I Design

I’m not talking about any product or the process today. What I’m talking is a problem that most designs must have faced and have done. I’m sure all of us have said this at some point in our careers/projects “I think…” “In my opinion…” and “my idea (is great)…”

I’m differentiating two different issues here – one is related to opinions which I’m calling as ‘I think’ syndrome and the other ‘my idea’ syndrome. They may be related or may be detached. Let see what they are:

‘I think’ syndrome
This is some thing that you would find very common. I have seen that lot of decisions get influenced by personal opinions and biases. The situation becomes even more complex at the visual design stage. Visual design is tricky; it very difficult to evaluate or even measure the success of it. And you would find many opinions floating round the table – ‘I don’t like this…’. If you ask why? There is no concrete reason. And also there is a very thin line between an opinion and some ones learning (from experience). Insights from an experience ‘can’ be very valuable; it allows you to not commit the mistakes you have made earlier. An opinion is just a feeling – it ‘may’ be right in some cases. But you don’t know when you are making the right choice. Also the question comes back – are we doing justice to design like this? You may make a choice to please your boss just because you followed his ‘opinion’. But is this justified or is it a responsible design? These are very tricky questions. I don’t have answers here; I guess the best way is to be sensitive and responsible in design. Judge if we are swayed by opinions or we truly have reasons in the decisions that we take. ‘Self awareness’ is the solution I guess?

‘my idea’ syndrome
Another of the complexities in design: designer’s obsessed love with their own ideas. ‘My idea is great’; a common problem in most people. This is one issue that I have seen through my professional and student life. This becomes more evident in a group. Another complexity that it adds is that ‘design/idea’ becomes a part of self esteem. If you reject my idea; it means you don’t think I’m good. Thus it hurt my ego.

This I would guess is a Design Managers nightmare. Handling designers thus is not an easy task. The biggest problem with design is – nothing is right or wrong. It’s all about what the object of the problem is. Even the solution that a designer brings in have their pros and cons. I don’t know if there is something called as a ‘perfect design’? It’s perfect for a situation and person; but no universal. Thus evaluating design is not so simple. And this attachment to our ideas sometimes blinds us in rationally evaluating it.

So the basic question is. What is design? Is it a creation of people’s personal beliefs/bias or a conscious solution driven by understanding the problem? How much of our solution is driven by our biases? Is it good? And how do we make sure our solutions don’t get biases by our beliefs?

What is a good design built from? Any thoughts…

Design Research – the fuel to design?

I recently attended Yahoo! Usability and User Research Conference in Seoul. It was an internal conference focused on methodologies and sharing amongst various international offices.

I have already known the value of research in design and this conference just concretized by belief and trust in design research. Any design process needs design decisions. Making the right decision is important to make your product/solution accurate. If you think closely how do we make these decisions?

These are based on our past experiences, our understanding of the users and mostly our ‘biases/assumptions’. I would say majority of our decision are based on what we think (read as ‘assume’) the user would want. Thus there is a lot of ambiguity and differences in what is need and what we assume is needed.

This is where the design research fills the gap. It becomes a bridge between the user and the designer. I personally feel any kind of design research has a lot to offer to designers. Even though they may not make an impact the top management; there is a huge value in day to day working of designers. As designers we should seek as many cue and clues what help us build a better understanding of the actual usage. The objective- reduce assumption and build concrete understanding. The less assumption we build on our design I feel the better designs we can deliver.

So I would suggest treat your design researchers very well. Treat them & give them gift because these are people who could really help you create better designs. And this not only helps you in a specific product/project. These understanding are going to stay with you for very long. This may have direct impact on current project but indirectly this is going to have significant impacts on products/project to come in future.

Star Fish, Spider, Hot Teams & DESIGN

I recently read two amazing books – “The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations; by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom” and “Art of Innovation; by Tom Kelley”. Both were very interesting reads.

“Starfish and Spider” concept is very interesting. It talks how organizations can survive and thrive without clear leaders. Where there are independent units that work together and take decisions. Metaphor the author takes is that if you cut the star fish into two both parts will re-grow to become 2 starfishes; while if you cut the head of the spider it dies. Its talks of the shift from a hierarchical system to a more democratic (based on peer relationships) and localized one.

Kelley in a way also talks of a similar approach in design. He talks about “Hot Teams”, which are small groups which work together without a clear hierarchy and take critical design decisions. These both are interesting because on can see a clear advantage in this non hierarchy approach for design management. Who takes the decision about design in the organization? The CEO or the Head of the organization? Well that’s not the right model to follow.

The success of design is through the multiple perspective it can bring in and democracy in decision making. Yes people who have a better understanding can influence the decision. Just because the CEO doesn’t like blue color does not necessarily be the reason for changing the color. CEO may not be aware of the user needs or the ground reality.

This is a decision that the product team has to take. Product team working on a project knows more about the product than anyone else. The best and the more creative structure for the design driven industry is to create these small Hot Teams or Independent Circles to understand and take decisions about their designs.

I think there is a very delicate balance between the freedom and the hierarchy. Hierarchy to make sure all other aspects are taken care of, like design managers being facilitators – Catalysts (read starfish book) – for design and for other organizational needs beyond design.

I guess the best way to handle design is by a starfish approach. Design is democratic ("Lets discuss and find a solution") not hierarchical ("I'm the Boss, I'll tell you the solution")

Transforming Maruti 800s to BMWs

I was making a presentation yesterday for Web Dev conference yesterday when this idea came to my mind – “We designers create BMWs from Maruti 800s”. Now for all those who don’t know what Maruti 800 is – it’s the most basic and the cheapest car available in India.

Let me tell you the whole story. So I was writing about how design helps create Humane Softwares – softwares that are pleasant to use. The argument was that functionality and the experience has to go together to create a WOW software. Now for the functionality driven engineers – who believe functionality is the only aspect of software – I made an argument saying as we all are humans we have ‘feelings’. We always look for feeling in anything we do.

Is Art functional?
What functionality does a painting have? Nothing. It just hangs on the wall without any function. But people still – see it, appreciate it and buy it (by paying millions of dollars). What does it create – it creates some feelings in us and that’s what we all care for in art. The same applies for software – we are humans we look for a pleasant experience in using them.

Maruti 800 to BMW
What’s the function of a car – to take us from point A to B. So why doe we buy or aspire to buy (like me) a BMW (luxury cars)? Just because they are a pleasure to drive. We, designers in the software industry help to transform Maruti 800 (functional car) to a BMW car (sedan). But if BMWs don’t work properly (functionality) I don’t think anyone would buy them. Thus both functionality and experience has to go together. Same arguments can be made with Architecture as metaphor. Why do we go to an architect or interior designer?

Now, it’s for the engineers to decide whether they want to work in a Maruti factory and keep creating Maruti 800s or do they want to work in a BMW factory and work on BMW Luxury Sedans?

Temptation to clutter

When you are doing the “information design” either at a layout level or a detailed level, you generally are tempted to add as much information as you can. It’s really tempting to add information blocks to you screens. The argument could be that more information is better. And from my personal experience its so easy to add more and more information; because you always have a “reason” to add more of it. But that reason may not match us with the reason of the users. Its really tough to “remove” information but at some instances it could be useful. When you are design make sure you are not overloading the user with too much information. See Google; “Less is more” or paradox of choice.

There are 3 ways to get out of it – one is the focus. Be clear on what’s important; categorize your information with priority to help you decide. Second, look at the associations in information. Sometime information is related and you can mix two information modules to convey the same message. Third, there are always better ways of showing information. Use visual design to support you information. Make sure the correct information/structure/cluster/section is highlighted.

Indians like cluttered Pages?
In India we inherently believe that Indians like too much information. I don’t agree. I guess the information consumption should be related to human psychology & cognition rather than a ‘strong’ attribute of cultural background. By Hall's cultural model India is a High Context Culture (unlike Germany with is Low Context); thus through this Indians should be able to communicate without describing details. We all are humans and we are all uncomfortable with information overload. And we all equally appreciate good design (see Google or BMW or ipod).

Design Evolves

Evolution is important; humans evolved to become better ‘designed’ beings (better? umm…do u agree). But we definitely evolved. During the course of your evolution we phased different challenges; which kept changing with time and the environment. This shaped us and made better to face these challenges – read Better Design.

Thus design evolves – to be better. It all starts from the very beginning – when you think about a product you start with an idea. Then we start to add up parameters of environment (competitors; users; their needs, technology etc.), this slowly shapes up the product. It may start by random thoughts/sketches (unicellular bacteria) to a working prototype (complex multi-system organism). The design evolves (constantly improving) from an idea to a prototype and then finally into a full product. The parameters keep adding up, changing the design. Its survival depends of its evolution; shaped up by the design decisions. Bad Decisions?? You are extinct.

Does the story end here? No. Even after the launch it has to keep evolving to be in the race. The ‘survival of the fittest’ remember? To be the best you have to compete with the changing environment (competitors, users, technology, business etc.).

Thus the changing environment - keeps changing the designs. It’s a constant race. And evolution is a reality.

This applies to all the fields I guess. So it’s better to be prepared and conscious of it rather than being surprised by it. Thus keep looking for the changes happening around you. You never know when an ape transform into a human and then takes you to a point of extinction. Be informed, be adaptive and keep evolving.

India Maps: Tiles from Google and Yahoo

Left Map tile is from Google India Maps and right one is from Yahoo! India Maps

Click on images to enlarge

Life & Experience; Analog & Digital

I was traveling back home when I had this thought about iPhone & real life. Well you can say what a weird combination.

Ok, now let me explain. I was thinking about how well the user experiences of Apple applications are. When I tried to think of the details that Apple has in its interaction and visual appeal. One thing crossed my mind; they recreate a physical real world. Real world is Analog – not discreet by a continuous flow. Think of even your thoughts, they are in flow; one though leading to another and thus it creates a chains of thoughts. If you observe Apple interaction they are continuous. Think of a conversation now – conversation is not discrete by continuous; a point leads to another. So a conversation might start by a topic 'A' and may flow through topic 'B' to say 'H'. Now imagine 2 persons 'X' and 'Y'. 'X' is involved in the conversation from the beginning and 'Y' came when discussion was at “K” (it started with A). Now 'Y' will not be able to understand the conversation for a while till he gets the context, while 'X' have will no problem understanding the conversation.

Thus the same principles apply in UI designing. If we keep the user in context by bringing in analog experience the communication should be effective. A discreet systems always creates a problem as it becomes difficult to relate to the previous state (think of Y’s situation). This is what Apple in most cases does right – recreating flowing/continuous experience. Now for any effective communication and experience this flow is important. So next time you thing of design think in terms of flow. Also the 'Flow Theory' emphasizes the need for a continuous experience. Real life is analog not digital'.

When design conflicts with business

For a change I’ll talk about my Architecture days (good old days). When you pass out as an architect you have some much enthusiasm about what you can do. You dream about changing lives of people through designs and all sorts of things.

But when you step out from the academic life to professional one; thing change drastically. The ‘value’ system begins to shake – the real life is not driven by the same value system of providing better life to people; but money.

This conflict and transition is difficult to come terms with. And to be frank I could not adjust to it; and I left architecture. Yes! I agree that you can become a hero and fight with the system. But unfortunately I wasn’t one.

I saw this video on TED and it reminded me of my days when I had similar dreams. Change this world; design organic and all that. Though during those days there wasn’t much awareness about the Global Warming and Environment issues. Its not there even today I presume.



In architecture, design directly conflict with the business. Most people are more focused towards short term goal to earning money. "Too much design is costly, who will pay for it?". At the end of the day the design has to deliver money. Who cares about the environment? Architecture in India at least is devoid of design – design as this talk highlights it. It purely driven by business- it’s not driven by user or environment. The biggest handicap for an architect is – it needs a ‘client’.

I sincerely wish I could positively contribute to the urban landscape around me (in Bangalore); where the tiniest open space is now being covered by tall housing or commercial complexes. I some times feel – what a wasteful life I have.

Paradox of choice

This is very nice and interesting video. A different perspective in looking at things around us.

Paradox of choice? Ask a designer. Its part of his every day work.
Design is about choosing the right decision. Every step in design is filled with options. And to add to complexity AJAX has adding many more choices to decide (more degree of freedom) from for designing UIs. I have seen a lot of designers getting stuck at points just because they fear of taking decisions.

The biggest thing is "Responsibility"; if you are responsible for a design you have to make it work. And for that you have to make the correct choices all along the way. More choices you have more chances are there to get it wrong. We have to learn to live with choices and become smarter in decisions. I guess this can only come when you know your job well. Same as if I know and I'm confident I'm buying the right stuff; my chances to taking the right decision are more (and be satisfied with it). What I need is, to be clear about those parameters that are crucial for me. And remember humans have a low short term memory; its difficult to compare more than 4 parameters at a time. See this is convergence - cognitive science with psychology :)

Thus i guess; 'more clarity' lead to 'better decisions'. Be clear on your 'decision making parameters'.

Accidental Designs (Serendipity)

Accidental Designs? Well I didn’t know what else to call them. I recently attended a conference USID 07 in Hyderabad. There was a talk by Google. And the same old story – Google’s Homepage. Yes; I know, recognize and appreciate their Home page.

But!! Was it designed? Not exactly. It’s an “Accidental Design”. Just because Larry Page didn’t know HTML he created this Page and it worked. I’m not sure he knew what users wanted when he launched. Its not a thoughtful design - it was not intended.

Getting the design to ‘work’
This is the most critical aspect in design. Getting the designs to work perfectly; which is the most challenging part and is a “Black Box”. While designing you never know what will work. So if you know what is working its more than half of the work (decision making & getting the parameters) done. I feel its easier to know what doesn’t work; while it’s a challenge to know what actually works. If Google Home page had been a failure they wouldn’t have known how to “redesign” it (they would have known some problems; but what’s the real problem to solve?). They were lucky to get their page to work and thus may have discovered why it’s actually working. And now they seems to have built a whole philosophy of UI design built on this - which I guess works.

Coming back to some earlier thoughts (in earlier post) some best designs like Periodic Tables or "The 1854 London Cholera Epidemic map" can also be debated if they are accidental designs. One thing to know in design is – will it work? And because of the subjectivity of design, that question is the hardest to figure out. Even with best of processes and analysis you are not sure if it will work till you see users using it. The only way to know it is to put it in front of users – let them play & they will teach you. I’m trying to imagine how would the Google Homepage would look like if Larry Page has asked a designer to design it? I’m sure it wouldn’t have been so different from the other competitors that time.

What to do
In the huge pile of failed designs these Accidental Designs come shining through. The trick seems to be experimentation and a bit of luck. Also getting them right at the fundamental level is critical because it defines how far the designs can go. If it works, you know how to go ahead; if it fails – God bless you – it’s a rough road ahead.

Some get it right
I also feel there it’s a talent - some designers have a knack of getting their design to work. And some even though they work hard never get it right. It could be intuitive and depended on the value systems & design decision parameters.

G! Maps…Street View…rocks!!!

Google launches ‘Street View’ for their maps. It’s a really WOW – it surprised me with what it can do and with the quality. Very neatly done – full points to them. I have a very healthy respect for Google designers.

I can understand the feeling of ‘satisfaction’ and the feeling of ‘achievement’ maps team would be feeling. Or may e they have got used to it :)

The one thing I don’t like about Google is their disrespect to visual design. They don’t use it properly. I think a bit of color can significantly increase their page layouts and make the information segregation better. Too much white space is good; but not so much. If I were to do their page I would have done this way.

click to enlarge

Hiring Designers? Some thought on ‘Patterns in Designers’

I can say I have met quite a number of designers both during my college days to my professional life – especially through interviews. I have been involved in hiring process for designer for Yahoo! for quite some time now. My involvement mostly have been to evaluate the ‘design thinking’ of the candidates. Interacting with people I’m starting to see some patterns in designers. These are some patterns that I have seen in designers and design thinking :

Feature Thinkers – For clarity they are not ‘Ideators’ or ‘Thinkers’ or ‘Innovators’ if you think. These are generally designer who generally give good ideas about a new feature, product etc. They can think at a macro level and can give nice ideas on it. But these may not be the best people to implement it. They’ll give nice ideas but are ‘generally’ not able to transform (implement) these ideas into usable/useful designs. These are broad level ‘feature thinkers’. They generally throw wild ideas.

Implementers – Implementers are thinkers but of different sort. These are designers who can solve the problem effectively. These are innovators who can make things ‘work’. They may not be the best of thinkers who can provide broad level “out of box” ideas. But they can solve design issues at more of a grass root level. Their innovation is in making thing work; give them an average idea and they will make it good by their implementation solutions. One attribute which ‘could’ be associated with them is their eye for detail.

Hybrids – And then there are hybrids. A mix of both ‘Feature Thinkers’ and ‘Implementers’. And these are the one who are toughest to find.

Followers – These are sadly the most common to find. These are designer who are Skill Driven. You tell them what to do and they will do it in no time. But they don’t add anything to you knowledge pool or to design. They just follow what’s told to them. These designers thrive on their software skills and they could be useful in some cases.

I guess the best team would be a mix of all these types of designers. Every one has their own qualities. The best would be to get implementers; but identifying them is difficult. One needs to analyze them thoroughly to know if they are good implementers.

Innovation happens at every level – at feature level or at implementation level. Thus I haven’t called Feature Thinkers as innovators. Innovation is considered an innovation if its come out of the ‘factory’, just good idea is not innovation it needs a good implementation. Thus for innovation you need both – ‘Feature Thinkers’ and ‘Implementers’.

These are my thoughts; so don't ask me to support my claims with data ;)

Design Patterns: Are we looking at them from the wrong way?

Was thinking about patterns some days back and was wonder why haven’t created the impact they could have. I’m not talking about big corporation which use them extensively, but small companies or innovation oriented companies.

The reason I feel we are looking at them from the wrong perspective is because the way we structure the patterns are not easily accessible. Let look at the common scenarios of design – what time will you look for a design pattern? Most when you are taking a design decision. Lets look at the current structure of pattern libraries available on the web today. Most of the sites have them classified by their names like breadcrums, drag and drop, tabs, double tab etc. Now if you look at them from the usability perspective; while designing do you think we need breadcrums or I need a drag and drop ? The question that usually comes to mind is “I need to how the user where this current page is located”. At this point of time you want to see what all design options you have to show users the current location of the page. And here the current design pattern structure fails. Unless you know breadcrums are one of the solutions you may never be able to find the right design solution.

The current structure is usable if you know all the “names” of the design patterns that are in use. So what happens most of the time is that you end up using only those patterns that you are aware of.

Another common way that I have seen some people using is by making a self library of design patterns from the web. Designers choose certain design patterns that they like and then start to design their pages trying to some how fit those into their design. This is very negative way to approach design. Design being a problem solving process shouldn’t encourage this kind of usage to patterns.

It’s something like - to create a movie you first start to choose certain scene from other movies that you liked and then try to mix them together to create a story out of it. For better results it should be like you create the story (purpose), then look at the catalog of scene (design pattern) that fit into that story.

This tells us that its not the name of the movie clip that is important but what it shows (purpose) that is important. At the right point of time I should know which scene is to be put together by “purpose” than by it “name”.

It’s a pure information categorization issue. How to present the data to users to make it more sensible to them.

I need to see some solution to a specific information or interaction. And I should be able to find it through my problem rather than by name –

“Double Tab” – it makes sense to people who know it, but I’m sure there are a lot who don’t know the name but may be aware of the design. Thus names could be unintuitive unless we create a Nomenclature which is universal and which may also indicate the purpose of the pattern. The current categorization needs a lot of learning; we have to find ways to cut them and make it more logical.

I’m be writing about this more in future…

G's new Header

Google changed its universal header today. And interestingly it looks very similar to what I once proposed. But the background needs to be a bit different so that it can stand out from the rest of the page. If top header gets segregated from the rest it will bring more focus to the page. Slight grey or light bluish can do. Also the bg could be made a bit transparent to allow it to gel well with iGoogle themes. I hope Google is not listening...

This was my idea.

See my original post

Understanding “WOW” & “Neat”

It’s a very fuzzy topic to write about. The industry has been using these terms to explain the outcome of a user experiences. These are common words – Wow or Neat.

Lets try to see what they mean and what ‘might’ generate them. Lets talk about WOW. When did you said wow for any UI? Of what I have gather through my memory about my WOW moments; I can say – I said them when I got surprised (for sure) or when I liked a liked a very visually impressive UI (hmm say while using Mac).

For sure I can say my WOW moment was when I got surprised – when I didn’t expect some thing but was there. One way to get this wow moment is to think out of the box feature or “may be” a new impressive interaction. The other way to get a wow is by detail – surprise a user by the designing for the minutest details (and getting it right).

“Neat” is I guess slightly different. It’s more to do with getting your structure right. Where every component on the page fits together properly to bring out a clear message (communication). Neat is uncluttered but may not necessarily mean “visually impressive”; thus may not be complete in User Experience. Also Neat doesn’t require a surprise while by my understanding WOW can’t be achieved without it. Neat is essentially doing a standard stuff in an easier/simpler way.

So I can say WOW is the complete Holy Grail of user experience while “neat” is one step short. Looking at examples around us I will say – Apple products fall in WOW while Google fall in the category of “Neat”.

Dealing with GIS

GIS is the next generation technology; one that deals with geographical data. GIS makes a basic layer which can be used as a base to build multiple utility products from - building a local business product; to urban planning; to architecture layouts to Town planning;to topography sheets in geology - everything that has anything to do with Geographical data.

The first thing that you would like to ask is - What data do you want to show at what zoom level (‘if’ you are dealing with zoom)? This totally depends on the intent of the design – what is to be achieved is what will define what data is important and how is it interconnected. Thus the full information set needed - with priority of each.

One data set (for one zoom) could involve multiple data – roads (with numerous categories); water bodies (with numerous categories); land use (with numerous categories); Electric lines; topography; soil type; vegetation etc. The list can be enormous.

After you choose the data type you have to visually represent it. Now it’s easier said than done…look at the options you have to control to make your designs -

• For - Vector Line
• Line width (in px) + color/pattern of line + Transparency (alpha channel) + Line type + (maybe) elevation – z axis data as well;
• Border (in px) + color of border + Transparency of border + Line type (dotted, dashed, complete etc.) + Anti aliasing;
• Text (Name of the line) + Font for Text + Color of the text + Border to Text + Color of border to the text + Transparency of the text + Name to be rendered – full, part, abbreviate.
  

• For - Polygons (regions)
• Color/pattern of region + Transparency + (maybe) elevation – z axis data as well;
• Text (Name of the region) + Font for Text + Color of the text + Border to Text + Color of border to the text + Transparency of the text + Name to be rendered – full, part, abbreviate.
  

• For - Points
• Marker/Icons;
• Text (Name of the region) + Font for Text + Color of the text + Border to Text + Color of border to the text + Transparency of the text + Name to be rendered – full, part, abbreviate.
  

Every data has a lat-long info attached to it. Thus all the points correspond to a point on earth. But there is another issue for you to solve – the correction in making a map by taking into account the circular aspects of the earth. Though thats a mathematical problem; but as designers there are a lot of scenarios where it makes a difference (like if the map is to be imposed on any background like satellite images; aerial images etc. or if it has to corresponds exactly on a point in earth - say for planning.).

This is definitely huge list – how many permutations and combinations? This is the kind of information overload you are dealing with. The only way to design – simple – if you are focused, you know what you are doing…this is a piece of cake. If not…you’ll be lost. It’s just a pure ‘age old’ information design problem…just digitally enhanced in terms of degree of freedom (more parameters are to be controlled now).

So it all depends on "design" how much users might want to control in GIS; how much parameters (degree of freedom) can be controlled. There are interrelationships and dependencies which are to be accounted while designing for a specialized use.

The more you are aware of what data you are dealing with and what is the importance of it...the better you can design - both the GIS or its usage.

Intelligent designs!

I was going through TED.com when I saw this presentation. I must admit this is one of the most interesting presentation I have seen. Ted's UI design itself is interesting; have a look sometime.

At one of the point David talks of “intelligent design”. I guess that some thing very very important in design. That is one factor that separates a good design from a bad one. Trust me making ‘intelligent’ designs are not easy; the only way one can make is by very good understanding of the problem. As I always say at every step there are multiple solutions; but there are very few (mostly only one) “intelligent” ones. And to get to that solution(s) you have to pass through all the rest. Meticulously evaluating and removing them one by one; and this is no easy task. This is the LOGIC part of the design; one which need analysis and thinking.

Design needs brains; it needs thinking…

First Step is hardest and the most critical

Some days back I was thinking about design when this thought passed by. I have always believed that the first step in design in hardest. Building something from scratch and making the first draft is so tough. The reason that I though its tough is because of this is the step when we deal with “ABSOLUTE” values. To tell you an example – for the first time when we built the spec for cartography, we had to do some much analysis – what to show; how to show; will it look good? So many questions came to the table. But once we built and render the first set, things became easy – now it all became “RELATIVE”. This doesn’t look good so remove it, or add some thing, push this down to a lower zoom etc. Suddenly you will realize it’s now much simpler to edit/manipulate/modify things; now that there is some reference to look forward to.

But there is another important reason why the first step is so critical. It ‘defines’ the number of iterations the design would need. The closer the first step is to final (finished) design the lesser the iterations. Also it give that much more time to iterate and finish you design to the best (or even allow you to extent you limit of ‘finish’). The final step/finish thus depends on the first.

But also if the first step is a failure; either the iteration cycles become enormous (some times unmanageable) or one has to go back again to the drawing table. Thus this step is very important and critical. A good designer should keep this in mind – the more effort you put in the beginning – more the chances of finishing the designing properly (and to your satisfaction).

Product: Competing in established market

We were having a casual discussion over the lunch when a nice thought came in. It is practically impossible or extremely difficult to build a new product to compete with competitor products which have been there in the market for some time. What’s difficult is to bridge the “time” difference between the products. Take an example of Maps; Map products have been around for more than 2 years (I guess) in US. So if some company now wants to come up with a new map product it has to bridge that gap of 2 years. In two year the competitors would have built so many features and enhancements that it is practically not possible to bridge that “time” gap instantly.

The best way could be to not make an exactly similar product but a different/unique product to compete. Some one mentioned Gmail; mail was around but Gmail stole the show because it was different. If it would have been similar to other mails, it wouldn't have created any impact. Its a really nice thought...

This is to some extent the state of whole Web Industry in India. Because it started late; there is hardly any innovativeness or uniqueness. Its lags in time from US; thus innovation is hard to come by. If we move 2 steps closer to them; they again more 3 step further from us. Because now things are well established they can make huge jumps forward; while most of our energy goes in just building the basic stuff.

So if you want to be a part of innovation; want to work with products that are ahead of their time…you have to be in US. Or so I think.