What Successful Products Teach Us About Web Design

Advertisement

Web design is a craft that is constantly evolving and yet also sometimes sabotaged. The moment a design is released, a new version is born. In the beginning, like a baby, it seems vulnerable and weak, but in time it grows up and becomes self-sufficient. Redesigning a website for its own sake doesn’t prove anything; quite the contrary, it reveals a lack of effectiveness on the part of the designer.

Product design is a craft in which new versions come to life with increasing difficulty. We can learn a thing or two from it when designing for the Web. First, let’s look at some examples.

  • How many designs for the iPhone has Apple released since 2007? The answer is one, with only two tweaks. How many Motorola phones for Android can you find on the market right now? Thirteen, not counting the old models.
  • How many designs of the Mini Cooper do you know of? Just that one brave design that has continually evolved since 1959! How many Toyota Corolla models can you count since 1967? Nineteen.
  • Zippo lighters have retained their appeal since 1933!

Forget marketing, technical specs and hardware. Products such as the iPhone, the Mini Cooper and the Zippo lighter have become wildly successful because of their outstanding design. Such massive success springs from three sources: the designer, sticking to the scope and iteration. These aspects can help us in Web design, too. In this article, we’ll look at what we can learn from successful product design.

The Ability Of The Designer

Zippo1
Zippo lighters have remained elegant and reliable through time. (Image: cell1052)

Do you trust your instincts? You should! Because when you see a design, you judge its attractiveness in less than a second3. We all know what we like, even if we can’t always explain it. It’s about aesthetics. Aesthetics is a child of harmony, and harmony is not magic. It can be achieved when the designer embraces certain principles, such as balance, contrast and dominance. Becoming a fantastic designer, though, requires more than pure technique. It requires that you see the context and make decisions accordingly.

A couple of comments by Karim Rashid4, featured in the documentary Objectified5 are fascinating and revealing. First, Rashid talks about a stereo that he loved as a teenager:

It was a white kind of bubble stereo with these two bubble white speakers. And it was probably very inexpensive — it was a real democratic product, and it had a turntable and the whole thing built in. It was a beautiful thing. Looking back and thinking why it was a beautiful thing, it was very self-contained, and the message was very strong and very simple, and at the same time it was very human. There was a quality about it.

See? A democratic, self-contained, human, simple thing with a strong message.

Here is Rashid again on thinking outside the box:

Why do we feel like we need to keep revisiting the archetype over and over and over again? Digital cameras, for example, [whose] format, proportion, the fact that they’re a horizontal rectangle, are a model of the original silver film camera. So, in turn it’s the film that defined the shape of the camera. All of a sudden, our digital cameras have no film. So, why on earth do we have the same shape we have?

How is it that Karim Rashid extracts such clear conclusions? What hinders us from doing the same? And not just in theory. Let’s do it for real. The next time you are about to make an important design decision, stop and ask yourself, What would I do if I were Dieter Rams6 or Jonathan Ive7 or — since you’re a Web designer — Douglas Bowman8?

Asking this kind of question briefly expands our skills of judgment and makes us ultra-alert. Doing it regularly can drastically heighten our perception, values and actions as designers. Is this enough? No, but it is the beginning of a beautiful relationship with design.

And the Zippo lighter? It looks both friendly and solid, a comrade that needs your attention in order to keep working. Ιt has its own scent; it’s windproof; and above all, the sound when you flip open the lid is distinctive. And if you’ve owned a Zippo for a while, you must have noticed that it learns how you touch it when you light it.

All together, a Zippo is a product of craft — just as our designs for the Web should be. This is as simple and as hard as it sounds.

Focusing On The Scope

Mini Cooper9
Once a Mini, always a Mini. (Image: Shelley Gibb10)

Let’s go back to cars for a moment.

As noted earlier, the Corolla models of Toyota are nothing spectacular in their design. But what is a Toyota car known for? It’s a reliable, relatively cheap family car. Is Toyota successful? You bet!

What’s a Mini Cooper? It’s a beautiful small car that appeals mostly to young people. Is it successful? Of course, it is.

Cars are complicated machines. They do more than transport people. If a Toyota were as fancy as the Mini, then it wouldn’t be affordable. If a Mini were reimagined as a family car, then it would lose some of its charm. Oversimplification? Perhaps. But you get the point.

There’s a scope behind each product. As long as the scope is met, the product will be effective and remain on the market. The same happens in Web design.

Consider a metaphor. The closest physical product to a website is a periodical. Take Wired11 magazine (the physical magazine, that is, not the website or iPad app, which have slightly different characteristics). I’ve been reading it for more than 10 years, and if I had to describe it succinctly I would say “forward-thinking and cool.” Wired reinvents itself every once in a while and persistently fine-tunes the design, but the scope remains the same. Excellent design and illustration, superbly written long articles and a ton of clever short ones serve the main purpose: to introduce its audience to a new era. Audiences change over time, and new eras dawn, but Wired remains. Why? Because it has always respected a higher purpose. Sure, many magazines are well designed, and enough of them have great content. But you rarely find one with a unique identity, an identity that can’t be easily copied.

Your probably less complicated Web project needs to perform similarly. You must define the objectives. The design must promote them. Good content should prevail. You know the rules; make sure to follow them. Moreover, know where to stop. If it’s a new idea with vague potential or yet another feature or a last-minute change, just say no.

Websites are like breathing organisms. They evolve; new features are added and others are dropped, but they never stay still. Or at least they shouldn’t. Thus, while a promising fresh idea shouldn’t be discarded, it should be held until the next major update.

Big, ambitious, well-funded websites often seem to lose focus. Their owners try to satisfy all requests. This is a recipe for disaster, because it creates unnecessary friction between everyone working on the project. It dulls the impact of the best features and, above all, the scope. Tension fills the air. The worst days are ahead.

Such practices have led to the infamous concept of design by committee12. Simply put, if everything is important, then nothing is important.

Iterations

Apple Store, London13
Is what Apple does magic? I think not. (Image: Jon Rawlinson14)

Let’s talk Apple. Apple’s iconic design and its founder’s exceptional way of thinking have been overanalyzed lately.

No matter how many words we write about Steve Jobs, we still seem to explain away his success as being a kind of magic. But that’s plainly wrong. People are inclined towards the least complicated, least demanding explanation to a conundrum. It is written in our genes. We think more deeply only when there’s a serious reason to do so. (But I digress.)

So, let’s do away with what Adrian Slywotzky refers to as the “Eureka” myth15:

Apple would love us to believe it’s all “Eureka.” But Apple produces 10 pixel-perfect prototypes for each feature. They compete — and are winnowed down to three, then one, resulting in a highly evolved winner. Because Apple knows the more you compete inside, the less you’ll have to compete outside.

If Apple iterates so painstakingly, why shouldn’t we?

Inspiration for a great design roars when it comes. And implementing the idea brings a rush of enthusiasm. And our eyes sparkle when we anticipate outstanding success. And yet it rarely works that way.

Why? Because ideas and their execution are seldom free from flaws. You know the old cliché, “There is always room for improvement.” It still stands. There is always room for improvement, and accepting that your idea is the one that needs improvement takes courage. Demolishing your next great product in order to make it better takes nerve and self-discipline. But it also makes you wiser, and can dramatically improve the product.

Iterating extensively and in detail doesn’t depend on a certain type of project or a certain budget. It’s a tricky thing, because it forces us to confront our imperfect nature as human beings. To embrace our inner flaws is to walk the road of truth and maturity, silently, without making a show that we’re doing it.

This weight might feel a little heavy on our shoulders. If it does or if you dismiss Apple’s success, consider what Oliver Reichenstein, head of Information Architects16, says about the iterations17 that his team makes in each development phase (this quote appears in the comments section):

It’s often almost impossible to explain easily why things look like they do, because we went through so many iterations, that it feels like explaining a chess game with all the ifs and whats.

The same goes when designing for the Web: there’s no excuse to avoid making as many iterations as we can.

Final Thoughts

When successful designers are asked where they seek inspiration, they often say something like, “Everywhere — I go for a walk and observe the world around me.” And it’s true. But what they don’t often say is that they also know what to observe and how to ignore the noise of the world.

There are many beautiful well-functioning products around us. Each has a story to tell, a story that is strongly attached to its design, its scope and the iterations that the designer took before releasing it to the world.

Take the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Its design is at least impressive, and its scope is clear (to suck dirt better than other cleaners and, thus, to make your environment healthier), and it took hundreds of prototypes for the designers to figure out how to make it work without a bag. The first Dyson vacuum cleaner was sold in 1970! To explore further and find similar products, just search for our three key words: “design scope iteration.”

Creating a lasting website is no easier than creating a lasting vacuum cleaner. But neither is it impossible. It requires a holistic approach, focus and maturity, just like the products we’ve looked at here. Not to mention, it requires a paradigm shift18.

(al)

Footnotes

  1. 1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cell105/2652288685/
  2. 2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/cell105/2652288685/
  3. 3 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/
  4. 4 http://www.karimrashid.com/
  5. 5 http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/
  6. 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Rams
  7. 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
  8. 8 http://stopdesign.com/
  9. 9 http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelleygibb/2960661847/
  10. 10 http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelleygibb/2960661847/
  11. 11 http://www.wired.com/
  12. 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee
  13. 13 http://www.flickr.com/photos/london/129181467/
  14. 14 http://www.flickr.com/photos/london/129181467/
  15. 15 http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/steve_jobs_and_the_myth_of_eur.html
  16. 16 http://www.informationarchitects.jp/en/
  17. 17 https://plus.google.com/115711522874757126523/posts/PoPTYdVFYyt
  18. 18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

↑ Back to topShare on Twitter

Yiannis is a UI/UX designer and author from Greece. He likes tweaking ideas and he fancies talking with smarter people than him. When he'll grow up he would like to be as good as his son. Also, he tweets regularly.

Advertising
  1. 1

    Gerasimos Nikolopoulos

    January 24, 2012 7:43 am

    Yiannis, this is a spot-on article with links that can easily “eat” one work-day.

    Great job!

    3
  2. 2

    Great article!
    “if everything is important, then nothing is important.”
    Oh so true!

    16
  3. 3

    I read smashing magazine from a time and now i tell you question i am not check it out but Are this design work in IE6.

    the design look amazing to me.

    -30
  4. 4

    This is one of the best articles I’ve read lately regarding design; it’s eloquent and well thought out as it clearly puts into words what we as designers need to be thinking about on every project. Just because we came up with a workable solution for any design, whether it’s for a website, brochure, application or product we should always be pushing the design for the next project; continue to build on what has been done in the past and improve our solutions.

    4
  5. 5

    Awesome article. Thanks!

    0
  6. 6

    Good article! Informative, thanks.

    0
  7. 7

    Great read, this is why I come here. Keep it up lads.

    2
  8. 8

    I rarely leave messages, but I wanted to on this one, because it was superb! So often do we here that natural talent is the reason for many successes. I fail to believe that there is some unobtainable intelligence that someone else has that earned through effort and perseverance. Cheers to you, Yiannis, for making this point.

    3
  9. 10

    Very well put. Your article resonates with my thinking about design process and business culture.

    I love the examples you shared. From Mini Coopers to Toyotas to how film shaped the camera product.

    You just backed up my own philosophy on design.

    Design by committee is destined for failure.
    You cannot please nor design for everybody.
    Be willing to give up your ego for better design.

    -Rudy

    2
  10. 11

    Spot on! Simplicity is the key to great design. Its not in the number of things you put in, but in the things you consciously leave out.

    Great redesign by the way. Seeing it for the first time. I’m an super fan of serifs in titles.

    I know the bills have to get paid so its got to be tricky, but I think the ads at the top really make it look a bit crowded. Maybe a bit more space between them and the article area would have helped. But that’s just my opinion…great, great work nevertheless.

    2
  11. 12

    This article is excellent! The point that stuck me the most is that good design is not an “Eureka” moment — many times we don’t consider the hard work that companies put into good design. Thanks!

    1
  12. 13

    Great article on “design”!
    However, I think something is missing… “functional”… I gave your article a command-F and you are almost saying it in the final thoughts:
    “There are many beautiful well-functioning products around us. Each has a story to tell (…) ”
    The topic of functional deign might be an article of it self, so you might want to elaborated on that in the future….

    /Emil

    4
  13. 14

    Excellent Article. Nice job Yiannis.
    Iam also I rarely put comments. But this article forced me to open up.

    – design is not an “Eureka” moment –

    “Apple produces 10 pixel-perfect prototypes for each feature. They compete — and are winnowed down to three, then one, resulting in a highly evolved winner. ”
    ..

    1
  14. 15

    Great article Yiannis! Smashing Magazine at its best :)

    2
  15. 16

    Love your stuff. Keep it coming!

    Designers rule and coders drool :)

    0
  16. 17

    The Mini Cooper example is misleading as you picture a modern BMW version. I expect the design classic you actually intend to refer to is Issigonis’ 1960′s original.

    0
  17. 18

    Yiannis Konstantakopoulos

    January 25, 2012 2:05 am

    Thanks for the comments, I really appreciate every single word you write. Keep them coming :)

    @Matt Indeed, this is a modern version of the car. However, the concept remains the same, no?

    -1
    • 19

      The concept is not the same as the modern mini does not keep to one of the core elements of the original mini, size. the original mini was small 3 metres long and the bmw model is 3.6 metres long.
      The great thing about the old mini was it was a car that would fit a family in a spacious cabin but in a very small form all due to very clever engineering (sideways mounted engine) all BMW did was built a small hatchback (still much larger than the original mini) and made it look like a rough approximation of the original mini.

      0
      • 20

        You’re getting away from the main point; You can look at the modern Mini and realize instantly that it’s based on the 60′s version and it remains a cool car. It was made larger to comply with current safety requirements – something the original couldn’t do.

        0
  18. 21

    One of the finest article … !!! Enjoyed it.

    0
  19. 22

    Dimitrios Bendilas

    January 25, 2012 2:48 am

    Yannis, this was a really great read! I agree that design is all about iterations and it can always improve. Nice flow on the article.

    1
  20. 23

    Really nice article!

    0
  21. 24

    I loved reading this article. Fantastic job!

    0
    • 25

      Do you want to buy or to sell tltmeapes? Then this post will teach you how to do it in a fair business. Come visit this post. Thank you.

      0
  22. 26

    If I was Jonathon Ive, I’d keep the design the same and get the developers to improve the code.

    Seriously though, good article. Although I think there are more reasons than just film why cameras are shaped the way they are. You need to consider function and how people will interact with whatever you are creating.

    0
  23. 27

    Indeed splendid article!

    By the way, Apple developed more than one design since 2007, from the 1G to the 4S now you can see plenty of diferences between all the models in between.

    Just my two cents ;)

    1
  24. 28

    I admit, I didn’t read the entire article so you’ll have to pardon me if I miss something. But, right from the start the author gets his facts very skewed so I didn’t see the point in reading much further.

    First off, Apple isn’t the only successful tech company in the world. Quit with the Apple fanboy stuff. It irritates us developers who have the ability and preference to use and work on multiple platforms including Apple, Windows and Linux. That’s first.

    Second, the “successful” companies you use to illustrate your point aren’t even the top in their industries. Toyota – the car company you use to prop up your argument against redesigning a website – is far more more successful in terms of global sales and revenue than Mini is or has ever been. In fact, the Toyota Corolla model – one of the most successful single car models in history – had more sales last year (313,009 Corollas sold in 2011) than all of MINI’s models combined (285,000 MINIs sold in 2011).

    BIC lighters far outstrip Zippos in terms of global sales and they constantly redesign the designer skins for their lighters. Moreover, they offer dozens of different styles – from grill lighters to the new “Flamedisk”.

    As far as Apple is concerned, they didn’t even rank in the top 5 of worldwide shipments or market share last year – they were beat out by HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer and ASUS. And Android phones are expected to overtake iPhone sales this year.

    So, what does that say about redesigns??

    Now, I’m not saying the companies you sample don’t deserve credit. Their products are solid and well liked among consumers. But, they hardly make your case against design changes. If you look at actual sales and revenue as a determination of success – and most credible people do – then the products you cite barely register.

    Given the typical sales demographic (hipsters) of the products lionized as the epitome of success by the author (Apple, Zippos and MINIs), me thinks this article was written by a hipster trying to justify his own existence.

    In any case, new trends and new technologies – both of which are valid reasons for redesigns – make redesigns not only desirable but necessary. There’s no reason not to redesign something if it makes it better.

    Sources:

    15
    • 29

      Yiannis Konstantakopoulos

      January 25, 2012 5:13 pm

      It’s funny you didn’t read the article or some of the comments because you thought I’m a fanboy or biased but you spent so much time trying to argue.

      Please take a look at it first and then you can call me a hipster or whatever.

      -9
      • 30

        No. I didn’t read the *entire* article. But, now I have and my argument still stands. There are multitudes of ways to be successful. Choosing whether or not to redesign a website is only one out of thousands or millions of decisions one has to make to have a chance at success.

        Now that I’ve read your article and see no reason to change my argument (or my characterization of you as a hipster trying to justify his existence), please feel free to offer a rebuttal.

        5
      • 31

        I mean, you quote this guy: “All of a sudden, our digital cameras have no film. So, why on earth do we have the same shape we have?” and the first thing I think to myself is, “Uhm, cameras ARE a different shape then the used to be.”

        The most commonly used camera now is the one in one’s cellphone. Does the cellphone look anything like an SLR film camera? Hardly. Look at all the snapshot cameras. They’re about 1/8″ thick… far smaller and different than old school film cameras. I mean, if digital cameras have retained any styles from their film brethren it’s only because human beings have eyes and fingers placed in certain position on the body and we haven’t figured a way how to shuffle them around yet.

        Seriously, you wonder why I didn’t bother to read your whole article? With arguments and false suppositions like that… why bother??

        8
        • 32

          WHy some MAC MINI don’t have DVD/ or smtoehing player so how is thats stuff work?

          0
        • 33

          Keep em cminog you all do such a great job at such Concepts can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!

          0
        • 34

          David,

          I agree with you, I think YK missed the boat on a number of points. However, I’d say the most major flaw was that his examples made an outline for a completely different argument.

          (Some) of apple’s products, the minicooper, and zippos have been mainstays because they hit on combination of form and function that brings an element of joy to people’s lives.

          Yes, the mini has been outsold by toyota a million times over, but it’s role in the product landscape is to be a joyful daily interaction in the sea of ‘functional but aesthetically compromised’ interactions. I find the iPod a considerably better example than the iPhone, as it gave users the joy of bringing their music collection with them everywhere they went. Like designing a small car, it wasn’t groundbreaking in concept, but the experience was refined to the point of being positive, thorough, and seamless.

          Ultimately, I don’t see the connection between these products and the issue of ‘lasting’ design on the web. Digital products live in a constantly evolving landscape. How we access content has changed drastically over the past 10 years and will probably continue to do so. The experiences (products) available to us will determine the kinds of interactions (designs) created for them. Everyone had to reassess their sites when mobile access became a priority. Classics are about things that haven’t changed because they don’t need to.

          Who here owns a pair of chucks?

          0
      • 35

        Incidently, it’s funny that my little rant got +5 likes while your attempt at dodging my criticism got -1.

        Also, my sources regarding the facts in question have been removed. Funny, they were there yesterday when I replied to your reply. :/

        6
        • 36

          Yiannis Konstantakopoulos

          January 30, 2012 7:27 am

          David, I didn’t touch any of your comments. Please, refer to the editors.

          I accept your criticism even though I disagree.

          0
    • 37

      “Quit with the Apple fanboy stuff. It irritates us developers who have the ability and preference to use and work on multiple platforms including Apple, Windows and Linux. That’s first.”

      I see your point. Many Smashing Magazine articles are void of journalistic neutrality when it comes to Apple. That’s why I mainly just stick with Noupe or other more consistently professional news sources – I can get what I need without the subjectivity.

      Like you, I enjoy being able to explore all platforms without fanatical bias

      3
      • 38

        Oh, it has nothing to do with Smashing Magazine. SM often has great articles written by competent and experienced authors. Sometimes they’re biased and sometimes not. But there’s plenty on SM and the network websites that I enjoy and agree with.

        It’s just this author, this article and the crappy and religiously blind way it lionizes moderately successful companies while putting down exceptionally successful ones. There’s just no one right way to do things but this author seems to want to use his bully pulpit to convince the world into thinking there is.

        3
    • 39

      Ford Arnold Mwumva

      January 31, 2012 6:40 pm

      David Kaplan, I think the direction Yiannis is trying to take is DESIGN, not workability, not profitability, not functionality, not market share! Apple has established itself in such a way that, when we think of the iPhone, we think “beautiful design”. Tell me of one android phone that makes you think that.
      Same goes for Toyotas and Minis.
      And another thing, aren’t comments on this blog supposed to be objective? No name-calling? The “hipster” reference is making me re-think posting my opinions.

      8
    • 40

      Dear David Kaplan,

      Before you comment on a design related article you should first try to comprehend the term design, because you apparently miss the point.

      It is obvious that you are confusing “design” with “commercial success”. Most of the great designs throughout human history were NOT a “commercial success” most commonly because of the limited availability and high cost associated with them.

      According to your flawed reasoning IKEA furniture has the best design and 5$ wristwatches made in China (that will be reduced to junk within 12 months) must embody superior design than a Swiss made Patek Philippe, because they sell more…………

      I could elaborate further but frankly I don’t need to, it is that simple.

      On a side note thanks for arguing that my Opel Corsa is a superior design compared to a Ferrari 458 Italia, even though I am not really convinced.

      Ps. Great Read Yiannis, thanks.

      2
  25. 41

    Andrew Ferraccioli

    January 25, 2012 8:32 pm

    I liked this read, it was insightful, and well written.
    “Big, ambitious, well-funded websites often seem to lose focus. Their owners try to satisfy all requests. This is a recipe for disaster, because it creates unnecessary friction between everyone working on the project. It dulls the impact of the best features and, above all, the scope. Tension fills the air. The worst days are ahead.”

    0
  26. 42

    I’ve been a reader of Smashing Magazine for the longest time and this is my first comment. It’s touched all levels of what it means to be a web designer. It’s thoroughly well-written, definitely shows a lot of research has gone in to the production of this article and definitely one of the great pieces to have ever come out of Smashing Magazine. Seriously, well done Yiannis. You’re a credit to Smashing Magazine.

    1
  27. 43

    pleasant read.
    I was thinking about the camera shape and how it reflects that we have two horizontal eyes. If you drew a box around them, it would show a horizontal rectangle. I find ‘landscape’ photos so much easier to take with a digital camera (I don’t use the viewfinder) than ‘portrait’ photos.. I almost feel like i have to close one eye to take a portrait shot.

    Thanks I needed a break to think about the big picture.

    0
  28. 44

    Great stuff.

    Where do I find inspiration? In information like this!

    1
  29. 45

    Smashing Yiannis!

    1
  30. 46

    Abhilash Ramachandran

    January 27, 2012 10:31 pm

    Great Inspiration,
    Thanks a lot Yiannis.

    0
  31. 47

    “Quit with the Apple fanboy stuff. It irritates us developers who have the ability and preference to use and work on multiple platforms including Apple, Windows and Linux. That’s first.”

    I see your point. Many Smashing Magazine articles are void of journalistic neutrality when it comes to Apple. That’s why I mainly just stick with Noupe or other more consistently professional news sources – I can get what I need without the subjectivity.

    Like you, I enjoy being able to explore all platforms without fanatical bias.

    2
  32. 48

    The article is great but i don’t agree all..

    Talking about long lasting design and identity, I know there are many companies that keep their look for years, other eamples like Leica, Porsche etc.

    But website i never once come a across any “timeless” design that last for even 5years..

    If you take a look at an old Leica III, it still look beautiful even now. But website? hmmm

    0
  33. 49

    Absolutely loved this article!!!! I really enjoy reading what a designer is. We design everyday but sometimes we, or at least in my personal case, I forget how we do it. “But what they don’t often say is that they also know what to observe and how to ignore the noise of the world.” Totally true!!! that’s what we do!!!
    Of course I also think it’s great to get to know these GREAT designers and their work!! :) Thanks!!!

    0
  34. 50

    Yiannis Konstantakopoulos

    January 30, 2012 6:30 am

    @desaturated: I see your point and it’s valid.
    I think we need to consider that web design is a relatively new area, especially when comparing with graphic or product design. I’m not sure whether we will ever see a design for the web that remains the same for 5 or 10 years.

    This article aims to help web designers rethink the way they approach their craft. I hope it accomplishes its mission.

    0
  35. 51

    While the iPhone and Mini Cooper have obviously been successful, Android phones and the Toyota Corolla have hardly been failures. I’d bet that the Corolla has outsold the Mini 1000-to-1, and Android came from behind to overtake the iPhone. I’m just saying that while you can achieve success by producing an enduring design icon, it’s certainly not the only way to succeed, or the “right” way either. The Corolla may not be a beloved objet d’art but it’s gotten a hell of a lot of people where they’re going. Full disclosure: I lost my virginity in the back seat of a Corolla. I don’t think that’s physically possible in a damn Mini Cooper.

    0
  36. 52

    The Dyson vacuums – were the hundreds of prototypes by designers or engineers or both working together? The engineering side of thing seems to be lost amongst designer-talks.

    0
  37. 53

    There are several Mini Cooper designs currently on the road.

    0
  38. 54

    Maintain up the good work fellow blogger, your hard work is definitly going to pay off.

    0

Leave a Comment

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic! Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. So, please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name, or else it will be deleted. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation instead. Thanks for dropping by!

↑ Back to top