“Gut Feeling” & design

I was having a conversation with one of my design colleague. He was telling me about a design discussion he had with a Product Manager. The story is very interesting – they had a conflicting views about a UI issues. The discussion later on went to –

Designer: …because I think this is a better way to do it; its my gut feeling.
PM: …but this also my gut feeling; why should I go with your gut feeling and why not mine”.

Well there isn’t much that you can do to help anyone here. But this kept me thinking – the PM is not totally wrong (is he?). If we are fighting for design without any data; what can you do to convince the product teams? Or is there more to a “gut feel”?

Personally, “I feel” the designer was right in suggesting a design; but without any valid proof it’s difficult to make an argument. The best situation is to do some test; get some data and then prove. But data is not always available. We make a lot of decisions on our “feeling”.

So why should people listen to our gut feels and not their own?
I see the difference lies in ‘experience’. We constantly build our mental database about things that worked or not. So rather plain ‘gut feeling’ we try to make “intelligent guesses”.

User research is a great way to build user behavior repository. Not only does it gives you data but also help you build the ‘user’s behavior and understanding’. How much can you push your design, how simple should you be in UIs or in communication etc. You could "benchmark the level of complexity" that a user can easily use/understand through user research (even observing a study can teach you a lot).

So my suggestion would be – next time when you are having an argument rather than saying ‘my gut feeling’ state ‘examples’ or take your team to the user. But never make it a clash of the ‘egos’. Because it’s not only you (or other) who looses, but also the ‘end user’.

Don’t deprive end user of a good product.

Services mindset in product design

IT industry in India is inherently a services industry. The mindset is to provide a service and move out of the project. This approach to ‘projects’ seeps into the product companies as well.

The fundamental difference in services is same as the difference between a concept of a ‘project’ vs ‘product’. Project gets over after a deadline but a product keeps living on.

Product design

One bad thing about a product is that if you don’t address an issue in a release you have to readdress it in the next -‘Its all your responsibility; its all your mess’. So you need to be careful; and need a sense of responsibility in what you make. Secondly, you need to have a clear larger vision of your product (I know you can argue; but there should be some vision). How will this step going to effect the course of the future. If you change your deign approach after a release; then there is a lot of mess that you need to sweep out. It will all go back to the drawing boards from a design point of view.

Most importantly you need to be ‘constantly’ aware of the market; knowledge is supreme. To be ahead you need to innovate. So the more aware you are the more you can innovate.

Product lives on thus it requires more sense of responsibility; more engagement; larger longer vision and a sense of ownership.

Working and talking to industry people I feel this sensitivity to product is missing in India. Everyone focuses on – ‘just release it’ without thinking the mess that we will create with it. I guess our market needs more maturity in terms of dealing with products & not to think of them as ‘projects’.

Product doesn’t end in release; it stays back with you, to give you either sweet dreams or nightmares. The choice is yours.

The Best Designer of all times!

Truely awesome. No one can beat 'nature' when it comes to design. Keep talking of "delight"; "surprise element"...but you can never beat this...watch the video.

second objective? Emotional objective

I was reading Emotional Design by Don Normal and was quite moved by some of the "user experiences" he has shared about objects which some feel pride in using. This makes me think about UIs; emotional appeal is indeed important for making a product "long lasting". Should "emotional appeal" be considered "strongly" like we consider "tasks"? I guess yes.

During designing I take up an objective which helps me be on track. My small trick is to frame an objective in a single sentence. My observation is if you are clear about your product/problem you will be able to frame it in a single sentence.

So all my projects have a "objective". All of these were related to Tasks or logic related. say like, "building a product which help users FIND and SHARE <certain> information." This makes design decisions easy for interaction designers. But what about - Visuals or content? I guess here is where the emotional design will fill in.
Build an emotional objective - say like "to make the user smile every time he visits (or interact etc) this product". This is very good way to think about visuals and content (including error messages). This could keep an emotional punch in your product.
So while interaction, information, usability can keep the product simple and usable; this can keep the product "engaging and fun to use". Have 2 objective one task related one emotions related. What do you say?

Blogged with Flock

Changing times

Well I wanted to write this; but somehow wasn’t getting enough time and motivation.

Changing times – good times or the bad times? Don’t know; what I know for sure – its definitely interesting.

I’m seeing a trend in internet companies and the internet in general. There is a significant shift from the traditional models of internet companies. It becoming more “open” .

The single point focus on consumers is broadening to include Advertisers, publishers and developers. Look at latest acquisitions from all these big companies MSN, Google and Yahoo!. All companies are trying to broaden theie focus to include a good portfolio of products/connections to Advertisers and Publishers. What should we expect? Well I wouldn’t be too surprised if these “advertiser / publisher tools” become a focus of design and get more attention (like consumer facing product) – become better designed products.

Also I guess the companies are realizing the power of “open system” – the spider model. Innovation can not be done from closed doors; it can come from anywhere. So what we do? Don’t push innovative product but push TOOLS. Let people build on it. I really like this idea of open innovation. Two recent news Google Mobile OS & Awards for facebook developers point to this changed mindset. It’s difficult to innovate continuously with a closed system; the competition from individual could be enormous. Thus its intelligent to join the league than fight it.

These are interesting times. We need to wait and see how all of this shapes up the next big thin. This could be a start of Web 3.0; who knows?

Design in exceptions

Thinking of the project/products I have worked on I realize that the real design was not in designing for normal cases but in “exceptions”. Imagine yourself designing a Search Page.

User types in a query = result found. Query Page + Search Results page. Job well done!!!

Simple isn’t it?

But look at the broader picture – lets say there are cases where the query is not exactly found. What do we do then? How will the system behave?

Should it show the results along with the message? Or should we not show irrelevant results and ask few more questions from the user? And also when should we do that – if the relevance is 75 or 50 or 25?

These are the complication of design. How do you deal with these numerous cases in your produce really defines how comprehensively have you thought about it. Normal cases are easier to handle they don’t take so much time and your mental resources.

Thus design is in exceptional cases. You will design with an approach – every thing will go well but suddenly there will be one case where this approach will crumble. How smartly you deal with it really defines how well the product get designed.

Is it worth?

I was in Sunnyvale few weeks back and I was having a discussion with Prasad over the lunch. Prasad mentioned something interesting about discussing design.

Most often we land up discussing with PMs or Engineers or other designers and the discussions land up in conflicts say about changing the link color from blue to black. Now it’s difficult to argue especially with PMs who have data to back up their claims most of the time. So as designer you loose the argument unless you have the data or a design research to back your point.

Prasad mentioned something interesting. He said when you discuss these issues also look for a new parameter “If I change this how much impact is this going to create to the users”; “Is it impacting a substantial amount of our user base or just 50 of them?”; “If its just 50 user that this change is going to impact, then is it worth doing it?”

It’s a very crucial point if you look at it deeply. Not only this ‘parameter’ can be used in design discussion but I guess also effectively during ‘designing’. It is worthwhile to look at our design and ask – is this change going to impact a large user base? Should I focus on this problem or shift to other problem which can have a greater impact?

Nice and important point.

Sprinting: the Scrum experience

Scrum is an Agile PD process, which is seemingly becoming very popular in the industry. So I thought of writing about it a bit. I was fortunate to work on two projects – one was using scrum the other was not. So I could see the difference between the two. Let me share some of my experiences with you.

The worst problem with scrum is - you land up working hard all through the product lifecycle :(

Implementational approach
My feeling has been that Scrum has a very ‘implementational’ character. Implementational? A very focused approach to ‘implementation’ than design, exploration or research. It’s very effective if you know what you are implementing. Thus this basic implementation approach most of the times conflicts with design. Which by character is more exploratory and research oriented. Design due to its subjective character involves a lot of analysis and discussions (with shareholders, PMs etc).

Design: subjective (& dynamic in internet business)
Another issue with design is that it has dependences on business; any changes in business and strategy could substantially influence the approach to design and design solution. Thus it becomes critical how and when you use Scrum for design. Suddenly a competitor comes in the market and you have to rethink strategies and design; thus in internet business the situation is very dynamic. You should always be ready to change you approach to your environment.

It would be recommended that design comes into scrum with a little ‘home work’. The earlier phases of research and exploration should be kept out of scrum. Build up a little understanding of the project and then start sprinting. Otherwise the problem would be that by end of the sprints you might not have a substantial ‘deliverable’. Though you might have done a lot to understand the project you may not necessarily have some thing concrete to share with you non designer teammates. If you are the only designer then you can understand you might understand your situation would be tough. Some people call this ‘Sprint 0’. I would say this is important.

Involvement and sharing
One of the best part of scrum. It keeps you ‘involved’. You know various components of the system – from data; to backend engineering to front end etc. Also it gives the designer an opportunity to educate and make the engineers aware about design issues. When people know what you do - they tend to respect you. Sometimes you will land up at a situation where you feel a certain engineering weakness/error/problem could be countered through ‘design’. Thus it keeps you involved.

Pressure to be ahead of you engineering and time estimation
Using scrum you’ll be constantly finding a sense of urgency to be ahead of your development teams. You don’t want to be blamed for slowing down the project. Thus you have to be at least a sprint ahead of the developers.

Another common problem is that you will never be very sure of the time for your tasks. Design often is dynamic and keeps changing through the course of the lifecycle no matter how hard you try. Even there is a restriction (by Scrum) on PMs interfering with their basic task; still you will encounter changes or suggestions that may have a significant impact on your work or time.

The best idea would be to keep your task broad and a bit generic with more time allotted. This will also give you some buffer time to explore and to some extent nullify the estimation issues.

What worked for me was for a 3 week sprint was that I used to keep one day off. This used to give me some time to explore or even reflect on my designs (which is very helpful if you are most of the time in the implementation mode.)

If you follow the ‘spirit’ of scrum I’m sure you will like it. Especially if you are the curious kinds who want to know all about the product you are working on.

Trust & Design – its all about trust

Design is subjective by character. Design shapes up the way you build it. Every stage & every element that needs to be designed have multiple solutions. Every solution has its own pros and cons. And what you choose defines the next set of options you will get in the next stage. Not only do you have to think of elements alone but also how they interact with the rest of the elements. Thus design is subjective – it all depends on the design decision that we take along the process.

Subjectivity & multiple solutions: call for conflict
This subjectivity and multiple solutions create conflict in design. If you are a designer and work with Product Managers you would have faced these kinds of debates. There would be occasions when you would land up in a situation where the design choices are even. Both have their own qualities. What do you do? Use reasoning of course. And to add to the complexity in designer’s life – every one can think about design. It’s something that every one encounters and thus they have ideas or opinions about it. Design is primarily thought driven than skill driven; and thus every one can think. The only differentiator for designer is the ‘awareness’ and his ability analyze more parameters than the untrained designers.

Trust
Thus a designer’s job isn’t only to provide design solutions; there is a lot that goes ‘behind the scene’. As a designer the first thing you want to do is build ‘respect’ and ‘trust’. Very often you would land us in these 50-50 choices; and here how much you team trust you makes a huge difference. Not every small decision can be tested with user thus you need to be responsible and careful with your design decisions. One error and you’ll lose you ‘veto’ power.

Moving to new team? You are back to zero
This could be one of the reasons why some designers don’t want to shift teams. Every time you move to another team you are back to ‘zero’. You again have to build your respect and trust. As design is subjective unlike mathematics or engineering so it becomes really difficult to prove your solutions.

I guess ‘design’ is all about ‘trust’ – trust in you decisions and trust in you by your team.

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.