Technology is boring

Is that a salacious title just to get views? Maybe. Is there some truth to it? Absolutely. Technology is boring. Or more specifically, technology for technology's sake is boring. But so often we as content creators try to teach others by focusing on the technology, not the part which makes it interesting and exciting.

Technology is interesting because of the problems the tech actually solves. Tech for tech's sake is boring.

Let me start with an analogy, then talk about the impact it has on us as content creators/presenters/teachers.

It goes to 11

Nigel Tufnel : The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Marty DiBergi : Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel : Exactly.

Marty DiBergi : Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel : Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten.

• This is Spinal Tap (1984)

My partner isn't a dork about technology the way I am. While I'll get all excited about the specs of a new phone or a wall outlet with USB chargers, it doesn't connect with her. There will be times where I breathlessly highlight some new feature and she'll look at me, blink her eyes, and say, "It goes to 11?", referencing the scene above.

The movie This is Spinal Tap is a mockumentary about a rock band. The scene involves the reporter Marty talking to Nigel about his equipment, with Nigel completely confused as to why Marty doesn't understand that 11 is one louder than 10.

When I turn to my partner and babble about the power of the GPU in the PC I want to build I'm playing the role of Nigel to her Marty. I'm rattling on about something which is meaningless to her, because she doesn't have the context or any reason to care about what I'm talking about.

Sadly, this is the same approach many presenters and writers take when talking about technology. They get so excited about the tech because it's meaningful to them, yet they forget their audience might not share their experience or passion. They're simply saying, "It goes to 11", perplexed why their audience doesn't get it.

Stop leading with technology

I'm not going to call anyone out, so I won't be using real examples, but consider the following blog or conference session titles:

• Using GitHub Codespaces and containers
• Deep dive into GitHub Actions
• Overview of ASP.NET, MVC and Razor
• Use SETAC, WEAT, DAT and other great frameworks

(Editor's note: As far as I know, none of those for the last one abbreviations are real technologies, but if they are it further speaks to the point I'm hoping to make here.)

When you read those titles what are you able to glean from them with regards to the topic? We know the name of the tech, and contextually we might be able to determine a bit of info about them. But what problem does it solve? What in that title indicates what I should care about, about how it connects to my work? What will I be able to do after viewing your content?

Or, put more directly, when reading those titles do I get an answer to the question "Why should I care?"

I don't think so.

Unfortunately, as technologists, we so often get caught up in our own excitement we forget not everyone has our experience. We've become Nigel, repeatedly saying "It goes to 11," unsure about why people don't understand.

Speak to your audience, not yourself

If you're looking at those titles and it immediately clicks, ask if you're maybe reading more into it based on your experience, adding context which doesn't actually exist. It's a common trap, one into which I've fallen many times. It's easy to get tunnel-visioned, to forget that not everyone has shared our journey, our experience.

But even if the title does resonate, ask the question - what will those sessions or articles actually cover? One might be able to venture an educated guess, but it's tough to tell. Even when we are leading with technology we're familiar with we're still not telling a good story. And isn't that our primary goal - to tell a great story to share knowledge?

Lead with the problem

Instead, titles should lead with the action, answering the question "What will I do with the tech?", followed by the tech. For example:

• Contribute to projects without the setup with GitHub Codespaces
• Improve and scale DevOps workflows with GitHub Actions
• Create your first website with ASP.NET
• Build mobile apps with SETAC, WEAT and other popular frameworks

Note the core difference in the rewrites. It's now made clear what the session/article will cover, the problems the tech can solve, and why someone should care. I can quickly determine if it's applicable to me, to something I want to learn.

Taking it to the streets

Writing in this style takes a little practice, as it's very easy to fall back to old patterns. But we need to remember our audience and the goal of writing titles and abstracts - it's to convey what one would learn and why they should care. Start with the problem, with an action, of what the learner will be able to do, rather than the tech.

Because tech for tech's sake is boring.