Even after many years in this profession, I have very rarely run into a situation where the team has been given the amount of time they would prefer to achieve their highest level of creativity. That may be because we always feel we could improve on things.

I saw this video floating about in the Twittersphere today, and it really hit home. In the video, they give some kids 10 seconds to complete a drawing of a certain object, and then give them 10 minutes to spend on the same drawing. It concisely demonstrates an idea that I’ve spent most of my career trying to explain to all varieties of managers, clients, and even other designers. What is that idea? Creativity takes time.

Now that’s all good in a world where every person you encounter is completely reasonable and willing to consider this idea. The reality is that in most cases, people have more vested interest in the project getting done by a certain time, than if it is done well. This is a very hard pill for designers to swallow, as we generally object to putting our names on big steaming pile of crap that only took 15 minutes to design. Ok, that might be a bit extreme, but we are artists and believe it or not, we take pride in every little design we produce. What? You say you don’t? See my upcoming blog post “You’re not a designer, you’re production.”

So what is the answer? I don’t have it. All we can do is try our best to perpetuate this idea, and when a minimal timeline is put on the table, make it understood that the project may suffer as a result, or rather that it may not be able to be all it could be. More importantly, the team might also suffer, as they will inevitably resent the project a little, work more hours a day, and spend a lot of time fixing the issues that tend to arise when a project is conceived and executed without adequate time. Even MORE importantly, the company may ultimately suffer - yes, you may get paid for that project, but if it sucks, it is unlikely you will receive more work from that client. You’ve also just completed a project that you will most likely NOT show in your portfolio of work.

Overall, it’s all a balancing act. In the real world, things have to get done. But when you’re making important decisions about your site - which is essentially your public image anymore - you want to take the time to do it right.

Here’s a nice bit about the importance of wireframes, and everything they really should be. Not to mention what they should NOT be.

Summing up very quickly what they should not be - design, or anything like it. I don’t really agree with the author’s metaphor of wireframes as a blueprint, because a building’s blueprint already has an awful lot set in stone. If the blueprint says the kitchen goes here, that’s where the kitchen goes. Wireframes should not even be that final. There is still room to move this module up or down and figure out placement, let alone the look and feel.

What wireframes should be is a complete map of everything that’s going to go in a site. They do not convey the look and they do not dictate design. But this is where we should examine every piece of the site to make sure that every little detail is understood and no question is left unanswered. It’s not a place to say, yeah yeah, there’s going to be a carousel there, but rather, there’s going to be a carousel there, and it will need to support x different slide layouts, and those layouts need to include such and such, and that data will come from here.

Too often everyone is anxious to get to the nice shiny PSD mock up, and think that is where we’ll flesh out the details. Granted, wireframes are boring to look at. But think about how easy it is to update a wireframe as opposed to a fully fleshed out PSD. It we spend the time really looking at wireframes, and thinking through every piece, we’ll notice all the details that are missing early on, and save a lot of time down the road.

Which is also a part of why developers aren’t quite as keen on developing for Android, tablet or phone, as they are for Apple. The amount of fragmentation, the differences devices, the variety of screen sizes - it can be a bit overwhelming - not to mention not cost effective - to account for all the devices and manufacturers.

Add to that the fact that Android users don’t seem to be as fanatically in love with their devices as Apple device owners. It just makes developing for Android not only more difficult but less somehow satisfying.

I’m wondering though if it doesn’t also have to do with the fact that Android just kinda sucks compared to iOS. I’m not an Apple fanboy, but I will admit that they’re basically right on one thing - it just works (98% of the time. When it doesn’t though… oof!).

I have an Android phone (Samsung Galaxy S). Purely anecdotally, I’m not that happy with it. It looks nice and all, but native apps fail regularly. If I try to open any email from my mother, it consistently shows me something from the NY Times. It couldn’t get a simple alarm right. And from one of the above cited articles…

“The programming code to the “Honeycomb” tablet version of Android hasn’t even been released yet, as Android’s code usually is, which suggests that Google is too embarrassed to let others see its mistakes.”

Yeah, I can believe that.

I do like the fact, like the above author, that Android is open source - I like the possibilites. But the fact that you can take over your phone and fix the bugs and create things - this is a developer’s phone. Is it really for the masses? And in that case, is it going to be able to keep taking on Apple?

Interesting article here about color, or rather the lack thereof. Color is manufactured entirely by our own brains, they say, and is subjective. So my blue and your blue are not the same blue.

Our CEO has a horrible reaction to green. I wonder what he sees…

From a business perspective, the Billboard survey also serves as a great example of how to leverage user-generated feedback on a topic that is universal to a broad audience. Surveys serve as a great qualitative research vehicle for marketing and product development teams to collect inbound consumer insight. One of the keys to a successful survey or poll is to find topics of interest that reach across multiple audiences, that is relatable and relevant.  And in this day in age where our eyes and attention spans are conditioned to high-gloss imagery, it might not hurt to consider design that best presents your survey content.

Consider getting inspiration from all forms of music, art and design; even if it is only for a simple online poll.

I’ve taken a look at Google + and can say it is a cleaner interface. It has a couple of cool bells and whistles. And it just might be “better than facebook”. But here’s the thing - do I really want to migrate AGAIN? I joined friendster way back in 2002. I added all of my friends, pictures, bio, interests, etc. A year later, friendster was a ghost town, and myspace rose up from its ashes. A little longer lived, but of course facebook then came along and trampled all over it. Maybe I’m just old now, but I’m tired of moving from social site to social site.

Facebook and Google +, in my humble opinion, are too similar to have both. Some will make the jump and abandon facebook altogether. Some will say humbug and happily stay where they are. What will you do?