I have done NOTHING to encourage my daughter, but the slightest vision of the iconic McDonalds M on the horizon and she nearly flips out of her car seat and starts singing "Old McDonald". Say what you will of their horrendous food, McDonalds has earned its rightful place as a well designed experience for the past 50 years. But after hitting some rough snags with its overseas expansions and with its domestic stock price, McDonalds is feeling a little worse for wear. Starbucks is eating it alive in the adult market, and families are going elsewhere. Is it time, then for a makeover?

You Decide:



Instead of vaguely corrugated roof, we now get an eyebrow swish



Terracotta, sage, plaid greens and more sedate natural earthtone hues instead of garish orange yellow read of the outside. Notice the comfy seating.



The toned down yellow makes for a brand reappearance in subtle sunny patches on the walls. The tables are no longer bolted to the floors so families can pull several together and chat. Singles are encouraged to dwell and ponder the infinite while cuddled in seductively bland coffee-resistant arm chairs.

Read more about it: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/05/mcdonalds/index_01.htm?campaign_id=aol_mcd

For someone who grew up disliking the bustle, noise and apparent violence of the city, Jane Jacobs was a real eye opener.

She convinced me, and perhaps a whole generation of people who read her great work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities), that cities are an ornate ballet of competing interests and cohabitation. Her eloquent and heart wrenching look at her own block on Hudson Street in New York has made a lasting impact on how we, collectively, have constructed our ideal city.

The book contends, among other heresies, that playgrounds are useless (kids should play on large sidewalks in view of their parents – not away in a park surrounded by bullies), that population density equals safety (empty streets aren’t safe, crowded streets are), that zoning is a tool used to destroy the natural fabric and evolution of neighborhoods (she was a near violent opponent of Robert Moses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses ), and perhaps most heretically, she proposed that agriculture emerged because of cities, not the other way around. Cities, she contended with a tart tongue, are the primary social construct of humans, and everything from transportation to cultivation grew up in support of this elaborate cultural eco-system.

Jane Jacobs did much to inform our aspirations and humanize the details of our ideal common spaces. She liked short avenues, maze-like warrens that forced people to turn the corner, she hated cars and loved pedestrians, she liked late night bars on city corners and the squeals of naughty children being chased away by shouting shopkeepers. More than any other urban thinker, she filled out the nuances and details of what a city should be. It seems only right that we web designers see if we can’t learn a thing or two from her observations.

Websites aren’t Cities. But maybe they should be.

Every web designer I know is a frustrated utopian urban planner at heart, nudging pixels in the faint hope of somehow aligning communities, justifying populations or beautifying life. But beyond our urge to fiddle comes a vast emptiness when it comes to goals: what should an ideal site be, what could it be, and if anything, what would we have it be? We web designers have so much to learn from the venerated and highly charged field of urban planning. Urban planning is ancient and filled with eons of wisdom about how people live, prefer to live and sadly, can be forced to live. City planning focuses on quite a few issues, but central to the profession is a tenet quite close to a web designer’s heart – the belief that a city or website is an intricate network of linkages, and that with free flowing info and travel between these linkages at the right time and place can create a great city / website.

Here are some classic Jane Jacobs Tenets (I also stole freely from New Urbanism) and what I see to be their “website” corollary:

Jane Jacobs: Don’t create single use environments such as strip malls. Allow residences, rentals, shops and play areas to be interwoven.
Web: A page shouldn’t only have one kind of content, we aren’t doing poetry here. Allow a mixture of different kinds of content to show up on every page.

Jane Jacobs: Acknowledge that Mothers, Elderly, the Quick, the lazy, kids, the uninformed, the angry and those from all walks of life will be using this space.
Web: Do we ever know how vastly diverse our audience really is? Isn’t presuming we know the audience a form of hubris?

Jane Jacobs: We can focus on how three different size entities interact: the region, the neighborhood and the block.
Web: How does the page interact with the site, and how does the site interact with the web in general. Is it possible to form a neighborhood of sites? How would they interact?

Jane Jacobs: All neighborhoods should have a distinctive center and edge. People should know where they are going and where they are from.
Web: In our eagerness to create endless webs, have we considered creating centers, edges and barriers?

Jane Jacobs: within a five minute walk from your home (1/4 mile), you should have access to work, school, religion, recreation and other homes.
Web: Do we offer enough alternatives – with enough clarity - to make our sites truly usable for our visitors?

Though this is undoubtably an unfitting elegy to Jane Jacobs (she passed away in April, 2006) I have no doubt she would have been tickled if some of her thoughts made their way online. It is worth pondering how her many many insights into life in general, and urban planning in specific might inform web design.

To find out more read the related links here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

This patient, amateur, excellent and intriguing music video is what music videos should always have been - a visual accompaniment to the music where the lines dance and the images merge and frolic alongside the music.

http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/worldmusic/view/page.basic/video/content.video/tiempo_de_solea.asx

The Wall Street Journal had a great article today about the recent partnering activities between Microsoft, Google, eBay, and Yahoo! The gist of the article is this: Everyone is freaking out about Google, its momentum and its potential. eBay, Yahoo! and Microsoft are working together through several partnerships to put themselves in a competitive position with Google. Microsoft is a little gun-shy to make too much out these partnerships because they don’t want to seem weak and as if they are ganging up against Google. But they are. And they should be. Google is scary! Ever-more-so-now that Dell agreed to pre-install Google software on their computers. Ummm… someone help me, but isn’t this how Microsoft cornered the browser market way back in the day?

Anyway, lots of incestuous back scratching, backstabbing and jockeying – the makings for an entertaining read. I started talking to the intern about it this morning and he had a very interesting point of view that I thought we could benefit from. Interns are getting smarter and they have opinions too, even suggestions.

idfive intern Tom Pucciarella:

This just in: teens love videogames, instant messaging, cell phones, MySpace, Facebook, and cheap (preferably free) music. Go figure! Now that the major blue chips of the world have finally realized that the teenage generation, or echo-boom, is the largest demographic the world has ever seen, what do they need to know to lock us in?

When we hear “Microsoft” we think: The operating system running my Dell. When we hear “Google” we think: Search. When we hear “AOL” we think: “AIM.” And when we hear “Yahoo” we don’t think of anything. Now that eBay and Yahoo have created an alliance it is clear that both companies desire more exposure from their new partners respective demographics. Unfortunately, Yahoo is not our first place to search and the few extra bucks we have at the end of the week we want to spend on ringtones not someone’s “priceless treasures” selling for $5.00 bucks on eBay.

While the elite companies scamper to correct their mistakes it is clear what they must do: Google’s move to align itself with Dell was incredibly perceptive. Both are extremely popular among teens. Dell is popular for its low-cost computers, and Google for its easy to use search.

However, as a teen, I believe Google needs to become an immediate staple on Dell computers if it has any hope of competing with Microsoft, MSN, and Internet Explorer for primary use among teens. Microsoft has a decided advantage because it already has a strong foothold in this area. Whenever we buy a new computer, without hesitation, we know the programs guaranteed to be there are: Microsoft, MSN, and Internet Explorer. Yahoo and eBay must find some way to become more appealing to teens, by embracing their desire for simple designs and relatively low-cost options.

On the surface Microsoft appears to be flailing, and from an investing perspective they most likely are, however, they have gambled and strategically positioned themselves to capture the teen market. With the newly released Xbox 360 and the purchase of Massive, a company that puts ads in videogames, Microsoft has become the leader in the race to capture teens' attention. Also, Microsoft has realized the huge advertising capabilities of cell phones and may try to acquire Third Screen Media, a company that places ads on cell phones.

If Microsoft can finagle a deal with News Corp’s Fox Interactive Media Division, which includes the immensely popular MySpace, Microsoft will have all but closed the book on its competition. However, if they fail to shed the extremely unfavorable corporate conglomerate image they project to our generation they ultimately may turn us off and their substantial risks would translate to substantial losses. Ultimately I believe that if Microsoft captures MySpace, and continues its dominance throughout the gaming market, teens will have little problem excepting their overly corporate personality. However, if Google somehow can contain Microsoft’s influence in MySpace, or obtain some type of foothold in the gaming universe in a partnership with Sony, or by strengthening Google video, Google could ultimately become the company of the future. They possess the perfect balance between fun, easy, simple design and big business giant, something Microsoft lacks. Nevertheless, for now my five bucks are on Microsoft.

While countless partnerships have been orchestrated, and with many more still to come, it is clear that the echo-boom generation will continue to dominate big corporation business strategies for years to come. For these companies to ascend to the top of the proverbial leader-board they must strike now before current trends becomes yesterday’s news.

OK, so your client comes to you and says "I need a system that does this and that, as well as A, B, and C." You talk budget, and the client gives you a very small number. You nod knowingly, and promise to give them an estimate. Hand-shakes happen, the client goes home, and you wander back to your desk.

And you start scratching your head.

You know how to build this system. You've built things like this before. Nothing so close to this that you might be able to re-use it, but you're confident that you can build this one just as easily as the last. The problem is this: the client's budget just won't let it happen. You know what it will take to build it, and it's more than what the client wants to pay. A lot more.

So you start hunting. Shopping, really. You need to find out what products are out there that might satisfy the client's needs. Off-the-shelf products are bound to be cheaper, but you're skeptical about their ability to fulfill the requirements of this project. And even if they do, what if the client wants to expand the system beyond the means of the product you've chosen?

That right there is the problem: How does one build a system that is customized for a client's needs, but at the low price generally associated with off-the-shelf software? How does one handle the ever expanding needs of a client, without blowing their entire budget on just the first feature in the system?

As a small company, we are often faced with the small budgets of small clients. We scale our offerings in design, IA, and production to meet budgets all the time. The amount of work we put into a project can go up or down, based on what the client would like to pay for. By setting expectations properly, we can usually create a product at a price that clients are happy with.

Development costs can scale too, and when building a system, it's important to talk with the client about how the scope of the system affects the price they'll pay. But there is a point at which the cost gets too high, or the scope too small, and building the system just makes no sense.
At that point we shift from being developers to being integrators. We hunt for the product that will best serve our client's needs, and we present the best solution to the client. It is our responsibility to help the client understand the limits of off-the-shelf software, including the limited customization that most products offer, as well as the specific limits of the specific packages we're considering.

If the client asks for features A, B, and C, but the available products offer A, B, and D, the client needs to understand two things: First, that C is out of the picture. This can be a bitter pill to swallow, but the client needs to understand that with a buy-it budget, C isn't going to happen, whereas with a build-it budget C would be available (at a different price). Secondly, don't let the client miss out on D, the feature they were not looking for, but that is available in the products they are considering. It may be that it can be useful in the client's business. And it turns out that off-the-shelf products, which are often built for a wider audience than custom software, tend to have bonus features that clients don't bother asking for, but that will make clients very happy.

As integrators, we have to be agile. We have to look at software with an eye for features and flexibility. We bring our customers what they want, and try to bring them what they will want. That's not necessarily how we build things: building for an imagined future can be a waste of time. But buying for that imagined future is a key part of selecting software to integrate.

We also have to be versatile. We have to be able to work with new products all the time. We can't expect every new project to use the same off-the-shelf software, so we have to have smart people on hand who are ready to learn a new product, gain expertise, and really make it their own.

Lastly, we have to have a full toolbox. More often than not, our clients come to us for solutions to problems we've seen before. If we're going to solve those problems with off-the-shelf software, it helps to use software we've used in the past. We can be more efficient, make smarter decisions, and hit budgets more effectively if we're using tools with which we have some measure of expertise. We're always evaluating new products, and we're always open to new solutions, but having solutions ready at hand can go a long way.

Strong integration skills can really make the difference for clients big and small. The choice between build and buy doesn't have to mean choosing between good and bad. Whereas building can mean custom features, buying can mean more features, more support, and a better price. We need to be prepared to succeed with either option.

Google has released the Google Web Toolkit, a framework for developing AJAX apps in Java. I suppose it's a good thing, because we certainly know that Google has done some fantastic AJAX work (Google Suggest, Google Maps, GMail). And the way they handle RPC is smart. But it seems odd to me that they've decided to encourage developers to write their JavaScript in Java. The vast majority of the functionality in the GWT is in UI components, which are really just fancy new DHTML widgets. It seems to me that JavaScript, as a browser scripting language, is already high-level enough. Building a toolkit on top of that removes the programmer even further from what's really going on. And it offers developers a chance to skip JavaScript class altogether, never having to learn how to debug JavaScript, how to code for multiple browsers, and how to work with the DOM. While that's probably a tempting offer for those who don't have the time or inclination to go down the JavaScript path, to me they all seem like critical skills in building web-based apps. I'm concerned about any tool that gives developers a way to avoid JavaScript altogether.

Design – really really good design – is more affordable than ever for consumers.

It is spooky.
Selling “good” or selling value is a problem these days because it seems like the bar is being raised by the quality of mass consumer solutions. The consumer cost of high value, as it has been classically defined in terms of functionality & aesthetics, has plummeted. Think of the ipod, when it first came out, it was revolutionary, but in terms of performance it was actually ho hum (I have one, I know). But for half of the price at which I bought my 20 gigabyte and now non-functional one for in 2000, you can get one now that is better, smarter, and more beautiful to boot. Look at the brief-history-of-the-ipod page to see more.

Fon instance: all of these dog dishes are under $10 bucks.






The cost of great design for the consumer has dropped to the point where people are considering buying a Michael Graves dog dish. This is Michael Graves we are talking about, known for having touched up the Washington Monument, some various Cathedrals, adding to the Library of Congress and such. Guess which dog dish above is his (I will tell you at the end of the post - but you should be able to guess).

I know some cars today are icky (think of the Aztek) , but aren't all of them better than they were in the seventies and eighties - more stylish, more comfortable, better all around - at a better price (adjusted for inflation)? Think of the MINI Cooper circa 1960s (designed by Alec Issigonis) and the MINI Cooper of today (history here). The old MINI was a great stripped down housewife vehicle that formed a cult following. The new MINI is a quasi-luxury vehicle; it is fantastic, affordable, and lives up to all that the 60's MINI promised with great handling and powerful sports car engine plus comfortable interior and super safe creash-tested design.

DWR catalogs put high modernist chairs within the price range of college students. Every store in downtown Baltimore - you know that megapolis of high consumer fashion - offers first-rate goods. What is a designer to do among all this affordable quality? Scandalous!

If you walk into Target you are getting increasingly great design for a very fixed, and I would say cheap, price. Similarly, and to the dismay of furniture retailers everywhere, IKEA can dominate the low end of furniture sales because their creative work is superb and so is their price. Apple itself delivers gorgeous objects that people 20 years ago couldn't even imagine for less than $1,000. We are watching design improve everywhere while prices are falling, and it is hard to convince clients that great design typically costs companies unimaginable sums (think of the Gillette razor or, for that matter, Motorola's RAZR) and it is the miracle of mass production that defrays the cost to the consumer.

I know that the design and development market has changed dramatically in the last ten years – the customers are more sophisticated, and there is a sense that even customized and personalized design is more affordable/available. Since websites and interactive displays are so prevalent, people are stunned to find out how much money it costs to do something really well.

But as far as I can tell, despite the fact that prices are falling to buy all this great stuff, the prices are actually going up to make it. That is, Target pays MORE than ever to get a Michael Graves toilet bowl cleaner (no I don't have proof, please someone find it for me!), and that is as it should be.

Websites – and I am sorry to be the one to tell you this guys – are MORE expensive in 2006 than in 1999. They are better, too.

The disconnect we are seeing with people’s jaws dropping when they hear how much good original design costs is a simple matter of being at the end of the value chain versus being at the front – if you wander into a Wal-Mart you will in all likelihood walk out with something halfway decent with compelling design for an affordable price. But it isn’t original and wasn’t made for you. You are the end consumer for this product and there are many many like you, who collectively defray the price for everyone else.

At the beginning of the value chain there is only 1 client who demands an individual brand-enhancing design that has broad appeal. A good design can save, turn around or dramatically improve a company. It has been proven time and time again. Broad appeal comes at a high price, and it is why the price of original design can go up while consumer prices plummet.

Oh, and the $7.99 teal dog dish is by Graves. Get yours today.

Labels: Design

Yahoo has released the slides from its "Analyst Day" presentation and even though the deck weighs in at a whopping 188 slides, it makes an excellent read for anyone who's looking for the latest data (and projections) on Internet audience size, online ad spending, and broadband penetration. And that's just the first few slides! If you can get over the pro-Yahoo spin, there's a lot of really cool information and prognostication about the next five years of the 'Net and other media. Examples include growth projections for media between '05 and '09 (Internet up 10%, broadcast flat at 0%), PC and cellphone sales worldwide (2 billion phones by 2008!), global online advertising spending ($55 billion by 2010), and Yahoo's "big bets for the next five years" (next generation experience, monetization, multiple delivery "platforms", and moving beyond the browser).

Overall it's a fascinating look at what one of the biggest media companies in the world is up to. And though it may have a little bit of a breathless tone to it, nothing here sounds unusual, hype-y, or unlikely to happen. It's all basically an evolutionary continuation of the current trend vectors and requires no major new technology or stunning breakthroughs. Instead, Yahoo's vision is one of a company in an industry that's starting to mature, consolidate, and begin to truly understand the media it works in.

Old media: it's time to get scared.

The New York Times Magazine mentioned today that while painting and sculpture seem to hardly create a fuss, architecture still riles and stirs the populace.

I think this will always be so, because while paintings may morph into wall mounted displays and sculpture may take the form of a holograph, we will always need a physical place to take off our hat and/or embody our aspirations.

It is with much pleasure, then, that I saw these unbuilt gorgeous horrendous Russian monstrosities.

Take a look for yourself: Unrealized Moscow.

The radio. It’s that thing with knobs and buttons on your car’s dashboard.

All indicators say that radio is losing ground to internet radio, podcasting, MP3s, and satellite radio. In the U.K, more people listen to internet radio than broadcast radio!

Why? Because people finally have the ability to chose and control what they listen to.

Today, CBS Radio announced a 7 year deal with Arbitron, Inc., the premier radio ratings provider. Through this deal, Arbitron will be tracking consumer radio listening habits – electronically. Yes, that’s right – consumers reporting their listening habits will turn in their pens and pads and receive a pager-like device that will listen to inaudible signals broadcasted by radio stations. Let’s not get distracted by how fantastic it is that it took this long to stop using paper, but focus on the fact that more accurate and meaningful data is going to be collected about radio listening habits.

CBS Radio is hoping to have a better gauge on how many people are listening and for how long – they do this in order to have better data so they can charge more for advertising. The results of this will not be surprising: fewer people listen for less time than expected. This revelation is going to actually hurt their main source of revenue: advertising.

This is not the first time that radio has been at the brink of extinction. The radio almost had a sudden death when it first came out because the revenue model was linked to the sales of devices. Right before the radio went belly-up, some smart people started to give receivers away for free, shifting the industry to an advertising-based revenue model.

It’s time for someone smart to step up again and find a different way for the radio to make cash. I would hate to giggle about radio as we do about floppies, Betas and cassettes.

Maybe this is truly a sign that the End is Near. Maybe not. It's still disturbing. Bob Ross Interactive and AGFRAG have announced that they're going to be developing a new game for the Nintendo Wii "utilizing its intuitive controls so that players can easily immerse themselves in the addictive game while having fun and learning to paint like Bob Ross."

Ummm...yeah. Maybe we'll all be happy little trees once this thing comes out. Until then, feel free to participate in the Bob Ross Game Group on Yahoo if you have any suggestions.

The general rules of the system are as follows:
Each chain is an open digital image mutation collaboration, displayed like threads in a forum. Each link in the chain should be in some way a derivative of the previous image.

http://kollabor8.toegristle.com/index.php

This is one of those fun high school games that you grow bored with over time, but always remember and enjoy while it is happening. It is great that someone built it.

I like this series. I enjoy how freaky it gets:
http://kollabor8.toegristle.com/image.php?id=1223

There's an interesting article on Apple's site about the folks at MetaDesign discussing an age old problem designers face... Value.

Having experienced this myself, it really hits home. After the hundreds of freelance projects, years of working for a large advertising agency, then owning a small agency, I learned that what we do has a price, and that price varies and is usually all over the place from the clients' perspective when they go shopping around, especially on the web. I think everyone knows at this point that a creative deliverable is going to be expensive from a large agency, more affordable from a small shop, and (we've all heard it before) "My brother-in-law said he'd do it for free."

So as a designer, assigning an accurate dollar amount on the cost of creative is hard enough. But there is a larger question looming which creatives will be sure to love. How much is design worth? As CEOs and decision makers ask these questions, it's important for designers to see it coming and be able to respond, or even better, proactively address the issue.

I think what I find reassuring is that at idfive, our methodology of Informed Design ensures we ask the tough questions up front and address these concerns. We want to know from the start what the metrics for success are, because in the end we seek to build things that aren't just pretty, they have to work.

http://www.apple.com/pro/design/metadesign/

Keeping clients happy can be a difficult task. One of the keys seems to be setting their expectations properly. But even with the best intentions, we can stumble on that task. In discussions with clients I've heard it said that a client has three options, of which they may choose only two: good, cheap, and quick. The implication is that a client can save on time and price if they are willing to give up quality. Or they can get quality for a low price if they aren't in a hurry, or get quality quickly if they'll pay through the nose.

On the surface, it's a solid enough argument. The three items seem to play off each other directly, and it's reasonable to expect that they are at least somewhat proportional.

But hidden somewhere behind this sound and somewhat clever argument is a dagger that cuts the heart out of any plan that relies on a client accepting these terms. The dagger is this: a reasonable client cannot -- and will not -- accept a product of lower quality. It is simply not acceptable to the vast majority of clients to look at what they've paid for, notice it's a piece of crap, and say "Great! Just what I wanted!" It really doesn't matter if that's what they signed up for: a client will not walk away happy with that crap in hand.

Lower quality can mean a number of things. For graphic design, lower quality often means an unattractive interface, or inconsistencies in how design elements are applied, or a mess on a screen that makes no sense to the user. For development, lower quality usually means more bugs. For copywriting, lower quality can mean anything from typos to confusing copy.

Which of these is something you want to deliver to your clients? Which of these, when clearly a part of a deliverable, will satisfy your clients? Occasionally these things will slip through in a deliverable, but when they're found, they're corrected, not accepted. An application may ship with known bugs, but they're not something anyone signs up for.

Selling low quality to a client just makes no sense. And it's not something we honestly pursue. The underhanded implication present in every discussion that puts good, cheap, and quick on the table is that good is understood, and the client really only gets to choose between cheap and quick -- and they can't have both.

The alternative to good, cheap, and quick is a much more palatable trinity: cheap, quick, and full featured. We take quality off the table, and we replace it with scope. A client can legitimately choose to scale back on scope without feeling like they got anything less than they asked for. Scope can be traded for price, or for speed. Perhaps most importantly, scope can be documented, which means expectations can be set properly, and everyone can go home happy.

Ok, I have seen the posts everywhere and actually been in two longish conversations today about Yahoo’s redesign: it is time to come clean… I am a closet Yahoo lover.

I like tons of information on a page and I love when it is laid out as well as Yahoo. I even like the color blue and have been known to scream a jubilant “yahooOOOooo.”

Yahoo’s redesign is both good, period, and also good for all of us web designers.

It points to a trend in design and usability that is an improvement over the past in several substantive ways.

I can remember way back in circa 1997 being asked by a client, “If your designs with all those pictures are so good, why does yahoo get all the traffic?”

My answer then is the same as now: “This is comparing apples and oranges, Yahoo is an odd beast, very few people are trying to BE Yahoo… that is, you, client, have tons of competition and we are trying to define your brand.”

Yahoo used to look almost as barebones as Google, back when it thought it was a directory to the web. And so it was a tough sell to tell your yahoo-loving client that a design-heavy look would be better for their brand. Similarly, I have a client who offers a database to their clientele, and they wondered, legitimately, why their site shouldn’t look like Google. The answer is identical. You shouldn’t look like google or yahoo because you are NOT yahoo or google: not size-wise, in terms of offerings, or in terms of your target audience. But still, the question comes up.

What should a content heavy page look like?
Yahoo is a bit of a bellwether for a certain kind of super dense site. Examples of this kind of site abound. The recent redesign of the New York Times, I will admit, dismayed me. I can’t understand why the NYT home page is SO BIG, and seems to repeat itself in a variety of ways. Is that for SEO? Is it really more usable to repeat info more than three times? Yahoo is a content aggregator and solutions provider, and sure it is much more besides, but it has never felt as dense as the front page of the new NYT feels now.

So Yahoo has taken the plunge and amid quite a bit of criticism has made several large changes.

Let’s look at them in detail:

1st
For those who haven’t geeked out on this yet, the news is that Yahoo has gone through the first redesign in about a decade – it is a good design – and this actually matters. View it here: http://www.yahoo.com/

2nd
Yahoo’s effort is no small redesign. Here is a short history of previous designs to enjoy:

1996 - http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo.com/
1997 - http://web.archive.org/web/19970124192912/http://www10.yahoo.com/
1998 - http://web.archive.org/web/19980213144649/http://www10.yahoo.com/
1999 - http://web.archive.org/web/19990117053926/http://yahoo.com/
2000 - http://web.archive.org/web/20000229153143/http://www.yahoo.com/
2001 - http://web.archive.org/web/20010301043713/http://www.yahoo.com/
2002 - http://web.archive.org/web/20020125094044/http://www.yahoo.com/
2003 - http://web.archive.org/web/20030127104212/www.yahoo.com/
2004 - http://web.archive.org/web/20040107110128/http://www.yahoo.com/
2005 - http://web.archive.org/web/20050112132622/http://www.yahoo.com/
2006 - http://www.yahoo.com/?p=1147815127
Today - http://www.yahoo.com/newyahoo

This is one of the world’s most popular sites, and as you can see from the links above this is a pretty dramatic change. A change towards a more designed, smooth feel, with more graphics overhead and more interactivity and, I think, better usability.

3rd
The content is different on the new page. Overall, there are probably five content trends worth noting here:

a) Where is yahoo’s famed directory? Yeah, it is gone and boy I don’t miss it.
b) Multimedia content has been something of a staple for msn, aol, netscape, Comcast, etc. Now Yahoo jumps on board.
c) ADVERTISING! Rich media advertising! Wow, how the mighty have fallen, I wonder how low the share price had to go before ads on the front page became a consideration.
d) News, community, and yahoo pulse, which I suppose aggregates popular things and shows us how the lemmings are doing it.
e) Personalization

But wait, you say, how is any of this different, we’ve all seen this before. It isn’t different, per se, it is just different for yahoo’s home page. It is just fascinating that one of the biggest content aggregators on the planet is choosing these areas to change and highlight.

4th
Technology is different, improved. Interface technology has improved dramatically in the last five years, and the use of Ajax and a bunch of client-side solutions such as tabbed panes shows that yahoo has been paying attention.

5th
Usability has improved. The personal area offers weather/mail/movies, etc. It is personalized by location and offers individual-specific content. The nifty frame expansion provides a ton of info without need for diving into sub-pages or a hierarchy. The front page recognizes me, and recalls my preferences making it easier to find things (which is both years old and way overdue). The coolest usability improvement is making every block of text clickable, everywhere. Really, there is no need for any kind of mouse precision on this page, EVERYTHING is one big button.

6th
Design design design. Someone at yahoo must get paid the very big bucks for thinking about how best to differentiate content that is side by side, because it is done awfully well on their new page. There is far less scrolling, content is placed within AJAX-tabs that hides and reveals it very responsively. All of these touches makes the page seem more digestible. Configurability includes the ability to change the vertical nav into a directory-like box and squinch the site into a more easily viewed, narrower, but longer, column. The page is easier o the eyes, with fewer bold or contrasting colors, yet it still retains intense contrast. The color chooser, while gratuitous, is fun and I was impressed by how different the site ends up looking with a different palette.

Finally, to summarize:

Most distinctly, it seems the new home page is a powerful place for advertising. That is new, and not all that bad.

The interactivity is snappy, there is immediate responsiveness and the site feels FAST.

This design is a triumph of articulated content. Long live labels, headings, tabs, cues, and design conventions that teach the user to KNOW where to go.

So that is my rant.
What do you think?

An interesting article on CNN Money talks about Google's move to build a virtual world online using Google Earth and SketchUp. Metaverse anyone?

Apple's finally unveiled their lower-priced consumer-oriented Intel-based laptop: the MacBook. Starting at $1099 for the 1.83GHz model ($1499 for 2.0GHz), it's gotta be one of the best laptop values around. Where else are you going to get a laptop that can dual boot in Mac OSX and Windows2000 (with BootCamp) that's this fast and this pretty? Oh. Yeah. That's right: nowhere!

ComputerActive reports that more people in the UK listen to Internet radio than to terrestrial radio. According to a study conducted by Virgin:

Nearly one in four (24 per cent) listens online compared with 21 per cent who tune in to analogue broadcasts. Seventeen per cent use digital (Dab) radio and nine per cent get the programmes via their TV. The remaining 29 per cent represent the proportion of Virgin regulars who do not tune in at all on a given day.

That's a pretty amazing statistic, though I'm not sure how close we are to that in the US. Either way though, it's another indication that when given the choice, people will go for choice and quality. And once we have ubiquitious WiFi, there will be no reason at all to listen to increasingly crappy commercial radio...

ClearChannel are you listening? You only did it to yourself.

I found this link tonight on CoolHunting. Even with Sean's shared 25,000+ iTunes library, everyone at some point wants to go on autopilot and just Chill.

It's gotta be costing them a bundle, but it's sure to land them a whole passel o' new customers. Internet telephony app Skype just announced that they're going to be offering free phone calls through the service to any landline number in the US and Canada. That means that anyone can download the app to their computer and talk for free until December 31st, 2006. Come New Years the free ride may be gone, but the Skype folks aren't necessarily saying that they'll end the promotion then. Nuts? Maybe...it kind of reminds me of those FREE SHIPPING! offers of the dot.com dayz designed to buy customers. On the other hand it could solidify a user-base that otherwise wouldn't use the service.

OK. It's not all that earth-shattering in terms of marketing strategy, but it is pretty smart. Volkwagen's put up a MySpace page for Helga, the "it's definitely sucking" vixen from their new "UnPimp My Ride" campaign. VW's not the first one to do this (Disney created a MySpace page for a fictional character in an upcoming film), but considering VW's demographic, the current smoking-hotness of MySpace, and the ability for links to the page to propagate virally (like we're doing right now!), it makes a lot of sense. I'm gonna place a bet, however, that MySpace puts the kibosh on the practice (at least for non-paying advertisers) if it starts to get out of hand. Of course, now that VW's done it it's gonna be seen as so last week if anyone else follows suit.

Hmmm...if my chemistry teachers engaged in "learning happenings" like this when they were in school, it's no wonder that they weren't able to explain protein synthesis to me. I suppose this was cutting-edge educational technique in the 60's, but it sure makes me glad I wasn't in college then! Hippies. Dance. Chemistry. Yikes!
(via boingboing)

Having been at this for a long time, I have grown to “see” these graphs in my mind’s eye every time I hear a client say “wouldn’t it be cool if…”

I ran a search on the web and could not find anything about these relationships. Needless to say, the only data that supports these graphs is stuck in my tenure as an information architect and usability designer. Someone must have done this study, and there must be quantitative data out there to support it. So, if you know where it is, please, for the love of God, tell me where it is.

In the mean time, I wanted to put this up – if for nothing else, to start a conversation about it.

The usability Vs. function graph basically says that at any given point in time, the number of functions available on the screen has a direct effect on how useful the product is. The more functions the less useful. Steve Krug wrote about this idea in his book, Don’t Make Me Think. I think he called it “cognitive overload.”

So far, nothing new or revolutionary, right? Right!

Mapping user experience vs usability reveals something equally as interesting (and some may argue, obvious): the curve basically says that user experience and usability increase together up to a point – after that point, experience can continue to increase but at the cost of usability.

What would make these observations even more interesting is to study the intercept between function/usability and user experience/usability – superimpose the two graphs together. We might be able to learn a great deal about that cross-over point. And more to the point, we might be able develop strategies to help designers nudge their design along that continuum.

Imagine… strategy driven designs. Wow. What a concept!

Yeah, here is "black". It is a bit disturbing so don't share it with the kids.

http://www.r000g000b000.net/

Labels: Design

How much time do we spend fighting against best practices instead of improving or modifying them? Certainly I have been (historically) more guilty of this than most. Given almost any design solution I am most likely to try and think of a better way. "Isn't there," my inner disagreer muses, “a better, more exciting, more elaborate, intriguing or efficient or just plain DIFFERENT way to do this design interaction?” Sometimes this direction of disagreement is fruitful, often it is not. So it is fun for someone so prone to disagreement as me to find the following compendium of interface best practices:

Design patterns: http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/

Really, this is mostly a list of interaction design solutions.

These operate as a quick list of damn impressive solutions to serious ongoing design challenges. We ignore them at our peril, sure, since they are best practices… but my point in this post is that I think we can spend our time fruitfully IMPROVING these best practices instead of fighting against them. My favorite best practice on this page is the page grids. Sure it is also the most obvious, but I am pleased with it nonetheless.

Labels: Design

This week I was working on a print project that required use of about a half dozen logos for corporate sponsors. Being a print project, I couldn’t just rip off the 72ppi logos I could normally find on the web. So I began digging. I did find a cool resource at www.allthelogos.com, a database of over 90,000 corporate logos that seems relatively up to date. I tested it against BP, UPS, Kodak and AT&T all of which have had recent identity facelifts, and the search came up short on UPS & ATT. So maybe it’s not ALL the logos, but there are a lot and I managed to find all the logos I needed for my project. I enthusiastically proceeded to download the vector versions and quickly discovered that I was being redirected to PayPal and asked to drop $12 for each. While this wasn’t objectionable being much less expensive than the time to try to obtain them from separate sources, the proposed 24-hour turnaround time to receive the logos via email was. So I abandoned this and went looking for a different solution.

Sean Cohen was thinking about my challenge at the same time and found one of the logos I needed buried in a .pdf. Then, it occurred to me... screengrabs! I was quickly able to find .pdfs online containing the balance of the logos I needed. Because they were .pdfs I could magnify each logo on a 1920x1200 monitor while retaining quality, take my screengrabs (which save out automatically to .pdfs on the desktop on a Mac… “Picture 1, Picture 2, etc.”), then open each in Photoshop, copy and paste into a new channel of my 300ppi working file. By selecting each alpha channel and filling the selections on different layers, I was able to get 300ppi logos large enough to use for my document.

With all the tools and techniques and resources out there, sometimes the fastest and most effective solution is something simple… and free.

I knew it! I knew it! Now some scientists have proven it. If you want to read the entire article, you can download a PDF here.

Scott Sackville, our Development Manager, spends part of his time in his Seattle office. And while this distance really isn't a problem, we do miss Scott when he's not here. Sure, it's nice hearing his voice on the phone and yes, he's available on IM about 18 hours a day, but there are times when it'd be nice if he wasn't trapped inside a box on the conference table. Granted we get a lot of our work done there while we're all brainstorming together, but there are times when breaking out of the conference room is a good idea.

At first we toyed with the idea of teleportation but the expense seemed to be a barrier (well, that and the fact that a lot of the physics haven't been invented yet). Then it struck us...why not a robot that Scott could control from Seattle in order to move about the office and talk to people?

But how? A bit of Googling and we found the answer in The Maggy Project.

The Maggy Project is a way-cool hack that combines a Roomba Discovery robot, a simple Web cam, a surplus laptop, some Velcro and a handful of electronic components. By leveraging the electronics already in the robot, putting together a simple circuit board to control the robot using its included remote control, you can put together a telepresence robot that'd put NASA to shame for a few hundred bucks!

Will we dive into building our own Maggy? We'll see. For now it's a pretty cool source of inspiration and a great indication what you can do with some ingenuity and some off-the-shelf parts that were never meant to be connected together!

I've always felt that Web design was a lot closer to industrial design than it is to graphic design. We make things that do stuff, that people have to interact with, that interact. Graphic designers make stuff that's not interactive, that's about communicating one way between the designer and the recipient. Ever since my stint at Philadelphia University (which has one of the best ID departments on the East Coast), I've been a sucker for industrial design and designers who make products.

That's why I was fascinated by this interview with Takeshi Ishiguro, a former IDEO designer who's gone back to Japan and is inventing some really amazing stuff. From mercury-filled sculptures to trees that "react" with "emotion" to giant smoke-ring-blowing park sculptures, this guy's creativity, playfulness, innovative spirit, and sheer guts are at levels that few people ever attain.

I guess the question that this interview raises is why we don't see this kind of creativity in most Web design? I guess we don't see it in too much product design, either, but it makes me wonder how much farther we could push the envelope of interactive design to make sites (and other objects) that are as delightful as Ishiguro's work.

Is Microsoft on the way to becoming irrelevant? How do openness and innovation work together? Are closed, proprietary systems doomed?

I did some thinking about these subjects (and more) for this week's Publish.com article. Click here to read it.

Sometimes it is worth pondering the webdesign trends of yesteryear and ask where they’ve gone, and why.

Here are three dead web design trends:
Pixel Fonts - ideal for 6 point type that no one wants to read!
Links that don’t look like links - ideal if navigiation is really not all that important.
Application-like Task Icons as opposed to visually suggestive icons - ideal if you want to confuse everyone, all the time.

-----------------

Next up on the designer’s deathwatch list? My votes:

closely spaced diagonal lines as background!
deep dropshadows (shallow ones will always be with us)
apple’s glossy shiny buttons we see everywhere.

Read more thoughts about it here.

Want to know where the financial services industry might be in 9 years? This work of speculation created by European investment bank Dresdner Klienwort Wasserstein looks and sounds like something straigh