« Prescience (Or The Lack Thereof) | Main | Global Attention Profiles »
December 09, 2003
RSS and its Discontents, Take Two
Dave Winer writes of another (perceived) attempt to grab control over RSS from someone who proposed an RSS re-naming contest. (Of course, it seems Winer frequently views anything that's not 100% approval of RSS 2.0 as it stands today as an attempt to wrest control away from [insert whomever actually "controls" RSS this week here].)
The comments on the post expanded to one of my favorite pet peeves: the lunacy of the orange XML icon.
I wrote about this last week, but read on for a copy of my rant in Winer's comment thread.
We don't really need a content to rename RSS. Another acryonym -- who cares? Technology is already acronym soup.
We *do* need a contest (or something) to get rid of the orange XML button that links to a bunch of gobbledy-gook. Yes, gobbledy-gook. *I* know it's XML, I know how to parse XML with my eyeballs . . . as does only about another 2% of the consumer population. (And I think that's a generous estimate.)
Dave Winer says:
"[I]f you let your mouse hover over the white-on-orange XML button, a tool tip will appear that says: 'Click here to see an XML representation of the content of this weblog.'Now I assume something that you may not assume, that my reader is intelligent, and if they don't care about XML, or don't care to see the XML version of the weblog, they will either ignore the icon, or check it out, be puzzled, and get on with their life."
That's really condescending, IMHO.
There are bazillions of intelligent people who "don't care about XML" and "don't care to see the XML version of a weblog" and wouldn't understand -- and shouldn't have to understand -- the meaning of "Click here to see an XML representation of the content of this weblog." Lack of familiarity with XML or RSS isn't a sign of a lack of intelligence.
In fact, the entire success of weblogs is a result of software that abstracted the coding and tech-know-how necessary to frequently update a websites content and replaced that with an easy-to-use form-based interface . . . absolving intelligent non-technical people from having to waste precious time becoming an expert in something as mundane as HTML or FTP, removing the technical obstacles to using the Internet as a medium to communicate their passions.
The orange XML icon is simply bad user interface design. It doesn't communicate its purpose (except to the few already in the know). By assuming prior knowledge of acronyms and technology, it's an interface that excludes, instead of one that includes.
What would be better?
- A "Syndicate" or "Sydication" icon instead of an "XML" icon. "Subscribe" would be even better than "syndicate," although there would likely be confusion with email subscription. I've written about this before, of course.
- A pop up that says "Click here to subscribe to this site's content in your news aggregator" -- much more explanatory than "See an XML representation."
- Functionality that, when clicking on the "syndicate" icon, automatically launches the local machine's default aggregator and gives the user the option to subscribe.
- Absent a defined default aggregator, drives the user to a feed styled with XSL and CSS a la Mezzoblue's experiment: http://www.mezzoblue.com/rss/2.0/ (Yes, this page is a valid RSS 2.0 feed -- view the source if you don't believe it)
Number 1 and 2 are mind-numbingly easy. Number 4 is do-able with most of today's technology, and weblog vendors could make it easier.
Number 3 is probably problematic without further definition of the technology.
Posted December 9, 2003 06:33 PM
Comments
Greg, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I said I assume my readers are intelligent. That is not condescending, it's admiring.
So, being intelligent, if they're not interested in XML, like any intelligent person who's not interested in XML, they won't click on the icon, and so the amount of happiness in the world is unchanged.
Now, since you've indulged in telling everyone else what you think of me, permit me to return the favor.
Like a lot of developers, you lose your sense of perspective when trying to think about users who don't understand what you already understand. I know this might be an advanced idea for you, but work on it.
And in the future leave the personal judgement out of it. Spoils all the fun.
Comments by Dave Winer . Posted December 9, 2003 08:05 PM
Hmm. Okay, I'll accept that I misinterpreted your statement re: intelligence.
However, I still think your position shows a lack of regard for readers that don't know XML or have more important things to do than get up to speed on esoteric data formats irrelevant to their day-to-day lives as writers, plumbers, fund managers, etc.
And since I'm not a developer by any means (but thanks for the assumption), my sense of perspective isn't skewed by coming at this from the developer's viewpoint. I'm an actual user thinking about what I want; not a developer trying to predict what theoretical users might want.
You are right about one thing -- if your readers don't get XML, they'll move on. And that is precisely the problem. We shouldn't want those users to move on; we should want them to get involved in syndication and aggregation.
But the orange XML icon is an interface directed at the technologists who get XML, not the rest of the consumers. The interface shuts the door in the consumer's face, instead of opening one. (For the record, I'm guilty of this, too, as to date I've been too lazy to purge the orange XML from my own site. I'll change this soon.)
Mature technologies are invisible. To mature, an emerging technology should strive to not need to make its guts known to users.
I believe the threshold for when we'll know that weblog/aggregator vendors are concerned about mainstream acceptance of syndication/aggregation is when the orange XML box ceases to be the primary interface to syndication feeds.
Finally, regarding "personal judgments," I presume you're referring to the parenthetical statement in the first paragraph of the entry? I made an observation about your public behavior that I still believe is accurate, and I'll stand behind it. I make no bones about my disapproval of some of your positions (or anyone else's, for that matter), and I give you credit where credit is due. I don't expect any more or less from anyone else.
Comments by Greg . Posted December 10, 2003 12:34 AM