Newton website builder
Hello and welcome to this website builder Web Designer Newton 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.
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.
Newton website builder
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 Newton 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 pageNewton with a close tap area to collapse back down.
Building Expanding Creatives - Google Web Designer
Ant (GitHub) is much more than a React UI kit with a minimalist design aesthetic and every component under the sun. It is a rabbit’s hole that leads to a giant maze of interconnected libraries, with a serious ecosystem surrounding it. There’s a custom build tool based on Webpack called ant-tool, several CLI apps, community scaffolds, and a complete framework (dva, which has its own CLI as well). And the UI components are mini-projects in and of themselves — see this repo for information on each component.
Many of these libraries appear to be very polished, including an entire React animation library. And I’d love to learn more about them, but Ant comes with a challenge — the majority of the documentation is in Chinese.
How’s Your Chinese?
Let me preface this by pointing out that the components library and its terrific style guide have been translated into English by generous volunteers, so the UI kit is completely usable. And the translation effort demonstrates the project’s intentions to open up Ant to a wider audience, boding well for companies considering adopting it.
However, there are some language issues that remain. The English is sometimes confusing or obscure. The maintainer of the library has commented here that they welcome PRs for improving the documentation, so that could be a great way to get involved in this amazing project.Good luck hunting down issues!
Another issue is that issues in Ant.Design are mostly filed and debated on GitHub in Chinese. This could be a deal breaker for enterprise applications, but I’m not sure it should be one for early startups since Ant can be used quite minimally, without making use of smarter features like built-in form validation. Still, if you find an issue or bug with the library, it will be difficult to research previous solutions to your issue, and that’s why I recommend making minimal use of the surrounding ecosystem at this stage.
Popular UI libraries for React include Material-UI, Semantic-UI, Foundation, and Bootstrap (this and this), and they are all fairly mature. Material-UI should be singled out as it massively eclipses the others in popularity, with over 22k stargazers — and over 600 open issues. But it turns out that Ant.Design is a surprisingly worthy candidate as well. It’s battle tested by some of the most well-trodden sites on the web (Alibaba, Baidu), and it boasts a brilliant style guide, custom tooling, and, of course, a comprehensive catalogue of components. It also has only 85 open issues at the time of writing, which is a good thing considering its popularity.
So let’s take a tour of the library, see what it has to offer, and how to get started using it.
The Ant components list is dizzying. Sure, it contains the basics — modals, forms (inline and vertical), navigation menus, a grid system. But it also contains a ton of extras, such as a @mentioning system, a timeline, badges, a seriously nice table system, and other small fancy features, such as an involved address box (see the Habitual Residence field). Have a look — it has everything that a modern web application should, with a tasteful, minimalist aesthetic.
There’s a nice, concise section in the documentation on the guiding principles of Ant.Design. I found it a great read as it got me thinking a lot about UI/UX considerations, especially the “Provide an Invitation” section, where they discuss different ways of making interactions discoverable by a user. By the way, if anyone can recommend me a good book on UX, I would be grateful.
The Ant layout system is comprised of a 24-aliquot (a great new word that I learned from the translated documentation — it means parts of a whole) grid and a separate Layout component than you can choose to use. The grid uses the familiar Row/Col system, but you can also specify a prop called flex which allows you to harness Flexbox properties to define a responsive UI. (See a previous blog post of mine for help grokking the Flex standard.)
Flexbox is now fully supported on just about every browser (with partial support on IE 11 as well as some older mobile browsers), so it should be fine to use. If your customer base is largely Internet Explorer users, which does happen in some industries or countries, you would be wise to abstain from using flex Rows or the Layout component, as Layout is built strictly on Flexbox.
Layout includes components for a Sider, Header, Content, and Footer. Again, these are strictly based on Flexbox, so there’s no choice here — but to be honest I’m not sure what these components give you on top of using the standard Row/Col grid system, aside from a couple extra props you can make use of and possibly some built-in design choices. All in all, it doesn’t seem to me to be hugely useful.
Col elements can be supplied with a span prop to define how many aliquots a column takes up and an offset prop to define an optional offset; Row can take a gutter prop to define space between columns in a row (in pixels, not aliquots).
Here’s a UI example from a side project of mine. It contains one row with two columns:
The code would look something like this:
Ant does not let you down as far as forms are concerned, with options for inline, horizontal, and vertical forms, amazing select boxes, and clear validation messages and icons. In fact, it goes a little overboard here. It allows you to wrap your entire form-rendering component in a higher-order component à la Form.create()(<Component />) to gain access to a built-in validator syntax and custom two-way-binding system (cue audible lip biting). You can then specify standard rules such as ‘required’, or supply custom validator methods. (What are Higher Order Components? Check out this excellent post by James K. Nelson.)
Do you need to use their HOC? Absolutely not, and I’m not sure you should. As I said above, going down that path could expose you to language risk should you encounter bugs and I don’t see why you would want to use a custom two-way binding data system anyway. But you could easily use the HOC and just not use the two-way data binding.
Au Naturel — Plain React Forms
So let’s go over how to use the Ant validation messages without using their higher-order component.
Ant gives us three props that we can supply to each Form.Item component to display validation messages or icons:
- validateStatus — This determines the colour & icon scheme of the validation message (see photo above) — valid options are success, warning, error, and validating.
- help — The validation message to display.
- hasFeedback — This is one of them props that don’t require a value. Just include if you want to display the associated icon, and it defaults to true.
Here’s an example of a simple form element that displays a validation message:
Notice that I used the long-form Form.Item component name. You can make yourself a shortcut for this and any other Ant sub-components as follows:const FormItem = Form.Item;// .. allows you to use:
Form Validation using the Ant Higher-Order Component
Now what if we do want to make use of the Ant Form decorator? It’s fairly straightforward to implement. Create your React component class, and then pass it as an argument to Form.create(). The component can then be exported:class SomeComponent extends React.Component
render() <place_form_here.. />
FancyFormComponent = Form.create()(SomeComponent);export FancyFormComponent as default ; // imported as SomeComponent
Inside your form, decorate your Input fields using the getFieldDecorater method, which exposes a ton of extra props on your component. You can now manipulate form elements directly from the props (eek!).
This example in the documentation gives a thorough demonstration on using the complete higher-order component.
Interactive Components — Message (Alert)
Ant provides a number of other components that give web applications a high degree of interactivity. A great example is alerts — or messages, as they’re called in Ant. Adding an alert is as simple as calling message.success('Great! Item has been saved.') in your component. Message types include success, warning, or error. Just don’t forget to import message (lowercase) from ‘antd’.Minimalism at its Best
As I mentioned above, you can either go all-in on the Ant ecosystem (with its custom Webpack adapter), or just opt for the design framework. I went with the latter and I suspect you might too, not the least because using other parts of the ecosystem could require a working knowledge of Chinese. But I’ll cover both options.
Option 1 — Use the CLI
Ant comes with antd-init, a CLI for generating a complete React application with Ant installed. I do not recommend this route for non-Chinese speakers, but if you want to try it, getting started is easy. Just install the CLI using npm, create a new folder, and run antd-init:npm install antd-init -g; mkdir demo-app; cd $_; antd-init;
You will then be greeted by the following message:antd-init@2 is only for experience antd. If you want to create projects, it’s better to init with dva-cli. dva is a redux and react based application framework. elm concept, support side effects, hmr, dynamic load and so on.`
It’s a rabbit’s hole. Open your new application and you will see that your familiar webpack.config.js file is no longer familiar — the CLI uses ant-tool, a “Build Tool Based on Webpack” that I mentioned above. The documentation is in Chinese, but it appears to set common defaults for Webpack and then allow you to just supply values that you want to override. Here’s what the config file looks like:// Learn more on how to config.
// — https://github.com/ant-tool/atool-build#配置扩展module.exports = function(webpackConfig)
]); return webpackConfig;
The index.js contains a lovely demo page that uses the understated Ant styling.
Option 2 — Use Standard Webpack
This would be my preferred route, but it can be more complicated getting your Webpack settings right at first. The Getting Started page includes some good instructions. First install Ant in your React app:$ npm install antd --save
Ant recommends using their own babel-plugin-import in your .babelrc:"presets": [
"plugins": ["transform-decorators-legacy", ..., ["import", [ libraryName: "antd", style: "css" ]]
Make sure your Webpack includes loaders for .js and .css files, and you should be good to go. To use an Ant component, import it in the module file. E.g.import Row, Col, Icon, Button from 'antd';
There’s no doubt that Ant has a lot to offer as a UI framework, with a formidable catalogue of components and a serious ecosystem around it. It does, however, come with some risk. If you experience an issue with the library, you may be stuck communicating in Chinese. Ultimately I recommend trying it out if you like the minimalist aesthetic, while keeping usage of the peripheral Ant ecosystem to a minimum.
Building Expanding Creatives - Google Web Designer
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.
WEB DESIGN IS BROKEN but it's okay weare fixing it.
Today we are gonna follow on from the last video and we're gonnatake you further along down that path to that magical place called budget.
Yeswe're helping you to create a budget, an appropriate budget for your web designproject.
I'm still not gonna give you some magical figure because it doesn'texist; it's all relative.
So I'm not gonna talkin terms of X pounds or Y dollars but I will be talking in terms of high mediumlow investment what that means only you can really know because a largeinvestment for you might be a small investment for the next business: a smallinvestment for coca-cola it's probably gonna be most people's annual turnovers!So only you will know what a large versus a small investment actually is.
Soin the last video we laid down some key things that you really need to be awareof when you're thinking about a budget not just for a web design project butactually for anything and these are these are things, biases that that we allhave as people that can really affect how we determine what to invest inthings.
By understanding these biases we actually reduce the chance of over orunder investing in a project just simply by being aware of them.
So in this videowe're gonna look at two more very key things that are going to give you quitea reliable shortcut to determining whether the investment you make islarger or smaller.
These two things are risk and complexity.
What do we mean byrisk and what do we mean by complexity? When we're talking about risk we'retalking about the impact that it could have on your business.
Something that ishigh risk could have a significant impact on your business.
The way I like to think about risk is that it's whether it goes right orwhether it goes wrong, so it's not just down side there's also upside as well.
If there's significant upside then it's still gonna be high risk.
Low risk meansthat it's not gonna make a huge impact on your business,it's not gonna move the needle as they say.
Complexity is really just about howtechnically difficult it is to actually deliver this piece of functionality soif you look at, I don't know, take bridge making as an example: if you're buildinga small bridge across a little stream then that's probably going to be lesstechnically difficult then if you're trying to bridge the River Thames.
So it'show technically difficult it is to deliver and again it goes on a scale oflow to high complexity so why risk and complexity well if we plot them on agraph like so, we can see that they create four quadrants.
Now each of thesefour quadrants represents a different type of project: a high risk, highcomplexity project; a high risk, low complexity project; a low risk, highcomplexity project and a low risk, low complexity project.
Now just by exploringthese four different types of projects, these four project characteristics wecan actually start to make assumptions about what that project is going to belike and give you some shortcuts as to how much you invest in that type ofproject.
Let's jump into it: let's start off with the easy one low risk lowcomplexity.
So this is what I call the 'tick box' this is a website project thatis effectively just a tick box exercise maybe as a part of your business there'sa requirement that you have a web-based resource which goes over a whole bunchof really interesting things.
Maybe it'sjust a regulatory requirement, maybe you've gone for some funding and awebsite has to be a part of what you deliver.
It really doesn't make a hugeimpact on your business if it's just informational as these things typicallytend to be, then it doesn't really require groundbreaking programmingskills and cutting-edge design to actually fulfill its need.
So in thistype of project you really want to be investing as little as you possibly canjust as much as you need to to get a reasonable job done.
It's not gonna makea huge impact on your business; it's not technically difficult to deliver youjust want something that works and that ticks that box.
So if your project is lowrisk low complexity don't bet the farm on it there's no point it's not gonnabring you the return that you need pay as little as you can to get a goodprofessional job done but don't go crazy over it.
So now we've got low risk highcomplexity.
This is an interesting space and I like to call this quadrant in thistype of project the 'moderniser'.
With something that's low risk and highcomplexity typically we're looking at improving existing systems and processesusing newly available modern technologies.
With this type of projectwhat you really want to be doing is looking at a provider that hasthoroughly solved this problem so I'm thinking online payments companies likePayPal, like Stripe have thoroughly solved this technical challenge.
It's notnecessarily the type of project that you think is going to completelyrevolutionize your business; it might make things a lot more efficient andyou'll probably see some uptick in sales, engagement things like that, but ultimatelyit's not the big game changer for your business.
So you should be lookingto invest a reasonable amount to get some off-the-shelf solutions that canactually bridge this gap and help you modernize.
Let's jump into my favoritequadrant: low complexity high risk this is what I call the 'punt'.
So this is myfavorite sector because this is typically where a business has spotted anew opportunity maybe a new part of the market maybe they want to spin off anexisting product or service and they just want to test it out.
They want tosee whether their offering or messaging works.
Why this is high risk is that ifit works well then there could be significant upside.
It might be a wholenew part of their business it might be a new standalone business if it goes badlythen they lose their initial investment.
Now what you want to do when you'reworking in this quadrant you what you want to be doing is thinking aboutmultiple small investments and testing religiously.
Test absolutely everythingbecause what you're trying to do is figure out if this thing, if this ideahas got the legs to warrant a proper investment.
You want to be thinkinglanding pages; very simple to produce very easy to iterate.
You also want to bethinking about investing in things like pay-per-click advertising as well -literally buying the traffic to test against your multiple service offeringvariations.
Don't bet the farm on this it's all about controlling risk at everysingle point every single iteration so be very purposeful be very deliberateabout how you execute when you're dealing with low complexity high riskprojects.
So the final quadrant is what I call the 'moonshot'.
This is the stuff ofstartup legend.
This is that entrepreneur space where we are launching newproducts into unknown markets.
This is an area that is very similar to high risklow complexity in its approach but you should really be making significantinvestments in this area: you still need to control the risk andyou still need to test fastidiously but you might be needing to actually investheavier and produce some custom functionality.
You might need to actuallybe producing working prototypes of your product or service offering.
You can't cut corners when you're in this quadrant the risk is too high.
Because the complexity is high you're probably going to be building thingsthat have never been built before; you're needing to create technical capabilitywithin your business and understand how that impacts the delivery of yourproduct and/or service.
So absolutely never cut corners here.
The key wordsthat you should be listening out to when you're talking about the project is 'noone else is doing this', 'this has never been done before', 'this is brand new',''here's why it's different to the competitors'.
All of these things shouldbe getting you thinking high risk high complexity.
Invest well, don't cut cornersand test and iterate and measure absolutely everything you can.
So thoseare the four quadrants and hopefully this gets you a little bit closer tounderstanding where your project sits in those quadrants and the amount that youshould invest relative to, well whatever that means to you as a business.
Thus farwe've understood things about the biases and the psychology that can affect howwe make investment decisions, we've been able to identify where our project sitsalong an axis of risk versus complexity in the next video we're going to belooking at some pounds and pence examples for how you can start to createthat budget or a range of that budget based on the perceived upside or theperceived savings that you're gonna make or thatyou're hoping to make in your web design project.
That was heavy!My name is Aaron Taylor, I'm helping you to make better decisions and have betterconversations when you're buying a website.
Till next time!.