The Malleable Systems Collective is a community space that catalogs and experiments with malleable software and systems that reset the balance of power via several essential principles detailed below.

For all of these principles, it is not yet clear how to best achieve them, and there are sure to be many possible solutions with different tradeoffs. We’ll need to experiment as community with various approaches. The collective’s primary goal is to report on such efforts and raise awareness of work in these directions.


1. Easy to change

Software must be as easy to change as it is to use it.1

We have spent many decades in the worthy pursuit of making computing easier to use, and many such improvements to the experience of using software do in fact come to life and improve the computing applications we use everyday.

By contrast, the process of changing the features and interfaces of most software is not just difficult: in many modern ecosystems, such as the app stores of smartphones and increasingly on desktop operating systems as well, each application is sandboxed and effectively untouchable by you, the owner of the hardware on which it runs.

We must empower people to tailor and customise their computing experience to support their personal workflows in ways which likely will never be prioritised or even imagined by the original application vendor.

Some may believe open source applications achieve this, but having the source available still implies a software engineering toolchain and skill set, which effectively prohibits most people from making the changes they desire.

2. Arbitrary recombination and reuse

All layers, from the user interface through functionality to the data within, must support arbitrary recombination and reuse in new environments.

Some software architectures, such as the plugin APIs that support things like browser extensions, exist today that allow for some amount of customisation. However, you are still limited to what the API vendor has imagined someone might want to customise, which leaves us with a similar dilemma as with most applications: we must beseech the vendor to support our needs if the plugin API does not already offer it.

We argue an even more radical level of customisation is required: it must be possible to extract arbitrary bits of user interface, logic, and data for recombination in a new environment. If I want to grab a UI control from one application, some processing logic from another, and run it all against a data source from somewhere else again, it should be possible to do so.

3. Open-ended potential

Tools should strive to be easy to begin working with but still have lots of open-ended potential.

While we do have systems such as IFTTT and Zapier that simplify snapping together specific triggers and actions, the possibilities are once again limited by what each application vendor imagines you might want to do.

We should instead aim for a wider spectrum of possibilities as we once had with tools like HyperCard: it was easy to get started by making a few cards and linking them together, which could be enough for a simple problem. As you learned more about the system through gradual experience, you could grow into the scripting system and achieve a much larger set of things which did not have to be pre-imagined by the creators of the system.

4. Retain ownership and control

People of all experience levels must be able to retain ownership and control.

A fundamental problem of today’s software ecosystem is that we do not own or control the software that runs on our devices. In addition, much of the actual processing logic has been passed off to remote systems in the cloud, so only the inputs and outputs are observable.

We must ensure that malleable software approaches allow the customisations and personal workflows you create to be owned and used as you see fit. If an approach relies on some amount of remote functionality (perhaps to assist with pulling apart an application or service), we must ensure there’s a clear path for anyone interested to keep those dependencies alive so that their workflows are not disturbed if the remote service were to shut down.

This has many parallels with the ongoing movement towards data ownership, which is gaining popular awareness. Although the data ownership movement typically focuses on identity and social data, the programs and customisations that authors create are personal creative expressions. Authors must retain ownership of their data, programs, and customisations just as anyone would expect to have control over a book they wrote or art they created.

5. Freely sharable

Recombined workflows and experiences must be freely sharable with others.2

Malleable system approaches must allow each author to share their creations as they see fit. For example, it must be possible to share a workflow you’ve created with a curious friend or coworker by using a transmission channel that does not depend on a centralised service. Similarly, you must have the option of adding workflows that others have created to your personal tool set.

We can only consider the works we create on a computer to truly be “ours” if we can share them in the same ways you share physical tools in a workshop. Digital workflows have the lucky advantage of being easily copied, but we must ensure we don’t create artificial restrictions that limit what a workflow creator can do with what they have made.

6. Modifying in the context of use

Modifying a system should happen in the context of use, rather than through some separate development toolchain and skill set.3

In the current ecosystem, it is possible for software experts to achieve limited change, but to do so, they must use a set of tools and skills that are completely separate from the application itself. This is far too high of a bar to make a simple customisation to some tool you use every day.

Instead, it should be possible to modify a system using interfaces and techniques that are consistent with using the same system. This allows you to naturally build on what you already know about the system at hand while tweaking and extending it.

7. Thoughtfully crafted

Computing should be a thoughtfully crafted, fun, and empowering experience.

Modern computing is a jungle of arcane, inscrutable tools that throw up walls of difficult to parse errors that slowly chip away at your enjoyment of the creative work of building something new. While today much of this is only seen by software developers, it does sometimes leak through, such as when raw error messages are displayed.

If we are to have any hope of giving all people the same power over computers currently accessible only to experts, we must get rid of these obstacles by refining our tools so that we can focus more on the actual goal, which should make computing more fun and accessible to all.


Most contemporary applications fail to meet all of these principles, leaving us with no pathway towards improvement. The only option is to plead with the app developer and hope they will deign to grant your request. As the importance of computing in everyday life grows with each passing year, we must fight for these values to ensure the power of computing is evenly distributed.

We hope you agree this is a revolution worth fighting for.

  1. This paraphrases User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with buttons (MacLean et al., 1990): “it should be as easy to change the environment as it is to use it”. ↩︎

  2. This is adapted from What Lies in the Path of the Revolution (Basman and Tchernavskij, 2018) who argue that “all authors should have the ability to freely contribute their expressions to the work of others, and freely ‘buy into’ and ‘buy out of’ the expressions of others”. ↩︎

  3. This draws on similar themes from the in-place toolchain section of End-user programming (Ink & Switch, 2019). ↩︎

We welcome your feedback by email.
Thanks to Ben Robbins for feedback on earlier drafts.