 |
 |
Hi, Gunnar, In the context of Gerry's article, it didn't seem to me that he suggested that the iPod could not win design awards. He's quoting an interesting talk by Nathan Shedroff. While I didn't see how the sentence on the iPod follows from the idea that many useful design artifacts don't win design awards, neither does this sentence carry the "clear implication" that the iPod "could not win design awards." This was simply a minor puzzle in a provocative and useful weekly report. IMHO, McGovern's claim is that awards are irrelevant and misleading. He argues that design awards tend to be given for flashy special effects rather than for effective design outcomes. What Gerry means by "effective" are the kinds of issues that interest the Danish web managers: "Increase sales, Customer-focused, Usability, Completing the sale, Serving customers better." Admittedly, I'm only a part-time Dane, but I agree on these five issues -- at least I do if you re-orient the sales language to include not-for-profit transactions. I spend several hours on the web every day, from reading the New York Times and searching for information to using and working with the information I find. My life would be better if more web sites were simple and easy to use. On the whole, Gerry McGovern makes sense to me. Of course, like most of us, he enjoys the awards that he and his projects have won over the years. He simply argues that most web awards attend to the wrong issues. Warm wishes, Ken p.s. Even Gerry McGovern doesn't get it perfect every time. I was just surfing his site. It's been redesigned since my last visit. While it's easy to subscribe to New Thinking from the front page, it's difficult to find the archived back issues: http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/new_thinking.htm > >From Ken Friedman Sent: Sat 10/14/2006 5:23 PM > >> An entertaining and informative article on web site from >> the current issue of Gerry McGovern's newsletter, New Thinking. >[snip] > > http://www.gerrymcgovern.com > >including this gem: > >"Nathan showed an image of the iPod, that he described as > a white block with rounded corners. Absolutely functional >design. Just like the Google homepage." > >Is anyone comfortable with that description? The clear implication >is that design like the iPod could not win design awards. Is he >kidding? > >"Just like the Google home page" in that they were both "white >blocks"? "Just like the Google home page" in that they both work >fairly well? "Just like the Google home page" in that they both work >better than their main competition and are visually simpler? > >I'm not a big fan of O&M or their website but the award they were >pumping when I just checked was the Effies. Does McGovern claim that >an award for effective design is bad for effective design or that >the awards don't judge effectiveness properly? > >Gunnar