Microsoft Design

Paul Scrivens / 05.15.08 / 3 responses / Design

If you were tasked to come up with 9 designs for 9 different sites that had the same layout and features how would you go about it? What if the purpose of the sites was to get them out as soon as possible so you can being work on them and building up an audience? Would you slave over every detail trying to get it right the first time?

We are currently in this situation and if you know the designs we have put out in the past you know that we take great pride in what we do when it comes to the aesthetics of a site. This time however time is of the essence so everything can’t be done perfectly and in fact you could say that we are going for good enough. I call this Microsoft design because when Microsoft releases an early version of a product it never is the best when it comes to design or functionality. It is just enough to get them in the race.

Now desktop applications differ from websites which differ from physical products so using this philosophy can not be a universal method within a company. It’s easier to apply this to websites because you can make rapid changes and show them off immediately. A little harder when it comes to applications because then you hope people will take the time to install the new version. Even harder with physical goods due to everything that is required for manufacturing and shipping.

We are launching these sites and admittedly they could look better, but they are usable and their designs don’t detract from the experience. When I wrote In The End I had these sites in mind and there is a realization that sometimes speed is the best thing you can do with regards to a site. If we were creating a service against competition that current exists then yes I think we would take more time in the design, but we realize we can push these sites out and improve on them over time.

If the design was the focus then we wouldn’t be doing our job of creating sites that engage our audience. With these sites the content will rule the day. We want to get into the market now and not wait till we have perfect 9 different designs and this is the sacrifice that we are taking. As you can see there are some things you can learn from Microsoft, just don’t tell anybody that I am admitting to that.

3 Responses

Eli James / 05.29.08

A contradictory post is available at Aviary if you want some clash, Scrivs.

Personally I disagree with what you’ve said - it makes more sense for a company to release something that’s near 100% (both design and content wise) than to push out something that has a risk of polluting its image. Apple and Blizzard do not push out products they’re not 100% happy with, so as to create both a sense of anticipation and to equate quality with their brand name. Putting something out there that isn’t at least 80% risks polluting the brand.

Paul Scrivens / 05.29.08

Rokr? AppleTV 1.0?

With Blizzard I can agree with, but they can afford to take their time now because they have their fanbase. Putting something out faster doesn’t mean it has to be crap I think that is the fundamental difference about what I speak of here and trust me, it’s easier to patch up a website than a product of videogame.

Myspace. Twitter. Facebook. I could go on and on with websites that simply pushed their products out as soon as possible to get users and work on them as they go along.

With something dealing with important data like Mint does yeah you would want to make sure everything is 100%, but it isn’t always like that.

Eli James / 05.29.08

Rokr.

*pauses for awhile and thinks*

*raises eyebrow - “isn’t that the motorola phon-”*

Shit. I forgot about that.