When I announced Artemis in 2024, I titled the announcement “Artemis, a calm web reader, is available (in beta)”. So central to the philosophy of how I build the software is the principle “calm” that, when I write about Artemis, I still use the phrase “a calm web reader” to describe what the software is.
While exchanging blog post titles with Britt, she asked me a terrific question:
How you maintain calmness in Artemis while still adding new features. Is there an upper limit on the amount of things a calm reader could do while still being calm?
I ended up writing a post on another suggested topic “A piece of art I would love to see in person”, but the question about Artemis stuck in my mind. How do I preserve calm in Artemis over time?
I have been using Artemis for over a year and a half now. In that time the software has gone from a static site that updates once a day to a service that others can use. I have added a lot of features since Artemis was a static site. With that said, I don’t think new features have reduced the sense of calm I feel when I use Artemis. I think “calm” is an attribute of a feature and its design: a feature can afford calm, or make the experience of using Artemis less calm.
Adding features while preserving calm
My own experience using the software is that it feels like Artemis exists in the background. I go to see what my friends have written lately and then I go to their website. It doesn’t feel like it demands my attention; the update cadence is much slower than social media and other readers.
The new features I have added, and continue to add, are mostly around the topic of user preferences and control. How can I let a user customise their reader more? How can I make sure the user controls what they see? That latter question, for example, relates to the work I put in on keyword filters (which can now be applied both to all feeds and to individual feeds!). I have a few keyword filters set up which allow me to not have to think about topics I don’t want to see in my reader. In this way, the feature affords calm.
Preserving the calm I associate with the software is made up of intentional choices I make whenever I choose to add, or not add, a new feature. I ask myself questions like: How can I make this as unobtrusive as possible? Does this feature give a user more control over what they see in their reader? Will this feature affect the main reading experience and, if so, how will I make sure it is not disruptive? (For the last question, the answer is often to make something opt in by default.)
In addition, if someone thought a feature was intrusive or confusing, I would consider the feedback thoughtfully before writing a response and see what I can do better. Indeed, I have the experience of Artemis as the person who builds it; others’ feedback would help me improve the software beyond what I can see from my perspective.
Roadmaps, ideas, and red lines
There have been periods of weeks where I haven’t worked on Artemis. This is important to me. I don’t have a roadmap for Artemis with dates on when I plan to deliver features. Rather, I build what feels right when the idea comes. “via” came after a user highlighted a bug that I also noticed. “roll-ups” came after I realised people may want to follow feeds that publish many posts at once, but may not want to see all their post sin their main reader.
There may come a time when I plan a short roadmap for Artemis, but at present all I can think of would be simplifying the code such that things are more stable. I would like to work on removing repetitive code in Artemis at sone point. It would take a lot of time and I would need to plan it out, but this work would make the software easier for me to understand while reading the code and therefore easier to maintain.
There are a few “red lines” for Artemis that I don’t want to cross. These are all essential philosophies of why the software exists. First, Artemis does and will not strive to refresh posts in real time. Second, I don’t want Artemis to become an inbox, so there are no unread counts. Third, I want Artemis to be a stepping stone, rather than a destination. Artemis should point you to sites you enjoy rather than trying to be the place where you go to read the web.
Regarding the question “Is there an upper limit on the amount of things a calm reader could do while still being calm?”, I think the answer is “yes”; the more features something has, the more complex it is. I am cognisant that having lots of user preferences will, over time, feel more overwhelming. To counter this I try to set as reasonable defaults as possible (and, related to the topic of software maintenance, I need to revisit the defaults to make sure they are as good as they can be; I need to do a full run-through of using Artemis from sign-up to adding feeds to keep building my understanding of how the software works for new users).
Conclusion
The original question that motivated this post is prescient. I want to make software that is useful and makes people feel empowered. I think “calm” as a design philosophy is one part of this.
To keep following through on the reason Artemis exists – to provide a calmer way to follow websites you enjoy – means I need to continually consider that reason as I build the software. The obligation to be considerate in adding features is especially great because other people use the software. As a software author making something for other people, I want to make sure people have the experience they signed up for, and for that experience to persist over time.
Britt
Artemis, a calm web reader, is available (in beta)
software maintenance
roll-ups
A piece of art I would love to see in person
via