Thanks for the link to Matt Chalmers – I’ll check it out.

I don’t have a problem with creating better-integrated systems – quite the opposite. My concerns were mainly about the notion of creating artificial transparency, really.

It’s important to reinforce to users that there are many tools and channels, and that different behaviours are appropriate for each. We can streamline the tools, but the value of the channels is that they’re separate. And so I like the dropdown in Office, because it exposes that there are two channels – IM, Email – but one action – responding to a message.

Matt Chalmers called this “seamful design”, and I think it’s a really important maxim for the tools we’re beginning to create: better integration horizontally is important, but making sure that there are speed-bumps to highlight the transitions between channels and services. Integration provides for a more streamlined experience – but it’s still important to ensure the user’s mental model of the experience matches up with the product’s.

So I hope you don’t think I was too confrontational in refuting some of the arguments you were putting forward – like I said, there’s clear truth in many of them, but the details are really important when it comes to understanding the differing nature of all these tools, and I don’t think we’re going to drive adoption of people aren’t understanding what’s going on.