Design Element
Comment on "Measuring the Design Process"
by Jared — Oct 20
The problem can be seen exhibiting two simple fallacies:

1. Isolating cause and effect is really hard. Variations in the numbers could be due to anything. I don't buy that Google can really measure user reactions to 3, 4, and 5 pixel borders. I mean, are they holding EVERYTHING else constant? Is that even possible? Sounds a little pseudoscientific.

2. When they spend their time measuring a nitpicky detail like that (if they even can measure it), what Google is NOT measuring is the opportunity cost of wasting engineering and design resources "choosing" between two (or even 41) menial "options" instead of using their skills and experience to dream up some third possibly more amazing design (and just letting the designer supply a few carefully chosen defaults in the details). Missed opportunity to apply imagination, as Scott says.

I can see why he quit, having all his decisions second guessed--undoing the work he was paid to do. Sounds poisonous. (I would say it sounded Microsoft-like except MS's decisions are not even made from data/engineers but rather stacks of clueless marketers/salesmen/managers and endless committees, which is obviously worse.)
Back to "Measuring the Design Process"
Design Element

Copyright © Scott Stevenson 2004-2015