DESIGN MIAMI 2011
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2011
DUTCH DESIGN WEEK 2011
VIENNA DESIGN WEEK 2011
Making the rounds is this blogpost by Douglas Bowman, Google's (former) Visual Design Leader, where he explains his frustration with Google's overly engineered approach to measuring the impact of minor design changes, for example,
Yes, it's true that a team at Google couldn't decide between two blues, so they're testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4, or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can't operate in an environment like that. I've grown tired of debating such minuscule design decisions.
CNet's Stephen Shankland adds,
I can't speak for Bowman's experience, though I can see how a classical designer might feel stifled by code monkeys. There are plenty of considerations that go into design in general, and pragmatism can be at odds sometimes with passion, boldness, and innovation. And Bowman earlier was a designer at Wired, which is definitely at the bold end of the spectrum.Overall, however, I find Google's approach to design refreshing and radical in its own way. Choosing color shades and pixel widths on the basis of the behavior of millions of Web page users is a fascinating development to the form-follows-function school of design.
It seems to me there's a continuum between the extremes of decision making from the purely subjective - a designer saying "because I like it" and the absolutely objective -"millions of users click on this shade of blue". As companies seek to measure the impact of their investment in design, is there a need for a balance between the two approaches? Or simply the gamble of taking one over the other? What do you think? In the meantime, one can't help but note this very same "company is filled with engineers" flies in the face of convention with their ever changing logo.
Comments
Google has this approach with other things they do. Split, test, split, test, split, test, and let the population make the decisions. There are some issues with this method though: you can only test those things that you think of comparing and consumer preferences change fairly rapidly and are not even close to being constant. Consumer testing at this level is a popular notion for people who have no idea about design because they cannot tell which design is correct or better. It is somewhat novel compared to other media in that they do not need to design for the future (at least not very far) since they can design for the immediate time (and redesign and redesign and redesign to stay current).
paradigm shifting trends are still not predictable, not in fashion, style and entertainment, not even with all the data and user feedback/input in the world. If what Google seeks is to satisfy its currents users according to their present needs then maybe all they need is look for "that" shade of blue. But if they want to set new trends then they need to start taking chances. But then again, google was never a "leap of faith" type of company.
I remember Google from the pre-GOOG days. Back then, they were only concerned with search result relevance and they were buying hard-drives at 2:00 AM in an alley, to meet the growing storage demands.
Post-IPO and making $5B/quarter has changed them quite a bit.
I think they read too much in to a lot of things.
Is this real? If so, I find this fascinating. It's remarkable and ironic that the Google design head quit over perceived bureaucracy, particularly because Google has gained tremendous notoriety for allowing and encouraging radical and frequent interpretations of its logo - something most companies try like hell to stamp out to ensure brand consistency.
I would think that having to deal with code-money oversight would be a small price to pay for the liberating freedom to constantly re-imagine and re-express my brand! But I might be missing something here.