Hanover website design
Hello and welcome to this website design Web Designer Hanover video tutorial.
I’m Owen Corso from Google.
And today, we’re going to build a rich media expandable creative with video.
Let’s start by selecting file, New File.
This opens a dialog box where we will set up our ad.
First, let’s make out high of project.
We have four options– The default is Display & Video 360so we will leave that as is.
💸 How to budget for your web design project 💸 - Web Design is Broken e05
As part of Intuit’s core initiatives to further cultivate mobile first thinking and accelerate growth into global markets, the Intuit Small Business Group’s Design Org has shifted from a model of designing and shipping prioritized features to a model where every designer is responsible for end-to-end, cross-device experiences, which includes designing for our products and services on desktop web, mobile web, desktop client apps, and native mobile apps.
As a design lead for our ecosystem of native mobile products over the past few years, I started getting a lot of questions around guidance and principles for mobile design. I noticed many of the designers, product managers, and engineers who are new to mobile app design or don’t live and breathe mobile app development on an everyday basis didn’t fully understand the nature of designing for native platforms and device capabilities. To reinforce the notion that “cross-device” and “mobile first” isn’t just about designing for smaller screens and scaling across multiple device sizes, I collaborated with the Design Systems Team to establish a set of mobile patterns and guidelines so that designers can hit the ground running, or run even faster, with mobile design. We recently published some guidelines, tools, and resources on our internal design toolkit that I thought would be great to share some key points and takeaways with a wider audience as the documentation addresses many frequently asked questions around mobile patterns.
Firstly, I want to start off by saying that what I write here is simply for guidance. Our mantra for any kind of pattern guidelines documentation we provide is, “Give me guidance, but let me drive.” We don’t want to be prescriptive, and we don’t want to tell you how to design, but this is a good starting point to get you going on native mobile designs. Why are we calling out native mobile? As we continue to design device-agnostic, end-to-end experiences and features for products and services, we must remember not to neglect the different platforms (i.e. our mobile products are currently offered on both iOS and Android).
1. Respect the platform
We documented patterns and components based on native operating systems that we have apps on: iOS and Android. When designing for native platforms, you should consistently refer to the native OS design guidelines first for maximum quality. Keep in mind that native platform guidelines constantly evolve, so it’s always good practice to stay on top of these guidelines and refresh your memory and knowledge often.
Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/
Google’s Material Design Guidelines: https://material.io/guidelines/
2. Focus on the customer benefit
Always design for the customer benefit first. No use case is the same, and many use cases have exceptions. Do not design something simply because you can reuse a pattern or component for another feature. Design patterns help ground us as a system and unify an experience across an ecosystem of products, but they should by no means be the first or last stop in the design process. Always question yourself: How will this benefit the customer?
3. Think device first
Push your thinking beyond “mobile first.” Start thinking about leveraging device capabilities first. The native mobile device has a lot to offer: touch, voice, pressure, location tracking, accelerometer, notifications, etc. You are designing around the device, the platform, the user experience. How can these device features be utilized in our products? How can the mobile device benefit users beyond the screen interface in front of them?
4. Keep scalability in mind
Growing from the previous principle, do remember that a mobile device isn’t just a phone. Scalability across devices, more specifically between a phone and tablet, is a common challenge among designers. When we think of mobile devices, we know there are tablets, phones, phablets (not small enough to be a phone, not big enough to be a tablet). Some of the recurring questions I get asked are: Should there be parity between web and tablet designs? Can we translate the phone patterns to be the same on tablets? How do we design for phablets (not small enough to be a phone, not big enough to be a tablet)? To answer these questions, we researched with users, took an in-depth look at device interfaces and screen sizes, and set some standards. While the phone and tablet share many similarities, users use them very differently.
Mobile interfaces LESS THAN 7 inches width should be treated as a phone. Syntax and layout should be aligned across these devices as much as possible, but we also want to leverage native platform guidelines and capabilities first and foremost.
A fundamental design principle for mobile phones is to include only necessary information. Do not overload the user with more than they need to know or take action on. The phone is a convenient way to consume information on the go. Small business owners use a phone to complete quick actions while they are not in the office, capture data, view content, then perhaps close it out and come back to take a look later.
Mobile interfaces GREATER THAN 7 inches width should be treated as a tablet. Syntax and layout should be aligned across these devices as much as possible, and by no means should they need to align exactly the same as the less than 7-inch interfaces.
Tablet designs should look and feel like desktop web, but they should function like the phone (with tap/swipe/hold gestures, transitions, etc.). Many users view the tablet as a hybrid device. We’ve encountered many small business owners that don’t own a computer, but they own a tablet, and those users treat the tablet as a reliable device they can do work on.
To scale for the future or additional digital interfaces, you should also think about non-mobile touchscreens like TV displays, interactive table displays, automobile displays, laptop displays that you can touch, etc. You want to make sure you can scale for multiple screen sizes, large and small, and not limit yourself to thinking only about the devices your products are being supported by.
Patterns and Guidelines
This list is a small subset of patterns and guidelines that I’ve found designers have been commonly asking around best practices for our mobile products.
One of the major aspects that make navigating content on native mobile platforms so delightful is the transitions between screens. Two questions I get asked a lot are: When should a push (screen pushed in leftward from the right) be used? When should a modal (screen pushed upward from the bottom) be used? We’ve established the following best practices:
A push is essentially the fundamental screen transition to view a new screen that is stacked on top of the previous screen. There is typically a Back button so user can view the last viewed screen. For screens that are primarily for viewing, such as transaction detail screens or lists, we use a push.
A modal is typically used when we are requiring the user to select, edit content, or input data. All of our transaction forms use full screen modals as it requires more user thought due to several form fields on one screen. The titles bars for these screens typically have Cancel and Save or Cancel and Done actions. Then, when you tap Save, you get a push screen because you are viewing (not editing) the saved content.
Call to Actions
This section highlights a question I often get: “Should this call to action be a button or a text link?” In both iOS’ and Android’s design guidelines, text as buttons is the norm and recommendation. However, I feel when we use text, especially with a system font against a dark or light background, we lose out on a major opportunity to incorporate brand elements, such as our ecosystem green color or line iconography. So, we’ve deliberately moved away from using text as call to actions, and instead use buttons with high contrast, which also makes it very clear that it is a call to action and not just part of the screen content.
Our empty state screens provides a first impression to users who are new to our products. It usually consists of an illustration, a brief description, and a clear call to action. A common and current design trend is the usage of gray text on a light background. If you decide to follow that trend, make sure the text is readable and accessible by analyzing the foreground and background colors to meet the WCAG 2.0 color contrast ratio requirements.
Firstly, yes, it’s spelled caret, not carat or carrot. 🙂 Carets are used to promote discoverability. Historically, we try to use carets for every instance we want to indicate that the user should tap into the row to view more. However, in our forms, we are working toward to moving away from using carets and instead utilize the extra real estate by creating visual cues and conversational content design to indicate tap targets to view more. After some user testing with different design treatments, we’ve found that discoverability isn’t as much of an issue as we thought. Users will naturally tap on rows, whether there’s more information provided to them or not. We only want to use carets when absolutely necessary.
General rule of thumb for native mobile design: Use action sheets whenever there are multiple actions associated with a single call to action (that is not a system blocker). Apple iOS guidelines calls these action sheets. Google Android calls these bottom sheets. Use action sheets/bottom sheets whenever there are multiple actions associated with a single call to action.
Cards or Tiles
A card (or tile as other teams may call it) is a component acting as a rectangular container for a certain amount of information: visual elements, instructional text, diagrams, and action triggers. There are two types of cards based on appearance and usage: action card and info card.
We use native system dialogs for critical alerts, permissions related alerts, system blocker alerts, etc. The key word is “alert.” Note that for actions that aren’t related to these things, we try to use action sheets.
The general rule for native mobile design is to use system fonts as much as possible. However, we needed to incorporate our brand and voice and tone to create what we call “QuickBooks Ownable Moments.” For large headlines and sub-headlines, we use our brand fonts. For body text, we use system fonts. For fonts within buttons, we use system fonts.
Toggle switches are used to trigger a binary operation (i.e. turning something on and off). It is used often to replace a web checkbox metaphor. We have a lot of checkboxes in our web products so when we design for native mobile, we want to make sure we are only looking to replace binary checkboxes that allows for things like enabling or disabling content, show/hide content or fields, turn on/off tax, track returns for customers, instead of checkboxes used for selecting multiple items.
Again, these are just a few guidelines to get you started or to accelerate your mobile first design process, especially for native mobile. You are the driver and designer with creative license to define the end-to-end user experience for your products and services. Trust your gut, follow your instincts, but always remember to respect the platforms, focus on the customer benefit, think device first, and keep scalability in mind!
Yvonne So is a Principal UX Designer @Intuit currently crafting meaningful experiences for small businesses around the world. With a passion and mission for making technology more inclusive of everyone, she regularly speaks and writes about mobile UX, accessibility, innovation, and empathic design.
Hanover website design
Next, we can select the type of ad.
We want to make an expandable, so we select Expandable on the left.
Next, we can set again ad’s dimensions.
We are building a 320 by 50that expands to 480 by 250.
So I will make those changes.
We then assign the Hanover creative a name.
I will leave my Save ToLocation as the default, and leave the talk about set to Quick.
Once I’m happy with my settings, I click OK.
Google Web Designer creates the initial pages of the ad for me with the dimensions I defined.
The collapsed page already contains a Tap Area event to expand the ad and an expanded pageHanover with a close tap area to collapse back down.
Material Design Components for web - Designer vs. Developer #22
1. Gestures are the new clicks
We forget how hard scrolling webpages used to be. Most users would painstakingly move their mouse to the right edge of the screen, to use something ancient called a ‘scrollbar’:
As a pro, you probably used a mouse wheel, cursor keys, or trackpad, but you were way ahead of most users.
In 2015 it’s far easier to scroll than it is to click. On mobile, you can scroll wildly with your thumb. To click on a precise target is actually more difficult — the complete opposite of what we’re used to on the desktop.
As a result, we should expect more and more websites to be built around scrolling first, and clicking second. And of course, that’s exactly what we’ve seen everywhere:
There’s every reason to expect this trend to continue as mobile takes over more of the market. Modern sites have fewer things to click, and much more scrolling. We’ll see fewer links, more buttons, bigger ‘clickable’ areas, and taller pages that expect to be scrolled.
Websites which spread their articles onto multiple pages will soon learn this lesson. Expect these to turn into longer single pages or even, like TIME magazine, into infinite scrolling pages:
It’s too early to know if the web will expand itself onto devices like watches, but if it ever does, you can bet it’ll be almost entirely driven by gestures.
2. The fold really is dead this time
Now scrolling is so cheap, and devices are so varied in size, ‘the fold’ is finally becoming irrelevant.
Designers are increasingly free to not cram everything at the top of a page. This leads to a design trend popularised by Medium — full-screen image titles, with no content visible until you start scrolling:
With tall, scrolling pages, designers have the chance to do what magazines have taken for granted for years: fill their pages with big beautiful images. In 2015 expect to see more designs that take up much more space — especially vertically — and a lot of larger imagery like this.
3. Users are quicker, websites are simplifying
Today every young adult is an expert web user. And even the amateurs are acting like pros: using multiple tabs, and swiping to go back a page.
The result is that everything is faster. And we’ve all learned to become impatient. If you want to make a mild mannered person explode with annoyance, just make their Internet really slow for a minute.
Now websites are forced not just to become faster (a technical problem), but to become faster to understand. Designs which slow the user down have the same impact on their audience as these websites which don’t load at all.
Simpler designs are easier to scan, which means they’re faster to appreciate. It’s easy to see which of these two designs is newer, and it’s because it’s the one that user’s can enjoy the fastest:
This is the biggest reason for the death of skeuomorphic design: users are more perceptive, less patient, and clutter only slows them down.
Apps put most websites to shame with super-minimal, beautiful interfaces. And they’re doing this because minimal interfaces perform better.
Flat design is just the beginning. The real trend is towards simplicity and immediacy, and we expect that to go further than ever in 2015.
4. The pixel is dead
On a desktop, a pixel was a pixel. You even had an idea of how many pixels made up an average inch: 72 dpi. Nowadays very few people know what a pixel is.
With responsive design, we’ve seen a move towards grids and percentages. But one huge area remains still unchallenged: bitmap images.
Almost all of the web is built with images that have half the resolution of a modern display, and they don’t scale. With Retina displays and modern browsers, the time is right for vector images to become more popular in 2015.
We can see this trend already happening with the font-based icons and Google’s Material design. The website loads faster and scale the icons to any size without losing quality. That makes them ideal for designers and modern web browsers.
The technology exists now, but it will take time for professionals to change their habits to create for higher quality displays. Once the average desktop display becomes Retina-grade (like the new iMac), we expect designers to follow suit.
5. Animation is back
If you want to make a website look dated, cover it with animated “Under Construction” GIFs and Flash animation. But several things are coming together to make animation a rising star in modern web design.
Flat design can end up looking too consistent, boring even. Animation helps a website to stand out and to pack more information into less space.
Mobile apps have redefined what a user expects. Mobile apps use motion to convey meaning, and websites are just starting to do the same.
New technologies like CSS animation make it easy to enhance designs without plugins, speed or compatibility issues. And Web Components (#6, below) will only accelerate this.
GIF animation is back, and surprisingly effective. You’ll notice this article makes extensive use of GIF animation (if it doesn’t, you should view this version), which has never been easier to create or share.
6. Components are the new frameworks
Web technology continues to get more complicated, and less semantic. Designers must embed messy code onto their pages for simple tasks, like including Google Analytics or a Facebook Like button. It would be a lot easier if we could just write something like this instead:
And we can with Web Components, which aren’t quite ready to be used by most designers yet. 2015 is looking like their year.
Google’s Material design is here, and it may just be what gets this movement started. Powered by Polymer, and supported by all modern browsers, it provides the rich animation and interaction components from Android apps, with simple tags like these:
If that takes hold, it wouldn’t be surprising to see more component based frameworks appear in 2015. Perhaps Bootstrap 4.0?
7. Social saturation and the rise of direct email
Social media has been a huge success for consumers, but many content producers aren’t so happy.
The problem is saturation. With billions of posts every day, Facebook learns the posts that users are most likely to enjoy and shows only those. Unfortunately that means over time, what you post is increasingly seen by a smaller percentage of your followers. (A problem you can solve, conveniently, by paying Facebook).
Social isn’t going away, but in 2014 we’ve seen a lot of prominent bloggers like Tim Ferriss move their focus away from social and into good old fashioned email lists. They’ve realised that email has one significant advantage over social: a much higher percentage of people will see what you send them.
I expect this post-social trend to continue into 2015, with the under-appreciated trend of Web Notifications (which work much like notifications in a mobile app).
Bonus non-prediction: CSS shapes
This cool technology won’t get noticed, except by designers. CSS shapes allow you to flow layout into shapes, like circles:
It’s incredibly cool, but until browser support is guaranteed, this is likely to be too risky to put time and effort into it you’d need almost two complete designs, for old and new browsers. And outside of designers, we don’t think many users would notice.
It is really cool though.
What to expect in 2015
In 2014 we saw mobile use overtake desktop, but the general public hasn’t caught up. Most organisations still commission a website to look good on their computer first and work on mobile second.
In 2015 that strategy is likely to look out of touch and unprofessional. As the mobile becomes the main device for browsing the web, “mobile-first” will become less of a buzzword and more of a requirement.
Flat design may be everywhere, but when you look beyond ghost buttons the real trend is that simpler sites are faster at gratifying users.
Simplicity is not just a fashion: it’s the future. Expect it to only continue.
It will become more and more common to embed animation into blog posts, and for motion to signify both premium quality (for those who can afford it) and to support the user experience.
Pixels and the fold will slowly be set aside making more room for scrolling and click-second experiences. Web Components will make it easier to deliver app-like experiences in our websites.
Right now you see the best of mobile app design appearing in web design. With enough time, the difference between an app and a website might almost entirely disappear.
Material Design Components for web - Designer vs. Developer #22
WEB DESIGN IS BROKEN.
It's just crumbled tosand in your hands and it's just disappointing.
Today we are going to talkabout budget that the big one: budget budget BUDGET! It is such a huge topicbut I'm finally gonna lay down the final word on budget, specifically how much youshould spend when you're buying a website.
I've got the answer for you.
Youready you ready for it? 500,000 pounds a week! There we go! Did it!(that was easy) I'm out.
See you later.
(web design isfixed) No.
If you do have five hundred thousand a week to spend on a websiteyou should get in touch with me.
I think we could work with that.
Budget it's sucha huge topic no one's really kind of tackling the answers of a few there's afew articles on the internet that are like "well if you want this type ofwebsite you should spend around this much and if you want that type ofwebsite you should spend around that" Much it really comes down to a fewfactors namely your attitude towards risk, whether you're whether you'recoming from a gain or a pain perspective and how much you actually stand to makeout of it.
What you're really doing is investing in a website: you're lookingfor it to create a return you want it to be putting money back into your pocket.
If you don't want it to do that then it's only gonna be acting detrimental,it's only gonna be taking money or reputation or whatever out of yourpocket and you really need to rethink the reasons why you're doing this in thefirst place.
Go back to one of my previous videos wherewhat where I ask you the question why are you doing this in the first place.
Sothe first thing that we've got to understand when we're asking thequestion how much does a website cost, how much do I spend on a website, we'vereally got to appreciate that all you're doing is you'retrying to give yourself what they call an 'anchor' This is literally just apsychological stake in the ground so that your brain can go "okay well I'vegot a point to start from" It really doesn't matter what that number is butit becomes your anchor: the first price you hear becomes your anchor and aroundthat point you will base all value judgments.
So be careful when you'reasking this question because you might end up with another massivelyoverinflated number that completely puts you off of even going down that routewhen actually you could have got something that worked for you at areasonable price, and if you get a number that's too lowyou're gonna look around and think "hey well this is all way too expensive" andnot actually start engaging in the conversations to help you understand thevalue that it could bring there is.
Another thing that you need to be reallyaware of when you're trying to create a budget for our website and that is thatyou like me like everyone else on the planetwe are naturally risk-averse: yeah we have loss aversion.
Most people agree withthe statement that "it is better to not lose five pounds than it is to find fivepounds" It's the same five pounds! It's weirdwe're hardwired to avoid losses.
We try and keep what we have and thereforewe're less likely to risk that in search of future gains so this means thatyou're naturally going to be skeptical about the gains that you can create witha website you're naturally gonna want to spend as little as possible andthat means that you're at a risk of actually under investing when you'rebuying a website Yourisk of under-investing because you're averse to loss.
I'm exactly the same: theamount of times that I've bought things that I need on say Amazon and gone forthe cheapest possible one because I wasn't entirely sure if, you know, if itwould bring me the thing that I was looking for - the reality is that I endup spending double because, you know, buy cheap buy twice.
But you can actuallyunder invest and if you do especially in something like a website it's like underinvesting in in your team member: if you if you hire a new salesman andyou under invest in him well then he's not gonna do as good a job as hepossibly could do if you're picking if you're picking your teammembers based on the salary that they're willing to accept then you're probablyunder investing and you're not actually realizing that if you spend a little bitmore you can get like disproportionately larger returns.
The third thing that youreally need to be aware of but before you start thinking about your budget iswhether you're coming from a pain perspective or a gain perspective.
Areyou looking to this website to help you reach new markets to help you, I don'tknow, dominate the competition; to help you boost sales/Is it a gain thing? Are you launching a new business a new product? Or are youlooking at it from a pain perspective? Are you looking at it and thinking wellhow can I use this website to help me automate things, cut costs, reduceoverhead - things like that.
Maybe you've got a whole bunch of bad reviews on yourexisting website and so you're almost being forced by your customers forced byyour marketplace to up your game what you're really trying to do there ismanage losses.
You approach these.
you can buy the same thing in two different waysand your experience and therefore what you're willing to spend completelychanges depending on whether you're coming from a pain or a gain perspective.
The final line on it is using an analogy that we use sometimesit's based around cars basically.
Are you are you just trying toget to and from work or are you trying to win Formula One the Formula One GrandPrix you need very different types of cars to be able to do each of thosethings.
There's no point in buying a Formula One car because when you pull upin the Sainsbury's car park you're gonna have nowhere to put your shopping.
Likewise there's no point in buying a Fiat Panda and taking it to the track.
Sothe better you can understand what type of race is that your business is tryingto win, or what type of things your business are trying to do with a websiteand what that's worth to you is the better you're gonna be able to startcreating a realistic budget and get a return that's more in line with yourexpectations.
My name is Aaron Taylor I'm helping youto make better decisions and have better conversations when you're buying awebsite.
till next time.
[singing] I fixed webdesign, said I fixed web design.
LYNN MERCIER: Thetruth is, like, if we want to evolve thematerial design system, we need to be able tobuild on top of the code, and each layer ofthat code matters.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:The conveyor belt is-- designer works onsomething, developer takes it, and developer screams becausethere was no conversation.
I think that's one ofthe biggest challenges.
[MUSIC PLAYING] One of the challenges inthe beginning with material on the web was there's so manydifferent implementations.
Again, the singlesource of of truth, so you had Angular material,you had Polymer, you had MDL.
How have you found solvingthat single source of truth? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
Originally we had a unique teamof developers in both Android-- I'm sorry-- Angular,and Polymer, and all these otherweb frameworks sort of building their ownimplementations in material design.
But we found that we couldn'tkeep that going at scale.
Like, we were iterating onthe material design system so quickly, and we couldn'tkeep a single source of truth with these othercomponent libraries.
It's not a perfect solution.
We're still working onmaking it faster and better, but we've foundthat that creates these sort of componentsthat look like they belong in the framework.
So any framework developerwho's working there, they look seamlesslylike they're a part of the environment.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: The onething that we struggled with with MaterialDesign Lite was there was a lot of blackmagic going on in the DOM.
So you check DeveloperTools, and there'll be, like, these random elements.
And that was, like, anopinionated decision so, you know, how do you go aboutdeveloping a new framework where you have to have anopinion-- there has to be, like, this is the baselineof what we're doing-- without impeding on, like, whatthe developer just wants to do? They just want this componentto work, or this widget, or whatever.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
I try as much as possibleto avoid black magic.
And, like, whenever I'mreviewing any code that any of the designers on myteam are writing, we, like, try and avoid anything that's-- maybe it's a little hack,and it makes it slightly more performant-- butthe truth is, like, if we want to evolve thematerial design system, we need to be able tobuild on top of the code, and each layer ofthat code matters.
So we try and, like, steeraway from any black magic and just have thisone source of truth that works with all thecomponent libraries as much as possible.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:In terms of, like, working withexisting frameworks, what's the relationship there? Because, like, React isa thing-- you have to-- it's the real world, right? LYNN MERCIER: Mm-hmm.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Or likeWordPress is a thing.
Like, you have towork in that world.
LYNN MERCIER: Mm-hmm.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: So theremay be certain things that you can or can'tdo as a result of that.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Like, formaintaining a framework where-- it's not Android.
It's not, like, a single-- LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:--you have-- it's, like, the web is allabout relationships between different code bits.
I mean, how do you manage that? LYNN MERCIER: It gets reallytricky and really funny.
So we tend to prioritizethem in terms of what developers are already using.
So React is a great example.
There are a ton of codebases already in React-- it's super-popular.
So we want to prioritizethat one first, which is why we're making anMDC React library for React in particular.
But then there'sother libraries, like Angular andlike Polymer that we want to start using as well.
But we tend toprioritize them, again, based off whether or notdevelopers are already using them.
In terms of, like, keepingall that functioning-- and sometimes you endup, like, one framework wants it to do it oneway and another framework wants it to do another way.
It's just constantlycompromising.
Like, we work with thesedevelopers on the Polymer team, or we, like, talk tothe React community and try and figure out what'sthe right way to figure it out.
And we just sort of settleon the right compromise and stay there.
We do it as well with browsers.
So for example, we tendto develop first on Chrome because it's kind of thebest, and it works nice, but we have to support Safari,and Firefox, and Edge as well.
So we tend to testIE at the very end.
And we want it towork, but there's sort of, like, gracefuldegradation sort of things that happen.
As long as that happens, like,carefully and gracefully, then it tends to be OK.
And I think we do the samesort of thing with platforms.
You know, maybe itdoesn't perfectly work in everyplatform but as long as we can kind ofgracefully degrade that component in thatsituation, it'll work out.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Yeah, Iknow the BBC have, like, a term that's calledcutting the mustard.
So basically, they willhave, like, a baseline where things have to work.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Like, withthis, and if it doesn't work, or it doesn't supportthis technology, they're gonna say--you know what, you're not going to getthese experiences that we're designing.
I mean it-- how would youfeel about that as a concept? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah, we'vehad to use that already.
So there's newthings coming out-- material designed around shape.
And on the web platform,no matter what technology you're in-- like, what webplatform or what browser you're in-- rounded corners are really easy.
Like, cut-off corners? Impossible.
Just straight up impossiblewith the existing technology.
And so we kind of had to goback to our material design team and say, like-- look, we can update theCSS spec today in 2018, and then three years fromnow, our children's children will, like, have thisfeature, but we're not going to be able toimplement it right now.
So there are some featureswhere you just kind of have to draw the line and say,we can't do this feature without it beinga confusing story, without it being some sortof hack that no one would be able to use.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:So how about SVG? I mean, I suppose whenit comes to animation, the challenge of SVG isthe performance 'cause-- LYNN MERCIER: SVGs, and thenthe shadows on top of them, and the scroll performanceunderneath those SVGs-- by the time you, like, transportall the browsers and all the situations wherethat component would be, it gets reallyconfusing quickly.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:And very complicated.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah,very complicated.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: That'squite interesting, because the conveyor belt isdesigner works on something, developer takes it, anddeveloper screams because there was no conversation.
I think that's one of thebiggest challenges developers face because, ifyou just talk to me, then I'll be able to explain,especially for designers who have no coding experience.
And I know we've spokenbefore, and you've mentioned stress testingthe design, which is a new concept for me.
LYNN MERCIER: It's my concept.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: How doesthat work, where you're stress testing the design? LYNN MERCIER: Imean, I think there's a limitation inDesigner Tools that make them want to forceeverything to sort of this pixel-perfect mock.
And it's gorgeous-- itcreates some gorgeous assets, but it doesn't always workin a real-world application.
And a developer'sjob is to create something that works in areal-world application, right? Ours is the stuff-- thecode that's running live.
And so many problems come froma design being pixel-perfect for one language, one screenwidth, one set of content.
And when you goto build that, you can build sort of adummy site quickly, but once you start populatingit with real content, all these problems come up.
And I think most designers,if you go and talk to them and say, like-- hey,I have this problem.
They'll help you.
They'll, like, show youhow to change the design and tweak it in this situation.
Like, they're very receptiveto that feedback-- they want to make their designs better.
But if you don't knowwho your designer is when you have thisproblem, then you just have this bug that says-- doesn't work in German.
Like, what do you do? You have no idea how to fix it.
So yeah, I think this conveyorbelt problem of designers who sort of, like,design something but then leave the projectand don't collaborate with the developers asthey're building it, it makes it reallydifficult for the developers to make the productbetter over time.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: So how do youthink designers can actually improve their process to makethat relationship better? Or more, is it reallydown to the most obvious? You just need to pairprogram, or pair together.
You have to talk to the person.
That's really the bestway to do it, so like-- LYNN MERCIER: Thatis the best way.
I mean, I think that can bereally difficult in certain-- if you don't have enoughtime and resources, sort of dedicate, like, one person,one designer, and one developer to every single feature.
I think there's waysin the middle to do it.
So for one, make sure thatyou know each other's names.
Like, if you'reremote, make sure you know how to deployyour code somewhere to staging so yourdesigner can work with it, and make sure your designerhas a way to send you, like, iterations on mocks.
Another sort of quick andobvious thing, I think, for designers is tointernationalize.
The moment you take allthe text from your mock, put it in Google Translate,put it back in the mock, and see what looks horrible-- MUSTAFA KURTULDU: German.
LYNN MERCIER: --like, yeah! German! Or even, like, CJK languages.
Just pick a language.
It doesn't matter ifyou translate it right.
Just, like, do thatfirst step because you're going to run into all thewidth and height problems that a developerwill run into live.
And I think it's goodfor designers, right? It helps you makeyour product better to get feedback aboutwhat sort of languages do I need to support.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU:And it's especially important inuser-generated apps where the content could be 10 pages,or it could be two lines.
LYNN MERCIER: Yeah! MUSTAFA KURTULDU:It's not like-- you always get the mock wherethere's, like, the name-- LYNN MERCIER: Yeah! MUSTAFA KURTULDU: --theavatar name's perfect.
LYNN MERCIER: Fits perfectly.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Yeah, butwhat if the name's like, you know, four words long? LYNN MERCIER: Yeah.
MUSTAFA KURTULDU: Isthere anything else that they can do like the stresstest that wasn't just really-- LYNN MERCIER:Internationalization is a big one.
I think different screen widths,at least in your own web, is helpful as well,like making sure that the obviousbreakpoints work but also sort of smallerones or bigger ones.
But, yeah, it justcomes back to, like, be there when your developerruns into a real problem and help them fix that problem.
I think most developerswant to fix problems.
They want to code that out.
They just want to geton their headphones-- like, get the code outthat will fix the problem, but they don't know how toredesign the site, right? We're not going to-- ifyou make a developer guess how to design a site, we'regoing to guess really poorly.
So you need to helpus as designers.
SPEAKER: If you spentloads of time polishing your, like, amazingprototype, then you suddenly becomevery, like, you know, reticent to throw it away.
Kind of like it'syour baby, you're going to polish this too much.
And so that's dangerous,because then you're not using prototyping forprototyping's real purpose, which is to learn.