Foursquare’s announcement that it’s “splitting” it’s app into two, one focused on local discovery, the other on social connections, resonates with thoughts I’ve been having on the role purpose plays in product design.
I first grappled with purpose almost ten years ago, when I interrogated the concept of document genres. Examples of document genres are textbooks, maps, guidebook, press release, menu, manual. People have a purpose in mind when consulting a map, reading a textbook, browsing a menu, referring to a manual, and these genres have evolved a set of physical traits (maps are big and fold up), information layout traits (textbooks have detailed tables of contents), and content traits in response to purpose.

Physical products have also evolved in similar ways. They have a job to perform, and their shape and ‘interface’ have evolved to serve that purpose. Just look in a toolbox or a kitchen drawer and that becomes evident.
Digital forms present a challenge, because these documents now reside within the same physical form. It requires writers and designers to be more explicit about the purpose to be served, because a keyboard and screen don’t provide the cues that physical documents do. And it’s those cues that our brain uses to predict utility — we’ve learned how to use maps, books, manuals through exposure, and we use new documents of the same genre, we can rely on our past experience. Digital documents require explicit visual cues and interfaces.
When I first explored this space, mobile was not a serious context. Most phones were feature phones, and ‘smart phones’ were Treos and Blackberrys.

In a post-IPhone world, where our devices are literally tabula rasas that are meant to wholly become the app that is launched, I find once again that purpose can be a helpful lens.

And that’s where Foursquare’s decision is interesting. I suspect that when people engage with an app, it is for a purpose. Emphasis on ‘a’. So folks would open Foursquare with that one purpose in mind, even though the app could deliver on two–local discovery and social connection. And given what we know about how people habituate to content genres and physical objects, they likely habituate to apps in a similar way–whatever was the purpose that was first served is the purpose people stick with. And as Foursquare developed an awesome local discovery capability, people who originally came in for the social aspect, or to learn about a place only after they checked in, didn’t realize that Foursquare could introduce them to new places. (We saw this at Groupon. Most folks continue to use the service in a lightweight browse and serendipity mode, though there are search and filtering capabilities that reward folks with something specific in mind.)

Foursquare’s bet to remake the app called ‘Foursquare’ into a direct competitor to Yelp, and to move the capabilities of ‘classic Foursquare’ to a new secondary app is a reflection of how a product design needs to be very clear about the purpose (SINGULAR) it serves.

And a potential takeaway is to recognize there are ‘app genres’ that are emerging to address users’ purposes. Local discovery would be a genre. Social connection would be a genre. News aggregator would be a genre. And if your trying to serve multiple purposes (Facebook Paper is both your social connection AND a news aggregator!) you introduce confusion, because people’s expectations, rooted in their genre experiences, are being confounded.

I just finished Scott Berkun’s The Year Without Pants, combination memoir and situational analysis of his year-plus working at Automattic, the company behind WordPress. It triggered a series of thoughts that I plan to write. This is the first.

Groupon, where I recently worked, has been labelled the fastest-growing company in history. In less than four years, it had 12,000 employees in 48 countries world wide. To manage that hyperinflation, the company adopted an hierarchical bureaucratic organizational model. For many, if not most, companies, such a model is seen as the default, as just how companies work.

However, corporate bureaucratic hierarchies were developed with specific purposes in mind, mostly around the development of railroads and mass manufacture. As such, they are products of 19th century Industrial Age contexts.

From my vantage point, the most important thing Matt Mullenweg and his team have done is question assumptions about not only how we work, but how we organize to do that work. And that begins with the recognition that the 21st century Connected Age is a much different context.

Automattic was born out of an open source project (WordPress) that had contributors worldwide. This lead to the company being a wholly remote/distributed organization. Most people work from home, and people work from all over the world.

However, remote work isn’t interesting in and of itself. You could be sitting in your pajamas, working from home, but still operate in a bureaucratic hierarchy with explicit guidelines about how to do your work.

At Automattic, remote work is the outcome of something even more revolutionary, which is the remarkable degree of autonomy granted team members. They choose not only where, but when and how they work. They figure out what they should work on. They set their own timelines.

Now, it’s not wholly emergent — Matt is still In Charge, and has authority to make certain things happen. But he seems to operate more as a benevolent dictator than a hard-charging CEO. And as the company grew, so did the realization they needed some organizational structure, so employees were grouped into a series of teams, each with a team leader.

It’s important to recognize, though, that even this structure emerged. It was not a top-down mandate, but a group realization. Most organizations don’t think hard their structure — they default to what has become a conventional assumption. What’s so liberating about Automattic is that, at every step of it’s evolution, it has been thoughtfully intentional about how the organization operates, recognizing that the company warrants the same type of design that their products do.

What’s also liberating is that such autonomy demonstrates a remarkable degree of trust in employees to do the right thing. Because, as I’ve recently learned, companies wield bureaucracy expressly because they do not trust their employees. Bureaucracy is seen as a safeguard to ensure nothing bad happens. But too often it simply leads to nothing happening at all.

(As I was drafting this, Scott made freely available Chapter 4, “Culture Always Wins”, which I believe to be the single most important chapter in the book. So go read it!)

The IA Summit has just finished. What I’m about to write might be ironic given my previous post. But what I’m walking away feeling is that information architecture is reborn.

7 years ago, I wrote how IA was not dead, but sleeping. There was a period in the field’s history that felt stagnant and disappointing. And I think it’s related to that last post, because IA allowed itself to fall under the “user experience” umbrella, and the Summit started to feel like any UX conference warmed over.

But starting last year, and coming on strong this year, there has been a new energy, born of an exchange of ideas that really only can be called “information architecture”. In particular, Track B this year was what I’ve been looking for from this event – deep, penetrating, talks that didn’t talk down to the audience, that interrogated the role, the practice, the meaning, and the relevance of information architecture. What the community is recognizing is there’s no need to make excuses, and in fact, the practice of information architecture is increasingly crucial and essential in addressing challenges we face as people, community, and society.

I look forward to seeing you in Minneapolis next year.

There have been some articles recently whinging about how Netflix doesn’t have the movies you want to watch. While this is true, it’s clear that, because of rights issues and costs, we’re a LONG way from Spotify from movies, so it also means that the point is moot. Also, there are plenty  of movies worth watching on Netflix streaming, many of which I’m guessing you haven’t seen. Some suggestions to add to your queue (All pointers to InstantWatcher, a great service for browsing Netflix):

• 28 Up The first significant of the “7 Up” series.
• 48 Hrs. Still funny.
• The Addams Family Silly and macabre.
• The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Cult classic.
• The African Queen Bogart and Hepburn at their finest.
• All About Eve Sparkling dialogue, delightfully catty.
• Amelie Adorable French pixie, delightful filmmaking.
• The Apartment Jack Lemmon at this finest.
• Apocalypse Now Redux The also have the not redux if this is too long.
• The Battleship Potemkin Eisenstein’s cinema classic; Odessa Steps is worth it alone.
• Bedazzled – Peter Cook at his most slyly humorously evil.
• Beverly Hills Cop – Set the standard for big Hollywood comedy.
• Big Trouble in Little China – Campy chopsocky fun
• The Birth of a Nation – Yes, problematic, but the birth of modern cinema
• Breakfast at Tiffany’s – Actually haven’t seen it, but supposed to be worth it.
• Breaking Away – Low key classic about… cycling!
• The Bride of Frankenstein – The best of the Frankenstein flicks
• Broken Blossoms – More DW Griffith
• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid – Haven’t sen it, but, you know, Redford and Newman
• Charade – Possibly the best non-Hitchcock Hitchcock.
• Cherry 2000 – Goofy low-budget sci-fi fun
• The Chinese Connection – Any Bruce Lee movie is worth watching
• Clueless – It’s good!
• The Conversation – I’m personally not a fan, but it’s an interesting film
• The Crow – One of the best comic book flicks
• The Crying Game: Collector’s Edition – I haven’t seen it since its first run. Does it hold up?
• David Holzman’s Diary – Daring cinema verite film from 1968.
• The Day the Earth Stood Still – Smart science fiction classic.
• Death Race 2000 – Introduced the idea of scoring points for running over pedestrians.
• Donnie Darko – Don’t think too hard about it… just enjoy it for its weirdness.
• Double Indemnity – Film noir classic. Total must-watch.
• Dracula – Personally, not a fan, but you can’t deny it’s lasting impact.
• Duck Soup – For my money, the Marx Brothers’ best film
• Dumbo – “When I see an elephant fly…”
• Enchanted April – Haven’t seen since college, when I was surprised how much I liked it. Don’t know if it holds up.
• Encounters at the End of the World – Visually stunning Antarctica documentary, made a touch stranger thanks to Werner Herzog
• Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn – Splatter comedy progenitor.
• Fargo – Among the Coen’s best.
• Faust – Pretty much anything by Murnau is worth viewing.
• Ferris Bueller’s Day Off – SAVE FERRIS.
• A Fish Called Wanda – I have never laughed so hard in a movie as I did when I first saw this.
• Forrest Gump – Yes, Forrest Gump. Ignore the haters.
• Frances Ha – I haven’t seen it yet, but often featured as a top film of 2013.
• Ghost – Solid Hollywood Entertainment. Action! Romance! Special Effects!
• Ghostbusters – Pretend your 12 again. (If you’re me.)
• Glengarry Glen Ross – (Admitting: I haven’t seen it.)
• The Grapes of Wrath – Hollywood classic, directed by John Ford, starring Henry Fonda.
• Heavenly Creatures – The film that proved Peter Jackson was more than a talented shlockmeister. Surprisingly affecting.
• Helvetica – Hustwit’s first is still his best. Obsession over typefaces makes for a good movie!
• Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer – Haven’t seen it since it first came out, but I was distinctly impressed and moved by this flick.
• High Noon – Classic Western (and I’m not a fan of Westerns).
• His Girl Friday – Howard Hawks screwball comedy at its finest.
• Hoop Dreams – Groundbreaking documentary on inner-city kids.
• The Hunt for Red October – Excellent action thriller.
• Indie Game: The Movie – Compelling, loving look at the quirky world of Indie Video Games
• Intolerance – More DW Griffith. Spectacle and scale non pareil, all while inventing cinema.
• The Invisible Man: Special Edition – Claude Rains. Never too much Claude Rains.
• Jackie Brown – Actually haven’t seen it, but those I trust consider this Tarantino’s best.
• Jackie Chan’s Project A – My favorite Jackie Chan. Best combination of martial arts, stunts, and comedy.
• Jiro Dreams of Sushi – Documentary on obsessive sushi chef.
• L’Age D’Or – Luis Bunuel’s Surrealist classic.
• The Lady Eve – Maybe Preston Sturges’ best, with brilliant Barbara Stanwyck. Never too much Stanwyck.
• The Lady Vanishes – Not as showy as his later films, this is still a top 5 Hitchcock.
• Let the Right One In – Swedish vampire flick.
• The Longest Yard – A great, bawdy sports film.
• Love Actually – Mawkish and sentimental, sure, but again, don’t let the haters bring it down. This film will get you.
• Man on Wire – Tightrope walker across the World Trade Center. Captivating documentary.
• Man With a Movie Camera – Aaah. Formalist Constructivist Cinema. Must-watch film classic.
• Men in Black – Just watched this, and I was surprised how well it stands up.
• Metropolis Restored – Brilliant, influential silent science fiction.
• Microcosmos – Beautiful, breathtaking, idiosyncratic documentary about bugs.
• The Naked City – 1948 NYC crime film that established the ‘shot on location’ template.
• Once Upon a Time in the West – Henry Fonda at his most wicked.
• Ordinary People – Powerful and emotional.
• Passion Fish – Maybe John Sayles’ best. Small but powerful.
• Pi – Aronofsky’s debut has a buzzing kineticism that still grabs.
• The Piano – Rich, fascinating, brutal, beautiful.
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Black Pearl – Let’s forget there ever was a 2nd and 3rd film.
• Planes, Trains and Automobiles – When John Hughes just aims for funny (see: “Ferris”), he’s quite good.
• Planet of the Apes (1968) – Eminently quotable. Hokey, but moving.
• Primer – Delightful mindfuck time travel flick.
• Pulp Fiction – Quintessential Tarantino.
• Raging Bull – Not Scorsese’s best, but still essential to watch.
• The Red Balloon – Poetic and enchanting film about a boy and his sentient balloon.
• Reservoir Dogs – Tarantino figuring some stuff out.
• A Room with a View – This was the hottest flick among my female friends in 12th grade. And it’s actually good!
• Rosemary’s Baby – Horror classic.
• Say Anything… – (This one’s for my wife, but, also, it’s a good movie!)
• Scream – Actually funny and actually scary.
• Seven Chances – The first of 3 Buster Keaton films on this list (and there are even more on Netflix).
• Sherlock Jr. – My personal favorite Keaton. 45 minutes of comic gold.
• Slacker – Helped foment the indie and Austin film movements.
• Smoke – Delightfully shaggy compilation of stories.
• Soapdish – Better-than-it-needs to be showbiz comedy.
• Some Like It Hot – Classic. CLASSIC. And funny.
• South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut – Blame Canada.
• Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – The best of the Trek flicks.
• Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home – Funny, and, of course, a must-watch for those of us who love San Francisco.
• Steamboat Bill, Jr. – The third Keaton film on the list. Nothing tops the cyclone sequence for bravura stunts and filmmaking.
• Strictly Ballroom – Baz Luhrmann’s first is still his best.
• Supercop – More Jackie Chan martial arts action.
• Tabloid – I’ve been meaning to see this. Errol Morris documentaries are always worth watching.
• Thelma & Louise – Relive the early 90s.
• There Will Be Blood – Paul Thomas Anderson on a grand scale.
• Trading Places – I need to see this again. It’s been too long.
• Trainspotting – I’ve never seen this, but by all accounts, worth watching.
• Urbanized – Hustwit’s other film worth watching (on urban planning/design).
• Vernon, Florida – Errol Morris’ second film. Delightfully different.
• West Side Story – Eminently danceable and singable.
• What’s Eating Gilbert Grape – Haven’t seen it since it first came out, but I remember being impressed by its sensitivity, and Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance.
• Witness for the Prosecution – Delightful courtroom drama, directed by Billy Wilder (see: “Some Like It Hot”, “Double Indemnity”), Charles Laughton is great (as usual).

Jared Spool’s most recent post, “Design is the Rendering of Intent” reframes the activity and outcome of design in a way that makes it more organizational, and less “the thing that designers do.”

Towards the end, Jared writes:

With this definition of design, the process shifts its focus to two distinct activities: Having the team arrive at the same intentions and ensuring we render our intention the way we desire.

These “two distinct activities” are pretty much exactly the two diamonds in the Double Diamond diagram I wrote about a while back (and which I’m re-embedding here:)

Here in the Bay Area, not a day goes by without news of the discontent between San Francisco’s ascendant tech population, and those who are feeling pushed out, marginalized, and left behind. It’s genuinely troubling — forget the working class, with astronomical property costs astronomically, San Francisco is in danger of losing its middle class. The backbone of the city, the folks who work there, whether in civic roles, education, service, etc. increasingly have to live elsewhere.

And while San Francisco undoubtedly could do more from a development standpoint, it does have a very real constraint — geography. It’s 49 square miles, and already pretty dense. Growth can only go so far.

I think the real issue, oddly not at all addressed in anything I’ve read, is that cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (where Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. are all based), have done absolutely nothing to address the need for housing, particularly around creating environments that are appealing to the recent college grads upon whose labor these companies rely. The Google Bus wouldn’t be such an icon of gentrification and displacement if the folks who rode it could happily live in Mountain View or Sunnyvale.

Over the last 40 years (since the dawn of Apple and Intel), more wealth has poured into Silicon Valley than probably any other region in human history. And yet from a civic and municipal standpoint, there’s very little to show for it. And so the Peninsula remains an unappealing place to live, leading folks to reside in San Francisco, where there’s restaurants, bars, stores, entertainment, and the ease of walkability.

And it’s pretty clear that the cities on Silicon Valley are not going to do anything to address this. I think they think that small is beautiful, and to hell with how our bad planning causes trouble elsewhere. And so I suspect the only way this gets addressed is if the companies that fund those buses begin to spend their money local to their campuses in an effort to improve the nearby quality of life. These companies ought to embrace their civic and municipal responsibilities.