Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in getting this up on the site. I had some technical difficulties. -GS
Throughout “Contexts and Practicalities,” Christopher Stein runs through the importance of environmental factors and access to resources for a software (or ITP or digital) project. Throughout the text he highlights the importance of context (for him: Why, What, Who, Where, When, and How) and the practicalities of how the (software) project will the realized, which he outlines through the snazzy foursome of Build, Buy, Beg, or Borrow.
Through the 5 W’s and one H, Stein points out the essential, but perhaps overlooked, aspects of a digital project that should be worked through before beginning: Why is this being made: What is it? Where will it roll out and through what hardware? When will the production take place and how long will it take? And How will people implement it and take advantage of its function?
The 4 B’s, by contrast, discuss not the planning but the process of making the product and the means through which it will be realized: building your own custom platform/software; buying something off the shelf, using free; “begging” by using free, already developed tools, such as those offered by Google; or “borrowing” someone else’s work in the form of open source programs already in existence that one can customize to suit the project’s needs.
Stein concludes by highlighting user-centered design and embracing a process-oriented form of project management, where contingency and change is built in to the mindset and execution of the project, and, like a good academic assignment, future work is scaffolded on top of previous work completed and given flexibility to change per the exigencies of the project.
Although catchy to the point of self-help or how-to cliché, these alliterative groupings highlight ways of thinking, and planning, through the material conditions of a digital product and the contingencies of process. Also vital, to both Stein and many of the articles he links to, like Ethan Marcotte’s Responsive Web Design, is the role of the user, on whom discussions of good design focus. Another feature of the content Stein mentions , including Jason Santa Maria’s A Real Web Design Application, is the need for better design tools that more accurately simulate the digital medium of the Internet, since many apps that are in current use are tethered to an analog model of display and final product (i.e. graphic design and a material, paper (or something like it) medium). Essential to both the user-centered design and the aesthetic and functional flexibility of the web as medium is the notion of responsiveness—a rather radical acceptance of contingency and failure—even to the point of dialogue or relationship between user and product—that is more akin to laboratory work and the scientific method than it is to other design fields like architecture or typesetting. Perhaps this has to do with the relatively low-stakes nature of how we use some technology—for entertainment or to make our lives easier—rather than liveable (as in, our computer is not going to cave in and fall on us, like a roof, or collapse, like a suspension bridge). Not sure how much I actually mean that last sentence, but it might be worth thinking about.
This piece got me to thinking about the power of creation and design, and the ways technology is tethered through its materiality and origins in typesetting and graphic design to a past that sets the boundaries for what the final product is, or can be. Programming (and coding new software) and its design corollary are bound up in the creation of new worlds–new realms of existence and representation–whose appearance is not mandated by the materiality of the world, even if it is very deeply tied to the materiality through which the software could be displayed and used. A web page doesn’t need to look like a “page” at all—it could be something entirely different, if we could unhinge our minds enough to think about the function, purpose, and effectiveness of what we are trying to do, make, or convey.
Or, on the other hand, what if the materiality of display and hardware really does limit what kinds of software we can make and how we use it. What if the unlimited imagination of the Internet is actually quite bounded with our sensory experience of the world, the phenomenology of being (and/or using a computer).Would this be an instance of not as free as we think we are? Or too limited by the preconceived notions of our daily lives to be able to create a freer, more open design and aesthetic? And are these two things at odds? A story on WNYC a few weeks ago discussed the way reading on a screen changes our ability to read on the page—to the extent that our endurance to read for an extended period of time is impaired? This is not to say that reading on the internet makes you illiterate, but that it does change how our brains and eyes take in information, at the expense of other media and technologies if we don’t practice those, as well.
Gwen, I can’t tell how you felt about it based on your comment, but I find the use of the 5 W’s 1 H and 4 B’s useful for remembering (which perhaps does lean towards how-to cliche). And I particularly like that Stein reworked the traditional ordering of the 5 W’s–that I had always memorized as Who, What, Where, When, Why–in order to fit within the process of planning a project. For Stein, Why comes first. I love the anecdote about writing in space even if the story is made up because it clearly illustrates the importance of beginning a project with a problem. In academia especially, there are hundreds of ways to address any single concern, but if we don’t begin by singling out the intent behind the project, then we risk spending too much time developing a tool or assignment that could have been simpler and more effective. (And now I’m wishing that I had begun talking about my potential project ideas by specifically addressing the Why.)
I’m also struck by the [possible] limitations of our thinking, and I think Gwen’s series of rhetorical questions are important to address. Would we be able to generate better tools, better uses for technology if we were less aware of current limitations? Is it easier or harder to think outside of the box when we know what the box looks like? Rachel, to address your concern about when in development the planning and process collide, I wonder if focusing on the process before the planning is complete helps or hurts the project? Of course it’s important to consider how the project will be made, what it will cost, etc., and it’s unrealistic to assume that the 4 B’s can be disregarded while planning a project. Maybe this leads to a debate about whether better ideas are generated in the presence or absence of limitations. Then again, what makes a project better? Sometimes done is good.
Thanks Gwen. Your sentence “it could be something entirely different, if we could unhinge our minds enough to think about the function, purpose, and effectiveness of what we are trying to do, make, or convey” struck a cord with me in that like any other maker, I really want to build an “effective, functional and purposeful app to assist parents in their quest to give children the best educational experience there is to have. While thinking of this project, I have been concerned around how to make that happen, and what bearing access to a wider range of knowledge could have on parental choice in terms of how and where their children are educated as well as by whom.
In “It Doesn’t Matter” (Part II) http://www.roughtype.com/?p=645 Nicholas Carr talks about the power of technology to “reshape operations of entire industries or economies, and offer more value to many rather than when used in isolation”. Carr also stated that technology can “enable efficient operating methods, and lead to broader market changes”. I think it is imperative that we use technology to move the human condition forward, even if that means introducing tools that create demand for change within institutions and society. My concern around how to make that happen is addressed somewhat in the article “Personas: An Agile Introduction” http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/personas.htm where the author describes why it is necessary to develop personas in order to define if there is a need for a particular system (software), as well as holding focus groups with potential users. I can see how developing personas will move me closer to answering critical questions around the five W’s and one H.
Gwen–I like your questioning of the effects of materiality on software projects. I too wonder if a focus on the way what we make looks. Can a product look out of sorts (or so very different from what we are used to) and still be effective? How do we get users to buy into products that challenge mainstream ideologies of materiality?
Two other quick thoughts: When/how do planning (the 5 W’s) and process (the 4 B’s) collide? Where does failure fit ‘better’/where is it ‘better’ to fail –in the waterfall model, the agile/lightweight methodologies, or both? Thinking about this second question as I know we will be talking a lot about failure, and the consequences of failing this semester. And because failing often feels odd, even when we are told that our failures produce stronger end products.