Web 2.0 has been around for some time now and the buzz is finally starting to die down, at least amongst web professionals. One thing that doesn’t seem to be going away though is the perpetual beta. Every day I run across a new site that is in beta (and has been for a very long time), while not a huge problem and probably overlooked by many it is annoying. Some people may question why it even matters, but the reason why is because it’s nothing more than a diversion tactic.
Company logos used for example only, this is not an attack on the companies / services pictured
WHERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY?
Quite simply the term beta is being used by companies as a way to avoid taking on responsibility. Website / application owners are able to deflect a large number of complaints due to the shear claim of being in “beta.”
- They don’t have to offer good support.
- They can avoid nagging problems with their offering.
- It gives false hope that problems will be solved.
Eventually something that is in beta would have its problems solved and then leave beta. However as we all know the beta process can go on for an undisclosed amount of time. These beta periods have gone on for months and even years without change. This assumed time where the service will because an official version is what allows these services to avoid responsibility.
The other side of “beta”
Working on a number of web applications over the last couple of months has allowed me to see why this practice of labeling everything in beta is nothing more than a diversion tactic. Instead I have decided to hold off on releasing anything until I am sure that the service is both effective and relatively problem free. Instead I am choosing to embrace simplicity, and grow as needed.
Why simplicity?
This is in no way a new idea, however relatively few people choose to embrace it. By remaining simple I can release a product or service that has been thoroughly tested and has removed as many bugs as is possible in a shorter amount of time. I can see what works and what doesn’t without loading the project full of features that I know don’t.
Additionally, not having the false security of a beta forces you to think through problems and innovate. Innovation never comes from pushing problems off for the longest time possible, however choosing to avoid them all together by simplifying a solution leads to more concise and effective solutions. It is also what allows innovate new ideas that break convention to be developed. If apple didn’t strive to find simpler solutions, the iPod would probably have some kind of button navigation with an antiquated volume wheel.
Why should a designer care?
Designers who play a role into the creation of a web application can have a large impact on how it functions. Choosing to simplify things like web forms and making design decisions on the behalf of users can simplify things in programming and save tons of programming hours. As an example, picture pagination on a website. Choosing to show 30 rows of results rather than giving the user the option of selecting 10, 30, 60, or 100 removes potentially unneeded programming time to implement the feature. These added features are what ultimately keeps an application in beta as the programmers deal the complications that multiply from integrating unneeded features.
What is your opinion, how do you feel about perpetual beta? At what point do you think that the public will become aware that the slack they have been giving to services supposedly in “beta” is not actually deserved?
AssociaDirect – The Association Agency
HellYeahDude.com
WordPress theme's for designers
Digg for Designers
Barackas.com – Barack Obama Maraccas
Flash Components
3 Months $20
May 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I also talked about this a while ago (shameless plug) http://duncanhalley.co.uk/blog/post/Eternally-Beta.aspx
May 29th, 2008 at 12:28 am
And how much money did you par all these services that are so blatantly breaching their service contract with you? Eh??
The perpetual beta world is a weird one, but I understand the need for it. Especially in the context of free massive-use internet applications and webservices, it’s A) impossible to conduct credible user-testing in-house or B) anticipate volume of demand and real-world use-case scenarios. Unless you make your beta the live product, you’re just going to be delivering something that obviously needs its teeth cut without the testing and ironing out of features.
C) You need to be on the bleeding edge to compete and stay fresh and exciting in the user’s mind, and show your developments in practice as opposed to updates and press releases (because real users don’t have the attention span).
D) The users are likely paying you something between a tiny fee and nothing — they are lucky to have your service and when they signed up without giving credit card details they were not at all indignant to notice the contract included no promises of performance or product release road-map from the developers. Your real revenue source is advertising and to maintain this you need to keep users returning and keep them active — new developments, constantly building new features and ironing them out, encourages user curiosity. It’s the only way to honour your duties and stay financially sane while being honest about what you’re giving the user.
Granted, there are some people out there who are actually proud of being able to put a glossy, reflected, Helvetica Neue ‘BETA’ sticker on their logo. For some it doesn’t matter what it /means/, because it /implies/ they’re cool and modern. Plus they get to tag on another inoffensive word to their meaningless, all-lowercase brand title. But the culture arrises from practical reasons, and I think we’re lucky to have it.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:51 am
I think one way around it would be to explain why it is in Beta, and what you’re hoping to achieve by having it in Beta.
A page that says we’re hoping to achieve “goal” and “goal”, and as soon as these goals have been reached then the beta label should be removed.
This will solve two problems, 1. Do we need to release it in beta? What are we hoping to achieve? & 2. How do we know when to remove the Beta status?. And then like you said there’s no hiding behind the Beta status when things go wrong.
Cool topic!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Barney, I agree with you that for some services a beta program may be the most effective way to get started. However I also agree with Liam. If companies are going to use beta programs then they should let the users know how the progress is going. In my opinion this could be a very limited amount of information but knowing something is necessary.
For example, the company could show a percentage of completion towards ending the beta. Like say 59% if you see that it has moved to 62% you are able to see progress, and know that the company is doing Something.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Right, I see your point. When I read over your article for the second time it’s clearer.
You’re saying you can understand the need for live development, but the term ‘beta’ is inappropriate because it implies a distinct phase of development pre-release candidate?
On this point I’m 100% with you. And as for all of Google’s stuff, they would be far better off getting rid of those four letters and appending a strap-line of ‘constantly developing’.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I did that for Paris Envies ( http://www.parisenvies.com/ ), first I’ve labeled it beta (well, it was really a beta), but when it got a bit better, I leaved beta while keeping a simple product. It permitted to have innovative features once the basis where there.
Now I can improve it, adding layers over layers, on a simple base.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Barney,
I can’t agree with you more. If the biggest internet company there is can’t get away from the term Beta then there is a huge problem. A company with the resources of google should not have to hide behind a “Beta.”
Continual Development is an ideal that shows progress, Beta says we still haven’t reached what could be considered a fully functional product. Anyone who has used gmail is very aware that it is a great and fully functional service.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
It’s a very annoying problem for me too, and when I’m elected President of this Dimension I’ll put it on my list of things to put a stop to, right after the perpetual label of “new” on all FM radio stations. That one annoys me 4x as much, and I don’t even listen to the radio!
May 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It all depends on what is meant by “beta.” In it’s original usage, it was a sign to users that not everything is working yet, that there would be some rough edges and poorly implemented features. And that they should alert the creators to any problems they find.
In many cases today, it’s just like Barney said above. Beta is just a word that means “cool”, and is used to imply the site is cutting edge. When used that way, beta is a meaningless term.
The silver lining here is that Eternal Beta can evolve into something that is good for everyone. The beauty of the web is that you can update a website any time, and your update is instantly available. That’s very different than the world of print, packaging, or product design. If Eternal Beta means that companies truly buy into the idea that their products are constantly evolving, with new features being rolled out all the time, then Eternal Beta is okay with me.
J. Jeffryes’s latest post: Design Smarter: Avoid Negative Work
May 30th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
What about those services that should be in Beta, but are not? Like Twitter…