Jennifer, asking me to "re-design" Google Search is an insane request. Of course, the complexities are there and it is a tangled web that needs to be weaved. I have said in almost every post that this is about continuum and not about absolutes.
But for fun, here I go ... 1) I'd get a group of stakeholders in the room, minus end users and I'd say. Go! start sketching. Think pie in the sky. I'd ask people to riff off of each other's ideas, but not judge any. There are no technical constraints and no business constraints. If you could design search just for YOU what would it look like. 2) I'd ask everyone to then evaluate using affinities what came out of that. What were the themes that people seemed to gel around? What is missing? What is too much? What re-defines search? 3) I would do steps 1 & 2 around not just the UI of search but also the business model, technology elements, legal, marketing, etc. 4) From all those affinitities I would look for further affinitization. See where different segments of the organization overlap. differentiate (try to understand why there is differentiation). 5) I'd then try to start telling stories from various points of view. Some of these stories will be told in storyboards, others in hybrid storyboards and sketch UIs. Always making sure there is human situations throughout every element. 6) From there, sky's the limit ... You can't really proceed moving forward. I think your big question is where does data come in? And I would say that "data" for me in the context of use here is about validating design. And I would say that wouldn't be the first place I look to data. The 1st place I would look to data (AND I KNOW Google does this already, so it is not a criticism but an agreement) is in analytics for generating ideas. This would be done as part of the initial processes of ideation mentioned above. Validation data would only be used to measure mountains (to take the metaphor being passed around above). Make sure you don't break it. But don't be so risk averse as to LIVE by the data. Use the data to qualify the risk, not to quantify it. And don't quantify the minutiae. Don't try to quantify the subjective, or the emotional. I would also make sure there are systems in place so that you can roll-out design options (the way that Facebook is doing). I don't remember if Google does this in some of its apps or not. But allow users access to their live profile data when using new designs. I'd be surprised if Google isn't doing this already. but beyond this very high level explanation that i'm sure has a ton of wholes b/c I don't know the full culture of the place, nor the intricacies of the business. Having worked in enterprise software for most of my career now, I know 1st hand how deep all of this can go and the complexities involved. It is daunting and not simple in the slightest. Making it look simple is but pure genius. Clarification: I respect Google. I use their products without much reservation. I use many of their UI patterns as examples in my teaching and applaud the thought leadership Google has taken in various technologies. Saying an organization is not a Design success is not saying they are not a success and is not saying there aren't a ton of things to explore and learn from their success. Maybe, just maybe the lesson to be learned from Google is that Design is full of shit and those of us like myself who believe in design and design thinking should "close shop" and move on to taking up engineering thinking. I'm not quite there yet, b/c well there is this other company on the other side of that same valley doing quite well, and there are other case studies from the design thinking and design process community that have demonstrated success as well. If anything, it demonstrates that as always there is more than one elegant answer to any articulated problem and you should use the skills, methods and processes that best fit you, your corp culture, and possibly the type of solution you are trying to build. This whole thread started with the announcement of a great designer, being fed up at an engineering centric organization. Others who relate to that experience stood up in agreement. Others who resonate with the Google mind were upset with that agreement, or just wanted to challenge its representation as an absolute (which I'm not sure that those who were in agreement with it, were saying). My point is that it is OK for Doug or anyone else to feel that Google is not for them. That it doesn't map to the way they believe or have seen their talents and methods bring success into the world. I went so far as to say that the Google type of conception & production of ideas leads to a "soul-less" design. I stand by this. Not everything needs to be an iPhone, Kitchmate Food Process, a Dreamliner interior, a Harley or a Cooper Mini, but as someone who is into aesthetics, I know I wish everything was. But that is MY opinion. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40237 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
