BlogmyQuery – BMQ

Layer Styles are nothing new. They’ve been used and abused again and again. Despite their ubiquity, or perhaps because of it, many designers do not yet realize the full potential of this handy menu. Its beauty lies in our ability to create an effect and then copy, modify, export, hide or trash it, without degrading the content of the layer.

Below we present, step by step, several practical techniques to help you refine your designs, increase productivity and reduce layer clutter. You will find more useful Photoshop techniques and tutorials in our hand-picked selection, Best of Photoshop on Smashing Magazine.

Download the source files (.zip, 1.6 Mb).

The Bump Map Effect

“Wait, what?” you exclaim, “There’s no bump map effect in the Layer Styles menu!” That’s true, but by combining Pattern Overlay and Bevel and Emboss, we can achieve a textured, bump-mapped surface with a controllable light source.

This technique requires two images: one for texture and color, and the other to serve as a depth map. The depth map needn’t have any hue because it determines depth based on a composite value, black being the lowest, white the highest. In some cases, you may be able to use the same image for both, but in our example we’ll use completely different ones.

Step by Step

1. We’ll start by creating our bump map pattern. Open the diamond-plate.psd file.
2. Inside you’ll find a number of white shapes on a black background. Create a pattern from this document: Select All (Cmd/Ctrl + A), then “Edit” → “Define Pattern.” Name it “diamond plate bump map” and click okay.

   
   Creating the diamond plate pattern.

3. Now, open the start.psd file.
4. Repeat step 2 to create a pattern from the “patchy gray” layer. This will be used later to add texture to our background.

   
   Defining the texture pattern.

5. After creating the pattern, delete the “patchy gray” layer. It’s no longer needed.
6. Use the Rectangular Shape tool to create a shape layer about 20 pixels wider and 20 pixels higher than the canvas. Change the color of this layer to a dark, brownish, chromatic gray.

   
   Creating the shape layer for our background.

7. Be sure that the shape layer doesn’t have any Layer Styles already applied to it (Photoshop will often apply the most recent Layer Style automatically). Then, begin the new Layer Style by adding a Pattern Overlay.

   
   Adding a Pattern Overlay effect.

8. Choose the “patchy gray” pattern from the pattern picker, and change the Blend Mode to Soft Light. This will add the texture to our background layer.

   
   
   Adding a pattern overlay effect.

9. Next, add a Bevel and Emboss, along with the Texture effect. This time, change the Texture effect’s Pattern to the “diamond plate bump map” pattern created in step 2. We now have a grungy diamond plate background.

   
   
   Applying the Bevel and Emboss texture effect.

10. As with most Layer Style effects, the default values are rarely ideal. By tweaking the Bevel Type and Size, Gloss Contour, Highlights, Shadows and Light settings you can achieve some dramatic results.

    
    
    Tweaking the Bevel and Emboss settings.

11. With a few extra effects, you can shape the background layer even more. The example has a Gradient Overlay to simulate reflected light by darkening certain regions of the image.

    
    
    Using the Gradient Overlay to darken some regions.

12. You may notice that the highlights from the Bevel and Emboss filter all seem to have the same value. This is because the Bevel and Emboss effects are very high on the Layer Style’s stacking order. To darken the highlights that lie outside our main light source, simply paint a Layer Mask using the Brush tool.

    
    Painting a mask to increase the appearance of light in the background.

We now have a textured, bump-mapped background that is completely dynamic; everything about it can be modified easily from within the Layer Styles menu. Consolidating complex imagery into one dynamic layer like this can reduce layer clutter dramatically and allows you (and whoever else may be using the file) to easily find and modify things. Now, let’s move on to creating our icon.

3-D Modeling

By combining some interior effects, we can use the Layer Styles menu to create simulated 3-D objects: great for icons, buttons and other interface objects. We’ll now model the base of the round icon in the example image using a single layer.

Step by Step

1. Begin by creating a circular shape layer with a rich red fill.

   
   Creating the shape layer for the icon’s base.

2. As is often the case when modeling a 3-D shape, let’s begin by adding a Gradient Overlay to our Layer Style. A white-to-black Radial-styled gradient set to Linear Burn works best for our implementation. Be sure the white area of the gradient is at the origin.

   
   Adding Gradient Overlay set to Linear Burn.

3. We now have a dramatically shaded sphere with a head-on light source. By decreasing the opacity of the gradient, we can flatten the shape to a more concave button.

   
   Reducing the Opacity for a subtler effect.

4. Let’s also move the direction of the light to the upper-left. While leaving the Layer Style menu open, move the mouse over the image itself (the Move Tool icon should appear). Simply click and drag the epicenter of the gradient to the upper-left of the shape layer.

   
   Repositioning the gradient within the Layer Styles menu.

5. While Bevel and Emboss may seem like more logical tools, you can often get a cleaner, more customizable beveled look by using a combination of other effects. First, add a black Inner Glow, set to Multiply. Adjust the Choke, Size, Opacity and Contour until you have a softened edge inside the shape.

   
   
   Adding a Glow to darken the edge of the base.

6. Like for any well-rendered spherical surface, we have to add some reflected light in our shadow region. This is easily achieved with the Inner Shadow effect. Change the color to white and the Blend Mode to Linear Dodge. Adjust the angle so that it appears in the lower-right of our shape. Tweak the Contour, Distance, Size and Opacity to create a subtler effect.

   
   
   Adding subtle reflected light using Inner Shadow.

7. To enhance the feeling that the shape is part of the document’s “environment,” we can add some effects to interact with the background. Drop Shadow is usually the easiest tool to use for this. Massage the settings until everything feels right.

   
   
   A simple Drop Shadow goes a long way.

8. Using the Outer Glow effect, we can simulate the reflected red light that our background image would absorb if this were an actual setting. Change the glow’s color to a darker red, and change the Blend Mode to darken. Again, work with the Size and Opacity settings to create the desired effect. This is one of those effects that, when used correctly, no one should notice because it just looks natural.

   
   
   A red Glow to add more “environment.”

Please notice that Layer Style gradients can’t be dithered, which can make them lower quality than their Gradient Layer and Gradient Tool counterparts (— Marc Edwards).

Diffuse vs. Specular Light

Now, our icon reflects a simulated diffuse light, which gives it the look of a matte-finished surface. If you prefer a glossier appearance, you can easily create a specular highlight using (what else?) Layer Styles.

Step by Step

1. Duplicate the current shape layer (Cmd/Ctrl + J).
2. Clear the new layer’s Layer Styles: right-click the layer in the Layers palette and select “Clear Layer Style.”
3. We also need to modify the shape of the layer to give the reflected light a sharper edge. Using the Direct Selection Tool (A), select the shape path in the layer’s vector mask. Copy it (Cmd/Ctrl + C) and paste it (Cmd/Ctrl + V) above the current path. Change this path’s mode to Subtract from shape area (-). Then move the shape down and to the right to create a crescent shape. You may also want to make the negative shape larger to create a more natural inside curve: simply Free Transform (Cmd/Ctrl + T) and then scale the shape up.

   
   Modifying the shape of the specular highlight.

4. Because we need this layer only for its Layer Styles, we can set its Fill Opacity to 0%.

   
   Dropping the layer’s fill to 0%.

5. We also want this layer to inherit the Layer Styles of the underlying layer, so create a Clipping Mask on the new layer (Cmd/Ctrl + Option + G).

   
   Creating a Clipping Mask to inherit effects.

6. Now, begin the Layer Style with a Gradient Overlay. Use the default black-to-white gradient, and set the Blend Mode to Screen. Knock the Opacity down to about 50%, and change the angle to about 115°. You may need to change the positioning of the gradient, which you can do by clicking and dragging inside the document window, just as you did in the 3-D modeling section.

   
   
   Setting the Gradient Overlay to Screen.

7. This is a good start for the highlight, but it still looks somewhat unnatural. Using a transparent inside stroke, we can shrink the perimeter of the interior effects. Add a Stroke effect to the layer and drop its opacity to 0%. Change the position to Inside, and work with the size slider until the highlight begins about where the darker inner glow ends on the underlying layer (the example image uses 5 pixels).

   
   
   Using a 0% Inside Stroke to shrink the perimeter of interior effects.

8. To add a more dynamic look to your highlight, you can add a white Inner Shadow set to Screen with a custom contour. Tweak the distance and size settings to finish off the effect.

   
   
   The Inner Shadow creates a more dynamic specular reflection.

X-Ray Vision

Step by Step

To create the die-cut type inside our icon, we could turn the text layer into a shape layer and use the paths to mask away areas from the base. However, this would result in degenerated content; we would no longer be able to modify the type. Instead, we’ll simulate a mask using the Knockout Blending Option. This will also allow us to apply custom effects to the cut-out area.

1. Create a new Type Layer with the text “fx”, and position it within the circular base. The example uses 120 point Garamond Bold Italic.
2. Drop the Fill Opacity to 100%.
3. Begin your Layer Style by adding an Inner Shadow. Increase the size, and increase the opacity to about 90%. You may also want to modify the distance and contour to your liking.

   
   The beginnings of the die-cut effect.

4. We now have the beginnings of a die-cut effect, except that the text still shows the base below it. To fix this, go to the Blending Options section in the Layer Styles menu. Change the Knockout from None to Shallow (this setting samples pixels from the layer directly beneath the current layer’s group). Because our text layer doesn’t belong to a layer group, it samples instead from the Background layer. (Using a Deep Knockout would always sample from the Background layer, regardless of the layer’s group.)

   
   
   Shallow Knockout samples pixels from the layer directly beneath the current layer’s group.

5. To get the text layer to sample from our diamond plate layer, start by clicking “Okay” to close the Layer Style menu. Select the text layer and both of the buttons that make up the base, and group the layers (Cmd/Ctrl + G). As you can see, the “fx” shapes are now drawing pixels from the textured layer directly below the new layer group.

   
   Grouping the icon so that the Knockout samples from the diamond plate layer.

6. The knockout effect is very convincing, but the type still feels detached from the base. Let’s add a beveled effect to simulate the surface quality of the base. Start by adding an outside Stroke with a size of 2; then drop the opacity to 0%. This doesn’t achieve anything but is necessary for the next step.
7. Now add a Bevel and Emboss effect. Change the Style to Stroke Emboss and Technique to Chisel Hard. This will apply the bevel’s lighting effects within the stroke area created in the step above. Modify the settings to achieve a subtle and smooth edge.

   
   
   Adding a Stroke Emboss.

8. Let’s take the bevel one step further by adding a thin specular highlight to the bottom-right edges of the shape. We can use a white Drop Shadow effect, set to Screen, to add a bright highlight just at the edge of the bevel. You’ll want to modify the distance and size to give the highlight a sharp edge.

   
   
   Adding a thin specular highlight using a Drop Shadow.

9. Finish off the Layer Style with more shading within the die-cut letters by adding a simple black-to-white Gradient Overlay, set to Multiply.

   
   Finishing off the die-cut.

Quick Tips

Despite frequent misuse, the Layer Styles menu really is a powerful tool that every designer should learn to work with. Not only does it provide a level of speed and control not easily found through other means, but it provides invaluable flexibility. Our example shows how a multi-dimensional icon and a completely dynamic background can be consolidated within four simple Shape layers, allowing them to be easily modified, reused and repurposed throughout your designs. Below are a few extra tips to remember when working on your next project.

Effects Stacking Order

You may have noticed sometimes that an effect isn’t visible when another effect is being used. For example, a Color Overlay seems to override a Gradient Overlay. This is because of the Layer Styles Stacking Order. Just as with the Layer’s Palette, one layer will cover another that is lower down in the stacking order. Unfortunately, the Layer Styles menu doesn’t allow you to rearrange the order of effects. One way around this (even if you sacrifice the ability to edit) is to use Create Layers, which turns all of your Layer Style effects into actual layers that you can move.

Interior Effects Stacking Order:

• Stroke
• Bevel and Emboss
• Inner Shadow
• Innger Glow
• Satin
• Color Overlay
• Gradient Overlay
• Pattern Overlay

Exterior Effects Stacking Order:

• Stroke
• Outer Glow
• Drop Shadow

Non-Color-Specific Styles

Though not always possible, you may want to use black, white and grays for your effects. Using monochromatic colors in conjunction with the proper Blend Mode allows you to create styles that are non-color-specific, meaning you can modify the color of the actual layer, and your Layer Style will update appropriately.

Scaling Effects

There may be times when you’ve created a Layer Style that looks great at the original size, but when the shape is increased or decreased, your beautiful style is destroyed. Fortunately, Photoshop provides a method to adjust styles that are out of whack. Simply choose Layer → Layer Style → Scale Effects, and then input the percentage you need.

Inconspicuous Menu Options

A number of hidden commands are available to you from within the Layer Styles menu. Depending on the effect, you will have access to either the Hand tool or the Move tool by simply mousing over the document window. The Hand tool allows you to move the document around just as you would outside the Layer Styles menu, and the Move tool repositions the current effect and updates the settings automatically. When using the Move tool, you can still access the Hand tool by holding the space bar. While using either of the tools, you can zoom in and out by holding Space + Cmd or Space + Option respectively. Don’t forget, as with most other menus in Photoshop, holding “Option” will change the “Cancel” button to a “Reset” button, allowing you to undo any changes.

Thanks to Marc Edwards and Ricardo Gimenes for their assistance in editing the article.

(al)

© Thomas Giannattasio for Smashing Magazine, 2011.

I remember when we first met. We hit it off instantly, and it didn’t take long before I was in love. I introduced her to my family, and they all loved her, too. Hell, I even convinced my wife that she was perfect. We’ve been happily together now for years. I spend a good portion of my day with her and, yes… sometimes she joins my wife and I in bed. Although, not much sleeping gets done; I’m typically too busy studying curves.

Save your scarlet letter. If you’ve read part one — Relationship Engineering: Designing Attraction — you know that I’m not talking about some affair. I’m describing my relationship with Apple and their slew of gadgetry. Even when it’s not practical, I still find myself wanting the latest Apple iWhatever.

The Kiss, Gustav Klimt (Image: Wikipedia)

It seems I’m not alone in this addiction; according to a recent survey, 74 percent of iPad purchasers already own a Mac and 66 percent of them own iPhones. Not only does Apple engineer marvelous products, they also engineer extremely strong relationships with their audience.

In part one, we explored the ways in which brands spark our proverbial flame and get us interested in their products. Here we’ll delve into what keeps that flame alive and converts our interest into love and possibly even obsession.

Momentum

Maintaining a long-term relationship is not easy; things can easily become stale. Looks and personality are crucial in developing attraction, but people need more from a serious relationship. To create a strong and long-lasting bond, two other elements are needed: simplicity and reward.

Simplicity and reward dance a delicate equilibrium. Each influences the impact of the other. If the relationship is too simple, its rewards are dulled; too difficult, and the relationship might break. Achieving a harmony between the two will build a momentum that keeps the relationship moving.

The back and forth of simplicity and reward creates a wave of satisfaction, which people undoubtedly want to ride. Select brands are making huge waves by implementing these principles to create exciting and engaging experiences. Let’s examine some of the factors that determine simplicity and reward.

Simplicity

Sophisticated relationships are the product of simplicity. You could begin a relationship with someone on the other side of the world, but its sophistication would remain fairly juvenile; the distance makes it complicated. However, if that person moved across the street, your relationship would have more opportunity to flourish.

Difficulty is inevitable in relationships, but a bond will rarely survive continuous strife. So, we gravitate towards people who are easy to get along with. This criteria is defined in different regards: geographical proximity, conversation flow, harmony of beliefs and so on.

Simplicity is even more important when it comes to the products we choose. Our evaluation of simplicity with a product is often more fickle than with a person. This is especially true on the internet where options are bountiful and only a click away. It’s our responsibility as designers to ensure every aspect of the experience has as little friction as possible.

It’s easy to mistake complexity for sophistication. And quite often, products and interfaces are made unnecessarily complex with extraneous features. As designers, we need to recognize that a truly sophisticated experience is one that transforms complexity instead of accentuating it.

Apple vs. Microsoft

Let’s compare the support pages of Apple and Microsoft and derive a simple friction analysis — an evaluation of how easy it is for a user to achieve a goal. We’ll assume the user has arrived at this page in need of some assistance with their operating system. Areas of the page offering contact with a human have been highlighted in green to indicate low friction as it puts the problem-solving in the hands of the company. Yellow areas indicate self-help mechanisms, which add mild friction. If an area is irrelevant or offers very little help, it has been marked in red.

Apple Support website

Microsoft Support website

Apple offers less friction in their customer support process and, and in doing so, strengthens the relationships with their customers. They offer more self-help options and many more ways of contacting an actual person. It’s interesting that Microsoft devotes nearly half of their page to push products, social media and news. They ignore the fact that someone is going there for help. It’s like trying to confide in a friend, but instead of offering guidance, they ask you to buy some Girl Scout cookies and suggest that Thin Mints taste even better frozen. It makes things difficult and hurts the long-term relationship.

Netflix vs. Blockbuster

Started in 1985, Blockbuster once ran supreme as the media rental giant. Brick-and-mortar stores across the country offered convenient access to movies. Instead of purchasing a movie, you could simply rent it. It seems trivial today, but the idea was novel at the time.

Blockbuster quickly grew into a multi-billion dollar empire with thousands of stores in the U.S. and seventeen other countries. However, Blockbuster is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Why?

Consumer needs drive the evolution of simplicity, and Blockbuster failed to address the complexities in their business model. Why should we be required to drive to a store to pick up and return movies? Why should movie rentals be so expensive? And why should we be charged late fees? Netflix addressed these questions, and took an evolutionary leap by harnessing the power of the web.

Netflix’s rental-by-mail service revolutionized the industry. Browsing movie choices on your home computer is much easier than going to a store only to realize the movie you want is out of stock. Because Netflix offered a subscription instead of a pay-as-you-go model, they removed even more complexity from the process by eliminating due dates and late fees.

Unlike Blockbuster, Netflix did not just change the industry once and ride the wave. They continued to innovate. Realizing the complexities in their own business model, they introduced a new solution to simplify things even further: on-demand streaming. Members can instantly stream a movie to their home computer, cellphone, iPad, gaming console, DVD player or one of many other devices. By removing friction, they built stronger relationships with their audience.

Netflix and Blockbuster both offer the same experience: entertainment. However, Netflix made the process of achieving that experience much simpler. The evolution of an industry is driven by demand, but determined by simplicity. Netflix knew this, and became a blockbuster of its own.

To Sum Up

• Simple relationships are sophisticated relationships.
• A friction analysis can be an effective tool in measuring simplicity.
• Survival relies on eliminating friction from the user experience.
• Thin Mints taste great out of the freezer.

Reward

Relationships are exciting, especially in the early stages of courtship. We have an entire hierarchy of rewards to achieve. In some relationships, the rewards are purely physical, while others go deeper and offer rewards such as marriage, children and bingo partners.

The satisfaction of a reward is driven by desire. The stronger the desire, the greater the satisfaction. In order to build someone’s desire, there must be something concrete that they lack. Traditional advertising often features a sexy celebrity using their product. In addition to its sex appeal, this technique also outlines numerous deficits which we desire to fill. We may lack the product, but more importantly, we lack celebrity. Fame has been elevated to a virtue within our society, and it’s perceived to be extremely satisfying.

By paralleling a product with a celebrity, brands aim to raise the perceived satisfaction of their product (for more on this, pick up a copy of Cialdini’s Influence). You may have had no previous desire for the product, but the advertiser unveiled something you lack, and that lacking triggers the emotion of desire.

Another common way of increasing satisfaction is through challenge. We, as humans, love a good challenge. Puzzles, sports, even video games are all unnecessary challenges that we willingly bring into our lives. Defeating an opponent, whether concrete (e.g. an opposing sports team) or more abstract (e.g. solving a puzzle), offers a sense of satisfaction.

Challenge must be carefully managed, because it goes against the bonding power of simplicity. Desire will increase as things become more difficult, but only to a point. Once the amount of difficulty outweighs the anticipated satisfaction, people become frustrated. And frustration can flip peoples’ desire for reward into desire for your demise.

Call of Duty

The video game industry is arguably the most successful implementer of the challenge methodology. Most games set forth a hierarchical reward system, which rewards players for achieving certain objectives — the more difficult the objective, the greater the reward. This system builds an extremely strong bond with the player.

Activision’s Call of Duty is one of the hottest video game franchises on the market. The latest release of Call of Duty: Black Ops set the first-day sales record not only for a video game, but for the entire entertainment industry. In fact, it pulled in $360 million in North America in one day, which is more than four times what Avatar made in its opening weekend.

The game features a compelling story mode, but the real relationship-building aspect of the game is its multiplayer mode. Each player starts off with a limited array of weapons and perks. They are rewarded with in-game currency for achieving different objectives, which can be used to unlock new munitions, upgrade weapon attachments, customize camouflage and even modify face paint. Leveling up to the highest rank and unlocking everything requires a significant amount of gameplay, but that’s only the beginning.

Source: Call of Duty icons

After you’ve been promoted to the highest rank, you’re given the option to go “Prestige� and start from scratch. You sacrifice everything you’ve unlocked in exchange for a new medal next to your name. The medal is nothing more than an icon but, within the community, it’s a badge of pride. Not only does this set the pros apart from the n00btubers, it builds an obsession that keeps players coming back for each release in the series.

Groupon

Being frugal is hip nowadays. Thanks to companies like Groupon and LivingSocial, coupons have been revitalized in a big way. Instead of clipping them from newspapers circular ads, however, people receive them daily in their email.

Leading the pack is Groupon, which offers a deal-a-day from local businesses. What started in Chicago with a half-off pizza coupon has skyrocketed into a worldwide movement with more than thirty-five million users. So, how has Groupon started such a craze over something as simple as a coupon? Simple… by creating a low-friction, high reward system, for both consumer and retailer.

Groupon is capable of offering discounts upwards of 90% off by using a mechanism known as the “assurance contract.� Each retailer offers a high-level discount through Groupon, but only honors that discount if a set number of people purchase it. Groupon will then take a 50% cut for facilitating. If the number of purchases isn’t met, the deal is off and everyone who purchased the coupon gets their money back.

This “can’t lose� system encourages people to take prompt action. Not only does the expiration timer add a sense of urgency, but the fact that a certain number of people must participate adds incentive to share the offer with friends and family.

Groupon also offers a $10 reward for referring a friend. They could have simply asked people to refer a friend, but the reward makes it all the more appealing. However, the reward can only be redeemed after the friend makes a purchase on Groupon. This encourages you to constantly annoy your friends about the service, since you now have a stake in their actions.

Groupon is an elegant example of reward mechanics in action. Harnessing urgency, assurance contracts, and social incentives is a powerful way to create millions of relationships. Ultimately though, the system relies on the balance of reward and complexity. Offering great rewards yields great rewards.

To Sum Up

• Rewards increase engagement, but only if the anticipated satisfaction is greater than the difficulty required in achieving it.
• Difficulty will raise the anticipated satisfaction to a point. If the threshold is broken, however, satisfaction quickly flips to frustration.
• Outlining deficits invokes the desire to achieve them.
• Game mechanics build enjoyable difficulty and encourage participation.

Fragility

Love is precious. Regardless of how much time and effort is put into a relationship, it remains fragile. We make all efforts to preserve it: we tailor our lives around the other person; we buy them gifts to show we care; we sacrifice for their sake. The idea that the relationship could end abruptly keeps us in a state of caring and preservation.

We also act with a preservation mentality with the products we love. People love wrapping their mobile devices in sleek, designer cases. They have a close relationship with their phone, and shelling out the extra money for a case helps preserve that relationship.

Honestly though, how often has a case actually saved your device from an otherwise irreparable demise? Chances are, not very often. Yet, the mobile accessory market is booming. Apple is cashing in on the must-have-a-case syndrome with its Smart Cover made specifically for the iPad 2. Some estimate that the new Smart Cover could ring in $1 Billion for Apple in 2011.

Still, you can’t help but wonder why such a large market has been built up around the preservation of devices which are only designed to last for a couple of years. I believe it has to do with the design of superficial fragility.

Why does the iPod have a mirrored back? Why not a brushed aluminum case like the iPad? Because the mirrored surface is very fragile. It’s hard to even take an iPod out of its box without scratching it. Scratches on the back don’t affect the performance of the device, but they do affect our perception of it. This superficial fragility is effective planned obsolescence, which is the lifeblood of the tech industry.

Planned obsolescence is essentially the engineering of a product to have a predetermined lifespan. The hope is to hook people into repeat purchases once the product is deemed useless or obsolete. This concept is nothing new. It has been driving profits and innovation in numerous industries — from gadgets to fashion — since the 1930’s.

Sometimes this technique actually prevents you from using the product any longer. For example, the lithium batteries in most of our electronic devices utilize integrated circuits to restrict the number of times the battery can be recharged. Even though the battery is capable of a full-recharge, the integrated chip prevents it.

Other times obsolescence is all about perception. The fashion industry relies on seasons and fads to dictate when you should purchase new clothing. Software companies use versioning to implement new features, which puts you behind the curve of innovation.

Even the Web design industry relies heavily on perceived obsolescence. Web technologies evolve so quickly that using something that was hip last year could render you obsolete this year. “Your site’s built in XHTML and not HTML5?! Gasp!�

It’s easy to view planned obsolescence as an unethical practice, and in some cases it may be. However, use of this tactic forces brands to respect the fact that without us, they cannot survive. This urges them to act responsibly and to keep pace with innovation. It all comes back to the balance of simplicity and reward. Upgrading is a difficulty, but we’ll do it if the rewards are high enough.

Angry Birds

The Angry Birds franchise is a prime example of obsolescence done respectively. Like most games, the product obsoletes when someone has completed every objective. For some, this means finishing every level. For others, it requires earning three stars on every level. Still others will continue to play until they’ve acquired all of the hidden bonuses. Eventually, a player will hit their idea of “complete� and the product becomes obsolete in their mind.

Expansions can rejuvenate an otherwise stale relationship. Angry Birds expansion packs serve as a love-cycle reboot. Rovio (the creators of Angry Birds) could release updates for the game to offer new levels or challenges. Instead, they release separate stand-alone apps, requiring players to make new purchases. This is a small price to maintain a loving relationship.

This form of obsolescence puts the power in the hands of the consumer. It doesn’t force an upgrade. It simply offers a way to keep the relationship alive. If the brand continues to offer rewarding experiences, there’s no need to force obsolescence. People will continue to upgrade out of choice.

To Sum Up

• Fragility strengthens relationships and fosters a worship mentality.
• Obsolescence powers the wheel of innovation.
• Breakups (planned obsolescence) must be handled respectively to bring your audience back. People should want to upgrade, not be forced to.

Conclusion

Relationships are the puzzle pieces of our lives. Good relationships fit into the bigger picture; bad ones are tossed aside. The bonds we make with people run parallel to those with products. Brands that nurture relationships become integral to the human experience and ensure their own survival in the marketplace.

The web is the most prolific matchmaker ever. As designers, developers, and digital mavens, we have a responsibility to understand and respect the relationships that we build through our work. People want products that look sexy, and many designers have become really good at sparking that initial interest. However, that’s only part of the battle. Long-term relationships require design in a much broader sense than just visuals; they’re interactive and on-going experiences, which need to be nurtured. Would you date your product? Would you marry your brand?

Further Reading

• Assurance Contracts
• Cialdini’s Influence
• Game Mechanics
• Simplicity, Apple, and 37Signals
• Planned Obsolescence

(jvb) (vf)

© Thomas Giannattasio for Smashing Magazine, 2011. | Permalink | Post a comment | Smashing Shop | Smashing Network | About Us
Post tags: branding, relationships

“Look at her: so beautiful, so friendly, so smart. And what a personality. She must be mine. Hooking up with her would make me the envy of all my friends. Sure, she’s young and she’s gorgeous. Besides, I can easily try something new if I get bored or something better comes along.”

No, that’s not an excerpt from Lolita. As cruel and inappropriate as they might seem, these thoughts are fairly common in our society. In fact, in the past year, millions of people have entered into exactly that type of relationship. Don’t bother calling the Special Victims Unit; what we’re discussing here is not what you think it is. It’s the Apple iPad.

Apple seems to have entranced people. It’s hard to walk down the street without passing someone who is plugged in to those iconic white headphones or to enter a coffee shop without hearing someone gabbing on their iPhone. Apple’s stores are crowded, and its products sell in absurd quantities.

Why is this? Apple might be a visionary company with a strong grasp of what’s hip. Yet I believe Apple’s appeal lies in something more than trends, something deeply ingrained in our psyche: relationships.

Psyche Revived by the Kiss of Love, Antonio Canova. (Image: Wikipedia)

We don’t simply own products; we have relationships with them. Intimate ones at that. We are in a state of courtship with every brand in existence. Each of them wants to be a part of our lives, and each wants love in return. Thinking about our relationships with particular products and brands in the same way that we think about interpersonal relationships yields interesting insights. When we decide to bring a person or product into our lives, we must first evaluate our options. The criteria we use to decide whether we love, hate or are indifferent to another person are the same we use to judge a product or brand.

There are many types of relationships, but we can put brand-consumer relationships into three categories: acquaintance, friend and lover.

When someone purchases a bag of apples at the grocery store, they’re demonstrating an acquaintanceship with apples. They’ve interacted with apples before, but there’s no deep attachment, and there has been very little bonding with the product.

The next step up — friendship — emerges because of branding. For example, I always purchase a certain brand of gum. I’ve come to know the brand and its offerings, and I enjoy having its product in my life. We’re friends, but that’s where the relationship ends. There’s no romance involved, and no longing or desire is felt.

Only certain brands manage to take the step from friend to lover. Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world. It also provides a useful model of consumer courtship. Just about any iPhone user will proudly tell you, like a love-struck teenager on prom night, that they “love� their phone and would be “like, totally lost without it.� There are dozens of cell-phone manufacturers, but only one iPhone. Successful visionary companies, such as Apple, have mastered the art of relationship engineering.

Designing Attraction

Love is often likened to fire. In the early stages of a relationship, things start heating up. As the love grows stronger, the flames grow higher. When a relationship falls apart, we say that the fire has gone out. Whether someone lights or douses your fire has to do with the two core aspects of their being: how they appear on the outside and who they are on the inside. That is, a person’s appeal is based on two things: looks and personality. Let’s take a closer look at each of these aspects of appeal and examine how they influence people into relationships with brands and products.

Looks

Attractiveness spurs lust. It’s a simple cause-and-effect paradigm ingrained in our very nature. We all long for the cute guy or girl in class, and that same desire guides us when choosing a product.

Since the days of Plato, philosophers and artists have tried to pinpoint exactly what makes something aesthetically pleasing. No universal formula for beauty has ever been agreed upon. Beauty is subjective. The designer’s job is to appeal to the collective subjective, or the average of personal preferences. Doing so ensures a product appeals to the largest audience possible.

Making your product visually appealing is not superficial. In fact, design is often a product’s primary competitive advantage. iPod wasn’t the first MP3 player on the market; it didn’t have the largest capacity; it didn’t have the most features; and it certainly wasn’t the cheapest. It was, however, sexy. It was simple and self-explanatory. Its scrolling wheel was as intuitive as it was revolutionary. Perhaps most importantly, it introduced a unique and (now) iconic form factor. The market had been flooded with matte gray devices with black headphones, but this entrant had a clean white front and mirrored back. Even the earbuds were white. Many people tuck their devices into their pockets, which makes the headphones the most visible hardware. Apple exploited this and turned the earbuds into a mnemonic device. Spotting someone with white earbuds, even from afar, immediately told you which brand was on the other end.

The iPod now accounts for well over 70% of the audio-device market. Why? I think it’s because the iPod is just more distinct than its competitors. In a market full of brunettes, the iPod is Marilyn Monroe.

Facebook vs. MySpace

Facebook has more than 500 million users, and that number is growing steadily. MySpace has plateaued at around 125 million. How has MySpace, once the leading social network, fallen behind by such a large margin? There are a number of reasons, but design seems to be one of the most obvious (Newsweek and Mashable seem to think so, too).

Much to its detriment, MySpace allows users to apply their own style sheets. I can imagine the brainstorm that led to this decision: “Wouldn’t it be great to let users customize the look of their page? People love to make things their own and flaunt their personalities. This will surely encourage new users and give us the edge on Facebook. Hurrah!�

MySpace somehow failed to realize that most people’s design education consists entirely of WordArt tutorials taught by Microsoft’s Clippy. Perusing MySpace profiles is torturous. Hideous background images overshadow content, while animated GIFs and illegible text make for an irritating user experience.

Facebook realized that people want to connect with friends more than they want to customize style sheets, so it offered users a clean and uniform interface. Everything was nicely designed; nothing was gaudy or tasteless. The whole experience was much more visually appealing. While MySpace was pushing personalization, Facebook was refining a community to change the way we interact.

To Sum Up

• People are programmed to judge by appearance, so every interaction they have needs to be groomed to visual perfection.
• To maximize appeal, designers must be observant of the collective subjective.
• Design is not superficial. It can be your greatest competitive advantage.
• Visual distinction becomes a mnemonic device for your product. Incorporate it to increase awareness and encourage recall.
• Allowing others to control your appearance, while nice in theory, can lead to chaos and brand deterioration.

Personality

As we get to know someone, the novelty of their appearance fades, and something more substantial is required to maintain our interest. We start looking beneath the surface and noticing abstract qualities: intelligence, sense of humor, likes and dislikes, ambitions. These qualities have the power to shape how we see the true person. A person’s personality — the DNA of their character — builds lasting appeal.

Character compatibility forms friendship and love. Looks alone might seal the deal for a one-night stand, but acceptance of personality is required for healthy long-term relationships. We’re often told to “be ourselves.� This is good advice. Like a pheromone-ridden glue trap, flaunting your personality attracts and ultimately bonds you with like-minded individuals.

Personality has this effect in the commercial realm as well. Aligning yourself with your target audience is critical to success. I’m sure this is excruciatingly obvious, and many organizations are already tuned into their demographics, but many others either are too shy to display personality or fail to do so properly.

Humor is one of personality’s strongest pheromones. If done right, humor evokes laughter. And yes, laughter is enjoyable in itself, but have you every wondered why we laugh? Anthropologists are discovering that laughing is not necessarily something we do merely for enjoyment, but is actually a subconscious technique that builds rapport. By laughing, we indicate to others that we agree with or accept them. Dr. Robert Provine, who has done extensive research on how, when and why we laugh, likens laughter to a glue:

…“Ha ha ha’s� are bits of social glue that bond relationships… When we laugh, we’re often communicating playful intent. So laughter has a bonding function within individuals in a group.

Applying a coat of humor to your product or advertising campaign is a great way to spark the subconscious urge to bond. Just make sure people are laughing with you, not at you.

Going back to Apple, its “I’m a Mac; I’m a PC� ads focus explicitly on personality by actually personifying brands (Apple and Microsoft). The casual dress and easygoing nature of the Mac character exudes fun, simplicity and intelligence, especially when juxtaposed with the conservative, uptight PC character.

Also, the subtle dose of geek humor gets you laughing (and thus successfully bonding) with the Mac, and laughing at (disapproving of) the PC. These ads strengthened Apple’s reputation as a hip, intelligent, friendly company, while pegging Microsoft as uptight and out of touch with users’ needs.

Microsoft attempted to salvage its reputation by recruiting — or shall we say, throwing money at — Jerry Seinfeld, who starred in a series of ads alongside Bill Gates. For personality, Jerry Seinfeld is a great candidate. He’s famous, his show had some 75 million viewers, he understands everyday people with everyday problems, and he’s funny.

In a swing-and-miss attempt at comedy, the ads follow Bill and Jerry as they “connect� with “real� people. Is it me, or do these ads actually enhance the perception we have of Microsoft as unhip and out of touch?

Digg vs. Reddit

Have you seen the top story on Digg today? Neither have I. A year ago, I would have been able to recap all of the top stories for you. The website was powered by people like me, so I came to rely on Digg to keep me up to date on topics I was interested in. My personality meshed with those of other Digg users, and visiting the website became part of my daily routine. Yet I rarely visit this social-bookmarking website anymore. Instead, I look to Reddit for my democratically selected links.

What has changed? Ever since Digg released version 4, back in August, content quality has dropped significantly. Front-page stories lack relevance, top stories are now decided by far fewer Diggs, and the sponsored links disguised as genuine articles sour the whole experience.

Digg’s personality changed. It destroyed the very foundation upon which it was built. Suddenly, publishers could auto-submit content and bypass the users who once acted as a filter to determine whether articles were relevant to the Digg audience. No longer was Digg a democratic platform. The power shifted from user to publisher. In other words, Digg sold out.

This personality switch rightfully pissed off the core user base. Alienated users began flocking to… well, an alien. Some stayed to plead with Digg that it revert to its earlier version. Digg refused. In revolt, users began to submit direct links to Reddit. Within months, Digg crumbled and users flocked in hordes to Reddit.

Reddit offers a platform similar to Digg and, despite being owned by Condé Nast, lacks the tinge of corporate influence. Before Digg’s redesign, Reddit was serving a respectable 429 million page views per month. Condé Nast has just announced that Reddit now serves more than 1 billion. That’s more than double its pre-Digg-blowout numbers and a 300% increase over its January 2010 figures. Digg has finally pulled some of the features that led to the mutiny, but it might be too little, too late.

A valuable lesson can be learned from Digg: stay true to yourself. With followers come expectations. Personality attracted them, and every action that is out of character will push them away. Introduce advancements incrementally, and users might put up with it; change drastically, and they’ll leave.

To Sum Up

• Personality builds rapport. Don’t be afraid to flaunt it.
• Laughter is a powerful social glue, but use it with caution. You want people laughing with you, not at you.
• Define your personality and stay true to it. Out-of-character actions will be seen as inauthentic and will alienate your audience.

Conclusion

Studying the art of seduction and the rules of relationships can help you craft engaging user experiences and forge strong connections with users. Getting your audience to fall in love with your product is no easy task. It requires a holistic approach involving members of every team. As interactive professionals, our work bridges brand and consumer. We are the cupids of commerce. Sharpen your arrows; it’s time to spread some love.

This has been the first in a two-part series on relationship engineering. In part two, we’ll explore the art of maintaining a relationship and how to trigger purchase recursion via timely break-ups. Stay tuned!

Further Reading

• Andy Budd – Seductive Design
• Stephen Anderson on Emotional Design, Boagworld
• The Added Value of Design, AllAboutBranding.com
• Design With Personality, Culture, and History, Logo Design Love
• Designing Websites with Personality, Six Revisions

(al)

© Thomas Giannattasio for Smashing Magazine, 2011. | Permalink | Post a comment | Smashing Shop | Smashing Network | About Us
Post tags: apple, relationships

Waves of change are currently rippling through every aspect of the Web. The iPad and other mobile devices are changing the way we access the Internet, while HTML5 and CSS3 promise to change the way we develop it. However, another storm is brewing that threatens Photoshop’s throne as the application of choice for Web design. The battle suggests a fundamental shift in the design process from Photoshop to mark-up.

A militia of designers have assembled to launch this coup. Their propaganda is convincing, and their proposed successor is worthy, capable and sexy. Their cause is important, but their manifesto is flawed.

[Offtopic: by the way, did you know that we are publishing a Smashing eBook Series? The brand new eBook #3 is Mastering Photoshop For Web Design, written by our Photoshop-expert Thomas Giannattasio.]

The Argument

The argument against Photoshop focuses on the effect of the final product. Photoshop can be used to create impeccable designs, but after hours of hard work, you end up with a static mock-up that is incapable of emulating the experience one gets when the design is converted to mark-up and viewed in the browser. HTML and CSS mock-ups require no explanation. They present the final product in the final environment. They also take full advantage of browser capabilities, such as fluid layouts, progressive enhancement and animation. These are things that Photoshop simply can’t do.

If we compare the two methodologies even closer, we find a number of other disadvantages to the Photoshop approach. For example, Photoshop’s text rendering is nothing compared that of modern Web browsers. CSS classes also make the process of updating similar elements easier than hunting down all instances within a Photoshop document. Even making certain structural changes to a website can be done more easily with CSS. Finally, I can’t overlook Photoshop’s propensity to crash, especially when opening the “Save for Web” dialog.

I admit: the benefits of mark-up are undeniable, and Photoshop doesn’t offer any of them. In fact, the mark-up generated across the entire Creative Suite is rather atrocious and unusable. Why then do I think Photoshop is still the most important Web design tool available today? The answer lies in the creative process.

Process Makes Perfect

The creative process is exactly that: a process. Clients may think we simply snap our fingers to make creative goodness flows directly from our brains to the screen, but we know better. We know that it takes hours or days of deep thought to devise the perfect solution. And if you’re anything like me, you often don’t find the perfect solution until you’ve explored a number of dead ends. Essentially, we need time and experimentation to work towards the goals of a project and determine the best way to communicate what needs to be said.

Experimentation is the key to creativity. Without it, the brain simply follows what it regards as the safest route, and the result is as mundane as the thought behind it. Most of the designers I know start all of their designs on paper: creating thumbnail sketches in order to quickly experiment with possible solutions. However, these sketches serve as jumping-off points; the design process is by no means over once the pencil is traded for mouse and keyboard.

Photoshop is vital to good Web design because it extends the process that was started on paper. It gives stakeholders a direct connection to the visuals without regard for the technical execution of the product. In other words, it accommodates visual processing. The designer is given a blank canvas—a playground for experimentation—on which anything is possible.

As designers, our medium is in a visual language. It’s a language of the subconscious, and it allows us to connect to other people through our work in ways that the spoken word cannot. Great design relies on an open dialogue between the artist and the medium. Interfering with that dialogue only impedes the process and distorts the message.

Designing with mark-up, however, creates a disconnect with the medium. Ideas no longer flow fluidly onto the screen. They must first be translated into a language that the computer understands. Like a game of telephone, this methodology requires a great deal of interpretation, which inevitably dilutes the idea and its potency. This chain of translation introduces a latency that kills experimentation and compromises the design.

The Foreman Or The Architect

Truth is often seen clearer in extremes. So, let’s try a little thought experiment. Imagine yourself as an architect tasked with designing a large corporate skyscraper. How would you proceed? If you’re like most architects, you would start by sketching, and then work your way into AutoCAD. Eventually, you’d end up with a computer-generated 3-D model. You’d probably take it even further by constructing a small-scale model. All of this processing gives you a better feel for the project without actually building it. It’d be preposterous for the architect to go out and start welding I-beams together as part of his design process; that is the foreman’s responsibility, and construction begins only once everything has been designed.

Designing with mark-up is like welding I-beams without a blueprint. The client understands—or should understand with your help—that the mock-ups are not the final product and that this actually benefits them. They want to get an idea of what the website will look like without having the entire thing built first. It allows them to change the direction of the project before investing too much. Our responsibility is to explain the differences between the mock-up and the final product. Moral of the story: don’t play foreman when you’re the architect.

A Call To Arms

Although mark-up can provide a truer experience for clients, Photoshop is clearly an important part of the design process. Ridding it from our toolbox could prove disastrous. What we need is not to change our methodology, but rather to amalgamate our tools. We need a tool that supports the creative process but at the same time gives us access to the subtleties of our medium.

Modern WYSIWYG editors are off the mark. We need something more like Photoshop, but with capabilities that allow us to create DOM elements as easily as we can create shapes. John Nack seems to be on the right track with his idea of HTML layers, which would enable users to create and style HTML elements and render them with the WebKit engine all within a standard PSD file. While this idea is not completely practical, it gives us something to work with. Imagine opening the layer styles dialog and being able to add CSS3 styling to an element. What bliss!

An example of what HTML layers might look like with CSS styling.

Jeffrey Zeldman makes a number of valid points about why creating such a tool is impossible:

HTML is a language with roots in library science. It doesn’t know or care what content looks like. (Even HTML5 doesn’t care what content looks like.) Neither a tool like Photoshop, which is all about pixels, nor a tool like Illustrator, which is all about vectors, can generate semantic HTML, because the visual and the semantic are two different things.

I have to agree. Any tool that is meant to translate visual elements from canvas to code will inevitably fail in the semantic realm. Computers are monolingual: they need us to make that translation. However, do we need perfectly semantic code if we’re only creating a mock-up? Why can’t we accept the reality that we’re not crafting the final product and simply spit out HTML and CSS that’s “good enough� for mock-up purposes. Once the design is approved, we’ll put on our foreman hat and begin the real construction.

Until our paradigm is rocked by some killer new app, Photoshop will reign as the best tool for designing websites. Although it doesn’t currently speak to our medium the way we wish it did, it proves itself priceless when it comes to the process of designing. Photoshop is a virtual playground of experimentation; dropping it from the process only prevents your design from being fully developed. So, before you switch to the mark-up methodology, understand that you’re sacrificing creativity for a few browser capabilities, which could be explained to clients anyway. For the sake of your client, creativity and work, stick with Photoshop.

For more on information on designing websites in Photoshop, check out my Smashing eBook Mastering Photoshop Web Design, a book for advanced and intermediate designers who want to brush up on their workflow and improve their Photoshop skills.

Further Reading

• Make Your Mockup in Markup
  A walkthrough on designing in the browser.
• Time to Stop Showing Clients Static Design Visuals
  Describes the benefit of showing clients dynamic mock-ups.
• Designing Websites in Browser (Gasp!)
  A Stack Overflow discussion on the topic.
• Why We Skip Photoshop
  37signals’ take on things.
• Designing in the Browser
  A good back-and-forth from Drawar.
• Why the “Design in the Browserâ€� Argument Misses the Point
  Aaron Russell outlines the benefits of Photoshop.
• Feedback, Please: HTML5 Layers in Photoshop?
  John Nack proposes HTML layers within Photoshop.
• CSS is the New Photoshop
  John Nack explains the importance of CSS in the argument.
• An InDesign for HTML and CSS?
  Zeldman in response to John Nack.

(al)

© Thomas Giannattasio for Smashing Magazine, 2010. | Permalink | Post a comment | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble on StumbleUpon! | Tweet it! | Submit to Reddit | Forum Smashing Magazine
Post tags: