Puzzlin' in the Heat

In which I go out on a limb (what’s new with that) and see whether the “new Google Plus One generation” are still listening.

I’ve noticed that when it comes to introducing new stuff, Google puts a lot of effort into development and execution.  The stuff they build is very high grade, strong, and cool.  But I’ve also noticed that deliveries can arrive with surprises that aren’t always good.  There has been more than one time where a release missed significant areas of usability and/or cultural awareness that brought either negative publicity or negative perceptions from users. 

Secrecy may be necessary to a certain degree on a business level.  Having the tech and social press brightest bad-mouth your product in the trades is free publicity (on the premise that “there's no such thing as bad publicity.”) The cat-calls from Wave’s exit and Buzz’s months online were ample and loud.  So perhaps this was deliberately (cunningly, even) executed?  If so, well done!  OTOH, this doesn’t always result in happy users, especially when the changes include implementing policies that either didn’t exist or weren’t enforced earlier.

What solutions might there be?  Can a team consistently anticipate needs or issues 100% of the time, in an 80/20 world? For one or five business units perhaps, but this is an order of magnitude larger:  Rumors go viral in minutes.  The spammers, yammerers, and general clamor make life like having bees live in your head.  There are many different user types here:  Students; Developers of the professional and hobbyist variety; business people; retirees; writers of all kinds; teachers; clergy; spammers; a few pirates; media representatives trying to understand business propositions and on and on.

Google could take a page from Microsoft, in its early releases of IE (back when they were minimally outdoing Netscape and crushing them with brand recognition) and leverage its loyal base.  MS called new releases ‘Beta’ because they knew the early adopters would find and report the bugs.  Of course, this was said with tongue in cheek.  With Google, things could be different: I think it’s time Google formally engage a group of users for overall usability review before major releases.

Engaging active users helps ensure a product fit for the widest variety of backgrounds.  It can provide needed vision to identify where user expectations intersect, so changes can be sent out ahead rather than come as a surprise.  I have 20+ years in requirements, QC and Acceptance.  I don’t code but I know usability.  While I’m in school, I would consider helping if I had the chance.  I know other people who have similar talents and interests, who would feel lucky to add their efforts and thoughts.  This would not be a hard thing for Google to explore. 

Ivory-tower requirements are secure, but risk being incomplete and can cause untoward public attention.  Engaging non-employees can bring risk of leaks; these can be mitigated with NDA’s and short-term contracts.  


If these alternatives haven’t been balanced recently, and even if they have, Google should consider which risk is greater over the longer term.