A disturbing trend in usability

Developing great looking interfaces with good usability is hard. And I certainly understand developing newer interactions that are forever pushing the boundaries of getting more done in ever shrinking display real estate. 

One of the things I'm proud of is having been involved in setting accessibility group in motion at Google.   It's good to see when Google makes changes that help more people use the web at large and get access to the information they seek. An integral part of such changes is that Google pays a lot of attention to usability through extensive testing. Or at least it used to. 

It pains me to see interfaces that are changing for worse. Case in point- the new interface (which will become the default soon) of GMail, Google Docs, Reader, etc. There are number of problematic changes that don't make any sense- For instance, the labels and the chat widgets each have their own scrollbars in GMail. Why is this a problem? It breaks usability by requiring mouse action. Another example- the actual content (in GMail's case- the first message header) is pushed to about 300 pixels out and 282 pixels down! Why is that a problem? The screen real estate is limited (and not everyone uses big fancy monitors) And it's not that the content before that has something meaningful that justifies this change- most of it is white space! This doesn't look anything like a design for web interface. Here, check it out-

White space in GMail

White space in Reader

The real problem- Now I'm not typically known to complain about user interfaces, but the problem that I'm most worried about comes from some casual conversation with my friends currently employed at Google. What surprised me most was that each and every one of my Googler friends that I had a chance to talk about this, didn't like this change! And yet it is live. 

There are two possible inferences from this- either Google did conduct a usability study for these changes and found the most unique set of users that love this new UI and rest of us (by my casual survey ~99%) are now SOL. That seems highly improbable. The other possibility is that they didn't conduct a usability study, and as in the history of doing stealthy/creative launches, have a really big plan for all that white space. 

I don't know which one it really is the real issue, but either of these options are on a disturbing trend. 

If you understand this field better, or know why these changes make sense- go ahead and comment on this post and let the rest of us know. Otherwise help spread the word about this disappointing trend in usability changes.

Series A funding statistics

I recently spent some time looking at typical Series A investments. I used crunchbase to get the underlying data. And then applied a few filters (like Series A only, USD only, etc.) to get to these results. Here are some important notes with that regard-

• The observations are from companies in the crunchbase db. 
• Only companies with Series A funding in USD were looked at.
• Resulting rows: 3730

Here are some interesting observations.

Log of Series A is a normal distribution

Median Series A size: $4M
Mean Series A size: $7.05M

Distribution of Categories

Series A over the years

Series A by Categories

While there are several ways to read into what you see here, it is fun to build your own hypothesis to match the graphs. (For me, I enjoy looking at the outliers that defined 2007/2008) If you believe you have a good hypothesis then please share!

All the analysis was done with the excellent open-source tools R and Python. Email me if you want the scripts or a job pulling fun statistics from large data sets. :-)

Sometimes

Sometimes I wish I had the time, the patience and the courage to write beautiful words like my friends do. Sometimes I can only admire.

Defining Entrepreneurial Success

Just how do you define success for an entrepreneur? Is it a round of funding? Is it certain revenue/earnings? Is is purely product milestone based?

The interesting part is an offshoot from another conversation which identifies the joys of entrepreneurship with just being in it. The adrenaline rush for small daily successes, and the little panics that set off when things don't go your way- these make up for the key moments that you live as an entrepreneur.

If the journey is so beautiful, does the destination matter?

Entrepreneurship chat with Raj Raheja

Sometimes you meet an individual for an half hour and their simple views and insights become so much more valuable than anything else you may experience that day. Today that happened to me- with Raj Raheja, CEO of Heartwood. I know him from a common friend- but then I don't think I ever knew him really. You know, you meet briefly in social settings and have little to learn about what they do at work. But today was different- I was at a conference (which otherwise left me underwhelmed) where I got a chance to talk to him. He had some absolutely brilliant insights from his experience building his company- I wish I could have captured the gems well enough, but then it would take away the opportunity for him to write about it all (which I did encourage him to do!)

In any case, I was reflecting upon how we expect certain things from life, the day, and then something rather unexpected happens when you engage in a conversation which gives everything else a meaning. Today I had that sort of a conversation that made going to that conference worth it. The contents of that conversation will really have to wait till Raj approves of it being published :-) but the core theme was on thinking big; recommendation for and principles from Rob Ryan's Smartups book; and rewarding the right employee that makes an impact- instead of the usual performance crap we've all learned to detest. One thing that stuck well in my mind was how a particular quote inspires Raj- Here is how I remember it- "Earn enough money to afford the time to do the things money can't buy!"

I assure you it was one of the most real entrepreneur stories that matter, the one that inspires you- the one that you can directly apply to your situation.

Wish we could have conferences that just encouraged such real stories and enabled interactions with real entrepreneurs. Thanks for that half hour Raj.

Experiments for Early Adopters

This has been on my mind for a very long time, but today's article in NY Times inspired me to post this. I have often wondered how if at all would we measure the enthusiasm that early adopters bring. True that in some cases it may very well be just the act of convincing someone to try out your product, but that's not the early adopter I'm talking about. I am thinking more of the ones that willingly step up and grab the next product from, oh... say Apple, for a price that they clearly are very elastic about. In other words, if the iPad was another $100 they will still pay, because price is not such a factor when they are buying it. Or maybe it is! An important side effect of my formal education was that it re-enforced my belief and reliance on quantitative analysis. So, just how could we measure what a new iPad is worth to the early adopters.?

I can think of two interesting experiments. They may sound a bit what Prof. Dan Ariely might want to do- and I encourage the opportunity for anyone to try these out. For the purpose of these experiments I will use iPad as an example of a hot new product.

1. Experiment 1. Suppose you were given the opportunity to participate in the "early adopters" of iPad with this condition- You will pay exactly the amount that Apple will charge one year from now; you will always have the latest version (thus reducing if not eliminating any price-differentiation or quality issues that an early adopter may face) The only condition for that one year is that you may not use the product in public, tweet/blog about it or in anyway be seen with it. In other words- no one can find out that you own one! (This takes out the extrinsic "fashionable" joy of owning a hot new product) Who will opt for this?
   
2. Experiment 2. Exactly like above- opportunity to participate in the "early adopters" of iPad. Except that in this case, it's just the reverse- You are required to tweet/blog about your new product. The only condition here is that the product you will get for one year, won't actually be working (In other words, we have taken out any intrinsic "value" of owning it- except maybe for a paperweight) How would you as a user know what to talk about? Suppose that was available in some form (internal reviews from Apple approved for release for such experiment) So who wants to participate in it?
   

There are most certainly a lot more details about this experiment that will need to be thought through- like finding a group that's unbiased, understanding the percentage distribution of participants in both experiments. But I hope this serves as a starting point for a thought experiment at least!

I wonder if these figures would correspond to the percentage of early adopters that do participate early on and help iron out the kinks for the rest of the market.

2009- The year of Ubuntu

I've been patient with Windows. Letting myself boot into Vista every now and then. However off late I've switched primarily to Linux- specifically Ubuntu. As it turns out I'm not the only one making the switch. Mr. Dvorak (of the PCMag fame) also likes Linux.


These are some very interesting times. The play-field is relatively leveled. People are willing to do more to save and they do expect more for their money than ever before. Everything from operating and switching costs to the growing phenomenon of moving your applications, and content (documents, media, etc.) to the "cloud" is going to effect what happens this year. And it is because of these interesting times that I predict that 2009 will be a significant year in establishing Ubuntu as the operating system of choice. Here is my reasoning.

A fresh look at Ubuntu

First let's talk a bit about Ubuntu itself- I'm not going to spend any effort convincing you about how reliable, secure and efficient life has become with Ubuntu, or how far we have come in making Ubuntu a solid platform. This is something you need to experience yourself.

Switching costs
A very important part of reducing the switching cost is the Live CD concept which allows you to try out a full fledged installation of Ubuntu on your hardware without having to install anything. Don't like it (and that would be very unlikely) then you can reboot to your usual. Like it but not sure- you can continue to work with booting from the CD. Like it enough but not sure if you are ready to switch, you can dual-boot your machine to allow you to boot to Ubuntu or your other operating system. Love it? Then a fairly easy installer helps get it up and running on your machine.

The other side of the story is the negative switching costs of moving away from Windows. If you are going to miss your Windows specific software then you might be in for some surprises on that front. One might argue that the familiarity with the operating system is worth staying with it- but there is a fascinating and unintended acceptance of mediocrity that you won't realize till you experience an alternate operating system. Do try other things out and if you still prefer your malware-susceptible, crashing-every-so-often operating system then hey at least you tried.

Operating costs
One of the most impressive features of Ubuntu is its ability to work with fairly modest hardware. This is quite an unusual contrast when you look at the requirements of Vista (or even Windows 7) This is an important factor to consider- you may not have to buy a new machine just to get a better experience. Additionally I've often heard the argument of lack of support/knowledge when running a Linux based system. Trust me- we've come a long ways from the days of help files. There is active support and tons of help online for Ubuntu starters. Plus an important part of this is really in the switching- once you know, you'll know.

Your other choice

I'd like to address this part specifically to the users of Windows. I used to be one (and I still do boot to Windows once in a while) so I do understand where you are coming from (but I honestly want to show you where you could go- without relying on a company's tagline of "where do you want to go today?") I really have tried to be super patient with Vista- trying everything from "smart tips" to improve its reliability, to adding a SD card to improve the bootup time (which BTW didn't change as much; but my shutdown time certainly became over 2 minutes!)

The problem I have with Windows is that at this stage I'm too tired to wait for the OS patches, and the security holes to be fixed. I've been a Windows user for long enough to expect more reliability, less crashes and I want that now- not in the next version or an update. The last straw for me was mostly the incessant hangs (and the option of "downgrading" to Windows XP for an additional cost!)

Pricing was one of my most favorite subjects in MBA. And so it pains me that much more when I read that Windows 7 will be offered in 6 different versions (who was the genius behind this one!?!) The "Starter" version offers the ability to run a whopping 3 applications simultaneously. Yes I'm not kidding. And the other end of that spectrum- a "secure" version since the low-end cheap users can afford not be secure.

But what about a Mac?

Mac is a fine option as well but it's not a cheap option. If you can afford it then paying for the looks may just as well be your cup of tea. And as far as I can tell- there isn't an option to try a Mac out- you either sell your whole hearted commitment to Apple or you don't. I'd have loved to point out other comparisons here but really, Mac is a fine choice if it's affordable.

Evolution of our needs

There is also another important factor- the real requirements of what we expect from an operating system has evolved significantly over the last few years. I remember back in 1997 or so there was an effort by Sun in pushing a network appliance/computer (I forget the exact name) that really was a Mac Airbook (without the sexy looks or the laptop part) I think that idea failed mainly because it was a bit ahead of its time. The network speeds and reliability were just not that commonly available as they are today. And neither were such cool options as Google Apps. Today you can actually get by with just a reliable connectivity. There is increasing effort by several key providers to allow more network storage, and to break free from being tied to a specific hardware.

Challenges

Where we go from here depends on several things- and some of them could present us with some interesting challenges to solve. But I do feel that none of these challenges will take a long time to overcome and so I do believe that this is truly the time when Ubuntu will shine.

Other distros

One of the significant problems with Linux adoption has been the choice of distributions that have been available. A few years back (when the going was all good and the Internet bubble was still growing), RedHat had a real shot at emerging as that leader. In my mind RedHat is now totally off the contenders list. While Fedora is a solid distribution in itself- it is not going to be sufficient in recovering the true Linux market-share. Never before has a distribution caught so much attention as Ubuntu. Here is the proof- Take a quick guess at which color indicates which distro (from amongst Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian) in this chart-

Confirm your answer with the Google trend on this url or by clicking on the chart.

If there ever was a time for the Linux effort at large to really make a difference, this would be it. And if we have to do it right, then the distraction from other distros needs to be minimized. It's important for open source software architects, evangelists to unify their efforts with Ubuntu. Linux has spent several years trying on several faces- this one fits and looks good. Now it's important to stay with it.

Malware catchup

An interesting concern (primarily of the lag in supply and demand) is of the what-if scenarios with malware. While no operating system can completely protect you from a malware, Ubuntu has so far proven to be really secure. It's possible that in the next few years the demand for Ubuntu increases malware development but it's also rather unlikely a platform for that. And that's fundamentally because of it's open architecture. More likely than a malware emerging on Ubuntu, is its fix. Thanks to a rather vigilant and active community of Ubuntu users, application developers and volunteers. The same can not be said about Windows.

Other stuff that could go wrong?
While we all hope that things would turn out for the better, there are some interesting possibilities that might hamper my prediction for Ubuntu. These include- The possibility of Windows 7 being so kick-ass that it does renew the faith of staying with it. The possibility that one of the other Linux distros canabalizes Ubuntu's market share. Or even the possibility that 2009 releases of Ubuntu would suck! Given the looks of what 9.04 is shaping up to be, I'd have to bet that it's unlikely.

I still hold that 2009 would be the year of Ubuntu.