4 ms·

While the new design is undoubtedly prettier I'd wait to call it a success and see if it actually works better, because I kinda feel like the old design was bet

While the new design is undoubtedly prettier I'd wait to call it a success and see if it actually works better, because I kinda feel like the old design was better in the functionality department. Here's a couple reasons why: 1. It's very de auteur. If you watch it in contrast with every other Mike Kus design as beautiful and awesome they are you'll see that this design is not that original and looks just every other Mike Kus design. 2. The mobile app looks like a giant bueautiful useless splash screen. It has a lot more graphics and details and yet it conveys a lot less information that the 'before' design. For starters, that the damn button is clickable and it will redeem something from Mario's Pizzeria. Or am I just becoming an old cranky designer?

kapilkale 15y ago
I think it's fair to withhold judgment until we have a better idea of impact on conversion, etc. 1. For us, that's exactly what we wanted. It's Mike Kus' style applied to our product. 2. The mobile app actually looks quite different. If you visit www.giftrocket.com on your phone, it's a functional version of our website. The phone app comparisons were of one specific screen within the redemption flow.
- benbscholz 15y ago
  The mobile site is really functional and to the point, although on my Android phone in Firefox, the header "gift cards to anywhere" runs together.
lobster_johnson 15y ago
I agree. This new design is undoubtedly stylish, but it also submerges the entire app in a kind of style-over-substance magazine look, and worse, a look that is even now getting a bit tired. As a user I quickly get suspicious when there is a lot of style. I quickly pick up the difference between the veneer and the inner wood, so to speak, and as a user, the first thing I look for, perhaps subconsciously, is the way through the veneer. I need to use buttons and fields and read the important stuff, all the way trying to ignore the style -- the baroque embellishments, the clever icons, the careful colour balance -- which is functionally superfluous. The main problem with style is that it obscures and dimishes the value of information. Good UI design is functional and elegant and avoids stylistic embellishments. The old design was simple and to the point. The new design is very busy and unsimple. It reminds me of the kind of excessively flowery, explosive embellishments typical of indie festival poster designs that was in vogue the last 2-3 years, but has been going out of fashion, like this one: http://bit.ly/nzJaR3 http://bit.ly/nzJaR3. Another problem with style is that it's easy to seem derivative and as though you are trying too hard. Nobody could fault the simple, apparently genuinely sincere ambitions of your old design. Now your design is ambitious in a kind of pompus way, and easier to shoot down. Yet another problem with style is that it can seem to imply a level of information quality. It's difficult to articulate, but look at the third section of your article, the way restaurants are presented. Instead of the old, close-to-the-database look, we now have something out of a coffee table book. The level of polish seems to imply that the information itself has been carefully harvested, edited, quality-checked and polished. But in your case (I'm presuming), some entries are probably more rougher than others, and the surface polish is not representative of the actual content. Just my few humble cents.
- mtgentry 15y ago
  Indeed much of it is "functionally superfluous", but it does serve a purpose. For example Lowe's presents itself in a different way than Home Depot with friendlier colors, different typography, and messaging that on the surface may seem inconsequential. They sell the same things as Home Depot but it's those nuances that appeal more to women. Simple and to the point designs often lack personality. And if you're trying to build a brand your site design needs to have a point of view.
  - lobster_johnson 15y ago
    Absolutely. But personality is an aggregate of style, design, functionality and so on. Style, design and functionality are additive to a great degree — you can add more functionality and splatter on as much stylistic flourishes as there is visual space available. For example, the minimalistic Japanese "no-brand" (it's very much a brand) MUJI has very little actual style, but lots of design. It's simplistic and function-oriented. And yet the personality is often immediately recognizable. IKEA is often minimalistic, but has a significant brand presence without applying a whole of style. Style is like makeup. You're not making a cake, so you have to be careful about how much you apply. Too much makeup and you come across as desperate or insincere. Too little and your wrinkles will be showing. I don't know how far one can stretch this metaphor -- you get the point. :-)
nhebb 15y ago
I like the redesign (it's hard not to), but I had similar misgivings. The biggest issue for me is the mystery meat navigation. The icon that looks like an iPod would intuitively go to music, but mousing over you see that it's for electronics. So the record must go to music, right? No, it's arts and entertainment. So now the visitor needs to hunt around via mouseover to find what they're after. Looking at the screenshot for their mobile app makes me wonder how they handle this effectively without mouseover. E.g., click on the pizza icon and see sushi gift cards? What, where's the pizza?
- lobster_johnson 15y ago
  Yes, that's the problem with using concrete iconography to represent metaphors. They are easily interpreted as being concrete. (Iconography is hard. These days kids are probably asking about those weird icons in toolbars that they don't recognize, and moms and dads need to explain how back in the day we used quaint things like floppy disks and clipboards and stuff; soon they will have to explain about envelopes and magnifying glasses. Apple, meanwhile, just moved iCal back a decade by introducing a leather-bound framing metaphor for the entire app.)
smackfu 15y ago
Hiring a designer with a distinct style is one way to make sure the design meets your general aesthetic goals. Compared to a designer whose portfolio has some things you love and some things you hate, in various different styles. OTOH, it is amazing that some designers just repeat the same motifs in every work they do, and make a career out of it. Another one is Michael Schwab. I love his work but it is all very samey: http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio_posters.html http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio_posters.html

kapilkale 15y ago

I think it's fair to withhold judgment until we have a better idea of impact on conversion, etc. 1. For us, that's exactly what we wanted. It's Mike Kus' style applied to our product. 2. The mobile app actually looks quite different. If you visit www.giftrocket.com on your phone, it's a functional version of our website. The phone app comparisons were of one specific screen within the redemption flow.

benbscholz 15y ago
The mobile site is really functional and to the point, although on my Android phone in Firefox, the header "gift cards to anywhere" runs together.

lobster_johnson 15y ago

I agree. This new design is undoubtedly stylish, but it also submerges the entire app in a kind of style-over-substance magazine look, and worse, a look that is even now getting a bit tired. As a user I quickly get suspicious when there is a lot of style. I quickly pick up the difference between the veneer and the inner wood, so to speak, and as a user, the first thing I look for, perhaps subconsciously, is the way through the veneer. I need to use buttons and fields and read the important stuff, all the way trying to ignore the style -- the baroque embellishments, the clever icons, the careful colour balance -- which is functionally superfluous. The main problem with style is that it obscures and dimishes the value of information. Good UI design is functional and elegant and avoids stylistic embellishments. The old design was simple and to the point. The new design is very busy and unsimple. It reminds me of the kind of excessively flowery, explosive embellishments typical of indie festival poster designs that was in vogue the last 2-3 years, but has been going out of fashion, like this one: http://bit.ly/nzJaR3 http://bit.ly/nzJaR3. Another problem with style is that it's easy to seem derivative and as though you are trying too hard. Nobody could fault the simple, apparently genuinely sincere ambitions of your old design. Now your design is ambitious in a kind of pompus way, and easier to shoot down. Yet another problem with style is that it can seem to imply a level of information quality. It's difficult to articulate, but look at the third section of your article, the way restaurants are presented. Instead of the old, close-to-the-database look, we now have something out of a coffee table book. The level of polish seems to imply that the information itself has been carefully harvested, edited, quality-checked and polished. But in your case (I'm presuming), some entries are probably more rougher than others, and the surface polish is not representative of the actual content. Just my few humble cents.

mtgentry 15y ago
Indeed much of it is "functionally superfluous", but it does serve a purpose. For example Lowe's presents itself in a different way than Home Depot with friendlier colors, different typography, and messaging that on the surface may seem inconsequential. They sell the same things as Home Depot but it's those nuances that appeal more to women. Simple and to the point designs often lack personality. And if you're trying to build a brand your site design needs to have a point of view.
- lobster_johnson 15y ago
  Absolutely. But personality is an aggregate of style, design, functionality and so on. Style, design and functionality are additive to a great degree — you can add more functionality and splatter on as much stylistic flourishes as there is visual space available. For example, the minimalistic Japanese "no-brand" (it's very much a brand) MUJI has very little actual style, but lots of design. It's simplistic and function-oriented. And yet the personality is often immediately recognizable. IKEA is often minimalistic, but has a significant brand presence without applying a whole of style. Style is like makeup. You're not making a cake, so you have to be careful about how much you apply. Too much makeup and you come across as desperate or insincere. Too little and your wrinkles will be showing. I don't know how far one can stretch this metaphor -- you get the point. :-)

nhebb 15y ago

I like the redesign (it's hard not to), but I had similar misgivings. The biggest issue for me is the mystery meat navigation. The icon that looks like an iPod would intuitively go to music, but mousing over you see that it's for electronics. So the record must go to music, right? No, it's arts and entertainment. So now the visitor needs to hunt around via mouseover to find what they're after. Looking at the screenshot for their mobile app makes me wonder how they handle this effectively without mouseover. E.g., click on the pizza icon and see sushi gift cards? What, where's the pizza?

lobster_johnson 15y ago
Yes, that's the problem with using concrete iconography to represent metaphors. They are easily interpreted as being concrete. (Iconography is hard. These days kids are probably asking about those weird icons in toolbars that they don't recognize, and moms and dads need to explain how back in the day we used quaint things like floppy disks and clipboards and stuff; soon they will have to explain about envelopes and magnifying glasses. Apple, meanwhile, just moved iCal back a decade by introducing a leather-bound framing metaphor for the entire app.)

smackfu 15y ago

Hiring a designer with a distinct style is one way to make sure the design meets your general aesthetic goals. Compared to a designer whose portfolio has some things you love and some things you hate, in various different styles. OTOH, it is amazing that some designers just repeat the same motifs in every work they do, and make a career out of it. Another one is Michael Schwab. I love his work but it is all very samey: http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio_posters.html http://www.michaelschwab.com/portfolio_posters.html