Designing Our Digital Environments
This is part two of our look at the spaces we inhabit to do our creative work. I wrote an abridged, more accessible version for my newsletter in January 2022, but this is an expanded version for those who want the research details behind the work.
Read here for part one, on physical workspaces.
Here's what you'll read:
Aiming for fit — explaining my design process
The four categories of knowledge work + the tools I use
Insights for designers and users
The misfits of creative work
Examining Twitter + other power tools
How to design your space
Where do you go on your computer when it's time to do the work?
What software enables you to do your best work?
Those are our guiding questions today.
Like the last time we explored environments, we're specifically talking about knowledge work. Our work gets us paid, finds us friends, and gives us fulfillment. This is the long game, so let's make sure we're playing.
To try and answer these questions, I'll walk you through the way I design software, dinner parties, and everything in between.
The best entry point to my design process comes from the great architect, Christopher Alexander. An Austrian-born mathematician, he used his background to build housing communities in Mexicali, tea houses in Linz, and campuses in Japan. His work has been as impactful on my thought process as anyone. The approach I describe is adopted from his 1964 math-driven design text, Notes on the Synthesis of Form.
Alexander's framing of all design interactions is a simple equation:
Form + Context = Fit
We start by looking at our work and the field of play — the context of our situation and goals. Then we look at the form — what tools do we use to do our work?
When I'm designing tools, I'm looking for a fit between what we create and the situation the user is in. When I'm designing my life, I'm looking for a fit between my time and how I want to spend it. We all just want a good fit.
Because systems most commonly improve via negativa, we start by asking what we can remove from the situation.
This leads us to our first design principle — remove the misfits. *
We often think adding a new habit or tool to our mix will help us — and it surely can! — but our system does not exist within a vacuum. We first need to get a lay of the land before we begin staking out a new structure.
So, we're aiming for fit by removing the misfits.
Then, to begin. Let's look at my life.
At the 30,000 foot view, I get paid to research and write, and I'm aiming to design software for your mind with people I love (context). This sets the stage for the types of tools I need to use in my time (form). And as you'll see below, there are plenty!
I've grouped the activities I do in digital environments into four categories — thinking, learning, doing, and connecting.
Like we did in our last piece, we’re building on Andy Matuschak’s idea of the enabling environment as a place that expands our capacity for great work.
This is my digital environment, grouped by activity with each tool listed.
The best way to learn is to do. So in this section, I'll describe how I frame these four categories and end with a question for you. If you would like to play along, add your tools to this blank diagram.
Thinking tools typically solve my need to explore. I think in space** — so a canvas or whiteboard is great for me — but I also love the fixed structure of an outliner tool (hence, my love for Roam).
I also do some thinking on Twitter. It's the layer I get information from, and it so frequently sparks new insights — leading me to save off a tweet, like it, or reach out and start a conversation. My Roam graph counts 724 tweets in it. Over a two-year period, that's about a tweet per day saved.
Most of my writing — in prose form — is done in Obsidian, but this could also be a side effect of doing the research work there. Lastly, consider Spotify. I use music to set the tone, drive my thought, and keep me in flow. A regular for me.
🙋♀️What types of thinking do you need help with?
Learning tools are different, in that I use the tool explicitly to gain some knowledge. This is typically done while browsing the internet, watching videos, or reading. Yet, my Roam graph also acts as this tool frequently — connecting the dots for me between different notes. Just last night, I came across a series of notes on embodied cognition that linked to some spatial thinking research I'm doing. You never know when the connections will strike, but giving yourself the opportunity affords the spontaneity.
You could say these learning tools are for fun or entertainment, as well. When I'm not using the web (via Sidekick) explicitly to learn, I'm usually reading something of interest or drowning myself in transfer rumors...which is much less good for you, if you have any experience in Euro soccer journalism.
🙋♀️Where do you go to learn new things?
Doing tools represent the layer where the work is done, so we’ll spend a bit more time here. The types of tools used are obviously dependent on the tasks you do, but, fortunately, prominent research has been done in this area.
An all-star research team outlined 12 design principles of creative environments (Resnick et. al 2005). One important one for us here is Low Threshold, High Ceiling, and Wide Walls.
Effective tool designs should make it easy for novices to get started (low threshold) but also possible for experts to work on increasingly sophisticated projects (high ceiling) [Myers 2000]. The low threshold means that the interface should not be intimidating, and should give users immediate confidence that they can succeed. The high ceiling means that the tools are powerful and can create sophisticated, complete solutions. Too often tools that enable creative thinking may be quite hard to learn (they don’t have a low threshold). Instead, they focus on providing numerous powerful features so that experts can assemble results quickly. Now, we add a third goal: wide walls. That is, creativity support tools should support and suggest a wide range of explorations. (pg. 3)
Our tools should promote self-efficacy, and we’ll be more confident that the tool is right for us to achieve our goals. That’s the low threshold. High ceilings make it so we can do highly advanced work, like how domain-specific languages help us solve our own problems. Wide walls, like those in Roam, allow for exploration beyond just one form of thinking.
Further, we can use the frame of a virtual workbench to guide us (Hewett 2005). Emphasis is mine.
Several of the features of the generic CPSE (creative problem solving environment) envisioned here would help to improve personal productivity in creative work, if only through provision of memory aids or retrieval cues helpful in recreating prior thinking. Some of the CPSE’s features would provide a simple easy way for the expert to store intermediate results that cue and reactivate the thinking that went into creating those intermediate results. This history would enable the person to ramp more quickly back up to speed after significant time delays or after intervening work on other projects. Finally, storage of intermediate results, and access to the thinking that led to those results, would facilitate the ability to develop and test alternative possibilities under varying sets of constraints without fear of loss of context or results. All of these features would greatly facilitate an individual domain expert’s ability to engage in exploration of risky alternatives. In other words, it would enable the type of exploratory thinking necessary for insights and creative results to occur. (pg. 24)
So, we’re looking at 1) a connected notebook to track our work, thoughts, and communications, with 2) a sandbox to simulate and test alternatives. Fantastic. Who’s building it?
Okay, back to present reality. When I'm coding, I'm using VSCode and Spyder. I create in Figma, but as mentioned, sometime it takes the form of a visual canvas for thought. Talking is a big part of my work — and my thought — so Otter.ai serves me at the desk and Voiceliner for thoughtful phone capture. Writing to produce typically happens in Obsidian, but Roam's outlining function helps me organize my thoughts. I've temporarily moved away from spreadsheets, but I'm sure my time in Excel and Airtable will return soon enough.
🙋♀️What tools can improve the work you do?
Connecting tools overlap here, as you'd imagine. Most of my work tends to be done over some form of chat — Zoom makes up the video calls, Discord the IMs, Gmail the emails, and my iPhone the texts. Other times I'm collaborating over interfaces and interaction designs in Figma. Then of course, there's social media, in which I use a total of one tool — Twitter.
🙋♀️Where do you connect with the humans?
The funny thing about this exercise is that you can clearly see what tools mean the most to me — Roam, Obsidian, Figma, Discord, Gmail, and above all, Twitter. They touch the most areas of my work, from initial thought to end product.
This is an insight! The most influential tools we have live at the intersection of thinking, learning, doing, and connecting. The closer our creative tools are to our audience, the less friction for people to see our work. This has important implications for designers of our digital environments!
Like literally, more than I can imagine to riff off right now. What does a tool for thought that enables you to share generative work look like? What does it not look like? ***
I suspect those questions will rise above the fold as we see the wave of new multiplayer tools come to market. People are paid to play video games. They can stream live on Twitch and earn more. They can collaborate with people around the world and create dynamic art pieces while you watch. They can even trade game items for real, tangible money. The end layer, with our audience, is in reach for everyone.
Furthermore, you’ll notice each power tool is a platform, as well. The community plugins in Roam, Obsidian, and Figma wildly enhance the vanilla versions. Even more, each puts the power of end user programming in my hands. If I can dream it and build it, I’ll be able to test it within my environment. The ability to tailor your space is tremendously powerful.
So this all seems sound, but how does this form fit with our context of creative work?
Creative work requires flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). It requires space to think, to breathe, to explore without restrictions. Most of all, it requires unbroken time.
These are the most common misfits in my life. Either I don't have the proper space or the requisite time to create. The result? Unformed thought and unfinished work.
(For the sake of the shorter form newsletter, I only explored the very center of our diagram. In the website version you’re on, further thoughts are shared below)
Let's start at the center of our diagram.
Because Twitter is the most powerful tool I use, it's also prone to abuse. When I'm least productive, I'm scrolling out of boredom, doom, or algorithmic manipulation.
It's at these times that my feed feels polluted. I'm hearing complaints about crypto price drops and people using Calendly. It's not a place to think, I'm learning crap, I'm not doing anything, and I don't want to connect with these people. These are misfits!
But we can't simply remove Twitter from our mix when we find such real benefits from the tool. Instead, we need to curate our followers (space) and limit when we absorb information (time).
Steven Johnson — author of two of my favorite books, Emergence and Where Good Ideas Come From — gives us a guide to use Twitter as an insight wizard. ****
It's hard to believe how well this resonates with me. In late 2016, after a few events that changed my perspective, I cleansed my Twitter. The best move was the simple unfollow, via negativa.
I cleared out the junk — the Trump-related tweets, the baseball rumors, the showmanship folks — and followed my nose to interesting accounts. Rainmaker1974 explained unique science facts that I could share with Donna. WrathOfGnon showed me the beauty of urban architecture in old cities. Some guy named Visa was spilling his heart and exploring his brain as a public act of faith to find his people. How could I not fall in love?
The recipe for Twitter is right there. Be selective about who you follow and limit the time you spend using it. As I've told friends for years, if you don't like your Twitter, it's on you to change it. There is intellectual and comical gold to be had. You just have to remove the misfits.
What about the other power tools?
Each of our power tools does great work for us, as noted above. But like all things, moderation is necessary.
Roam and Obsidian are prone to misfits from the feeling of productivity. Sasha Chapin summed my feelings well — when I’m at my worst, I’m keeping myself busy in my Roam graph, reviewing ideas and crossing things off to make me feel good.
It’s good to keep on track, but I can go overboard. Still, I can’t stress enough how powerful it is to have a notebook as a companion that you’re talking to. Mighty helpful for thinking through the very complex, which I’m often trying to do.
Discord is another beast. This can’t be the best solution we have for async communication. I’m sure of it. Yet, today it’s one of the most widely used options.
Notifications significantly disrupt performance on tasks that demand our attention (Stothart et. al, 2015) and stress us out (Adamczyk + Bailey, 2004). They have tried to aid this with muting, threads, and a host of other features, but it’s distracting. The biggest misfit we have with communication tools is distraction, but that’s not the only problem. Understanding tone, tracing provenance of information, and the inability for collective dialogue are also significant issues.
Gmail is similar. While I can get huge value from the newsletters and notes I receive, again it’s easy to get lost in distraction. Blocking off our time into chunks is one way to remove this misfit, and tools like RescueTime can help stop you from even using them during set times.
Figma’s weaknesses are minimal, unless I’m trying to use it as a tool for thought. Blocks of text aren’t linked in any meaningful way, so the metadata behind the information is left stranded.
Here, I’m dreaming of a Cathy Marshall-esque implicit structure (Marshall + Shipman 1993) feature to be added to Figma’s data structure. Imagine seeing a layer of information behind your work that highlights the implicit structure in your work’s layout, text, and references.
So much of what we create leaves behind breadcrumbs of how we think, which has implications in synthesis and conveying tacit knowledge from experts to novices. Passing along tacit knowledge is currently tremendously difficult to do, but algorithms can sort implicit structure out in the background, providing structure in hindsight. This should help.
Much more coming on this in the research we’re sharing in February 2022.
This piece outlined the components of our digital lives and explored removing the misfits from some of our influential tools.
I'll leave you with a few questions to explore your own digital space.
What tools make up your form that don't fit your context?
Are you missing any tools that could help create a better fit?
What have you used in the past that no longer works for you?
Today, a world exists where you can make your digital environment work with you in ways you probably didn't imagine. Soon — as in, the coming months and years — a world will take optimization 10-100x further. You'll never have to fill out another form, create another account, or remember another password if you don't want to. You'll have the power to amplify your thinking and focus your doing.
But all of that is your choice. Anyone wishing to intentionally craft their digital environment has a ton of questions to ask themselves. There's no one-size-fits-all solution, and honestly, that makes it fun. You have room to design. You have room to be you.
Go do,
Brendan
Footnotes Exist!
* This is a tease, I know, but I'll be stringing out the rest of my design principles over the coming notes to you.
** Last week, I had the pleasure of talking with Barbara Tversky — author of Mind in Motion, a recent favorite of mine. In it, she makes the case for spatial thinking as the root of our thought. It's a Thinking, Fast & Slow-type book, covering the studies in the field of embodied cognition. The two of us ended up discussing opportunities she sees in these tools, landing on the idea of visualizing a time lapse of creative projects to help educate on some of the tacit knowledge from the creator.
Like Thinking, Fast & Slow, I'd presume many of the studies here will face the replication crisis. With that said, in both cases, these are foundational contributions to the field of understanding human behavior. We can't throw baby out with the bathwater.
*** This exploration into how our thinking tools should work for us is at the heart of my research, which I'll be sharing an update on in next month's newsletter.
**** Okay, he didn't call Twitter an insight wizard; I made that phrase up. Over the holidays, I began the Harry Potter films (for the first time 👀), and the wizard universe has infiltrated my thoughts. Twitter does magically present me with insights and connections on a near daily basis, though, so I'll keep running with it.
As an aside to the footnote, a useful prompt I've found of late is — what would I do with a wand here? It's just a continuation of "Assume you have any resource you need, what would you do?" But the framing and recency of Hogwarts has helped me dream on ideas in an evocative way.