01 Aug 2002

Thu, 01 Aug 2002

Keith Ballinger responds to the Usability Debate

Keith Ballinger says, "The amount of money a programmer is paid has nothing to do with the usability or quality of the software. Winer's point (at least, the point I think he is making that if so I agree with) is that programmers need to be rewarded. They also need to survive: a house, food, and a little something to go to the movies. Money is a typical reward system and way to help people purchase those items that allow to keep from starving or freezing to death. Personally, I believe in charging for the software I create, as this creates a system of rewards that feeds back into even better software from me."

Assuming that you are motivated by money, this final statement is probably true. It's at least true to the extent that if your product is rewarded with paying customers, you can then afford to go out and hire a usability team, assuming that such a team cannot be acquired for $0. It's more true to the extent that somebody like me calls up and says, "Hey Microsoft, my company pays large sums of money for Microsoft Office, why do I have to stare at this goddamn paper clip every time I want to create a document?"

Microsoft then responds by turning a failed social interface experiment into a feigned PR opportunity. And this is why people question the ROI on Microsoft Research. Indeed, Gates credits Microsoft Research with removing Clippy: "One of the most exciting things we did was turn [Clippy] off by default," Yikes. If I was paying a sizable research team costing me billions of dollars to produce innovations like that, I think I'd be looking elsewhere for innovation. If this is what Gates refers to as innovation, I don't think free software teams with a shortage of usability people have anything to worry about. They may even have a competitive advantage because while Microsoft is off arguing about how to amuse people with paper clips, they can focus on building useful and usable software.

At the end of the piece, Keith says, "Great software produced for 0K programmers:".

Why does Keith use the phrase "great software" at the end of the piece? I know Bill has a huge influence on the folks in Redmond - I lived there - but this is ridiculous. Would the same statement be true if we substituted the phrase, "usable software"?

Keith continues, "No one expects a farmer to give away his crops. No one expects a miner to give away his ore. A software developer mines his imagination, invests his time, and produces software for the world. He should be rewarded. This can be money (my preference), but it can be many other things, including recognition and self-esteem."

Malcom Knowles said, "While adults are responsive to some extrinsic motivators (better jobs, promotions, salary increase, and the like) the more potent motivators are intrinsic motivators (the desire for increased self-esteem, quality of life, responsibility, job satisfaction, and the like)."

Increased self-esteem. It's the same thing that John Nash got from winning the Nobel Prize. I believe one of his colleagues said, "Recognition cures all ills." In the fame and fortune equation, if you remove the fortune, what you have left is fame - a huge motivator in and of itself. Why are so many people typing all these blog entries? Surely it's not because of the massive financial remuneration?

Posted at: 23:56 | permalink