TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Technology

    Metamuse

    Tools for thought, product design, and how to have good ideas.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/1-tool-switching/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Mark McGranaghan: Uh, so I, I imagine something like that from you where you can pick, you know, your favorite black ink, your favorite highlighter, your favorite accent pen, put them in your little toolbox, and you have this small, very curated palette that you can swipe in and out when you’re actively working on a document, and you’re not confronted with like the Photoshop style 200 buttons, most of, most of which you don’t know what they do. 00:00:33 - Adam Wiggins: Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. Use the software for your iPad that helps you with ideation and problem solving. But this podcast isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse the company and the small team behind it. My name is Adam Wiggins and I’m here today with my colleague, Mark McGranahan. How are you doing, Mark? 00:00:52 - Mark McGranaghan: Doing all right. You know, it’s uh interesting times over here in Seattle with the virus, but otherwise doing pretty well. 00:00:56 - Adam Wiggins: This is a good moment to be on an all remote team, right? 00:00:59 - Mark McGranaghan: Indeed. 00:01:00 - Adam Wiggins: So the topic we wanted to talk a little bit about today is tool switching. And so this is the idea that if you take your stylus, your Apple pencil, and you touch to the screen, what happens? You know, what color is it inking? Is it erasing? Is it something else? What color is the ink? Is it something else totally different, like a a lasso or a scissor tool? And this is a a deeper topic than it might seem. Uh, because it comes to some values that I think Muse has or that we try to fulfill some principles, perhaps you could say in our design, including things about modelessness and things about sort of on-screen Chrome. But it also touches maybe on our journey from being a prototype in a research lab through to a sort of an MVP of beta and hopefully on our way to a publicly released, uh, commercial product that anyone can use. 00:01:51 - Mark McGranaghan: Yeah, it it’s been a really challenging problem, much more so than I thought it would be coming in. Uh, one does not simply ink on the iPad, it seems. 00:02:01 - Adam Wiggins: Indeed, yeah. And there’s a whole set of technical challenges that maybe one of these days we can get Julia on here to talk about would be great. Um, but yeah, maybe we can go back to the beginning. Can you, can you frame up the problem for us a little bit? What, what were we trying to accomplish? Uh, why, why not just sort of have a toolbar at the top, you tap on the thing like you would in Photoshop or any procreator or something to pick a tool and then off to the races. 00:02:24 - Mark McGranaghan: Yeah, so as a reminder just mechanically what we’re trying to do here is when you touch the uh Apple Stylist to the screen, do you get ink, do you get Eraser, what type of ink are you seeing, things like that. And the very standard way to do this in iPad apps is you have a persistent toolbar, often at the top of the screen or some other palette, where if you want to erase, you tap the erase icon and if you want to red ink, you tap the red ink icon. If you want to highlight, tap the highlighter and so on. And that’s a sort of mode where that is persistent until you go back to the toolbar and tap it again. Uh, so there are two main problems with the standard approach. One is that you have that toolbar in your face all the time, uh, which is a pretty big deal on the iPad. It’s a relatively small sized device and you want, uh, we want as much space as possible for your content and for your work, and to not always be looking at like Chrome and toolbars and buttons and other stuff that isn’t what you’re actually trying to think about and do deep work on. So that’s kind of the the chromeless goal. Uh, the other thing is modelessness. So a mode is um a property of an interface whereby when you go to do some physical action, The result depends on some hidden state of the app. So in this case, that that mode, that state is like what um inking button you have pressed in your palette toolbar or whatever. And the problem with that is that these toolbars, they tend to be off to the side of the device away from where you’re working, so you have to basically have your attention in two different places. It’s you’re looking and thinking about your, your work, the text that you’re highlighting, for example, but then you got to remember constantly what’s the actual thing that I’m currently working with. Uh, this is subtly different to, for example, if you have a physical highlighter. So you have a physical highlighter and you’re going to highlight like the highlighter is thicker, it’s bright yellow, it’s very obvious what you’re doing because you’re looking at the, your hand and your instrument and your work, which are all in the same place. But again, that’s not the case with a typical toolbar. Um, and so we wanted to try to find an interface that didn’t have this modeful property that wasn’t moded like this, uh, as well as it didn’t have, um, all this chrome in your face all the time. 00:04:33 - Adam Wiggins: And a great articulation of this uh modes concept is in the Humane interface by Jeff Roskin. And he talks about the, I think the really classic example there is the caps lock. This is just confounded many, many generations of computer users where when caps lock is on, different things happen when you press keys, specifically, you get the upper case rather than the lower case. And of course, this is really confounding for something like a password field where you can’t even see that feedback immediately. But even in a uh another case where you can see what you’re typing. You type a word or two and then you realize everything’s upper case because the caps lock indicator that being on or not, you either have to remember it, or you have to kind of look down and see an LED or some kind of indicator, and you tend not to do that because your attention isn’t there, your attention is on what you’re writing as it should be. 00:05:23 - Mark McGranaghan: Yep, this also points to a third issue with the standard moded interfaces, which is that you actually need to physically do the action of moving your hand away from your work to the toolbar and back again. And if you’re constantly switching between inking and erasing or different types of inks, that actually becomes quite troublesome. 00:05:41 - Adam Wiggins: So let’s go back in the story a little bit and kind of Work through the product or design problem. So we started from this place of let’s, let’s do the Raskin thing and try to be modeless and also that we don’t want a bunch of junk on the screen or we want as little stuff on screen as possible, be focused on the user’s content, keep all the, keep all the space for your stuff and not for the applications, uh, administrative debris. And so, uh, back when we were working on this in a research context, which probably explain what that means a little bit, but Uh, we set out with this set of goals and, and how did we first approach that or what what were some of the first things that we tried to see if we could fulfill these, these goals while still letting you, of course, do lots of things with the stylus. 00:06:23 - Mark McGranaghan: Yeah, well, so I don’t think we, we fully knew what we were getting ourselves into. Pretty early on we had these two goals. We don’t want to have any Chrome and we want it to be modeless, but if you If you do both of those things in any obvious way, you basically can only have one thing that the stylist does. um, so for a while our solution was you can only do black ink, that’s it, uh, which actually got us surprisingly far, um, but then we need to try some other things and, and then we did a whole uh litany of experiments. We, we did try some standard toolbars and palettes. We tried to make them as small and minimal and nonobtrusive as possible. Uh, we tried using various uh quasi modes, which is a term that I want to introduce here. So, uh, a standard mode is when You kind of do an action to trigger the mode and then you go and do your work and then you go back to the, the mode switcher to switch it again, whereas a quasi mode is when there’s something that you’re basically holding down, it’s like when you use the shift key or the command key or holding down some other control button, you know, that sort of thing while you’re doing the action with your other hand, basically. 00:07:28 - Adam Wiggins: Yeah, so going back to the capslock example, Caps Lock and shift do the same thing. But the difference is that with shift, you are not likely to forget you’re in the mode because you’re physically holding the button down. And if you ever get confused about how to leave the mode, you basically just release, stop doing things, and you sort of go back to your default state, exactly. 00:07:47 - Mark McGranaghan: So, we, we tried all kinds of quasi modes, uh, we, we didn’t necessarily have a keyboard, which is the obvious place to invoke a quasi mode with some kind of control key, but I think we tried, um, Using a physical keyboard, which you can sometimes get with tablets. We tried pressing like the volume button on tablets, we tried putting your thumb over the camera so that it registers a black image. Um, we tried pressing on various special places on the screen like press in the bottom left corner if you’re a right-handed anchor. Um, so there was various experiments with quasi modes. 00:08:21 - Adam Wiggins: Also worth noting there that in many cases, so Muse runs on the iPad, but In the context of the research lab, we were building for a number of different tablet stylus platforms, including the Microsoft Surface, Google’s ChromoS, and, um, I think we might have even done something with Android at one point. And so those actually platforms have different affordances or different hardware capabilities. So notably the Surface, for example, has this reversible stylus where the back is a quote eraser, which actually is really nice because again, You know, you, you have that physical reminder, just like your highlighter, um, example, you’re holding the thing in your hand in a reverse position. That’s clear, you can see it, you can feel it. And so you you flip the thing around to erase and flip it back. Fortunately, the iPad doesn’t have that. Uh, yeah, other, other platforms like ChromoS, for example, have a barrel button, all of that has certain restrictions tied into the operating system. So, we tried quite a lot of crazy stuff on this. 00:09:15 - Mark McGranaghan: Yeah, uh, we also tried some stuff just using the stylist differently. So one experiment that you had done was using the stylist to write special symbols. You called them glyphs, and it was something like if you draw an X then it’s cut or something like that and if you draw a downward V then that’s paste. um, so we did that experiment. Uh, we also tried. Um, using the stylus with different attitudes towards the tablet. So typically when you’re using a stylus, it’s like pretty vertical with respect to the tablet, uh, but you can by holding a different way, you can make it almost uh parallel with the tablet, sort of like you’re doing a a pencil shading motion, uh, and there, there are sensors in most devices to detect that altitude. Um, so we actually use that angle to trigger different behaviors of the stylus. 00:10:06 - Adam Wiggins: Yeah, notably, that one was the one that we kind of found most promising. I think we published maybe our Muse design article included that as well as Yuli’s. Yuli gave a talk at a conference last year with that approach where basically when you would hold the stylus overhand, it would allow you to move cards. Uh, or resize them, but when you held it in the, uh, more the, the standard writing grip, that would give you ink. And I, I really loved that. It worked really well, uh, in a lot of ways. It was very intuitive and, uh, you know, different grips is something that comes naturally to humans and it was pretty hard to get confused between them. But ultimately actually that one was. Killed by a technical challenge, which was the iPad, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other platforms have the same problem. I suspect it’s a hardware thing, but as you get close to the edge of the screen, for us, it was, I don’t know, 50 to 80 pixels, which maybe is, I don’t know, yeah, a couple centimeters. Uh, it would basically start to produce bad values. We did a bunch of digging on this and filed some bugs and some other things, but ultimately and and saw that this is just behavior that’s systemwide, but I think no one else ran into it because who the hell cares about the exact, uh, you know, why is it critical to hold the pencil at a certain altitude when you’re near the edge of the screen? Even like typically the only apps that really make use of this data are art kind of art drawing apps, Procreate or. by 53 or something like that, and you can see when you use them, if you move towards the edge, you lose that that sensitivity or the data gets bad about the position of the stylist, but it doesn’t really matter because it just changes fairly subtly what’s happening with the brush. But for us, the difference between moving a card, which could even have the effect of deleting it if you flick it off the screen and inking is huge. And so that ended up being a To a total non-workable thing for us, and we had to step back from it. So where did we land? So, so we went through this whole process of trying different things on different platforms, again in the research context, and then later, once we had kind of resolved onto the iPad as a platform and the prototype of what would eventually become a spin out product of Muse, by the time we went, went to make this transition from the lab to A commercial product we had actually settled on this, uh, position of the stylus as the solution, but then I think it was the early MVP and the early beta testing with with real users, not the initial usability tests. I think those, you know, if you got someone and to just try the thing for 20 minutes and and taught them how to use this different grip, that worked fine. It was more in practice over longer use in the real world where the edge of the screen problem became. Uh, basically a show stopper. And so now we’re in this mindset of, OK, we need to make this more reliable for real world use and we, we had to make the transition. So what did we eventually do on that? 00:12:55 - Mark McGranaghan: So we ended up with two mechanisms. Uh, the first is for erasing. If you press on the screen with your non-writing hand, say your left hand, while writing with the stylist in your right hand, that will actually do an erase. So while you, while a finger is pressed down on the screen, You have a quasi mode to do a race with a stylus, and then when you let go of your, of your finger, then the stylus goes back to inking. And then for selecting which ink you use, currently we have three options, a standard black ink, a sort of accent, purple ink, and a highlighter in yellow. Uh, we have this uh flow where you can drag from any edge of the iPad screen. With the stylus, and when you drag out from the edge, it reveals a small subtle um ink palette where you have those three options, and then you can select among those inks like a standard ink toolbar. Uh, and then optionally you can swipe back from that toolbar back to the edge of the screen and hide it again. So this is basically the best, uh, set of compromises that we can come up. We really like the quasi mode or you’re fairly limited on the iPad with much hardware options you have. Uh, so for now we’re just using the one finger down and that works quite well for racing, but that only gives you one, you know, degree of freedom. And so for the other inks, we have this, this toolbar that you can slide out, and it is still…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/10-tools-for-thought/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: I think the process is just inherently much messier than that, and you need to let go a little bit and say the tool is going to help you make this stew, and then you’ll sleep on it for a few days and then somewhere else, something new will pop out. Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. Muse is software for your iPad that helps you with ideation and problem solving, but this podcast isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse, the company and the small team behind it. I’m Mark McGranaghan, and I’m here today with my colleague Adam Wiggins. How’s it going, Adam? 00:00:30 - Speaker 2: I’m pretty good, Mark. I just got back from a short trip up to the Baltic Sea, which is a pretty easy train ride from where I live in Berlin. This is the first real trip I’ve taken since, I guess, pandemic started, so about 667 months. And it was really refreshing, even though it was just a couple of days, and I was reminded of something you said when we, I think it was in our very 2nd episode of the podcast about having good ideas, which is how fresh surroundings refresh your brain creatively. And yeah, I had that there and it was really, was really that came to mind because I was really reminded of how much I, I missed that in this time where travel is not a part of our lives the way it used to be. 00:01:12 - Speaker 1: Yeah, I’m always surprised by how powerful that effect is. So today our topic is tools for thought. Now Adam, what does that mean for you? 00:01:21 - Speaker 2: Well, Tools for Though means a lot of things to me, but I think the first place my head goes to is Howard Rheingold’s classic book from, I think it was the 80s, where he details Xerox PARC and many of these visionary folks who are thinking about computing in its early days and what that could do for humans and our creative and productive lives. But I actually stepped back even a little bit from there because the original tools for thought, I feel like are anything that lets you externalize your thoughts. And so pen and paper, you know, writing, language, uh, is the starting place there, the printing press maybe. Uh, but more in modern times, things like sketchbooks or I don’t know, in a startup office, you’ve got whiteboards in a school, you’ve got chalkboards, Post-it notes are a great tool for thought, in fact, because you can write down these little snippets of information and move them around maybe in a physical space with colleagues. Um, there’s even something like, I remember at a team summit we had a few years back, might have even been there in the park in Seattle, you wanted to illustrate a point and ended up grabbing a stick and basically drawing a very simple diagram in the dirt, right? So anything that lets you really either make visual or somehow externalize what’s in your mind, I think is, is a type of tool for thought. And that also includes, I think the cult of the consumption side, which is Um, what I usually call active reading. So a book and a highlighter together, I think is, is a type of tool for thought. The act of highlighting passages that you find impactful or relevant to what you’re trying to learn about makes this learning, this reading process into an active process and a learning one, and that, that becomes a tool for thought as well. 00:03:06 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and I’m sure we’ll dive into a lot of different kind of specific instantiations of tools for thought. But another way to think about this is, what is the problem you’re trying to solve here? Two possibilities, one would be, you’re trying to obtain the knowledge that has already been generated by someone else. You’re trying to learn some facts, memorize some figures, maybe uh retain some ideas and different tools for thought can help you with that. Another angle would be, you’re trying to generate new ideas, novel thoughts, and uh a tool might help you accomplish that as well. And I think actually which one you’re trying to do is quite important for which tool you choose. 00:03:40 - Speaker 2: Yeah, another reference I was looking up in prep for this episode was Andy Matzek’s work, and he’s got a piece called How Do We Develop Transformative Tools for Thought, and his work, his current research track is more on that learning, retaining side of things, these mnemonic devices and so on. This is a nice article. I’ll I’ll link it to the show notes because he does on the later part of the article, he describes a lot of this history, particularly around the computing tools for thought, Steve Jobs and the bicycle for the Mind. Uh, he talks about that he thinks, quoting Alan Kay, who’s who’s one of the sort of big visionaries in this world, uh, as saying that actually medium for thought in some cases might be a better, better term, but for whatever reason, the, uh, the tools for thought seems to be the, the label that that stock. So Andy’s work, I think it’s a good example of the how do you how do you get more out of what you’re trying to learn about and then there’s the having ideas or generating new thoughts or generating original ideas, which is obviously the space Muse is trying to plan or at least we’re trying to create a tool that can help the the end user to have better ideas to develop their ideas. So yeah, coming back to the digital space, the Tools for Thought book spends time on, for example, the Xerox PARC lab that invented a lot of the modern GUI operating system and other things that we, we sort of take for granted in the modern computing world. There’s also folks like Doug Engelbart and his vision to augment human intellect. There’s people like Alan Kay who invented small talk and object-oriented programming, had this vision for a thing called a DynaBook that I guess you could say physically looked a lot like an iPad looks today, but was more focused on the creative and productive uses of computing. And there’s even stuff like, uh, or folks like Vever Bush, who wrote an essay that people still quote today from the 1940s about this thing called a Memax or this vision he had for a thing called a Memex. And I think one thing you get when people talk about these, uh, the Engelbarts and caves and bushes. They’re often sort of lamenting a future that maybe we were dreaming of in these times that then you look at today’s computing and for all the really impressive technology that we have and all the things that computers and software and the internet can do for us, in some ways, we didn’t really fulfill some of the beautiful vision that these folks had. In fact, I think some of those folks are even in some ways a bit bitter, you know, towards the end of their careers when they see all these startups and whatever, putting all this money into these shiny products that in fact are more kind of entertainment boxes rather than something designed to really elevate the human race. 00:06:23 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and Andy makes a point in his article that there are good economic reasons why that’s the case or why we would expect that to be the case. Um, essentially because new ideas and tools for thought are sort of public good, so it’s hard to capture economic value when you make innovations in that space. Um, but we still think it’s possible, um, both to have new ideas here and to build a business around it. 00:06:43 - Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I guess if we fast forward a little bit from the Halcyon. Days of these, these computing visionaries in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, a little bit more to when personal computing became commonplace, maybe the 1990s, and I think what you see is when you, or at least when I think of productivity software really broadly speaking, I tend to think of authoring, what I usually call authoring applications. This is something like you use Illustrator, if you’re a designer or you use Microsoft Word, if you’re a writer, or use Excel if you’re a financial analyst. These are really designed for an end artifact. You’re producing something to be consumed by someone else. When you type into your word processor, it’s because eventually you want to publish that book or publish an article online. I think folks often do use these offering. Tools for the thinking phase. If you’ve ever opened your word processor or programmer, maybe use a text editor or something like that to sketch down some ideas, not what the intention is that’s ever going to be given to someone else, but to get your own, your own head together. Just because that’s the tool, you know how to use, it’s right there, but it’s not really designed for that. In fact, in a way, it’s it’s a poor fit, you just happen to know about it. And I’ve seen some really creative uses, uh, certainly on the, for people that like laying things out visually and spatially kind of like we. We strive for with Muse. We’ve seen, for example, um, we saw someone that did a master’s, did all their master’s thesis research in illustrator, because they wanted to lay out all these papers they were reading and the excerpts they were taking from them and how they all connect together. They wanted on this big spatial canvas. And it turns out that illustrator was the best choice for that at that time. Maybe nowadays people do that with figA somewhat, which I think is great, uh, that people are doing these innovative uses. But that was part of what led to the impetus for us wanting to build a tool for thought that was more something that’s purpose built for enhancing the individual’s or even a group’s thinking. Now in practice, because we’ve seen so few commercial tools for thought, I wonder if that means that either people don’t value that ideation step enough to want to invest in that. So that’s, you know, monetarily, do they want to pay for software, but it’s also just taking the time to learn a piece of software. Uh, or to put your data and your thoughts into a piece of software when that’s not the end place it’s going to be. Um, so I think that’s, that’s certainly a, you know, a risk or an open question for Muse and really anyone else that’s working on a Uh, on a tool for thought. 00:09:13 - Speaker 1: Yeah, I do think there’s a commercial piece there where the obviously biggest market is when you’re close to the end product that you’re producing for a business, and you’re producing a presentation, you’re producing a book, there’s obvious economic value that you want to attach to that and there’s a bunch bunch of people who obviously need to do that. 00:09:28 - Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that’s most notable when you, when you try to sell software to professionals, if you say one of the best pitches you can offer is this will make you look really good to your client. You will close more deals or you will impress your boss or you will get that big, that big deal that you’re trying to do and so presentation software or really good, you know, financial modeling or, you know, the word processor, that’s, that’s the value there is, is really clear to people. If you say this will make your ideas better or make your decisions better for some reason that that’s a less poignant sales pitch, I think. 00:10:00 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and I keep coming back to this idea that there’s an incomplete understanding of the creative process. We’ve long advocated for this. 3-step process where you’re 1, gathering raw materials, 2, actively reading, processing, ruminating, brainstorming on those materials, and then 3, offering an end product. I think a lot of people think of the creative process as 1 and 3, because there’s obvious, you know, physical content that you’re dealing with in each of those cases that you have to pull in some raw materials like site in your paper, and you have to produce a paper at the end to send to the publisher, but you can kind of get away without doing the middle stuff without, you know, thinking. Um, or you can just do it all in your head, but the premise with Muse is that there’s a very powerful and important second step there that with the right tooling support can give you even more power as a thinker. 00:10:47 - Speaker 2: Yeah, one place that Tools for Thought has come back into the current conversation is the product Rome Research, who’s been getting a lot of traction among people who I think like to think deeply, particularly built around a daily journaling practice, which I think is a really A good way to get your thoughts out in a free form way. Uh, one of the things I remember them complaining about, if that’s the right way to put it, is being trapped in this category of note taking. Note taking is an interesting category because it seems to span a lot of things. You’ve got a classic like Evernote. Which in theory should be kind of a tool for thought. It’s supposed to be sort of a second brain. You put stuff into it, you can find it later. But the reality is it doesn’t necessarily help you find connections. I think it sort of failed to deliver on that promise. It’s maybe more of a knowledge base or knowledge store. I use Dropbox for that, for example, and I think that’s true for a lot of notes apps, things we’ve talked about here before, something like a bear, for example. It’s a really nice way to quickly capture a thought, you know, on your smartphone and then you have access to it later, but it’s not really a place to do a lot of deep ideation. I don’t know, maybe you sketched down a few, few thoughts you have in bullet point form, but it’s not a good place for really freeform ideation and maybe that’s a place where Rome is helping change. Things a little bit. Uh, I also see this tool for thought, uh, sometimes applied to some other hot new products which include notion, which is more of a team wiki team brain kind of thing, but I think it can fit with that as well. FIMA, as previously mentioned, sometimes people use it as this kind of visual canvas, even something like Air Table, which is a spreadsheet, but often again, people use it in these team contexts to capture knowledge, uh, and to basically find shared understanding on the team. It’s not in. there’s no end artifact for the client. Uh, it’s more internal to what the team’s own sense of understanding of problem space. 00:12:37 - Speaker 1: Yeah, now what’s interesting to me is why are tools like this useful tools for thought. I think some people would say it’s because for example, you can capture and store all this information and you can form explicit links between them and everything is organized and searchable, and I think there’s something to that. There’s certainly um value. In that use case, but I believe that most of the creative work the mind does, especially around generating new ideas, is not done in your thinking mind. It’s basically not done consciously. You have this massively parallel process running in your background, including when you’re sleeping, that’s generating new ideas, forming, forming new connections, and you basically can’t think your way, can’t put 1 ft in front of the other to get to new ideas like that. You have to just kind of let it go wild and hope, hope it comes up with something. And the way you feed that process is you ruminate over a lot of interesting intellectual material. So the reason I think these apps are useful for two of thought is twofold. One is people like to use them. They just like to spend time writing notes in Rome and kind of regardless of where those notes end up or if you ever read them again, just the process of writing and thinking as you’re writing. Generates a lot of fodder for this process in your, in your sleeping mind. And number 2, increasingly these tools support multimedia, and I, I’ve long said creative thinking never takes uh just one medium, it’s never just text or just images and tools like Figma, it’s very easy to make a canvas where you have images and text and vector graphics and so on, all in one place. I think that’s important because that’s again, naturally how the mind…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/11-authentic-marketing/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: Because oftentimes when we launch startups, we are very keen to tell the world why we’re so different and so unique, but we often forget to tell them why we’re equally good as what what’s already there. 00:00:17 - Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. Muse is software for your iPad that helps you with ideation and problem solving. This podcast isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse the company and the small team behind it. I’m here today with my colleague Mark McGranaghan. Hey Adam, and our investor Lisa Ankle. Hey, this is quite an impressive use of internet technology, I think, because Lisa, you’re in Singapore. I believe it’s 9 p.m. for you. Mark, you’re in Seattle. It’s 6. a.m. for you, and I’m here in Berlin at 3 p.m. So this is truly a globe spanning call, but it works. Seems to be. So Lisa, welcome to the to the podcast, and can you tell us a little bit about yourself? 00:00:55 - Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. So I’m Swedish person living here in uh in Singapore, have been here for a couple of years, have a background in working for startups, often as an early employee, and for the past 2.5 years I’ve been part of building out a VC firm. Called Antlers. So we actually run startup generator programs where we help individuals find their co-founders and then launch startups and then we invest in the best teams. On the side, privately, I also do a couple of angel investments, um, a few here and there, select ones, and then my background is in, in marketing and product primarily on the growth side. 00:01:29 - Speaker 2: One of the things that caught my attention about Antler, in addition to its, I guess from my point of view, uh, exotic location. Uh, is that it’s taking some of the, I guess, accelerator model pioneered by by combinator and others, and sort of bringing that to, uh, to this new place. But also I think it has just very nice branding marketing presentation. And I feel like that may even be more important for a for an accelerator who’s constantly recruiting companies, you’re a two sided marketplace in a way, right? You’re connecting companies with investors, right? And so being Uh, being something that presents itself in a way that’s interesting, attractive, appealing to both of those parties, uh, seems quite important. 00:02:09 - Speaker 1: It definitely is, and I think it’s, it’s hard because we want to convince entrepreneurs like yourselves that it’s better to to launch a company together with us than to do it, to do it alone and to to kind of convince entrepreneurs, it’s a very hard, I think, persona. To, to crack. So we try to work with kind of repeat entrepreneurs and very experienced founders. Yeah, and then also establish ourselves as a trustworthy investor. So it’s definitely those kind of two sides that you mentioned. 00:02:34 - Speaker 2: Great. Well, I think that the topic we want to do today is authentic marketing, and you sort of suggested this based on uh the couple episodes ago we talked with Max Schoening from GitHub. And I think we were talking more about product things, but that naturally drifted into this, uh, into this field. And um he talked a bit about the being close to product and even what it means to, you know, what is the marketing playbook in 2020. Uh, and in many ways, he felt like authentic marketing is one that that doesn’t have much of a playbook or you’re doing things that are new and special to you or speaking with your voice in a way that makes sense for The audience for your your product. But of course at the same time, while just saying there’s no playbook, obviously marketing is a skill. It is a whole career field. And in fact, I was reminded of a podcast I heard recently with Patrick McKenzie where he basically described his whole career as being built around taking concepts from the marketing world and bringing repackaging them for engineers who typically don’t appreciate the depth of that skill and then repackaging that in a way. That it’s comprehensible and makes sense to them. 00:03:40 - Speaker 1: I think the episode you had with Max was super interesting, especially around the product principles and kind of having them, having them in place, and it reminded me quite a bit of what you also talked about the company values and the importance of, of choosing what not to do because it’s so easy to say with this, this, this and that, and by choosing everything you don’t have any decision making in the company and I think that’s kind of ties into very much around the marketing and Positioning as well because you want to be for everyone and you want to be this wide, you know, very broad and wide thing and you don’t want to exclude anyone, but by doing so, you also don’t help, you know, the customers or the potential users to to navigate or or to understand you better. So I think that was a very good kind of similarity. 00:04:23 - Speaker 2: Yeah, if you’re everything for everyone, then you’re someone understand what you are. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:04:29 - Speaker 2: Well, maybe that naturally leads to a conversation you and I have been having here as we are gearing up towards our product launch and thinking about how we want to explain news to a wider audience. We have our kind of our core group of people who’ve been following our story, maybe even back to the research lab days, and if they, I don’t know, read our 5000 word research article and listen to Mark and I talk on the podcast for 10 hours, they can understand the product, but we’re trying to find a way to package that a little bit more tightly so that more people can get access to that message. And and one of the things that has come up there in our conversations or as you’ve been, have been advising us is what category are we in? And this is honestly a real struggle because it’s important to put yourself in a category that’s an easy way for someone to understand what you are. Are you a car? Are you a kitchen knife? Are you a word processor? Are you a photo editing program? And of course, you can be new and different and better, but starting with, here’s what it is, you know, Google Docs maybe was quite different. In some ways than what came before, but ultimately, you could have described it as well. It’s Microsoft Word, but on the web. Um, but we’ve really struggled with this at Muse. What’s your take on the the sort of the category question and how it fits into the larger positioning topic? 00:05:41 - Speaker 1: Yeah, you’re not alone in feeling this way. It was the same when we started Antler. It’s been the same with multiple startups I worked with. It’s really hard to kind of choose because oftentimes you actually do something new. That’s why you’re a startup and you don’t want to be like someone else. It’s already out there, but I think the risk of not choosing is so high, so you kind of have to choose, even if you choose something that you’re not super happy with. I tried to compare it with like, if you walk around in a grocery store, you want to know what shelf you’re gonna go to, if you want to find the nuts or the dried fruits or going to the candy shelf or going to the fruit stand, and by positioning yourself next to the fresh fruits or next to the candy, it tells a lot about your brand and if you are kind of a healthy snack or if you are not a healthy snack, like the peanuts, the salted peanuts will be. Next to the chips and candy, right? But then if you have a whatever nature bar, they will be next to the fruits. So it does tell a story. I think it’s important to take, to have the discussion and to take it, and you may not land in something that feels completely right because it’s new, so you will feel a bit uncomfortable. But if you don’t choose, then others will choose for you. And that’s the big risk. Then you will have journalists, users and customers, and they will start calling you things and they will all start calling you different things, and that’s horrible for SEO and it’s really bad. Uh, because no one will remember you. So even if you choose something that’s not awesome, at least you have something and you can be consistent. 00:07:00 - Speaker 3: This reflects my experience talking with friends and family about Muse. Initially, I would try to describe the app from first principles in terms of all the novel things that we’re doing and the the unique interaction model and man, people had a really tough time understanding what it was. But once I started describing it in terms of things they were familiar with, note taking apps, personal. Information management, those are the two main ones. I really stuck better and then you could give them the deltas, you know, it’s that, but here are the deltas and the deaths. It’s Microsoft Word, but it’s on the web. People get excited about on the web and likewise, we have a series of deltas for use that was quite effective. Although I had never thought about the people start to pick names for you angle, which uh now that you mentioned it seems quite important. 00:07:36 - Speaker 2: And sometimes that’s good. You want to wait and see how people describe you and then maybe adopt that because in many cases, the target audience or The people who want what you’re offering are actually better able to find the right words. 00:07:50 - Speaker 1: The problem with doing that is that your very smart customers are not, they don’t have a big following, maybe some do, but some of them may not have a big following online and the people who do are the tech journalists, and they might not have time to think this through, and they take a concept they already know and they will just splash it onto the article and then there you are. 00:08:10 - Speaker 2: Yeah, when it comes to journalists and even reviewers that go relatively deep, you know, in the end, they need to crank through a lot of articles or reviews or whatever it is they’re doing in a relatively short period of time. They don’t have weeks and months to get deeply familiar with your product and your philosophies and your all the ideas you’re trying to to share. So of course, they’re going to look for the, the shorthand. So if you don’t, if you don’t give them that shorthand, then yeah, you risk a lot of just fragmented. Sort of description. Yeah, for me, this was the very point. Once we got into this discussion, I started working through this, uh, it, it really called back to me to my Hiroku experience. And so here when we were working on this platform for web deployment in the late, uh, sort of like 2008ish period, and we ran into the same problem because there was this clear, I guess you call it category which was hosting, but in many ways it had all these. Associations really led people in the wrong direction, particularly the historic kind of shared hosting FDP and PHP kind of stuff. Um, and cloud didn’t exist yet and cloud infrastructure didn’t exist. And eventually we did go along with an industry term which was platform as a service. In some ways I was never that great. I don’t think customers are like, I don’t know, industry analysts would use that, but customers didn’t really use it. They didn’t, they didn’t really think of it that way. Um, and, and we struggled with it for a long, long time, basically, as long as I was there, and many years later, I don’t know, 10 years after we started the company is when the industry settled on some terms. One was containerization, that’s for the Dockers and Cougarneti stuff, you know, at Hiroku we made up this weird word dino. Because there was, there was nothing that that behaved in this way. And so we needed a new word for it. And eventually the industry came up with a word which was container. And later on, there’s another cat there was a category or a name for this type of platform, which is serverless. Now that’s a well known space. And we even had like a no servers or forget about servers, that was part of our message, but it just, it wasn’t a category. We were just doing this weird thing that no one could understand and then yes, exactly that problem. Customers, journalists, colleagues, investors, whatever else they want to stick you into this, into a category that isn’t a good fit. And then yeah, I don’t know it was this, it was this constant struggle. In the end it worked out for us, I guess, because we’re doing something that I think was different and special and, and, and ultimately people. Enough people got it, uh, to make the business successful, but still, it was a constant source of pain for me personally, not only to just, I don’t know, write a good homepage or something, but also even what I usually call just the cocktail party experience, which is just what Mark, you just said, Mark, which is chatting with someone that you haven’t caught up with in a long time, whether or not they’re tech industry people are not around the dinner table at a family event, and they say, what are you doing? And you want to like sum it up in a couple of sentences and Just could never do it and just people were left scratching their head and they thought that I was being withholding or I didn’t want to tell them and that wasn’t it. It was like, well, no, you know, I need to sit you down and give you a 20 minute lecture on the history of web development so you can understand this product. And yeah, no, that was always pretty unsatisfying. 00:11:12 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think we had the fear of ending up in the wrong. That really drove my initiatives when we, when we launched and started answer. I did not want it to be in the bucket of incubators because in Singapore alone there are 53 different incubators, most of them, I mean, of course, some of them are great, but many of them belong to corporates and I mean, I’m gonna sound like a bitch, but nothing good has ever come out of them. And we didn’t want to be in that bucket because we wanted to build great companies and then we also didn’t want to be an accelerator because that’s a bit different because then you take in an existing team with an existing product and you help them accelerate their growth. We brought founders together, you know, in the first place and helped them navigate what product to build in the first place and then invest. So therefore we, we kind of landed after a lot of pain in the term startup generator that we were generating startups and we’ve been sticking to it for 2.5 years and now. We talk about ourselves more as a VC firm because we’re also now doing a little bit later stage investments as well that we are expanding. So now we have VC firms, and now I’m just a VC kind of boring, but that’s life. And I think, I think that was necessary for us to kind of stand out when we were launching that to tell the story that we were different from from these incubators you would know or the accelerators you would know. 00:12:24 - Speaker 2: That’s a and and maybe a good illustration of someone’s gonna, you know, pick words for you. I think I described you as an accelerator there just 5 minutes ago or something, something like that. So. It’s the, it’s the easy thing to reach for. I I know that. I know that term. I, I have a space for it in my mind, and that’s that positioning concept kind of calling back to the 1980 seminal seminal book just titled Positioning is it’s all about that space in a person’s mind and we all have busy lives and we have a lot of information coming to us all the time and you just you you always reach for that quick shorthand. Yeah. 00:12:59 - Speaker 3: So, I’m curious if you’re going to position a product or service and you want to be in a space like to stand out in that space. Um, we go back to the Google Docs example of you’re in the word processor space, but it has this unique aspect. Are there particular techniques for doing that so that you stand out effectively? 00:13:14 - Speaker 1: Yeah, so there is actually a framework that I of…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/12-growing-ideas/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: There just really doesn’t seem to be an effective concrete practice for taking like day to day insights and accumulating them, like rolling them up into a snowball of novel ideas. 00:00:16 - Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. Muse is software for your iPad that helps you with ideation and problem solving. This podcast isn’t about Muse product, it’s about Muse the company and the small team behind it. My name is Adam Wiggins. I’m here today with my colleague Mark McGranaghan. Adam, and a guest today, Andy Matuschek. Hello, thanks for joining us today, Andy. I think you’re about as close as there is to Rockstar and the tools for thought space. 00:00:39 - Speaker 1: That’s a really distressing statement. 00:00:42 - Speaker 2: Yeah, we’ll, we’ll talk more about why this space is so small a little later on, but for those that might not know you that are listening, maybe you can briefly give us your background. 00:00:51 - Speaker 1: Sure, I’ve kind of a meandering background. It begins in technology. When I was a kid, I was constantly developing video game engines and kind of these tools for creative people. I, um, with a couple of roommates, I worked on the, the first native Mac OS 10 graphics app and did that for a bunch of years and then made some open source software for developing. I was always really into tools for others. Went off to Caltech and kind of got introduced to science, serious science. And uh kind of got my, my very pragmatic engineer perspective salted uh with all that. But unlike all of my peers who who went off to get a PhD, I, I went off to Apple and got a different kind of, it kind of felt like a graduate program of studying at the, the heels of all of these people with like jeweler’s loops that they were using to to look at individual pixels of devices and There, there my work became much less about just programming and much more about kind of the intersection between technology and design. I, I got myself involved in in all these projects that it kind of the through line was that they, they were about what was central to dynamic media, uh, as opposed to just pictures on screens. So things like, you know, interactive gestures and like the 3D parallax effect and, you know, crazy page curls and And all this stuff we’ve talked before about. 00:02:07 - Speaker 2: Uh, the way that Apple’s environment maybe has less of that distinction between design and engineering or there were a lot of people that sat really on the intersection of those two things and it was part of what allowed them to do and continues to allow them to do really innovative things on interface and and maybe you’re a person that sits in that place as well, right? 00:02:26 - Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, yeah, it’s it’s interesting because like from an org chart perspective, there’s really heavy boundaries between engineering and design, and like I was on the engineering side of the house, like I sat with the engineers, but uh for several years, I, I would like Spend much of my day sitting in the human interface lab, like next to a designer, and we’re just kind of like tossing prototypes back and forth all day. And so it became this kind of mind meld thing where those people could tweak values in the prototypes I built and you know, I would end up tweaking design elements as I was building prototypes and it kind of just the titles fell away. But over time, I kind of, I began to feel that these experiments we were doing with the dynamic medium, I would love to see them applied to things which had More, more meaning, more impact in the world. And so I, I got really interested in, in education research. I started writing about that. And uh the folks at Khan Academy reached out and asked whether I’d like to do that kind of work with them. Um, so I joined Khan Academy and and took along, uh, one of my Apple colleagues, Mei Li Ku, who is a wonderful designer and, and together we started this like R&D lab, uh, at Khan Academy where we explored all kinds of uh novel educational environments from that perspective of like trying to trying to look at what the dynamic medium alone can do. Trying to make these active learning environments and I did that for about 5 years and um I started getting a little disillusioned with institutional education and um I started getting really interested in the kind of knowledge work that people like you and me do every day, where you’re reading information, writing information, creating new things, pursuing uh novel ideas every day, and I’m wondering how we could augment some of that. Uh, so now I have this kind of independent research practice where I’m pursuing oddball questions like what comes after the book? Can we make something that does the job of a book but better? Uh, it’s just been sort of a delightful experience. 00:04:12 - Speaker 2: And I think one of the uh pieces you’ve written in all your writing is delightful, and I certainly recommend everyone uh read it, but uh uh read as much of it as they care to. But when I’ll link to because I think it particularly illustrates maybe the place where you and our team kind of overlap and thinking is the transformational tools for thought article, which both describes sort of your current work around the the learning and the space repetition, which you can tell us about, uh, but also the kind of the meta elements of how do we develop these kinds of tools in the first place. 00:04:43 - Speaker 1: Yeah, that that was a project with uh my wonderful colleague Michael Nielsen, who’s also been investigating the space which we might label tools for thought. And people have defined this in different ways that the term stretches back some decades, but uh I like to think of it as tools or environments which expand what people can think and do. And you know, a great example of this is writing. Another great example is numerals. So there’s a tendency to, to think about, you know, kind of computer implementations of these things and of course there are instances which are very interesting. Um, I find it very powerful to reach back to you know, these, these cultural. 00:05:16 - Speaker 2: Uh, ancestry tools for thought. Absolutely. Another great example of that is, I think Brett Victor has a piece about this, which is essentially the chart, is the charting numbers, you know, on an X Y axis or, you know, line graph or that sort of thing that we we take for granted nowadays where it’s easy to crank that out in a spreadsheet or whatever, but that was an invention that happened not even all that long ago. It’s, you know, a couple 100 years back or something like that and the existence of this new. Um, tool, or actually, I think as you argue in that piece, medium, you would even call it a medium for thought, might even be more accurate, basically allows you to have new ideas or see the world in a different way. So the tools shape the kinds of thoughts you’re able to have and the kinds of works that you’re able to create. 00:05:58 - Speaker 1: That’s right. If all you have is Roman numerals, Roman numerals, uh, then it’s very difficult to multiply. Suddenly, if you have Arabic numerals, it becomes quite easy by comparison. So kind of in the what comes after the book space, one of the things that my colleague Michael and I had been exploring is just this observation that most people seem to forget almost everything that they read, uh, and sometimes that’s, that’s fine. The thing that really matters in a book is, is the way that it kind of changes the way that you view the world for many books that really is the impact that matters. Uh, but for other books, for instance, if you’re trying to learn about quantum computation or some advanced technical topic, uh, it really is kind of a problem, uh, that, that you forget. Uh, most of what you read because these topics build on each other as the book continues. And so you end up starting reading a book in English, say, and then halfway through the chapter, uh, you start to see there’s like a word of Spanish and, and then by the end of the chapter, there’s like whole sentences of Spanish and then then like the whole second chapter is in Spanish and say that you don’t know Spanish as a language, you read this book and you’re like, well, I thought I was reading an English book. It’s like, no, it’s actually written in this other language that you have to. Learn, just as you would have to, you know, learn vocabulary, if you were trying to speak a foreign language, you need to like learn the vocabulary, both conceptual and declarative of this domain that you’re seeking to enter. Uh and so, and so the experiment is kind of been, well, can we make that easier? A project that that paper describes is this textbook called Quantum Country, which tries to make it effortless for readers to remember what they read. Um sounds like kind of a crazy thing, but It takes advantage of really a fairly well understood idea from cognitive science, about how it is that that we form memories. It’s reasonably well understood. There’s sort of a closed set of things that you need to do in order to form a memory reliably. Uh, it’s just that like logistically, it’s kind of onerous to do those things, and it requires a lot of coordination and management. And so most people don’t do it or it’s kind of difficult to do it. Uh, but it’s pretty easy to have a computerized system assist these things. And so, basically, as you’re reading this book, every 10 minutes or so of reading, there’s this really quick interaction where, you know, say you just read about the definition of a qubit, after a few minutes of reading, there would be this little prompt interface where it’s like, hey, so how many dimensions? Does a qubit have? And you try to remember like, uh, how, OK, it’s two dimensional. So you think yourself 2 and then you reveal the answer and it’s like, oh yes, it was 2, and so you say, cool, like I remembered that. And then we say like, OK, so a qubit is really a two dimensional what space? Like, how do we think about representing this? And say you don’t remember that, it’s this linear algebra concept. OK, it’s a vector space. That’s fine. Like you reveal it back, you didn’t remember that. See market is like, I like, I didn’t remember that detail. And um this is already doing something for you because it’s kind of signaling like, hey, maybe you weren’t quite reading closely enough or just seeing that answer that you missed, like as you read the next section, if that topic comes up. Maybe you’re more likely to remember because you were just uh corrected and you saw that correct answer. But somewhat more importantly, 10 or 15 minutes later when you’re looking at this, this next set of prompts, and you, you see kind of the new things from this section, that prompts about the two dimensional vector spaces that you failed to remember, that one will appear there. And so you’ll, you’ll kind of get another chance. And then once you remember it there, the idea is a few days later, we will send you an email and you’ll say like, hey, uh, let’s let’s remember these things about quantum computing that you were working on, let’s work towards long-term memory, and you’ll you’ll open up that review session and linked in the email, and you you’ll kind of do this interaction again, just, just a couple seconds per question. It takes about 10 minutes to go through the material. And that 5 days later will kind of reinforce your memory of that material about as well as the 10 minutes later prompts did, not, not exactly, but, but just roughly you get the idea. And then if you remember things after 5 days, then, you know, maybe you will next practice them after 2 weeks and after a month, after 2 months, after 4 months, and so it initially seems like this kind of onerous thing, like, oh, I’m gonna like be working on these like memory flashcards for this thing I’m learning, but Because the way human memory works is that it’s stabilized in this kind of exponential fashion where you can have successive exposures that are further and further apart. Uh, it only takes a few exposures before a particular idea can be remembered durably for many, many months at a time. 00:10:11 - Speaker 2: And this is a space repetition systems you’re talking about, um, which I had some exposure to through Onki, which is this little kind of I don’t know, uh, it’s definitely a tool for thought, but it is, uh, very nichey, I would say more than a little clunky to use. You have to be really motivated to do it. And so you can use a tool like this to increase your retention or understanding of something you’re reading a science paper, a book. Something you you do want to get a deep grasp of, but you got to really work hard at it, right? The tools are very taping it all together yourself in a way that requires pretty big commitment and investment. And one of the things I think is really interesting about the work you’re doing is whether you can take that and build it in a way that’s fun, relatively low effort by comparison, maybe even you know, sleekly designed and just more, more enjoyable overall. 00:11:06 - Speaker 1: Yeah, one thing that characterizes, I think a lot of opportunity in this space is that there are many exciting ideas which have been explored by technologists or by academics, which are promising at some foundational level. The underlying mechanic of Aki is fundamentally the same as the underlying mechanic of quantum country if you look at it from a certain angle, but there’s this core design piece missing, that’s kind of keeping that idea from really having the transformative impact it could have. By that, I don’t mean the fact that Aki is like hideous. I mean, it is, and, and it will kind of like turn off basically everybody who looks at it for that reason. But there are deeper issues to your point, it’s really hard to write good prompts. Uh, both in the sense that people start by being bad at it, and so they’ll write prompts that don’t work very well and that are boring and onerous to review, and they mostly won’t realize that that’s what’s happening. They’ll just think like that’s what this is. And then also in the sense that even if you do know how to write prompts well, it’s quite taxing. It takes a lot of effort. It’s a context switch from the experience of reading and it’s valuable insofar as kind of reflecting on material that you’re studying and synthesizing it, distilling it and turning it into a question actually does. go quite a long way to enforcing your your understanding of the material, but maybe you’re only going to do that for like the most important things in your life. And it’s pretty interesting to wonder like, OK, maybe you do that for the top 10% of the stuff that you ever read, but what if it was like really pretty easy and low effort for you to remember the top 70% of the things that you could read. You could save that special effort for the stuff that really, really matters. Um, that’s kind of what quantum Country is pursuing. One of the main things it’s wondering is, can we make this something. That it basically everybody who’s reading it and is serious about the topic can take advantage of and really see the benefit of. 00:12:49 - Speaker 3: I think this thread also reflects one of the challenges in developing new tools for thought, which is you actually need a lot of different skill sets. It’s not just a matter of engineering or computer programming, you need engineering, products, design, writing, marketing, community, often you need at least all of those things. And I see a lot of people approach the domain as basically pure engineers and they they. Tend to kind of bounce off or the products don’t stick because they’re missing a lot of those aspects. 00:13:15 - Speaker 1: That’s right. And I’ll add one more actually, that that’s kind of Michael’s i…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/13-interface-innovation/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: So we think a lot about how do you give agency back to people, but we think about if this is your web browser, this is your operating system, this is your home on the internet, how do you feel agency over Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. 00:00:16 - Speaker 2: Muse is a tool for thought on the iPad. This isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse the company and the small team behind it. My name is Adam Wiggins, and I’m here today with my colleague Mark McGranaghan. Hey, Adam, and a guest, Josh Miller. Hello. Thanks for being with us here today, Josh. You’re an accomplished entrepreneur and also have a background in both the startup world with Branch, which I think later became part of Facebook, but also you’ve done a stint in government with the White House, if I’m not mistaken, and nowadays you’re working Obama White House just want to clarify that. 00:00:51 - Speaker 2: Fair enough. And now you’re working on the browser company, which is super interesting. Why don’t you tell us what you’re doing there? 00:00:59 - Speaker 1: Sher, thank you so much for having me. Honestly, I feel like I’m at Whole Foods right now doing my grocery shopping routine, listening to this podcast. So, uh, really awesome to hear that intro live and grateful to be talking to you both. My name is Josh, uh, working on the browser company. As the name might imply, we’re oddly fascinated by web browsers. We feel like we spend a ton of time in web browsers in 2020, too much time, maybe, and as we were looking at the kind of arc of web browser technology, it felt like the interface of the web browser and the jobs it did for you. It was fairly stagnant and honestly was just curious about why and what else it may look like. So there’s a group of about 10 of us, uh, in a room together, well, I guess a metaphorical room together experimenting pretty widely about what a web browser reimagined for 2020 might look like. So figuring it out as we go along and really happy to be here. So thank you for having me. 00:01:54 - Speaker 2: We’ve had a lot of informal chats through Twitter and other kind of conversations, but where maybe I really felt like I got my head around what you were doing was when your colleague Nate Parrott came and did a little workshop for the ink and Switch crew to show us the experiments you’re working on, and that was very. Interesting partially, you know, just to see inside the machine and what you’re doing, but also because it seems to me like you’re really taking what I would call a research approach. I think you are a startup or a venture funded startup. Is that the correct characterization? 00:02:23 - Speaker 1: Yes, that’s a correct characterization. I agree with that statement. 00:02:28 - Speaker 2: But even so, it seems like this approach you’re taking these very throwaway experiments while you figure out what your initial product is going to be as opposed to the maybe the more classic mode that I’m used to, which is you start with an idea that you love, you build that until it’s clear that it’s totally unviable and then you pivot to something else when you’re forced to. That’s a different approach. So when Nate demoed to the switch crew and it was really interesting to see those experiments, but he said something. In particular, that gave me an idea for a topic here, which is, he said, OK, we’re not innovating on the browser engine. Things like JavaScript run times and how the HTML is rendered and all that sort of thing. There’s been incredible technology developed on that in recent years. You’re innovating on the interface, all the stuff that goes around that core engine. Can you expand on that for us a little bit? 00:03:17 - Speaker 1: Sure, of course. First, worth noting. I am one of many people on the team, so I appreciate being the representative, but you know, everything I say, I’m trying my best to speak for everyone else doing the real work back in the office. In terms of innovating on the interface, I think the thing I want to touch on first was your comment about the R&D and experimental approach, because in some ways, that’s the core of our product philosophy. Whether or not it’s correct or not for us or others. I think with our first company, Branch, we’re 20 years old. Didn’t know what we were doing. We still don’t quite know what we’re doing, but we know a little bit more. And in our first company much more focused on let’s whiteboard everything, and then let’s mock up three directions, and let’s narrow it down to the best answer, and that will be the best answer and let’s go build that. And I think from our experience and maybe just our dispositions as creative folks, very much believe in that no one has any idea of what they’re doing. And in many ways, some of the most interesting innovations may sound like a dramatic word, but the most interesting progressions of interfaces and software products we’ve loved and we’ve built have sort of been accidental or if not accidental, we never intended them to be that big of a deal or that part of the product or that part of an idea to be that interesting. So from a philosophical perspective, our view on product iteration is bias towards experiments, quick experiments, hacking. Experiments, be intentional about what you’re trying and why, but be open-minded and succumbed to the fact that you don’t really have any idea what’s going to be meaningful and what’s not. So I think that’s generally our orientation, which I should note, we think is great for our specific prompt and our specific team. I don’t think is the only way to do things. And so for I just want to represent that as one viewpoint and one lens which we take to the product problem. 00:05:02 - Speaker 2: I was just gonna support your sort of we don’t know what we’re doing and that’s fundamental to innovation. I like the Einstein quote, which is, if we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it research. So I think of it as a discovery process that doing something new that no one has done before fundamentally means no one can know what they’re doing and you kind of have to embrace that a little bit, have this beginner’s mind, this humility, and just realize that it’s, it’s more of a treasure hunt than a Engineering project. 00:05:32 - Speaker 1: Yeah, I have one story on that note from a mentor of mine when I was 20 maybe. I really looked up to Evan Williams. He was the co-creator of Blogger, you know, really the publishing platform that in many ways popularized what we know is the concept of blogging. Then he went on to co-create Twitter. Obviously we know the impact that Twitter had on publishing in the world, and then went on to work on Medium, and I idolized him in a way when I was 19 or 20 because what passion for a single problem and what from afar looks like he had it all figured out. It was just over the arc of time, he was gonna come up with all the good ideas and just came out of him effortlessly and when we were 19 or 20, I had the lucky fortune of Getting a meeting with him and convinced him to kind of mentor us and invest in our first company branch and invited us to come work out of his office in San Francisco after he left Twitter and was sort of in R&D mode. And we viewed this as this aha moment. We were working on this new publishing platform. It was gonna be a different thing, and we had the Godfather, the genius, the expert that was just gonna tell us how to make it the next big thing, cause here’s the person that knew everything about publishing. And in our first meeting together after we moved to San Francisco, I laid out this 6 month plan with a bunch of questions for him of is it the right plan. And he stopped me, he said, Josh, I hope I didn’t get your hopes up. I have no idea what the right answer to these questions are. And actually, quite frankly, let me give you some advice. I’d be aware of anyone in Silicon Valley that purports to have the answers to questions like these, we’re all just making it up as we go along. We’re all just trying our best. So, let’s keep talking about this. I’m really excited. But I don’t have the answers and no one does. It’s obviously one worldview, but it was a very humbling, informative experience to hear the co-creator of blogger Twitter and Medium say, I’m just trying my best to making it up as I go along. And I’ve continued to subscribe to that worldview and philosophy as I’ve had a little more experience building software. It’s not the only one, but it’s definitely the one that I believe in. 00:07:31 - Speaker 2: Yeah, I can see why that would be really powerful, and there is clearly a skill, a talent, a whole world of capabilities for effectively searching for something new or a better way of doing things, improved technology and improved design, what we’re kind of broadly calling innovation here. So it can be tricky when I do describe this kind of process to others or you hear someone really successful like Kevin. Williams talk like in the story you just told that it seems like, well, we’re just making it up as we’re going along. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a skill there and a structured way to go about this and discipline that’s needed and that there’s, you know, certain teams that can be really great at doing that and others that struggle more, but it’s a different mindset than this visionary top down. I just woke up one morning with the future in my mind and now I’ll spend the next 10 years building it according to that plan. It’s a very different mindset. 00:08:25 - Speaker 1: I think that’s totally right, and I think I describe it as a spectrum, and either end of the spectrum, in my opinion, is too far, and so one end of the spectrum, as you described, top down, we know the answer, we just have to build it. Other side is, we’re just aloof floating through the world, hoping to stumble across the next thing. I think every team that I’ve known that is extremely effective at interface innovation and Development has their own part of the spectrum, but I think in my experience, I’m curious to hear from you, Mark and Adam, is our teams that are very principled in what they are building for and why they’re building it and opinionated at that highest level motivating factor. So as an example of the browser company, I’ll share two hypotheses that end up becoming thematic buckets for experiment. One is our view is that if you look at the browser in 2020, it’s actually more like an operating system, not in the technical sense of the word operating system, but it’s no longer one of many applications on your computer that you go to momentarily to surf the World Wide Web and track down information. You’re doing all of your work in the browser, all of your apps, all of your documents. And so that’s a hypothesis and a principle, which suggests a certain type of opinionated experimentation and exploration, even if the exact implementation is something that we believe we don’t know and we’re gonna have to find out. I think another one is we think a lot about digital spaces as being analogous to physical spaces, and you think about a living room or a bedroom or an office, and those rooms are supposed to make you feel a certain way, and they may look different, even if they, from a utility or features perspective, all have chairs, you sit in them, you can exist in them. Generally speaking, they make you feel a certain way. That’s not as low level as we have a feature idea that we know is gonna work, but it’s not so vague that we could just build anything and count it as progress. How do you think about this Muse? I’m curious what your principles are. So I mean, first off, it’s worth stating, I know you invited me on this podcast. I’m on this podcast right now cause I am obsessed. With everything that you’re building at Muse, and ink and Switch as well. And I’m inspired by the way you do product development and interface innovation. It sounds like directionally, we’re pretty aligned in the way that we build things, but how do you think about somehow narrowing down the scope of what you experiment on while also leaving open the possibility that you actually have no idea what’s gonna work? 00:10:54 - Speaker 3: Yeah, well, first of all, thanks, Josh. I do think what you’ve described reflects the attitude that we have at Muse and ink and Switch. This kind of goes back to the previous episode where we talked about principled products where I do think you can’t expect to get there with pure brownian motion, you know, just randomly bouncing around. You need some sort of principle, vision, direction, valence, something that kind of tends to pull you and the team together in a unified way in some direction. I think that can take different forms. It could be principles, it could be this kind of postulates, it could be hypotheses, it can be an end goal that’s important to everyone. You just need something that’s kind of pulling people together. Another comment I would make is this idea of balance between theory and practice is also reflected in the literature on technological development in general. If you look at how things have improved in our material world, this is a point that’s made on the Roots of Progress blog by Jason. I’m sorry, I forget his last name, but Jason Crawford. Jason Crawford, there you go. Thanks, Adam. He makes this point that if you look at an empirical matter, innovations that have happened, they tend to be from groups that have been kind of bouncing between the realm of theory and practice, and both of those inform each other. And so I think that is reflected in how we work on software at Mu and Inc and Switch where we have some theories that are developing over time, and we have some experiments, some tests, some engineering, you know, field work, and Those kind of go back and forth, and you can’t expect to get very far just on one of those two legs. 00:12:14 - Speaker 1: One thing I’m curious about that we’ve thought a lot about, and I’m not sure we have the right answer, is I’ve seen some teams where the principal or guiding light is a hypothesis about what’s possible with software, or what’s possible from a product. Some people call it jobs to be done. I think other teams articulated in terms of a target demographic. Uh, elementary school teacher, a back end developer in Silicon Valley. I’m curious as you think about Muse, what I find so inspiring about the product is the tool for thought aspect that can be melded to my own instantiation of tools for thought and what I want to think about. I can imagine that direction is also difficult at times to know who you’re building for. How do you think about that balance between what and why, who, and I’m, there are other vectors I’m not covering. How do you think about that? 00:13:07 - Speaker 3: So there are some direct answers I can get to that. Maybe I’ll actually give Adam the chance to kind of articulate the specific things that we think about there. But I would also point out that I don’t think we can actually always expect to be able to articulate what’s drawing us in a particular direction. This is a kind of Hayekian idea where you Yeah, the hunch thing is a big part of it. 00:13:26 - Speaker 3: Yeah, just because something can’t be written out in words or articulate doesn’t mean it’s not there in people’s implicit knowledge. And so that points to another. The thing we very often use to draw us in directions, which is the energy that an individual person has for some idea. And that often just ends up being a quite good predictor of promising areas. 00:13:43 - Speaker 1: I’m so happy to hear that because I wasn’t sure if I was going to share that part of our process, because it’s true to us, but I don’t know how quote unquote good it is, is we are so motivated by the energy and emotion of the team, maybe to a fault, but I think, you know, I previously w…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    https://museapp.com/podcast/transcripts/14-onboarding/ Oct 05, 2023
    Show notes

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: I cannot overemphasize the first run experience, that’s when you have the most energy and the most enthusiasm and momentum coming from the user. 00:00:14 - Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. Muse is a tool for thought on iPad. This podcast isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse, the company and the small team behind it. My name is Adam Wiggins, and I’m here today with my colleague Julia Rogats. 00:00:28 - Speaker 3: Hi, Adam, nice to be back. 00:00:30 - Speaker 2: And a guest, Jane Portman of User List. 00:00:33 - Speaker 1: Hi, Adam. Hi Julia. 00:00:34 - Speaker 2: And Jane, maybe you can tell us a little bit about your background and what you’re working on at user list. 00:00:39 - Speaker 1: Well, thanks for having me today. My pleasure to share a little story. User list is a tool for sending activation on boarding, life cycle, email and other kinds of messages to Sassy. Users, so we work specifically with SASS founders and provide great tools for them to run their SAS companies. And uh user onboarding that we have as a topic today is so hard for us because that’s like the primary application for our tools. So we’re sort of on a mission to try and help founders establish their better onboarding practices. 00:01:13 - Speaker 2: And just because I always like to unpack abbreviation, SAS stands for software as a service, so this typically would be web applications, often ones that are sold to businesses rather than either consumer applications or mobile apps or iOS apps such as Ms. Yes, that’s correct. What was your journey? What brought you to be passionate about this area or be working on this particular company? 00:01:38 - Speaker 1: So if we go back in time a little bit, this is my 2nd SAS product and I’m running this one together with my amazing technical co-founder, Benedict Die. He’s a real engineering wizard, like I would never pursue this conflict of a product without him. When I was doing my first product, which was a little productivity app that didn’t go anywhere because it was not as crucial to the business, it didn’t like have a major mission, it didn’t have a good audience, and also while I was running it, there was no great tool that I could use for life cycle messaging, for user onboarding, etc. except for Intercom. Which back then wasn’t even pretty, to be honest, so it was super expensive, not very attractive, and it was not targeting small founders like myself. So a couple years later, It was pretty obvious what to build because I was very sure that Sa founders need help in that area and I recruited two more people, Benedict and we had a marketing co-founder, Claire Suentrop. She later on decided to stay as an advisor. She works on a popular marketing project, Forget the Funnel and Elevate these days. So that’s the story of fuselist and before that, I’m a UIUX consultant by trade. For the last 8 years, I’ve been working online with international clients and running my personal brand, UI Breakfast, and I also do UI Breakfast podcast, which is a nice design show. So that’s been out for a while as well. 00:03:08 - Speaker 2: And notably, we’ll have a crossover episode there. Mark, Mark’s going on with you at some point. 00:03:14 - Speaker 1: Yeah, I’m so excited to have him soon. So that show is sort of catering to my design interest and user list is something that we’re all passionate about is helping fellow founders pursuing that like bootstrapper dreams, slow and steady, kind of not funded, but self-funded growth. 00:03:33 - Speaker 2: Yeah, well, having the pain yourself, that is having previously done a business and see where this is needed, that’s certainly one of the best ways to drive you to create a great product, I think. And you already kind of teed up our topic here, which is on boarding. You actually suggested this one, but it ended up being serendipitously apropos because Yuli was actually deep in the project at the time. We’ve, we’ve since released it, but deep in the project of redoing our onboarding, which we’ve done several times and is a challenge for various reasons we’ll get into later on. But before we do that, let’s start with the fundamentals. Can you tell us what is on boarding and why does it matter? 00:04:11 - Speaker 1: Well, firsthand congrats on your recent launch. That’s a big one. Also very exciting. Well, going back to user onboarding, that’s the process that software people use to receiving value from their product. And this can mean different things in people’s heads because we often associate this with like tool tips or guided tours, so very like specific interventions, but it should. be perceived as a more abstract thing, sort of a larger situation in life that the person is in and how you can help them using different kinds of tools, interventions and no little things to achieve value using your product and your product plays a little role there because they usually don’t strive to be good users of your product, but they’re striving for achieving something else which is much, much bigger and important for them. 00:05:00 - Speaker 2: You wrote this piece that we referenced a little bit titled Inspire, not Instruct that focuses more on the helping people understand what I usually talk about the aha moment or the understanding how something can fit into their life or help them in some way or solve their problem rather than the nuts and bolts minutia of how exactly do I use this. 00:05:19 - Speaker 1: Yeah, it’s kind of meta because user list is a tool for user on boarding, but it’s also quite a big challenge for us to onboard our own users. Once one of our users uh wrote back and said that they loved what they saw inside the app on the first run experience, and basically what we have is a single welcome video that does have not a single instructions inside it. And our goal is to sort of set up the tone and then we just rely on their own skills to continue with the journey, because different software applications have different levels of complexity and ours is definitely not on the easier side of the spectrum. It has a lot of elements for the user to become successful, they have to complete the integration, they have to actually write the emails. Of course we do have like templates and everything else we can, but. You can take the horse to water, but you can’t make them drink if they’re not inspired, so we really strive for this inspiration component more than trying to like instruct them, um, towards performing certain steps. 00:06:23 - Speaker 2: And I suspect there’s particular challenges when you get into B2B, as they call it business to business stuff, as well as very technical products. We ran into that with Hiroku and it’d be interesting to compare that to the maybe the mobile app world a little bit later on, but you know I was curious to get your take on onboarding here. And again, this has some nice historical touch points for us. And that we met at a company called Clue, a reproductive health tracker, and while we were both there, you were leading a project to build the out of box experience or the UI, it’s kind of the cute acronym there, which you said maybe UB and onboarding aren’t quite the same thing, but in any case, I’d love to hear how you think about this now being a veteran of having built multiple first run experiences for apps. 00:07:08 - Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure. The way that I understand the UBI or the out of box experience is basically The way that the user sets up a piece of software, in many cases, this is, you know, if you’re installing something first, this would be part of the UBI. If we remember like for Windows users, I think this is still a thing where you have to double click on a thing and then you get the dialogue, where do you want to install the tool. So this would all be part of an Ubi. Obviously, in the app world, you just download an app from the app store and then you open it, and then what happens in those first couple of minutes, I would say, is the out of box experience. And so in the example of clue, there was actually different guided steps to make you see the app with some initial data, so it would ask you how old you were. If you remember when your last period was, if you know roughly how long your period is, and based on the data that you input there, you will then end up at basically the app’s main screen that already has a little bit of data filled in. So this was both a way to kind of get to know the user and get information from them that are relevant for the app to work correctly and also avoid then bringing them to an empty start screen, basically, because if you have an app that’s fundamentally about data input, The first thing that you see being an empty screen is kind of uninspiring, of course. And so to compare this with the new experience, I think what we’re trying to do with the onboarding here is to both inspire them to realize what the product is about and how it could fit into their lives, but then obviously also teach them how the app works and Muse, as we all know, is kind of a, a pro tool that does things quite differently from other apps. So some of the gestures are fairly hard to discover on their own, which is I think why it is important to teach the user a little bit on how to use the app without overwhelming them with too many things all at once. But at the same time also show them a little bit of content, motivate them to get some of their own content in. And so based on all of these incentives, we we’ve tried to put together a little on boarding, which I think we will get into this later. That hopefully brings all of these components together. 00:09:23 - Speaker 1: I’m super curious to hear what you decided on that because you have so many hidden things in news and um that really requires some instructions. So what is the form and shape that you decided to go with? 00:09:36 - Speaker 3: Well, we’ve historically been through a couple different steps here. I think the very first version when we were still in beta was basically just an empty board with 2 or 3 cards on them, and one of them, I think was a pretty long text describing what news is about. And obviously that was neither teaching the user anything nor being particularly inspiring because the last thing that people want to do. When they first opened an app is read a huge block of text. So that was discarded fairly soon. 00:10:03 - Speaker 2: In our defense, I’ll jump in and say that the earliest onboarding was actually that we didn’t let anyone try the app unless one of us was sitting right there to help them. Onboarding was what you might call white glove or high touch, which often goes with, yeah, high-end kind of enterprise sales type products, but also I don’t know, maybe someone like superhuman has kind of popularized this a little bit, at least in the tech world’s imagination. But yeah, we would just sit there either in person in some cases or over video chat and either first give them a demo, try to show them what they can do with it once they get better at it, but then once they’re in it, kind of direct them around a little bit and then, you know, that obviously wasn’t very scalable, but it was a good place to start where we combined the usability test with a user interview with an onboarding was kind of all one thing that was just done completely outside the software. 00:10:55 - Speaker 3: Yeah, that’s right. So I think the thing that we did after this was to focus more on the inspiring part, so to really show people what you could do with Muse, what a muse board looks like when it’s filled with rich types of content. So we actually had a fairly extensive bundle of like pre-made onboarding content. I think it was one main board and then maybe 5 other different boards and different topics inside there. With some, you know, hand drawings or sketches on there, different types of links, PDFs, basically every content type that’s supported in use was in there, but there was no instruction at all on how to use the app. So people were kind of left to just explore on their own, which I think worked well in some regards, but I think one thing we also learned there is to just throw a bunch of random content at the user. Without any context on why this is important or why they would care about it seemed a little bit weird to users as well. Like they come in wanting to do a certain thing and if they then find a board that outlines, you know, notes on a book that someone wants to write that maybe doesn’t align at all with what they’re interested in. And so where we went from there, I think it was to try a little bit more of a learning the muse interactions based on a stack of cards that was in your inbox, like right when you launched the app, that was basically just a blank board and I think something like 12 or 15 cards that are arranged in a little stack in your inbox. This is where your content lands when you bring anything into Muse. And that definitely had a little bit of a threshold for users in terms of figuring out what to do with that stack of cards. I think for some people, and even if I remember correctly during one of the app reviews, this was actually reported as a bug, like there’s a bunch of cards or like a bunch of little things hanging off the side of the screen, and we don’t know what to do with it. 00:12:55 - Speaker 2: Yeah, in the ideal world it was sort of. And they would tempt the user to grab it and drag it out and it’s a way to kind of draw you into that interaction without explicitly saying it. And I think that did work in a lot of cases. I ran some usability tests where I saw people be kind of puzzled what’s going on with these things on the side, and when they pull it out, they have kind of an aha moment and a sense of delight at having kind of figured something out, but just as often as not, it was uh what’s going on here, this app looks broken. 00:13:21 - Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and I, I definitely think the moment of like when you do figure out what to do with it and then you realize, OK, you can drag these things around. There are a couple, just, you know, I, I think it was like a gardening project, so we had like a set of cards that had some inspiring images, and then a little bit of text explaining what Muse is and what you can do with it. It also pointed you to a little panel that you can open from the main menu that we call it, I think just a learn panel. That had some of the main interactions of the app explained just with some icons, and it seems like most people figured out how to use that and then notably a while later we actually introduced our handbook, I think there was an entire podcast episode on this, but we really went through lengths of recording videos of basically every interaction and everything that you can do inside the app. And put it on a website. So linking to this also from the main app helps. So if people really get stuck or they’re curious to learn more or to figure out how everything works, they can go and look at the handbook. Basically, the new onboarding that we designed based on the pain points that we saw with the random stack of cards in the inbox is a bit of a combination of everything we did before, combined with like a quest-based system. So our main incentive here was to motivate users to figure out the app while Using the app without necessarily forcing them to do something in a certain order, or I think we all know these types of onboarding tutorials where you first open an app and they, they really don’t let you do anything but click on the thing where the error points and you feel a little bit like a child that is taken through like an obstacle course and There’s basically no freedom to just explore on your own. 00:15:08 - Speaker 2: Jane, I think your article talks about this, right, like the tool tips and the guided…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    4 // Partnership, freedom, and responsibility May 11, 2020
    Show notes

    The company behind Muse is structured as a small partnership. Mark and Adam talk about why the team wanted this unusual approach and how it's working so far.

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community

    Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter

    Show notes

    • Muse is Hiring an Engineering Partner
    • startup employee stock options
    • Netflix Freedom & Responsibility Culture
    • startup founder
    • Starbucks / Howard Shultz
    • Google OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)
    • Salesforce V2MOM (Vison, Values, Methods, Obstacles, Measures)
    • alignment
    • Management by Peter Drucker
    • expensing
    • exercise window
    • vesting and cliffs
    • dilution
    • vest in peace
    • cap table
    • re-up
    • agency
    • Mad Men
    • professonal services
    • cult of personality
    • Disney company transition after Walt’s death
    • trial project / pilot project
    • indie

    3 // Read the fabulous manual Apr 29, 2020
    Show notes

    Professional tools need a manual to explain how they work, but not all manuals are created equal. Mark and Adam discuss their mutual love of manuals, what makes a manual great, and why we chose video as the primary medium for the Muse Interface Handbook.

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community

    Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter

    Show notes

    • Muse Interface Handbook
    • How to use your Rocket Espresso machine and make beautiful coffee
    • Go by Example
    • Heroku Dev Center
    • Ulysses tutorials
    • Working Copy Users‘ guide
    • GoodNotes how-to guides
    • Procreate Handbook
    • Stripe API Reference
    • unix man pages
    • The YouTube Revolution in Knowledge Transfer
    • tacit knowledge
    • The Matrix / I know Kung Fu
    • Building Heroku Add-ons
    • glossary
    • mental model
    • Muse design article
    • Capstone manuscript
    • green screen
    • Looom User Guide
    • RTFM
    • out-of-box experience (OOBE)
    • Bear
    • Notion templates
    • vi

    2 // Having good ideas Apr 16, 2020
    Show notes

    Ideas are foundational for creative and knowledge work. Mark and Adam talk about fodder, making time to ideate, and the value of fresh surroundings.

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community

    Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter

    Show notes

    • ideation
    • House M.D.
    • Where Good Ideas Come from
    • video essays
    • active reading
    • Moleskine
    • Field Notes
    • post-it notes
    • commonplace book
    • OmniGraffle
    • MindNode
    • Google Keep
    • Bear
    • Drafts
    • Shape Up
    • Pocket
    • Dropbox
    • Goodreads
    • Cowen‘s Second Law
    • Slow Software
    • Wiggins‘ Law
    • breadth-first
    • vertical slice
    • state of flow
    • Deep Work
    • academic sabbatical
    • Getting Things Done
    • mindfulness

    1 // Tool switching Mar 24, 2020
    Show notes

    Muse has a modeless interface with no onscreen toolbars. Mark and Adam talk about the long research journey that led us here.

    Discuss this episode in the Muse community

    Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter

    Show notes

    • modelessness
    • The Humane Interface
    • administrative debris
    • quasimode
    • tablet platforms
    • command glyphs
    • Muse design article
    • Procreate
    • Paper by FiftyThree
    • Apple Human Interface Guidelines
    • Ink & Switch
    • Surface Studio
    • Surface Dial
    • Google Jamboard
    • Catalyst
    • Xerox PARC
    • Bell Labs
    • Concepts
    • technical pens
    • Looom
    • Teenage Engineering ortho remote
    • Wacom tablets

    Previous 1 7 8 9 10 11 17 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Reply All

    1

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Inside VR & AR

    2

    Inside VR & AR Gadgets
    Note to Self

    3

    Note to Self News
    BrainStuff

    4

    BrainStuff Natural Sciences
    This Week in Tech (Audio)

    5

    This Week in Tech (Audio) News
    Hands-On Tech (Audio)

    6

    Hands-On Tech (Audio) Technology
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights