Comments on: Google designer leaves, blaming data-centrism

"I've grown tired of debating...minuscule design decisions," design lead Douglas Bowman vents upon his departure from the search giant.

[rollaire2]

Wow, that dude is something else dude!

RT

www.online-privacy.pro.tc

[George_Marenco]

Google is an evil empire.

[jason.dziak]

"Choosing color shades and pixel widths on the basis of the behavior of millions of Web page users is a fascinating development to the form-follows-function school of design."

OR it just perpetuates bad design. The data might be pointing to what is familiar and not what is most effective. This approach leads to a design of averages not innovation. That's fine if that's Google's philosophy. I'm just glad that a company like Apple exists which allows designers to execute their vision which is informed by human experience and not just data. Maybe Google thinks design isn't something you ultimately need a human for anyway.

[Shankland]

A fair point--and the reason why I said pragmatism could hinder innovation. I do see Google trying more dramatic departures sometimes, though, even if they don't come up with something as eyeball-bending as a 1996 issue of Wired with yellow text jittering on a fluorescent pink background. :)

[bhartman33]

Hi, Jason.

What I think you're missing is the point that the data, in this case <i>was</i> driven by users. The there were usability tests to determine which colors users liked best.

Let's not forget: Google lives or dies by clicks. If .01% of Google's millions of users would rather click on one shade of blue than another, that's a <i>big</i> deal.

It sounds to me like Bowman didn't like the idea of aesthetic decisions being driven by practical considerations. But from the very beginning, Google has <i>always</i> been about aesthetic simplicity and utilitarianism. If 10,000,000 users each take 1/10th of a second longer on a search, that ends up being a big deal.

[jvin248]

I use Google search partly because it's landing page is so clean and fast loading. I once used Yahoo but it was too cluttered and time consuming to load. Google's design was based on the fact that the founders weren't much into coding web pages and so went with what they could do at the time (or had time to do). An accident that was successful.

This design vs engineering conflict is rampant across many industries. Engineering is constantly held to cost vs performance statutes while Design is hard to quantify - it's a "I'll know it when I see it" kind of problem, and one designer will even argue with another designer about the solution. Engineers can settle this argument by: "I'll put 500lbs on the thing and if it breaks we'll use your design". Physics is such an impartial judge.

When faced with product design, such as automotive, a designer can demand a certain feature that costs $100 per vehicle and delays the launch of the vehicle by weeks - and how do they know customers will willingly spend $100 more for the vehicle? Will it be so good as to cause people to buy the vehicle without a $1000 rebate on it at the lot? You run the company and have to build the product or you go out of business - what decision do you make?

Most are wimps and fall back on 'show me the data' - no job risk if data backs up the bet and the bet fails - but that bet is delayed and consumes resources and so a 'no decision' is still a decision! This fear makes 'focus groups' so popular... but a lowest common denominator design "most successful in the focus groups" ends up as a boring product that no one later buys.

A very few individuals actually understand Engineering and Design and Business reality (all at the same time!) and will make a decision and move the company to success.

[glendon_tan]

I hope you realized you have insulted many talented Google engineers by calling them 'code monkeys'.

[dranwang]

Prioritize people, prioritize. Good for Google. Tho, I think you need to be blunt to the world that you're actually accumulating people's private data, thus people's DNA. I know that what you're trying to achieve is the world where there'll be no need for more marketing research. 1 giant monopoly of information. I mean if you don't have no hidden bad agenda why sneak around? I personally don't mind if you just be open about it. That means you're committed to people's sensitive data. I say we stay away from Google and welcome any other site that's readily explain their intention on this issue. It's so unethical and un-American.

[dranwang]

Having said that, stay away from Google Chrome as well. Maybe someday you'll be watching porn and the next thing you know a will come to your wife and offered her divorce service. Or, you'll be researching for your next business venture in your computer and internet and the next thing you know venture capitalists with loads of money take over your market. I mean, some information are way too sensitive.

[MajorasWrath]

Testing 41 different shades of blue to test which is more efficient and debating the difference in pixels sound really silly.

Ok, sure if it was going to result in significant performance issues, or if the audience hasnt moved onto faster alternatives. But what is google developing for? 286 processors on a 28.8k connection???

Sometimes, and i have learned this from experience. The tech can hold back creativity. It's the artist / designer that dictates what the tool can do, not the other way around. That environment sounds like a stifling one, one I wouldnt enjoy working in very much.

Granted, the engineers have a right and duty to tell whats possible and what limits there are involved in projects. But thats beyond the joke with google.

I heard, that apparently that was the case with 3D animation before pixar. The tech was demo's until some designers saw the possibilities for filmaking. First for short movies & CG then for full motion pictures and Toy Story. The rest they say is history.

[Stormspace]

Data makes decisions easier, but for the vast majority of the world there is no practical way to gather that data, and so trained human judgment is the best, most economical way to approach design. Also while data can show you what does well, it does not and cannot duplicate aesthetic genius or a ground breaking approach that hasn't been done before. It can only measure what some one has already done. Also, debating the width of a border and running numbers to support it is both trivial and a waste of everyone's time.

Frankly I've seen sites designed by engineers and most of them while functional are hardly aesthetically pleasing and in most cases aren't very easy to use since the engineer is designing for himself and people that think like an engineer; not like an average person. So while in many cases the designer needs the engineer to realize his goals, but that doesn't preclude the necessity of the designer even if the engineer believes he can design based on his IQ alone.

[retiarius]

So pretend-designers like Marissa Mayer are creating havoc around Google.

Is this the same Google that gave true accomplished creatives like Dr. Brian Reid
the boot? The same Google that tries to substitute pseudo-objective Six Sigma
methods for common sense? Egads, is this misplaced anal retentiveness
a feature of the youth "culture" there, or just bum Google management?

[oldscarecrow]

As a former design manager, I'm envious of Google's luxury: to make their decisions based on millions of tests, no matter how small the decision. Most design people work on so much smaller scale and with comparatively minuscule budgets. Having to make decisions based only on everyone's artistic "gut" feelings always left me looking over my shoulder and wondering. To an artist it's frustrating, but to be able to actually know is a great advantage. Bowman is just making a personal decision, and it's his right to do that.

[afmehin]

Stephen, "the form-follows-function school of design" is called modernism - it happened 60 years ago - it's not fresh -comment on something that you are well versed in . . . you are not a design journalist, you are a technology journalist . . . keep to your strengths.

[bdennis410]

This is what happens when you have too many people with too much time on their hands-the pixel counters.
While design elements are worthy of some quantative measurements criteria, ask any horse designed by committee, how he feels about his appearance.
Hint: jackasses and donkeys get ridiculed.
Maybe this guy is just disgruntled, but my instincts tell me that marginalizing employees and over-staffing just because you can is a bad outcome, certainly not a "best practice."

Thank you Google for keeping function over form. Give me performance and usability over aggravating, bloated and hard to use web sites anyday.

[liquidfairy]

This boils down to usability 101, not performance of load times folks, but performance of one design element over another based on usability analytics such as the results you'd get from a&b testing. I've found myself in this same predicament, completely appalled by an almost cynical dissecting of design ideas. I completely understand the frustration with having to stop every two steps in your design process to spend countless hours quantifying any creative decision. Design is not a science and attempting to break it down as such will stifle creativity and the exploration of new ideas. I am a web designer who is in favor of and very much immersed in quantifying design and weighing out decisions based on SOME statistics but I strongly believe a line should be drawn and there should be a very fine balance between these in your creative process. Making creative decisions based solely on performance and having to justify every design element is a robotic way of being "artistic and creative"; it is unnatural and goes against our very own fundamental and very passionate core which questions the standards, pushes the limits, sets new trends and boldly "goes where no man has gone before". We are creatives, and when questioned where this creativity comes from the answer shouldn't have to be quantitative; my creativity stems from everyday life, derives from a bottomless well of years of experience in the field and from my own inborn creative abilities. If that answer doesn't suffice, then without a second to waste, it would be time to move on just as Douglas Bowman did. Congratulations to Douglas! He has my admiration and respect.

[myunv]

I agree 100% with him, all I've seen from Google is the same old layouts and boring design elements that simply made me like Yahoo! a whole lot better. I only use Google for search, but other than that I would never find myself reading an article or anything. YouTube is the only exception, and even Google ruined the design a lot.

Sure content is the most important, but we all view it differently. Our computers and internet connections are able to quickly load even the most poorly optimized site. With optimization techniques like sprites (putting many images into one) and loading everything from a consistent cdn, there really is no reason to be so data centric like Google.

Google thinks they're winning a majority of the audience because of their simple designs and great apps, but not for me. I use Google Search out of habit, but would never have it as my homepage otherwise my mornings would feel very bland. iGoogle is too boring for me too, and Gmail doesn't even have tabs like Yahoo! Mail.

Please Google, get yourself into the modern age and listen to those who say that design is just as important. Design can go very well with code, and it doesn't take much thinking to make a design compatible with older platforms which not many people use anymore.