Nice ad, but do you notice anything missing?… #brandingfail


Archive of all the old Google logo “doodles.” #quaint

It’s kind of amusing to look back at all the old Google logo doodles and how they’ve progressed over the years — you can view them all here.

In the meantime, the amazing Les Paul guitar player/recorded logo is still up today — go check it out if you haven’t yet.

Cause, you know, nothing’s more appetizing than… gray food…

Simple and usable : “Simpler than a bike. Until you try to ride it.”

[ source: “Simple and Usable Web, Mobile, and Interaction Design” by Giles Colborn ]

Haven’t read the book yet but it’s definitely on my Wish List…

Brings to mind this article: “Why is Simple so Difficult?”

The ‘Science’ of Good Design: A Dangerous Idea [ via @intuitionHQ ]

The ‘Science’ of Good Design: A Dangerous Idea – Atlantic Mobile…

“It is as if anyone could follow the same steps and end up with a great design on the other end. This story satisfies the design customer’s desire for predictability and reliability. Unfortunately, it also trivializes the role of the designer. Paula Scher criticizes this mechanical view of design in her book Make it Bigger. “It diminishes the real value a corporation gets from a designer,” she writes. “It is the rare combination of the designer’s intelligence, intuition, inspiration, and aesthetic sense—dare I say talent?—that makes for successful design.”

Faster Horses : the delicate balance of User Centered Design…

This is a great read. I think all designers walk that tightrope… You don’t want to be a “Design Dictator” but you also don’t want a “design by committee” approach or to blindly follow the data or simply do whatever the client wants (or rather what they clients says/thinks they want).

Reminded me of another quote that I like but that troubles me:

“Ignore what people say and focus on what they do. Then ignore what they do and focus on WHY they do it.”

Yes. But how can we know *why* without listening to what they say?…..

Hey, Craig — yeah, you with the list. Either alphabetize or don’t, pal.

I know everyone points to craigslist as an example of why a site doesn’t need to have a nice design to be successful, and blah blah blah.

I say bullshit.

In the first place I have always felt that, because the service they offer is so uniquely valuable, they can get away with having a shitty site — but they are successful in spite of their shitty site, not because of it. But beyond that, their bloody sea of uniform blue links isn’t even organized properly. Aside from using text that flows from 1 column to the next — a print format that doesn’t work well on the web — their lists go from sort-of-not-quite-alphabetized to completely random to alphabetical to random again, seemingly with no rhyme or reason.

I guess the lesson is, you don’t need good design OR logical information architecture for a successful site. Yay!

4 of 4