Design Thinking vs. Data Thinking(farukat.es)
farukat.es
Design Thinking vs. Data Thinking
http://farukat.es/journal/2010/09/480-design-thinking-vs-data-thinking
4 comments
A good article, and applicable also to why some of Google's projects succeed and others fail. What fail? Ones that rely upon a deep understanding of social interactions: Orkut, Buzz, Wave. These social applications/networks don't have a specific purpose they just are and people can use them how they want. Compare that to Gmail, Google Docs, AdWords. Singularly-purposed applications that no one disagrees about how they should be used. Google is great at solving problems, not so great at creatively thinking about situations that may not be problems and may not have a direct solution.
What about Google Maps/Google Earth? They are arguably even more ubiquitous than Gmail and have thousands of different applications and purposes.
People use Google Maps to make new apps - ranging from practical [http://www.padmapper.com/] to artistic [http://thewildernessdowntown.com/] - on a daily basis while Gmail and Google Docs remain relatively stagnant.
People use Google Maps to make new apps - ranging from practical [http://www.padmapper.com/] to artistic [http://thewildernessdowntown.com/] - on a daily basis while Gmail and Google Docs remain relatively stagnant.
I don't think you can call Orkut as failure on the same level as Wave. Orkut reached #1 in Brazil and is still successful there.
Wave failed utterly and was indeed poorly thought-out on a number of levels.
-----------------
I'm not sure if Google Docs is that much more single purposed than Google Wave - it's just that rich documents are something people already understand.
All that said, I think you have a good point about company culture. It's just that companies do have ability to step out of their culture on occasion.
Wave failed utterly and was indeed poorly thought-out on a number of levels.
-----------------
I'm not sure if Google Docs is that much more single purposed than Google Wave - it's just that rich documents are something people already understand.
All that said, I think you have a good point about company culture. It's just that companies do have ability to step out of their culture on occasion.
The problem I have with this article is that it describes Google's designs as "bland" but gives no examples. What exactly is bland about which products?
The problem with too much "design thinking" is that you end up trying to "innovate" without taking user needs into perspective. To a designer aching to flex his design muscles, a clean and usable design probably comes off as "bland."
I'd argue that Google is much more usable than its competitors. They don't overdo their design, and that's a good thing.
The problem with too much "design thinking" is that you end up trying to "innovate" without taking user needs into perspective. To a designer aching to flex his design muscles, a clean and usable design probably comes off as "bland."
I'd argue that Google is much more usable than its competitors. They don't overdo their design, and that's a good thing.
While I distrust the author's claims to be able to reliably distinguish devices created by data thinking and design thining irrespective of final quality (I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation more rife with the potential for hindsight bias) he does make a number of good points.
Perhaps the best was that if you're trying to grow a market then being like your competitors is probably the wrong was to go about. A common expression of mockery with a group of friends is that a company is "trying to differentiate by embracing the dominant paradigm." These seems related.
Perhaps the best was that if you're trying to grow a market then being like your competitors is probably the wrong was to go about. A common expression of mockery with a group of friends is that a company is "trying to differentiate by embracing the dominant paradigm." These seems related.
Perhaps UI design and hardware design are not directly comparable on this basis? You can't run automated testing or user analytics on a handset.
What's more to the point, testing is for increasing a specific outcome or make sure it happens. It's not about what Christopher Alexander would call "the quality without a name."
What's more to the point, testing is for increasing a specific outcome or make sure it happens. It's not about what Christopher Alexander would call "the quality without a name."