When Starbucks opened its first store in 1971, the image of the company was quite different. Fitting with the theme of their principle product, coffee, the logomark was brown and featured a very different version of the famous Starbucks siren. Over time, the mark evolved, giving rise to the “Starbucks green” found in the current identity. The siren also evolved, gaining modesty at the expense of detail.

The new identity, created by Starbucks’ in-house designers and studio Lippincott, pushes simplicity to the extreme. In the words of the company’s senior creative manager, Starbucks “broke down the four main parks of the mark – color, shape, typeface and the siren.” While all of these elements are readily associated with Starbucks, the use in the refreshed identity elevates each elements to an even higher status. The siren, which has always been part of the identity, is now the focal point of the mark, no longer bound by the ring. The reduction of color in the siren further augments the idea of simplicity, and helps the mark maintain impact regardless of the size of the mark. The typography now functions as it always has, but in a simplified form, removing the redundancy of existing in both the wordmark and logomark versions of the identity.

In some ways, these changes afford more flexibility with the identity. There may be instances where the logotype or mark work great by themselves and other opportunities where they are needed together. For example, the siren mark can now “bleed” off the edges of products, without compromising its integrity as part of the iconic Starbucks brand. Simply adding the Starbucks logotype elsewhere on the product nicely complements the presentation. The previous mark would have looked awkward if truncated in this fashion.

When looking at how Starbucks chose to introduce this mark, it’s interesting to note that, in contrast with how Gap rolled out their refresh, Starbucks made a much larger splash and showed the new identity in context (something Gap didn’t do). One simple design lesson is that it’s much easier to gain buy in from clients (or the masses) by showing designs in context. In this case, when Starbucks introduced the new mark, they showed it how we would all see it – on a coffee cup.

Overall, we feel the new Starbucks identity is a win for the company. As a company that began their trade selling coffee and have now moved to a variety of other products, like tea, pastries and even breakfast foods, this brand refresh is definitely a bold move in a forward direction.

Having experienced first hand how a graduate education in design differs from an undergraduate education in design (the former tends to be research and theory oriented while the latter tends to be focused on developing particular skills), there has become apparent to me a very important “chain yanking” issue that seems to be often overlooked at the undergraduate level: an in depth understanding of the concept of usability. As someone who designs media where high user interaction is essential the success of the work (I’ll elaborate upon this further later in this discourse), usability is a concept that is first and foremost on my mind. Though when I engage in discussions with other designers, the concept seems to come second place to aesthetic quality, if the concept is even mentioned at all. I would argue that their outlook is understandable, looking at the bigger picture of art and design as a whole; art, defined as an expression of human skill and imagination, has existed much longer than the idea of design. As such, it’s no wonder that many artists or designers draw upon traditional artistic principles first, while relegating concepts of design and usability to a lesser standing.

To accurately frame this discourse, consider two quotes. Herbert Simon, a famous psychologist, wrote in The Sciences of the Artificial that “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” Another comment for consideration is from Peter Merholz who says “The primary benefit of user-centered design is that, when performed well, it ensures that the product is useful, useable, and meaningful to the end-user.” Though the definitions of “desirable,” “meaningful,” and even “useable,”  may be subjective, in design, is the thought behind usability given as much precedence as desirability?

Within the realm of design, there exists a variety of elements in the “design toolkit” which help to address basic concepts of usability. Consider design principles such as accessibility (being usable by the largest group of people possible), affordance (physical characteristics influence usage), and forgiveness (helping users avoid errors and minimizing negative consequences when they do occur). (Butler et al 2003) All of these aspects, however, involve considering the intended audience. I would argue that few designers though, adequately take into context the full involvement of their audience when determining if their final project is actually usable or not. Is successful useable design defined by one particular user’s needs? Is the user merely just a factor, totally isolated from their environment or others, in the bigger picture? Typically this seems to be something only lightly treaded upon at the undergraduate level and, only through articulations of others, is it exposed at the graduate level.

Why usability in the first place?

Why does usability even matter? Design, in a larger context, focuses on user-centered interactions. Step back and consider for a moment, the world as a whole. Considering disciplines such as industrial engineering, architecture, interior architecture, interaction design, information design, and countless other examples only leads one to see that most aspects of design tend towards having a user (or users) exist at the center.  In these fields, high degrees of user interaction occur, and with the user being such a focus, so too should be considerations for usability (at least on par with aesthetic considerations).

Drilling down, let’s approach the importance of usability from an industrial design perspective. A lack of usability simply flummoxes the user and leads a product to failure. In a ripe capitalistic society where free enterprising ideals are promoted, companies rise and fall depending on the success of their products. In some cases, users themselves will resort to designing products that are appropriate and meet their own needs. While Eric von Hippel argues in Democratizing Innovation that this need is manifested as “users demand custom products,” I think the simpler takeaway is that users need products that work for them. What one ends up with is an idea of a product more tailored to one individual’s needs that, in many instances, is actually deemed “useable” by more than just that one individual. (von Hippel 2006) In this sense, a product that has been refined through usage constitutes a better solution than what manufacturers sometimes arrive at through focus groups and limited usability testing. I place emphasis on limited because often times, when usability testing is conducted, it is often for brief periods of time (compared to the lifespan of the product in question). In many instances, this limited amount of testing, coupled with the obligatory bureaucratic pressures often present in large design operations, results in a product that hasn’t reached its full potential. (Bannon 1991)

The impact of usability is further expounded upon, indirectly, in Friedman’s comments in The World is Flat. His notions that our world is flattening (meaning barriers that separate us, socially, technologically, emotionally, economically and physically are coming down and beginning to blur together) are of direct relevance to anyone desiring to make a product more usable. Just two hundred years ago, an artifact that was designed may have only seen application within a small area of its creation (geographically speaking). Mass production was not in existence at the time. Now, in this ‘flat world’ as Friedman calls it, we are so connected with everyone else around the planet, that our designs must take into consideration a much larger market. (Friedman 2005) As mentioned earlier, my personal focus in design is web development and interactive media. With the emergence of the web (which really began to take hold August 9, 1995 with the public launch of Mozilla, cited as “flattener” number 2 by Friedman), many users with very unique backgrounds were instantly connected. In my industry, this is something that has strong connections to delivering websites and content that are “usable.” The “audience” is way beyond just a single user, but now involves many users from a wide gamut of backgrounds (socially, geographically, et al).

Considering the actual users

Considering the value of the user is essential, one most also realize that there is a happy medium to be found when designing products that are usable. On one extreme, the manufacturer and designer fail to realize the skill level of the user. They design assumptively, suffering from what the Heath brothers refer to as “the curse of knowledge” in their book Made to Stick. This curse of knowledge explains that from the mindset of the designer and the implicit knowledge they already know about the final product, they unintentionally assume the end user will have a greater knowledge than they actually do regarding the product and its usage. (Heath 2007) The other extreme to this point is designing for a naive user. In these instances, designers and manufacturers see the “user” as merely a component in the equation of a product and its development (the aforementioned humans existing as just a factor in a bigger equation). The problem herein lies with the fact that designers design a product for the stupidest and most simplistic user, which may not be the majority of the actual market. (Bannon 1991) For instance, consider the ribbon interface designed for Microsoft Office 2007. Redesigned from the ground up, organizing concepts and icons into more logical groupings dependent on function, this interface is great for the naive user who is new to word processing or creating spreadsheets. For those who have used Microsoft products for years, this approach has yielded frustration, as there is no ability to revert to the previous interface which, in their minds, may be more usable to them.

Connecting with the users

As briefly suggested earlier, there are entire fields focused upon various aspects that are, in some context, connected with usability. Anthropology, for instance, involves studying humans in their own setting and how they interact on a much larger plane with others. Psychology can be connected to usability through looking at how a particular individual is affected by, or affects a product. Human-computer interaction (HCI) is often called out as the most prominent example of usability (even used earlier with my Office ribbon example) though it only deals with interactions between humans and computers.

So whose responsibility is it to teach the importance of usability? I argue the onus of this responsibility falls within the design curriculum and especially the undergraduate areas, considering it’s value is high and would be greatly missed if only taught at the graduate level. There are many fields which provide supplementary skills, research and support to the need for usability. However, looking at where most undergraduates find themselves upon graduation (in small design shops or working freelance with aspirations of running their own business one day), missing the awareness and importance of usability will simply be detrimental to their success. Regardless of how you define design, creating something that is more desirable should also involve creating something that is more usable.