Alexis Madrigal's criticism of Gmail this week was just one of what
seems like a growing chorus of complaints about Google's recent sweeping
changes across its services.
As far as I can tell, though, almost all of these amount to a resistance to cheese-moving. Madrigal's specific issue with the new design is that the when you have
more than one chat window open, they now overlap with and occlude your
email message.
"Could I come up with another workaround? Running Gchat in a client,
say? Of course, but I didn't have to worry about that before and I could
have all my communication in one tab in my browser."
The simplest and most versatile fix is to click the little "open in new
window" button, freeing the chat window from the tab, which has the
added benefit of giving you access to the chat conversation not just
while you type your email, but as you work in other tabs and windows, as
well. So, the fact is that the use-case of simultaneously chatting and
writing emails is built-in, but it's an added click to the workflow
Madrigal is used to.*
And the other pertinent fact is that Google's services have long existed
in a culture of 'eternal beta.' Every new product release is plagued
with UI issues, but almost on purpose. Google releases products early
(some would call unfinished), but iterates quickly in response to both
user feedback and data. The new Gmail design is actually a great example
of this, as one of the earliest complaints was the overuse of
whitespace, which severely restricted the information density of early
iterations. The result is not only an option for three different levels
of density, but a beautifully responsive design that automatically
changes with the size of the browser window.
We are all naturally resistant to change, of course, especially when the
changes seem unnecessary and have an impact on our daily lives, or
force us to change our behavior. We don't want to have to deal with
things outside of our respective core competencies. It's the reason my
wife hates software updates in general. Something always seems to change
unnecessarily (or just break), and she has no interest in becoming a UI
expert. She's just trying to get her job done.
But the underlying issue is kind of profound and far-reaching. Because
as our computing workflows move inexorably to centralized cloud-based
models, as we outsource the logistics of actually running software to
Google and others, as we relegate these operations to an abstraction, we
also relinquish a measure of control. Our daily workhorses are now
subject to change, without our input or approval, which can be
infuriating.
For the near future, though, it seems like the trade-off is going to be
worth it. Web email, for example, has so many advantages that I, for
one, can't imagine going back to running client software. But Gmail is
going to keep changing, and some of that change is inevitably going to
affect my workflow. The only thing to do in this situation is to adapt.
To think of the workflow not as static, but as a malleable and
constantly changing system. To meet every update with a willingness to
refine or even radically change the way we do things, instead of
obstinate indignation and victimhood. To form a meta-workflow that
incorporates change as a constant. It's the only way to stay sane in
this brave new world in which more and more of our lives consist in
ephemeral, increasingly amorphous software.
* Madrigal's note: I disagree with this workaround being useful; I
like to command-tab between applications and this opens up multiple windows
that are difficult to command-tab back to. There is a reason everyone uses
tabbed browsing now instead of opening up a bunch of browser windows. It was powerful to have all my most important communications within one tab.
