Artists cannot design interfaces.

[Asher]

What's clear to me is how little you understand of the field you pretend to be a part of.

What's clear to me is why you are exiled to a third-world country, and would never cut it in a competitive environment like on this side of the world.

[DanS]

Singapore's a repressive dictatorship, but not a third world country.

[Asher]

Singapore's a repressive dictatorship, but not a third world country.

It's a ****ty country that a reasonable person would never consider living in.

[FrostyBoy]

From what little I know, Asher is completely right on this, except with too much of a negative attitude toward artists. There's a reason why Google is successful at what it does. It's also the reason why designers/artists tend to leave the company in a huff.

Who ended up with the billions?

That said, artistry helps to add polish. So long as it doesn't detract in any way from what needs to be done, I welcome artistry.

Sorry, I didn't really read thoroughly earlier.

I'm not saying that being a scientist does not contribute to human interaction, that's just wrong. What my argument has been all along is that being an artist gives you the edge because of the clear understanding between what you see and how you feel about it and how it's used, because the mind runs primarily on emotion.

Google ended up with billions for a number of reasons. At the time, Altavista had it right, but started to clutter up with junk, Google didn't do that, they remained simple, this was one of the keys to their success and remains one of their core strengths - this is an ARTISTIC move, barely a scientific one.

The other reasons for their success probably include, good timing, great programming, good ideas, great PR and so on.

[Asher]

Anyway, let's examine the principles of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and reflect how well these principles fit with the practice of an artist, versus that of a scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_interaction

When evaluating a current user interface, or designing a new user interface, it is important to keep in mind the following experimental design principles:

* Early focus on user(s) and task(s): Establish how many users are needed to perform the task(s) and determine who the appropriate users should be; someone that has never used the interface, and will not use the interface in the future, is most likely not a valid user. In addition, define the task(s) the users will be performing and how often the task(s) need to be performed.
* Empirical measurement: Test the interface early on with real users who come in contact with the interface on an everyday basis, respectively. Keep in mind that results may be altered if the performance level of the user is not an accurate depiction of the real human-computer interaction. Establish quantitative usability specifics such as: the number of users performing the task(s), the time to complete the task(s), and the number of errors made during the task(s).
* Iterative design: After determining the users, tasks, and empirical measurements to include, perform the following iterative design steps:

1. Design the user interface
2. Test
3. Analyze results
4. Repeat

Repeat the iterative design process until a sensible, user-friendly interface is created.[2]

Also note virtually all of the industry conferences on user interface design are held by organizations like the ACM and IEEE, which are not known for catering to artists.

[DanS]

What my argument has been all along is that being an artist gives you the edge because of the clear understanding between what you see and how you feel about it and how it's used, because the mind runs primarily on emotion.

I don't agree, but even if it does, what would be a good example of the artist having an edge? I can see any number of examples supporting Asher big time. F.e., Google is all about science on the UI. They are obsessive about the science on their UI. They are barely concerned about the artistry.

[Ben Kenobi]

You say they get "BA" as if it's a "Bachelor of the Arts". You get a "BACHELOR'S OF ARCHITECTURE" from the UofT, NOT an arts degree you ****ing lying scumbag. The UofT's school is NOT in the faculty of the arts because it is its own faculty, meaning you were of course WRONG when you said it was part of the arts faculty you disingenuous tool.

http://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/courses/ba_architectural_studies/1558

Bachelor of Arts in Architectural Studies.

ARC 131H1 Introduction to Architecture

Year 2
ARC 221H1 Architectural Representation I
ARC 231H1 Architecture and Technology
ARC 232H1 Architecture, Media and Communications

Year 3
ARC 313H1 Architectural Design II
ARC 321H1 Architectural Representation II
ARC 335H1 History/Theory of Urban Landscape Architecture Design I

Year 4
ARC 431H1 Historical Perspectives on Topics in Architecture I

Clearly, it's an artsie fartsie degree.

[FrostyBoy]

btw Asher, just because that's the way the world is now, doesn't make it right.

How many designs have you and I seen that are terrible? 90%? more?

And your quote from wiki doesn't really say much.

[Asher]

Sorry, I didn't really read thoroughly earlier.

I'm not saying that being a scientist does not contribute to human interaction, that's just wrong. What my argument has been all along is that being an artist gives you the edge because of the clear understanding between what you see and how you feel about it and how it's used, because the mind runs primarily on emotion.

Google ended up with billions for a number of reasons. At the time, Altavista had it right, but started to clutter up with junk, Google didn't do that, they remained simple, this was one of the keys to their success and remains one of their core strengths - this is an ARTISTIC move, barely a scientific one.

The other reasons for their success probably include, good timing, great programming, good ideas, great PR and so on.

You're dead wrong.

Google's UX (User Experience, HCI) group relies on scientific principles for their UI design. They experiment, collect assloads of metrics, then deploy the results. Every single seemingly minor change is tracked through large experiments following the scientific methods. There's quantifiable improvements in the interface that can be noticed using their methods.

It's the "secret to their success". They have a simple logo and a highly functional interface. Google is the perfect counter-example to your claims about artists and their roles in good interface design.

[Asher]

http://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/cours...l_studies/1558

Bachelor of Arts in Architectural Studies.

ARC 131H1 Introduction to Architecture

Year 2
ARC 221H1 Architectural Representation I
ARC 231H1 Architecture and Technology
ARC 232H1 Architecture, Media and Communications

Year 3
ARC 313H1 Architectural Design II
ARC 321H1 Architectural Representation II
ARC 335H1 History/Theory of Urban Landscape Architecture Design I

Year 4
ARC 431H1 Historical Perspectives on Topics in Architecture I

Clearly, it's an artsie fartsie degree.

You ****ing douchebag.

NOWHERE on that site does it have the word "Art". In your quote, it's there. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE A LYING, DISINGENUOUS AND WORTHLESS SACK OF ****.

Seriously, you are beyond pathetic. Get SERIOUS help. You are a pathological liar.

[Ben Kenobi]

Google ended up with billions for a number of reasons. At the time, Altavista had it right, but started to clutter up with junk, Google didn't do that, they remained simple, this was one of the keys to their success and remains one of their core strengths - this is an ARTISTIC move, barely a scientific one.

It's a design principle. Technically, there's nothing to bar them from a more cluttered approach, it is a philosophical principle to keep it simple.

As for Artists not making the big money, most businesses are run by folks with arts degrees. We can farm out the technical stuff, like programming or whatnot, but the ideas as to what works, well that's arts.

[Ben Kenobi]

NOWHERE on that site does it have the word "Art". In your quote, it's there. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE A LYING, DISINGENUOUS AND WORTHLESS SACK OF ****.

You said it was a Bachelors in Architectural Studies.

The degree calls itself a BA in architectural studies, which is a Bachelors of Arts in Architectural studies.

Is it a BSC in architectural studies? No. It's a BA.

[FrostyBoy]

I don't agree, but even if it does, what would be a good example of the artist having an edge? I can see any number of examples supporting Asher big time. F.e., Google is all about science on the UI. They are obsessive about the science on their UI. They are barely concerned about the artistry.

Sure, you have gmail right? Ever loaded up the "Terminal" theme? Fun, nostalgic, but i'm sure I'd have a happier and more efficient time with any of the other themes.

btw, most of Asher's HCI methods that he speaks of were originally discovered by artists and adopted by scientists for better understanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher, which quantifiable metrics?

[Asher]

I'm going to bed, so I'm going to absolutely bury FrostyBoy and check in for the results tomorrow.

http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html

Today is my last day at Google.

I started working in-house at Google almost three years ago. I built a team from scratch. I was fortunate to hire a team of a very talented designers. We introduced Visual Design as a discipline to Google. And we produced amazing work together. I’m very proud of my team, and I wish them well. They have a lot of challenging work ahead. But for me, it’s time to move on.

Do I have something else lined up? Yes. That will be covered in Part 2. So I’m not leaving just to leave. But I’m not going to sugarcoat the reasons for my departure either. The scale at which Google operates was an early attractor for me. Potential to impact millions of people? Where do I sign? Unfortunately for me, there was one small problem I didn’t see back then.

When I joined Google as its first visual designer, the company was already seven years old. Seven years is a long time to run a company without a classically trained designer. Google had plenty of designers on staff then, but most of them had backgrounds in CS or HCI. And none of them were in high-up, respected leadership positions. Without a person at (or near) the helm who thoroughly understands the principles and elements of Design, a company eventually runs out of reasons for design decisions. With every new design decision, critics cry foul. Without conviction, doubt creeps in. Instincts fail. “Is this the right move?” When a company is filled with engineers, it turns to engineering to solve problems. Reduce each decision to a simple logic problem. Remove all subjectivity and just look at the data. Data in your favor? Ok, launch it. Data shows negative effects? Back to the drawing board. And that data eventually becomes a crutch for every decision, paralyzing the company and preventing it from making any daring design decisions.

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.

I can’t fault Google for this reliance on data. And I can’t exactly point to financial failure or a shrinking number of users to prove it has done anything wrong. Billions of shareholder dollars are at stake. The company has millions of users around the world to please. That’s no easy task. Google has momentum, and its leadership found a path that works very well. When I joined, I thought there was potential to help the company change course in its design direction. But I learned that Google had set its course long before I arrived. Google was a massive aircraft carrier, and I was just a small dinghy trying to push it a few degrees North.

I’m thankful for the opportunity I had to work at Google. I learned more than I thought I would. I’ll miss the free food. I’ll miss the occasional massage. I’ll miss the authors, politicians, and celebrities that come to speak or perform. I’ll miss early chances to play with cool toys before they’re released to the public. Most of all, I’ll miss working with the incredibly smart and talented people I got to know there. But I won’t miss a design philosophy that lives or dies strictly by the sword of data.

Google is an absolutely fantastic example of an extremely Computer Science/HCI-centric approach to interface design over artists, which gave us monstrosities like Yahoo and Webcrawler.

This guy obviously didn't like it, because all he understood was his "feelings".