Member-only story
Richard Gabriel’s essay ‘Worse is Better’ is used to excuse a lot of bullshit, in ways that Gabriel would not endorse (and in ways that conflict with the explanations Gabriel himself gives). This is probably because, like other damaging slogans such as “move fast and break things” and “it’s better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission”, it’s short and catchy enough to spread well beyond the context in which it’s valid advice.
“Worse is Better” does not argue that bad things are automatically good, or that poor design has an inherent advantage over good design. Instead, it argues that in particular circumstances, the necessity of nuance hinders or slows widespread adoption. It is relatively rare that widespread adoption is desirable, so this phenomenon is usually irrelevant.
I have recently heard people claim “worse is better” is the reason that:
- the Web won over Gopher
- the Web won over Xanadu
I have heard both things from the same person, even though they use essentially contradictory interpretations of the essay. (Both are based on common, yet anhistorical, myths. In fact, Gopher was doing just fine until an attempt to enforce trademarks, and Xanadu has been plagued by management problems.)
Here are some situations when ‘worse’ can be ‘better’:
- A commercial product with a shallow initial learning curve may attract a greater number of casual users than one with a steep initial…
