Simplicity Rules

Seth Godin debunks the idea that “I’ll know it when I see it”

“You didn’t know it when you saw the first iPod or the first iteration of Google. You didn’t know it when first exposed to email or JetBlue or the Macarena or Britney Spears. No, in fact, you hardly ever ‘know it.’ If you did, you’d be a lot smarter than the rest of us, and we’d all be eagerly watching for your next product.”

(I guess it’s not just me that is always wrong).

Like most things, there is no silver bullet or magic solution. Just keep doing good stuff and try not to cripple yourself into thinking that you tell “it” from all the rest.

If you start digging into search engine optimization forums, you’ll probably go a little crazy with stuff to read. There are hundreds of tips and tricks. A lot of them probably even work. But the best way to get traffic online is to do good stuff.

Peter Figueredo noticed that Google’s webmaster guidelines want Affiliates Who “Add Value”. Rather than site created by a script and an XML file, The Goog is saying no to push-buttons.

When I started in on my last affiliate experiment, my goal was to do good stuff. I was going to write my own descriptions and pretend like I actually cared about medieval swords. It was tough to buckle down and do it. Doing good stuff is hard.

In helping others with their sites (most notably BestPlaces and Who2), doing good stuff is the right long-term strategy. When you are always working on the latest search engine trick, you’ll constantly need to re-tool. Search engines want good results, so they’ll constantly be tweaking their algorithms to circumvent the spammers.

Take a free pass from the constant game of chasing search results and just do good stuff.

My latest Webmonkey article is about Adobe’s pre-release of their Ajax framework, Spry, aimed specifically at designers. Retrieving data from XML files is as easy as HTML. I’m pretty keen on it. Though there are drawbacks, they’re not a big deal, and it’s perfect for the intended audience: non-master-coders.

The article has a pretty good overview and then a sample application that shows how dirt simple it is. Read “Feelin’ Spry” at Webmonkey.

Are you wary of giving our your email address when you’re asked for it? This is more common these days, even offline. Companies have asked me over the phone, on application forms, and of course all over the Web. Most people probably give out what they call their “spam address,” some Hotmail account they check every week or so, tops.

Several years ago I started creating a new email address for every company or website that required it. So, Amazon reaches me at amazon@example.com, while eBay sends to ebay@example.com. If they ever abuse my address, I can simply login to my server and shut off just that one email account. Simple.

This actually started for me back before I even had an email address. Whenever I would register software, I would give each company a unique last name. It was always similar, but traceable. Maxis, the makers of Sim City, sent mail to Adam DuVanderoni.

On the web, this process is much easier. If you own your own domain name, you can set your main address as a catch-all email address. Any address @yourdomain.ext is automatically created on-the-fly. But the process of closing down an address can be tedious. I started my spam blocker service to make it easier for people without technical know-how or a domain name.

I’m not the only one with this service. Spam Gourmet offers something similar for free. Their email addresses eventually expire, which many people might like. But part of my approach is to keep a unique, continuous channel for appropriate communication. It’s only when a company abuses that trust that I shut them off, all the while keeping my real address safe.

Normally I’m against screens that try to do too much. While logging in and Signing up are very similar tasks, merging the two can be very confusing to both new and returning visitors.

Adobe’s Sign In page does a good job of walking users through the process. The difference from the standard “if you have an account go here… otherwise, go here” is subtle, but smart.

I’ve been somewhat lax in updating my latest writing on The Monkey.

In January, after a somewhat painful move to ASP.NET 2.0 for Best Places, I wrote about the new tool’s best feature: Master Pages. In Master Pages Mastery, I walk users through the basic steps of implementing templates in .NET.

Then, I carefully stuck my toe into the buzzword and backlash world of Ajax (technology that brings us draggable maps, among other responsive interfaces). This despite my feelings about Javascript. In Nitty Gritty Ajax I show how to get started.

The day after it was published, I flew off on a cruise vacation. Such is the life of a technology writer. While I was gone, I understand it made its way up the Del.icio.us popular page for Javascript and was “dugg” by over 900 people (and started a spirited discussion) at technology link-sharing site Digg.

Artificial constraints can help us by tricking us into thinking they are actual constraints. Some common examples:

• Set your clock ahead ten minutes, so you’ll always be on time.
• Transfer money from your checking account to savings, so you won’t spend it.
• Pretend a project is due a day sooner, because you work better under pressure.

Similarly, the POWER HOUR was once part of my daily routine. I sometimes did as much during that hour as the rest of the day. I know someone who keeps a kitchen timer by his desk to encourage short bouts of heightened productivity.

Today, Ryan Carson brings us The Four-Day Week:

The problem wasn’t a time issue, it was a mental issue. I knew I had a whole week to finish my work, so I spread it out over five (or seven!) days. If I knew I only had four days to finish a whole week of work, it would’ve motivated me to get things done more efficiently.

The Goog’s VP of Products, Marissa Mayer says constraints can shape and focus problems, leading to truly creative solutions. Indeed, this is the whole idea behind aiming for simplicity, even though it can sometimes seem lazy and others think simple is wrong.

From last month’s Business 2.0, Simple Minds is Paul Kedrosky’s claim that “the simplicity cult has it wrong.”

Kedrosky usually makes some excellent points, and this is no different:

What we learn from airbags, then, is that the solution isn’t to eliminate features from products or to reduce the amount of information we receive. The solution is to have more features and more information in ways that are less intrusive and more carefully prioritized.

I would call this a type of simplification. Separate wheat from chaff, focus on what is important. It seems like Kedrosky is calling for there to be more layers, each one simple and pointed to the current task.

The full article is worth a read available at Business 2.0.

One of my basic Web beliefs is to be nice to the user. Make things easy for visitors and they’ll use your site. It’s a painfully obvious statement, but as a whole the cobblers of the Web (myself included) aren’t doing a good job.

Sometimes we have roadblocks, like security. I have so many site registrations that it can be a lot of work to guess my username and password. As a defense, I know many who have the same login for every site. What would security experts have to say about that?

I want my bank to care about online security. Paypal, the IRS, and my email provider should all look out for me. But… that’s about it. Most sites should care more about my experience than my security. Heck, maybe you don’t need registration?

Then there’s online mapping and driving directions. I use these so often, I have quick searches in my browser to make it faster. But, it could still be easier. I live in Portland. Over 90% of my map searches are in Portland. When I search without typing in a city, Matthew Hurst thinks they should take a wild guess. If I ran a mapping solution, I would track the city and start making smart assumptions. Maybe I’d even fall back on mapping IP locations.

But I think the problem here is privacy. When machines start getting too smart, some people feel a little weirded out. So, even though the user experience is better, we hold off on making the right decision to avoid the cantankerous few who think we’re listening to their thoughts and sending cranial transcripts to the government.

I’ve noticed a recurring theme in my work life. I have difficulty focussing. It’s not a daily problem of sticking to tasks so much as a big picture problem sticking to projects.

My list of projects is immense. Some are good ideas. One is, ironically, about giving away ideas (part of my on-going rumination that ideas are worthless). Like many people, I tend to start projects and move on before they’re really done.

Paul Kedrosky sees the same thing happening at The Goog and begs, Please Google, No New Products. The throw things at the wall mentality is great, but the step after it sticks is the tough part, no matter who you are.