We're all guilty. If there was a law against dull, obscure and downright perverse websites then our prisons would be full of software marketing executives. Perhaps the world would be a better place.
Someone mentions a groovy new technology, or a link appears when searching the web. The task is to quickly understand what they do, put it in context and pick up any points of interest. The home page appears, and the torture begins. A masters in Latin is often needed to pick through the contorted prose. Everyone, it seems, is the leading player in their field. But what field? Will we ever figure it out, before the tears flow and the mist descends?
How many websites promoting software companies can you name which are interesting, clear, enjoyable, educational? Ubuntu perhaps? Even in a charitable mood it's hard to think of more than a handful. Most are turgid, self-absorbed and irrelevant.
Why should this be so? And are other sectors equally guilty? When even government communicates better, something must be badly wrong.
First, software is abstract. It's hard to find good combinations of words to describe it. General non-technical vocabulary does not cover software in ways that are useful, comprehensible and accurate. So jargon inevitably creeps in, raising entry barriers to the elite who already know enough to get started.
Second, most commercial software is sold by companies who depend on aggressive marketing to prosper. It's particularly bad in the corporate world. Often it seems that the companies who are most successful have pedestrian, lacklustre products, but compensate by the way they promote themselves. Looking closer, the classic model of economics is deficient; consumers cannot effectively discover which product will really meet their needs and what are the long term costs of doing so. This is a consequence of the intangible and abstract nature of software.
Ok, so you can't touch software and it's not easy to describe. But surely at least it could be presented in a way that potential users can empathise with?
Unfortunately the ultimate culprit is human psychology. People are inconsistent. We all want to see engaging and useful information.But we also want to be reassured that software suppliers are 'players' in their field. There is always the fear of making a bad choice, and so we use our herd instinct to subconsciously lean toward what seems to be the safe option, even if the detail of its offering is largely obscure.
The mould can be broken. Apple, for example, have changed the rules of the game for consumer devices. Could the same can happen for corporate software solutions? Signals are not hopeful. Procurement processes seem to be specially designed to achieve random outcomes, at greatest expense. It is too hard for buyers to survey their options in ways that will allow them to make fully informed decisions. Dialogue between vendors and buyers will continue to be a dance of mutual incomprehension.
It seems possible that software will continue to be the big yawn on the web for a while yet.
