API Design Goals: Intuitive APIs


Here at Mozilla, we're currently designing an interface to Firefox's Places API for the Jetpack API. This feature has got me thinking about what qualities make a good API. An interface should enhance, never hinder, and so, to distill this thought into crude words, we want to provide the most intuitive and flexible interface possible to our add-on developers. From our perspective, we also want our features to be maintainable. While these terms may sound like buzzwords, they provide a standard and verifiable vocabulary for discussing API design, allowing us to ignore arguments of object-oriented versus functional, inheritence versus composition, comma-first, required semi-colons, and the like, as these are all building blocks to achieve the goal of a good API. A means to an end.

Let's start by defining what makes an API intuitive. We can take a closer look at flexibility and maintainability in future posts.

The Interface

In the weeks before I joined Mozilla's Addon-SDK team, friends and family often asked about the kind of work we do here. This meant I had to explain what an API is, to an audience of non-programmers. The best metaphor I could come up with is an arcade cabinet. We make the buttons and joysticks (API) that interfaces with the arcade guts (Firefox) so that developers (the players) can just play without having to understand how the cabinet guts work. Some libraries are small utility modules that just expose one method (Pac Man), and then there are giant libraries that require a huge surface area due to complexity (flight simulators). The main point is that joysticks are used in arcade machines because they're intuitive.

Now, buckle up -- this metaphor is useful for interface designers as well.

Flight Simulator

This is what picking up three.js felt like. Great API, but still a complex domain!

Consistency -> Intuitive

An API that's intuitive just works how one would expect it to. If a developer can glance over some documentation and begin with some trial and error, that's a good start. An intuitive API is a desirable goal since it means the users spend less time learning and more time doing. We can go up to most arcade machines and figure out what is up. Hit some buttons, move around the joystick, learn from visual feedback. We have this knowledge because we've interfaced with buttons and similar controllers before. That's the goal of an API: for a developer to spend a few minutes assessing the lay of the land, only to realize it feels pleasantly familiar. Ultimately, the API becomes a part of a developer's toolbelt, not dissimilar to standard libraries. They know how the joystick and buttons work.

If users of the library do the equivilent of putting the joystick and buttons in their mouths, you're doing something wrong.

Man screaming at arcade machine

This is the face you should make when designing APIs.

Simple libraries, like most components or Substack-style npm modules, can achieve an intuitive interface with a small surface area, doing one thing and one thing well. Libraries like underscore is just a collection of small modular utilities exposed under a single namespace resulting in a clean, intuitive interface. Larger libraries require a bit more finesse, and leveraging what knowledge you assume the user has deep in their brain already. This is your flight simulator.

Consistency leads to an intuitive design. Designers can create consistency by tapping into users' existing knowledge.

Design for the environment. Use existing language and platform idioms -- in JavaScript, using camelCase versus snake_case. Your node.js module better be asynchronous and your callbacks should follow the idiomatic node callback signature with an error in first position. Your jQuery plugin better return this and be chainable. When designing APIs for Jetpack, we think about how they can be similar to other modules in the SDK.

Design for the audience. jQuery uses CSS selectors for creating jQuery objects and has become a popular gateway into JavaScript from HTML/CSS. John Resig took the knowledge front-end developers already had (selectors) and applied it to a new world for the same audience.

Design for the library itself. Be consistent throughout your own library. If a method is named getProp, don't name the setter setProperty. Don't have getID in one place and getId in another. Mostly semantic, use the same naming conventions, rules, abbreviations and limitations throughout the library. Naming is an artistic balance between clarity and not having monster method names.

These are just three examples of sources of knowledge that can inspire a designer when striving for consistency, and there are countless more areas of shared knowledge waiting to be leveraged.

Chai's BDD

Chai's BDD API is an API I really dig as an intuitive assertion library. Many chainable methods solely for the sake of legibility, and every comparison you could possibly want just exists. It has a consistent pattern used which is an expect call, followed by chainable 'language' properties, ending in an assertion.

An example of Chai's BDD "noun-chain-assertion" pattern:


Chainable words can also set flags for the final assertion, keeping consistent with Chai's pattern:

// Chain modifiers for negation (not)
// Modifiers for subsequent comparisons (deep)
expect(foo).to.deep.equal({ bar: 'bar' });

What I find most interesting about Chai's API is what inspired the interface. Mimicking Ruby testing libraries like rspec moreso than other JS assertion libraries, a Rails developer may have an easier time picking it up. Above all, it leans on our knowledge of the english language. The language chain is a series of synonymous properties that are used to increase legibility of the form to, be, have, is, and other verbs and articles. As long as a developer knows atleast one chainable word, they can write tests. As they adopt more synonyms, their tests become closer to a sentence, making both the codebase and test output more semantic.

// Works, but weird phrasing
// Better!
// This works but why would you ever

Chai also has a should BDD interface, similar to that of expect, where Object.prototype is extended with the should property. Still follows the "noun-chain-assertion" pattern, just differs on how the noun is constructed.

var x = [1,2,3];

Go forth and harvest humanity's body of knowledge

Hopefully this will spark thinking of intuitive with regard to API design, and what sources of knowledge one can use to influence how a library is used. I imagine things will start to get really fun when ES6 Proxies are everywhere and we can safely implement Ruby's method_missing in JavaScript1. In future posts, I'll address both flexibility and maintainability in API design, and in the meantime dig through some of your favourite source code and docs and see if any of this applies.

What are some other API design goals and good examples of intuitive APIs? What other sources of knowledge can be used when designing them? Pac Man or flight simulators?