Donald Norman takes on 37Signals
Or should that be 37Signals takes on Donald Norman?
Responding to a Wired Magazine article in which he was quoted as saying that the kind of simplicity embodied in the products of organisations like 37Signals was overrated, Donald Norman blogs
Now, I have always admired 37signals. Nice website, intelligent articles. But I’ve tried their products and although they have admirable qualities, they have never quite met my needs: Close is not good enough. After reading the article, I understand why: the developers are arrogant and completely unsympathetic to the people who use their products.
Followed by a choice quote from David Heinemeier Hansson which I’m not going to dignify by repeating here.
Essentially, Donald Norman objects to the 37Signals philosophy of “Design for yourself”, which on the surface at least, would tend to fly in the face of the core ideas behind user centred design.
So there is the rebuttal from Jason Fried.
We figure out what we want and whether other people will want it too.
This method works because our problems are common problems. Solutions to our own problems are solutions to other people’s problems too. By building products we want to use, we’re also building products that millions of other small businesses want to use. Not all businesses, not all customers, not everyone, but a healthy, sustainable, growing, and profitable segment of the market.
The key phrase in the above being “whether other people will want it too”. I think this is why the guys at 37Signals get under people’s skins: they don’t trouble themselves too much with elaborate systems for working this out, they give the impression that they can somehow just divine it during a chat over the morning coffee. I guess that’s a bit depressing for the rest of us who may not feel we have this talent so need to rely on user research instead.
I think the real reason they irritate people so much as that most people *do* subconsciously think that they know what other people want.
Some people feel it’s best practice to check that. Some people get forced to check it by company policy, project requirements or investor demands. And some people feel like they should pay lip service to the ideals of user research.
What I think irritates most people about 37 Signals is that they can actually get away with skipping all of that and still be successful.
This is the second similar article I’ve heard about 37 signals in the past month — it seems they are the tall poppy of the moment. In defence of 37, its a free market; people have choice in what they use and if it doesn’t fit, they can go elsewhere.
As web designers, practically everything we use will have flaws or limitations in some areas — there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution to the myriad of problems we have to solve and I think its unfair of Donald to single out 37 in making his point. The past couple of years have seen a huge number of online applications developed to meet the needs of their creators, realising that others can use them too — some of them have made it big, some have failed.
To cite Shopify as an example — in my opinion one of the best e-commerce applications currently available — in the right context — for those who want a simple shopping solution without the hosting and security worries etc to consider — its great. If you want user accounts, multiple pricing, more advanced content management features, not so great. Those ‘not so great’ areas dont make Shopify a bad application or Jaded Pixel ‘arrogant’ for not jumping to attention to develop said lacking features –simply that Shopify does what it is designed to do and does it well. If you need those oter features, you need to look elsewhere.
Looking at these applications across the board, for some they fit the mould, for others they dont, thats the way it goes, but to suggest this approach is flawed or arrogant demonstrates a lack of real-world understanding.
I find myself sympathising with both of them.
Like Norman, I’ve tried some of their products (Basecamp, Backpack, Campfire) but ditched them all after a short while because they force you to work the 37Signals way, i.e. not my way.
But I also agree with Fried, who I think is saying that there are people and businesses out there who can’t work out their own productivity methods for themselves and need to be led by the application.
So 37Signals aren’t designing for the masses, they’re designing for themselves and then selling that to people who don’t mind being told how to work. And what’s wrong with that?
I won’t dive into this debate, as that’s two titans slugging it out! But I will observe that I feel that at least for many kinds of software, if the developers are also users, that definitely helps improve the quality of the application. For example with Style Master — we build lots of web sites — and those little things that irritate me (and Maxine) about the app — well, I’ll fix often straight away.
This is of course very different from the debate DN and 37S are having, but I’d certainly advocate that developers be users of their software.
john
Yeah, on reflection, “look at the scoreboard” is kinda my response to DNs article as well. Being as successful as 37S is not the result of a fluke, or being Johnny on the Spot. Ironically, their products don’t really do it for me either, but the fact is they do do it for a LOT of people, and that has to count for something when you start critiquing their processes in developing them.
Having said all that though, they do seem to take a certain glee in rubbing their detractors the wrong way. I just don’t think taking the thoughts and feelings of others into account is their strong suit. Luckily they are smart and switched on enough to not really have to.
At the risk of sounding like Grandad I think a lot of that attitude is age / experience based and could well change over time whereas for now its certainly drawing a lot of attention — some positive, some not.