5 ms·

Nowhere does his post imply that the reason he's leaving is because his design aesthetic clashes with Google's desire for "clean, spartan, and utilitarian." It'

by ellyagg 18y ago

Nowhere does his post imply that the reason he's leaving is because his design aesthetic clashes with Google's desire for "clean, spartan, and utilitarian." It's perfectly possible to meet those goals and not be ugly, like, e.g., iGoogle and Gmail are. I consider most of Apple's designs to be "clean, spartan, and utilitarian". Requiring user testing for shades of blue and thicknesses of border is the height of silliness. I'm reminded of those room makeover shows they have on TV. At the beginning, the designer tells the couple one of the colors they've chosen. The couple is aghast. "What, I can't stand magenta. No way!" Sometimes, the wife looks like she's about to cry. At the end, magenta is used and the design is breathtaking. There is no way user testing has gotten efficient enough to beat a designer at that level of detail. Moreover, users often don't know they want something until a designer shows them they do. You can never get to those designs by testing blues and borders.

jfarmer 18y ago
Why is that silly? For Google it takes no time to implement and, because of their traffic, no time to test. What's the downside?
- simonk 18y ago
  You just spent three days of a teams time over what the designer already knew.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Assuming the designer is correct, when you have that much traffic and easy access to real data you don't need to make assumptions.
  - nostrademons 18y ago
    The point of the blue-bar incident was that the designer was not correct, and a different shade of blue (which most people inside the Googleplex thought was inferior) generated measurably more revenue - more than the designer's salary, and certainly more than the time spent experimenting with different shades of blue. The best thing about a data-driven approach is that it gives room to be wrong. And we're proven wrong all the time: basically every meeting, there's some measured data where we go "that can't be right" - and then we either discuss ways in which we might've misinterpreted it or say "Okay, assuming this is right, then what do we do?" It sounds idiotic, but really we're (humanity in general) the idiots.
    - sbaqai 18y ago
      I wonder if there is any research/reasoning in why one shade of blue would generate more revenue than another? Malcolm Gladwell had an interesting podcast about people's ability/inability to express what they really mean and feel. He uses the Aeron chair as an example of a product that was despised/considered ugly but eventually embraced for it breakthrough functionality/aesthetic. I can see how data-backed design decisions can produced locally optimized results, the "ideal" shade of blue, logo size, typography, etc.. But I wonder if on the whole, all those optimizations work together optimally, as a wholistic experience? [edit] Gladwell's Podcast: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html
      - mattmcknight 18y ago
        Well, that's the point of multi-level A/B testing. You try all of the combinations to isolate the impact of each varying feature, but you are always testing 'wholistically'. They don't just throw a green bar up there on its own and see who clicks on it.
  - jfarmer 18y ago
    The original article about the 41 shades of blue says that Google decided to test the 41 shades because another team pushed a slightly different shade and it performed better. So, it looks like the designer didn't know. I'd contend that's because most designers don't optimize for performance, they optimize for aesthetic. When those two are in conflict which should win? It sounds like Bowman thinks the latter, while Google thinks the former. As a stockholder I'm thankful that's the company's attitude.
gnaritas 18y ago
> Requiring user testing for shades of blue and thicknesses of border is the height of silliness. No it isn't, if a designers ideas cannot withstand a little objective scientific testing, they aren't worth using. > Moreover, users often don't know they want something until a designer shows them they do. You can never get to those designs by testing blues and borders. Which is the whole point of objective testing, do the design, throw it in front of real users and see how it performs next to the original design. I think what's really going on is that more often than not, designers want what they like rather than what works best. Engineers want what works best, and Google has an engineering culture. Form does and rightfully should take a back seat to function.
- jfarmer 18y ago
  I think that's right, but a little overgenerous to engineers. We have our hangups, too. Say, which do you think is better, emacs or vim? Even in a data-driven environment oftentimes the argument gets pushed back from "what to do" to "what to measure."
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    You can't measure emacs vs vim like you can the effect of color or layout on conversion of an app. When measuring is trivial to do and results are easily seen to directly impact revenue, there's just no excuse to not do it.
    - jfarmer 18y ago
      I agree. I'm just saying this isn't an "engineer" versus "designer" issue. Engineers have just as many "irrational" opinions as designers. Emacs vs. Vim, Ruby vs. Python, or whatever. And those things are quantifiable to some extent. Take a random sample of engineers, give them identical tasks to complete, and vary the editor.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- shard 18y ago

by ellyagg 18y ago

jfarmer 18y ago

Why is that silly? For Google it takes no time to implement and, because of their traffic, no time to test. What's the downside?

simonk 18y ago
You just spent three days of a teams time over what the designer already knew.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  Assuming the designer is correct, when you have that much traffic and easy access to real data you don't need to make assumptions.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  The point of the blue-bar incident was that the designer was not correct, and a different shade of blue (which most people inside the Googleplex thought was inferior) generated measurably more revenue - more than the designer's salary, and certainly more than the time spent experimenting with different shades of blue. The best thing about a data-driven approach is that it gives room to be wrong. And we're proven wrong all the time: basically every meeting, there's some measured data where we go "that can't be right" - and then we either discuss ways in which we might've misinterpreted it or say "Okay, assuming this is right, then what do we do?" It sounds idiotic, but really we're (humanity in general) the idiots.
  - sbaqai 18y ago
    I wonder if there is any research/reasoning in why one shade of blue would generate more revenue than another? Malcolm Gladwell had an interesting podcast about people's ability/inability to express what they really mean and feel. He uses the Aeron chair as an example of a product that was despised/considered ugly but eventually embraced for it breakthrough functionality/aesthetic. I can see how data-backed design decisions can produced locally optimized results, the "ideal" shade of blue, logo size, typography, etc.. But I wonder if on the whole, all those optimizations work together optimally, as a wholistic experience? [edit] Gladwell's Podcast: http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail230.html
    - mattmcknight 18y ago
      Well, that's the point of multi-level A/B testing. You try all of the combinations to isolate the impact of each varying feature, but you are always testing 'wholistically'. They don't just throw a green bar up there on its own and see who clicks on it.
- jfarmer 18y ago
  The original article about the 41 shades of blue says that Google decided to test the 41 shades because another team pushed a slightly different shade and it performed better. So, it looks like the designer didn't know. I'd contend that's because most designers don't optimize for performance, they optimize for aesthetic. When those two are in conflict which should win? It sounds like Bowman thinks the latter, while Google thinks the former. As a stockholder I'm thankful that's the company's attitude.

gnaritas 18y ago

> Requiring user testing for shades of blue and thicknesses of border is the height of silliness. No it isn't, if a designers ideas cannot withstand a little objective scientific testing, they aren't worth using. > Moreover, users often don't know they want something until a designer shows them they do. You can never get to those designs by testing blues and borders. Which is the whole point of objective testing, do the design, throw it in front of real users and see how it performs next to the original design. I think what's really going on is that more often than not, designers want what they like rather than what works best. Engineers want what works best, and Google has an engineering culture. Form does and rightfully should take a back seat to function.

jfarmer 18y ago
I think that's right, but a little overgenerous to engineers. We have our hangups, too. Say, which do you think is better, emacs or vim? Even in a data-driven environment oftentimes the argument gets pushed back from "what to do" to "what to measure."
- gnaritas 18y ago
  You can't measure emacs vs vim like you can the effect of color or layout on conversion of an app. When measuring is trivial to do and results are easily seen to directly impact revenue, there's just no excuse to not do it.
  - jfarmer 18y ago
    I agree. I'm just saying this isn't an "engineer" versus "designer" issue. Engineers have just as many "irrational" opinions as designers. Emacs vs. Vim, Ruby vs. Python, or whatever. And those things are quantifiable to some extent. Take a random sample of engineers, give them identical tasks to complete, and vary the editor.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
shard 18y ago