Author Archive

Community Strength: The Immersive Web And Design Writing


  

I have an idea for a new product — can I tell you about it? It will take months to develop, and even though this kind of thing is usually given away for free, I’m going to charge for it. Oh, and the market for it probably won’t be very big… Wait, come back! Where are you going?!

It does sound like a crazy idea, but it’s exactly what a small group of designers and writers have been doing for the past year or so. On a Web littered with SEO-ified headlines (“17 Jaw-Dropping Responsive Design Templates and Funny Cat Pictures�), easy-to-share design gallery slideshows and quick tutorials that help you recreate the latest texture fetish in Photoshop, these people are taking a step back from what we have now come to refer to as the “fast Web.� In the words of Jack Cheng:

“What is the Fast Web? It’s the out of control Web. The oh my god there’s so much stuff and I can’t possibly keep up Web. It’s the spend two dozen times a day checking Web. The in one end out the other Web. The Web designed to appeal to the basest of our intellectual palettes, the salt, sugar and fat of online content Web. It’s the scale hard and fast Web. The create a destination for billions of people Web. The you have two hundred twenty six new updates Web. Keep up or be lost. Click me. Like me. Tweet me. Share me. The Fast Web demands that you do things and do them now. The Fast Web is a cruel wonderland of shiny shiny things.”

Slow Web
(Image: Jack Cheng)

A new wave of publications are avoiding this trap, and they appear almost quaint or old school compared to the fast Web. Or worse, as n+1 magazine points out:

“But all contemporary publications tend toward the condition of blogs, and soon, if not yet already, it will seem pretentious, elitist, and old-fashioned to write anything, anywhere, with patience and care.”

I’m talking about collaborative print and digital publications such as The Manual, Distance, Codex, 8 Faces and Ferocious, and even books such as Frank Chimero’s The Shape of Design. These publications all have two things in common:

  • First, they’re about the meaning of creativity and design, more than they are about the doing of these things.
  • Secondly, they are written with patience and care, and they are designed to be read and enjoyed in the same way.

This kind of thing is, admittedly, a hard sell. There are two main reasons for this.

First, we’re not trained to spend time doing things with patience and care on the Web. As Robin Sloan points out in his brilliant essay “Fish�:

“On the internet today, reading something twice is an act of love.”

And the reason for this is that we’re being fed junk food, and we love it. Clay Johnson talks about this in his book The Information Diet:

“Driven by a desire for more profits, and for wider audiences, our media companies look to produce information as cheaply as possible. As a result, they provide affirmation and sensationalism over balanced information. […] Just as food companies learned that if they want to sell a lot of cheap calories, they should pack them with salt, fat, and sugar — the stuff that people crave — media companies learned that affirmation sells a lot better than information. Who wants to hear the truth when they can hear that they’re right?”

So, instead of looking for nutrition, we settle for the quick fast-food rush. Short articles fit nicely into lunchtime breaks. They don’t distract us from the Twitter feed long enough for us to lose track of the day’s most important discussions. Most of all, this bite-sized information effectively manages one of our biggest fears: the sunk cost phenomenon, whereby we worry that if we “waste� time on a long piece of writing, we can never get that time back to do something else instead.

Secondly, convincing people to care about why they do something is much harder than getting them to learn how to do it. One is about meaning, the other is about doing. And only one of these things brings cash directly into the bank account. As Frank Chimero points out in The Shape of Design:

“The relationship between form and purpose — How and Why — is symbiotic. But despite this link, Why is usually neglected, because How is more easily framed. It is easier to recognize failures of technique than those of strategy or purpose, and simpler to ask “How do I paint this tree?â€� than to answer “Why does this painting need a tree in it?â€� The How question is about a task, while the Why question regards the objective of the work. If an artist or designer understands the objective, he can move in the right direction, even if there are missteps along the way. But if those objectives are left unaddressed, he may find himself chasing his own tail, even if the craft of the final work is extraordinary.”

The irony in all of this is that taking a break from doing, to look slowly and carefully at why we do things and how they fit into the world around us, will almost certainly make us better at the doing part. All creative pursuits have importance and meaning only through their audience, so understanding that audience and the world it operates in is an essential ingredient in our craft.

At least, that’s what I think. But I could be wrong. So, to find out more, I got in touch with some of the publishers who work on these publications and asked them a series of questions about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. What follows are excerpts from email discussions with the following publishers:

Why should you care about what these people have to say? The purpose of this article is not to convince you to stop reading articles that help you learn the techniques of your craft. Its purpose is to make the case for a more balanced information diet, with which we all take the time to nourish the parts of our brain that give us much-needed context to understand and effectively use the techniques that we see in galleries and tutorials. So, let’s get to it.

Q: What made you start your publication? Why do you think it’s important to do?

Andy McMillan: “For the past two decades, we’ve done an incredible job as a community of discussing, debating and sharing, all of which has contributed to driving our techniques and technologies forward at a staggering pace. This is the energy that provided us with the Web standards movement, and I would argue we’re on the cusp of another major shift. Web design is beginning to define itself as less of a technical skill, but rather as a mature and distinct design discipline.

“Our extraordinary passion for prototyping, experimenting, documenting and sharing the how has gotten us to where we are today. But we believe that as Web design matures as a discipline, there is an additional requirement for greater discussion around the why of what we do. The manual aims to give a home to deeper explorations of our work through sharing stories behind the why of Web design and who we are as designers.�

The Manual
The Manual, Image: Andy McMillan)

Nick Disabato: “I started figuring out the ideas behind Distance in April 2011, when I noticed a few problems in design writing. Most long-form stuff was either hyperbolic and incendiary, thin on citation and high on personal opinion, or it involved this hand-wavy, un-actionable “it dependsâ€� kind of conclusion. But it’s possible for writing to take a confident stand without turning into flame bait — by providing justification and offering a way forward. Otherwise, we risk losing something tremendously important about the exchange of meaningful ideas. This is the gap that Distance hopes to help fill.â€�

John Boardley: “I started I Love Typography, We Love Typography and Codex all for the same reason: they are ways to share my obsession with typography. I never imagined that these projects would become so popular. I had no grand plan. And that reminds me: I still don’t. I think these projects are important simply because type matters. And type matters because words matter — whether they are words that inspire (in prose or poetry), words that guide us (wayfinding), beseech, implore, persuade (advertising) — they all matter. Beyond the fundamentals of legibility and readability, the choice of typeface and the typography, the mise en page, imbue those words with a voice beyond words, with a personality that sets the scene. The choice of typefaces is analogous to the music score for a movie — the very same scene made more sober, more exuberant, more frightening, more comical, more beautiful, more inspiring, simply through the accompanying music score.â€�

Codex
Codex, Image: John Boardley)

Q: What have been some of the biggest challenges in getting it off the ground?

Nick: “It’s been challenging to have no idea what I am doing. Let’s say you have this principle: you believe that online discourse is degrading, and that design writing could do better by being slower, more thoughtful and more focused on research. How do you work in a way that fulfills that principle? You’d probably get others involved, because leading by example often carves a niche vacuum on the Internet. It probably involves writing; actually, it probably involves long writing. In order to keep the scope from getting too insane, you’d probably want to constrain it somehow.

“But that’s only the beginning of an avalanche of questions. How do you execute on it? How do authors react to a hands-on editor? How do you make money? Do you sell digital, print or both? How do you market it? How do you conduct outreach without coming off as a shameless, desperate Willy Loman type? How do you handle fulfillment on the print editions?

“All that for well-researched essays about design and technology. Each one of those questions needs to be addressed, because each one is critical to the final success. Every day is a new challenge, a new step forward — all done with the risk that it may never pay off (figuratively and literally).â€�

Distance
Distance, Image: Brent Knepper)

John: “Launching Codex was quite different from launching the blog projects. It necessitated hiring a small team, paying a small team, finding advertisers and sponsors, commissioning articles, finding a printer, a distributor, choosing paper, doing art direction — the list is endless. I guess the biggest challenge is finding the right collaborators — those who share your vision and those who you can work with night and day without wanting to put a hit out on them.â€�

Andy: “Of course, it’s been a lot of hard work, but I think a lot of what we might have considered initially “challenging� was negated by having the first issue funded through Kickstarter. While Kickstarter is a great tool for pre-selling an idea into reality, it’s really much more valuable as a tool for gauging interest and support. While we thought The Manual should exist, and friends agreed, we needed the support of the Web design community at large to know there was demand for a publication like this. Having The Manual successfully funded through Kickstarter let us know that it was something the community wanted, too.

“While there are always a lot of challenges that come with each issue, it’s always worth it in the end. What we have so far are three beautiful books, with some of the strongest editorial ever written about designing for the Web by some of the most exceptionally talented people in our field. We’re incredibly proud of what we’ve produced so far.�

Q: What are some of the high points you’ve experienced throughout the process?

Nick: “The past year of my life has been a ridiculous emotional roller coaster. I haven’t felt “meh� about anything in a very long time. You know the stereotype about startup life being prone to intense mood swings? That applies to Distance, too.

“We funded our beginnings on Kickstarter. Our campaign was funded on a Friday afternoon in the dead of winter, a couple of hours before I was about to leave work and go to a gallery show that many of my friends were exhibiting in. After trudging through snow for a mile, my girlfriend and I walked inside to cheering and hugs in a packed room. I couldn’t have asked for a better way to celebrate.

“Receiving a first draft never gets old. Watching an essay come together is intensely gratifying and humbling. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I throw down everything every single time one hits my inbox. One time I excused myself from a bar at 2:00 am to read the whole thing outside, without a jacket, in the middle of winter, drunk and shivering.

“And then, of course, taking a shipment of the print edition feels amazing. Carrying 25 boxes full of six months’ hard work by several people is a big catharsis.�

Andy: “One of my all-time favorite memories will always be opening the first box of the first shipment of the first issue and holding it in my hands for the first time. As someone who had, up until that point, only created by pushed pixels and writing code, there was an immense satisfaction of seeing months of work distilled into a single physical artefact. All the writing, editing, production, discussions, emails, to-do lists, Skype calls, arguments, debates, victories and celebrations — every one of them was contained in this thing I was holding in my hand.

“I get emails every day from people who have read The Manual for the first time, telling me it’s changed how they view their work, or motivated them to think differently, or led them to try something different. I’ll never get tired of receiving and replying to those emails. It’s been immensely satisfying to know we’re having that kind of impact with people.�

The Manual
The Manual, Image: Andy McMillan)

Q: What is the purpose behind the publications? What would you like people to do once they’ve read it?

John: “To be frank, purpose is not something I give much thought to. I enjoy making things. If people find value in what I’ve created, then the purpose comes ex post facto. I’ve always believed that if you have the opportunity, you should create what you want. There is no guarantee that what you create will find a large audience, but if it does, then you’ve had your cake and eaten it, so to speak.

“Share your passions passionately; never be condescending; don’t ever present yourself as an expert (let others be the judges of that). Again, when it comes to what I would like people to do once they’ve read I Love Typography or Codex, well, I’d hope that they come out with a richer appreciation of typography; but I have no roadmap for where they should head next. That is best determined by the reader.�

Nick: “I hope people learn from our essays, so that they can be more thoughtful and considerate in their own work. It would also be great if Distance inspired somebody to write a long essay of their own: this model isn’t exactly proprietary, and I happily invite others to participate.

“And if our readers disagree with anything, they should critique the essays. Tell us what you think is wrong about them and what could be done to improve them. We all have blogs — there’s no excuse. And we’d love to hear from you; our essays aren’t complete without your thoughts.â€�

Distance
Distance, Image: Brent Knepper)

Andy: “We’re proud to be part of the conversation, to be contributing to and encouraging further discourse about what it is we do and why exactly we do it. We like to think we’re giving a home to more ideas and contributing to the intelligent, critical thinking around our design discipline.

“This is a conversation that’s been stewing and bubbling up for a good while now, and we’re proud to give a home to part of it. What we hope people do once they’ve read The Manual is to continue doing what we’ve always done as designers of the Web: discuss, debate and share and, by doing so, continue to drive us forward.�

Conclusion

As I wrote and edited this article, reading through the responses over and over, it struck me how lucky we are to work in an industry and at a time where there is so much passion for the work we do. It is inspiring to realize that these authors and publishers do what they do without knowing whether their projects will succeed. And then it all came full circle as it dawned on me that it is up to us as a community to help them succeed, not just by supporting their projects, but by allowing their passion and the words they put out into the world to encourage us to do something about the topics we obsess over every day.

So, maybe what I initially thought was an article about design publications is actually an article about all of us instead. The point is not just that we should have a balanced information diet, but that the real power of that balanced diet lies in the energy it gives us to get started on our own projects. Seek out these nutritious words. You won’t regret it.

(il al)


© Rian van der Merwe for Smashing Magazine, 2012.


Community Strength: The Immersive Web And Design Writing


  

I have an idea for a new product — can I tell you about it? It will take months to develop, and even though this kind of thing is usually given away for free, I’m going to charge for it. Oh, and the market for it probably won’t be very big… Wait, come back! Where are you going?!

It does sound like a crazy idea, but it’s exactly what a small group of designers and writers have been doing for the past year or so. On a Web littered with SEO-ified headlines (“17 Jaw-Dropping Responsive Design Templates and Funny Cat Pictures�), easy-to-share design gallery slideshows and quick tutorials that help you recreate the latest texture fetish in Photoshop, these people are taking a step back from what we have now come to refer to as the “fast Web.� In the words of Jack Cheng:

“What is the Fast Web? It’s the out of control Web. The oh my god there’s so much stuff and I can’t possibly keep up Web. It’s the spend two dozen times a day checking Web. The in one end out the other Web. The Web designed to appeal to the basest of our intellectual palettes, the salt, sugar and fat of online content Web. It’s the scale hard and fast Web. The create a destination for billions of people Web. The you have two hundred twenty six new updates Web. Keep up or be lost. Click me. Like me. Tweet me. Share me. The Fast Web demands that you do things and do them now. The Fast Web is a cruel wonderland of shiny shiny things.”

Slow Web
(Image: Jack Cheng)

A new wave of publications are avoiding this trap, and they appear almost quaint or old school compared to the fast Web. Or worse, as n+1 magazine points out:

“But all contemporary publications tend toward the condition of blogs, and soon, if not yet already, it will seem pretentious, elitist, and old-fashioned to write anything, anywhere, with patience and care.”

I’m talking about collaborative print and digital publications such as The Manual, Distance, Codex, 8 Faces and Ferocious, and even books such as Frank Chimero’s The Shape of Design. These publications all have two things in common:

  • First, they’re about the meaning of creativity and design, more than they are about the doing of these things.
  • Secondly, they are written with patience and care, and they are designed to be read and enjoyed in the same way.

This kind of thing is, admittedly, a hard sell. There are two main reasons for this.

First, we’re not trained to spend time doing things with patience and care on the Web. As Robin Sloan points out in his brilliant essay “Fish�:

“On the internet today, reading something twice is an act of love.”

And the reason for this is that we’re being fed junk food, and we love it. Clay Johnson talks about this in his book The Information Diet:

“Driven by a desire for more profits, and for wider audiences, our media companies look to produce information as cheaply as possible. As a result, they provide affirmation and sensationalism over balanced information. […] Just as food companies learned that if they want to sell a lot of cheap calories, they should pack them with salt, fat, and sugar — the stuff that people crave — media companies learned that affirmation sells a lot better than information. Who wants to hear the truth when they can hear that they’re right?”

So, instead of looking for nutrition, we settle for the quick fast-food rush. Short articles fit nicely into lunchtime breaks. They don’t distract us from the Twitter feed long enough for us to lose track of the day’s most important discussions. Most of all, this bite-sized information effectively manages one of our biggest fears: the sunk cost phenomenon, whereby we worry that if we “waste� time on a long piece of writing, we can never get that time back to do something else instead.

Secondly, convincing people to care about why they do something is much harder than getting them to learn how to do it. One is about meaning, the other is about doing. And only one of these things brings cash directly into the bank account. As Frank Chimero points out in The Shape of Design:

“The relationship between form and purpose — How and Why — is symbiotic. But despite this link, Why is usually neglected, because How is more easily framed. It is easier to recognize failures of technique than those of strategy or purpose, and simpler to ask “How do I paint this tree?â€� than to answer “Why does this painting need a tree in it?â€� The How question is about a task, while the Why question regards the objective of the work. If an artist or designer understands the objective, he can move in the right direction, even if there are missteps along the way. But if those objectives are left unaddressed, he may find himself chasing his own tail, even if the craft of the final work is extraordinary.”

The irony in all of this is that taking a break from doing, to look slowly and carefully at why we do things and how they fit into the world around us, will almost certainly make us better at the doing part. All creative pursuits have importance and meaning only through their audience, so understanding that audience and the world it operates in is an essential ingredient in our craft.

At least, that’s what I think. But I could be wrong. So, to find out more, I got in touch with some of the publishers who work on these publications and asked them a series of questions about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. What follows are excerpts from email discussions with the following publishers:

Why should you care about what these people have to say? The purpose of this article is not to convince you to stop reading articles that help you learn the techniques of your craft. Its purpose is to make the case for a more balanced information diet, with which we all take the time to nourish the parts of our brain that give us much-needed context to understand and effectively use the techniques that we see in galleries and tutorials. So, let’s get to it.

Q: What made you start your publication? Why do you think it’s important to do?

Andy McMillan: “For the past two decades, we’ve done an incredible job as a community of discussing, debating and sharing, all of which has contributed to driving our techniques and technologies forward at a staggering pace. This is the energy that provided us with the Web standards movement, and I would argue we’re on the cusp of another major shift. Web design is beginning to define itself as less of a technical skill, but rather as a mature and distinct design discipline.

“Our extraordinary passion for prototyping, experimenting, documenting and sharing the how has gotten us to where we are today. But we believe that as Web design matures as a discipline, there is an additional requirement for greater discussion around the why of what we do. The manual aims to give a home to deeper explorations of our work through sharing stories behind the why of Web design and who we are as designers.�

The Manual
The Manual, Image: Andy McMillan)

Nick Disabato: “I started figuring out the ideas behind Distance in April 2011, when I noticed a few problems in design writing. Most long-form stuff was either hyperbolic and incendiary, thin on citation and high on personal opinion, or it involved this hand-wavy, un-actionable “it dependsâ€� kind of conclusion. But it’s possible for writing to take a confident stand without turning into flame bait — by providing justification and offering a way forward. Otherwise, we risk losing something tremendously important about the exchange of meaningful ideas. This is the gap that Distance hopes to help fill.â€�

John Boardley: “I started I Love Typography, We Love Typography and Codex all for the same reason: they are ways to share my obsession with typography. I never imagined that these projects would become so popular. I had no grand plan. And that reminds me: I still don’t. I think these projects are important simply because type matters. And type matters because words matter — whether they are words that inspire (in prose or poetry), words that guide us (wayfinding), beseech, implore, persuade (advertising) — they all matter. Beyond the fundamentals of legibility and readability, the choice of typeface and the typography, the mise en page, imbue those words with a voice beyond words, with a personality that sets the scene. The choice of typefaces is analogous to the music score for a movie — the very same scene made more sober, more exuberant, more frightening, more comical, more beautiful, more inspiring, simply through the accompanying music score.â€�

Codex
Codex, Image: John Boardley)

Q: What have been some of the biggest challenges in getting it off the ground?

Nick: “It’s been challenging to have no idea what I am doing. Let’s say you have this principle: you believe that online discourse is degrading, and that design writing could do better by being slower, more thoughtful and more focused on research. How do you work in a way that fulfills that principle? You’d probably get others involved, because leading by example often carves a niche vacuum on the Internet. It probably involves writing; actually, it probably involves long writing. In order to keep the scope from getting too insane, you’d probably want to constrain it somehow.

“But that’s only the beginning of an avalanche of questions. How do you execute on it? How do authors react to a hands-on editor? How do you make money? Do you sell digital, print or both? How do you market it? How do you conduct outreach without coming off as a shameless, desperate Willy Loman type? How do you handle fulfillment on the print editions?

“All that for well-researched essays about design and technology. Each one of those questions needs to be addressed, because each one is critical to the final success. Every day is a new challenge, a new step forward — all done with the risk that it may never pay off (figuratively and literally).â€�

Distance
Distance, Image: Brent Knepper)

John: “Launching Codex was quite different from launching the blog projects. It necessitated hiring a small team, paying a small team, finding advertisers and sponsors, commissioning articles, finding a printer, a distributor, choosing paper, doing art direction — the list is endless. I guess the biggest challenge is finding the right collaborators — those who share your vision and those who you can work with night and day without wanting to put a hit out on them.â€�

Andy: “Of course, it’s been a lot of hard work, but I think a lot of what we might have considered initially “challenging� was negated by having the first issue funded through Kickstarter. While Kickstarter is a great tool for pre-selling an idea into reality, it’s really much more valuable as a tool for gauging interest and support. While we thought The Manual should exist, and friends agreed, we needed the support of the Web design community at large to know there was demand for a publication like this. Having The Manual successfully funded through Kickstarter let us know that it was something the community wanted, too.

“While there are always a lot of challenges that come with each issue, it’s always worth it in the end. What we have so far are three beautiful books, with some of the strongest editorial ever written about designing for the Web by some of the most exceptionally talented people in our field. We’re incredibly proud of what we’ve produced so far.�

Q: What are some of the high points you’ve experienced throughout the process?

Nick: “The past year of my life has been a ridiculous emotional roller coaster. I haven’t felt “meh� about anything in a very long time. You know the stereotype about startup life being prone to intense mood swings? That applies to Distance, too.

“We funded our beginnings on Kickstarter. Our campaign was funded on a Friday afternoon in the dead of winter, a couple of hours before I was about to leave work and go to a gallery show that many of my friends were exhibiting in. After trudging through snow for a mile, my girlfriend and I walked inside to cheering and hugs in a packed room. I couldn’t have asked for a better way to celebrate.

“Receiving a first draft never gets old. Watching an essay come together is intensely gratifying and humbling. I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I throw down everything every single time one hits my inbox. One time I excused myself from a bar at 2:00 am to read the whole thing outside, without a jacket, in the middle of winter, drunk and shivering.

“And then, of course, taking a shipment of the print edition feels amazing. Carrying 25 boxes full of six months’ hard work by several people is a big catharsis.�

Andy: “One of my all-time favorite memories will always be opening the first box of the first shipment of the first issue and holding it in my hands for the first time. As someone who had, up until that point, only created by pushed pixels and writing code, there was an immense satisfaction of seeing months of work distilled into a single physical artefact. All the writing, editing, production, discussions, emails, to-do lists, Skype calls, arguments, debates, victories and celebrations — every one of them was contained in this thing I was holding in my hand.

“I get emails every day from people who have read The Manual for the first time, telling me it’s changed how they view their work, or motivated them to think differently, or led them to try something different. I’ll never get tired of receiving and replying to those emails. It’s been immensely satisfying to know we’re having that kind of impact with people.�

The Manual
The Manual, Image: Andy McMillan)

Q: What is the purpose behind the publications? What would you like people to do once they’ve read it?

John: “To be frank, purpose is not something I give much thought to. I enjoy making things. If people find value in what I’ve created, then the purpose comes ex post facto. I’ve always believed that if you have the opportunity, you should create what you want. There is no guarantee that what you create will find a large audience, but if it does, then you’ve had your cake and eaten it, so to speak.

“Share your passions passionately; never be condescending; don’t ever present yourself as an expert (let others be the judges of that). Again, when it comes to what I would like people to do once they’ve read I Love Typography or Codex, well, I’d hope that they come out with a richer appreciation of typography; but I have no roadmap for where they should head next. That is best determined by the reader.�

Nick: “I hope people learn from our essays, so that they can be more thoughtful and considerate in their own work. It would also be great if Distance inspired somebody to write a long essay of their own: this model isn’t exactly proprietary, and I happily invite others to participate.

“And if our readers disagree with anything, they should critique the essays. Tell us what you think is wrong about them and what could be done to improve them. We all have blogs — there’s no excuse. And we’d love to hear from you; our essays aren’t complete without your thoughts.â€�

Distance
Distance, Image: Brent Knepper)

Andy: “We’re proud to be part of the conversation, to be contributing to and encouraging further discourse about what it is we do and why exactly we do it. We like to think we’re giving a home to more ideas and contributing to the intelligent, critical thinking around our design discipline.

“This is a conversation that’s been stewing and bubbling up for a good while now, and we’re proud to give a home to part of it. What we hope people do once they’ve read The Manual is to continue doing what we’ve always done as designers of the Web: discuss, debate and share and, by doing so, continue to drive us forward.�

Conclusion

As I wrote and edited this article, reading through the responses over and over, it struck me how lucky we are to work in an industry and at a time where there is so much passion for the work we do. It is inspiring to realize that these authors and publishers do what they do without knowing whether their projects will succeed. And then it all came full circle as it dawned on me that it is up to us as a community to help them succeed, not just by supporting their projects, but by allowing their passion and the words they put out into the world to encourage us to do something about the topics we obsess over every day.

So, maybe what I initially thought was an article about design publications is actually an article about all of us instead. The point is not just that we should have a balanced information diet, but that the real power of that balanced diet lies in the energy it gives us to get started on our own projects. Seek out these nutritious words. You won’t regret it.

(il al)


© Rian van der Merwe for Smashing Magazine, 2012.


Making A Better Internet


  

My relationship with the Internet oscillates between waves of euphoria and waves of angst. Some things make me extraordinarily happy: like a client who loves usability testing so much when they first experience it that they can’t sleep for days; or connecting with someone whose writing I’ve admired for many years.

But other things make me want to close my computer forever and go live on a farm somewhere: like people who take entire articles and present them as their own work, with tiny source links at the bottom of the page; or endless arguments and name-calling that ignore even the most basic human dignity.

We are capable of such great things, yet we somehow can’t resist the temptation to tear others apart. There is, perhaps, no better depiction of the current state of the Internet than xkcd’s “Duty Calls�:

Duty Calls
Duty Calls by Randall Munroe.

In this essay, I’ll weave together a story about the current state of Internet discourse. At the end, I’ll tell you how I think we can make it better. And then, we’ll most likely all go back to what we were doing and forget about it. Despite the probable futility of this exercise, I’ll carry it out anyway, because I love the Web and I really don’t want us to destroy it.

Act 1: The Lap Dancer

Paul Ford’s “The Web Is a Customer Service Medium� is one of the most important essays of our time. Towards the end, he explains how, in April 2010, the Daily Mail “reported� that “computer tycoon Sir Clive Sinclair, 69, has secretly married his lap dancer fiancee Angie Bowness, who is 36 years his junior.� The appropriate response to this type of story is an overwhelming “Who cares?�, but that’s obviously not what happened. A lot of blogs wrote about it, and the comment sections are sights to behold. Below one of the accounts, a commenter posted the following image in response:

It’s at this point that we need to pick up Paul’s essay for his response:

Consider what that cartoon means in that context: It implies that the commenter feels — with some irony and self-awareness, I’m sure — that his opinion, in some way, is relevant to the question of whether Clive Sinclair should marry a particular woman. This is, for many obvious reasons, completely insane. And yet there was an image already sketched and available to that commenter so that he could express this exact sentiment of choosing not to be outraged at a situation he read about on the Internet.

Paul has a phrase for this, a phrase that has shaped my view of the Internet ever since I first read it. He calls this phenomenon “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?� or WWIC. It’s the fuel that powers the Internet — the insatiable desire to be heard, to make your opinion known, to be understood. It’s the new scribbling “[X] was here� on tree trunks. We read, we share, we “curate,� we post pithy statements and ask people to “Like if you agree!!1!� Lest we spend a day not being noticed.

Act 2: The Bottom Half

On 6 August 2012, South African news website IOL posted an article titled “How ANCYL Plans to Shut Down Cape.� Things got a little out of hand, as they usually do on news websites, until the editors deleted all comments and posted the following notice: “IOL has closed comments on this story due to the high volume of racist and/or derogatory comments.� A friend noted that they should probably just hardcode that sentence into the footer.

A search for the origin of the well-known phrase “Never read the bottom half of the Internet� led me to Sophie Heawood, who told me that she first used it in an article for The Independent a couple of years ago. The first online reference we could find is in her article “Save Dappy From the Venom of the Anonymous�:

What surprises me the most about the bottom half of the internet, that place where all the angry comments go, is that so many of the people writing them turn out not to be rabid murderers but ordinary mild people who casually fire off drive-by verbal shootings in their lunch breaks.

A friend of Sophie’s and fellow journalist for The Independent, Grace Dent, told me that she often quotes the phrase as follows: “Never read the bottom half of the Internet; it’s where the sediment lies.�

If you’ve spent any time reading comments on YouTube, you’ll most likely agree with this — in theory. Unfortunately, our need to be consulted about everything is a perfect match for our morbid fascination with what others are doing with their need to be consulted. It’s a viscous, self-feeding downward cycle. I often wish that we could adopt this rule from Thomas More’s Utopia:

There’s a rule in the Council that no resolution can be debated on the day that it’s first proposed. Otherwise someone’s liable to say the first thing that comes into his head, and then start thinking up arguments to justify what he has said, instead of trying to decide what’s best for the community.

Instead, many of us turn off comments on our own websites instead. It’s not a great solution, but it’s better than losing sleep because of personal attacks and a general sense of meanness towards something you’ve spent a lot of time creating.

Act 3: Turtles, Turtles, Everywhere

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.� The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?� “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,� said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!�

This story, as related by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, is well known and has entered popular Internet culture in many different ways, from Dr. Seuss, to Stephen King’s Dark Tower, and even as an achievement in World of Warcraft. But it’s Frank Chimero who brought this story to the design world in his essay for The Manual titled “The Space Between You and Me�:

Frank goes on to explain the irony of social media. Social networking websites were created to connect us to each other, and yet they reduce us to a two-dimensional avatar, a short bio and a list of books and movies we like. We’re so quick to throw around the word “empathy� as being essential to the work we do, and yet we know frighteningly little not just about the people who use our products, but even about the people who we think we have close relationships with online.

Based on its almost 10 million page views, I’m pretty sure everyone has seen this photograph of a man giving his shoes to a homeless girl in Rio de Janeiro, from BuzzFeed’s “21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity�:

That’s empathy — a quite literal interpretation of Atticus’s reminder in To Kill a Mockingbird that we need to walk in someone else’s shoes before we judge them. It’s people all the way down, and social media websites are making us forget this by abstracting a person’s “brand� from who they really are.

So, How Do We Make A Better Internet?

In a fit of uncharacteristic optimism, I’d like to propose three ways in which we could make a better Internet. I need to do this before the feeling passes, so let’s get to it.

I know it sounds strange, but not saying something every once in a while is OK. In what some are calling the best social media policy ever written, Benjamin Franklin once said:

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.

It’s tough, but it can be done. The other day, as I stopped at a red traffic light, one of South Africa’s characteristically dangerous taxi drivers came up from behind and swerved around me so that they could run the red light. I was infuriated, but at that point I’d already started thinking about this essay, so I decided not to tweet about it. And then I instantly wanted someone to give me a high five for my remarkable show of restraint. How insane is that? Sometimes, it’s WWIC all the way down as well.

We must resist the temptation to feel entitled to be consulted on everything that happens around us.

A few weeks ago, the Mars Rover made a perfect landing, and at least for a few minutes, the Internet rejoiced with tweets like these:

We quickly went back to complaining about other people’s jokes and reactions to the event. But wow! — for a while there, I saw how awesome, encouraging and funny we can be when we pull together to amplify the good things around us.

We don’t have to link to hate speech and angry rants. The best way to stop that behavior is to send traffic elsewhere. We also don’t have to go trolling every time we need a little excitement in our lives. Instead, make and share good things. Be nice. If someone does something good, help them spread the word about it.

I’m pretty sure everyone’s read Jack Cheng’s “The Slow Web� by now, in which he sums up the problem with the environment that we’ve created:

What is the Fast Web? It’s the out of control web. The oh my god there’s so much stuff and I can’t possibly keep up web. It’s the spend two dozen times a day checking web. The in one end out the other web. The web designed to appeal to the basest of our intellectual palettes, the salt, sugar and fat of online content web. […] The Fast Web is a cruel wonderland of shiny shiny things.

Contrast that with what Patrick Rhone says in his essay “Twalden�:

The things I want to know are “happening� — like good news about a friend’s success, or bad news about their relationship, or even just the fact they are eating a sandwich and the conversation around such — I wish to have at length and without distraction. Such conversations remain best when done directly, and there are plenty of existing and better communication methods for that.

Having conversations “at length and without distraction� — what a novel concept.

But let’s bring this full circle, all the way back to Paul Ford. In the closing keynote at the 2012 MFA Interaction Design Festival, he said the following:

If we are going to ask people, in the form of our products, in the form of the things we make, to spend their heartbeats on us, on our ideas, how can we be sure, far more sure than we are now, that they spend those heartbeats wisely?

I’m not saying we should shun the Fast Web and all make Instapaper clones. The Fast Web has its place. I’m also not saying we should quit Twitter. But I do, with all my heart, believe that we — designers and developers — are the ones who are responsible for making a better Internet. And that means we are responsible for how other people spend their time.

We can either take it easy and play to WWIC and bottom-half-of-the-Internet culture, or we can do it the hard way and think carefully about the meaning of the things we make and share. We can choose to ignore our darker tendencies and instead take responsibility for our users and how we ask them to spend their heartbeats. We can shift the flow of traffic away from the bottom half, all the way to the top.

(al)


© Rian van der Merwe for Smashing Magazine, 2012.


Usable yet Useless: Why Every Business Needs Product Discovery

Usable yet Useless: Why Every Business Needs Product Discovery

Brasília is a remarkable, bizarre city. The vision of architect Oscar Niemeyer, it was built in just four years, from 1956 to 1960. More than 50 years later, its beauty and elegance are renowned.

But Brazil’s capital city is known for something else as well: how difficult it is to live there.

A “shiny citadel” from far away, as The Guardian once wrote, up close Brasília has “degraded into a violent, crime-ridden sprawl of cacophonous traffic jams. The real Brazil has spilled into its utopian vision.”

This problem echoes across today’s web landscape as well, where the needs of ordinary users spill constantly into designers’ utopian vision. All around us we see beautiful, empty monuments erected not for their users, but for the people who built them—and the VCs who are scouting them. Even sites and apps that go beyond beauty to usability often fail because they can’t find a big enough market.

Why can’t some interactive products find enough users to be sustainable? Why are there so many failed startups, despite a renewed focus on design?

Most importantly, what can we do about it?

The rise of usable, useless products

We’ve long accepted that for a product to be useful, it needs to have acceptable levels of both utility (“whether it provides the features you need”) and usability (“how easy & pleasant these features are to use”). Yet far too often, we seem to ignore the former in favor of the latter, ending up with lots of easy and pleasant applications that have no reason to exist. One could argue that the first version of Color fell into this trap. And when’s the last time we heard something about Path?

One of the major problems that new products in particular run into is a lack of product/market fit, as Marc Andreessen has noted:

The quality of a startup’s product can be defined as how impressive the product is to one customer or user who actually uses it: How easy is the product to use? How feature rich is it? How fast is it? How extensible is it? How polished is it? How many (or rather, how few) bugs does it have? The size of a startup’s market is the the number, and growth rate, of those customers or users for that product…

The only thing that matters is getting to product/market fit. Product/market fit means being in a good market with a product that can satisfy that market.

The problem arises when startups and companies don’t spend enough time to increase the likelihood of good product/market fit before they start design and development. The Lean Startup concept of “Minimum Viable Product” is certainly useful, but shouldn’t we rather focus on Minimum Desirable Products? What’s the use of fast iteration if all it does is get us to the local maximum more quickly?

But before we get ahead of ourselves and discuss how to fix this, let’s jump into some of the all-important “why” questions.

Why products fail to fit

Brasília’s biggest problem is that the architects who designed it didn’t consider how the city would be used once millions of people were living there. They exhibited Architectural Myopia—designing for industry, not people. I’ve written before about a similar phenomenon in our industry, Designer Myopia. Lured by the recognition (and clients and VCs) they deserve, designers are drawn to being featured in galleries and list-driven blog posts that drive tons of traffic.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that need for recognition—but it is a problem when it hurts users. If Brasília teaches us anything, it’s that becoming blind to the needs of users leads us down a dangerous path where we lose control over our products, with no way to get it back. Once something has shipped, you can either iterate or pivot. Iteration is great if you’re on the right path. Pivoting is dangerous because changing course can wreak havoc on employees and users alike.

Product discovery: a better way

If we want to design better, more useful products, we need to stop designing solutions too early and start instead with product discovery: a process that helps us understand the problem properly so we don’t just design things better, but design better things.

Product discovery consists of three steps:

  • Step 1. Frame the problem and maximize the opportunity
  • Step 2. Explore and assess multiple solutions
  • Step 3. Prioritize and plan

1. Frame the problem and maximize the opportunity

It’s hard to argue with Einstein:

If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.

Step 1 of product discovery is that proverbial 55 minutes. Here, you should discuss and answer questions such as:

  • For whom are we solving this problem?
  • Which user needs are we trying to address? For existing products, what are the shortcomings we need to fix?
  • What customer insights do we have available to inform the solution (customer support, analytics, market research, user research, competitive analysis, etc.)?
  • How will solving this problem help our business?
  • Why is our business capable of making this solution a success?
  • How will our success be measured?

There are several techniques to structure the discussion and make it easier to get to the bottom of these questions. Fishbone Diagrams and The Five Whys are two root-cause analysis techniques that can be applied very effectively to defining a problem in terms of user needs and business goals.

This phase always—without fail—produces insights the team finds incredibly valuable. Startups gain clarity about what to say “yes” and “no” to in their product, and large corporations learn how to go beyond customer-centricity buzzwords and discover which benefits they should be selling to their users. As just one of many examples, I was once in a workshop that revealed the executives had a completely different vision for the company than the designers and developers. It was an awkward two hours, but in the end they agreed on the tough but correct decision to suspend their e-commerce plans until some of the content areas on the site had been sorted out. It’s great to see a statement of purpose emerge from these sessions—one that finally gets an organization to agree on what the product’s focus should be.

From this step, I produce a problem-frame diagram, which is simply a visual summary of the main takeaways in the form of three overlapping circles:

  • User needs
  • Business goals
  • Core competencies

Every decision the team makes should be anchored in at least one of these circles—preferably in the overlap of all three. Design decisions should focus on meeting those needs and capitalizing on the business opportunities by using the core competencies identified.

Customer journey maps are another useful output, and Megan Grocki and Jamie Thomson’s take on them is very informative. Journey maps are visual representations that help to summarize research, highlight and prioritize opportunities, and get buy-in from stakeholders.[1]

Once the problem has been defined (and agreed on by all stakeholders), it’s time to start thinking about solutions.

2. Explore and assess multiple solutions

The takeaways from problem-framing lead into a period of divergent thinking, where you produce many different possible solutions as quickly as possible—visually. Break out the pencils, and lots and lots of paper.

Rather than open your laptop too early in the design process, use sketching to produce a variety of solutions in a short amount of time. Sometimes “Move to Trash” just doesn’t cut it when you need to let go of an idea you wish you never had. There’s nothing as satisfying as crushing a bad idea and throwing it over your shoulder in disgust.

In this phase of the process, you work together to come up with storyboards, sketches, and low-fidelity prototypes to visualize ideas. It’s also a great time to start getting feedback from potential customers. And yes, let’s say it together: Everyone can draw. If Dan Roam says so, who are we to disagree?

3. Prioritize and plan

I talk to many teams who complain about “analysis paralysis”—an inability to make decisions because there are just too many factors (and people) involved. Good prioritization methods give teams comfort that even though they’re not focusing on everything at once, they are focused on the right information to make good decisions.

You can do this with a phase of convergent thinking that narrows down which ideas and solutions to explore further. There are many established processes for this type of prioritization, each designed for a different scenario:

  1. With the KJ-Method, you group similar issues together and use a voting mechanism to rank those issues in order of importance. It’s best when you have a large group of stakeholders who all have strong opinions about the product and you want to make decisions quickly.
  2. The Kano Model uses a two-dimensional axis to group issues into one of three categories: basic expectations (features that users expect as a given), excitement generators (delightful, unexpected features), and performance payoffs (features that need continuous improvement to increase user satisfaction). This method works when you want to ensure you have a balanced roadmap that addresses basic requirements, as well as innovative features that might help the product pull ahead of competitors.
  3. Amazon’s approach prioritizes large themes first, before going into individual features/projects to address those themes. It’s a good approach when the sheer number of features or improvements required feels overwhelming, and you need a way to structure and make sense of all of them.

These methods work because they facilitate teamwork without falling into the traps of “design by committee.” Everyone gets a voice, but not everyone gets to make decisions. That’s an essential attribute of any good prioritization method, because as Seth Godin says, “Nothing is what happens when everyone has to agree.”

In addition to providing the necessary structure to reach prioritization decisions quickly, these methods also produce tangible artifacts that can help you sell your ideas to internal stakeholders. User experience is often much less a design problem than it is an organizational problem. As much as we just want to do our work without obstruction, we can only be truly effective if we also make a compelling argument to people in other parts of the organization. These structured prioritization methods make that step reasonably painless by helping you produce written and visual records of your thought process.

Once done, you should be able to narrow down ideas to a select few you want to build and test—and be comfortable that those ideas have the best chances of meeting your user needs and business goals.

The output

The artifacts produced during product discovery depend on the scope and nature of the project. Sometimes it’s a few sketches on the back of a napkin that a developer uses to start prototyping; sometimes it’s a big PowerPoint document summarizing the process and key takeaways in an effort to bring senior executives along for the ride.

Regardless of the physical output, at the end of the process you should be able to answer the following questions with ease:

  • What is the problem we are trying to solve?
  • For whom are we solving it? Why should they care?
  • What’s the vision for the solution?
  • What’s in it for us?
  • What’s our implementation plan?

The real power of this process is that it will give your team comfort that you’ve introduced enough variation into the design process to ensure you’re not climbing the wrong mountain to a local maximum.

That’s fine for you

“This is nice,” I hear you say, “but we’re a fast-moving startup and we don’t have time to sit around and talk.”

You do if the alternative is failure, brought on by an unhealthy addiction to pretty things that lead to 15 minutes of fame, but not much else.

We’re entering an interesting era in web design. Retina displays might not have mass adoption yet, but it’s only a matter of time before they become the norm. We’re also seeing a level of interest in typography and graphics last experienced when color CRT monitors became a thing. There are many shiny objects out there, and if we focus on those (or focus on impressing the VCs that are focused on them) to the neglect of usefulness, we might find ourselves in a situation similar to that of only a few years ago, when we built Flash intros on every site just because we could.

In other words, product discovery is essential for startups precisely because we’re in a time of such exciting visual innovation.

We cannot let the allure of the visual tear us too far away from the usefulness of the products we develop. It is true that failure teaches us a great deal about what works and what doesn’t. But it’s so much cheaper and more effective to fail at a variety of ideas on paper than it is to fail at one full-blown, VC-backed idea. As Color can probably attest, it’s hard to come back from that.

Together, we can avoid building digital Brasílias—projects that generate buzz, but don’t meet the needs of the people who live there. So let’s discover before we build.

References

[1] If you’re new to journey mapping, see: The Anatomy of an Experience Map, Using Customer Journey Maps to Improve Customer Experience, and Building a Vision from a Journey Map.

Translations:
Italian


RSS readers: Don't forget to join the discussion!


Design Patterns: When Breaking The Rules Is OK


  

We’d like to believe that we use established design patterns for common elements on the Web. We know what buttons should look like, how they should behave and how to design the Web forms that rely on those buttons.

And yet, broken forms, buttons that look nothing like buttons, confusing navigation elements and more are rampant on the Web. It’s a boulevard of broken patterns out there.

This got me thinking about the history and purpose of design patterns and when they should and should not be used. Most interestingly, I started wondering when breaking a pattern in favor of something different or better might actually be OK. We all recognize and are quick to call out when patterns are misused. But are there circumstances in which breaking the rules is OK? To answer this question properly, let’s go back to the beginning.

The History of Design Patterns

In 1977, the architect Christopher Alexander cowrote a book named A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, introducing the concept of pattern language as “a structured method of describing good design practices within a field of expertise.â€� The goal of the book was to give ordinary people — not just architects and governments — a blueprint for improving their own towns and communities. In Alexander’s own words:

At the core… is the idea that people should design for themselves their own houses, streets and communities. This idea… comes simply from the observation that most of the wonderful places of the world were not made by architects but by the people.

Street cafe
Street cafe in San Diego (Image credit: shanputnam)

A pattern — whether in architecture, Web design or another field — always has two components: first, it describes a common problem; secondly, it offers a standard solution to that problem. For example, pattern 88 in A Pattern Language deals with the problem of identity and how public places can be introduced to encourage mixing in public. One of the proposed solutions is street cafes:

The street cafe provides a unique setting, special to cities: a place where people can sit lazily, legitimately, be on view, and watch the world go by. Therefore: encourage local cafes to spring up in each neighborhood. Make them intimate places, with several rooms, open to a busy path, where people can sit with coffee or a drink and watch the world go by. Build the front of the cafe so that a set of tables stretch out of the cafe, right into the street. The most humane cities are always full of street cafes.

For those interested in going further down the pattern 88 rabbit hole, there is even a Flickr group dedicated to examples of this pattern.

The jump from architecture to the Web was quite natural because the situation is similar: we have many common interaction problems that deserve standard solutions. One such example is Yahoo’s “Navigation Tabs� pattern. The problem:

The user needs to navigate through a site to locate content and features and have clear indication of their current location in the site.

And the solution:

Presenting a persistent single-line row of tabs in a horizontal bar below the site branding and header is a way to provide a high level navigation for the website when the number of categories is not likely to change often. The element should span across the entire width of the page using limited as well as short and predictable titles with the current selected tab clearly highlighted to maintain the metaphor of file folders.

This is all very nice, but we need to dig deeper to understand the benefits of using such a pattern in digital product design.

The Benefits Of Design Patterns

Patterns are particularly useful in design for two main reasons:

  • Patterns save time because we don’t have to solve a problem that’s already been solved. If done right, we can apply the principles behind each pattern to solve other common design problems.
  • Patterns make the Web easier to use because, as adoption increases among designers, users get used to how things work, which in turn reduces their cognitive load when encountering common design elements. To put it in academic terms, when patterns reach high adoption rates, they become mental models — sets of beliefs in the user’s mind about how a system should work.

Perhaps the strongest case for using existing design patterns instead of making up new ones comes (once again) from architecture. In the article “The Value of Unoriginality,� Dmitri Fadeyev quotes Owen Jones, an architect and influential design theorist of the 19th century, from his book The Grammar of Ornament:

To attempt to build up theories of art, or to form a style, independently of the past, would be an act of supreme folly. It would be at once to reject the experiences and accumulated knowledge of thousands of years. On the contrary, we should regard as our inheritance all the successful labours of the past, not blindly following them, but employing them simply as guides to find the true path.

That last sentence is key. Patterns aren’t excuses to blindly copy what others have done, but they do provide blueprints for design that can be extremely useful to designers and users. And so we do need to stand on the shoulders of designers who have come before us — for the good of the Web and users’ sanity. Many have tried to document the most common Web design patterns, with varying levels of success. In addition to the Yahoo Design Pattern Library, there’s Peter Morville’s Design Patterns, Welie.com and, my personal favorite, UI-Patterns.com.

When Patterns Attack

Here’s the “but� to everything we’ve discussed up to now. There is a dark side to patterns that we don’t talk about enough. One doesn’t simply copy a pattern library from a bunch of random places, put it on an internal wiki and then wait for the magic to happen. Integrating and maintaining an internal design pattern library is hard work, and if we don’t take this work seriously, bad things will happen. Stephen Turbek sums up the main issues with pattern libraries in his article “Are Design Patterns an Anti-Pattern?�:

  • Design patterns are not effective training tools.
  • Design patterns don’t replace UX expertise.
  • Completeness and learn-ability are in conflict.
  • Design patterns take a lot of investment.
  • Design patterns should help non–UX people first.

This article isn’t meant to discuss these issues in detail, so I highly recommend reading Turbek’s post.

For the purpose of this article, let’s assume we’ve done everything right. We have a published and well-known pattern library that enjoys wide adoption within our organization. We treat the libraries as guidelines and blueprints, not laws to be followed without thinking about the problem at hand. The question I’m particularly interested in is, when is it OK to break a widely adopted design pattern and guide users to adopt a new way of solving a problem?

When We Attack Patterns

Despite all of their benefits, most of the Web seems to have little respect for patterns. The most glaring examples of broken design patterns are found in Web forms. Based on years of research, we know how to design usable forms. From Luke Wroblewski’s book Web Form Design to countless articles on things like multiple-column layouts and positioning of labels, we don’t have to guess any more. The patterns are there, and they’re well established. And yet, we see so many barely usable forms online.

As an example of a broken form pattern, look at the registration form for Expotel below:

Notice the small input fields; the left-aligned labels, with the miles of space between them and the input fields; the placement and design of the “Close� and “Register� buttons, which actually emphasize “Close� more. Oh, and what is a “Welcome Message�? Where will it be used? We can all agree that this is not good form design and is not a good way to break a pattern.

But passing judgment on a broken pattern is not always as easy as it is with the example above. Google’s recent decision to remove the “+� from the button to open a new tab in Chrome came under a bit of fire recently. It breaks a pattern that has been included in most browsers that have tab-based browsing as a feature, and yet Google claims that it did user research before making this change. Was this the right decision?

Google New Tab

And then there are UIs that we might not know what to make of. iOS apps such as Clear and Path introduce new interactions that we haven’t seen before — to much praise as well as negative feedback. A step forward in design or failed experiments?

As with most design decisions, the answers are rarely clear or black and white. A tension exists between patterns and new solutions that cannot be resolved with a formula. Users are familiar with the established way of doing things, yet a new solution to the problem might be better and even more natural and logical. So, when is changing something familiar to something different OK? There are two scenarios in which we should consider breaking a design pattern.

The New Way Empirically Improves Usability

One of the dangers of iterating on an existing design is what is known as the “local maximum.� As Joshua Porter explains:

The local maximum is a point at which you’ve hit the limit of the current design… It is as effective as it’s ever going to be in its current incarnation. Even if you make 100 tweaks, you can only get so much improvement; it is as effective as it’s ever going to be on its current structural foundation.

With patterns, it could happen that we continue to improve an existing solution even while a better one exists. This is one of the pitfalls of A/B testing: it does a great job of finding the local maximum, but not for finding those new and innovative solutions.

We gain much from incremental innovation, but sometimes a pattern is ripe for radical innovation. We need to go into every design problem with our eyes wide open, eager to find new solutions, and ready to test those solutions to make sure that we’re not following bad intuition. As Paul Scrivens points out in “Designing Ideas�:

You will never be first with a new idea. You will be first with a new way to present the idea or a new way to combine that idea with another. Ideas are nothing more than mashups of the past. Once you can embrace that, your imagination opens up a bit more and you start to look elsewhere for inspiration.

This is what the Chromium team claims to have done with the “+� button in Chrome. It believes it has found a better solution, and it’s tested it.

The Established Way Becomes Outdated

Think of the icon for the “save� action in most applications. When was the last time you saw a floppy drive? Exactly. Sometimes the world shifts beneath us, and we have to adjust. Failing to do so, we could get stuck in dangerous ruts, as Twyla Tharp attests (quoted by Yesenia Perez-Cruz):

More often than not, I’ve found a rut is the consequence of sticking to tried and tested methods that don’t take into account how you or the world has changed.

The publishing industry knows this better than most. Stewart Curry has this to say in “The Trope Must Die�:

Design patterns can be very useful, but when we’re making a big shift in media, they can sometimes hold progress back. If we look at the evolution of digital publications, it’s been a slow and steady movement from (in the most part) a printed page to reproducing that printed page on a digital device. It’s steady, linear, and not very imaginative, where “it worked in print, so it will work in digital� seems to be the mindset.

This is where the developers of apps such as Clear and Path are doing the bold, right thing. They realize that we’re at beginning of a period of rapid innovation in gesture-based interfaces, and they want to be at the forefront of that. Some ideas will fail and some will succeed, but it’s important that our design patterns respond to the new touch-based world we’re a part of.

Clear Todo App

Our design patterns have to adjust not only to a shift in our interaction metaphors, but to a significant shift in technology usage in general. Tammy Erickson did some research on what she calls the “Re-Generation� (i.e. post-Generation Y) and discusses some of her findings in “How Mobile Technologies Are Shaping a New Generation�:

Connectivity is the basic assumption and natural fabric of everyday life for the Re-Generation. Technology connections are how people meet, express ideas, define identities, and understand each other. Older generations have, for the most part, used technology to improve productivity — to do things we’ve always done, faster, easier, more cheaply. For the Re-Generation, being wired is a way of life.

Expectations of apps and services change when everything is always on and accessible. We become less tolerant of slow transitions and flows that are perceived to be too complex. We are being forced to rethink sign-up forms and payment flows in an environment where time and attention have become scarcer than ever. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but we do need to find better ways to keep it rolling.

The Informed Decision Is The Right Decision

Design patterns bring many benefits, as well as some drawbacks to watch out for. But we’d be foolish to ignore these helpful guidelines. There is no formula for what we need to do; rather, we need to operate within certain boundaries to ensure we’re creating great design solutions without alienating users. Here is what we need to do:

  • Study design patterns that are relevant to the applications we are working on. We need to know them by heart — and know why they exist — so that we can use them as loose blueprints for our own work.
  • Approach each new project with a mind open enough to discover better ways to solve recurring problems.
  • Stay up to date on our industry (as well as adjacent ones) so that we recognize external changes that require us to rethink solutions that currently work quite well but might be outdated soon.

In short, we can neither follow nor ignore design patterns completely. Instead, we need a deep understanding of the rules of human-computer interaction, so that we know when breaking them is OK.

(al)


© Rian van der Merwe for Smashing Magazine, 2012.


  •   
  • Copyright © 1996-2010 BlogmyQuery - BMQ. All rights reserved.
    iDream theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress