Most modern tools for thought were made by people deeply involved with that domain's problems (NLS, email, Smalltalk, Bravo, Mathematica, WWW). More on why: numinous.productions/ttft/#serious-
Collecting counter-examples made by people working closely with others doing serious domain work:
Conversation
Replying to
Photoshop's primary developer was Thomas Knoll, a PhD student in computer vision. He was spurred by his brother, John Knoll, who was working on film special effects at Industrial Light and Magic. (But John did actually develop some of the software, too!)
1
4
20
Can't think of counter-ex for thought. For other classes of tools, with well-defined meta-skills for building tools, you will see counter-ex. For instance, blacksmiths would constantly iterate on weapons/armor design based on the experiences of warriors.
1
Slack isn't a tool for thought, it's a tool for thought interruption
1
1
Thanks for sharing! I'd count these authors as working on a problem they're deeply familiar with: they frame the challenge in terms of the office environment, etc. (similar story with NLS, email, Bravo)
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
1) I really enjoyed the essay and find your work inspiring, but I disagree with your framing of design and domain expertise as sharply distinct. That framing makes it feel surprising that tools for thought are made mostly by people deeply involved with the domain. /
1
2) Following David Perkins' "Knowledge as Design" viewpoint, being a domain expert means knowing how to construct knowledge/tools in the domain, but the "design expertise" of the inventor of Hindu-Arabic numerals probably wouldn't look at all like IDEO's "expert design" process.
Show more replies