looking at impart
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
the why
I live in a fast, fast world. I create user interfaces for software and web companies. These technology companies visualize, capitalize, grow and are either bought, merged or sold in very short time... and I get to play a small role in these processes.
The core of information design is research. The best designers use the same well tested paths that Jan Tschichold did designing a book in the 30's and applying them to a Flash application for purchasing books from Amazon on your desktop. User interface design is information design. Information design is also user interface design. It always has been. There is no difference in the mission, layout, readability coloring and even in many ways the interaction. Just the effects.
I am partially writing these pages because I am finding it difficult to find designers who understand what their role is in application design, let alone companies who understand why they are delivering product. Designers have come to believe that their responsibility begins and ends with the task of "making it look pretty." Design school teachers further this teaching by dropping the solid principles of design thinking (research) in favor teaching the use of technology. This combined with a fear of usability studies, software and display applications creates a disaster for functionality. Design thinking has been relegated to the design technology that makes it. Design has lost its connection to why and moved to how.
The why of design is elusive. It is hard work. It is complex matrix that ideally the designer should help other employees sort out. Designers are rapidly losing the skill of "why" and have little ability to understand the endgame of the company which simply is to create understanding. Understanding of value. Understanding of purpose. Understanding of use. Designers must communicate these values of why or they have failed.
Ironically I am also finding more and more companies with wonderful ideas wondering why products fail to take root. Everyone marvels about Apple*, Google, Craigslist, and Blogger but won't dig to find out why these companies are successful. The designers at these companies understand the why.
Complicating the lack of wholistic design vision universities are purposefully creating "engineering design programs." These training course eliminate interface design as a discipline and instead are encouraging programmers to take responsiblility for functionality and product interaction as a task. Design is relegated to making features pretty.
This shift away from conceptual designers makes everyone the advocate for the end-user and thus creates and environment where everyone feels they must drive design. There is no research repository. Developers know what the customer wants and hold the keys to the interaction with the programming. Marketing people know what the customer wants and hold the keys to feel. Founders are inspired by what the user wants and hold the keys to financing. And investors hold copies of all the keys. Customers want keys (although they may not know it yet). These interactions are what drive product development today. The designer is called in at the last second to make it all work together by making it look pretty. As a result solid research, hard thinking and smooth user interactions have lost a value in favor of feature checklists. There is no filtering. There is no molding. There is decorating without the industrial principles of design and a great idea, and millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions, goes sideways.
In this blog I will document some simple practices, product examples and people that restore useablility and value to consumers and your company. This can be accomplished by showing people who are still thinking clearly (with perspective) and who are looking where we all should be looking towards the endgame or "the why."
__________________________________________________________________________________
*I have not included Microsoft because I believe in most cases it lets others define the "why." When a young non-Microsoft product does well enough in the marketplace Microsoft will eventually copy it or if that does not work it will buy the company.
The core of information design is research. The best designers use the same well tested paths that Jan Tschichold did designing a book in the 30's and applying them to a Flash application for purchasing books from Amazon on your desktop. User interface design is information design. Information design is also user interface design. It always has been. There is no difference in the mission, layout, readability coloring and even in many ways the interaction. Just the effects.
I am partially writing these pages because I am finding it difficult to find designers who understand what their role is in application design, let alone companies who understand why they are delivering product. Designers have come to believe that their responsibility begins and ends with the task of "making it look pretty." Design school teachers further this teaching by dropping the solid principles of design thinking (research) in favor teaching the use of technology. This combined with a fear of usability studies, software and display applications creates a disaster for functionality. Design thinking has been relegated to the design technology that makes it. Design has lost its connection to why and moved to how.
The why of design is elusive. It is hard work. It is complex matrix that ideally the designer should help other employees sort out. Designers are rapidly losing the skill of "why" and have little ability to understand the endgame of the company which simply is to create understanding. Understanding of value. Understanding of purpose. Understanding of use. Designers must communicate these values of why or they have failed.
Ironically I am also finding more and more companies with wonderful ideas wondering why products fail to take root. Everyone marvels about Apple*, Google, Craigslist, and Blogger but won't dig to find out why these companies are successful. The designers at these companies understand the why.
Complicating the lack of wholistic design vision universities are purposefully creating "engineering design programs." These training course eliminate interface design as a discipline and instead are encouraging programmers to take responsiblility for functionality and product interaction as a task. Design is relegated to making features pretty.
This shift away from conceptual designers makes everyone the advocate for the end-user and thus creates and environment where everyone feels they must drive design. There is no research repository. Developers know what the customer wants and hold the keys to the interaction with the programming. Marketing people know what the customer wants and hold the keys to feel. Founders are inspired by what the user wants and hold the keys to financing. And investors hold copies of all the keys. Customers want keys (although they may not know it yet). These interactions are what drive product development today. The designer is called in at the last second to make it all work together by making it look pretty. As a result solid research, hard thinking and smooth user interactions have lost a value in favor of feature checklists. There is no filtering. There is no molding. There is decorating without the industrial principles of design and a great idea, and millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions, goes sideways.
In this blog I will document some simple practices, product examples and people that restore useablility and value to consumers and your company. This can be accomplished by showing people who are still thinking clearly (with perspective) and who are looking where we all should be looking towards the endgame or "the why."
__________________________________________________________________________________
*I have not included Microsoft because I believe in most cases it lets others define the "why." When a young non-Microsoft product does well enough in the marketplace Microsoft will eventually copy it or if that does not work it will buy the company.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)