I’ve heard a lot about Matt Web through those closest to him, but never really met him.
Matt is half of an interesting and insane design duo, Schulze & Webb (I have met Schulze, BTW). It’s safe to say that Schulze & Webb are racing forth, defining what happens when you mix design and Web and bits and atoms (and mobile).*
At the end of last year, Matt wrote down some notes on essays he’d wish he’d have written, but didn’t. The notes are a loosely connected series of topics that joggled more than a few conceptual pinballs in my head.
Surface binding
One topic Matt touches on is ‘surfaces’, basically, recognizable bits of structure (data) on the Web. This is really about micro-formats.
But, and this pleases the bio-geek in me, he compares Web surfaces to protein surfaces and browsers as recognizing these surfaces and making sense of the surface structure.
If I understand it, there are patterns in the categories of structures in Web pages. Matt seek the range of these types of structures to be finite and stable, hence such a classification of types to recognize is possible.
Hm, this may be a solution to extracting meaning (tying to another thread of though of mine). I suppose this begs for some taxonomical survey of Web structures, if there isn’t one already.
Refactoring code
It was a blast from the past for me when Matt stated his wish that code not be refactored, but added to. In the late 90s, I was at an amazing talk by Marvin Minsky to us biomedical post-docs. Minsky also said that we should not rewrite code, but patch it – there was value in the old stuff.
Matt likes to use biology or chemistry example, but doesn’t here. So I offer: Genomes are not necessarily refactored by evolution, but usually written over. And a lot of variability in the genome is derived from cutting and pasting of new and old code, rearrangements, duplication, and divergence of old code, and repurposing of old code (and don’t get me going about ‘junk DNA’).
Bringing about change
Matt has a few great points on change and ultra-stability. But one thought that is radically funny is devilishly deviant: drive badly to accelerate the adoption of self-driving cars.
He takes it further in relation to mind enhancing drugs.
For example, ‘erectile dysfunction’ was hyped and marketed as a problem, so that pharma could create and sell the performance enhancing drug, Viagra. Therefore, Matt asks, we could start pointing out a problem with mental abstraction as a risk. Then, after papers and studies and articles come out about ‘the problem’ a market would arise, demanding solutions to the ‘abstraction problem’. Then pharma could be provided with the material to persuade regulatory bodies that pharma should and could come up with the solution to the problem, for the benefit of business and society.
Heh, that’s be something cool to try (reminds me of the Frindle). Kinda like a Saffo Mind-bomb for the future.
Path through services
Fred Stutzman who writes on social networks keeps pointing out the need for services to answer the ‘What’s Next?’ after adding all your peeps to the network. On a similar note, Matt mentions the never-ending game quality Flickr has (indeed, Flickr was first called the ‘Never-Ending Game’). The game aspect keep leading the users back, ‘auto-catalyzing’ engaging behavior.
In the end, Matt’s insight is to keep the path the user takes through the services to never end (and designed to bring in others, to grow).
I think that this path is not always the utility (feature of service) path, nor the best path, though I have no examples to base this on. Also, with the mobile lifestyle in mind, how can that path have interruptions and long gaps?
Product evolution
his very last topic is about evolving a product locally. Matt devises a vending machine that optimizes the product flavor based on popularity.
For me, it touches a bit on what randomness can bring a product. Since most products are about consistency, could a machine be made to randomly dispense a product to surprise the buyer? Kinda like Bertie Bott’s Beans. Indeed, there is a drink that sort of does this.
What’s with the biology?
Until I read this big article by Matt, I had not really read any of his ramblings (though I have seen him speak and read some of his more formal writing). The biggest surprise was the number of hard-core biology (and chemistry) examples. It could just be my bias to see these topics stand out, but I think I need to ask some folks what the story is here.
For example, one of his notes completely surprised me with the items places in one sentence, ranging from metabolics, to tectonics, to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (need to follow up in this, too).
I think he’s just a well-read curious guy, who revels in mixing disciplines. For sure, this guy is as scattered in his interests as I am. And tis explains all the interesting things he and his gang spout off. I suppose I do need to introduce myself to him, if only for his bio references, but also because we have a lot of overlap in the people we interact with (though his are much tighter in time and place than mine).
As for you, go read him. He’s a trip.
*Indeed, the crowd Matt hangs with, which I mostly follow second-hand via @blackbeltjones and @anti-mega, are all brilliant and creative.
