Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On 25 Mar 2009, at 03:33, Dave Malouf wrote: [snip] Regarding the minutiae question, I see your point about how a fraction of a penny per view at your level of scale can make huge differences. I still challenge as other people have the notion that ONLY working at that level is required. [snip] Agree completely. That said - if anybody has been advocating only working at that level I've missed it :-) Cheers, Adrian -- delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
For some designers his name is probably a curse word, because I have yet to meet a designer who likes Jakob Nielsen, but in his latest newsletter he has actually commented about this issue. Maybe he is following this thread. :) Nielsen argues a third way. I unfortunately don't have the newsletter with me and I don't see those comments on his website. If anyone else received his newsletter, can you please post Nielsen's comments on this thread? I think it will add to the debate. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Taken from Useit.com's latest newsletter. www.useit.com -- THE THIRD WAY: BETWEEN NUMBERS WORSHIP AND ARTISTIC INSTINCT One of Google's visual designers apparently quit in despair over having to prove every tiny graphics decision with clickthrough data, instead of having management rely on his artistic instinct: http://www.kottke.org/09/03/google-and-design I'd argue that both approaches are wrong. Moreover, it's a false dichotomy to choose between numbers and art. The third way is called insight, and is found through qualitative research. Of course, in reality, the very best design blends all 3 methods: qualitative insights, hard numbers, and pure aesthetic taste. But I think that qualitative should be the driving factor. It's obvious why taste shouldn't be the overriding factor: countless websites look great but don't sell. You have to moderate pure art with what customers need. It may be less obvious why the hard numbers should be secondary to soft insights. The reasons are that (a) you may measure the wrong thing, and (b) even if you measure the right thing, such as conversion rate, you can sub-optimize individual screens while undermining your long-term strategy and overall user experience. Putting A/B Testing in Its Place: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050815.html Risks of Quantitative Studies http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040301.html To take the example of which of 41 gradations of blue to pick for a design element: yes, one of these will have the highest clickthrough rate, and thus be the local optimum for the design of that one page. But it's quite possible that another shade would be better for the overall look of the site and make the complete set of pages feel more like a coherent user experience, which would enhance user confidence and the site's credibility, and lead to long-term loyalty, as more people return to buy next year. And more important, while the best shade of blue might generate 0.1% more business than the second-best, it's almost certainly the case that there is some other aspect of the design that would lead to 50% more business if you could identify it. To do so, use qualitative research to observe deep user behaviors. The things you know to measure are rarely the ones with the big impact. The things you DON'T KNOW are the place to focus usability efforts. --- Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
*takes Jared's strawman and sets it on fire* On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com wrote: So, if I understand correctly, you're speaking in an ideal world, where everyone already has the data they need when they walk in the room and everyone is on the same page with that data. Did I get that right? No, and you know it. I said no such thing. What I said was that the people in the room should be the vision-holders for the company. It is possible (even probable) that there are organizations where such people don't exist, or where they fail to do their jobs in this way. In which case you have a different problem. I then further postulate that people involved in a brainstorming exercise will reach a stage where the brainstorming begins to coalesce around a few accepted ideas/projections. Given that, I believe that the people in the room should be sufficiently familiar with their own product that they can see how the results of the brainstorming exercise differ from their current product. I don't think either postulate is unrealistic or ideal (in the sense of unobtainium). I'm sure we can both give counter-examples where this wasn't true, but that doesn't discount the notion that Dave (and I) are describing a design-driven process. All process models are ideals, as you well know. Because, I've never stepped into that world. The world I live in has stakeholders who have no clue what's happening with their designs outside their perceptions of mythical users with mythical scenarios. Right. Which is why I suggested that data should be introduced into the process, in the part of my message you didn't quote. It's important to understand how a new design concept may perform vis a vis an existing design, how a new design might or might not address deficiencies with a current design - all understandings for which data are crucial. However, none of those things go counter to the notion that you can in fact have a design-driven process that incorporates data, and not just a data-driven process that might happen to incorporate design somewhere down in the pixel-fiddling range, which was the thrust of the original complaint. Best, --Alan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Ok. I contend I *didn't* understand what you were trying to say. I do now. We're in agreement. Jared On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: *takes Jared's strawman and sets it on fire* On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com wrote: So, if I understand correctly, you're speaking in an ideal world, where everyone already has the data they need when they walk in the room and everyone is on the same page with that data. Did I get that right? No, and you know it. I said no such thing. What I said was that the people in the room should be the vision-holders for the company. It is possible (even probable) that there are organizations where such people don't exist, or where they fail to do their jobs in this way. In which case you have a different problem. I then further postulate that people involved in a brainstorming exercise will reach a stage where the brainstorming begins to coalesce around a few accepted ideas/projections. Given that, I believe that the people in the room should be sufficiently familiar with their own product that they can see how the results of the brainstorming exercise differ from their current product. I don't think either postulate is unrealistic or ideal (in the sense of unobtainium). I'm sure we can both give counter-examples where this wasn't true, but that doesn't discount the notion that Dave (and I) are describing a design-driven process. All process models are ideals, as you well know. Because, I've never stepped into that world. The world I live in has stakeholders who have no clue what's happening with their designs outside their perceptions of mythical users with mythical scenarios. Right. Which is why I suggested that data should be introduced into the process, in the part of my message you didn't quote. It's important to understand how a new design concept may perform vis a vis an existing design, how a new design might or might not address deficiencies with a current design - all understandings for which data are crucial. However, none of those things go counter to the notion that you can in fact have a design-driven process that incorporates data, and not just a data-driven process that might happen to incorporate design somewhere down in the pixel-fiddling range, which was the thrust of the original complaint. Best, --Alan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Kevin, Your post is both balanced and wise. I, on the other hand, am having trouble communicating my position on this issue. Shades of blue and widths of borders could well be inhibiting the crossing of a valley if undue time and resources are devoted to such 0.1% improvements to the exclusion of 10% leaps. Larry On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Kevin Fox wrote: Larry, I agree with the dangers of hill-climbing to the exclusion of finding new hills, but I don't believe this is the case at Google. Data-driven design is used when performing incremental design changes, and is more like QA or Usability testing. Neither preclude the utilization of blue-sky or revolutionary design, but all are important in optimizing design. Even Doug's examples of 41 blues and 3, 4, or 5 pixel borders aren't cases where data is inhibiting the crossing of a design valley, unless you consider a hue or a pixel width to be revolutionary. For another former Google designer's take on Doug's departure, and Google UX in general, I submit the post I wrote this morning: http://fury.com/2009/03/google-design-the-kids-are-alright/ Thanks, Kevin Fox Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Ah. This I understand. Your point is well taken. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On 24 Mar 2009, at 02:48, Jarod Tang wrote: Hi Dave, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Dave Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Not all forms of production are DESIGN. Engineering is not the same as design. Many companies are examples of engineering success. Maybe more proper says as some designs in the process of engineering? [snip] I think this list version of Godwin's law is As a IXDA discussion grows longer, the probability of a post involving a definition of design approaches 1. :-) Adrian Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Another perspective from Graham Jenkin who oversees the work of a team of designers focused on Google's advertiser and publisher products - http://www.grahamjenkin.com/blog/ Good reading. rgds, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Jennifer, asking me to re-design Google Search is an insane request. Of course, the complexities are there and it is a tangled web that needs to be weaved. I have said in almost every post that this is about continuum and not about absolutes. But for fun, here I go ... 1) I'd get a group of stakeholders in the room, minus end users and I'd say. Go! start sketching. Think pie in the sky. I'd ask people to riff off of each other's ideas, but not judge any. There are no technical constraints and no business constraints. If you could design search just for YOU what would it look like. 2) I'd ask everyone to then evaluate using affinities what came out of that. What were the themes that people seemed to gel around? What is missing? What is too much? What re-defines search? 3) I would do steps 1 2 around not just the UI of search but also the business model, technology elements, legal, marketing, etc. 4) From all those affinitities I would look for further affinitization. See where different segments of the organization overlap. differentiate (try to understand why there is differentiation). 5) I'd then try to start telling stories from various points of view. Some of these stories will be told in storyboards, others in hybrid storyboards and sketch UIs. Always making sure there is human situations throughout every element. 6) From there, sky's the limit ... You can't really proceed moving forward. I think your big question is where does data come in? And I would say that data for me in the context of use here is about validating design. And I would say that wouldn't be the first place I look to data. The 1st place I would look to data (AND I KNOW Google does this already, so it is not a criticism but an agreement) is in analytics for generating ideas. This would be done as part of the initial processes of ideation mentioned above. Validation data would only be used to measure mountains (to take the metaphor being passed around above). Make sure you don't break it. But don't be so risk averse as to LIVE by the data. Use the data to qualify the risk, not to quantify it. And don't quantify the minutiae. Don't try to quantify the subjective, or the emotional. I would also make sure there are systems in place so that you can roll-out design options (the way that Facebook is doing). I don't remember if Google does this in some of its apps or not. But allow users access to their live profile data when using new designs. I'd be surprised if Google isn't doing this already. but beyond this very high level explanation that i'm sure has a ton of wholes b/c I don't know the full culture of the place, nor the intricacies of the business. Having worked in enterprise software for most of my career now, I know 1st hand how deep all of this can go and the complexities involved. It is daunting and not simple in the slightest. Making it look simple is but pure genius. Clarification: I respect Google. I use their products without much reservation. I use many of their UI patterns as examples in my teaching and applaud the thought leadership Google has taken in various technologies. Saying an organization is not a Design success is not saying they are not a success and is not saying there aren't a ton of things to explore and learn from their success. Maybe, just maybe the lesson to be learned from Google is that Design is full of shit and those of us like myself who believe in design and design thinking should close shop and move on to taking up engineering thinking. I'm not quite there yet, b/c well there is this other company on the other side of that same valley doing quite well, and there are other case studies from the design thinking and design process community that have demonstrated success as well. If anything, it demonstrates that as always there is more than one elegant answer to any articulated problem and you should use the skills, methods and processes that best fit you, your corp culture, and possibly the type of solution you are trying to build. This whole thread started with the announcement of a great designer, being fed up at an engineering centric organization. Others who relate to that experience stood up in agreement. Others who resonate with the Google mind were upset with that agreement, or just wanted to challenge its representation as an absolute (which I'm not sure that those who were in agreement with it, were saying). My point is that it is OK for Doug or anyone else to feel that Google is not for them. That it doesn't map to the way they believe or have seen their talents and methods bring success into the world. I went so far as to say that the Google type of conception production of ideas leads to a soul-less design. I stand by this. Not everything needs to be an iPhone, Kitchmate Food Process, a Dreamliner interior, a Harley or a Cooper Mini, but as someone who is into aesthetics, I know I wish everything was. But that is MY opinion. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Larry, Very well said! Alan __ cooper | Product Design for a Digital World Alan Cooper a...@cooper.com | www.cooper.com All information in this message is proprietary confidential. Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell 'em, 'Certainly, I can!' Then get busy and find out how to do it. - Theodore Roosevelt -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Larry Tesler Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 5:59 PM To: IxDA Discuss Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google Yes, over-reliance on data-driven incremental design (DDID) is ill- advised. - Customers who use more than one of a company's products tend to be the most valuable customers in the long run. DDID usually optimizes one product at a time. The resulting inconsistencies may make each product a bit more profitable but can make it less likely for a heavy user of one to become a casual user of another. - DDID is an effective way to climb a little higher on a profit hill. It will never get you off the current hill onto a taller mountain. - Changing shades of blue and line widths can nudge a product higher on its current hill. But an organization that makes choices based solely on the basis of performance data won't learn why a certain shade or width works better, and is unlikely to apply the lesson to the next project. Revenue is foregone, costs mount and precious resources are tied up while each new product is gradually optimized. But many managers love DDID. It a systematic, replicable, and inherently measurable. Delight in the experience and passion for the product line are much harder to measure. The non-mathematical way that designers go about evoking such emotions isn't something that the staffing and training departments can reliably replicate. These days, great success usually emerges from a smart combination of analytical thinking and design thinking, a combination that requires mutual respect and cooperation as equals among the various practitioners. Larry Tesler When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
I think some of the gold in a Google Search design going forward includes: 1. Continued data mining on what people are searching for 2. Looking for patterns 3. Playing with how search results page design could be tweaked to display smarter results and providing contextual actions based on the keyword (or being able to do more with a single search result as a widget (save it somewhere, send it to someone, manipulate it) 4. Advertising inside a search result widget (maybe) We are seeing small snippets of this when you search for things like weather etc where the forecast displays in the search results. Would I want to change the search results screen immediately. No way. Would I want to edit bits of how results are displayed to see how users react. Absolutely and let the data speak to me. rgds, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 24, 2009, at 4:57 AM, dave malouf wrote: Jennifer, asking me to re-design Google Search is an insane request. Of course, the complexities are there and it is a tangled web that needs to be weaved. I have said in almost every post that this is about continuum and not about absolutes. But for fun, here I go ... 1) I'd get a group of stakeholders in the room, minus end users and I'd say. Go! start sketching. Think pie in the sky. I'd ask people to riff off of each other's ideas, but not judge any. There are no technical constraints and no business constraints. If you could design search just for YOU what would it look like. 2) I'd ask everyone to then evaluate using affinities what came out of that. What were the themes that people seemed to gel around? What is missing? What is too much? What re-defines search? snip I think your big question is where does data come in? And I would say that data for me in the context of use here is about validating design. And I would say that wouldn't be the first place I look to data. The 1st place I would look to data (AND I KNOW Google does this already, so it is not a criticism but an agreement) is in analytics for generating ideas. This would be done as part of the initial processes of ideation mentioned above. Actually, my big question is: where does the problem you're trying to solve come in? Where do you introduce data about what needs to be different? About what the organization needs to achieve? About the gap between the current and the aspirational? Should that influence the sketches and the subsequent discussions? Or am I missing the point of the conversation? Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: jmspool UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com wrote: Actually, my big question is: where does the problem you're trying to solve come in? Where do you introduce data about what needs to be different? About what the organization needs to achieve? About the gap between the current and the aspirational? Should that influence the sketches and the subsequent discussions? Or am I missing the point of the conversation? Yes and no. First off, I think David Malouf's post was brilliant in that it laid out some rapid-fire ways that a design-driven process could be initiated. It's by no means a complete description of such a process but it touches on key themes of brainstorming, storytelling, and so on. In that sense I think David is making the point (and I agree) that there is room for non-data-driven methods even within such a complex and diverse space as Google's search design. As to your specific question I think all your ideas are relevant, but some are implicit. For example, the stakeholders that David advocates putting into that room are the people who have the vision about what the organization needs to achieve. It's probably part of their daily conversations and I would expect it to emerge as part of the brainstorm (probably the part where people explain their ideas, after the idea generation phase). If it doesn't, then you've probably put the wrong people in the room. Likewise the gap between the current and the aspirational should be obvious to everyone. If they're not intimately familiar with the current then again they probably aren't part of this exercise. The question about introducing data about needs is a good one, I think. My personal preference is to make that part of the post-brainstorming exercise. Presumably at some point you've narrowed your set of alternatives to some manageable number. At that point I'd introduce data and put people through an exercise of correlating design brainstorm ideas with data. Given THESE data, how does THAT idea hold up? sort of. Best, --Alan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM, dave malouf dave@gmail.com wrote: Jennifer, asking me to re-design Google Search is an insane request. Why? There are real live UXers working on that problem over here, you know. :-) No, it's not insane at all. This is the context of the original post: an influential designer at Google has left, and Google's main product is search. Let me say again that this product has lots of people and dollars worldwide depending on it. Data helps us answer design questions over here, because breaking the user experience even a little bit makes a HUGE difference to those people. We innovate, try things out with real users, and roll out designs that show *measurable* improvement. Validation data would only be used to measure mountains (to take the metaphor being passed around above). Make sure you don't break it. But don't be so risk averse as to LIVE by the data. Use the data to qualify the risk, not to quantify it. And don't quantify the minutiae. Don't try to quantify the subjective, or the emotional. Why not? At this scale, minutiae are important. And the emotional is important too -- we understand that, and as other people have pointed out, some aspects of the Google brand actually do have soul and personality. :-) We know that numbers alone don't tell the full story, but they tell a compelling part of the story. Saying an organization is not a Design success is not saying they are not a success and is not saying there aren't a ton of things to explore and learn from their success. Maybe, just maybe the lesson to be learned from Google is that Design is full of shit and those of us like myself who believe in design and design thinking should close shop and move on to taking up engineering thinking. Not at all. But big-D Design is more effective when it (a) works very closely with engineering thinking and people, and (b) uses its tools well. To us, data analysis is one of those tools. In other organizations, it isn't such a good tool, because of smaller scale, usage patterns, cost of acquiring such data, org culture, or whatever else. But here, it's quite useful, and I'm thankful for it. - Jenifer --- Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.com http://designinginterfaces.com http://jtidwell.net Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote: For example, the stakeholders that David advocates putting into that room are the people who have the vision about what the organization needs to achieve. It's probably part of their daily conversations and I would expect it to emerge as part of the brainstorm (probably the part where people explain their ideas, after the idea generation phase). If it doesn't, then you've probably put the wrong people in the room. Likewise the gap between the current and the aspirational should be obvious to everyone. If they're not intimately familiar with the current then again they probably aren't part of this exercise. So, if I understand correctly, you're speaking in an ideal world, where everyone already has the data they need when they walk in the room and everyone is on the same page with that data. Did I get that right? Because, I've never stepped into that world. The world I live in has stakeholders who have no clue what's happening with their designs outside their perceptions of mythical users with mythical scenarios. Jared Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
HI Jennifer, I think you mis-understand me when I say is an insane request. I mean that to even begin to do that job requires intimacy with the product that as an outsider, I can at best pretend to understand. You've demonstrated some issues below. that doesn't negate my point, but underscores the intricasies of the Google system and how important using various paths is. Regarding the minutiae question, I see your point about how a fraction of a penny per view at your level of scale can make huge differences. I still challenge as other people have the notion that ONLY working at that level is required. You need to zoom in and out and allow for the absurd to take hold, reflect, zoom in, allow for the inane to break free, and then zoom out again. I think in the end we are probably both speaking about a balanced perspective, but from different sides of the see-saw. It happens a lot! -- dave On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM, dave malouf dave@gmail.com wrote: Jennifer, asking me to re-design Google Search is an insane request. Why? There are real live UXers working on that problem over here, you know. :-) No, it's not insane at all. This is the context of the original post: an influential designer at Google has left, and Google's main product is search. Let me say again that this product has lots of people and dollars worldwide depending on it. Data helps us answer design questions over here, because breaking the user experience even a little bit makes a HUGE difference to those people. We innovate, try things out with real users, and roll out designs that show *measurable* improvement. Validation data would only be used to measure mountains (to take the metaphor being passed around above). Make sure you don't break it. But don't be so risk averse as to LIVE by the data. Use the data to qualify the risk, not to quantify it. And don't quantify the minutiae. Don't try to quantify the subjective, or the emotional. Why not? At this scale, minutiae are important. And the emotional is important too -- we understand that, and as other people have pointed out, some aspects of the Google brand actually do have soul and personality. :-) We know that numbers alone don't tell the full story, but they tell a compelling part of the story. Saying an organization is not a Design success is not saying they are not a success and is not saying there aren't a ton of things to explore and learn from their success. Maybe, just maybe the lesson to be learned from Google is that Design is full of shit and those of us like myself who believe in design and design thinking should close shop and move on to taking up engineering thinking. Not at all. But big-D Design is more effective when it (a) works very closely with engineering thinking and people, and (b) uses its tools well. To us, data analysis is one of those tools. In other organizations, it isn't such a good tool, because of smaller scale, usage patterns, cost of acquiring such data, org culture, or whatever else. But here, it's quite useful, and I'm thankful for it. - Jenifer --- Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.com http://designinginterfaces.com http://jtidwell.net -- Dave Malouf http://davemalouf.com/ http://twitter.com/daveixd http://scad.edu/industrialdesign http://ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
hmm..no good reason sounds probably right. I wouldn't feel loved if I spent a lot of time reinventing the button. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
How is Google not a design success story? Design goes much deeper than the interface. Cheers! Todd Zaki Warfel Principal Design Researcher Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. -- Contact Info Voice: (215) 825-7423 Email: t...@messagefirst.com AIM:twar...@mac.com Blog: http://toddwarfel.com Twitter:zakiwarfel -- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Dave, Yes, of course there is always space to improve a product. I didn't intend to imply otherwise! Even the Google search results have been changed recently (e.g. you can now promote, remove, or comment upon result items). My point was more that one has to take a lot of care with a product like that, because it IS so successful. And that pretty much means being data-driven. So, Dave, if you were the designer for Google search results, how would you go about making a major design change? Consider all the obvious stakeholders (zillions of users, advertisers, and sites, all balanced in a thriving ecosystem), the design constraints (brand, speed, correctness, etc.), the fate of the world economy... :-) Operationally, what would you do before rolling it out? How would you show that your design isn't disruptive to that ecosystem? (And also, wouldn't you take engineering constraints and possibilities into consideration? If you're looking at the product holistically, you can't really separate that from pure design.) - Jenifer On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Dave Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Not all forms of production are DESIGN. Engineering is not the same as design. Many companies are examples of engineering success. that doesn't make it NOT a success. It just means its not an example of design success. This isn't intrinsically a bad thing. For some the differentiation itself may be meaningless. But for others it is very meaningful. It is meaningful on a few levels: 1) For those of us invested in design, it tells us we have things we need to learn to do better. 2) It also highlights possible opportunities for improvement b/c unlike what was implied in Jennifer's question I believe there is always space to improve. It is called taking your advantage and expanding on it, to protect it from encroachment. This means, that if we take a new lens to the problem space maybe we can develop further improvements that further extend the lead in the market place. -- dave On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel li...@toddwarfel.com wrote: How is Google not a design success story? Design goes much deeper than the interface. Cheers! Todd Zaki Warfel Principal Design Researcher Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. -- *Contact Info* Voice: (215) 825-7423Email: t...@messagefirst.com AIM: twar...@mac.com Blog: http://toddwarfel.com http://toddwarfel/ Twitter: zakiwarfel -- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. -- Dave Malouf http://davemalouf.com/ http://twitter.com/daveixd http://scad.edu/industrialdesign http://ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- --- Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.com http://designinginterfaces.com http://jtidwell.net Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Dave, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Dave Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Not all forms of production are DESIGN. Engineering is not the same as design. Many companies are examples of engineering success. Maybe more proper says as some designs in the process of engineering? Traditionally, the Designs ( interface, interaction ... ) are mixed with the development process, and it seems not a observable fact that the engineering is doing without design thinking, just because we have a individual (interaction) design process? And even go further, D E are both designs, but in different forms as Herbert Simon said in his Science of artificial? If so, our way is not try to make it distinguishable from practitioner's perspective, instead on the problem level, which may help the communication between D E ? Cheers, -- Jarod -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On 21 Mar 2009, at 12:15, William Brall wrote: [snip] Collecting Data is a big part of IxD, and like any field with a science background, that data need not be collected a second time for the same problem. [snip] Actually it does. Scientists recollect data and retest things - they have to. That's what separates the theories that last from those that don't - protecting against misinterpretation, experimental error, bias, fraud, etc. [snip] The reason the 41 blue test is bad, is any one of us would have told google the right choice for FREE! ... but 41 shades of blue thing came out of a designer picking a colour that he (and the rest of the team) thought best then... a product manager tested a different color with users and found they were more likely to click on the toolbar if it was painted a greener shade. (http://tinyurl.com/acs4jp) So the choice for free - in this particular instance - for this particular context and goal - was not the best one. Now - I don't know the full context of that testing. I might disagree with how the test was run, or what was being tested, or the goal that the business wanted to achieve. I'd also hope that I would be open to the idea that I might be wrong - and be willing to look for things to learn to make me a better designer. Maybe by investigating options with some more tests :-) It it were me the information that the colour I thought would perform better actually perform worse would fascinate me. I'd want to figure that out. Wouldn't you? Because we are informed by other, older, tests. And a healthy spoon full of our own observations. ... and sometimes we're wrong. We are all arguing the same things. Testing is good, when it isn't moronic. Using what we have learned already is the design of IxD and is only good if informed by good data. Which we mostly are. Not perfect, but test data isn't perfect either, and we are a hell of a lot cheaper than testing everything must be. I know I am wrong on occasion. Often even :-) From the number of times in the past I've helped some company deal with the usability disaster that a design agency left them with - I'm pretty sure lots of other folk are wrong on occasion too. Few people knowingly put out bad work. That's why I pay attention to the results of the usability tests, play with A/B testing, look at the logs, etc. when it comes to my designs. I use that feedback to make me better at design. Because when the mistake is mine it's really hard to figure out which tests are moronic and which aren't. The nature of the problem means I'm not going to know where I'm making a bad decision. If I did know - I wouldn't think the test was moronic! We are all arguing the same thing though. I'm in complete agreement that bad testing can act as as a crutch and a route to bad decisions. Unfortunately folk making decisions based on their own expertise and experience are sometimes wrong as well. When it comes to design decisions I think the right response is Trust, but Verify. I think what everybody is arguing about is where that trust/verify line lives. Which is something that is going to depend on the context you're working in - no? Cheers, Adrian -- delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On 21 Mar 2009, at 17:43, Katie Albers wrote: [snip] How do you reconcile data and design (in its broadest sense) here? Why do you need to? Why do we have this aversion to simply admitting that people have non-measurable, but critically important, preferences and we need to acknowledge those and incorporate them into design? (Obviously, in the case of commands, we do just that, but often that's more a matter of default than decision.) [snip] Sorry... not quite understanding the argument... The keyboard/mouse tests you're talking about measured: * user perception of speed * actual speed * level of expertise Giving a bunch of useful information that helps inform design decisions. How you use it depends on how much of the product goal relates to efficiency, how much to user satisfaction, how much effort you can put in to producing experts, etc. Would not having the data make it better? Am I misunderstanding your point? Confused... Adrian -- delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Dave, On 21 Mar 2009, at 18:38, David Malouf wrote: [snip] I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). [snip] Do you think there are cases where, from your perspective, a better design is less effective at meeting the business goals of the product? When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I don't find Google soulless myself... quiet and somewhat reserved possibly - but not soulless. Buzzword's icons on the other hand I find annoyingly distracting :-) I'm sure we could both find folk who would agree/disagree with us. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b/c it is clear that it is an engineering success story. I think it's both a design and an engineering success. I also think it's impossible to separate the two in any meaningful way. But that's just me. Does that mean that engineering is better than design. I think looking at Apple, answers that question. It doesn't. There are S many ingredients that go into success and we would be fooling ourselve as designers or engineers to think that any one of us controls all of them. Amen. BTW, the one place funny enough that Google DOES allow for a taste of humanity is on their most precious search home page (Google.com). Their use of holiday and historic event treatments is beautiful!!! And things like http://www.google.com/moon/ and http://www.google.com/mars/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_hoaxes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_hoaxes#Easter_eggs and ... Again - I'm sure we could both find folk who would agree/disagree with us :-) However, I can count on 1 hand how many times I go to Google.com (home page) any more. Its in the chrome of my browser or in my browser's home page, etc. And that's a bad thing because? Soul!!! Time to swing the pedullum back from the austere periods towards the more expressionist. I think we can do that and still maintain simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. In fact, I'd like to challenge us to do it! It's a fantastic challenge and I'd love to see folk going for it with all guns blazing. But to meet that challenge we're going to have to listen - and listen hard - to the feedback on simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. Folk can certainly be mislead by data. Led down a path driven by their own assumptions and bad methodology. I've seen it happen. I've also seen people discard perfectly valid data because it doesn't feel right. Because they want to do it their way. Because it's their art. Because they know best. Not just designers - managers, developers and sales folk too. You get really bad products out of both camps. I've seen a _lot_ more of the latter than I have the former. That may be atypical - I don't know. But at the moment I think the field needs to pay more attention to data - not less. Cheers, Adrian PS ... and I have to admit my reading of Bowman's blog post wasn't that Google's data-driven work was necessarily bad - just not what he wanted to be doing. Which is, of course, perfectly reasonable. -- delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
What i read from Bowman's blog is not about data or not, it's about trust between design and engineering. If he had better argument(and sure there is), he could/should show the evidence instead of complain, else the design cant find feet in the product development process. More common, it's a result from long trivial conflicts between different mind-set, which triggered by what ever it is. At most, what we can know is, we can only know something that happened there, but that need not be the full ( even true ) story. Cheers, -- Jarod On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Adrian Howard adri...@quietstars.comwrote: Hi Dave, On 21 Mar 2009, at 18:38, David Malouf wrote: [snip] I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). [snip] Do you think there are cases where, from your perspective, a better design is less effective at meeting the business goals of the product? When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I don't find Google soulless myself... quiet and somewhat reserved possibly - but not soulless. Buzzword's icons on the other hand I find annoyingly distracting :-) I'm sure we could both find folk who would agree/disagree with us. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b/c it is clear that it is an engineering success story. I think it's both a design and an engineering success. I also think it's impossible to separate the two in any meaningful way. But that's just me. Does that mean that engineering is better than design. I think looking at Apple, answers that question. It doesn't. There are S many ingredients that go into success and we would be fooling ourselve as designers or engineers to think that any one of us controls all of them. Amen. BTW, the one place funny enough that Google DOES allow for a taste of humanity is on their most precious search home page (Google.com). Their use of holiday and historic event treatments is beautiful!!! And things like http://www.google.com/moon/ and http://www.google.com/mars/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_hoaxeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_hoaxesand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_hoaxes#Easter_eggshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_hoaxes#Easter_eggs and ... Again - I'm sure we could both find folk who would agree/disagree with us :-) However, I can count on 1 hand how many times I go to Google.com (home page) any more. Its in the chrome of my browser or in my browser's home page, etc. And that's a bad thing because? Soul!!! Time to swing the pedullum back from the austere periods towards the more expressionist. I think we can do that and still maintain simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. In fact, I'd like to challenge us to do it! It's a fantastic challenge and I'd love to see folk going for it with all guns blazing. But to meet that challenge we're going to have to listen - and listen hard - to the feedback on simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. Folk can certainly be mislead by data. Led down a path driven by their own assumptions and bad methodology. I've seen it happen. I've also seen people discard perfectly valid data because it doesn't feel right. Because they want to do it their way. Because it's their art. Because they know best. Not just designers - managers, developers and sales folk too. You get really bad products out of both camps. I've seen a _lot_ more of the latter than I have the former. That may be atypical - I don't know. But at the moment I think the field needs to pay more attention to data - not less. Cheers, Adrian PS ... and I have to admit my reading of Bowman's blog post wasn't that Google's data-driven work was necessarily bad - just not what he wanted to be doing. Which is, of course, perfectly reasonable. -- delicious.com/adrianh - twitter.com/adrianh - adri...@quietstars.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
I am a UX designer for Google. I wish I could dig deep into this discussion with you all, because it's very relevant to some of the work going on there. Sadly, there are many things about my employer that I'm not at liberty to talk about -- I'm sure many of you can understand that. I'll make a few points, and then make a graceful exit to my usual lurking state. :-) * Different product teams at Google have very different approaches to design, data, research, and soul in design. Some product designs I've seen there are truly amazing and beautiful, and some designers do indeed take risks. The cultural fit between a UX designer and a product team depends very much on where in the organization they are. I'm confident that that's true in most large technology companies. * The main search properties, especially Google's main page and search results page, are managed extremely carefully. I've seen some of the A/B experiments run on those pages, and while I can't share much, I will say that the results are fascinating -- you would be amazed at the usage variations that arise from tiny design changes. And no, those variations are not always predictable from first principles. This convinces me that we collectively have a lot yet to learn about design. * Yes, Google is successful at search. Very. Rhetorical question: how much design risk SHOULD such a company take with a product that still works so well? In that context, I think we designers would actually be irresponsible to not test our designs with good experiments -- countless people depend on Google's main properties, and there are lots of ad dollars (much of which go to actual advertisers, not us) and shareholder value at stake. It's not just about designers and our good ideas. The point about hill-climbing with data-driven incremental changes is well taken, but honestly, don't you think that It Would Be Bad to accidentally send Google Web Search into a design valley while you blundered about looking for a higher hill? * I never had the chance to meet Doug Bowman while he was at Google, though I regret not having had a chance to work with him. I have no reason to think of him with anything but deep respect, and I wish him well. - Jenifer On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b/c it is clear that it is an engineering success story. Does that mean that engineering is better than design. I think looking at Apple, answers that question. It doesn't. There are S many ingredients that go into success and we would be fooling ourselve as designers or engineers to think that any one of us controls all of them. BTW, the one place funny enough that Google DOES allow for a taste of humanity is on their most precious search home page (Google.com). Their use of holiday and historic event treatments is beautiful!!! However, I can count on 1 hand how many times I go to Google.com (home page) any more. Its in the chrome of my browser or in my browser's home page, etc. Soul!!! Time to swing the pedullum back from the austere periods towards the more expressionist. I think we can do that and still maintain simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. In fact, I'd like to challenge us to do it! -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Jennifer, the recent Charlie Rose interview of Marissa Mayer (as she heads UX across the entire organization, no?) really solidifies that perception. I've also interviewed folks from Earth and other non-search props that confirm this. Even the work in Mobile including Android is beyond uninspiring. As to your point about risk taking in search. I'm not sure why that point had to be made. No one so far was suggesting that Google search should be anything other than what it is. It's success is beyond. The use of themes in Gmail was a brilliant addition as well. THANK G-D!! (I wish they worked equally well across all the labs and extensions that I have) Ya know, Mozilla has a design labs that are pushing he envelope of designs place in their organization. It would be realy interesting given Google's size to let loose a lab that is design centric in its approach ala IDEO R/GA (design thinking to story telling) and see what comes from it. -- dave On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.com wrote: I am a UX designer for Google. I wish I could dig deep into this discussion with you all, because it's very relevant to some of the work going on there. Sadly, there are many things about my employer that I'm not at liberty to talk about -- I'm sure many of you can understand that. I'll make a few points, and then make a graceful exit to my usual lurking state. :-) * Different product teams at Google have very different approaches to design, data, research, and soul in design. Some product designs I've seen there are truly amazing and beautiful, and some designers do indeed take risks. The cultural fit between a UX designer and a product team depends very much on where in the organization they are. I'm confident that that's true in most large technology companies. * The main search properties, especially Google's main page and search results page, are managed extremely carefully. I've seen some of the A/B experiments run on those pages, and while I can't share much, I will say that the results are fascinating -- you would be amazed at the usage variations that arise from tiny design changes. And no, those variations are not always predictable from first principles. This convinces me that we collectively have a lot yet to learn about design. * Yes, Google is successful at search. Very. Rhetorical question: how much design risk SHOULD such a company take with a product that still works so well? In that context, I think we designers would actually be irresponsible to not test our designs with good experiments -- countless people depend on Google's main properties, and there are lots of ad dollars (much of which go to actual advertisers, not us) and shareholder value at stake. It's not just about designers and our good ideas. The point about hill-climbing with data-driven incremental changes is well taken, but honestly, don't you think that It Would Be Bad to accidentally send Google Web Search into a design valley while you blundered about looking for a higher hill? * I never had the chance to meet Doug Bowman while he was at Google, though I regret not having had a chance to work with him. I have no reason to think of him with anything but deep respect, and I wish him well. - Jenifer On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b/c it is clear that it is an engineering success story. Does that mean that engineering is better than design. I think looking at Apple, answers that question. It doesn't. There are S many ingredients that go into success and we would be fooling ourselve as designers or engineers to think that any one of us controls all of them. BTW, the one place funny
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
When I was running my design group in the midwest, I was always fascinated by the two groups of clients we encountered. The first group being those that understood design and its potential to be a game changing influence in product development... the other being those companies that think of it as just another step in the process they had to get through. The same is true when interviewing for a job. Yes... you could make a huge difference in an organization that does not yet embrace design... and yes there is tremendous competition for opportunities where the company already values design as a critical strategic skill. But large corporate cultures are really really hard to shift... especially from a task based roll. Google has always struck me as an engineering driven culture. And as Dave stated... the interview with Marissa confirmed that and revealed very little chance a for change in direction. On Mar 22, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Dave Malouf wrote: Jennifer, the recent Charlie Rose interview of Marissa Mayer (as she heads UX across the entire organization, no?) really solidifies that perception. I've also interviewed folks from Earth and other non-search props that confirm this. Even the work in Mobile including Android is beyond uninspiring. As to your point about risk taking in search. I'm not sure why that point had to be made. No one so far was suggesting that Google search should be anything other than what it is. It's success is beyond. The use of themes in Gmail was a brilliant addition as well. THANK G-D!! (I wish they worked equally well across all the labs and extensions that I have) Ya know, Mozilla has a design labs that are pushing he envelope of designs place in their organization. It would be realy interesting given Google's size to let loose a lab that is design centric in its approach ala IDEO R/GA (design thinking to story telling) and see what comes from it. -- dave On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.com wrote: I am a UX designer for Google. I wish I could dig deep into this discussion with you all, because it's very relevant to some of the work going on there. Sadly, there are many things about my employer that I'm not at liberty to talk about -- I'm sure many of you can understand that. I'll make a few points, and then make a graceful exit to my usual lurking state. :-) * Different product teams at Google have very different approaches to design, data, research, and soul in design. Some product designs I've seen there are truly amazing and beautiful, and some designers do indeed take risks. The cultural fit between a UX designer and a product team depends very much on where in the organization they are. I'm confident that that's true in most large technology companies. * The main search properties, especially Google's main page and search results page, are managed extremely carefully. I've seen some of the A/B experiments run on those pages, and while I can't share much, I will say that the results are fascinating -- you would be amazed at the usage variations that arise from tiny design changes. And no, those variations are not always predictable from first principles. This convinces me that we collectively have a lot yet to learn about design. * Yes, Google is successful at search. Very. Rhetorical question: how much design risk SHOULD such a company take with a product that still works so well? In that context, I think we designers would actually be irresponsible to not test our designs with good experiments -- countless people depend on Google's main properties, and there are lots of ad dollars (much of which go to actual advertisers, not us) and shareholder value at stake. It's not just about designers and our good ideas. The point about hill-climbing with data-driven incremental changes is well taken, but honestly, don't you think that It Would Be Bad to accidentally send Google Web Search into a design valley while you blundered about looking for a higher hill? * I never had the chance to meet Doug Bowman while he was at Google, though I regret not having had a chance to work with him. I have no reason to think of him with anything but deep respect, and I wish him well. - Jenifer On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Good Morning All, And many thanks for this thoughtful response Jennifer. As with many, I've worked for a large conglomerate with a powerful legal department and appreciate non-disclosures. I am fascinated by your comment below Rhetorical question: how much design risk SHOULD such a company take with a product that still works so well? as it seems so counter-intuitive from a company whose success in search came from doing that very thing in the late 1990's. At that point, folks thought that Northern Lights and Copernicus worked well from design and function perspectives; that is, until Google came along with its radicalized interaction approach. In my view, the sophistication of search functionality today is not complimented by an equivalent sophistication in interaction design. This is something that I have been circling professionally for some time and hope to have something worthwhile to contribute someday. Side note, do you think that your presentation from the Interaction Design 09 conference might be available some day. My notes are best described as hieroglyphics and border on incomprehensible. marianne mswe...@speakeasy.net -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jenifer Tidwell Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 7:10 AM To: David Malouf Cc: disc...@ixda.org Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google I am a UX designer for Google. I wish I could dig deep into this discussion with you all, because it's very relevant to some of the work going on there. Sadly, there are many things about my employer that I'm not at liberty to talk about -- I'm sure many of you can understand that. I'll make a few points, and then make a graceful exit to my usual lurking state. :-) * Different product teams at Google have very different approaches to design, data, research, and soul in design. Some product designs I've seen there are truly amazing and beautiful, and some designers do indeed take risks. The cultural fit between a UX designer and a product team depends very much on where in the organization they are. I'm confident that that's true in most large technology companies. * The main search properties, especially Google's main page and search results page, are managed extremely carefully. I've seen some of the A/B experiments run on those pages, and while I can't share much, I will say that the results are fascinating -- you would be amazed at the usage variations that arise from tiny design changes. And no, those variations are not always predictable from first principles. This convinces me that we collectively have a lot yet to learn about design. * Yes, Google is successful at search. Very. Rhetorical question: how much design risk SHOULD such a company take with a product that still works so well? In that context, I think we designers would actually be irresponsible to not test our designs with good experiments -- countless people depend on Google's main properties, and there are lots of ad dollars (much of which go to actual advertisers, not us) and shareholder value at stake. It's not just about designers and our good ideas. The point about hill-climbing with data-driven incremental changes is well taken, but honestly, don't you think that It Would Be Bad to accidentally send Google Web Search into a design valley while you blundered about looking for a higher hill? * I never had the chance to meet Doug Bowman while he was at Google, though I regret not having had a chance to work with him. I have no reason to think of him with anything but deep respect, and I wish him well. - Jenifer On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM, David Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Jenifer Tidwell jenifer.tidw...@gmail.comwrote: I am a UX designer for Google. ... * Different product teams at Google have very different approaches to design, data, research, and soul in design. Some product designs I've seen there are truly amazing and beautiful, and some designers do indeed take risks. The cultural fit between a UX designer and a product team depends very much on where in the organization they are. I'm confident that that's true in most large technology companies. Can you be more specific here, or are you talking about designs that have not shipped publicly? If the latter, will they ever ship? And if not, that's quite interesting and worth exploring. FWIW, I had job offers from Google and Yahoo at the beginning of 2005. I chose Yahoo because I thought that Yahoo had a better design organization which was more integral to the product development process. Douglas Bowman's post does a lot to confirm my suspicions. Plus I know a designer a Google who recently moved over to product management in order to have more influence into the product design. To me, that's sad. Irene Au built up a successful and effective design organization at Yahoo, and who knows? Maybe she can do it again at Google. But I believe that the core values of any organization are a really strong undercurrent and tough to overcome. Google's engineering-driven culture is a lot different than Yahoo's product-driven culture. One more point worth making. Google got it right when they emphasized performance as a key part of the user experience. I only wish more companies would follow suit. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
This piece by Tom Chi, strikes the balance that I wish I could have articulated myself. I hope the OK-Cancel guys keep up being active. I miss them terribly!!! Here's the link: http://www.ok-cancel.com/comic/177.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Jenifer, Thank you for providing your insider-informed and well-reasoned perspective. I'd like to respond to this remark you made about my earlier post: On Mar 22, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Jenifer Tidwell wrote: The point about hill-climbing with data-driven incremental changes is well taken, but honestly, don't you think that It Would Be Bad to accidentally send Google Web Search into a design valley while you blundered about looking for a higher hill? By my comments (reproduced below), I didn't mean that a company should leap blindly off their current hill in hopes of landing on a higher one. My point was that over-reliance on data-driven incremental changes would be ill-advised, as would choices made solely on the basis of performance data. I advocated a smart combination of analytical thinking and design thinking to better climb the current hill and also search for taller mountains. The post by my former colleague Tom Chi that dave malouf cited makes that same point and more. It's at http://www.ok-cancel.com/comic/177.html . Also, like several others who have commented on this topic, I was not referring specifically to Google, but rather to the practice of web design wherever it takes place. Larry Tesler On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Larry Tesler wrote: Yes, over-reliance on data-driven incremental design (DDID) is ill- advised. - Customers who use more than one of a company's products tend to be the most valuable customers in the long run. DDID usually optimizes one product at a time. The resulting inconsistencies may make each product a bit more profitable but can make it less likely for a heavy user of one to become a casual user of another. - DDID is an effective way to climb a little higher on a profit hill. It will never get you off the current hill onto a taller mountain. - Changing shades of blue and line widths can nudge a product higher on its current hill. But an organization that makes choices based solely on the basis of performance data won't learn why a certain shade or width works better, and is unlikely to apply the lesson to the next project. Revenue is foregone, costs mount and precious resources are tied up while each new product is gradually optimized. But many managers love DDID. It a systematic, replicable, and inherently measurable. Delight in the experience and passion for the product line are much harder to measure. The non-mathematical way that designers go about evoking such emotions isn't something that the staffing and training departments can reliably replicate. These days, great success usually emerges from a smart combination of analytical thinking and design thinking, a combination that requires mutual respect and cooperation as equals among the various practitioners. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dan Saffer wrote: Seems like reason enough for me. So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? I think we're in violent agreement. I assuredly do NOT think is this a good thing. (Which is not to say you can't do some interesting stuff with data and design and testing.) Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Data-driven design, though, is not entirely a bad thing, is it? The whole web 2 approach of getting a basic webapp out there in beta, then optimising and extending it based on user behaviour / feedback - that's data driven post launch. Even running tests on paper prototypes, is, in some respects, data driven, but qualitative and messy. It seems there's a continuum from anal retentive Every pixel must be quantitatively tested for impact on our KPIs to creative use qual and quant data as appropriate to steer our creative design process. As Dave M said earier - if you want to research and derive inspiration from research, or research and live by the data, that is a choice, but I would argue that one is design and the other is not. Harry -- http://www.90percentofeverything.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
The problem with pure data-driven design (testing for 4 vs 2 pixels) is that they might be missing the point that the result is only valid for that moment. Humans are not happy with things staying the same (it might be part of the our survival mechanism to keep changing), because one year we might like curvy cars and the next year we like boxed cars. Design from Dave's p.o.v. acknowledges the potential for change in a design and data-driven design doesn't. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
As Dave M said earier - if you want to research and derive inspiration from research, or research and live by the data, that is a choice, but I would argue that one is design and the other is not. So if the data tells you something and you ignore it, is that design? Peter Harry -- http://www.90percentofeverything.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- me: http://petervandijck.com blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ global UX consulting: http://290s.com free travel guides: http://poorbuthappy.com Belgium: (+32) 03/325 88 70 Skype id: peterkevandijck Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
If the 2 versus 4 pixels thing is on a crucial page like the Google search results or list of adsense ads, surely it's a MUST to test it and let the data speak? No? or would you redesign the ads, see revenue go down and not change your mind? Peter On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Dan Saffer d...@odannyboy.com wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dan Saffer wrote: Seems like reason enough for me. So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? I think we're in violent agreement. I assuredly do NOT think is this a good thing. (Which is not to say you can't do some interesting stuff with data and design and testing.) Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- me: http://petervandijck.com blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ global UX consulting: http://290s.com free travel guides: http://poorbuthappy.com Belgium: (+32) 03/325 88 70 Skype id: peterkevandijck Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
I think that's wrong. Why can't I continue to measure and change stuff? In any case, data driven design doesn't mean there's no place for the designer. Who else will come up with stuff that we can then measure? Peter On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM, AJKock ajk...@gmail.com wrote: The problem with pure data-driven design (testing for 4 vs 2 pixels) is that they might be missing the point that the result is only valid for that moment. Humans are not happy with things staying the same (it might be part of the our survival mechanism to keep changing), because one year we might like curvy cars and the next year we like boxed cars. Design from Dave's p.o.v. acknowledges the potential for change in a design and data-driven design doesn't. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- me: http://petervandijck.com blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ global UX consulting: http://290s.com free travel guides: http://poorbuthappy.com Belgium: (+32) 03/325 88 70 Skype id: peterkevandijck Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
@ Peter Can data-driven design predict future design? No, it can only measure today. Design is more than just testing for today; it also envisions tomorrow. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Let's back up a step here...why does stuff have to be measurable? Is it no longer possible to assess without numbers? On the whole (and yes, I acknowledge that there are significant exceptions) the SMART methodology did design no service. There are things we know or notice that are simply ineluctable. To say something is better is an explicitly non-measurable statement. There are decisions we make that are in spite of data to the contrary...and they result in something better. Let's take a really obvious example: Every test I've ever seen shows that people are measurably faster using a mouse-based interface than a command-based interface. At an extremely high level of expertise both in typing and in the app, people do, in fact, become faster using the commands... but membership in this group is much smaller than the number of people who believe they are in the group. Thus, we have people using commands when the menus would be faster for them, and swearing by their mothers and their puppies that the commands are faster. You can demonstrate to them that they are slower this way and they will simply not believe you (although some of the reasons people come up with are really entertaining). Take away their commands, and you will get a lot of people dropping out. If one of the data points you're supposed to be designing to is speed of use, do you take away the commands anyway? (Mind you, I don't think anyone in this field will probably acknowledge being one of those who benefits from menus, so it's almost impossible to get them to consider the possibility of removing the commands anyway). How do you reconcile data and design (in its broadest sense) here? Why do you need to? Why do we have this aversion to simply admitting that people have non-measurable, but critically important, preferences and we need to acknowledge those and incorporate them into design? (Obviously, in the case of commands, we do just that, but often that's more a matter of default than decision.) Katie Albers Founder Principal Consultant FirstThought User Experience Strategy Project Management 310 356 7550 ka...@firstthought.com On Mar 21, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Peter Van Dijck wrote: I think that's wrong. Why can't I continue to measure and change stuff? In any case, data driven design doesn't mean there's no place for the designer. Who else will come up with stuff that we can then measure? Peter On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM, AJKock ajk...@gmail.com wrote: The problem with pure data-driven design (testing for 4 vs 2 pixels) is that they might be missing the point that the result is only valid for that moment. Humans are not happy with things staying the same (it might be part of the our survival mechanism to keep changing), because one year we might like curvy cars and the next year we like boxed cars. Design from Dave's p.o.v. acknowledges the potential for change in a design and data-driven design doesn't. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- me: http://petervandijck.com blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ global UX consulting: http://290s.com free travel guides: http://poorbuthappy.com Belgium: (+32) 03/325 88 70 Skype id: peterkevandijck Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Web search in particular is one of the most utilitarian instances of software these days. Having spent 2.5 years doing search quality / UX assessment at MSFT, I'm a firm believer that every change in search should be tested vigorously and that a design team that isn't enthusiastic about testing isn't worth having. That said, my opinion for other software products is less strict. The critical flaw, in any situation, is putting design modifications to test without attempting to learn from the test to improve future design. Playing roulette with a testing protocol every time you do something new is a horrible way to do business, even if you have the user traffic to detect miniscule differences. In many, if not all, test protocols, the design of the test should help the team better understand the users, tasks, etc. so that future design decisions can be made more effectively. AndyEd... http://surfmind.com On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Peter Van Dijck petervandi...@gmail.com wrote: If the 2 versus 4 pixels thing is on a crucial page like the Google search results or list of adsense ads, surely it's a MUST to test it and let the data speak? No? or would you redesign the ads, see revenue go down and not change your mind? Peter snip Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
We agree then. My point is not that we don't need design. My point is that design should be humble and listen to data. Peter On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 6:18 PM, AJKock ajk...@gmail.com wrote: @ Peter Can data-driven design predict future design? No, it can only measure today. Design is more than just testing for today; it also envisions tomorrow. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- me: http://petervandijck.com blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/ global UX consulting: http://290s.com free travel guides: http://poorbuthappy.com Belgium: (+32) 03/325 88 70 Skype id: peterkevandijck Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Peter, My answer about listening to data is it depends. If the data is, your revenue has fallen X% and the data can SHOW that a design decision led to that fall (as opposed to other contexts such as economy, politics, quality of goods being sold, etc.) then of course I'll listen to it. If the data is a usability test of users in a lab, it really depends on how, what and why it is being tested and what the test may or may not prove and are we talking about better by .1% or are we talking better by say 75%? And what was the quality of the A/B results themselves. Did one lead to direct failure and other 100% success? What if A had a higher efficiency factor, but led to less enjoyment? and B had lower efficiency, but led to greater enjoyment? Both led to some change in revenue generating activity but non-correlative. Blah blah blah. This can go on for generations. What I know for sure, Is that I don't trust the lab. Never have, and probably never will. Results from logs, sales, observations of use in the field. These I believe in deeply. Now, your question was asking, what is design and what isn't. And that is a different question. My point was one of defining a continuum and setting up an absolute, so to suggest that listening or not listening to data is or isn't design is absurd. What it is, is a continuum and usually a balance leads to best practice (not best practices). -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
I think ALL of you are really arguing the same side. Collecting Data is a big part of IxD, and like any field with a science background, that data need not be collected a second time for the same problem. Do biologists retest basic chemistry in order to make a biological experiment? Certainly not. What google is doing, and why that is bad, is they have taken to retesting. They have developed a culture where they don't extrapolate from prior testing, like we IxDs do, even when it was not our test. The 41 blues issue is a valid one. I'm positive that testing these 41 blues will garner results. Those results, if not spread over at least 1 million people, will not carry any value. But they will be results. If the sample is large enough, they may find that indeed the darker blue (if the background is light) will be the better choice. However, any one of us could have pointed at the blue that would do best because we have learned the value of contrast. Given the backgrounds google normally picks. It is obvious that the one with the greatest contrast (normally the darkest one) will test better. Because the few people in the sample that have trouble with low contrast will find the higher contrast helpful, and it won't annoy anyone. The reason the 41 blue test is bad, is any one of us would have told google the right choice for FREE! Because we are informed by other, older, tests. And a healthy spoon full of our own observations. We are all arguing the same things. Testing is good, when it isn't moronic. Using what we have learned already is the design of IxD and is only good if informed by good data. Which we mostly are. Not perfect, but test data isn't perfect either, and we are a hell of a lot cheaper than testing everything must be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Data driven business decisions (and the offshoot being discussed here - design decisions) is a significant movement… much of it being fostered from engineers and statisticians. The notion that we, the humans, do not need to know the why, but only what he data tells us to do is at the core of its controversy. There have been many articles published on this recently and even a few in the popular press (Time and Business Week as I recall). There are a couple of issues here. The first, is the notion that human understanding of the ‘why’ in insignificant. I find this troubling. More and more I run into folks who want a decision that is not encumbered by ‘mistake prone’ humans. This is silly, and frankly, it is a weak ass approach to decision making. It is unrealistic and devoid of an important part of decision-making… judgment. Statistics do in fact lie. Following this purely data driven approach, executives often become the victim of type 3 errors (sometimes called a type 0 error) in which the wrong questions was asked. A wise professor once told me that having research is much better than not, but in the end… once you have absorbed and evaluated all of the data, you still have to make a decision. The same is true whether you are using qualitative research, quantitative research, accounting numbers or other business metrics… it must be interpreted, weighed and assessed for significance… then you make a decision. The data should never render the decision for you. Further… making the choice between selections A, B, and C is the easy step (as pointed out by Tichy and Bennis in their recent book ‘Judgment’). You still have to evangelize, execute and follow through with the decision. That is hardly do-able if you have let the data take the first step. Not knowing the why is crippling in the ‘whole’ of the decision process. Mark Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
The reason the 41 blue test is bad, is any one of us would have told google the right choice for FREE! That's a false argument, because you're saying that designers should then be trusted to know what they know and know what they don't know. Peter Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
A wise professor once told me that having research is much better than not, but in the end… once you have absorbed and evaluated all of the data, you still have to make a decision. Of course, I don't think anyone would argue that you place the decision-making with the machines? We've all seen that movie :) Peter Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
I find some issue with this argument. Re-applying solutions to new problems is not ideal. It goes to one of my pet peeves... applying solutions from books, that may or may not have a similar context or problem. I see MBA's and business owners reading books like 'Good to Great' and then enthusiastically applying said recipe to their company. The same goes with using tertiary research... proceed with caution and even skepticism. I am one of the first to talk about wasting time with eye tracking. The Cog-science folks have already gathered most of the important data and knowledge from those kinds of studies. But applying learnings from instance specific research to similar but not exactly the same context is dangerous. Mark On Mar 21, 2009, at 12:15 PM, William Brall wrote: Collecting Data is a big part of IxD, and like any field with a science background, that data need not be collected a second time for the same problem. Do biologists retest basic chemistry in order to make a biological experiment? Certainly not. What google is doing, and why that is bad, is they have taken to retesting. They have developed a culture where they don't extrapolate from prior testing, like we IxDs do, even when it was not our test. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 21, 2009, at 12:15 PM, William Brall wrote: Collecting Data is a big part of IxD, and like any field with a science background, that data need not be collected a second time for the same problem. Science background? -- Andrei Herasimchuk Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. and...@involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
One side question, what do you think about google's new icon compare to old one? Cheers, -- Jarod On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk aherasimc...@involutionstudios.com wrote: Posted without comment, even though I very much feel Google just lost an amazing talent for no good reason: http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html -- Andrei Herasimchuk Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. and...@involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Yes, over-reliance on data-driven incremental design (DDID) is ill- advised. - Customers who use more than one of a company's products tend to be the most valuable customers in the long run. DDID usually optimizes one product at a time. The resulting inconsistencies may make each product a bit more profitable but can make it less likely for a heavy user of one to become a casual user of another. - DDID is an effective way to climb a little higher on a profit hill. It will never get you off the current hill onto a taller mountain. - Changing shades of blue and line widths can nudge a product higher on its current hill. But an organization that makes choices based solely on the basis of performance data won't learn why a certain shade or width works better, and is unlikely to apply the lesson to the next project. Revenue is foregone, costs mount and precious resources are tied up while each new product is gradually optimized. But many managers love DDID. It a systematic, replicable, and inherently measurable. Delight in the experience and passion for the product line are much harder to measure. The non-mathematical way that designers go about evoking such emotions isn't something that the staffing and training departments can reliably replicate. These days, great success usually emerges from a smart combination of analytical thinking and design thinking, a combination that requires mutual respect and cooperation as equals among the various practitioners. Larry Tesler When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. I think people need to stop lauding Google as a design success story. I think it hurts us b/c it is clear that it is an engineering success story. Does that mean that engineering is better than design. I think looking at Apple, answers that question. It doesn't. There are S many ingredients that go into success and we would be fooling ourselve as designers or engineers to think that any one of us controls all of them. BTW, the one place funny enough that Google DOES allow for a taste of humanity is on their most precious search home page (Google.com). Their use of holiday and historic event treatments is beautiful!!! However, I can count on 1 hand how many times I go to Google.com (home page) any more. Its in the chrome of my browser or in my browser's home page, etc. Soul!!! Time to swing the pedullum back from the austere periods towards the more expressionist. I think we can do that and still maintain simplicity, clarity, usability, findability, and overall effectiveness. In fact, I'd like to challenge us to do it! -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Dave, On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 2:38 AM, David Malouf d...@ixda.org wrote: Jarod, I don't like it. I find it to be .. 1) reminiscent of MS 2) too brash and distracting Yes, I found few likes the current Google icon near around. But many people like the one one, that would be the interesting phenomenon to figure out. More importantly it has in no way shape or form improved my relationship with Google (or diminished it). I think people have missed my point. I think design is not for or against data, but design should always be for imbuing human expressionism beyond the measurable. A designer of worth, merit, etc. should always be encouraged to express themselves in any way that does not break Raskin's 1st law of interaction design (don't fuck w/ the content, purpose or utility of what you are designing [paraphrasing]). When I look at a site like google, I see a souless design. Now, I use google over Yahoo Adobe for most things but that has nothing to do with aesthetics. But Google would never take a risk like adding a Liam (mail spelled backwards) character to their software. They would never use the iconographic vivid imagery of a Buzzword interface (Adobe). Because of this, these applications at least attempt to have soul--connectedness to human expression to the world around them. A question here, since it's a phenomenon that many people prefer Google, are there (or we call it like this?) some kind of essential aesthetic interaction there beyond the surface? And even better, as you urged, could we make it deeper and wider in the essential way? Cheers, -- Jarod -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi: Re-reading Doug Bowman's post you can really feel his frustration. Reading between the lines I hear: * A culture that was born in Engineering (and still very much i that space - which is what makes Google great) * A culture that is looking at ways to embrace Design and User Research (and not purely relying on data and statistics to back up everything) * Understanding when to rely on data for large design decisions and when to go with best practice and the expertise of the Design Team * Looking at how to promote consistency across many product sets * When to hold onto what consumers understand as the Google Brand and when to start to try something new (but not for the sake of a re-design) * When to rely on Data to drive new products (would love to dig into some of those Search logs :) * Getting your top Designers working on harder, challenging and strategic problems * Giving your top Design Team the political power they need to experiment and make change happen Some interesting complimentary pieces - 94% of Facebook users hate new design - http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/web/94-of-facebook-users-hate-new-design/2009/03/20/1237055063673.html Google's Irene Au: On Design Challenges - http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2009/id20090318_786470.htm?__vid__=Y29sbGVjdGlvblR5cGU9YWxpYXMBY29sbGVjdGlvbklEPXNodWFubG8Bc291cmNlPXkuZGVsaWNpb3VzAWNsYXNzPWJvb2ttYXJrAXR5cGU9Ym9va21hcmsBc3VpZD04ZjVhYzU1ODA1YjcyOTkxNGU5MGFiOTAwZjRjMjMzNQ-- Some of this also comes down to the question of who owns/drives the User Experience in an organzation? and then How do you get everyone (product teams) onto the same page? - have seen these same patterns repeat for the last 10-15 years. Data is superb, when you understand what you need the data for, how it will be interpreted and what it really means for your products. rgds, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 20, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: Google just lost an amazing talent for no good reason: No good reason? When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions. 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. Seems like reason enough for me. Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dan Saffer wrote: Seems like reason enough for me. So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? -- Andrei Herasimchuk Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. and...@involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you two are having a communication problem. Dan—Andrei meant Google lost someone because they're obsessed with testing every last thing in the world, not Bowman left for no good reason. Andrei—Dan misinterpreted what you said and cited Google's testing obsession as a good reason to leave. In other words, you're both saying the same thing—that Google's obsession caused Bowman to leave, and that it's a bad thing. Eh? -r- Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Andrei, I'm not sure that this is about wrong or right. I think it is about cultural fit. I am not sure that I could work easily with people prepared to die in a ditch over a single pixel either. But then again, I'd be happy to offer my best advice and then see how the result worked in practice, no matter which way the decision went. I think we all have the option to pick our battles, and should have the grace/maturity to accept that we may not fit into a given organisation (and subsequently walk). As cool as it is, I'm not sure I'd fit into the Big G either - although working with Mr Veen on the Analytics stuff would have been totally awesome. Have you read Bob Sutton's book with the NSFW title? Maybe we need a Designerly Way equivalent to the when everyone around you is an a**hole, chances are, you are the a**hole - and relate it to cultural fit. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk aherasimc...@involutionstudios.com wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dan Saffer wrote: Seems like reason enough for me. So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? -- Andrei Herasimchuk Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. and...@involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- --- Andrew Boyd http://uxaustralia.com.au -- UX Australia Conference Canberra 2009 http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss http://govux.org -- the government user experience forum http://resilientnationaustralia.org Resilient Nation Australia Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Definitely what I saw too. A slight misinterpretation. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 20, 2009, at 6:36 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr rob...@rhjr.net wrote: So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you two are having a communication problem. Dan—Andrei meant Google lost someone because they're obsessed with testing every last thing in the world, not Bowman left for no good reason. Andrei—Dan misinterpreted what you said and cited Google's testing o bsession as a good reason to leave. In other words, you're both saying the same thing—that Google's obsession caused Bowman to leave, and that it's a bad thing. Eh? -r- Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
Hi Andrew, There is a bit of religion here, so be fore-warned. In my temple, I want design to acknowledge the power of soul. My atheist interpretation of said soul is connectedness. What I see in the Google-way is dispassionate and thus souless. Is it successful? can't deny they have success. But is the success b/c of the design, or because of something else. IMHO, data-driven design can lead to success, but it is not the type of success I can live with. I.e. I wouldn't want to work for Phillip Morris or Exxon Mobile either. Success without soul is a choice for many. As a designer though, it seems that soul-lessness is anti-thetical to the artistic roots of design. So if you want to research and derive inspiration from research, or research and live by the data, that is a choice, but I would argue that one is design and the other is not. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM, dave malouf dave@gmail.com wrote: So if you want to research and derive inspiration from research, or research and live by the data, that is a choice, but I would argue that one is design and the other is not. Dave, I think I agree. The problem with data is it requires analysis, which implies interpretation, which can introduce bias anyways. Then you're misled into thinking you're making right decisions based on data when you're actually making it based on subjective interpretation. Using data as an input into design is great. Being tethered to it (or needing it for every decision) is not so good, IMO, FWIW. :) -a Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dan Saffer wrote: Seems like reason enough for me. So you think that testing 41 shades of blue or arguing about borders being 2 to 4 pixels to the point of being asked to prove 2 is better than 4 is a good thing? That all design decisions should be driven by Google's insistence on data driven design by committee? I read Dan's response as he thinks that *is* a good reason to leave. (You had originally stated that they scared Doug away for no good reason.) Of course, if I misinterpreted Dan's response, I apologize. Jared Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Bowman leaves Google
On Mar 20, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Jared Spool wrote: I read Dan's response as he thinks that *is* a good reason to leave. (You had originally stated that they scared Doug away for no good reason.) Yes, as noted by you and robert, I think that is the case as well. I phrased my initial post a little too vaguely. -Andrei Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
