Joe Clark on Corporate Anti-Design
Bowman’s experience shows there actually is something worse than having epic bad taste …. This worse thing is an active denial of taste. The extreme male brain, housed by the thousand in Google meatbags, cannot discern patterns or distinctive features that constitute good design according to the consensus of informed, educated people.
Instead of simply trying harder to learn to make such distinctions or just taking our word for it, the Googler embarks on a full-scale jihad against the very concept of taste…
Read Joe Clark on The Extreme Google brain.
Tags: design, anti-design, antidesign, joeclark, google, douglasbowman, aesthetics, taste
Filed under: Design
Agreed, Google’s websites are very boring looking. It’s almost like they aren’t even bothering with design or trying to attract users to use their sites with design. That’s one thing I have to give Yahoo! a lot of credit for, is they are much more design oriented than Google.
A lot of web workers like to defend Google saying they are usability focused which is true, but usability is only half of a design, making it look good is the other half.
Are they really focused on usability? Log into Gmail and see if you can find the link (not a button, a link) to create a new email within less than 10 seconds. Google Finance has a lovely interactive chart, but the rest is reams of data without meaning or focus. This is what design brings to the table — what the subject of the recent ALA article ‘In Defense of Eye Candy’ was all about.
Google just makes me chuckle. Just a thought…
They think they are being scientific in testing A/B and 41 shades of blue but unless they are using color-corrected monitors and have made sure all the participants are not colorblind, there’s no science in it at all to my mind. Each participant could be seeing something different.
Google has always been focused and simple and fast, which has served them really well if you are looking to do a google search. The google homepage is fast simple and easy to use and absolutely the way to go for searching. This philosophy seems to not be the way to go when it comes the anything beyond this initial task. Fastest, simplest is not in and of itself great design, while great design can be both fast and simple.
As far as the 41 Shades Of Blue thing – Pablo Picasso did a lot of research in that area, and the folks at Google should’ve just, uh, Googled it.
As far as Joe’s piece, I’m happy he concedes that his impression of “Googler’s”, is based on little direct knowledge and is prejudicial on its face.
Shoulda just said, “Let’s dump on these guys just for the fun of it, eh?”
Richard, surely you mean “Let’s defend Bowman for the principle of it.”
If your measurable evaluations show that your goals (providing the best search experience, making a profit) are not met better by a particular feature that constitutes “good design according to the consensus of informed, educated people”, choosing the “good design” would be elevating “good design” as a goal above the others for it’s own sake. I don’t believe that Google has stated a mission of providing “good design”.
It seems that to cite Bowman’s experience as proof that Google is anti-design and only hires undersocialized nerds is to ignore the fact that Google created his visual designer position, and their “genteel eugenics program” of a hiring process also selected him.
Since Kevin Fox’s post was linked in the article, I’m surprised to see the phrase “sole known visual designer” used in the first paragraph. Kevin’s comments clearly refute that idea.
I’ve always been suspicious of the “Google is God, Google is always right” acritical, personality-cult-driven mentality. I’ve always been suspicious of the foolish notion that anything can (and must) be reduced to mere mathematics. No, i’m not being metaphysical, but sure there are multiple approaches in considering reality…
Joe Clark (whom i love very very much, in a writer-reader context, ahem) makes a really interesting point when he talks about extreme male brains, and extreme consequences of extreme male brain-ness.
“Joe Clark (whom i love very very much, in a writer-reader context, ahem) makes a really interesting point when he talks about extreme male brains, and extreme consequences of extreme male brain-ness.”
It’s unfortunate that Joe decided to introduce gender stereotyping into his writing, as a way of using this to explain Google’s seeming lack of appreciation of design. Especially relying on a work that has been largely discredited. Doing so undermines most of his argument, because to take his view of Google on faith, one then must take on faith that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently, and therefore women will never be good engineers etc, etc, etc.
I am not a Google fanatic, or an apologist for the company, and I imagine that Bowman did feel slighted. At the same time, though, to say there was no design department at Google before him displays an arrogance that, perhaps, may account more for lack of appreciation in Google. Bowman seems to believe that he was Jesus bringing wine he’d made from water, and the crowd wasn’t impressed–bad crowd. From what I do know about Google, or most other companies, such an attitude wouldn’t go far.
As for the heads of ad agencies being mostly male, because men are better at this sort of thing, which is exactly what Joe is saying, I say bull. And I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that no one else in this post or comment thread is calling bull on such silly proclamations and biased proclamations.
Sorry, “such silly and biased proclamations”.
That article sets up so many straw men, it’s a fire hazard. At least I learned one thing from it: you have to be well-known to be good at your job. Google should think about hiring some well-known developers because at the moment it looks like they just don’t care about software…
One thing that puzzles me is that when Google formats AP news stories they do one of the best jobs of presentation of any news source. For instance:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hConZZO3ynHB23×0Ln6UmAXfLAKgD97RLAD00
Why is it the people who are doing that don’t have more sway?
It’s possible to defend Bowman without the bitter tone and negative stereotyping. There’s been a lot of angry shouting from both sides of this issue, assigning a lot of distress and negative intent that isn’t actually there.
Engineering teams at Google tend to settle their own methodologies and conventions fairly early on, and integrate them tightly into the overall workflow of their projects. Most of these derive from software engineering backgrounds, and don’t make much allowance for the sort of design process that Clark seems to be advocating. Where design does find a place it’s treated as a specialization in HCI.
Clark seems to be suggesting that there’s a conscious effort to make life difficult for designers at Google. In reality there’s simply an inertia to the common traits of these existing methodologies that’s hard to escape. It’s not Bowman’s fault, nor is it the fault of some special mental deficiency within the company. It’s just a very big problem, and one made harder to emphasize by attitudes such as Clark’s, that seem more interested in fanning flames than working to fix the problem.
For my own part, as an ex-Googler now living in Toronto, I wish I could sit down with Joe for a coffee and possibly work through some of the anger.
Very interesting article and comments. I have really grown tired of the notion that because something isn’t totally pixel-pushed, it is considered not-designed and representative of people that lack taste. design is more than just the pixels on the screen, for sure, and it is clear when looking at the google offerings that there are design decisions being made and implemented and, while not all of us would agree with those decisions, that isnt proof that they represent the decisions of tasteless math geeks. some designs tends more towards form-follows-function while others lean away from it (form-follows-designer), it’s clear that google’s designers like to follow the former.
when you look at a google product and find a successful experience, then there is the proof of good design. while a visually beautiful product is always nice to have, it definitely isnt necessary – i’ve seen too many situations where designers place a disproportionate amount of attention on style and forget that there is a bigger experience being created.
pretty pixels alone are not good design.
Nobody talked about pretty pixels alone (is that one even called “design?”). And, to tell the truth, i don’t think that every single design implemented in a Google product grants a “successful experience”: i find some of them pretty frustrating to interact with. And, yes, still too nerd-oriented, and packed with too much data, without a chance to breath, despite them striving for a “simple” and “basic” experience. And it’s not Google-bashing. There are Google stuff that i like, and Google stuff that i don’t.
I liked the Douglas Bowman post about his decision to leave Google. And I like his motivations, as explained in the post.
But I totally don’t like the Joe Clark’s article. What does it mean a sentence like this one:
Google was founded by extreme-male-brain nerds and, by all outward appearances, seems to hire only that type of person, not all of them male. Apart from Bowman, I can think of only two Google employees I could stand to be around for longer than an elevator ride.
How many google employees Joe Clark should know to give some value to this sentence?
By the way, if I try to figure out what an “extreme-male-brain nerd” looks like, I think that the picture here could be a good answer.
(I am only joking Joe, don’t send me your excellent lawyer)
Sorry, I meant your excellent lawyer.
I’m kinda surprised to see you link to this article, Mr. Zeldman, as I feel like its hyperbolic, ad hominem tone isn’t your style. I think if you had advocated the use of Web standards in that way that Mr. Clark is advocating design, we’d all still be using tables.
Shelley disputes any mention of gender in computing that doesn’t boil down to “Men in computing act like sexist jerks.”
There’s no “gender stereotyping” in my post, except inasmuch as I accuse Google of practising it without even knowing. The research cited by Pinker (and colleagues like Gurian) is based on scans of upwards of 28,000 brains and simply isn’t controversial, nor has it been discredited. (You seem to think The Sexual Paradox and Leadership and the Sexes are latter-day Bell Curves; they aren’t.)
Male and female brains are, on average, different, and those differences begin in utero, not after nasty sexist society socializes or brainwashes boys and girls.
So-called bridge brains are those that manifest noticeable characteristics of the opposite gender. Many female computer programmers might have bridge brains. This would be a relatively straightforward matter to study; that’s why we have PETT scanners and the like. Incidentally, it seems evident to me from a lifetime of experience that gay and lesbian (sic) brains tend to be bridge brains. I’m not going to cite a source for that beyond my own speculation.
Yet nothing, absolutely nothing, in the above says anything about any individual brain. We’re talking about populations, about rules that have exceptions. Maybe you’re one of them. Bowman is an exception who flunked Google’s unremitting application of its own rules.
“Male and female brains are, on average, different, and those differences begin in utero, not after nasty sexist society socializes or brainwashes boys and girls.”
And they used to say blacks couldn’t vote, because their minds weren’t sophisticated enough to understand the complexity of the political system. There are still people who will bring up “proofs” of physical differences between the brains of blacks and whites.
If you want to trash Google, go for it. But gratuitously dragging in supposed differences in brain activity between men and women to provide some form of “proof” for your opinion is only going to a) perpetuate stereotypes, and b) distract from what forms the real basis of your rant: that you think Google sucks from a design perspective, and Bowman is good, and they are _bad_.
There are subtle differences in brain chemistry and makeup between men and women, as autism studies have demonstrated (in my opinion, more conclusively). But the challenges facing women today have far less to do with what we are born with, then what society tells us. Or worse, how society constrains us. I recommend reading the debate between Stephen Pinker (Susan’s brother) and Elizabeth Spelke on the nature/nurture issue.
Regardless, rant away at Google, but don’t expect not to be challenged when you drag in such bilge as women aren’t ad executives because our brains aren’t wired that way.
PS Do you see anything where I mention men in computing being sexist jerks in my comment? Or do you prefer to reduce people comments to some base, unstated value, in order to discredit what they’re saying?
Hm.
I like google’s applications. I think – whilst they are often not aesthetically indulgent – they are well designed. Chrome would be my favourite browser if it used the latest webkit release.
You can design a chair that looks visually very appealing to the eye. But then you sit on it and you get piles within 3 minutes. Bad design.
I think Google seem to design things in the right order – keep it simple and get it working. Their apps almost look like wire-frames in their design (and when you consider that many of them all still beta, that’s acceptable). I have also noticed that they are getting a little more sophisticated in terms of aesthetics and visual principles, which I predict will continue to happen.
You also have to realise that Google is a brand. A brand which is very simple and that puts usability first (which yes, like everyone, they get right and wrong to varying degrees). I also find it quite an asexual brand, tbh.
The whole male / female thing: such a complex fuzzy-edged subject I think to bring it into this context stinks of over indulgence on Joe’s part. “Look at the clever words I know”.
I also imagine there were many factors which led to Bowman’s exit. Or perhaps not, I don’t know. His article suggests that the way things were working, and the fact that data was dictating design, influenced his decision to move on. Perhaps, though, Google’s philosophy was just not right for Bowman, rather than it just no being right full stop.
[...] Joe Clark on Corporate Anti-Design Bowman’s experience shows there actually is something worse than having epic bad taste …. This worse thing is an active denial of taste. The extreme male brain, housed by the thousand in Google meatbags, cannot discern patterns or distinctive features that constitute good design according to the consensus of informed, … [...]
Disgusting. Surely Mr. Bowman doesn’t need this kind of defence.
What’s your take on his article anyway, Zeldman? Why did you post this? I’m curious…
[...] Joe Clark on Corporate Anti-Design Bowman’s experience shows there actually is something worse than having epic bad taste …. This worse thing is an active denial of taste. The extreme male brain, housed by the thousand in Google meatbags, cannot discern patterns or distinctive features that constitute good design according to the consensus of informed, … [...]
Google and usability. Right. I’m with the legions (whether they commented yet, or not) who point at Gmail as the first evidence that usability and Google don’t belong together. Search may be an exception, as long as you don’t mind results that nearly equate 5 year old blogs with actual factual/informative matter.
If Gmail wasn’t remote POP access-capable, I wouldn’t go near it. It’s as simple as that.
iGoogle, or whatever the “make Google your Home page” is called, is another issue: We have modules, but, unlike the early versions where a simple click on a module label would “expand/dropdown” the current content, we now have a dropdown list, which is only accessed through a minute icon (arrow), where “Expand this module” is located below “delete.”
Ask yourself, for the average user, what is most likely the intuitive action upon selecting the module? Put it this way: What would be the likely ratio of “views” to “deletes” for any given user-chosen, user-selected module? My experience is that a module that was loaded and then decided against might happen at the most, one time. If I wasn’t using a trackball, or, in emergencies, a mouse, and was confined to a track PAD, I wouldn’t go near iGoogle, either.
Grade on usability (not to mention, intuitiveness): F
Grade on “design” as a result: F
@Brian Stegner: don’t access gmail with POP, use IMAP instead. It’s much better.
[...] has been keeping the debate bubbling along as well, and it’s obviously of interest to many web designers who aren’t quite [...]
You will never, ever work through Joe Clark’s anger, because anger is all Joe Clark has.
I’m no programmer, but I observe behavior. Even in data-driven, anti-design thinking environments programmers need outlets for creativity. I worked in a systems lab as a marketing person. There was always a fad of the month – yoyos, Nurf balls, math puzzles, Trivial Pursuit (now and then). Even extreme A/B left brainers must have outlets for some creativity or face insanity.