Tumblr and Posterous are the two most prominent “tumblogging” sites, i.e. sites that make blogging more straightforward by making it easier to post media. Both were launched within six months. (Actually, Posterous was started later than Tumblr.)

But now Tumblr has been an Alexa Top 100 site for a while and is still growing strong. Meanwhile Posterous has about 4 times less uniques. Yet Posterous has everything to win: it’s a Y Combinator company with top-tier investors like Chris Sacca and Mitch Kapor. Its founders are experienced software engineers with computer science degrees from Stanford. How come it’s eating dust from a small startup started by a high school dropout?

The answer is as easy as it is counter-intuitive: Tumblr is a New York company and Posterous is a Silicon Valley company.

Or, to put it another way: Posterous is an engineered product, while Tumblr is a designed product.

Posterous is extremely well engineered. There’s nothing wrong with it. Every single thing about it is well thought out. But it’s not just that it’s less pretty (though it is). It’s just not designed as well as Tumblr is.

…In fact, everything about Posterous is nice. It’s very nice. I’m not here to bash Posterous, I think it’s a tremendous product and I wish them the best of luck.

But everything about Tumblr is better designed. I used the landing page as one example, but there are tons of features where Tumblr shines by its gorgeous design.

Meanwhile Posterous is typical of the Silicon Valley engineering mindset where everything is measured, ranked, weighted. It’s like Google. And having terrible design like Google is great if you have a technology edge. But if you’re in a market where what matters is design edge, that’s not enough. There needs to be great design, by which I don’t mean looks (though they’re important), but how it works for the end user.

…The first is that New York has truly come of age as a startup hub, with its own “style”, its own way of doing things, its own mindset, which can sometimes — not always, but sometimes — kick Silicon Valley’s ass.

His complaint:

May I say that a content management system that–if you have been off dealing with another crisis in the middle of a task–decides when you come back and try to save your work that you are no longer logged in and dumps you to a login page after which it dumps you not on the page you were working on but on the root page, LOSING YOUR WORK!!!1!!

Such a content management system is HELLSPAWN!! Is WROSE THAN HILTER!1!!!1!…

He is complaining about bspace, which is based on the open-source
Sakai, a content management system written in Java, and focused on the needs of universities.

I think Delong’s post is a good reminder of how infuriating it can be for users when software fails to behave in the ways users expect. I also suspect this is a good example of an issue that users will regard as a bug, but the programmers will see it simply as a potential future feature that they may or may not add (”Should we catch POST info if a user is not logged in?”).

I should add, WordPress has exactly the same problem. Last week I started writing what I thought would be a short post for this blog, but I got carried away by my theme and wrote a long post. Then I went to get some dinner. I left the browser open, with the post unpublished. I came back after dinner and made some more edits, then hit the publish button – and just like that, my work vanished, because while I was out getting dinner, WordPress logged me out (for some reason I’d assumed that the auto-save feature was also refreshing my session info).

One of the nice things about building my own CMS was that I was free to fix the bugs that bothered me most, and this was a big one for me. I added a feature to my CMS that caught any POST info and showed it on screen, even if the person was logged out. This allowed recovery of the post. I worked on my CMS from 2002-2007 and then abandoned it because I could not keep up with projects like WordPress. Nowadays I force myself to use other people’s open source software, because it is economically rational to do so, but I hate some of the choices they make, and some of the features that they fail to implement.

In the comments, Jacob Davies posts this comment, which I thought was very funny and very on point:

Conversation that has happened more times in my career than I care to mention:

Someone else: “How long of a title shall we allow? 32 characters? 64?”

Me: “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY DO WE NEED TO SET A MAXIMUM LENGTH? IS THIS 1952???”

Someone else: “But what if they put in a really long title and fill up the database?”

Me: “THE VERY NEXT FIELD – THE ‘CONTENTS’ FIELD – IS A FREE-TEXT FIELD WITHOUT A LENGTH CONSTRAINT SO IF THEY WANTED TO FILL THE DATABASE THEY COULD DO IT THERE ANYWAY.”

Someone else: “Won’t it waste space if we allow a variable-length string in the title?”

Me: “OH MY GOD YES A TERRIFYING LOSS OF ABOUT 3 BYTES ON A RECORD THAT IS A MINIMUM OF 1024 BYTES LONG AND OFTEN OVER A MEGABYTE, YOU ARE SO RIGHT.”

Someone else: “Yes but every other system has a length constraint for titles.”

Me: “YES AND I SUPPOSE IF EVERYONE ELSE WAS JUMPING OFF A BRIDGE YOU’D DO IT TOO.”

etc

Computer programmers are subject to some kind of strange mental degeneration in which they rate the potential waste of 0.00001% of the capacity of a modern hard disk as more important than the ability to enter titles longer than 32 characters in length.

Sometimes I say this to other programmers and they respond “It’s not FireFox that is the problem, it is the plugins that you use – it is FireBug and Session Manager and all the others.” Of course, any programmer who reveals this attitude needs to be re-educated. If you offer a plugin system that is unable to manage the plugins, then maybe you should not offer that plugin system? It suggests a (possibly frightening?) willingness to shirk responsibility if a programmer defends a plugin system that can crash a computer.

I wonder what Brendan Eich is thinking?

One suggestion for others: if you use FireFox, every time a new version of FireFox comes out, FireFox will ask you if you want to upgrade. I used to always say “yes”. Now I realize, if your computer is more than a year old, you should say “no”. Each version of FireFox tends to be heavier and slower than the previous version. My Ubuntu machine is from 2006, and that is part of the reason why FireFox is so slow on it.

On my Windows machine, I just switched over to Google Chrome as my new default browser. I’m giving up on FireFox. On my Ubuntu machine, I am stuck with FireFox for now. I’m not aware of any other serious browsers for Linux.

For email, I would love to give up on Thunderbird, if I could find a substitute. I run Thunderbird on my main desktop machine which runs Ubuntu. Thunderbird has had a persistent bug that has survived several upgrades (of both Thunderbird and Ubuntu). The bug is with the address auto-completion. If I type an address fast, hit “Enter” to accept and start typing again fast, Thunderbird crashes. This can lose a lot of work for me (Where “work” might simply mean “Opened email and left them open because I found some that were important and so answering them will take some time.”). Apparently there is no equivalent of SessionManager for Thunderbird, no way of remembering which emails were open, waiting for a response, when Thunderbird crashes. No, instead, after Thunderbird crashes, I need to re-start it, go back 3 days, and then read through all my email again, looking for the important ones.

At work we had a deadline today, and I worked through the weekend to meet it. I kept getting feedback from various people testing the site. Some of the email I got was thoughtful, and offered intelligent suggestions about what we should do next. By this morning, I had about 20 emails open, waiting for me to have the time and focus to write a reply. Then Thunderbird crashed and they all vanished. I yelled so loud my throat was sore. Now I have to go back to Friday and read through all the email again, to find the ones that I wanted to respond to.

If I could find something better than Thunderbird, that runs on Linux, I’d switch immediately.

This has implications when working with a framework like Symfony.

A lot of computer programmers would add an image to a Symfony template by using one of the image helpers:

<?php echo image_tag(’banner.jpg’) ?>

But what if the designer needs to add a CSS class to this? What if they are working late at night, and they are unable to reach me? Or they are working in the middle of the day, but it is a day I’m spending away from my computer?

The designers I work with can read PHP code fairly well. And they can look up the image_tag helper and figure out its syntax. But this is a big waste of their time. It takes them further into the world of programming than they should need to go.

When creating URLs in a Symfony project, it is important to use helpers. The helpers take care of figuring out what the right URL should be for things like images. The helpers allow us to develop on one machine and deploy to another server when we go live, and even if that other server has a completely different directory structure, we don’t need to change any links, because the helpers take care of all that for us. However, managing the URLs is the only thing that the helpers should do.

So we do not do this:

<?php echo image_tag(’banner.jpg’) ?>

Instead we either do this:

<img src=”<?php echo $sf_request->getRelativeUrlRoot() ?>/images/banner.jpg” />

or we do this:

<?php sfLoader::loadHelpers(array(’Url’)); ?>
<img src=”<?php echo public_path(’banner.jpg’) ?>” />

This way the URL is managed by Symfony’s helpers, but the rest of the IMG tag is still free for the designers to work with. If a designer needs to add a CSS class, they don’t need to call me on the phone and get me to do it, and they don’t have to start researching Symfony helper tags, instead they just add the CSS class like they always have:

<img class=”header” src=”<?php echo public_path(’banner.jpg’) ?>” />

This is an important bit of project management. It allows for a correct separation of concerns – the designers get to focus on design, and the programmers can focus on the programming.

1.) You cut off conversation too soon, before the designer has had a chance to defend their idea, or before the client has had a chance to fully articulate their dissatisfaction, or before your programmer can explain why one option would take more time, and therefore more money. You force a decision to be made before all the facts are in. Possibly you kill the conversation just as people are warming up to what would be a brilliantly creative set of insights, if only you allowed more time.

2.) You allow the conversation to go on too long. After awhile, people begin to repeat the same points they made 4 hours before, or perhaps the day before. Your team begins to fear these conversations, which seem to be endless swamps of unproductive debate. The team craves action, decisions, movement, they want to finally be building something, but instead you keep pushing for more information, another round of opinion gathering.

It is difficult to find the right balance. I suspect we all have our preferences about what we consider the right level of conversation versus action.

Over at 37 Signals they’ve posted an extended chat that Jason Fried and Ryan Singer had about adding a new feature to Basecamp. It is useful to see how such a well known and successful team works through their design issues.

(14:42:41) Jason Fried: What are some of the pushback points we’re anticipating?
(14:43:02) Ryan Singer: “i use milestone attachments for [some crazy custom reason] and this doesn’t apply to me”
(14:43:30) Ryan Singer: possibly: “i want dates on my to-do items, not the lists themselves”
(14:44:12) Ryan Singer: i don’t think the first point is a problem
(14:44:18) Ryan Singer: there are always people who bend the interpretation
(14:44:51) Jason Fried: What if the date thing said “On or before March 14”
(14:44:59) Jason Fried: I think the ridigness of it may be a problem.
(14:45:03) Jason Fried: And this could soften that a bit
(14:45:05) Ryan Singer: a bit long, but i like that idea
(14:45:52) Ryan Singer: hm kinda long
(14:46:08) Ryan Singer: becomes harder to interpret too

I know that in such conversations I tend to defer to the designer, and I tend to want to reach a conclusion quickly. Probably because I’ve been in so many, many meetings where someone else forced the conversation to go on for many more hours than was needed, I tend to play the role of the person who is willing to reach a quick agreement. Ryan Singer reminds me of myself, in this portion of the chat, where he seems willing to go along with the “Due by” language, even though he initially disliked it. He seems eager to reach a final agreement.

(14:46:35) Jason Fried: After seeing this the issue I have is the rigidity of it.
(14:46:42) Jason Fried: This list IS DUE on this date
(14:46:45) Jason Fried: Well, not really
(14:46:57) Jason Fried: It’s part of a milestone that is due on this date.
(14:47:07) Jason Fried: So I’d like to see if we can figure out how to present that reality a bit better
(14:47:15) Ryan Singer: good point
(14:47:18) Ryan Singer: ok
(14:47:41) Jason Fried: how about
(14:47:47) Jason Fried: “Due by 14 February”
(14:47:49) Ryan Singer: “Milestone: 14 February”
(14:48:03) Ryan Singer: nice that Due by is shorter
(14:48:05) Jason Fried: Milestone may work. Ties it into the feature.
(14:48:07) Ryan Singer: shorter is better for this flag
(14:48:12) Ryan Singer: even “Milestone: 10 Feburary” is quite long
(14:48:13) Jason Fried: Due by is less rigid than “Due on”
(14:48:15) Ryan Singer: doesn’t hold together as well
(14:48:16) Ryan Singer: yeah
(14:48:37) Ryan Singer: Due by looks pretty good. screenshot coming

But Jason Fried won’t be rushed into a decision. Instead, he keeps the conversation going, even though Ryan Singer was willing to go along with “Due on”.

(14:55:14) Jason Fried: Due is good, but it’s an opinion 5 years after the fact.
(14:55:20) Jason Fried: That’s why I’m pushing back a bit.
(14:55:30) Jason Fried: We’re not introducing attachments today
(14:55:37) Jason Fried: If we were I’d feel better about it.
(14:56:15) Ryan Singer: i think if we don’t go with “Due..”
(14:56:26) Ryan Singer: it would be better to explore moving the link below the title into the list description area
(14:56:30) Ryan Singer: and actually naming the milestone or something
(14:56:41) Jason Fried: right like…
(14:56:54) Ryan Singer: like “For Ship v1 of the Home Page, 14 Feburary”
(14:56:57) Jason Fried: “This to-do list is attached to a “milestone name” which is due on 14 Feb”
(14:57:23) Jason Fried: I feel like we don’t lose anything with that direction.
(14:57:27) Jason Fried: And we gain clarity

If you read the whole transcript, you can tell these two are getting warmed up as the conversation continues – they are thinking hard about this problem, and they are getting deeper and deeper into the nuances. I relate to this chat quite a bit, as it reminds me of so many of the more productive meetings I’ve been in.

Finally, an hour goes by, and Jason Fried keeps pushing them until they arrive at what they both agree is the perfect answer:

(15:20:08) Jason Fried: In the app we say “Attach to…” so I wonder if we should repeat that here.
(15:20:18) Ryan Singer: i would rather change the language in the other places
(15:20:23) Ryan Singer: “Attached to” looks weird here
(15:20:28) Ryan Singer: and it doesn’t fit with the normal expectations of what an “attachment” is
(15:20:36) Jason Fried: K. We don’t want to change the language elsewhere so we’ll consider that one a no go.
(15:20:39) Jason Fried: Umm…
(15:20:46) Jason Fried: “Related to” works for me.
(15:20:47) Jason Fried: Cause it is.
(15:20:51) Ryan Singer: actually the edit dialog says this:
(15:20:55) Ryan Singer: “Does this list relate to a milestone?”
(15:20:58) Jason Fried: Perfect
(15:20:59) Jason Fried: Done
(15:21:02) Ryan Singer: done

In terms of ego and validation, I got the pride of knowing my network could help someone I care about. And not just help someone with something minor– help someone potentially find a new job. In this case she wasn’t laid off but, in an economy like this where hundreds of thousands are, survivor’s guilt runs high. Especially if you’ve been laid off before and viscerally remember that feeling. You want to be able to do something when you hear that kind of news, and LinkedIn offers that, whether it’s an introduction or just writing a recommendation for a laid-off friend. It was one of the first times an interaction with LinkedIn gave me that social media endorphin rush that I more commonly get with Twitter, blogging, Flickr or Facebook.

Our Stories should be an experience rich site. It should offer an engaging environment that compels users to explore and connect emotionally to the storytellers. But it doesn’t offer this at all. Instead, it offers what looks like any other Google design. It’s plain, minimalist, and it’s focused entirely around the information and not the experience.

Google apparently thinks it has hit upon the secret formula to all successful websites – simple, minimalist designs that offer information in a concentrated form. In reality, this formula only works for certain classes of sites, of which the original Google website was the par exemplar. Google fails when it attempts to build a site that needs a philosophically different approach. As Hoekman explains:

 If Google’s goal here was to create emotional connections, they should definitely have considered something other than the business-as-usual, sterile design work that has become Google’s signature. Granted, some of the site’s pages are geared towards showing people how to conduct interviews for the site, and those pages are probably best left alone, but the main attraction here is an environment of storytelling, not another Google search results system.

…Design is meant to communicate content. With the right design, you can always meet your goals much more effectively. If you want emotional connections, design something that encourages them. If you want people to take action, design to encourage action. Don’t let your usual design style get in the way of doing something great.

I think its fine to print debugging information to the screen when a website is under development, but on a live site, I think the error messages should try to be more helpful. Perhaps the error message can suggest the average speed it takes the site’s sysadmins to fix problems of this time. Or the error message can suggest that the visitor go get the page out of the Google cache. Even the cutesy error message that Stikipad used was more reassuring than this.

Upon submitting the form, I got the following error message:

This is, of course, an example of bad user interface design. They should not allow me to choose a date which they themselves forbid. It is confusing that their form should offer a date which is, in fact, not allowed.

On the TSR site, we are still cleaning up the rough edges. Laura Denyes, the lead designer on this site,  is transforming the rough and ugly forms. After enhancing the clarity and improving the use of space, we hope to leave the user with a better experience. You can see Laura’s work in this before and after image:

Just curious, but does anyone know some common reasons why the CSS files might fail to load?

Also curious about the marketing. The front page of the site is aimed entirely at women. Do women buy clothes online more than men?

Today I figured I’d try to use my phone to pay the bill. I hit “*2″ which dialed customer service for me. I reached an automated voicemail system. It asked me to type in my phone number, so it could look up my account information. I did so. It then told me that I owed Sprint $513. I was stunned. By my calculations, I owe something like $200. I pay about $97 a month, and I owe last month and this month. I’m not sure how the amount doubled.

Eventually, the automated system gave me the option to talk to someone. I pressed the button.

A pleasant, helpful woman got on the line and asked for my telephone number, so she could look up my account information. I gave her the number and she said they had no account information for me. I explained that I’d had this account with Sprint since March of 2001. She explained that she worked for Nextel, she didn’t have account info for Sprint customers (the two companies are merging).

This is puzzling. If Nextel doesn’t have any of my account information, then why should my phone auto-dial Nextel when I press the buttons for customer service? Also, if Nextel has no information about me, how did the automated system tell me that I owed $513?

What happened next is also puzzling. I said, “Okay, can you transfer me to Sprint Customer Service?” She said she could not transfer me there. She could, however, give me the phone number. Why can’t the phone company transfer me to the number they want me to go to? I find that confusing.

I dialed the number she gave me.
Sprint PCS also had an automated system. It asked me to type in my telephone number, so it could look up my account information. I typed in my telephone number. It said there was no account with that number, and it suggested I type it again. I assumed I’d mis-typed it, so I tried it again, carefully. Again, the automated voice system told me that there was no account with that number. I didn’t know what else to do, so I typed in the number a 3rd time. Again it told me there was no such telephone number.

I couldn’t think of what to do then. The automated voice system did not give me any other option. It kept asking me to type in my telephone number. It asked me 4 more times, and then, when I did nothing, it hung up on me. It never offered to transfer me to a human operator, who might have been able to resolve the situation.

I’ve had this account for 6 and half years. Right now, I seem to be completely locked out of it. The computer at Sprint PCS claims my account doesn’t exist. At Nextel, the computer says I owe the incredible amount of $513, and then the operator says she has no access to my account information because it is over at Sprint.

I don’t need to know many of the details to tell that the merger of Sprint and Nextel databases is going badly. If I had stock, I’d sell it. This is the worst customer service experience I’ve had in many years.