Findability and Design: How Sizzle Distracts from Understanding
May 9, 2012
I have been watching the Disneyfication of search. A results list is just not exciting unless there are dozens of links, images, videos, and graphs to help me find the answer to my research question. As far as I know, Palantir and several other analytics companies have built their businesses on outputting flashy graphics which I often have a tough time figuring out. My view is that looks are more important than substance in many organizations.
I read “Designers Are Not a Panacea.” I agree with the basic premise of the write up. Here’s a passage I tucked into my reference file:
Rather than granting designers full control over the product, remember that they need to play nice and integrate with several other aspects of your business. You need to remember that you are building a business not a pretty app. A designer co-founder could help (as could a sales co-founder), but does not offer any guarantees that you will make good business decisions, regardless of how “beautiful” an experience your application offers (not to say that adding more engineers does). Visual aesthetics are rarely enough. Getting a product into the hands of potential customers is important.
The write leaves an important question unanswered: “Why is the pursuit of visual flashiness now so important?”
I have several hypotheses, and I don’t think that some of these have been explored in sufficient detail by either the private equity firms pumping money into graphic-centric search and content processing companies. Here goes and feel free to use the comments section of this blog if you disagree:
First, insecurity. I think that many professionals are not sure of their product or service, not sure of their expertise, and not sure of their own “aura of competence.” Hiding behind visually thrilling graphs distracts the audience to some degree. The behavior of listeners almost guarantees that really basic questions about sample size and statistical recipes used to output the visual will not be asked.
Second, mislead. I think that humans like to look at pictures and then do the “thinking fast, thinking slow” thing and jump to conclusions for social or psychological reasons. The notion of an in depth discussion is something I have watched get kicked into the gutter in some recent meetings. The intellectual effort required to think about a problem is just not present. A visual makes it easy for the speaker and the listener to mislead intentionally.
Third, indifference. In a recent meeting, several presenters put up slides which had zero to do with the topic at hand. The speaker pointed to the visual and made a totally unrelated comment or observation. No one in the audience cared. I don’t think most people were listening. Fiddling with smart phones or playing with iPads has replaced listening and old fashioned note taking. The speaker did not care either. I think the presentation was prepared by some corporate team and the presenter was trying to smile and get through the briefing.
What does design have to do with search? If one looks at the “new” interfaces for Google and Microsoft Web search, I noted that neither service was making fundamental changes. In fact, Google seemed to be moving to the old Excite and Yahoo approach with three columns and a bewildering number of hot links. Microsoft, on the other hand, was emulating Google’s interface in 2006 and 2007.
Visualization systems and methods have made significant contributions to engineering and certain types of mathematics. However, for other fields, visualization has become lipstick designed to distract, obfuscate, or distort information.
In US government briefings, visual sizzle is often more important than the content presented. I have seen the same disturbing trend at analytics and search conferences. Without accountability from colleagues and employers, design is going to convert search and findability into a walk through Disneyland. The walk is fun, but I don’t think an amusement park shares much with the nitty grit of day to day revenue generation from software and services.
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2012
Sponsored by IKANOW
Comments
One Response to “Findability and Design: How Sizzle Distracts from Understanding”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Similar to the great website growth phase of the 1990s. Designers were promising to dazzle potential customers with unique psychedelic experiences which would differentiate their product. What actually happened was people browsing the web either sat and waited for the webpage to load up while their screens went blank, or they became the technologically captive audience of some completely uninformative Flash animation that had taken over their computer’s resources, with no sign of any familiar-looking menu or site map, or indeed anything useful at all. After a few experiences like that, people became a bit quicker with the back button.
The online businesses that succeeded were the ones that simply studied what web users expect to find and presented it in the simplest, most familiar format they could. Graphic designers can add a few finishing touches like logos, but if a designer makes your page look more complex instead of simpler, you should sack him. The most effective web pages all look and work pretty similar, and they are lightweight so they load fast and respond fast.
The same golden rules are applicable to search engines, namely:
1. Don’t try to keep me waiting – I won’t
2. Don’t expect me to learn how to use it – I won’t
3. You’ve got three seconds to show me what I’m looking for, and if you don’t, there are plenty of others who will.