Howells.

Brooklyn-based designer and developer Jonnie Hallman (a.k.a. Destroy Today) said in a recent interview:

I like the idea of making an application and just building it for yourself first. Because then it’s successful no matter what because it makes you happy. If it reaches 100,000 users that’s great; that’s just a bonus though. But if you’re able to use it years down the line, that’s the ultimate goal.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently as I try to get another project off the ground, called Shorthand. It’s a link-sharing and commentary tool that I’m building because I haven’t yet found a link repository tool that I genuinely like. Delicious is horribly over-complex and and over-designed, and Pinboard–as much as I love the rationale behind a completely utilitarian bookmarking tool–doesn’t fill me with any pleasure whatsoever.

So Shorthand is in essence a tool that I’m building just for myself.

There will be a social layer that spans the application, but the most important thing is that the tool will work well for a user-base of one.

This is a different approach to how people approach building web apps in that most web apps are built for a user-base of 30million (to use Instagram’s figure)., because ultimately that is what will sell when the tool gets acqui-hired. This is how I approached building Fiftytwo, since it’s value is derived from a group of people showing their work and feedback to others.

But the best pieces of software and tools are built with a very single-minded purpose, for only a single individual. This is how a hammer is designed, and few have ever complained that a hammer doesn’t quite satisfy a user’s needs.

If you bear this in mind when building a product, you’ll reap two main benefits:

• Lifecycle testing a product becomes directly relevant. Using the tool again and again and again throughout development and making it work perfectly and enjoyably for just yourself means the tool has been built correctly and has achieved its goal already, regardless of however many people end up using it.
• The product will work without the catch-22 situation of requiring a broad user-base from the get go. Of course, some products demand this (dating websites, for instance) but if you look at your product, there will almost always a way to simplify it such that the benefits can be enjoyed by a single user using it alone.

(Incidentally in the interview, Jonnie also talks about killing old projects, and moving onto new things, which echoes my recent post about doing lots of things.)

As perhaps some of you know, I run a small web design and development agency called Kulör, based in London and I have been working under this moniker since later 2010. It was born out my want to work in a collaborative way with many superb designers and developers I have met via siteInspire.

But when I say it’s a small agency, it really is. In fact it’s just me. As such operating under the name has never felt totally comfortable, since it felt like an attempt to look and feel bigger than it really was. Having to explain this to almost everyone I met and discussed it with was difficult.

From today, Kulör is no longer going to operate as a brand, and instead I’m going to operate under my own name since ultimately, all my clients deal with just me, and I am responsible for every part of the work I create.

It also marks a new way that I want to work. When I look at the projects I’m most proud of and enjoy, it’s clear that the direction I want to move towards is the building of compelling user and editorial platforms and apps. Increasingly I want to work with startups and established companies in a consultative manner to help them realise their ideas and ambitions using technology, and help give ideas form and function through prototyping and refinement.

I want the new Studio section of this website to convey more transparency. It no longer uses the “Royal We”: ultimately I prefer my clients to understand that it’s essentially just me that they’re dealing with. At the same time however I’m still as keen as ever to collaborate on projects, and I’m always open for discussion with designers or developers to explore new projects.

So please do get in touch with me if you have any ideas or projects to explore: I always love hearing from interesting people and companies.

I have been sitting on the theme of this post for a while, but I stumbled across two great articles recently that convey my point quite brilliantly. I’ll talk about their ideas, and then cover it off with a few opinions of my own.

Firstly, while browsing General Assembly’s site, I came across On Learning to Code, pt. 1 by Mattan Griffel, a strategy guy from New York City:

When I first quit my job to start my own company, all I had was an idea. The goal at that point was to find someone with a technical background to actually execute my idea. I suspect that many of you are in similar situations. There’s something you should know: it’s never going to happen.

…

Please don’t want to wait around trying to find that perfect technical co-founder. If that’s your goal, then you’re bound to fail as an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs don’t look for people who are able to execute for them. They improvise and make things happen in spite of being under-equipped.

…

Very quickly, society is becoming divided into two groups: those that understand how to code and therefore manipulate the very structure of the world around them, and those that don’t – those whose lives are being designed and directed by those that do know how to code.

(He subsequently turned it into a Slideshare deck, which is well worth a browse.)

Secondly, Spencer Fry–founder of Carbonmade–wrote a great piece on his blog, From Business Guy to Programmer:

While being a successful Business Guy can be tremendously important for the company, and has more impact than many developers and designers acknowledge, there are times when you cannot contribute to the product as much as you’d like. In the meantime, the makers seldom have a free moment, as a product can always be improved. A new design tweak here. A refactor of code there. The Business Guy is left with an internal struggle: wanting to do all they can do for the company but knowing deep down inside that pulling out a code editor or Photoshop would often be the most helpful thing they could do — and realizing they can’t do it.

…

It’s at those times when an hour in code or design is what’s needed that I’ve wished I hadn’t stopped programming so that I could fire up a code editor and hack away. It’s that feeling of always wanting to contribute to the most critical part of the company at any given time that has returned me to programming.

Spencer’s article touches on my reason for wanting to learn development. I go into this in more detail in a blog post I wrote for Offscreen magazine. 10 years ago, some friends and I wanted to create a website when the idea of a “startup” was barely known, and in fact was a time when people barely used the internet. We knew no programmers or designers, yet I relished the challenge to learn something during my down-time doing my psychology. (Spencer–who switched to psychology from computer science–is right: you get a lot of free time if you do a psychology degree: I would recommend doing and liberal arts-based programme to any aspiring hacker for that reason alone…).

The feeling of being able to execute an idea through to a finished project is enormously satisfying. I admire designers who are also proficient screen printers, or fashion designed who cut their own cloth; who conceive an idea, creates the product (and perhaps even sell) within the remit of her own skillset. It’s really exciting to see a product come into being by yourself.

Of course, it won’t be perfect. I’m not a great developer nor a great designer, and luckily I’m not a perfectionist (at least not when I’m doing client work). That doesn’t matter - it’s the doing that counts. And if the product or idea is a winner, that’s when you bring in a team of experts to help polish it into something great. But because you were the person pulling the initial pieces together, you have more context and knowledge to sell your idea and get people to believe in it, and subsequently, you.

In my mind you need two things to become a nerd. Time, and an idea. That’s all: no specific knowledge or expertise. I didn’t know nor was taught about development or design when I started.

People who complain they don’t have time are paradoxically procrastinating. If it’s something you want, you’ll find the time to do it. Get up an hour earlier, or go to bed an hour later. Hack away or read about hacking away during your lunchbreak.

Then comes the idea. It needs to be simple, but it needs to be something you want to see (something you find useful or which entertains you). It also needs to be something that excites you, since with excitement comes will. If you’re not excited about something, you’ll get bored and give up pretty quickly.

You may need a bit of a kickstart. I’m thrilled that General Assembly has set up in London, and they have a super range of talks and courses to get you started. In fact you might decide to do a full front-end development course with my genius pal Rik Lomas. There are equivalent courses in New York, and I’m certain you can find courses in other cities.

If not, then seek out a nerdy community who will inspire and motivate. If you’re a designer, I wouldn’t choose to attend the nearest Ruby Hacker Group, but increasingly there are groups of folk who span creative and code. In London, check out Dalston Digital; in New York, check out N.Y.P.D who I believe occasionally have meet-ups. Everyone at both is super friendly. If they’re not, tell me and I’ll kick their ass.

Conferences are great too, and are as bountiful as biscuits these days. Brooklyn Beta is an especially good one, who this year are running Brooklyn Beta Summer Camp: an amazing opportunity to get involved with a super crowd of people. $25,000 is a great motivator to learn how to develop while executing your idea.

However you start you’ll get immense satisfaction, even if you find it daunting. Give it a try, it’s fun being a nerd.

I caught up with a friend of mine the other day who works in the industry at a prominent and successful startup. And he told me about something that really frustrated me about the web design industry.

As one of the best designers I know, he has been put in charge of a group of designers as a creative director. The only problem is, he can’t call himself a creative director.

That seemed odd; I asked him why.

It turns out that the group of designers have such big egos that they hate being managed and directed by someone with many years of experience over them.

Traditionally, creative directors at any company have tended to be the most experienced, who have risen the ranks by doing great work and being able to handle egos deftly; leading by example. (That’s probably an idealised notion of meritocracy, but you get my point.)

But the internet has changed that quite fundamentally, because these guys were defining themselves and their worth essentially by their ranking on Dribbble (who are all highly regarded players), not by the work and contribution they were offering the team.

I’m not hating Dribbble - it’s a great tool to find talent of quite a specific aesthetic which the web seems to be aligning to right now. And if you get your work hearted, that’s awesome. If you get really liked, with loads of lovely comments, that’s even more awesome.

My biggest advice for any designer would be to leave their pride at any echo-chamber’s gates. The web is much bigger than a single community or platform, and it’s full of people with far greater experience and knowledge who don’t care who is ranked higher than who. Many won’t even know what Dribbble is, or come from unusual backgrounds. Yet these are the people who are probably defining the next web aesthetic paradigm shift, so it’s a good idea to seek them out, listen to them, and learn.

This is not a big industry, and the demand for web designers outstrips supply like you wouldn’t believe, as you probably know. If you’re good, we’ll know about it. But you’ll never be the best designer, however many hearts and comments you have. The best designers adapt and change all the time.

A little confidence in your work goes a long way, a lot of ego goes nowhere.

As a self-proclaimed non-fashion expert, I sure am writing quite a lot about fashion today. But I just wanted to quickly talk about my new jeans, by Hiut.

It’s a new company, created by Howies founders David and Clare Hieatt, based in Cardigan. Cardigan used to be home to Dewhirst–a clothing company–which laid off 400 after its plant was moved to Morocco. All the talent and experience of making jeans laid dormant.

David hired three as denim grand masters, and now create jeans in two styles. I picked the Organic Denim slim fit, and they are superb: really fine quality and a great fit.

The product itself is just one part of the company’s broader story, which is thoroughly documented on their site and via the blog which is carefully written by David himself. The imagery used feels as homely as the brand feels, and the wording throughout is transparent and honest.

And a nice touch is the idea of a HistoryTag. I just logged my pair of jeans, and behold there are pictures of them being created (by Elin, who signed the inside).

I’m excited by the company and I’m looking forward to picking up another pair soon.

☛

People who know me don’t know me as Fashionable Dan, so I can’t indulge in the finer points of being a Mr Porter customer.

But I love everything about the brand. Mr Porter is the sort of brand you end up having when you really give a damn about your company.

The investment the company has made at every customer touch-point makes the brand shine:

• The website doesn’t just look great but is functionally brilliant (it’s important to have both). And anecdotally (since I’ve never actually handed over my card details) the experience doesn’t end at the check-out. The way in which your order is packaged, along with a personalised thank you note, is a simple extension of the online experience.
• The company spent a lot of time and money on the branding, even commissioning a custom typeface which has become unmistakably Mr Porter.
• 99% of the site’s success is down to editorial content of unrivalled quality. This is a driven by a permanent, on-site staff who create stories and produce wonderful videos like this.

Of course, high fashion is a high-margin industry, and Net-a-Porter is a successful cash-flush company, so it’s easy to get the best people and agencies on board. But even in a small way getting these three elements right and caring deeply about them is such a simple way to kick-start a business, and I’d love to see Mr Porter’s thinking replicated in other consumer industries that generally suck: food, travel, or finance.

I feel the same giddy feeling about Rapha who have also created a pitch-perfect brand. Monocle too, if you see it for what it is.

☛

There are now a billion articles and tweets about the Instagram acquisition (one for each dollar spent by Facebook, interestingly). So I’ll keep my thoughts on the acquisition brief:

• Facebook is full of awesome people. I know a few of them, and they work hard to build an unbelievably good product. How the product is used and by whom is an entirely separate issue. Remember that every time you criticise the product (not the community), think about the folk that are part of our industry who make it.
• Facebook owning Instagram in and of itself is not the sad part. The sad part will be when they monetize Instagram: when I’m shown an ad for the first time will be the last time I use it. This is especially sad since I’d be more than happy to pay a few bucks per month for the app, or as a one off (a la Instapaper). Until then I’m still going to use it. It’s a great product, and I can export all my photos out of it whenever I feel the need.
• Whomever criticises the guys for selling the company to Facebook is a fool. You and I would both sell our product for $1bn. If you don’t think you would, don’t kid yourself.

Finally, here’s a sensible and insightful Quora answer from Scoble about the why element to the acquisition.

I use Buffer to schedule some of my tweets. Some people hate it, but I like it because it means I don’t overbear my followers with content when I feel I’m at my most perky (Twitter-wise).

A happy benefit of using it reveals some interesting themes that my followers seem to enjoy. I’m listing them here just for my own personal reference, but you might find some of the findings interesting.

• Tweets about info-graphics. The promise of a new info-graphic is like catnip for the geek/design community that seem to like what I talk about.
• Consumable insights into UX. I get less interest from a tweet about a deep, in-depth study, but a quick “try this” or “do this” UX tips seem to be popular.
• Design and tech combined. Vector icons vs bitmaps, font-embedding, and so on, get much more response than pure tech or pure design related tweets.
• My opinions of web design trends that I have noticed, usually as an offshoot from my role as siteInspire website-picker. I’ve posted a few examples of what I think are insane, “scrolly” sites recently which seem to pique my followers’ interest.
• Anything to do with food gets plenty of attention (oh have you seen wholefooddiary.com?), but as long as it isn’t a straight-up recipe link. Good restaurants, food articles, or general food websites are popular.
• Productivity links and hints, along with career-oriented links. Some are my own blog posts, some are of others that I find interesting. I’m no productivity expert and overtly dislike anything the theme but some do seem to creep into my reading material and seem to be about issues that many others care about.
• Tweets about new web-apps that I like or find promising. Everyone loves a potential beta invite.
• Good old-fashioned link-bait articles about technology - mainly Android bashing, Apple fan-boying, or those dismissive of Microsoft.
• Tweets that start with “Woah…”. People who know me in real life know I get giddy with excitement about random things. If I precede a Tweet with “Woah”, I’m being serious.
• Anything about start-ups. It seems that we can’t get enough of the next big thing or the thing that was supposed to be the next big thing.

These are things that are unpopular:

• My links to Spotify. Probably due to my bizarre taste in music.
• Links that look like they should be straight retweets, without an opinion.
• Links to what sound like boring articles about production, manufacturing, or finance that I find fascinating.
• Flippant “Here’s a dog smiling” tweets. It seems that people have enough sources of flippancy from elsewhere, but smiling dogs are important to me.
• Tweets where I give quite a dismissive or negative opinion, even though I feel they are well worth sharing.
• Links to esoteric-sounding art installations or pieces, which only the title provided. I guess they sound pretentious or without context.
• Links to tech articles that people think they have seen before. These aren’t the link-baity ones, but the ones that provide meaningful analysis into important tech and startup themes.

If you want more of the former and less of the latter, you should follow me on Twitter.

☛