As in previous director meetings, during a director-level discussion on a new feature, many people expressed the same opinion again: “The interface design of our website is terrible, it doesn’t look good, it’s not easy to use, and it’s messy. ".
The boss finally got angry.
The design manager was arrested and asked: "What do you do for a living? Why are the designs so bad?!", "There is so much information on the product search list page, it's too messy to read", "What's going on at the top of the product management page?" The description is so long that it almost takes up the entire screen."
The design manager was very aggrieved. Want to cry.
(The above story is falsified by reality, and the following is falsified by my conversation with the design director.)
1. First of all, are our designers not capable enough?
If so, we can lay off people and hire better ones. Design capabilities will certainly not become an unsolvable problem.
I fully believe in the ability of most designers. As long as you can clearly explain the requirements, give them time and let them really perform, they can design good things.
The (narrow) "design itself" is not very difficult for most designers. More of the problem lies in the understanding of products and needs. "How to interpret needs" is more important than "how to design." Those claims that “domestic designers are not as good as foreign designers because they are weak” are a bit nonsense.
Perhaps many companies should reflect on this: Why are designers’ own personal websites so many more beautiful and easier to use than the ones they design at the company? What other reasons besides "commercial impact"? Even if it is a "commercial impact", can it really not be avoided or mitigated?
2. When product managers or bosses are very "subjective" about design requirements, do we argue with reason?
Design is a somewhat subjective thing and cannot be fully assessed qualitatively. Many product managers or bosses are a little subjective about design, which is a very normal phenomenon.
For example, they may require that the colors they like must be used, the interaction habits they like must be used, the setting items must be placed at the top of the page rather than on the side, etc. (The boss of a certain blog website requires that "the homepage must exceed 8 screens" and is given the nickname *8 screens. It is said that it has been upgraded recently and the requirement must be more than 10 screens.)
We need to use "good" design and reasonable methods to convince them, rather than designing entirely according to their subjective preferences. I believe that a good boss will be willing to accept reasonable and appropriate efforts from the designer. Even if he is unwilling to change, at least he will not resent the practice of striving. (If reasonable and appropriate efforts are always resented by the boss, then this boss is not worth following.)
3. Have we really put thought into the design?
We now only have two graphic designers who do nearly a hundred "topics" every month. There is not much time for the design of the website itself, and there are often new functions that need to be designed. It is like "hurry up and complete the task as it comes, and there are still several topics that have not been completed." And "topics" are always more urgent than new features, because topics are usually waiting for "Party A".
It is not enough to regard design as just a task. We must understand the needs in advance and in depth. If we just "complete the task" quickly according to the requirements of the market or product department, then we are not doing "design" but only "making". We might as well not call it the "Interface Design Department" but the "Interface Production Department."
If the demand for the topic is really great, I suggest that we apply to recruit people. Give the "topic" task to one or two specialized designers, and slowly form a topic template. There should be dedicated people to design the website interface. They should no longer care about "special topics" and focus on making the website. Occasionally, the website does not have so many tasks, so they can do some in-depth research. Don't assign them to do "special topics".
4. It’s not enough to just ensure a good “design drawing”. We must also ensure good "execution" and do a good job in "supervision."
Now this problem seems to be very serious for us. We have designed a product, but the version that is finally launched is often different from what we designed.
Maybe the product manager discovered something they thought was unreasonable in the design before handing it over to the engineers, and made changes based on their own ideas; maybe during the implementation, the engineers discovered something that the technology couldn't solve or they thought was unreasonable, and directly followed the design. Their minds have changed... (Some of these changes may be good, but many of them are problematic. At least if there are changes, you need to notify us and let us know. If we think there are problems, we can ask to change them back, or change them. a new reasonable way).
For example, our description of product management was originally designed to be three paragraphs and no more than 30 words. However, the product manager thought it could not be explained clearly and changed it to more than 100 words. It went online without telling us.
For example, the front end of some pages has been completed. After handing it over to engineers, they need to make adjustments during implementation, but they are not familiar with DIV and use TABLE instead. It went online without telling us.
Of course, this situation has issues with other colleagues. But we still have responsibilities.
After a design is made, it must be constantly tracked and pushed. Many times it is more difficult to ensure the complete realization of the design in the later stage than in the early stage of design, because it involves communication and other issues that many designers are not good at. Things "outside of design" often take more effort than the design itself.
Maybe in many companies we can't track it effectively, and PUSH doesn't move at all. Because the designer's position and voice are often very low. Even the right to speak about "design".
However, we can't stop doing it just because of this. If it doesn't work, we can talk to the boss and ask him for help. Top-down promotion is often more effective. Or if possible, you can ask a third party to help promote it. For example, I will talk to your boss about our matter. Since he asked me to be a consultant, I should be able to say something.
Often we think that we are "too humble" and that "the boss won't listen to me at all", so we don't talk to them about these things. This is not actually the case. More often than not, good bosses are willing to hear such words and listen to such opinions. Because they don’t want to see a good design turn into a bad thing.
If we don't do it, of course the boss will blame us if there is a problem with the interface in the future. Who makes us responsible for the interface?
Even if we are only "responsible" in name, we are not qualified to tell our boss "it is the interface that is bad, not our interface design." The boss doesn't care about you.