Ethical Software by Alex Bunardzic

Most software applications ever written belong to the so-called single-sink category. Interestingly, some of the applications that are starting to emerge in the age of web are being dubbed Social Software. Here we compare the two, and then look beyond the two.

But first, some definitions are in order.

What is Single-Sink Software?

Single-sink software specializes in serving the goals of a single consumer (be it a human consumer, or a non-human consumer). For example, a spreadsheet application is a single-sink app because only a single, dedicated human user can have an application interaction experience when using it. Sure, two or more people can sit down, each at their respective computer, and start using a spreadsheet program at the same time. But that won’t generate a shared experience. Each and every individual user is plugged into his/her own private matrix. Other users know nothing about what transpires in that particular user’s matrix (and by matrix we here mean the web of interactions that occurs between a human mind and a single instance of a software application).

So we see that all the events that transpire during the single-sink session are entirely consumed by a single entity. Nothing gets shared.

What is Social Software?

Contrary to the single-sink situation, social software allows the coupling of the single-sink matrices. This means that two or more users can exchange and share their rich and varied experiences of using the application. What transpires for one user is made available for other users to experience and to feed back into the matrix.

A typical social software application is a wiki (a collaborative workspace, or a collaborative web). Wikis allow a group of people to focus on a single task, and then work on it simultaneously.

Why is it Called Social Software?

Some of us may feel that the term social could be replaced by group or community. Thus, we’d end up having group software or community software. But these terms would indeed be slightly misrepresentative of the true nature of the shared experience software. This is why we have retained the social software moniker.

The type of software applications we’re talking about here is social in the sense that it goes beyond a mere group, beyond a mere community. It needs certain social graces in order to even have a shot at being viable. Clay Shirky writes more on the topic in A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy .

Is Difficulty of Use a New Goal?

For most of us who have been using and building single-sink software applications for the better parts of our lives, experiencing social software apps is quite an eye-opener, a shocker even. My personal epiphany came about from using the del.icio.us services. Initially, upon learning about their keep-share-discover mantra, I was quite indifferent. But, soon afterwards, a huge realization hit me that, as a member of the del.icio.us social circle, I have access to some of the most potent, most pregnant knowledge base in the world. All that thanks to the magic of social software.

Naturally, looking back at my previous experience of building single-sink applications, it all felt somehow primitive and useless compared to the incredible power and the potential of social software. It was easy for me, as well as it was easy for many of my colleagues, to get overwhelmed with the difference that the switch in focus from individual end-user goals to the group goals brings.

My whole life I’ve been trained to focus on the end-user’s goals. Here is a user, a human being (or a machine at the other end of the wire), who is using my software to achieve certain goals. And the more I understand what exactly those goals are, the better chance I’ll have at delivering something useful to them, something that will please them.

But now, all of a sudden, the end-user’s goals recede in the background to be replaced by the group goals. Social software now focuses on identifying and satisfying the group goals.

So what exactly does that mean? Well, some experts claim that this change effectively wipes away the much cherished notion of ease of use. If we stay focused on the individual users and continue building single-sink applications, we’ll continue to be driven by the ease-of-use dictum. A single-sink focus dictates that whoever is at the other end of the line must find it very easy to use the system in order to attain the specified goals.

Not so in the case of group goals. Often times we see in the group context that ease-of-use appears to be in stark contrast with the group goals. For example, a group may have a clearly defined goal that states that only very capable members are to be allowed “in”, so to speak. That effectively means that only the elite, the initiated ones, the ones highly educated in certain areas are to become members of the ’society’. In that respect, certain social software apps may end up favoring difficulty-of-use.

Forced Dichotomy?

But this theory fails to acknowledge one crucial aspect of social software — groups consist of individual users. Upon closer inspection, the raising of the barrier to entry, that many social software applications seem to be clamoring for, turns out to be merely an outcome of a poorly designed system.

Here is how these things happen: initially, a fairly vague social software application gets released out in the wild, offering the multiple-matrices capabilities to its users. Naturally, such new and dizzyingly exciting capability starts bringing out the best in people. The initial excitement is palpable. But soon afterwards, once the novelty of the ride starts wearing off, we see how such systems tend to bring out the worst in people. Bickering and frothing-at-the-mouth ensues. At that point, the system is faced with two hard choices: either self-destruct, or raise the barrier to entry, thus promoting the elite and demoting the plebes.

Most people (Clay Shirky included) at that point draw the irrevocable conclusions that we have finally managed to unveil the true face of the social software — that it needs hard policing regime in order to survive.

This is very disheartening, since nothing could be farther from the truth. The small-mindedness of such views only belies their lack of perspective when it comes to understanding what is a group and how does it relate to its constituent elements.

In all truthfulness, what’s happening with these social software applications that degenerate into all kinds of street fighting circus performances is that they have been designed poorly from the ground-up. Once the social software app is built on top of such a lousy foundation, it cannot help but start showing cracks under its own weight.

What is needed is better, more thoughtful design of social software apps. A better, deeper understanding of how experience-sharing influences the goals of individual players is sorely needed. A successful social software app will satisfy the real goals of its individual users while at the same time promote the goals of the group to which the users belong.

Any time we reach the point where we regret giving our users too much ease-of-use is a surefire sign that we have done a very lousy job designing our app. There absolutely is no such thing as too much ease-of-use.

Look for example at the motorized traffic. Any bozo can join in. It’s damn easy to use. Should we up the ante and make it so hard to use the streets and freeways and road signs so that only a select elite of ultra well trained members of the drivers society will be able to join the traffic?

Same principles apply to social software apps. Lower the barrers to entry and make sure that the group goals are always clearly in sight. That will guarantee that all the participants will find full satisfaction of their own, personal goals (regardless of how selfish and unaltruistic these goals may appear to be). The system should then be designed in such a way to harness the efforts expended toward reaching these selfish individual goals, and immediately spread the wealth to the entire group.

Once such a system is put in place, no one will ever feel the need to sabotage it. No one would be so foolish then to shoot themselves in the foot.

The reason many participants nowadays seem eager to sabotage many social software systems is due to the fact that it was not made perfectly clear to such participants what exactly is in there for them. And only a well designed social software app will be able to withstand such harsh criticism.