> tag. So I should explain the previous sentence as its important to understand what the DOM actually is and why ignoring it is potentially bad.
DOM and <canvas>
So Flipboard have ignored the DOM completely and built everything inside a <canvas> tag in the webpage. The canvas tag is part of the HTML5 specification and was created to allow fast rendering of graphics, text and animation. The problem is anything inside the canvas is invisible to the browser. This means that none of it is accessible or indeed indexible, effectively hidden from view from the rest of the internet. This is the trade-off that Flipboard has decided to make to ensure they get the slick content animations they wanted. John Gruber (well know Apple fan boy and IOS proponent) wrote a post http://daringfireball.net/ that applauds the Flipboard team, essentially blaming the WC3 for their lack of foresight and being old stick in the muds when it comes to supporting the new whizzy animations that native IOS apps enjoy as standard.
Missing the point
The web is the ultimate democracy but this is in danger. The WC3 have not set the standards for a small set of the digital elite. The standards are there to support users all over the world not matter what their connection speed or device. They are design to support Blind users and users with poor motor skills. If there was a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for the internet then 60fps animation would not be at the bottom of the pyramid. But the Flipboard engineering team used this as they core development principle. To be fair to Flipboard they have said that they will now start working on accessibility but if you have to reverse engineer it back into the browser then you have not built it correctly in the first place. It reminds me of trying to build accessibility into Adobe Flash applications during the bad old days, as it never worked. The reason I liked Flipboard was its content relevance, however over the years I have found other apps who seem to be able to dynamically deliver more appropriate and timely content to me. I’m a big fan of Zite and this is my goto content aggregator these days. Not because it has flashy animation at 60fps but because it works and its ironic that its now owned by Flipboard.
So by all means care about creating beautiful and well crafted animated UI’s, but in the end the content and accessibility are the important things and indeed what a web service will live or die by.