Imagine the following scenario â€“ You go to NYTimes.com, and are offered a choice between variety of interfaces – not just â€˜skinsâ€™ or font adjustments – built for a variety of purposes by whoever wants to put in the effort. You get to pick the interface that is right for you – carries the stories you like, presented in the fashion you prefer. Wouldnâ€™t that be something?
Currently, we are made to choose between using weak customization options, or build some ad hoc â€˜interfaceâ€™ using RSS readers. What is missing is open-sourced or internally produced selection of interfaces that cater to diverse needs, and wants of the public.
We need to separate data from the interface. Applying it to the example at hand – NY Times is in the data business, not the interface business. So like Google Maps, it can make data available, with some stipulations, including monetization requirements, and let others take charge of creatively thinking of ways that data can be presented. If this seems too revolutionary, more middle of the road options exist. NY Times can allow people to build interfaces which are then made available on the New York Times site. For monetization, NY Times can reserve areas of real estate, or charge users for using some ad free interfaces.
This trick can be replicated across websites, and easily extended to software. For example, MS-Excel can have a variety of interfaces, all easily searchable, downloadable, and deployable, that cater to specific needs of say, Chemical Engineers, or Microbiologists, or programmers. The logic remains the same – MS needn’t be in the interface business, or more limitedly, doesn’t need to control it completely or inefficiently (for it does allow tedious customization), but can be a platform on which people can build, and share, innovative ways to exploit the underlying engine.
An adjacent broader and more useful idea is to come up with a rich interface development toolkit that provides access to processed open data.