I have kept politics off the table during my 3+ years of running this blog. I just think it’s a private thing, and not germaine to the topics I cover here. Suffice it to say I’m a something like a rabidly capitalistic social-liberal-fiscal-conservative-with-a-libertarian-streak. Or a Second Amendment-supporting Democrat (befitting my Texas residency) who believes in states’ rights and a limited Federal government. (In other words, there really is *no* real party for me in the US…but that’s another story and another blog…)

But today I thought I’d point to a really top-notch user experience, and in the process reveal that I am a contributor to the Obama-Biden campaign. After reading about how Sarah Palin’s RNC convention speech raised 1M for the Replicans and 10M for the Democrats, I was reminded that I wanted to contribute. Rather than browse to barackobama.com, I decided to go to www.mybarackobama.com, the social networking site run by the campaign.

I was impressed with how easy it was to not only contribute (it darn well better be), but to quickly and easily increase your level of commitment to the cause. Obviously there’s been some research behind this. They hooked me with the drop-dead simple way to register, and the ease with which they asked me to contribute time, money, or my personal network. They also offered registrants the ability to harness network effects by setting up a personal donations page, where you can ping your friends for donations in your name. Check out my page at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/pjsherman. The page took no time to set up. My only nit with the site? Why oh why did they make the username/login fields the same color as the background?!? Amateurish mistake, that.

Now I’m sure that the McCain campaign has made it easy to contribute as well, but from my forays onto the McCain site I don’t see the same social networking aspect. And I have to say, I don’t like having a video start up automatically when I visit a site. It’d my choice whether I’d like to watch video content, thank you very much.

File this post under “more signs of the USPTO apocalypse.” In a story reminiscent of The Onion’s parody news article “Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros“, iTWire reports on Microsoft’s patent “Method and system for navigating paginated content in page-based increments“… which is a fancy way of describing the Page Up and Page Down buttons.

The iTWire article isn’t bad, though like most news outlets it doesn’t provide sufficient background on why the patent system is in such a sorry state. (I did explain this in some detail in my UXmatters article; follow this link to read “Your Design Is Infringing On My Patent.”)

I don’t blame the Microsoft employees who put their name on this patent; they’re just playing the game that they were hired to play. (Though I do wonder whether they look at that patent plaque in their offices and feel a slight twinge of embarrassment.) It’s not Microsoft’s fault either. They’re playing the game too. The fault lies squarely with the USPTO, and with a Congress that is too deep in the pockets of large incumbent businesses from many domains.

I hate to keep ringing this bell over and over, but the fact of the matter is that patents stifle innovation and provide a means for lazy and litigious people to live off the work of others. And by patenting something so (pardon the pun) “patently obvious” as Page Up / Page Down buttons, Microsoft degrades the user experience for us all. Think about it: every time Microsoft (or some other software company) patents a commonly-used interaction pattern or UI design, they make it less likely that other product producers will want to pay a licensing fee to use the pattern or design. Which means that the producer will have to skirt the patent by creating a new interaction or design, even though a common and perfectly reasonable one already exists.

This isn’t just an academic problem, folks. If this is allowed to continue, we’re headed even farther down the slippery slope. What’s next? Will Microsoft or Apple or IBM patent the “OK” button? Will we have to label it “Affirmed” to skirt the patent? How many other patent landmines are sitting out there waiting to be stepped on?

If you’re interested in patent reform but don’t know what you can do or where to start, check out these organizations. You might find a way you can contribute to the elimination of obvious and overly broad patents. (These are taken from my UXmatters article.)

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation — The EFF is a nonprofit organization that advocates for free speech and individual rights in the digital domain. Its Patent Busting Project is an initiative “to protect innovation and free expression” by fighting against vague, obvious, or overly broad patents.
• Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure—Based in Europe, this organization currently runs the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, which has as its aim stopping enaction of a US-like patent system in the European Union.
• The Free Software Foundation — Founded by Richard Stallman, the FSF promotes and supports the free software movement. The FSF supports a less restrictive approach to patenting intellectual property. Founded as a US-based organization, FSF branches have opened in Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
• Another advocacy group is the Software Freedom Law Center, which Eben Moglen founded in 2005.

Microsoft Granted Page Up Page Down Patent  ::  iTWire

Tags: patentreform, user experience

A few colleagues have pointed me to the article by movie director-sounding blogger Matthew Paul Thomas entitled “Why Free Software Has Poor Usability, and How to Improve It.”

I’ve given you the link to the original Thomas article, but I’m more interested in discussing Johnathan Gruber’s take on it. Says Gruber in this post:

I posit that the usability and elegance of any product, software or hardware, tends to reach and seldom surpasses the level that satisfies the taste of whoever is in charge of the product. This applies universally, not just to free and open source software. For example, it explains why Microsoft produces such crummy software even though the company employees [sic] thousands of talented programmers and even designers — Microsoft’s decision makers have no taste. But the problem is endemic to open source.

The people in charge of most free and open source software products tend to have poor taste in user interfaces; people with good taste in user interface design are seldom in charge of open source software projects.

Put another way, if you have to ask for better design, you will lose. You need to be in a position to demand it.

Yes. (Adding some more later in the day…) Aside from the comment about Microsoft’s decision makers having “no taste” - undoubtedly a reference to Steve Job’s comment about Microsoft - I have personally seen what can happen when leaders demand better design…and what can happen when they don’t.

Design leadership *has* to come from the top. It can’t be, as Cooper said in February at IxDA 2008 - an “insurgency” driven from below.

Matthew Paul Thomas :: Why Free Software Has Poor Usability, and How to Improve It