> We did a user study and they liked it, so it must be good.
I didn't see much of the first two, but I did see this one. I've worked for G as well as for a "fruity" FAANG company, and the difference between how they approach product and UI design is stark. At Pineapple, the HI lead, often working closely with the eng DRI, simply declares: "This design is best for users. We know this because we are professionals, have good taste, and [sometimes] there is research to support it." Maybe they'll measure it later as an afterthought. Unless a higher-up intervenes, the product is then designed that way, and often succeeds. If it is a failure, the responsibility lies on one or two (at most) leads.
The Google way is totally different. UX and product management works together to brainstorm potential designs, but there is a lot of uncertainty. All the alternatives go into a slide deck where comments pour in. The comments don't really resolve anything, they just add more uncertainty. Meetings are had where more people weigh in, including directors and VPs if it's a big enough project. Nobody can prove which design is best, and we cannot launch something that isn't backed by measurement, therefore we must conduct a thorough UX research study. This leads to a low-risk compromise design with a slate of minor unknowns still left that must be A/B tested with real users in order to know which way is correct. Oh, and Legal has to weigh in. Finally the product is launched but we're still nervous and don't know whether the design is right, so it's launched with dozens of flags to turn off various things in case we're wrong. In the end, nobody can point to any one person responsible, and nobody in the entire process had to stick their neck out and make a judgment call.
I didn't see much of the first two, but I did see this one. I've worked for G as well as for a "fruity" FAANG company, and the difference between how they approach product and UI design is stark. At Pineapple, the HI lead, often working closely with the eng DRI, simply declares: "This design is best for users. We know this because we are professionals, have good taste, and [sometimes] there is research to support it." Maybe they'll measure it later as an afterthought. Unless a higher-up intervenes, the product is then designed that way, and often succeeds. If it is a failure, the responsibility lies on one or two (at most) leads.
The Google way is totally different. UX and product management works together to brainstorm potential designs, but there is a lot of uncertainty. All the alternatives go into a slide deck where comments pour in. The comments don't really resolve anything, they just add more uncertainty. Meetings are had where more people weigh in, including directors and VPs if it's a big enough project. Nobody can prove which design is best, and we cannot launch something that isn't backed by measurement, therefore we must conduct a thorough UX research study. This leads to a low-risk compromise design with a slate of minor unknowns still left that must be A/B tested with real users in order to know which way is correct. Oh, and Legal has to weigh in. Finally the product is launched but we're still nervous and don't know whether the design is right, so it's launched with dozens of flags to turn off various things in case we're wrong. In the end, nobody can point to any one person responsible, and nobody in the entire process had to stick their neck out and make a judgment call.