Labels: Branding, Dairy Queen, Food Design, Logo

Looking at this design, can you answer the following two questions?

1. Where are you?
2. What can you do here?

Yes. And Yes. Very quickly, too.

The logo is located on the upper left, where users would expect it to be. This is a web standard. But they did more than just that. They found a way to put the logo on a white background – creating enough contrast for the logo to pop out.

The three main things that can be done on the site are nicely grouped. Through content inclusion techniques, they were able to visually “clump” these three main objectives in a way that allows the eye to effortlessly travel across the page. Out of these three options, there is one that’s most important. Which one is it? Yep, the left one. Two reasons why: it’s the left one, and the use of color to create contrast and a focal point.

This is a very simple and elegant design. It pleases me greatly when strategy and design come together so nicely.

Labels: strategy, user experience, web design

Bruce Nussbaum's great speech on designers being the enemy of design is well worth your attention.

Here are some highlights:

"Design Democracy is the wave of the future. Exceptional design may only be done by great star designers. But the design of our music experiences, the design of our MySpace pages, the design of our blogs, the design of our clothes, the design of our online community chats, the design of our Class of ’95 brochures, the design of our screens, the design of the designs on our bodies—We are all designing more of our lives. And with more and more tools, we, the masses, want to design anything that touches us on the journey, the big journey through life. People want to participate in the design of their lives. They insist on being part of the conversation about their lives."

"So one Big Design Management Challenge is how do you switch gears from designing for to designing with? Maybe the object of design is not a finished product but a set of tools that allow people to design their experiences for themselves. Think iPod and iTunes. Think TiVo. Starbucks. Fortunately, design has tremendous tools. In fact, design has evolved from a simple practice to a powerful methodology of Design Thinking that, I believe, can transform society. By that I mean Design, with a capital D, can move beyond fashion, graphics, products, services into education, transportation, economics and politics. Design can become powerful enough to be an approach to life, a philosophy of life. But it can do so only when Design by Ego ends and Design by Conversation begins. More on that later."

For the full piece, read it here:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/

Labels: culture, Design, Nussbaum

Jakob Nielsen and Coyne performed an eye tracking study to test some of his theories and work. The results confirmed many of the things that we already knew, and then some.

First, they found that there is such a thing as writing for the web. Good web writing helps people glance, skip and find content quickly. It also helps people remember more of the information on the page. Use bullets, headlines, subheadlines and tighter writing.

Second, they concluded that “On home pages and story level pages, eye patterns indicated that text that isn’t precise and images that aren’t information-bearing don’t get looks, amounting to wasted space.”

I buy half of this conclusion: text that isn’t precise doesn’t get looks. Umm, yeah! But how is this different than the first finding?

The second half of this conclusion assumes that space can only be used for information. That’s just incorrect. Images and space can be used for a lot of different reasons, including as design devices to channel attention to from one part of a page to another. More significantly, however, images and space are elemental design attributes that should be used to create and extend the user’s experience, and their connection to the site’s overall brand position. Finally, the nature of this study focuses on how much time people spend looking at given sections of the page. Do they know that they mind can process images a lot faster than it can read a headline or a paragraph of text? These guys are very smart, and we have a lot to learn from them, but be careful with this finding or your designs will end up looking like this.

Finally, they concluded that “images are not always worth a thousand words.” They heed a warning against using superfluous images. According to their findings, images are only well received when they are related to the content, clear, feature approachable people, and (I kid you not, this was in the report) feature areas of private anatomy. Say what?

The crotch finding strikes me as odd. Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems like the report is saying images are ok only when they are relevant, clear, approachable and they feature a crotch. I think many of us would agree most of this advice is good.

I am just upset that they didn’t post the original picture of George Brett. The heat signature is in my way.

Labels: usability

"Ken is a passionate artist, and his style reflects his line of work. He features the vintage face sculpt, and his hair has been updated to a more modern style, with highlights framing his face. Ken is dressed in dark denim jeans and a leather-like bomber jacket over a green turtleneck. He carries with him his trusty "camera" and its red carrying case, guaranteeing he'll never miss the perfect shot. Ken measures approximately 12 inches tall. Display stand included."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000096QZE/designobserver-20/

What is bewildering here is how "Art Director Ken" fits in with young girls' ideals about what men can and should be. Is this just a horrible accident or do I have a skewed vision of Art Directoring? Allegedly Art Director Ken will sit next to Surfin Ken and Superman Ken. Is it really that glamourous, cool and fun to be an art director?

More thinking on it here:
http://www.designobserver.com/archives/023287.html

Labels: art director, barbie, mattel, toys

Most companies go out of their way to avoid legal battles. Google? Not so much. Back in October, 2006 Google bought YouTube (speculative stuff coming…) and by doing that, they bought the right to fight their legal battles. And for good reason, too. If YouTube is found guilty of copyright infringement, then that would set the stage for all content or media companies to go after every site like YouTube, including Google. Google bought the right to fight that battle as a hedge for its own future viability.

The fight comes down to something simple: money. Google is publishing unlicensed content in order to make money on advertising revenue. Viacom wants Google to stop doing that. But what they really want is a piece of the action.

Google should just stop being so bloody greedy. And start sharing with everyone. Don’t they know that without content they are NOTHING? Silly multibillion-dollar-company-company, what are you thinking?

Labels: copyright laws, Google, Viacom

Labels: advertising, hitachi, online video

NPR did a story this weekend on the Starbucks brouhaha. They went to Pike Market in Seattle to visit the original Starbucks, and it was downright funny because--although the original Starbucks has stayed utterly true to its original incarnation--all the NPR people found the place "soulless" and not very pleasant.

I know, it's NPR people--soulless? C'mon! But it underscores a real issue with this Howard Schultz memo, which is a can't-see-the-coffee-plantation-for-the-trees problem. The "original" Starbucks wasn't all that great, but they had good coffee--so the nostalgic past imagined by the memo is bunkum. The "brand" of Starbucks has actually NEVER been about "the corner coffeehouse"--it's about quality coffee delivered in predictable ways.

Brands are not what marketing people and CEOs think they are. When Starbucks first came up, good coffee just wasn't an option. Props, Starbucks, for making that a standard--and that became the brand. That's great! It doesn't have to be about hanging around in coffeehouses to be a good brand. It can be about standards and quality. Starbucks overextended themselves with new stores, whatever; they put themselves in airports, ok; but they made a lot of money and, as far as I can tell, they still serve the same product with the same attention to detail.

So the narrow-mindedness of this memo is surprising--"it's the chain store thing! It's not a corner coffeehouse experience!" It misses the point entirely. Starbucks IS the McDonalds of coffee now, better or worse; imagining some high-minded goal about "experience" is not going to grow that company. Far better to focus on ongoing quality, sustainable long-term growth strategies, shareholder value, and sticking to core principles. Stop pretending to be cool. It's too late for that. But Starbucks offers predicatable quality, and if they can maintain that (no small task) then they will succeed, and for good reason. If Howard Schultz feels bad about it, he's crying all the way to the bank.

My favorite quote from the whole memo:
"We achieved fresh roasted bagged coffee, but at what cost?"

Um, $8.99 a pound, far as I can tell. And that ain't bad.

Labels: Branding, Starbucks

If you care about usability, and why good ideas go bad, and read nothing else on the subject, please read this: Clippy and User Experiences.

This is a (kind of) insider account of how Clippy got made, and the author evidences the same perplexity we all have when good ideas go wrong:

"There was a lot of research at the time around how many people interact with computers by anthropomorphizing them - that is, treating them like a person rather than as a tool. I guess the theory was that if you could provide an interface for the computer that expressed emotion and that you could interact with, you would be less likely to develop animosity toward your PC (much like the impassive camera lens of HAL9000 caused tension), and would actually be encouraged to learn and interact."

Look, we all know Clippy was the hallmark of usability research gone wrong--but no one can quite say why. Here's what I see:

"There was a lot of research at the time": Yes, lots of research, lots of big ideas. Long tail, anyone? Portals maybe?
"if you could provide an interface for the computer that expressed emotion"--Interfaces do not express emotion. People STILL want them to do this in one way or another, but they don't. Look, even Lt. Cmdr. Data is annoying after five seconds, and he's way more advanced than a PC. People want their machines to be--well, machines.
"you would be less likely to develop animosity toward your PC"--Did it EVER occur to anyone that developing animosity towards one's PC had more to do with the Blue Screen of Death than, I dunno, ctrl+F+S?

I came across this article when I was looking for an example of over-reverence of "usability" for my project management class, because I have the (sinking) suspicion that many bad ideas come from charismatic, flighty project managers. I don't think I'm wrong, either--Clippy was *definitely* the brainchild of someone who prided him or herself on "strategy" and "usability". No doubt he or she is still a millionaire now, but Clippy--not so much. He's back to working at Staples, organizing the other paperclips into little cardboard boxes, wondering--like all child stars--what happened. "I coulda been a contender!" Clippy says, while hustling the other paper-clipping devices into a staff meeting.

Labels: Microsoft, Microsoft Office

I don't make a habit of clicking on ads. I create them, I look at them, and am aware of them, but I generally never click.

This morning on CNN.com there was a fantastic embedded video ad that featured very realistic footage of architects interacting with what appeared to be a live 3d model of a huge urban development they were working on. Trees sprouted up instantly and became a park as an architect swiped cars off a lot with her hand. Traffic was jammed, then began to flow as they made their live adjustments to the model. I watched it a few times actually and was compelled to visit the site.
Instead of clicking, I went straight to the url, www.3ds.com but when I got there, the site was "undergoing maintenance." So I succumbed and actually clicked on the ad, which pointed to a specific landing page... NOT FOUND.

When you're making quality pitches, you'd better be sure to have your catcher ready behind home plate. Great advertising is hard enough. The component that drives traffic is exactly that, a component of a larger picture that must consider the two way street necessary for people to react to ads when they do work. In this case, a great ad totally failed. Better get that "maintenance" wrapped up!

Labels: Online Advertising

"Adjudication of the Jury d'Ethique Publicitaire:

Complaint:
The ad is regarded as degrading and shocking, of bad taste, vulgar, disrespectful of human dignity and morals, scandalous with respect to children. The advertiser made the point that the spot was in the form of a satire. It did not harm human dignity but reversed the roles of the traditional sexist stereotypes. The difference with other spots that show naked people is the age and the weight of the actor; the message does not conform to the theories which presume that any human body that does not fit the standards of perfection must be regarded as shocking and thus socially dangerous.

Position of the Jury:
After examination and taking into account many negative reactions received, the Jury decided that the images undermine human dignity, in particular by showing inappropriate sexual behaviour in a workplace, which is against article 2 of the code of the CCI. It also concluded that the commercial was not in conformity with the recommendations of the code of ethics in advertising concerning the representation of the human person in publicity. The Jury consequently recommended the cessation of the commercial. "

http://www.bestrejectedadvertising.com/html/?page=tv&type=banned&id=27

Basically, this site is a wonderful window into the worries broadcasters and governments have about advertising. Some of the worries are about accuracy, some are prudish, some are mysterious even to one as inaccurate and prudish as me. The accompanying reasons and their explication is a textbook on, to misconstrue Bloom, the anxiety of influence. These ads are being rejected because they will inappropriately influence people or expose them to something they shoould be safe from.

This whole site had me asking the same question over and over: how powerful do these people think advertising is? Or will these ads, unchained, actually do what it is claimed?

Labels: advertising, censorship, eu

We hear this question all the time. In RFPs, in conversation, in business meetings. Usually it’s accompanied by very little detail, and often the assumption is that “this website” costs this much, while “that website” costs more.

We joke here at idfive that we want to go talk to a contractor the way we’re often approached about our work. “OK, so, we want you to do our kitchen. We don’t have a plan, though—-that should be part of your estimate, because you’re the expert. If you don’t put a plan in the estimate, we won’t consider you at all. Oh, and our budget is $25,000, but we want really high end stuff, OK? But once you get it all built, we need to have the ability to change stuff around… I mean, it’s hard to envision it unless we can actually see it.”

This is an extreme example—-kind of. In the public’s perception, the difference between a house-builder and a web site builder seems to be that the house-builder creates something that is supposedly more “tangible” than a web site. The issue may be one of physicality--wood and stone are objects, and no matter how abstract their assigned value really is, they exist in some world of perceived objective reality.

But in the case of digital communications, one pixel looks much like another, regardless of how long it took to decide to put it where it is—and that which exists only on-screen is somehow not “real,” no matter how many physical resources went into creating it.

Further, for people outside the industry, web-based applications are only really noticed when they break. When they function just fine, it’s not apparent to the user that the back-end database and workflow, stored procedures, and complex interface took lots and lots of time to think through, much less create.

Perhaps this explains why a university will spend $200,000 on a view book for 5,000 prospects, but their web site—which occasions that many visits a month —may be saddled with a $15,000 annual budget at best. It may also explain why many organizations don’t understand how long it takes to make the things they ask for—why, for instance, a well-thought content management system costs more than Contribute. Pipes and walls you can see and touch. Code, you can’t.

We try and educate people on a daily basis about why effort=dollars, but it rarely sinks in, for just these reasons.

I believe we should take a different tack and talk about value. What is it worth to your business to have a really good web site? Why is it, maybe, worth more than a print piece? Value is perceived more than real. Perceived value explains why things that are tangible are thought to be worth more than things which are conceptual or digital.

If we could transcend the dollars/time model, we may be able to show people that budgets ought to be allocated to communications that are worth more, as opposed to those which consume more actual physical resources. We may even get to a place where we’ll see colleges and universities running capital campaigns for their web sites. Why not? After all, the bottom line is that the web site affects everyone involved with any organization, and it’s usually the first point of contact you have with people. Shouldn’t it be worth more than a brochure?

I want one! Must be pink, please.