Comments on: More on Google’s Graphic Design

By: Nick Caldwell

Nick Caldwell — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:40:27 +0000

Simple and clean if you don’t have visual disabilities, anyway. The apparent visual elegance of Google’s applications usually hides unforgivable accessibility nightmares.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:23:51 +0000

Google’s design is design. The “lack of decoration” as you called it is what it is for a very good reason. Google’s pages load fast, and perfectly on every browser. Google’s pages are very easy to read, and the links are easy to find. With gmail, they have proven mastery over complex user interfaces, and invented “ajax”. Even with almost unlimited “cash for design” at their disposal, they decided a simple, clean interface was best. I happen to agree.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:55:36 +0000

I don’t see how anyone can say Google does good design after looking at (e.g.) Google Earth for the Mac. Aesthetics (or “flair,” which I suspect the previous commenter meant) is one thing—and Google is, very obviously, not good at aesthetics—but their usability decisions are not always great either. Their focus on extreme simplicity results in good interfaces some of the time, and messes other times; and I agree, it looks like the reason for this is that the programmers are being left in charge of usability.

By: Tomas Jogin

Tomas Jogin — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:56:32 +0000

Google’s products are very very well designed, and their attention to detail almost borders on ridiculous (just look at the incremental minute refinements of the GMail interface). Design is not the same thing as decoration, or flare, and it certainly is not in the hands of their programmers.

By: Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:22:58 +0000

Another note on Google in particular. It’s clearly not that they don’t have people with graphical talent. Their print work and signage and the architecture of their HQ is astoundingly good. But I suspect they keep these people in the buildings across the street, away from the Web teams and let their programmers do the “design”.

By: Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:11:59 +0000

Shaughnessy seems to be massively overstating the point. Anyone with an eye who’s seen both England and the US could hardly claim that good design is everywhere. Saying that bad design is everywhere in the US is a far more defensible claim.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:41:01 +0000

I think it gives Google a little too much credit to say they leave well enough alone. There are some genuine design mistakes at play on their sites. Look at their color-coding scheme, both in GMail and on the News page, in which bright colors are supposed to indicate to users which section they are in (World news = yellow, US news = purle, etc.). That’s a Bad Design Decision. The designers might explain exactly why they added those garish colors, but they’d be wrong. Nobody actually uses those colors to orient themselves – this isn’t the subway.

So Kurt’s right – a designer should be able to defend every decision. But there are plenty of design decisions that can be explained, but are still wrong. Best example: “I put sunglasses on the dog because that makes him cool.”

By: Kurt Krumme

Kurt Krumme — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:31:31 +0000

I’m sorry but these discussions of design vs. decoration drive me up the wall. You only really see this particular debate in the field of web design, and I wonder if it’s because many of the designers are new and/or self-taught (sorta).

Design is a term that has been pimp-slapped until it’s lost all meaning. But it used to have a very clear one, and it wasn’t ‘decoration’. To design is to solve a problem. That’s the fundamental purpose of design. Anything else and you’re a stylist, or an artist or a Zamboni driver, but you ain’t no designer..

The good news is when something is well designed, in that it solves all the challenges facing it and meets its objectives, it looks great too. It’s amazing but true. Everything a good designer chooses has meaning, the fonts send a message, as do the colours. A designer who can’t tell you why they made a particular choice, didn’t make a choice at all. If they have no reason, then it’s just their taste vs. whoever. That’s not design. Anyone who thinks a company as advanced as Google is unaware of this is being naive.

In short, I would argue that in good design, there is no balance between functionality and decoration. One begats the other.

Sorry for the uber post.

By: Boogenstein

Boogenstein — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:21:55 +0000

The legions of newly named ‘Graphic Decorators’ are going to love their new job title!

Google’s minimalist approach was a breath of fresh air when it first came on the screens. It is user-friendly, for the most part, but could perhaps be revamped rather than re-logoed for each holiday. Maybe they just don’t want to fix what ain’t broke?

By: David Demaree

David Demaree — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:04:30 +0000

Perhaps using the word “decoration” should be encouraged more, so as to distinguish between designs that are thoughtful but which lack a certain jazziness (like del.icio.us or anything from Google) and those that are just as thoughtful but also look pretty (like those from Apple).

For example(s): I think that del.icio.us, Gmail, Joyent’s Connector and Strongspace and 37signals’s Campfire are all very well-designed web apps—the differentiating factor between them is the decoration. Campfire is really elegant, but it is definitely not as elaborately decorated as Joyent Connector. Gmail and the redesigned Yahoo Mail are about even in terms of functional utility, but Yahoo Mail certainly looks juicier.