|
We have been spending a lot of time lately
puzzling over a very simple question:
Is there a "Macromedia experience"?
Which came first: Tools or ideas?
Do you believe that your designs have discernible,
describable qualities that have led to better experiences
than were possible with traditional web and desktop
applications?
In the best examples of "made with Macromedia"
sites and applications that we've seen, the
depth and directness of the user interaction and the
richness of the feedback provided to the user goes
well beyond anything else on the web. While it may
be hard to describe in objective, measurable terms,
we think the kind of experience we're talking
about is easy to recognize… you know it when
you see it.
Obviously, an important source of this "quality
without a name" is the consistently high level
of design and development talent that is attracted
to our tools. But that doesn't explain why you've
selected Macromedia products as your tools of choice.
Are you attracted to Macromedia tools because of the
great experiences you are able to craft with them?
Or, do these tools produce great experiences simply
because they have fallen into such capable hands?
One answer lies in the qualities of the platform
itself. Just as very different forms are enabled by
construction in steel (long span orthogonal bays)
than by construction in brick and stone (arches),
the things you can build with our tools provide experiences
that are qualitatively different from those produced
in Visual Basic, C# or HTML.
Architects are able to build conventional buildings
in steel, but they are also empowered to develop new
forms that uniquely address the requirements set before
them. In a sense, that's exactly what's
happening today within the community of Macromedia
developers and designers. Freed from many of the limitations
of traditional "building materials", you
have created new conventions that go beyond the limitations
imposed by other tools.
Identifying traits of the Macromedia experience
As we work to understand the experiences that you've
created, we begin asking deeper questions. If we can
identify and even formally define the salient characteristics,
can we capture them, package them, and bake them into
our platform and tools? Are these great experiences
completely dependent on the talents of the author,
or can we identify recurring design patterns that
can help bring the creation of these experiences more
into the mainstream? Can we help everyone achieve
consistently better results by documenting best practices
and providing enabling technology in the form of components,
frameworks, and tools designed to make it easy to
create a great user experience?
You know a Disney experience when you see it. Every
aspect is carefully crafted for maximum effect (without
ever crossing the line that would make us uncomfortable).
The Disney experience is powerful in its depth and
consistency. Walt Disney created policy for those
experiences—policies that have been faithfully
followed for years.
You know an OS X app when you see it. And you have
certain expectations for the consistent quality of
the Mac OS X experience. Some really talented people
on the Aqua team worked for a long time to describe
the Apple experience down to its smallest details.
The experience is quite good (at least I am a fan),
but it's proscriptive. The Apple experience was carefully
crafted, heavily branded, componentized, and integrated
into their tools. How did we end up with a Macromedia
experience without even trying?
Macromedia + you = the Macromedia experience
We can't just suddenly commit our tools and
platform to a single unified look and feel. The freedom
to create and be innovative is at the heart of Macromedia's
appeal. So looking deeper, beyond color or effect,
is there some underlying factor that is so fundamental
to the truly great experiences that we can bottle
it?
Our experiences, the ones you create, seem smoother
than comparable experiences on other platforms. They
flow like a good movie with carefully crafted transitions.
Contrast this with the disjointed, compartmentalized,
flat presentations that make up most of the web.
Our experiences seem more alive or aware; they respond
to the viewer. They bring the viewer in; they convert
information and media from isolated elements to something
more satisfying, more complete.
Our experiences are more engaging, more entertaining;
occasionally they are even more informative. To take
the point as far as I think I can get away with, I'd
say that our experiences actually inspire.
We have relied on you in the past to help guide our
development efforts. You've shown us new ways
that our tools and platforms can be used—concepts
we never imagined when we originally set out to build
them.
We could really use your help here. How do we bottle
these experiences? How do we ensure that the creation
of consistently great experiences is possible for
a greater number of people and, by virtue of that,
share these experiences with more people? How do we
accomplish this without compromising the flexibility
that gives you the freedom to be as innovative as
you have consistently proved you are? Let us know
how you feel by participating in our Online
Forum.
In the coming months we will be pondering these questions.
We are a company whose reputation is built on great
experiences; especially the great experiences that
people like you create. Anything we can do to extend
the reach of those experiences is obviously good business
for us, but we also believe it's good for you.
As we move toward these goals, the innovation and
energy that surrounds these great experiences will
in turn cause the pioneers of those experiences to
be challenged to innovate even more—and we know
how you all love a challenge.
|
