
The cult of design dictatorship (2012) - tapp
https://alexcabal.com/the-cult-of-design-dictatorship/
======
knowtheory
This post is unfortunate. This post is so extremely unfortunate because first,
it is wrong, and second, it highlights the wrong problem (and the post's
author even admits it in the post).

The problem is not the cult of design dictatorship, the problem is _bad
design_ and _bad designers_.

Apple and 37signals are two examples of design oriented thinking (and I don't
mean visual design), but there are many others, even from within the world of
Free & Open Source Software.

After all, why else would a term like "Benevolent Dictator For Life" exist if
it weren't for design dictatorships in programming language development?

The real claim that this post is making is that " _You are not Steve Jobs and
you are not 37 Signals_ ". And... well that may be true, but it also may not.
And if you can't have frank discussions about the utility of the things you
make, and whether or not you have evidence to back up why/how you are doing
the right thing, then yeah, you may be a bad designer.

That doesn't mean that being a designer or a dictator is a bad thing
inherently, and arguing against central organizing authority in creative works
is highly problematic, especially in the absence of any concrete alternatives
to suggest.

As an aside, I wouldn't describe _either_ Steve Jobs or the 37signals as
"nice". Smart, pretty determined, resolutely sure of themselves, but nice is
not the first adjective that springs to mind.

~~~
acabal
I don't disagree that dictators can make great software. My point, perhaps
poorly communicated, was that using these exceptional success edge-cases as an
excuse to uncompromisingly drive your own design vision will probably do more
harm than good--precisely because they were successful as _edge cases_.

The Gnome 3 discussion from last year sparked this post because Gnome 3 was
becoming an example of that: designers creating a product that many vocally
disliked, and insisting on sticking to their original vision, torpedoes be
damned. The result, many argue, is a deeply flawed product.

The thrust of the post is, "be humble and open-minded as a product leader,
because chances are you're probably not the genius that these exceptional
success stories were/are."

~~~
knowtheory
Right, but you're targeting the wrong problem still.

DHH is (and I use this term unironically) a visionary. And on top of that he
had a keen enough political sense (and arrogance) to be able to deflect or
mute criticism of Rails's early flaws.

Ruby is a slow, memory hog? Doesn't matter, developer time is worth more than
machine time. Buy bigger machines.

Rails concurrency model sucks? Doesn't matter, fire up more processes!

These were real problems, which have been subsequently addressed in Rails (by
and large, by other people in the community who cared about those subjects).
But what was important about what DHH did was define a vision and aesthetic
for what web development should look like (and please note i'm no DHH fanboy.
I jumped ship during the Merb/Datamapper split), and kept on pushing on his
priorities even in the face of legitimate criticisms of things he thought were
less important.

So, Rails succeeded because DHH has sensible enough taste in terms of
prioritizing concerns, and a strong enough user base to fix Rails's
shortcomings.

I'm not as familiar with the specific battles over Gnome (partially because
i'm on OSX, and also because i find the interlocutors in the Gnome discussion
to be so furiously inarticulate), but the conflict really only comes down to
two possibilities. Either the leaders of Gnome genuinely are shit designers
and aren't meeting the needs of their community, or they're really terrible at
politics.

That's a really important distinction to be mindful of. I'm not amongst their
target userbase, so frankly I can't say one way or the other, but all of the
complaints I've heard against Gnome's leadership are things that I as a user
have never ever cared about (granted I haven't used Gnome in a while, but all
the times i've used systems w/ Gnome installed by default in the past, i've
been satisfied).

And really, if Gnome's leadership is so inadequate, i'm puzzled why a critical
mass hasn't risen up and forked the community. That's really the ultimate vote
of dissatisfaction.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
I'm not convinced that Ruby on Rail's popularity has to do with the factors
you describe.

I think it comes down to two other factors: community and hype.

Technologically, it wasn't anything special, and still isn't. Many of us who'd
been doing web development for years at that time had either used or created
similar or better frameworks in languages like Perl, Tcl, Python and even
Java. These frameworks were usually kept internal to the organization that
developed them, however, so they were obviously nowhere near as widely used.

DHH was of minimal importance, too. Yes, he was somewhat of a visible figure
head and spokesman for the project, but that was about it. For the average
Ruby on Rails user, DHH didn't have much of an impact.

In my opinion, Ruby on Rails brought together several distinct groups of young
men (women are still very rare in the Ruby on Rails community) who'd typically
been outcasts within the computing industry. They included:

1) Less-talented UI, web and graphic designers. These people, unable to find
work in more traditional software development, print media, and other fields,
ended up moving toward web development, where the bar to entry was set much
lower.

2) Less-talented software developers. These people, either due to age, a lack
of experience, a lack of education, or a lack of natural ability, were
inherently drawn to Rails. It provided the rigid structure ("convention over
configuration") that they needed in order to get anything done. It also
allowed them to continue to avoid learning SQL and proper database design
techniques, while creating something that partially worked (even if the result
lacked severely in terms of performance and reliability).

3) Attention-seeking youth. We all know who these people are. They're the ones
who repeatedly wrote loud, profanity-ridden "articles" full of anger. Or they
created absurd, cryptic writings and art, and then spontaneously vanished,
creating much unnecessary drama. Many of them were also self-styled
"hipsters", who just went out of their way to be different merely for the sake
of being different.

Ruby on Rails provided something these people could all rally around. It gave
them a common cause, if you will. And they rallied around this cause quite
loudly, which generated an immense amount of hype relative to what they were
able to accomplish, or what their software provided. This helped draw in more
and more of these outcasts, making the community larger and larger.

I think that GNOME 3, for instance, is a result of spillover from this newly-
formed community into existing, established open source communities. Members
of a community formed solely around a lack of merit forced their way en masse
into what was once a near-total meritocracy, and as would be expected,
disaster was the result.

------
noir_lord
Whilst I broadly agree with the thrust of the article I do wince when I see
statements like "once-in-a-century genius." applied to Steve Jobs.

I also cringe when I see "You are not Steve Jobs" etc. indeed I'm not nor
would I want to be, I disliked many things about the man intensely when he was
alive and that hasn't changed one iota since his death.

It fascinates me how we continue to set the bar of leadership based on a man
who judged by his actions was a borderline sociopath, I guess success by
whatever measure truly does forgive all sins.

<http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1>

The only thing that amazes me about his career is that he didn't get punched
in the face more often.

~~~
acabal
OP here, I agree totally. Steve Jobs was by all accounts a jerk and I think
it's unfortunate so many people idolize him instead of people doing more human
good like Bill Gates. But it's undeniable that he had a once-in-a-century eye
for picking and tweaking good design, and he was a once-in-a-century
businessman too. Was he a good human? All signs point to "not really". But his
uncompromising vision and massive business success are stories that are hard
to match in modern times.

~~~
noir_lord
I'm sorry but I simply disagree with you on his "once-in-a-century" eye for
good design.

Take (for example one of my favorite) industrial designers - Raymond Loewy -
This is a man who created the Shell and BP Logos, designed the Scenicruiser
greyhound bus (iconic), coca cola vending machines, the GG1 (in my opinion one
of the most beautiful trains of it's generation and they ran for just shy of
50 years) and the PRR S1 (which I think is the single most beautiful train
I've ever seen) and just to finish it off he designed the livery for Air Force
One.

~~~
coldtea
Yes, so Jobs only had "two-in-a-century". Or "twenty-in-a-century".

That's kind of a pedantic distinction, isn't it?

------
Sevores
Steve Jobs was highly opinionated, but he also had a reputation for being able
to change his opinion radically. “He would flip on something so fast that you
would forget that he was the one taking the 180 degree polar [opposite]
position the day before. I saw it daily. This is a gift, because things do
change, and it takes courage to change. It takes courage to say, ‘I was
wrong.’ I think he had that.” — [http://allthingsd.com/20120529/steve-jobs-
was-an-awesome-fli...](http://allthingsd.com/20120529/steve-jobs-was-an-
awesome-flip-flopper-says-tim-cook/)

It seems odd to copy one without the other.

------
hcarvalhoalves
The author somehow manages to conflate Apple, 37signals and Gnome 3 all
together, then makes a case about design being a bad thing, being the latter
the only unremarkable one in this aspect?

Let me tell the obvious: Gnome 3 doesn't suck because it focus on design, it
sucks because it has horrible design process. If it's not fulfilling user
requirements, that's bad design _by definition_.

The problem with Gnome is management. Last time I tried improving the font
selector (which I think still is utterly broken for selecting weights), nobody
cared. They though the only weights people need are "bold" and "italic". Now
compare to the font selector on Mac and say Apple is "design dictatorship"
with no regards to user requirements...

------
jeswin
The post is mostly an opinion. And where it tries to bring analysis, it fails.

According to the author, gnome3 and unity are flawed. Well, many people like
unity now. It's not that different from the other operating systems. And sure,
there'll be people who won't like it too.

But if these are examples of design dictators screwing up things, what about
the interfaces that existed before unity? They had a ton of issues too. And
while I may not have had issues with them, unity is certainly easier for the
non-technical crowd. And the rest of us know how it needs to be tweaked to our
liking.

Nothing's wrong really.

~~~
PommeDeTerre
When it comes to things like GNOME 3 and Ubuntu (i.e., Unity), I think you're
neglecting to look at the big picture.

Yes, there are a small number of people who like the changes that have taken
place. But their numbers are indeed quite small compared to the much larger
number of people who have been driven away completely by these changes.

I don't think that you appreciate how many GNOME 2 users (including former
developers and other contributors) are either still using GNOME 2, or have
moved on to KDE, Xfce, or other non-GNOME desktops.

The same goes for Ubuntu. With Unity and their other recent changes, many
users have instead moved to Linux Mint, Debian, and other distributions.

These are the worst users to lose, especially the contributors, because
they're the ones who did do things correctly, leading to the initial success
of the project. Once they start to leave, we end up with GNOME 3-style
debacles where it's one bad design or decision after another.

~~~
takluyver
Do you have any evidence to support either claim (that more people dislike it
than like it, and that substantial proportions of users have been driven
away)? Certainly there has been plenty of criticism, and some people leaving
in a very public fashion, but whenever something changes, we know that the
people who don't like the change are far more vocal about it than people who
do. Witness the storm of outrage accompanying every Facebook UI change, after
which everyone carries on using it.

There's probably no good evidence available about how many people like Gnome 3
or Unity. For abandonment rates, have a look at the graph on
popcon.ubuntu.com. Those numbers come with caveats, like the fact that not
every installation sends data, but none of the lines have any discernible
downturn.

------
georgespencer
So wide of the mark that I almost feel faint. Selected highlights:

> This cult is insidious. Its two main tenant are: 1. The designer is always
> right. 2. If you don’t like what the designer is doing, you’re wrong, and
> you should go somewhere else. Doesn’t sound very friendly, does it?

1\. Couple of fallacies here: you've set up a scenario in which your
conclusion is supported (gosh, that doesn't sound friendly! This guy's a
genius!), but it's also ignoratio elenchi: it doesn't fucking matter whether
it's friendly or not, because who gives a shit whether the philosophy by which
you design a product is friendly or not? It's like asking whether the
philosophy is crunchy or gooey.

2\. I would argue that if the designer is doing their job properly and working
with and for users, then they will be usually right, and if you don't like it,
you're wrong, and you should go somewhere else (because you're probably a
neckbearded engineer trying to design something with zero user empathy).

> Steve Jobs made a zillion bucks cramming his design decisions down peoples’
> throats.

1\. In the same way as any designer, living or dead, who has shipped something
to consumers, was "cramming [their] design decisions down peoples' throats."

2\. In addition to the hugely biased language used, it's a gross
oversimplification of design at Apple. A good example of Steve Jobs designing
something is the iDVD anecdote. The iDVD team spend weeks working on a user
interface that they think works. Jobs comes into the meeting, stops them
halfway through, ignores their complicated workflows, and draws a simple
rectangle which has a single "BURN" button on it. His great skill wasn't
design, but editing and empathy.

> and now one of its founders spends his days custom-building and racing F1
> cars.

Just another casual misrepresentation. DHH has not retired and is still
working hard at 37signals.

> They did all this by being design dictators.

Yes. Forget the brilliant engineering, marketing, thought leadership,
branding, etc. It was this cult thing you've conjured out of nowhere.

> Steve Jobs had a vision, and if you didn’t like his vision, you could go
> home.

Yes. But a vision is nothing to do with design. Example: Steve Jobs had the
vision for MobileMe/iCloud. The vision was a cloud-based software product that
allowed you to synchronise your devices and keep data across all of them. The
design is terrible. Design being architecture and the implementation. Vision
!= design.

And what do you mean by "go home"? Isn't the same true of any product? If you
don't like Android you can "go home". If you don't like Ferrari you can "go
home". With "go home" you're implying that the consumer loses out. In reality
because there IS ONLY ONE WAY A PRODUCT CAN POSSIBLY WORK, you're criticising
them for not disrupting the space time continuum in order to offer two
different products so you can not like Steve Jobs' vision and still like Steve
Jobs' vision. Fuck me.

> 37 Signals made its products like it wanted to, and if you didn’t like it,
> you could suck it.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'm giving up on the rest.

~~~
acabal
> The iDVD team spend weeks working on a user interface that they think works.
> Jobs comes into the meeting, stops them halfway through, ignores their
> complicated workflows, and draws a simple rectangle which has a single
> "BURN" button on it. His great skill wasn't design, but editing and empathy.

That's not editing, that's literally throwing everything away and forcing his
vision on them. Precisely what I'm talking about. And "empathy" is not a word
I'd use to describe Steve Jobs, who by all accounts was a terrible jerk.

> Design being architecture and the implementation. Vision != design.

Maybe a better title for this post would have been, "The cult of product
leader dictatorship." When I wrote design, I didn't mean industrial design or
UI design, but product design and leadership. My fault for being unclear.

> WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

On reading this post again 6 months after I wrote it, those are indeed strong
words that don't really reflect 37 Signal's attitude. My words, not theirs.

~~~
georgespencer
> That's not editing, that's literally throwing everything away

Throwing stuff away is editing. Sigh.

> and forcing his vision on them. Precisely what I'm talking about.

1\. His vision was "a simple experience for the user". iDVD didn't end up with
a simple rectangle and a single button marked "Burn". He refocused his teams
around simplicity and ease of use.

2\. I note that you've avoided responding to the other parts of my response in
which I inquire as to whether you believe all designers in history are
"forcing" their "vision" on others.

> And "empathy" is not a word I'd use to describe Steve Jobs, who by all
> accounts was a terrible jerk.

Product design is all about empathy with users. Steve Jobs was blessed with
that in abundance. If you attribute Apple's success to his vision and design,
then you have to acknowledge that users love their hardware and software. Jobs
was great at cutting through bullshit and getting himself, his team, his
engineers and designers -- who are all highly technical 'power users' -- to be
humble and remove themselves from the equation and build something for mass
consumption.

------
alan_cx
The thing that amazed me in that piece, was the throw away fact about Apple at
one point holding more cash that the US treasury. OK, Im no economist, but,
well, wow.

And after the nearly sensible point, my imagination wished Jobs had decided to
become an Evil Super Villain, and set up a volcano base, with a moon based
super weapon, preferably a "LASER"....

------
dasil003
The author is attacking the mythology of Jobs and 37s, not the reality. I'm
fairly certain neither of them ever just sat around dictating from on high
without ever accepting any criticism or user input.

"Strong opinions held loosely." That's the key, not being a virtuosic genius;
no one has infallible vision.

------
mrxd
If you've ever been in the position of a "design dictator", you know that it's
no picnic. You live and die on every piece of qualitative user feedback, every
usability test and every A-B test result. Sure, you get to make decisions, but
if you fail, you fail publicly. Great designers are accountable, but design-
by-committee is a much more popular model because it diffuses responsibility.
You can always find the bad designers hiding behind the committee.

A lot of people think they have good ideas and want to moonlight as designers.
But when the data comes in evaluating their ideas, too often those people have
moved on to other things. That's because they're idea guys - when their idea
fails, they lose interest in the problem. Real designers stick with it, learn,
iterate and find better solutions.

------
nnq
37signal's 2nd paragraph of that book chapter
([http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04_Make_Opinionated_Softw...](http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch04_Make_Opinionated_Software.php))
still says it the best:

> The best software has a vision.

...now just make sure the vision is _not too narrow_ and that _it's a vision
and not an edict_ (now about Linux DEs, the Gnome 3 and Unity teams OP is
referring to just keep turning a narrow copy-cat vision into a bunch of
edicts... while the KDE vision tends to be so freaking all-encompassing that
you get lost in it and so full of corner use-cases for bugs to hide that no
developers can keep up with the bug hunt... sigh, and thanks god for xfce)

------
cuillevel3
Author probably never led any big project, and never experienced the amount of
criticism one gets for doing anything. Furthermore the critics are the real
dictators, having done nothing besides using (probably for free) your product
they are the know-it-alls. Sure it's good to be humble, but you shouldn't
listen to everybody. As for the designers, more often than not it isn't
hybris, but miscommunication. Or maybe they're just lacking in public
relations.

And then there is this huge community of interface-conservatives, they are
against change per se...

------
seivan
I'm usually pro having the "implementor(s)" be the dictators. If you code it,
you have a say.

~~~
sambeau
"Having a say" is very different to being a dictator.

A good designer understands that design is a discussion and that there will
always be pragmatic compromises to be made.

However, having the implementer make the important design decisions about a
user interface is nearly always the wrong thing to do. The implementor knows
too much about the implementation to see it the problem like a user would. It
is this which causes UI's that look like database tables when they should
resemble faces and buckets and controls that mould to engines rather than
fingers.

It is not the implementors' fault. They are just to close to the metal and too
far from the users.

~~~
seivan
"They are just to close to the metal and too far from the users." That is
bull. How far they are depends on company policies. Some sweatshops keep their
developers away from their clients.

~~~
jamesdelaneyie
It's a sweeping statement, yes surely, but it has basis. Ellen Ullman's
writing on early programming culture, while now dated, reveal there is a
significant gap between the developers and the rest of the company - and that
it works for development.

------
EarthLaunch
Love these titles. This one is only a sample. Here's a creation of my own:

"Terrorists in the murder of design: Why you're wrong and failure is
beneficial."

It's sure to encourage a good discussion.

------
wittysense
I've been argued that some parts of the design have been tested against users,
and other parts of the design come from the authority of the designer, in the
midst of "agile-based" decision making that drops huge, unspec'd components on
yr lap mid-day at 3PM.

At the same time, no one is going to argue with yr Hypermedia hubris or API
spec. =P

Or namespacings. Or syntax preferences. Or hacks.

Look, no One Person (or role) wins (or loses -- and none of this
"dictatorship" sensationalism is really needful, methinks). It's all sausage
factory at the end of the day. Just try to create enough black boxes before
lunch so you have some dignity at dinner and can sleep after the midnight
snack.

A CEO gently reminded me one day, "No one lives or dies by this." It's
frustrating, not a "dictatorship." In just the same way that no one "killed
the coffee"; and no your computer did not just "die." This sensationalist
writing makes it difficult for us chill developers who just want to make a
simple critique without having to be pigeon-holed with all the hyperbolic-
complaint-machine because all of our critiques have the same content (this
modal or that button) but the hyperbolic-complaint-machine suggests what's
beyond frustration.

