Beancounting intangibles
So Douglas Bowman’s resignation from Google is making all the rounds, and attracting quite a bit of verbage, so I figure it’s as good a time as any to contribute my 2 cents.
Like all infamous resignations, Mr. Bowman took his employer to task for a variety of sins. In this instance, those sins would seem to reinforce a great many outsider’s (read: my) suspicions about the Do-No-Evil Giant:
“Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and was asked to prove my case. I can’t operate in an environment like that. I’ve grown tired of debating such minuscule design decisions. There are more exciting design problems in this world to tackle.”
The inevitable contrasts with Apple have been made (which must mean Google really is the new Microsoft), and the engineering-centric folk have begun to circle the wagons. Oh how quickly bright stars lose their luster in our fickle online world. Sure seems like Google could use a shammy n’ shine these days. Or do they?
What strikes me about Mr. Bowman’s grievances are how absolutely common they are. In my not nearly as illustrious career, I’ve had to deal with both extremes: beancounting engineers wanting a scientific rationale for every minor design change, and Captain Feathersword-types who use buzzwords concepts like “Rapid Prototyping” to mask an inability to make a decision. And while just about every designer has been stymied by such an environment as (apparently) exists at Google, I applaud them for taking it to the next level — 41 shades of blue?! — just as I give props to Mr. Bowman for finally throwing in the towel, realizing that he’s hit an unmovable object. (Plus, it sounds like he got another job anyway.)
But to his central complaint: The man has a point. I love Google. I use it and its tools all day, every day. But its design sucks. Period. I’m not talking about its plainness. I have nothing against minimal design (in fact I love it.) No, I’m talking about its usability. Gmail has some serious issues in this area, but other offerings, including Search, analytics, Apps and others are problematic, as well. And none of them have a similar user interface or navigational structure. In fact, the only commonality between them is that the documentation blows. I use them because, to be honest, they’re the only tools available to do those specific jobs and do them well. I don’t enjoy using them.
NOTE: If you don’t think you should enjoy the tools you use to do most of your work, then perhaps you should re-think whatever it is that you do (pay attention to that statement Adobe. You’re next on my list.)
When someone cares about design, and fights to bring good design to a product, it makes it more human. That doesn’t mean squishy-touchy-feely-granola human, but pleasant to use and, dare I say, fun.
Now expand that to the world of marketing and advertising: When someone cares about their creative work enough to try to connect with their audience on a human level, the result is an ad or a spot or banner that’s just better: More pleasant to look at, easier to comprehend and and a damn sight more compelling. In contrast, slapping a list of bullet-pointed ‘features’ on an ad, or filling space with vacuous marketese is the same as focus-grouping 41 shades of blue. It sucks all humanity from the work — along with any pleasure, arched eyebrow or chuckle — and reduces it to mere ‘data.’
Yuck.
