Chris Jagers

Even though the SlideRoom team is still small, we upgraded our office space in 2012 to achieve a few goals. This was challenging because we wanted much more room to grow, but didn't want to waste money having too much extra space. Luckily we have been working for over six years and had an intuitive sense of how we might grow over the next six.

I believe a nice environment can encourage good taste, increase productivity, and ultimately make everyone happier. To make sure the office was practical, we created open and closed workspaces, collaborative areas, room to play, and room to lounge. Below are just a few pictures of the planning process focusing on the large open space in the center. We are still getting settled in, so pictures of the final space will be posted soon.

I was recently asked to be a guest teacher at a local university for a semester. This class was interesting and my friend needed me to fill in. The pay was very little, but I don't need the money. I wanted to help, so I volunteered my time.

Except for the actual classroom time with students, it was a horrible experience. I was initially met with tons of paperwork that required me to visit in person multiple times.

Then I was asked to put all sorts of documents online into some completely unusable database product. This took several weeks because I was never given full access and referred to various help desks. None of these desks had the authority to grant me access and thought coming to visit in person (again) might help. Over 2 weeks, I spent hours trying to get setup in the system and basically gave up.

Then I started getting parking tickets. So I proceeded to get a sticker and found out that I needed to pay over $300 for the right to park less than 10 times. No offer was made to cover this for me.

I won't go on about the details, but needless to say I won't be doing it again.

I find it incredible that schools make such a big deal about wanting participation from local professionals and then do everything to sabotage that from possibly happening. Why do schools treat them like adjuncts?¹

At the end of the semester, I couldn't even enter grades. When I wrote for assistance, I was told to visit in person (even though that never worked in the past). I flipped out and wrote an angry email to the staff and Dean about all my thoughts in very blunt language.

After I sent the email, I felt a little guilty. After all, everyone was very nice to me personally. The secretaries and faculty members actually bent over backwards trying to help me. Was I being snotty? Why was I getting so angry?

It was not personal disrespect, but structural disrespect. Basically their process, tools, and rules disrespected my time. While this isn't personal it feels pretty much the same, only hopeless because nobody can help you. The insult starts way back in time when poor decisions are made about process. Every type of institution needs to think about this when they choose tools, processes, and environments. Price and feature lists are not the only factors to consider.

This is another reason I love working at SlideRoom. We make software to delight people who use our product.

Enterprise software is not usually designed that way. When you look at most database products, there is a very thin layer between you and the database. It is meant to protect data, not delight people. These products are bought/sold based on a checklist of features and price considerations by people who often aren't the end-users of the product. This is a small example structural disrespect.

Salman Kahn has received global notoriety for his videos on Kahn Academy, which have kicked off a discussion about how to leverage online learning within education. However, most of the press I see misunderstands the scope and grandeur of his vision, which is laid out in his new book "The One World School House: Education Reimagined." While technology plays a key role in attaining global reach, this is just a small part of his vision for the future.

He understands the difficulty of changing large systems and so he hasn't written a manifesto. Rather, the book is a mixture of personal anecdotes, an examination of historical evolution, and some very detailed ideas for change that are breathtaking in their scope. Since those are not getting enough attention, I wanted to highlight a few of his examples below.

Eliminate grading (A,B,C) and demand mastery.

Kids either understand a concept or they don't. It is a disservice to allow advancement when certain core concepts are not understood, because they usually build on one another. Kids do not advance unless they can demonstrate mastery (like answering 10 questions in a row correctly).

Eliminate grade distinction (K-12) and allow mixed ages to learn together.

Rather than trying to teach assembly-line style, provide the resources for kids to pursue knowledge at their own. This means allowing kids of mixed ages to coexist and help each other. Older kids learn responsibility, younger kids learn from the older ones and everyone acts more mature.

Remove boundaries between subjects.

Since knowledge is naturally connected and kids have different gifts, let them explore at their own pace and see how things connect when they are ready. Some may want to go deep into a technical subject, while others may pursue open-ended thinking and creativity.

Utilize online technology to invert the place of lecture and homework.

Allow students to watch lectures at home, or on their own time. Then they can bring their questions and "homework" into the classroom to work through problems with their peers and teachers.

Manage learning environments by teams of teachers.

Since various separate classrooms have been combined in this model, teachers too can combine and help one another both in a classroom and via the web around the world. This takes advantage of various strengths to address this multifaceted job. Further, they would act more like a coaches helping them win (rather than an adversary who gives busywork).

Use Summer rather than waste it.

A three month vacation every year robs students of momentum and causes unlearning. Instead, save vacations for when an individual needs one (like adults take). They can't "miss class" because they are working at their own pace. And the multi-age-no-grade thing would remove any stigma. Breaks can happen without shutting down the entire system.

Redefine transcripts.

In addition to testing, add things that measure the individual in a qualitative way:

• A portfolio of creative work to see what students can do on their own.
• A multi-year narrative of what the student learned and how they learned it.
• A record of their ability and willingness to help others.

Make internships a critical component of education.

Develop relationships with local establishments so that kids can experience how knowledge gets used in the real world and even taking on more challenging problems. If the students were actually developing valuable skills, paid internships might even address the growing problem of educational cost.

Decouple the teaching and credentialing role of universities.

Learning happens independent of a universities ability to give a degree. If a student has received a great education, it shouldn't matter where it came from. The removal of name-brand credentialing would level the playing field and help address rising costs.

What I love about these examples is how they combine wisdom and skill. Rather than treating them as mutually exclusive goals, he outlines how wisdom can be attained through skill. In his conclusion, he also addresses the question of "creativity, can it be taught?" He does not pretend to have that answer, but believes this open-ended approach more effectively allows it to thrive.

Note that Mr. Kahn acknowledges the problems in a one size fits all model, particularly globally. So, his proposals are mainly to help us realize that education can happen in a very different way.

Many people hearing these ideas will be skeptical of his belief that kids will be proactive in their will to learn … he addresses that too. Great book.

Paul Graham of Y-Combinator has been creating a trove of posts about business, and startups in particular. However, I really disagree with the main point of his most recent article, Startup = Growth. He advises startups to pick a growth rate and try to hit it every week. He goes on to discuss how successful startups are destined to become big companies and should be constantly optimizing this rate of growth.¹

While I understand his introductory point about startups having the ability to scale, I believe focusing on consistent/rapid growth is completely wrong. While every company needs to hustle, the most successful companies are the ones that first focus on creating value for the end user (think Apple). The big wins come from inventing something new and owning that market.² Incremental thinking about growth rate is exactly the kind of distraction that startups should avoid.

Companies should aim to be the right size for what they are trying to do. This may result in striving to be large, small, or somewhere in between. While one size never fits all, I believe the slow growth model generally creates more favorable conditions for success.

The pressure to grow fast usually comes from venture capitalists that are desperate for a fast return on investment. They use sports and war metaphors about establishing a plan and then making a run for it … suicide bomber style.

Managing growth is tricky. If you over invest in future infrastructure, the company is left vulnerable and forced to pursue aggressive short-term cash flow (even if that is not the right thing to do). If you under invest, you might miss an opportunity. Carefully managing that process and making good decisions is key for success.

It is also important to differentiate between the different kinds of risk. Some decisions may result in simple setbacks, while other decisions flirt with risks that could be fatal. Making wise distinctions becomes harder to do when aggressive growth is the top goal.

I know from making so many mistakes that "perfection" is not the key ingredient to successful momentum. But I also know that valuing growth for its own sake could easily be a recipe for disaster.

"Formality is more than a dress code, of course. It infects how people talk, write, and interact. It eats through all the edges and the individuality, leaving only the square behind. In other words, it’s all about posture, not productivity."

--David Heinemeier Hansson

About a month ago, David wrote a popular article titled "The end of formality." Initially I read this pumping my fist with agreement. But during the last month I had several conversations about this post which bothered me. Many people came away with the opinion that it's ok to "let it all hang out" and even "be rude if someone deserves it."

I started to see that DHH's language may have been overly broad. He is actually criticizing practices that are empty of meaning and stifle productivity. I don't believe he condones dropping the need for standards, skills, or even a basic degree of professionalism.

So, I want to do some damage control about this concept, specifically in regard to how we interact with one another. Working within a frat-boy environment that lacks any behavioral control is a horrible place to work:

• It easily leads to people offending one another
• It blindly rewards the loudest and most raucous people
• It stifles diversity and therefore company growth
• It breeds anxiety among those who crave success and personal growth
• and more, I could go on forever ...

A little formality opens doors for more efficient communication, a more harmonious workplace, and a culture that rewards maturity and merit. An atmosphere of mutual respect requires some self-control and conscientiousness.

I believe the real problem is incorrectly using formality to fix unrelated problems. For instance, rather than making a bunch of rules to control the 5% of employees who misbehave or perform poorly, just remove those employees. When you hire great people, they don't need to be managed or forced into empty formalities.

On the other hand, if you're an executive hiding behind suits, titles, and letterhead to get respect without having earned it, your days are numbered.

The guidelines for making sites accessible to people with Cognitive Impairments deserve much more attention. This is rarely discussed because the wide range of cognitive conditions are so diverse, so it is hard to prescribe a fixed set of enforceable rules. Instead, there are design principles which all aim to make visual display as clear and simple as possible. Each principle sounds like good design to me, here are a few:

• Use white space and visual design elements to focus user attention.
• Use white space for separation.
• Avoid distractions like animation, unusual type faces, busy backgrounds, etc.
• Use language that is simple and be succinct
• No horizontal scrolling
• Give feedback on user actions
• Provide large click targets and ensure functional elements appear clickable.
• Underline only links
• Ensure text readability (includes a variety of font, line, spacing tips).

These are just a few points out of dozens; I love that white space is used twice. When checking out some sites claiming to be accessible, they are often barely usable in general because of such poor visual design. For instance, check out the online admissions system of most universities. These are usually crammed with text, no white space, no hierarchies of focus, and generally hard to use. It is no surprise that they often fail the most basic accessibility testing as well.

For a recent resource on creating visual design for a wide range of people, check out the notes just posted by Luke Wroblewski from Cindy Li's talk on "Inclusive Design." Even though her talk was not about cognitive impairments, I'm glad to see visually accessible design getting discussed at more conferences.

If making software accessible comes from having a culture of good craftsmanship, it will extend to design as well.

Blake Masters, a student in Peter Thiel's class at Stanford (CS183), has recently posted some excellent class notes.¹ It's a long read, but well worth it. It's like an essay about the merits of creativity over competition, with many business insights. Here is an excerpt:

It may upset people to hear that competition may not be unqualifiedly good. We should be clear what we mean here. Some sense of competition seems appropriate. Competition can make for better learning and education. Sometimes credentials do reflect significant degrees of accomplishment. But the worry is that people make a habit of chasing them. Too often, we seem to forget that it’s genuine accomplishment we’re after, and we just train people to compete forever. But that does everyone a great disservice if what’s theoretically optimal is to manage to stop competing, i.e. to become a monopoly and enjoy success.

He goes on to discuss how competition can breed a kind of unhealthy focus on a competitor which leads to incremental thinking and tunnelled vision. This can be a disservice to creativity which needs freedom to explore new realms. It is creativity that gives birth to entirely new markets and naturally leads to becoming A Creative Monopoly. Apple is the classic example.

In the early days of web, the ability to publish and display showy effects were a novelty. They aren't any longer, the web is maturing and values are shifting. The question of "what can we do" is shifting to "what should we do?" And the choice of which products we use (and how we use them) depends on values I perceive as increasingly important.

Control

I want to know what's going on and have the power to make choices. I don't want to be worried about being cutoff from my own content. Privacy controls should be clear and easy to edit. It should be easy to change my mind and export my content or migrate to another service. I would not consider using a service without data portability.

Simplicity

Good consumer facing services typically focus on doing one thing well. The best way to ensure content loads fast and looks good across devices (and future unknown devices) is to keep the display simple. The best way to seduce users into adopting a product entails extreme focus and simple interface. Saying "no" is essential for good design.

Openness

A service becomes more attractive the more networked it is with other services. Users should be able to stitch together their own environment. One of the factors holding back enterprise software is that products extending from the big database companies purposely trap clients into their ecosystem.

In the past, I have used almost every major blogging platform and become unhappy after a while. My last platform was SquareSpace, which is highly designed but bloated with features making everything feel slow. Plus, I was horrified to learn that they don't provide a general export of posts, only something for WordPress.

Currently, I publish this site with Scriptogr.am, which simply converts markdown text files located in Dropbox into blog posts. Removing all the unnecessary layers has allowed in so many new pleasures. The main thing is being able to compose and publish posts without dependency on any particular editor, device, or browser. I particularly like using my iPad without rich text getting stripped-out by mobile Safari.

I'm always amazed how reduction opens up new possibilities.

SlideRoom recently announced how applicant portals are fully accessible for impaired users who rely on keyboard access or assistive technology. In the video above, I give an introduction to the large concepts. I am so proud to be part of this. Be sure to read the entire announcement on the SlideRoom Blog. The accomplishment is remarkable because it features many kinds of rich interaction without sacrificing accessibility.

Most sites discussing this topic are for developers, which is fine because they have influence. However, content for developers is not super helpful for the general public. I believe we could make a better effort to educate the public by celebrating the good examples of accessibility, not just complain about the bad. Videos like the one above aim to do that in a way that is visual and understandable for everyone.

More people would care about this issue if they were simply aware.

The conversation about our current crisis in education has me collecting thoughts which I find inspirational and practical. Today, I came across quotes from Steve Jobs and Dean Kamen that cover everything from liberal arts to math/science. Let's start with Steve:

"To design something really well you have to get it. You have to really grok what it's all about. It takes a passionate commitment to thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don't take the time to do that.

Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask a creative person how they did something, they may feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after awhile. That's because they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they've had more experiences or have thought more about their experiences than other people have. Unfortunately, that's too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our industry haven't had very diverse experiences. They don't have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions, without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one's understanding of the human experience, the better designs we will have."

Steve Jobs, Wired Interview, 1993

This has always been the reasoning behind providing a broad liberal arts background. Ultimately "value" comes from invention, fueled by creativity, which usually originates from a deep understanding of disparate things. It pains me when I hear people ask about the value of literature, history, or the arts. These things need no defense. Like "mothering" or "apple pie," their value is obvious.

On the other hand, there is a practical problem with education. Kids are graduating from college with $50K-$150K debt and no ability to get a job. I predict this is the next bubble to burst, the next crisis. The job market is fine, but it needs people with high level skills that kids are not getting in school. Most solutions I hear sound strictly vocational, and contradict the wisdom of Mr. Jobs above. That's why I was excited to hear this recent interview with inventor Dean Kamen. He points out that the current educational system needs to change in general to become more like sports, more exciting. Watch the video, but here is a transcription of my favorite part below:

"What most of our kids our missing is how exciting, how rewarding, how accessible math/science really are if you put them in the right context. (They're) not if you put them into a multiple choice test at 10am; and if you get it wrong then there seems to be 'Oh, you're no good.'

When kids go out to play basketball, there are nurturing coaches to help them improve. The teachers aren't bad, they are the same people that coach after school. But we have created an (educational) environment, which sadly, takes what ought to be really exciting about learning … about the power of math/science … and (instead) puts it into a structure that's not nearly as fun or enticing as a sporting event."

Dean Kamen, Interview with Bloomberg, 2012

I completely agree. The huge distance between concepts and applied excitement is bewildering! Perhaps this is why I chose my educational path within the arts? Even though art school is often ridiculed, I found it to be very inspiring. Teachers acted like coaches, as advocates to help me improve without concern for anything but my well-being. Exploration was encouraged and personally meaningful … and I always had a trusted mentor for exploratory discussion. I wonder if the arts might be lighting the way for other disciplines?

I realize that every field is different, and each requires different metrics for evaluating competence. My point is to simply show an example. Testing is useful, and educational institutions are not fully utilizing the extensive data in its possession. However, we would be wise to be more focused on creating excitement/participation on the front-end, knowing the results will come on the back-end. Focusing on test taking, the whole time, is death.