Question:
What does docx stand for?
Answer:
I have no idea. I figure that “doc” is short for “document” and I can only
assume that the “x” is for “extra”, as in “extra meaningless letters tacked on
to my file name for no particular reason that a normal person would actually
care about.”
Someday sooner than you think,
people are going to laugh at the idea that we used to type strings of letters
at the end of document names. I’m not sure why Windows even puts these things
into the names of files, let alone allowing you to edit them by default when you’re changing a file
name. By building this behavior in, it’s sending the message that “you probably
want to change the file extension when you change the name”. I don’t think I’ve done this more than a
couple times in 12 years of professional work. Looking past the extensions,
consider how we manage document names. We append endless methods for
differentiation, including version numbers, dates, authors, or foolish notes
like “latest” or “new” (only to then create a updated version). I’m confident
this idea is going away very soon.
Digital documents like those
described above are products of an old era. The analogy of individual paper
documents filed in paper folders just isn’t necessary anymore. We spend endless
hours composing messages and creating graphics that may never be seen or used
again outside of their original document. In these documents, we often make
points that others have already made and waste time building graphics when
others have done it better. Most importantly, potentially meaningful ideas sit
dormant, preventing us from making the critical connections that are essential
for new idea development. So what’s the better model? Shared documents like
Google Docs or Open Office? That’s a step in the right direction, but it’s
still just an improved version of an old model.
When everything becomes
interconnected, the concept of isolated documents fades away. What takes its
place is something more dynamic and evolutionary. Hundreds of millions of us
are constantly immersed in a paradigm where pages subscribe to other pages,
where views are managed for others to see in real-time as they are updated.
It’s an interconnected, user-customized experience and it makes sense. If it
didn’t make sense, hundreds of millions of us wouldn’t rely on Facebook for
managing our social interactions, look to Twitter for managing our news and
happenings, and Pinterest wouldn’t be one of the hottest apps on the market.
This model of dynamic pages and
subscriptions has emerged naturally in a human environment where people are
free to take technology in any direction they choose. College students,
mid-career engineers, and grandmothers all quickly grasp this same model. Sure,
some people are more inclined to share personal information than others using
the tools, but isn’t that just normal human nature to have varying levels of
privacy concerns?
One benefit of this approach is
value of controlling your own “broadcast” out to the world. Much has been said
about the importance that people feel from sharing their thoughts (or party
pictures) with the world. People act as mini-celebrities in a tiny world of
followers, curating interesting quotes and movie clips for their adoring fans
to enjoy. What is more egotistical than a constant live personal broadcast to
the world?
Meanwhile, the consumer is equally
enthralled. In today’s environment, where we’re completed flooded with a
constant stream of information, nothing is better than a tailored news feed of
relevant information. We rely on our friends to curate the world for us,
assuming that our trust in them with translate into trust in their interests.
It’s a mutually beneficial experience between producer and consumer, or curator
and observer.
One reason this model has emerged
is that it’s simple. People are selfish and lazy (no offense, people). It’s how
we’ve survived. Look out for yourself, find the easiest way to do things, and
you’ll sustain. Sure, the 220 people I follow on Twitter are going to miss some
stuff that I might want to know about, but I’m willing to take that chance
consider that seeking my own information from the raw, disorganized web would
be a full-time job.
So this brings us to the office –
isn’t it just a matter of time before this new model spills over into the
working world? Why are we still creating and sharing isolated files? I’ve
worked in a handful of companies over the past 12 years, and everyone of them
rely on the constant building and sharing of digital documents (primarily
Microsoft Office). Think of the amount of time spent searching for documents,
getting lost in file structures, recreating PowerPoint slides, emailing
documents, requesting others to email documents, managing file versions, and
other “mechanical-digital” tasks.
Let’s shift to a better model.
Let’s develop better means to communicate. Let’s stop wasting time on these
redundant and time-consuming activities. Better yet, let’s stop recreating each
other’s work and instead evolve from it. If I have a message to convey in a
presentation slide, why can’t I search for that message and get results from
other slides that have been shared by my co-workers, friends, or business
leaders? A quick search on a “new slide” page could reveal the most popular,
highest rated, or most relevant slides based not only on my search query but my
role and context as well. After all, if others have communicated the message
better than me, shouldn’t I save everyone’s time and frustration and just point
to their slide and give them credit?
When it comes time for me to give
my presentation, the referenced slide appears right in context, and full credit
is given to the source. After all, if the CEO of my company or a designer at a
local startup have made the point better than me, why should I put in more effort to deliver less to my audience? We can provide
better solutions that lead to better results with less effort. This combination
usually wins out, doesn’t it?
Consider if the “news feed” concept
from Facebook or Twitter were introduced to your workplace. People could
subscribe to each other, specific activities, or deliverables. Files aren’t
being passed around, but information is instead organized by interconnected
pages and dynamic clusters. Worried about version management? Simply roll back
the timeline to access old work. Worried about overwhelming people with adding
more streaming information? The feed would be completely customizable. This
model could make the current email paradigm seem overly forceful and annoying.
Think about it, which of these options sound more appealing to you?
- I decide the types of things that I receive
- I would like others to decide for me
Of course, I realize the flaw in
this model as you simply can’t choose to not receive assignment from your boss,
but would people actually make this choice? Shouldn’t we be trusted to
subscribe the right sources of information and also provide meaningful
information to those subscribing to us?
Of course, this writing isn’t about
bashing email. It’s about pushing our expectations forward. It’s about
rethinking how we think about information and knowledge working. In an
interconnected world where we all use a dynamic, subscription-based,
user-defined model for sharing social information, isn’t it only a matter of
time before do the same for our more serious pursuits? I do, and I think it
will change sooner than expected.
