Conversation

Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
One recent way this helped me: I think we can make inboxes (email, tasks, tabs, reading lists) less burdensome by replacing high-stakes mechanics (“close tab”) w/ low-stakes ones (“not right now”, decay). The insight comes from understanding these as queueing systems! (cont)
Quote Tweet
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
·
In cogsci, Marr suggests 3 levels at which a system (eg vision) can be analyzed: computational (the fundamental problem being solved), algorithmic (how it’s solved, abstractly), and implementation (hardware details). It’s an interesting taxonomy for analyzing tools for thought!
Show this thread
6
7
87
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
Inboxes only “work” if you trust how they’re drained. From a queue-processing perspective: the departure rate must be below some threshold. Inbox Zero “works” by aggressively increasing that rate (via defer, delegate, drop)—blunt, but ensures that departure rate > arrival rate.
2
14
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
This tactic requires you to make a decision about every item in the inbox. Maybe fine when queue is small, but explicitly deferring a task imposes an emotional cost, possibly unnecessarily: “inbox zero” is only necessary if the arrival rate *always* exceeds the departure rate.
3
8
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
If the arrival rate is variable and sometimes sits below the departure rate, you can still handle everything in a reasonable timeframe. A more ideal mechanism would ensure that wait times remain tolerable without insisting on a 1-day cycle time.
1
3
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
But what I’m saying here is that thinking about this design problem as a queueing theory problem is much more generative than just brainstorming up a cool UI mechanism, because it gives you a way to *reason* about the space of mechanisms, e.g. in terms of average wait time.
6:58 PM · Mar 5, 2021TweetDeck
25
Likes
Francisco Tolmasky
@tolmasky
Replying to
@andy_matuschak
A lot of this is around an insistence on ephemerality. You click on a link in Twitter & you have to read the article RIGHT NOW because 1) it’s modal so you can’t do anything else until done, 2) no *history* so you can’t go back to it & 3) search sucks so you cant find it tomorrow
1
1
1
Francisco Tolmasky
@tolmasky
I feel like it’s silly to have to come up with “actions” for the user to take to organize their information. I shouldn’t have to ponder whether closing a tab or de-escalating it is the right move. Information systems should be fundamentally non-destructive and searchable.
1
1
3
Show replies
Navin Kabra
@NGKabra
Replying to
@andy_matuschak
I saw this (unrelated)
@ForteLabs
framing and noticed that it is also generative but in a slightly different way. It led me to the same solution as the queuing framing: Going from binary to a spectrum = make it a queue. Multiple dimensions = multiple queues.
Quote Tweet
Tiago Forte
@fortelabs
·
There are only 3 kinds of mistakes: 1. Thinking a situation is a "fact of life," when you actually have a choice 2. Thinking the choice is binary when it's actually a spectrum 3. Thinking a choice is on a spectrum, when there are actually multiple dimensions