An ethical new age for technology

One of the biggest challenges to my digital practise of late has been a creeping cynicism I’ve been feeling. It’s hard not to really. The excitement and promise of an open, accessible technology enabled future is something that I’ve been inspired by since the first time I snuck onto Prestel as a child. It’s why I pursued a career in the digital industries, and why I have spent most of that career advocating for it. Yet it’s increasingly beginning to feel like we’re in the bad future – that we’ve gone William Gibson instead of Arthur C Clarke. Powerful corporate technocracies, ever distant remote controlled wars, a media which is struggling to monetise and is therefore diminishing it’s own core values, and of course the post Snowden realisation that we’re not paranoid, we’re not over-stating it, there really is a huge structural system of surveillance which is beyond the dreams of Orwell. It’s a sobering time, and so I been finding that, for the first time in years, I haven’t leapt on the Gartner futures list or excitedly watched TED talks.

That is, until I saw Aral Balkan’s article on ethical digital design, and watched his (superb as always) talks on the subject. I’m not going to understate this, I think this is the most important thing that I have read about Being Digital since Negroponte.

I’ll leave the manifesto to speak for itself, and there is good debate around it’s points happening elsewhere. What I would like to focus on in this post, however, is the response from technology to this challenging and liberating ethos. When I read this manifesto, and in particularly the Maslow-style hierarchy of user needs, I excitedly forwarded it on to various networks, including an internal technology team here. There was a good response from the UX and design departments, those that are traditionally focussed on user needs as much as the brands. From the developers though, barely a peep.

This is a problem.

The experiences which we create for people to use are ultimately built in a technical stack, and for far too long, developers have focussed entirely on the technology itself. In fact with the front-end technology stack becoming ever more immersed in software engineering practises with the rise of Node, React et al, I am concerned that this is becoming more and more the case. The traditional ‘unicorn’ client-side developer used to be one that bridged the gap between design, UX and development. More than ever, it’s one that works across the full technology stack. This is good for technology, but bad for our users. I’ve already been witness to long discussions about technical design which utterly ignore what we’re actually trying to achieve for the people of the world that will consume these experiences.

If the vision of the ethical design manifesto and it’s human-centricity is to be realised, then it is vital that key figures within the front end technology community start to talk a lot more about their end user, and (slightly) less about the virtues of functional programming versus classical inheritance.

Those of us working with technology for a better end user experience are working in a golden age of frameworks, tooling and techniques. It is a huge mistake to think of the ethical design manifesto as only being a strategic, design or experience solution. It lies at the absolute core of what we are actually trying to achieve when we build websites, apps or other digital products. Even with regard to middle-ware or service layers there are lessons that can be learnt from this approach, for instance, in the design of your micro-service suite in alignment with the needs of the users rather than the needs of the application or architecture.

In short, we need to be just as excited about this stuff as our design, strategy and UX driven colleagues and I really hope that we see some traction amongst technologists. A good many of us seized on the promise of digital to create a better world and the fight is far from over.

The Martin Grids

Martin Grid #4

Some further explorations in a code-based response to art. Last year I stumbled across the Agnes Martin retrospective at Tate Modern. I wasn’t aware of her work at all, but one of the joys of Tate membership is encountering surprising things that you wouldn’t normally seek out. I went back again and again, and subsequently read everything I could about her. I can’t really fully explain why her stark abstraction and pale colour palette has got so under my skin, but I haven’t stopped thinking about it since. I don’t mind saying that I got seriously emotional, particularly in the room that contained The Islands.

The mathematical precision of her grid paintings clearly lend themselves well to a programmatic response, and I wanted to explore this a bit in code. As luck would have it, I recently found that the peerless Joshua Davis (who has been a massive influence on my digital life since has made his Hype for Processing tutorials in generative art available through Gumroad.

I’ll save some specific thoughts about Hype (a framework that I used to use in Flash for music-reactive visuals) for another post as I explore it further, but for now, it’s reintroduced me to Processing as a language, which will, finally, now replace Flash for me as my creative technology tool of choice. There are some barriers to entry – mostly in the translation model which is exactly what Hype sorts out for you. For this task though, I wanted to try and stay away from helpers but have a pretty stark method of producing random grids. Nothing remotely complex about any of this stuff, it’s drawing API 101. What excites me, however, is the ability to reduce the process to it’s most fundamental quality. As I’ve read more and more about Agnes Martin’s life and practise, I’ve been hugely struck by her own quest for an ordered simplicity in describing her perception of the world and how it’s translated into her art. As someone who has had a difficult couple of years, this appeals hugely to me. In fact the very basis for my finding a minor creative renaissance in myself at the moment (musically mostly, but also in my appreciation of art) has been in a careful curation of my mental environment, removing harmful things and managing the remainder into some kind of order.

Agnes Martin grid paintings
Agnes Martin, Untitled

I’d like to extend this response to Martin’s grids into a more procedural practise, humanising the lines and introducing additional elements outside the mathematical constructs which are her artistic work at it’s most reductive. As she moved through her body of work, an emotional element enters into it, mostly through the use of a muted pastel palette. It’s this aspect that I found most appealing about her. We tend to think of ordering a busy, noisy mind (whether through therapies or drugs) as a removal of those hurtful, uncontrollable emotional elements. Where as I have found, both in my own experience, and how I perceive Martin’s work, that the abstraction of that noise into an ordered form – the grid, a schedule, a structure – gives space for an honest opening up of emotional responses. And perhaps a more authentic creativity as well.

Examples of Martin grid outputs:

Martin Grid #3

Martin Grid #3

Martin Grid #5

Martin Grid #5

Gallery – 10 outputs of the Martin Grids

Code (Processing):

int pad;
boolean frame = true;
int cols;
int rows;
int gridCanvasWidth;
int gridCanvasHeight;
int tStart;
int picNum;

void setup() {
background(235, 235, 235);
pad = 10;
tStart = millis();
gridCanvasWidth = width - (pad*2);
gridCanvasHeight = height - (pad*2);


void draw() {

// draw the grid every 5 seconds
int timer = millis()-tStart;
tStart = millis();


// press S to save a png
void keyReleased(){
if(key == 's' || key == 'S')
void drawGrid() {
// function for drawing the Martin Grid on the basis of a random selection of columns and rows
cols = (int)random(2,70);
rows = (int)random(2,50);
float spacerX = (float)gridCanvasWidth/cols;
float spacerY = (float)gridCanvasHeight/rows;
float tracker = pad;
stroke(150, 150, 150);
// columns
for (int i = 1; i < cols; ++i) { tracker = pad + (i*spacerX); line(tracker, pad, tracker, height - pad); } tracker = pad; //rows for (int i = 0; i < rows-1; ++i) { tracker += spacerY; line(pad, tracker, width-pad, tracker); } if(frame == true) { stroke(20, 20, 20); rect(pad, pad, gridCanvasWidth, gridCanvasHeight); } }

Streaming media and the organisation of my content

I can’t help but love Spotify. Even though they have probably contributed more to the death of the record buying public than Napster (and I have a vested interest in this), Spotify + my Sonos one = beautiful.

I love Netflix as well. Libraries of great content, seamless function across devices so I can move smoothly from the living room to the bed to my friend’s house.

But something is bothering me about digital media libraries, and it’s the same thing that bothered me, constantly, when I was working at Sky alongside their EPGs. I was hoping, but failed, to do anything about it there and I feel like it’s a massive unscratched itch for me, so I’m going to just say it for now.

Why are digital media services all so bad at organising their content?

I’m sitting here in Spotify right now, trying to create a mirror of my record collection. Simple enough task. It’s a data collection. A collection of objects bearing properties like:

 spotify url:
 artwork url:

etc. I’m pretty sure that Spotify has all this metadata available. I know that Netflix has it. So why then do they not surface it within an interface to allow users to make their own decisions about filtering and organising the content that they are interested in?

I have sat in many planning and UX meetings where product owners have argued over the ‘perfect’ view of their content. But, when you consider that the final output of this is inherently dynamic – literally a collection of pixels within an interface – then this is absurd. If Spotify’s interface was in hardware I could understand it, but why can’t we have a more dynamic method of organising and filtering our libraries? If you consider the interface not as a perfect solution for a lowest common denominator audience but instead as a dynamic, realtime view of the data model, then you would be rewarded with far greater engagement with the service.

One big problem with content selection and discovery is that not only is my taste in media completely subjective, but so is the selection I’m likely to make at the point I’m making it. This is governed entirely by what I’m in the mood for right now and this is where the static interface lets me down.

In Netflix’s case this means that I have to scroll through reams of useless suggestions, based on something I recently watched in a completely different context to what I want now. Much has been written about Netflix’s powerful metadata engines, why can’t some of this power be placed into the hands of the users to filter their library to show me custom suggestions which I control (because despite the internet thinking it knows everything about me and my tastes, it doesn’t have a scooby about what I’m looking for right at this moment). We have been obsessed for years now about finding the perfect algorithm and the perfect UX, but we are missing the benefits of handing the reins over to the user to make the decisions that only they know best how to make.

But I’ve always thought of any collection of related objects precisely as a ‘data collection’. I would be shocked if this is, indeed, not how it’s handled programatically in the software. Give your users the power which your software enjoys.

In Spotify’s case, my only option is to search (and how often do I really know what I’m looking for until I get inspired by something?), or to rely on my playlists, which I can only ever have one view of, a nested tree. Further filtering is available in the main window view, but only on a track by track basis. My record collection alone is probably a couple of thousand albums, and that’s before I even get into all the stuff that I don’t own but sometimes want to listen to, guiltily (and this is where Spotify and Netflix shine – just don’t assume that means I want to listen to/watch it all the time, the biggest flaw of any recommendations engine which has no context to my decision at that time).

Give me the following please guys:

+ The ability to browse my collection visually, listed by artist, genre, microgenre, record label, year or any other piece of metadata you hold. Album covers are vital – there is always much higher recognition of a visual image than parsing thousands of lines of text. Let me sort it. Give me subtractive filtering tools so that I can gradually narrow down to my choice

+ The ability to scan a barcode on my CD or Vinyl and match it to the Spotify collection (or at the very least search by UPC)

+ A decent query engine instead of keyword search. So if I’m in the mood for East coast political hiphop or secular renaissance madrigals you can surface me some content. In Netflix case, they actually do this anyway to power their suggestions, so why can’t I make my own queries against their formidable metadata? (and whilst I’m here, why can I not permanently see recent additions – sometimes it’s there, sometimes not…agh!)

+ The ability to batch organise, add, delete my playlists and collections. Tidying up my library the other day was RSI-inducing.

+ Multiple views of my playlists in a proper interface of it’s own, not just in the sidebar. Make it off-canvas if you need to. Hell, even a separate companion app. Function follows form when it comes to interfaces and if your form is crippled, so will the functionality be.

+ The ability to import/export my collection. Even better, open up the organisation, favouriting and playlisting of content to an external API so that other developers can do it better if you can’t.

Streaming services have metadata right at the heart of their product and, by insisting on a restrictive interface for users to only surface and organise their huge content repository the Netflix/Spotify/iTunes/Play Music way, they are, for me at least, hugely restricting the service’s usefulness.

And if there’s one thing we’ve learnt in the digital age, it’s only a matter of time until someone comes along and does it better.

On Rachmaninoff and failing fast

“Failing fast” is an oft discussed principle for innovation, levied particularly at large, risk averse companies that are struggling to innovate in the digital realm.

It stands to reason that you don’t fail at what you already know how to do. It also follows that if you’re only doing what you already know how to do (or following ‘standard practice’) then it is unlikely that you’ll innovate. We learn, and innovate, by stepping outside of our comfort zone and going into uncharted territory. It’s not so much a case of ‘failing’ but having the courage to tackle the unfamiliar or the difficult, being prepared to make mistakes, and working through them until you know how to do it.

I am a *very* lapsed pianist. After going through the grade system, during a childhood of constant study of music, I didn’t really play the piano properly for years. As I have returned to the instrument in adulthood, I’ve found that my ‘chops’ are not what they once were, and I stumble around pieces that I would have been able to play fluidly. I’m a tinkerer most of the time, playing the simple stuff, improvising, allowing myself to make mistakes without correcting them and I tended for a long time to ignore harder passages or unfamiliar pieces because my technique wouldn’t allow it.

Lately though, circumstance has given me a new goal in my musical life which I think acts as a neat analogy for the importance of failure in business. The Rachmaninoff C#m prelude is an awe-inspiring and fear inducing piece of music. It’s in a difficult key, with sections where your hands have to counter-intuitively cross over one another. In the latter section, the score moves onto two staves – sight reading this alone is a head scratcher for an amateur pianist – so many notes, so many accidentals. Better stay safe and rattle through some comfortable Beethoven instead.

Rach Cm Score

And yet, as I make a concerted effort to play it, the piece’s logic starts to unfold for me. Even the last section that is so daunting on the page follows an actually deceptively simple logic – block chords, moving in parallel. Find the right shape with one hand and the other will follow. It requires accuracy and concentration for sure, but if I slow down, repeat parts which I’m stumbling over, become comfortable in the key so that my hands naturally find the shapes they need to be and bring out each phrase fluidly, the more the piece comes together.

And tonight, I actually got through the whole piece, a piece I’ve wanted to be able to play all my life, from beginning to end. It was messy and played with many mistakes, but the notes don’t seem so daunting to me anymore, and I don’t stop at the splitting of the stave as I so often have in the past. In fact one of the reasons why I often stopped at this point was that I love this piece, and it pained me when my execution of it didn’t sound like I know it should.

This pushing through the pain point has also had an interesting side effect – after an hour or so of playing the Rachmaninov, when I subsequently play an easier, familiar piece, say Debussy’s La Fille aux Cheveux du Lin, I play it fluidly, almost effortlessly, my fingers moving across each phrase with such ease that all my attention can be placed on the expression of my performance, and it opens up new capabilities within my technique that makes other difficult pieces far less of an ordeal to play.

As we come to tackle unknown territory in technology, in business, even in our everyday lives, we will *not* learn, grow, innovate or refine our skills, knowledge and capability if we stick to the strategies that we already know. We have to embrace unknown territory, not be disheartened if we fail, break the problem down and work through each section until it untangles before us.

The fear of failure in a large business is analogous to hearing a piece of music played badly. If the work you are producing does not ‘sound right’ – if it doesn’t match to what we think our business output should look like, or what our market expects, then we often deem it a failure and don’t progress further, and this is what kills any innovation.

But if we stick through it, working through each difficult passage and learn from our mistakes, then not only will we achieve things we never knew that we could, but it will also make what we already know how to do easier.

If your kids are more digital than your business, then you’re in trouble.

It continues to surprise me, here in 2014, that “Digital Transformation” is still a hot topic. We’ve lived with the internet for a solid 20 years now and it is, without a shadow of a doubt, a fundamental part of our daily lives. We meet our partners with it. We browse, research and shop with it. It entertains and educates us. There is barely a single element of our lives that it is not a part of. My five year old son navigates its interfaces and experiences with effortless speed and without instruction (sometimes worryingly so). So why, when even our kids are immersed in technology every day, are businesses still discussing digital transformation and why, when the rest of our lives have long been transformed by being digital, have so many companies still not?

It’s a book rather than blog sized question, but here are a few thoughts as to why:

1. You still think it’s about marketing
The web (just one part of the internet after all) was only envisaged by Sir Tim as a way of publishing contextually linked documents across a world-wide network of computers. When companies started to harness it for commercial use, it was natural that it was regarded as a broadcast medium. Since then it’s been under constant evolution. We’ve had web 2.0, where the web became an application platform to deliver services (like ecommerce). We’ve seen the rise of the social web, where people connected with people (and businesses have had to think like people to succeed). We’ve had the smartphone revolution which has put a powerful and, vitally, individually personal computer with a permanent connection to the internet in everybody’s pocket. We now see the emergence of the internet and things which connects us to our lifestyles and environments. Yet digital strategy (and, vitally, budget), is still too often confined to marketing departments and executed as an extension to the media plan. People no longer consume the web, they use it like a utility. If your digital strategy is still just focusing on broadcasting brand messages, then you’re only using a fraction of it’s potential.

2. Your IT policies are still thinking in Enterprise terms
Enterprise IT is very good at infrastructure and operations. It is, largely, useless at digital. This is because technology is only one part of being digital. This revolution has not been about platforms and systems, it’s been about people and their lives. IT does not do people very well. It does vendors and processes and governance. These things have an important part to play, particularly where security is paramount, but all too often the interfaces, services and experiences delivered across that infrastructure are crippled by design due to restrictive policies, outdated delivery processes and coding standards and long term investment whose usefulness expires almost as soon as the ink is dry on the vendor contract. If your company’s IT policies are regressive (check the version number of the corporate approved browser you’re reading this on) then you are not equipped to deal with the ongoing evolution of being digital and your customers are already enjoying better service with a competitor that is.

3. You don’t invest in research
Nobody, not even the most expensive consultants that agencies can offer, is an ‘expert’ on digital. There are no gurus. The landscape changes too rapidly. To stay ahead, one must work with the medium, be immersed in it’s culture, prototype, test, learn, implement and adapt. This does not happen in “5 year plans”. The digital landscape will be unrecognizable in 5 years. Kickstarter, Instagram, Snapchat and Whatsapp didn’t exist 5 years ago. Staying ahead in digital only happens through a constant thread of product and strategic development and the investment in this must not be on the basis of ‘projects’ but as an ongoing commitment to making full use of the opportunities that being digital presents. This also means not being afraid to make some mistakes along the way which can be a hard sell in a competitive market.

Startups can be disruptive because all they *are* is research and development. They have an idea, they build an MVP to test the validity of this idea. They release executions of this idea rapidly, learning and shaping their product according to the feedback they get from their customers and the data they generate. They are also very good at making mistakes, learning and adapting as they go. This gives them an agility that is at the core of their ability to disrupt markets.

If you spend a year planning a project before you build, that strategy will already be redundant by the time it’s ready to launch. If your strategy and technology is based on competitor analysis, particularly in the startup market, you are looking at their strategy from a year ago and are already behind the curve before you’ve started. Innovation is born not of asking your customer what they want or looking at how your competitors achieve it, but in working out what your customer needs and harnessing the technology and the medium to deliver it.

4. You’re not applying the culture of the internet to your business
The internet is not really about the technology that drives it, it’s about what people use it for. Technology is just there to help solve those problems, but the user does not and should not ever care about that (bar those of us that get excited about a point update to Android). This means that it has a cultural place in our lives. For many businesses, their engagement with culture stops at brand. Understanding the place that being digital has in our day to day lives is key to harnessing the medium effectively and this understanding must be shared all the way up to the CEO. It is no surprise to me that heavily siloed businesses are often the ones that struggle most to understand how the internet is actually used. If digital is impacting every aspect of our lives, then it should be the responsibility of every aspect of one’s business, from marketing to finance to product to customer groups to planning to technology to engage with digital projects and achieve a holistic digital vision.

In short, the world, it’s markets, it’s customers and their lifestyles have already transformed into being digital. If your business is still struggling with this revolution then you’ve got some work to do…And if you need some help, I know a 5-year-old with an iPad that’d be happy to show you the ropes!