
Good Design - MarlonPro
https://medium.com/the-year-of-the-looking-glass/good-design-a89c15136ba6#.59s9dmzgf
======
brlewis
From gmail's first UX designer:

75% of good UX design is determining in which ways to not be too clever.

[https://twitter.com/kfury/status/627350727891906560](https://twitter.com/kfury/status/627350727891906560)

~~~
pcurve
When Gmail came out, it was widely panned. It continued to get panned for
years for some bizarre design decisions. (let's hide all text labels, let's
make compose new email in a popup, let's not let user 'delete' but
'archive'etc, threading... )

Now people don't complain as much, because everyone just got used to it.

Google makes some terrible UX across the board.

~~~
quanticle
Agreed. The Material Design refresh for Google Maps replaced a design that had
clear affordances with a completely flat, static-looking view. I'm sure it
looked great on some Powerpoint slide shown to the higher-ups at Google, but
it was a disaster for actual usability.

~~~
pcurve
yup, and the worst part of material design is, indiscriminate use of bright
colors for no apparent reasons. And now everyone is doing the same thing, and
50% of UI look exactly the same.

------
achow
Irony considering the author starts with her experience at OneNote. OneNote
(desktop) possibly is the worst designed software in Microsoft Office suite.

I find the following quote from Chris Pratley (creator of OneNote) interesting
_" You know you have a good design when you show it to people and they say,
“oh, yeah, of course,” like the solution was obvious."_. No wonder OneNote is
so heavily into literal metaphor of a notebook, which frankly does look and
feel clumsy inspite they attempting to polish it up a bit off late (it used to
look plain ugly till couple of years back).

From official Microsoft document: _The user interface is specifically designed
to look like a 3-ring binder, complete with tab dividers. Users can divide the
notebook into multiple topics and subtopics for the various types of
information they want to record and save. Workers have all the advantages of
an old fashioned notebook binder with the additional advantages of being able
to copy information from one section to another..._

Document link:
[https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web...](https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiplu6ijLvKAhVCbY4KHavzB4IQFgggMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdownload%2F1%2Fa%2F2%2F1a298a90-6894-46ef-86de-9d74704d1e3b%2FOneNoteBenefitsWhitePaper.doc&usg=AFQjCNEjvKxQ44E3QDrw5mAXMrG7iu7HhA&bvm=bv.112064104,d.c2E)

~~~
k-mcgrady
What about that OneNote design is bad? It may look ugly to you but I find it
serves its purpose well. It's a metaphor the kind of people who use it will
understand.

~~~
achow
Well, not answering directly but following illustrates the point:

Apple's iOS7, Well, It Was Time For Skeuomorphism To Die

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/19/apples-
io...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/19/apples-ios7-well-it-
was-time-for-skeuomorphism-to-die/#2715e4857a0b70d98891444b)

One of the bad example of Skeumorphism of Apple
[http://dun4nx4d6jyre.cloudfront.net/assets/findmyfriends.jpg](http://dun4nx4d6jyre.cloudfront.net/assets/findmyfriends.jpg).
Note the 'hand stitched' detailing.

OneNote could have continued to do things well without using clumsy, awkward,
out of place design language.

~~~
makecheck
There's nothing wrong with a hand-stitching look. Making an app look
_interesting_ is not the problem.

The issues with skeuomorphism occur when the attempt at making a "real life"
object imposes restrictions on functionality that would not have existed
otherwise. For example:

\- Making something look like a "book" causes designers to try too hard to
shove things into a two-page view when computers are _outstanding_ at being
far more flexible than a book (e.g. multiple resizable columns, scrolling, and
so on).

\- Making something look like a "dial" just makes it unnecessarily hard to
interact with when using a mouse or even a touch screen. Interface elements
designed for use on computers are superior.

~~~
Silhouette
Thank you. I wish people wouldn't just equate skeuomorphic design and bad
design to be trendy (particularly when they don't know what "skeuomorphic"
actually means, as often seems to be the case). As you say, there is nothing
wrong with having details or styling in a UI, particularly if they are
cosmetically attractive, as long as form still follows function.

I think a lot of people on the flat design bandwagon try to create a false
dichotomy with skeuomorphism and try to use this as an excuse. All too often,
I suspect they really prefer flat design for other reasons, such as not being
any good at more sophisticated styling but also not wanting to hire a digital
artist onto a project team, or wanting to avoid anything where the
implementation requires real graphics instead of whatever severely limited
tools are available using nothing but CSS and the icon font from their
favourite UI toolkit. I'm not saying no flat design has ever been done well,
but all too often I think it's just lazy and/or unskilled design and the anti-
skeuomorphism dogma gets wheeled out to try to justify it in some more
flattering way.

~~~
makecheck
I suspect the main driver for a "flat" appearance is that basic shapes are
easy to implement across screen sizes (e.g. a colored rectangle scales pretty
trivially; something like a fancy gradient may require a lot more effort to
look reasonable on 14 different device sizes, especially if icon artwork is
involved for all the corner and side pieces).

Also, _clear_ icons are easier to construct with simple shapes than with
detailed pictures, and symbolic icons may localize better. For example, a
highly detailed picture of a mailbox varies between a lot of countries; a
symbol of an envelope may not, and it's probably more obvious anyway.

Personally, I think a nice middle ground was the original iOS, where you could
do cool things like define simple shapes for tab-view icons but have the OS
stylize them for you (i.e. a plain white shape would end up with a cool blue
gradient and look perfect in the black gradient tab bar, even though the
original icon had no gradients or colors or rounded corners). And the UI
elements, while sometimes a bit complex, managed to scale just fine between
the screen sizes of the time.

------
tinbad
I have an issue with all the designers who claim to have found the X number of
design principles to create 'good' design. There's just something wrong with
trying to define anything as 'obviously good'. What's obviously good for me
might not be for someone else and the current landscape of incoherently
designed interfaces/products/OSes/webpages we use every day just proves to me
that if there was such a thing like an obviously good design we would not be
in the mess that we call UX/UI design today.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I disagree. UX/UI design has to be obvious, people need to know what to do,
without having to ask for help or look at a manual. And 'obvious' is easy.

Certain arrangements that already exist are basically universal. People know
where to look, people understand certain symbols. Use those, don't try and
reinvent them. Use what people know.

Trying to be clever is what dooms design.

~~~
mden
Trying to be clever is the main thing that has led to progress and eventual
better design.

Amazon's drop down menu comes to mind -
[http://bjk5.com/post/44698559168/breaking-down-amazons-
mega-...](http://bjk5.com/post/44698559168/breaking-down-amazons-mega-
dropdown)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Ah, I think you missed the point. Amazon's solution to the menu behavior, yes,
is clever. But what it presents to the user is not. It is a dropdown menu,
that looks like every other drop down menu ever made. It's not novel at all in
that respect. A user sees it, and they instantly know what it is, and how it
works.

Yes, Amazon did something clever to make it work as well as it does, but
barely anyone even notices that there's anything special about it. It 'just
works'.

That's key. The actual design pattern here didn't change at all. It just works
better.

Can you make something work better? Do it. Are you trying something because
"icons and folders are a dated idea"? Then don't.

~~~
mden
Fair enough, but then wasn't the idea of icons and folders considered clever
at some point in the way you are describing. It seems that the vast majority
of design is not better than the current accepted standard, but every so often
someone designs something which is good and becomes the new standard. At some
point you have to be willing to do something potentially stupid if you have
any interest in pushing the boundaries or am I still missing the point you are
making?

I think gmail's redesign from a few years ago falls into what you are
describing - trying to design something more "modern and clever" which in some
way was to the detriment of the users (at least if you were judging by the
reception and all the critique). But at the same time if you don't try to
maintain a more modern interface I think you risk being left behind, so you
have to balance "clever" with "expected" design.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
What is your intended goal in 'pushing the boundaries'? Where is the
reasoning? Are you making life better for people, or are you confusing them?
What is 'falling behind' in design? Does your product work well? Is it easy to
use?

If you believe something has to change, just because it should, then I think
you're coming from the wrong place. You have customers that depend on you,
your job is to serve them, not some sort of need to invent the next great
design revolution.

~~~
mden
Most problems already have some sort of solution for them. When you make a
claim that your solution is better than the existing solution you often
provide a better UX in some respects. For this you have to make design
decisions some of which don't have an accepted standard. This is where you are
pushing the boundaries.

On the other hand, UI style and UX naturally improves over time. Compare
Windows 95 and Windows 7. There are certainly style and UX changes in the
latter that are superior. A lot of people may not like Window's Ribbon
interface but I think it was definitely an interesting new design, one which I
think will in the long term prove to be better than plain drop down menus.

So I guess I am making the claim that if you are really invested in your
product you probably have ideas on how it could be improved and a lot of those
ideas are uncertain but deserve time to be attempted.

------
profinger
I think it's ironic because it's on medium and the first thing that comes up
is a giant, stupid, unnecessary picture that is full screen and could lead
people to believe that there's nothing more to the article.

------
michaelpinto
This: "Better design does not mean more design. Often, the most obvious
designs are invisible." This also reminds me of the Steve Jobs approach of
being proud of all the times that they said "no".

~~~
diego_moita
Too bad he isn't around anymore to say that to the Apple Watch user interface.

~~~
zappo2938
Or, the iTunes radio app.

~~~
dceddia
Or, any version of iTunes after, like, 7. :(

------
tacos
This article is a clumsy and self-centered retelling of "Dieter Rams: ten
principles for good design" from 40 years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Rams#Dieter_Rams:_ten_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Rams#Dieter_Rams:_ten_principles_for_good_design)

~~~
Tepix
Looking like being obvious is not among Rams principles.

~~~
tacos
#4: "it is self-explanatory."

~~~
Tepix
OK, I think it's a misunderstanding. Self-explanatory refers to the use of
object that is designed. It needs no explanation. How to ride a bicycle is
pretty self-explanatory (even if it's not trivial to learn).

The design of a bicycle however is not obvious.

------
ryanSrich
What an overly simplistic view of what makes design good (as if that can even
be defined).

Taking any advice from a designer at Facebook is a dangerous game to play.
It's very likely you work for a company that is structured entirely
differently than anything close to Facebook. What makes design "good" at your
company is going to depend wholeheartedly on the market you serve (which is
not going to be 1 billion people large).

------
simi_
This made me think of "The Making of: Dust", which describes the iterative
(and serendipitous) process of creating [two of] the most well-known Counter
Strike maps. I think it's a brilliant how a design that feels obvious involves
a lot of work and uncertainty.

[http://johnsto.co.uk/design/making-dust](http://johnsto.co.uk/design/making-
dust)

HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772521](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9772521)

------
tsunamifury
Here are some more abstract tips that might apply to more than just Facebook's
mentality.

1) Have a clear workflow that matches your business and your user goals.

2) Make it as short as possible.

3) Don't have dead ends.

4) Make sure 4/5 people in your target market can jump into it and accomplish
the task within a few seconds without asking any questions. (This is a good
target for a V1 release, V2 and beyond should reach for 9/10 or more)

The rest is mostly trend and opinion. Good design is just good HCI -- fast
(both quick and understandable) interfaces to complete a task.

------
interlocutor
Loved the article, but I don't like Julie's redesign of Facebook. Am I the
only one? To remind yourself, here's pictures of older facebook designs:
[http://getlevelten.com/blog/julie-miller/if-you-didnt-
design...](http://getlevelten.com/blog/julie-miller/if-you-didnt-design-
mobile-redesign-mobile)

I prefer the 2010 design by a mile. FWIW, I also prefer Gmail's old design.

~~~
pcurve
I think the current photo-centric design just reflect's change in people's
behavior shaped by growth in mobile phone usage.

------
jbssm
Good design: Then we are taken to a page with a banner so big that you have to
realize that you need to scroll way past the bottom of the screen to actually
reach the content.

~~~
sanbor
"Obviousness comes from conforming to people’s existing mental models.". It's
currently pretty common to scroll webpages with big images in the middle.

~~~
jbssm
Well, it still doesn't make it "good design".

------
ocdtrekkie
"Obviousness comes from conforming to people’s existing mental models. Don’t
waste time reinventing common UI patterns or paradigms unless they are at
least 2x better, or you have some critical brand reason to do so."

This is a beautiful insight. I wish everyone understood this. There's ZERO
reason to reinvent the wheel with design.

~~~
vlehto
Some decades ago some architect said "why do we need a facade? Isn't it
redundant?".

Noww I can't find main entrances to buildings. Please stop this experiment.

~~~
csours
I can't even figure out how to get on the property sometimes - see the old EDS
"Mothership" in Plano! [1] Amazingly, the front desk was on the 4th or 5th
floor archway - which you could not get to without getting past a badge
reader. (that's the way I remember it anyway)

Street signs, entrances, etc should be optimized for both first time users and
everyday users; which is difficult, but without that traffic goes slower and
you have more accidents, people get frustrated and hate you.

[1]
[https://h71044.www7.hp.com/campaigns/2011/events/POD/images/...](https://h71044.www7.hp.com/campaigns/2011/events/POD/images/HP_Campus_EXC_Map.pdf)

------
munificent
> Better design does not mean more design. Often, the most obvious designs are
> invisible.

I think "design" is ambiguous here. You can look at it as meaning "effort that
went into creating something", where "design" is the thing that designers do
at their desk.

Or you can think of it as quantity of "stuff" in the end product that a person
experiences and consumes. Every button, doo-dad or blob of pixels in an app.
Each nut, bolt, accessory or function in a thing.

In that sense, my personal definition of good design is doing more design
_work_ to deliver less design _stuff_. A designer's job is to spent time
chewing up and swallowing complexity so the user doesn't have to.

~~~
pcurve
I agree with this in principle but today's so-called designers are enamored
with minimalist designs to user's detriment, relying too much on white space.

------
neosat
The article feels ...well 'obvious'... but without any real insights into
_what_ good design really is. It's a little bit like saying "What's a good
investment" \- One that makes you money. Or "What's good code" One that
doesn't have bugs. It tell you something that's obviously true, but there
isn't much you can do with the info.

Compare that with a nugget of wisdom from Charles Eames - someone who actually
built things that designers can look upto. Humble, to the point and _not_
obvious but insightful.

Is there a design ethic? There are always design constraints and these usually
include an ethic.

------
jcassell
I feel that rule number 2, "If you cannot get a group of people for whom your
product is designed for to generally agree that your design is good, it’s not
good," is generally a double-edged sword. That is, do people outside of design
generally know what is or isn't good?

Rule no.3 stating that a group of designers must decide if a design is good or
not is far more relevant to what actually is good design, verses the general
populace.

That's like asking a group of patients if they think the drug that's being
made seems good enough with several side effects or not, verses asking
pharmaceutical experts on the matter.

~~~
creeble
I think both points of view have merit, but the user pov should probably be
more heavily weighted.

My experience with user testing is that if you give someone a UI and watch
what they do with it (without instruction), you will quickly get a feel for
how close to the mark your design is. Different users have different
expectations of course, so you need to do this with a fair range of users.

~~~
jcassell
True, and I do think there is strong validity in blind user testing so as to
better shape and improve initial designs to a more finished form.

However, I do think there is some merit in getting those in the actual field
of functional and "good" design (as the author defines it) to weigh in on why
precisely your design is just that. In my own UI/UX research, users all too
often miss fully comprehending the painstaking research and work that goes
into truly effective and good design.

I guess what my argument really is is that I would prefer to weigh more
heavily the affirmation of those in the design field rather than a broad range
of users with no particular ethos concerning design. Of course, who we end up
designing for is the normal user, and what they think is indeed important.
However, if 100 people said my design was good vs. hearing that from, say,
Mike Matas, I would pick Mike Matas.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Users cannot tell you what's wrong with your design. They don't know. It
"feels wrong" or they "don't like it". But they CAN tell you that your design
is BAD. It's up to you (or other designers) to tell you what's wrong with it.
But if the users don't like it, you failed, and it doesn't matter if other
designers think it's good.

Your target is the users, if the users aren't having a good experience, you're
not doing it right.

------
ryandrake
Such a qualitative view of design--Nothing about measurement or business
goals. I would argue that one design is better than another only if it can be
shown to improve whatever business results you're looking to improve. Are you
trying to increase 7-day retention? Get more people through the sign-up
funnel? Increase conversion? Test the candidate design next to the old one and
see if it's actually improving things. "A bunch of other designers think this
is a great design" is not really good justification for spending development
hours implementing it.

~~~
tacos
Good luck testing it without developing it. And double good luck getting
something without investing in it. Apply business process after you actually
have the kernel of a product, which includes a product design.

------
johanbrook
The idea of that "good design" is something you "just recognize" is somewhat
related to the ideas in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance",
but replaced with "Quality". Really good read.

------
z3t4
Good design is when your hopes and expectations come true

meaning: When you do a user action, like double clicking, the application
should do what you expect and hope it will do.

------
samtp
Lots of focus on too many restraints, but I'd say poor design can just as
often be the result of not enough restraints.

------
beat
After reading this, I went through and read all the other linked essays she
wrote. Good stuff!

------
elasticode
Great post. Thanks for sharing. The same way a great song sounds familiar the
first time you hear it, good design feels comfortable and effortless from the
first second.

------
sv7n
Great article, definitely a good mantra to keep in my head when I struggle
against muggle resistance...

------
justicezyx
Like most articles on medium: self-bluffed nonsense...

