« "Safe is risky, risky is safe" - Seth Godin | Main | My First My First Post »
Does the US suck at design?
The Difference Between the US and Switzerland
The Difference Between the US and Japan
I'm just asking...
I know the US is full of brilliant designers. So why do we have some of the ugliest bank notes on the planet? When I first got to Switzerland, a shopkeeper had to pry the 10 out of my hand... it was that sexy.
[UPDATE: it seems that people who aren't my regular readers, and don't know me, are mistaking this little BLOG POST for (choose all that apply):
A) An "editorial"
B) An academic "thesis"
C) An "article" in a peer-reviewed journal
This is a blog post. That's it! Spare time. A few random observations in hopes that the real smart people would provide the real value in the comments. Criticize it, yes, of course. Mercilessly. But as a BLOG POST, not an Essay On The State Of International Design. I had hoped that the Barcelona-girls-are-hot line would be a clue that this was not a Really Serious Work, but I am not a good enough writer to have made that clear. Believe me, I'm just as unhappy as you are that this post is getting far more exposure than it wants or deserves. So, you will find NO Academic Rigor here. you've been warned.]
When I travel outside the US (a lot, lately), I keep finding a culture of design. A culture of aesthetics and style that seems natural in that country, but rarer (and often forced) in the US. Here in the US, we have Designers, Artists, Architects, etc.... and then the rest of us.. But in the places I've been visiting, those lines are often blurred. Outside the US, the appreciation for--and ability to create--beauty is not just something "left to the professionals." This design sensitivity/sensibility doesn't touch everything, but it seems far more pervasive than it does here. And I say this having spent most of my adult life in southern California, where you can't swing a cat without hitting a design school grad. It's not our US designers that have gone missing... it's a culture of design we seem to lack.
A few more, small examples:
The restaurant/cafe decor in much of western Europe looks like it was ripped out of a MOMA installation.
In much of western Europe, the graffiti is f'n amazing.
It feels like thousands of urban artists were set free to construct beautiful murals everywhere.
In Barcelona, all the women are gorgeous.
(And I mean that in a I'm-not-gay-but-wow-these-women-are-fabulous kind of way.) They have a sense of style that's casual, natural, and beautiful. The men aren't bad either, but geez... and these are real olive-oil-consuming women here. This isn't about fitting the classic definition of "attractive model type". Even the much older women have that, "I love my body and yes, as a matter of fact I AM hot" look.
The architecture outside the US has so much more history. Real history. There's a joke (kind of) in Steve Martin's LA Story movie where he's showing someone around the city and enters a neighborhood where he proudly claims, "Some of these buildings are more than TWENTY years old!"
And it's not just the visual style that we lack. I swear that New Zealand must have chosen (along with an anthem, bird, and flower) a National Audio Ambience. And it's currently ambient/electronica. In the US, you expect the airport to play elevator/grocery-store music (Barry Manilow covers, anyone?). In Wellington's airport, you get Portishead, Banco de Gaia, Delerium. In restaurants, shops, and train stations. Nearly everywhere you go, you feel like you just stepped into the W, or some ultra-cool lounge.
These things matter.
Aesthetics matter.
Beautiful things WORK better.
We all know it intuitively, and the designers in the US know it explictly. Which brings me back to... money. What's up with ours? It's dull, non-memorable (pop quiz for Americans: who is on the $5 dollar bill? The $10? The $20? What building is on the back?) and as inspiring as a parking ticket.
And US dollars get an F on usability! The distinctions between one note and another are too subtle, and there's no way to use them if you're blind.
What Switzerland bank notes have that US dollars do not:
1) Dramatically different, beautifully saturated colors.
You don't need to read the number... the color is a vibrant, clear cue.
2) Different sizes for the different values.
The size-to-value mapping is perfect--the higher the value, the bigger the size.
3) Rich, visually-stimulating, interesting designs.
US dollars demonstrate a sense of history, but say zip/zero/nothing about our culture. But these Swiss notes (along with money from so many other countries) gives you a sense of what's special about the country that goes beyond its history and leadership.
4) Tactile cues for the vision-impaired
Each denomination of Swiss note carries a distinct tactile symbol--circle, square, triangle, etc.-- that you can feel. With US dollars, if you can't read the printing, you're screwed.
Between the strikingly different color and design, plus meaningful differences in size, these notes are way more user-friendly than US dollars. With US dollars, the information is largely on a single-channel--you have to read the print. But with Swiss (and so many other) notes, you get several chances to "get it" as the info comes in over multiple channels (all that's missing is a unique sound or smell for each denomination ; )
And one more thing about what our bank notes say about our culture... with US bank notes, the emphasis is all on the Big Guys. Founding Fathers. Key (male?) figures from the past. People In Control.
And on the back, you get historical/political buildings that nobody but a history buff gives a crap about.
But take a look at the New Zealand five:

It celebrates two wonderful things about New Zealand. Sir Edmund Hillary is a citizen of the country. A citizen who did something deeply inspiring--the first Everest summit. And on the back side of Hillary, there's a penguin. Seeing penguins play, fight, socialize, and flirt is a once-in-a-lifetime experience (go to Oamaru, trust me), and New Zealand is one of the best places in the world to see wild penguins. [For a look at the other New Zealand dollars, see this wikipedia entry]
There's a lot more about the design of money in this fascinating money design critique by Canadian (and design/creative goddess) Marian Bantjes on Under Consideration's speakup blog. That post has a ton of links to sites about money design, and there was also a good discussion on Cash Usability at Signal vs. Noise last year.
And finally, those manhole covers. That comes from a much earlier post I did on The Difference Between Japan and US.
If you're interested in design and beauty, you can find more external resource links on my earlier Code Like A Girl post.
It's clear that design--and designers--in the US do not suck. I'm guessing that half of you reading this blog are US designers, and damn good ones. So it's not the designers that have gone missing. Why oh why don't we have a culture that recognizes, celebrates, and appreciates design the way so many other countries do? Did we have it and lose it, or was it always like this... Designers out there (I comment on design, but I'm not one), can you help the rest of us learn to place greater value on design and aesthetics?
There's reason for hope, though... younger generations are tuned for design (I've talked on this before... visit a skateboard shop to see some what some of the top graphic designers are doing). Then again, all those MySpace pages could be a real setback... (not that we don't have a soft spot for MySpace, but it's not the page aesthetics that we love about MySpace)
Posted by Kathy on July 13, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/220252/5413240
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does the US suck at design?:
» Critiquing Money Design from Kingsley 2.0
Kathy Sierra has a great post on how European money is sexy and wonders why US money isnt. Ive always felt indian money could use more color, but otherwise the design is surprisingly good, considering the designers had to cram denominatio... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2006 12:07:43 AM
» I Hate Money from satorimedia
It's true. And not for the simple reason that I rarely have enough (I've got four daughters; I've always known I wouldn't have enough money). I hate what they are doing to our money here in the U.S. Just last [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2006 7:10:04 AM
» A culture of design from ben's blog
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/07/does_the_us_suc.htmlhttp://www.gadgetopia.com/post/1278Kathy Sierra wonders if the US sucks at design. Take a look at Switzerland's money vs. US money: She decides that we don't (there are d... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2006 8:07:08 AM
» Usability of Business Cards (and Money!) from things of sorts
A few months ago I designed a fresh batch of business cards for myself. As I was doing that, I got thinking about how people use business cards and came up with some points the design should implement. That exercise was forgotten till this morning I re... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 14, 2006 9:03:37 AM
» Ugly note design from MadMan's LinksMatic
Kathy Sierra wants to know why US currency notes are so ugly compared to other countries. Hey, I want to know the same thing about our Indian notes. Will we ever see a day when the face on our currency... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 15, 2006 6:20:35 AM
» Vapid Development from niblettes
Just because blog posting is technically effortless doesn’t mean it should be intellectually so. I’m not railing against fluffy posts about trivial matters—I love fluff and trivia. What I am railing against is the all to common practice of pos... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 15, 2006 8:56:42 PM
» Intelligent Design from iPlot
Spending the night in a country house in the wine country, I woke up at 3 am and couldn’t sleep anymore. The Internet is the best weapon against insomnia so I turned on my laptop and surfed through some blogs. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 16, 2006 2:05:23 PM
» Getting Passionate about NZ money and US design from RobiNZ CAD Blog
Kathy Sierra asks [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 17, 2006 4:35:50 AM
» Canadian Money from skrud.net
During my early morning digging I was pointed to a critique on the design of Canadian bills which was an entertaining and fascinating read. I was led there from a link on Kathy Sierra [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 17, 2006 6:28:14 AM
» are our designer genes recessive? from Oddblog
Kathy Sierra had a thought-provoking post entitled "Does the US suck at design?" I don't think the U.S. sucks at design, but I can't figure out why U.S. design genius doesn't shine through more often. It does seem that design... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 18, 2006 8:05:08 AM
» are our designer genes recessive? from Oddblog
Kathy Sierra had a thought-provoking post entitled "Does the US suck at design?" I don't think the U.S. sucks at design, but I can't figure out why U.S. design genius doesn't shine through more often. It does seem that design... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 19, 2006 1:13:31 PM
» The Sound of Music from iPlot
Audio Ambiance from Burbank to New Zealand to Soho If you have ever flown into Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California, you might have noticed the music that is pouring from invisible speakers: It’s all from the 1980’s – from [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 6, 2006 9:40:23 PM
» Berlin Drain Cover from How to Start a Software Company Without Really Trying
I was in Berlin recently and while wandering around the Brandenbrger Tor I came across this drain cover. Another example of european design I suppose [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2006 6:56:29 AM
Comments
I'm pretty convinced it's because American culture regards anything too "designy" (tasteful,beautiful) as effete and European and foreign and probably gay and darn near un-American. Acceptable objects of beauty in American culture are customized trucks and cars, and other things that can obviously display the wealth of their possessors.
Money is sacred to Americans and will never change its design. EVER. Don't get your hopes up.
Posted by: Cargo | Jul 13, 2006 11:58:38 PM
I agree with cargo that Congress would find it easier to amend the New Testament than to get Americans to change their beloved greenback. I think the general reaction to European style bills is that it looks too much like play money and doesn't carry the gravitas of the USD.
We have fairly nice bills in India, in spite of the fact that the designers had to cram the denomination in 16 languages on one side.
Posted by: Kingsley Joseph | Jul 14, 2006 12:12:08 AM
Kathy, maybe its the picture or maybe it's just me but I find the visual aesthetics of the Swiss notes quite unappealing, though of course their size and tactile nature do grant those notes a definite advantage.
I believe that a country loses a lot of creativity the more bureaucracy it has, so people that would otherwise blend in their designs don’t see it as their jobs to give the product a better look, or don’t feel like filling out the forty minutes worth of paper work to get time on their bosses calendar to see them about making something look better when it’s “their job to just code the thing”.
Posted by: Allan Barger | Jul 14, 2006 12:18:28 AM
I thought it was commonsense to have different value notes of different sizes and with different colours so you could quickly distinguish notes when out shopping. Therefore I always thought US money was strange compared to the rest of the world.
Posted by: Olly | Jul 14, 2006 1:27:50 AM
You can tell at a glance how much money you have, plus it's plastic, so it can go through the was in your pocket and live to tell the tale.
I'm pretty sure they get longer as they get more valuable.
Also, we have poems and the national anthem printed in teeny-tiny text around the pictures that you can only read with a magnifying glass or really good eyesight.
I like our money (especially when it's in my pocket ;)).
Posted by: Ian Tyrrell | Jul 14, 2006 2:50:23 AM
I am privileged to live in Italy, which is perhaps the design capital of the world. For some amazing Italian graffiti, see my home page (right now).
See also "Reflections on Travelling in Italy" at the bottom of http://www.beginningwithi.com/italy/travel/index.html
Posted by: Deirdre' Straughan | Jul 14, 2006 2:54:56 AM
Australian notes have been colour- and size-coded for many years... (since we changed to decimal currency in 1966) and they've been a form of plastic since 1988. We celebrate all sorts of people on our notes - poets, scientists, statesman (not necessarily politians), including women. Our coins are pretty neat too! Wikipedia article showing the notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_dollar#Polymer_series; and another for the coins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_coins#Decimal_currency. The coins are different sizes and shapes too - the 50c piece, for example, has many sides.
Every time I've travelled in the US, I have to closely watch the currency as I make a payment as it's too easy to tender a ten instead of a one - at least for those who aren't familiar with it on a day-to-day basis. I've always wondered how the visually impaired got on with the currency, then earlier this year I had a chance to ask someone who is blind. He uses a folding technique and placement technique in his wallet to differentiate the notes. But he has to trust that the shopkeeper etc. has told him the right thing otherwise he could be easily duped.
Posted by: Sandgroper14 | Jul 14, 2006 3:00:31 AM
I remember at some point in the past watching a documentary on bank note design that said that the main reason why US bank notes haven't changed since around 1920 is that, unlike most other currencies, the USD is frequently used in transactions in countries all round the world (Africa, South America) because it is trusted more than the local currency. The argument went that if the design changed then most of the people outside the US would not hear about it, and when they saw the new notes they wouldn't believe they were real. Confusion and economic instability etc would ensue. So I guess my point is that even though I agree that the design is pretty rubbish, there might be other factors in play here...
Posted by: Chris Webb | Jul 14, 2006 3:14:00 AM
I often wondered why the US is so advanced in terms of website accessibility but so retarded in money accessibility. How does the blind person fold the money, as mentioned above? Who does it for them? Why do they have to fold the money? Why does someone not challenge the accessibility of the greenback under the ADA legislation?
Posted by: Peter Warne | Jul 14, 2006 3:26:47 AM
Peter
We went to lunch with this person and asked him how he dealt with the notes. I can't recall EXACTLY what he did, but his system went something like this - he folded the 20s so they were a long, narrow rectangle; he folded the 10s in half so they were almost square; he folded another one with the corner down so it was sort of triangular; he put another denomination in front of, say, the rectanglar ones, and yet another behind the square ones.
The point is, is that he had a system that worked for him. We watched him get his money out and pay his share of the bill - he had no problem at all. Interestingly enough, he did a presentation at the conference we were all at on software accessibility issues for the blind and visually impaired!
One other thing - when he got change from a cab or shop, he always asked the person handing out the change what note was what and folded them on the spot as per his system. As I said before, he had to trust he was told the right thing... and equally had to trust that a person receiving his notes wouldn't say that he'd been underpaid and therefore rip him off. He said he'd never been ripped off like this to his knowledge, which restores my faith in humanity!
Posted by: Sandgroper14 | Jul 14, 2006 3:55:00 AM
yaw!!!
don't agree with that switzeland money, they're horrible ,confussing and clowny..
They follow a coder-color scheme ,that flavour obtained when some talented programmer attempts to create a CSS style or combines colors... ;)
not my cup of tea.
Posted by: JaK | Jul 14, 2006 4:18:46 AM
I never noticed this before, but this lack of differentiators (size, color) may be the reason americans often call the bills by the name of the presidents on them. Face recognition is a very very very accurately trained feature of the mind, so I suppose people actively prefer to recognize the bills by the 'face', rather than by the numbers.
i hope this insight is worth a george :)
Posted by: eugen erhan | Jul 14, 2006 5:42:46 AM
at least americans tend to suck in clothing taste..
Posted by: helge | Jul 14, 2006 5:59:06 AM
i still think that the new u.s. twenty dollar bill was partially designed with microsoft word art. on the right side where it says "twenty usa" under the seal, it looks like some high up executive saw the design, said it needed something, and then pulled up powerpoint and said, "add something wavy that looks like this."
it's only a theory. but the rest of the bill has a historical design feel, except for that "word art" looking thing.
Posted by: paul p | Jul 14, 2006 6:16:46 AM
I'm sure that much of the success of the iPod is due to the fact that, besides being technologically very efficient, it is beautifully designed.
Posted by: T Scott | Jul 14, 2006 6:40:28 AM
Nobody mentionned the Canadian banknotes, but I think they're really nice. They've been all redesigned in 2001 and include notes with people playing hockey, images depicting peace and remembrance and even images for human rights. The good thing about color-coding the notes is that the redesign in 2001 was really easy on the people because we where all ready used to checking the color and that stayed the same. I think our notes say a lot about the canadian culture and are easily recognised , but still retain a seriousness that ensures it doesn't look like play money.
Posted by: Marie-Michèle | Jul 14, 2006 6:48:35 AM
And one more thing about what our bank notes say about our culture... with US bank notes, the emphasis is all on the Big Guys. Founding Fathers. Key (male?) figures from the past. People In Control.And on the back, you get historical/political buildings that nobody but a history buff gives a crap about.
I'm not sure I follow this. On the one hand (earlier in your post), you commented about architecture outside the US having so much more "history." And yet here you seem to be implying that we shouldn't acknowledge our history on our currency.
Also, when you think about the usability factors (which is what many of your points are), remember usability for shopkeepers. I know that other countries have obviously solved this, but when you want to talk about suddenly changing the size of the bills to denote value, you're talking about asking every store in the US to get new cash drawers. Every change machine, every ATM, every vending machine, every self-checkout kiosk would have to be re-engineered to handle different currency.
IIRC, that's one of the main reasons why the dollar coin hasn't caught on: Stores don't want to redesign the cash drawer to accommodate another coin.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't redisign our currency; I'm just saying it's not quite the no-brainer you seem to be implying.
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen | Jul 14, 2006 6:59:03 AM
I have to wonder if we are starting to see the effect of the slash-and-burn policy for arts education that has been going on for the last decade or so. Married to a former art teacher, I'm by no means unbiased on this subject, but I certainly think about the bookstore you went to and compare it to the hordes of Da Vinci Code readers here...and it just seems sad. And I can't see how to reverse the trend--can you imagine going to a city council and saying "I know you need to cut the budget, but could we have new manhole covers so they look prettier?"
Incidentally, Roy, I don't think Kathy's objection to the Important White Men was about not having our history--but about the fact that it's only a very, very narrow sliver of our history, of specifically government leaders. How about a $10 with Rosa Parks on it? Or a $20 with Sam Shepard? Robert Johnson on a $1 bill...now wouldn't that be something. With the chords and lyrics to "Crossroads" on the back...
Posted by: Gray Miller | Jul 14, 2006 7:08:59 AM
Long-time listener, first-time caller, love the show.
The US and UK have a rather different appreciation of the term "art" than the rest of Europe. For the US and UK, government policy, Protestantism, and artistic history has ended up with a culture of artisanship, where "art" is something created by a small professional class and looked at for "improving reasons" by those who are "trained" to appreciate it.
There's not a culture in either of our countries of art as a participatory form.
Now, contrast that with somewhere like Sweden, where design and art are pretty much national obsessions, and there's a whole ton of government money to support artistic endeavours whether by professionals or amateurs, and you see where the difference between the countries arises.
Posted by: Hugh "Nomad" Hancock | Jul 14, 2006 7:15:04 AM
Design is at best an afterthought in the institutions of everyday American life. And traveling abroad does force you to notice.
But we seem to love functional aesthetics given the opportunity. Even hardcore PC users like myself will readily admit Macs are very, very pretty. And *everyone* loves "Trading Spaces"...
There must be other values we hold higher which force separation between engineering and design as a general rule.
Posted by: Joel | Jul 14, 2006 7:30:52 AM
As an American living in Switzerland, I have a couple of thoughts on the subject of Swiss money and the Swiss attitude to design in general. When I first got there I had a hard time getting used to how colorful it was. I had the same initial reaction to the bank notes that a couple of the commenters here had - "omg it's like play money", etc. As I got used to it though, I came to appreciate the beauty and utility of the designs. Printing these notes is a very complex process, and the Swiss take great pride in their printing technology. So, besides the designs themselves representing something special, the actual process of making the notes is a reflection of a part of Swiss national pride.
I think the major difference between the U.S. and Switzerland is the conservative attitude, or lack of, towards institutional and public design projects. Commercial design in the U.S. can be quite avant-garde...like the W hotels, or the Apple stores, or privately funded museums. But try to get a publicly supported design project to use any sort of modern or different design...you're usually doomed, whether it's bank notes or a building. In Switzerland, people are much more open to modern design, and so don't raise huge objections or bring up 'tradition bla bla' about it - even, or especially, government officials. (And in case people think that a few government officials can dictate design to the masses...that simply can't happen, since the Swiss can and do have direct referendum votes on everything.) Anyway, for a modern design junkie like me, Switzerland is a pretty wonderful place to live.
Posted by: maki | Jul 14, 2006 7:38:51 AM
Cargo, I agree with you. In a previous job I was told by someone who knew about these things that if you wanted to sell to the American market whatever you made had to look American or it wouldn't sell. Money rules.
No-one's mentioned British banknotes yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_banknotes
We have coloured shapes for partially sighted people to distinguish them, as well as different colours and sizes.
Posted by: Paul Morriss | Jul 14, 2006 7:47:13 AM
I have one gripe about your article, in that you're using old US bills: The new $20 is, by comparison to the old one, garish: There's peach all over the darn thing. I can't remember if the $10 is next, or if the $10 is already out there, and the $5 is next. I don't use that much cash as a telecommuter, and "yuppie food stamps" (double sawbucks) are typically what I've got in my wallet.
I'm sure fewer people overall are using cash: between credit cards, debit cards, PayPal, Google Checkout... why bother redesigning it?
The other thing about the US bills is a very high standard for durability (did you know the original ones were a hemp paper? now it's a high cotton percentage): holograms and tactile features won't stand up to the "crush test", washing machines, etc.
Posted by: joelfinkle | Jul 14, 2006 7:52:35 AM
We're stepping closer to more colorful money. Has anyone seen the new $10? It's kind of an orange red. Image at wikipedia. According to wikipedia it went into circulation on march 10th this year (2006).
I work at a local grocery in the southeast, of the 11 or so comments ive heard about the $10 from customers, about 7 don't like them, 4 thought they were interesting.
Posted by: Jared Teems | Jul 14, 2006 8:03:06 AM
I wonder if the lack of design aesthetic in the US is historically rooted in the Puritans that landed on it's shores so many years ago?
Though the USA likes to style itself as a very advanced country, and is in many ways, there is an undercurrent of conservatism and puritanism that exists to this day.
Posted by: Andrzej Taramina | Jul 14, 2006 8:07:53 AM
Umair recently blogged on this topic:
http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2006/07/simple-economics-of-lack-of-fashion.cfm
In essence the US work-ethic and consumer culture prizes productivity above all else, and style isn't productive.
One of the commenters mentions style and dress a class indicator. I think that's important. To simplify outrageously: in the US your class is determined by how much you earn, in Europe it's something you're born with that doesn't change, regardless of wealth. In such an environment you need to have a much keener sense for subtle differences in appearance.
Posted by: Alex Farran | Jul 14, 2006 8:10:03 AM
I have been really noticing a similar trend this past couple years. I still really miss the Dutch currency that was lost when the Euro came into being. There are many Americans who are great designers, but it could be the old puritanical foundations of the U.S. that drive the mediocre rather than the well designed. I have a German car because of the engineering and attention to detail, I drive a lot of American brand cars when I travel and I am astounded at how poorly they are put together and designed.
Your point about graffiti is really dead on. I have been traveling to and through Amsterdam a fair amount the past couple years. Not only is the graffiti fantastic, but it is celebrated. One of the galleries in Den Haag is having an exhibition of "street art" that runs through September. People know the names of the graffiti artists and can discern "The London Police" from "Gordo", etc. It is not only Amsterdam, but England. Last year a well known graffiti artist published a work of his "art" and last Fall the Banksy book was in every bookshop window, it was celebrated. Banksy's works are humorous and intelligent. But, now in Brighton, England they are currently discussing a new Banksy piece and whether to paint over it or keep it as a cultural work (his works bring in tourists).
The difference in culture is no more drastic than flying from Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to Dulles Airport outside of Washington, DC. In Schiphol the signs are bright yellow in the airport, they are easy to find and easy to understand. In Dulles the signage is light brown with white text and it blends into the background. The signs are needed and have a purpose to orient people and get them to the services, gates, exits, etc. that they need while normally in a harried state that travel puts many people.
I have also been amazed with the European approach to web development and design. Some of the British web developers are some of the most leading edge designers with standards and accessibility.
The web software company System One out of Austria has one of the most simple to use and best enterprise tools for information use and knowledge management I have ever run across. It is amazingly well designed, not in a beautiful way, but in the way the tool not only gets out of the way, but also embraces nearly every means of personal information workflow so it can help a broad cross section of people no matter how they think or work.
There are great developers and designers in America, but they are not celebrated for their excellence as they are elsewhere.
Posted by: vanderwal | Jul 14, 2006 8:12:54 AM
Sorry, but I like the way my US dollars look. Theres too much traffic on other countries bills.
Posted by: Dominick | Jul 14, 2006 8:19:08 AM
I wonder if the reason that the US is less intererested in modern design modernism because it hasn't accumulated enough history to spur the active search for something new. I think after a few more hundred years of Friends episodes I may change the channel. Seriously though, if you lived next door to a 1000 year old building you might be more interested in new designs than if you live in a brand new subdivision that doesn't even have trees (yet).
In defense of the US, I think that a lot of our design efforts are focused on virtual spaces instead of physical spaces (we are focused on architected information instead of architecture) . Our dollars may not be as nice, but we do have eBay and PayPal....
Perhaps this could be called postmodern design.
Posted by: Morgan Goeller | Jul 14, 2006 8:21:17 AM
While I agree that compared to the currency of some countries, American money is "boring," but I disagree that it's poorly designed: pretty, colorful, etc., doesn't make for a good design, it simply means it's colorful. I like American greenbacks as they are: simple, utilitarian, transaction focused. The only problem is that they are relatively easy to forge.
I also disagree on the size issue. Having lived in a number of different countries, and dealing with bills of different sizes, I find it much easier to deal with bills of consistent size.
All this said, the most luxurious currency I've ever seen was in Hungary during the 90s. Not sure if they've changed it since, but it was AWESOME. Not technicolored like all over Europe, but beautiful rich hues, thick money. It was like cloth.
Posted by: Josh | Jul 14, 2006 9:11:45 AM
Fabulous article. So true.
As for how the US got to its current lack of design (even disdain for design), see the book "The Old Way of Seeing". I am convinced it is correct in stating that we started losing the idea of everyone doing design around 1830. Now, it seems we cannot build an 1830-style building no matter how much money we have.
As for US currency, I think that we have been going downhill for 100 years. The old bills with the etching style are very nice. Not beautiful but nice. Now our bills are clunky design.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 14, 2006 9:16:12 AM
I'll give you most of the points about our culture, etc. But I think the Swiss money is horrid, and I think the Japanese manhole is pretty ugly too. They are more "interesting" than the US versions, but they don't do anything for me. I think part of the issue is that the US is so big and diverse that nobody can agree on what is beautiful and so the government doesn't try very hard. The government, because it believes its job is to represent The People, doesn't have its own sense of style. It's the can't please everybody problem. It's much easier to not offend most people.
Some cities in the US do have beauty, but it wouldn't work plastered across the country. It's a local thing.
Posted by: Hans | Jul 14, 2006 9:21:25 AM
Those Swiss notes play havoc with my color synesthesia :-)
Seriously, though I agree with the previous posters who mentioned our austere Puritanical background. I'm sure that's part of it, deeply embedded in our national psyche despite the fact that we have plenty of people here from other cultural backgrounds.
What depresses me is this growing squalor I sense all around me. Everything looks drab and worn out. It’s like no one cares about aesthetics any more. The only graffiti we see around here is gang "tagging", little different from a tomcat "spraying" to mark his territory.
On a related note, I've been lamenting for some time that our culture seems to have lost much of the musical spontaneity of, say, Scotland and Ireland. Just like we leave much of our graphic art to professionals, we tend to rely on "canned" music rather than make up our own.
A thought on accessibility for the blind: there were rumors going around that the latest $20 bills had embedded RFID chips (which could be "detonated" in a microwave oven). It occurs to me that such chips, if they existed, could include the denomination of the bill. Then the blind could carry around a special currency reader which would read the denomination out loud.
Posted by: Bob | Jul 14, 2006 9:52:54 AM
Beautiful things work better? Not much evidence for it, but I believe it to be true.
But it's also true that things that work better are more beautiful.
That's why people are passionate about Amazon, Google, eBay, MySpace.
We could hang our hats on the first statement, and try to make things beautiful first. But having that as the first priority opens the possibility for beautiful, useless things, which are common.
But the 2nd one seems to be more effective, and when we try to make things work better, with that as our highest priority we will, as a fantastic side effect, make people passionate about them.
Posted by: Joshua Porter | Jul 14, 2006 9:56:29 AM
America is no place for an artist: to be an artist is to be a moral leper, an economic misfit, a social liability. A corn-fed hog enjoys a better life than a creative writer, painter, or musician. To be a rabbit is better still.
(Henry Miller (1891-1980), U.S. author. The Air-Conditioned Nightmare, preface (1945).)
Posted by: Tim Case | Jul 14, 2006 11:14:10 AM
Funny to read the "play money" comments coming from Americans. As a Norwegian who lived in the States for a while, my first reaction to the dollar bills was "how boring". I guess it depends on what you're used to. (Or maybe American manufacturers of play money are many steps ahead of the authorities...)
But you're all wrong, everyone IS a designer, thanks to desktop publishing. And everyone uses Comic Sans.
Joshua Porter: As the old Shaker saying goes: "Don’t make something unless it is both necessary and useful; but if it is both necessary and useful, don't hesitate to make it beautiful."
Posted by: Norskie | Jul 14, 2006 11:15:52 AM
The TV has damned us all to hell! To hell I tell you! Americans are watchers and not doers now.
Posted by: Randal | Jul 14, 2006 11:37:06 AM
There's always exceptions to the rules, so in defense of US design (or lack thereof) I present to you hatchcovers of Seattle, WA:
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/light/Neighborhoods/nh4_art.htm
Seattle communities take a lot of pride in helping create functional art out of common uses such as bus stop murals, benches, street lights, random sidewalk art etched into the sidewalk itself and the constant creation of parks and P-patches out of unused lots.
Posted by: Lehanna | Jul 14, 2006 12:01:23 PM
The most relevant point of the article was that US money should be made more accessible to the blind. That's a great point.
Beyond that, I don't want my government wasting more of our money to make our currency pretty. Let The W make their hotels pretty, and Apple make their stores pretty, but the government should not be spending time/money on that, in my opinion.
And don't get me started on the dollar coin. When's the last time you've seen a men's wallet with a coin purse? 10 years ago? We don't like coins. They're bulky and inconvenient. We leave them in the nearest tip jar immediately and don't even consider carrying them. The abundance of coins in Europe bothered me to no end.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 14, 2006 12:31:50 PM
I've just moved back to the US after five years of living in Paris. Your words perfectly capture some of the "reverse culture shock" feelings I've been coping with for the past four weeks!
Posted by: Paul | Jul 14, 2006 1:18:38 PM
Why?
* Puritanism
* Pragmatism
* Protestant Work Ethic
* Philistinism
* a culture of greed
* a country founded on genocide and then built by slavery
* an economic system that thrives on exploitation and sweatshops, in fact would collapse without them (do the math)
* a system that gleefully destroys the environment we all depend on
* a planet where 10% are rich while 90% are in poverty or near it
...not that other countries are much better...
no, such a culture is too busy building heartless empire and creating mindless distraction to worry much about design or beauty, except to the bare minimum extent it is necessary.
Posted by: rebel | Jul 14, 2006 1:42:47 PM
country founded on genocide bl bla bla gleefully destroys bla bla heartless empire boo hoo culture of greed yada yada.. tell us more gems of wisdom (yaaaaaawn) ummm what’s your name again..oh yeah.."rebel" he he.
We are all listening there tiger.
Posted by: snail | Jul 14, 2006 2:16:17 PM
The pre-Euro Dutch bank notes have been mentioned a number of times in this discussion. I've found some scans here:
These are the 1970's 5, 10, 25 and 100 gulden notes. These are the earliest banknotes I remember. They're "conventional" in that they carry portraits of historic figures, but you'll notice the portraits are somewhat caricaturesque, daring, a nice deviation from the beaten path.
The eighties' 50, 250 and 100 gulden notes and nineties' 10, 25 and 100 and 1000 gulden notes are continuously more abstract. These are the ones that were replaced by the Euro notes. I think the nineties' ones are spectacular, there's so much to see in them, deliberate touches and details down to every tenth of a millimetre. The blue-and-orange tenner, inspired on the Kingfisher, is my favourite note of the series.
Like pretty much everyone here, I miss them for their visual appeal. The Euro notes are so... uninspired.
Posted by: Barend Garvelink | Jul 14, 2006 2:18:47 PM
Dont take this the wrong way, but I think its basically because USA doesn't have alot of history and not much (common) culture.
Posted by: Kasper Retvig | Jul 14, 2006 2:27:41 PM
Most of the economics work I've done suggests it's utilitarianism in the U.S. For the majority of things people consume, advanced design is a heuristic for poor value. Shampoo is a great example. Shampoos are largely the same (check the ingredients if you don't believe me). So American's are almost trained to spot the worst looking shampoo bottle because it is undoubtedly the cheapest. In some areas of consumption this doesn't hold true. But for most consumables and mid to low cost items, products are purposely designed in a dumbed down fashion to cue the buyer that it is cheaper.
The money doesn't change design purely because it is really an international currency. Changing it's look drastically would cause huge problems outside of America.
The architecture outside of the U.S. looks like it has more history because... well it's older. Try going to other cities with less history as well. Anything in Canada or Mexico, Sao Paulo, the newer parts of big Asian cities. They are just as bad if not worse.
Posted by: cheep | Jul 14, 2006 2:46:22 PM
I could care less how our money looks! Give me value over artistic design any day!!
Posted by: Revwilly | Jul 14, 2006 3:01:34 PM
It surprising you'd bring up banknotes. In India we used to have rather colorful notes - each denomination a different color and yes, the larger the value, the bigger the note. I remember hearing as a kid that this was partly because of the lower level of literacy: folks did not have to *read* the number, you could *look* and know the value. And in a wad of 100 notes, it would be immediately obvious if any of the notes were 'wrong'. On the other hand, the US with its high level of literacy was able to have all notes be the exact same color and size.
Now the US is slowly injecting some color into the notes wheras in India we are going to a near standard size and look/feel.
I agree with one commenter above - the swiss notes are a bit too colorful. I'd hate to spend that kind of money too!
Posted by: Raghu | Jul 14, 2006 3:05:51 PM
I would figure it is more dependant on monocultural foreign countries being able to have faster changing 'fad' designs because they only have a few sensibilities to design for.
In America, there are so many cultures and sensibilities to try to meet for a new public design that I think 'bland' and 'historical-from-monoculture-period' are either a design feature or at least an expectable design result.
The whole Muzak/light jazz thing, for example - it's calming and nonoffensive to (almost) all, rather than trying to engage some segment of the population while offending others. Less clear but similar for 'designs in public' like manhole covers - I bet choosing an (almost) universally inoffensive symbol in the US is worlds more difficult than in Japan.
Posted by: Quadko | Jul 14, 2006 3:11:33 PM
"In much of western Europe, the graffiti is f'n amazing.
It feels like thousands of urban artists were set free to construct beautiful murals everywhere."
The graf I've seen outside the US is basically a big rip-off of US stylez. The difference isn't that non-American graf is better-- it's that non-Americans don't do the crap "grafitti" that gets etched into subway windows and looks like sh!t. there's plenty of great graf in the US though. it generally occurs in hard to see places tho. as the sf examiner points out today, sf spends $30million/yr. 'cleaning' up grafitti so the prosecution of grafitti is a big deal.
my latest fave in sf are sidewalk stencils that say things like: "i have nothing but love for you."
Posted by: gretchen | Jul 14, 2006 3:46:32 PM
Take another look at at our bills. Our culture is all over it. Ignorant and uneducated Americans merely cannot see it [words deleted by editor]. Swiss notes are only better because they are easier to copy. They are a flamboyant display of what you call "culture" for a country dependent on tourism and monetary exchange. So, who is really more clingy with their cash? Us or a country dependent on other's exchange via their nation as a medium with flashy "art" on their monetary notes?
Posted by: A Patriot | Jul 14, 2006 3:54:52 PM
Hi,
praising Spanish girls (I love them too),
have you ever been to eastern europe (slovakia,
ukraine)?
you would have to reestimate your opinion on what´s f-ng attractive, and all w/o olive oil...
vilo
Posted by: vilo | Jul 14, 2006 4:47:46 PM
To be fair, consider the manhole covers in Seattle that have a city map, or countless other cities where they are designed. Even here in St. Louis I don't think I've ever seen one as boring as the one you show.
Aside from that and the money-should-be-boring arguments, I think you've nicely identified something that I've observed since childhood: Legotown sets look designed not because they're stylized, but because they portray designed environments that feel alien to Americans. My favorite example is the signage in England (but compare that to the signage and maps for the Paris Metro, which seem less "European" than Chicago or DC.
Posted by: Hans Gerwitz | Jul 14, 2006 4:54:21 PM
I didn't expect this volume of comments, and I reckon most people aren't reading through them all, and I appreciate them all. There are such thoughtful, interesting, and amusing (and sometimes passionate) suggestions about this post (and the questions it posed).
Randomly:
[revwilly] "I could care less how our money looks! Give me value over artistic design any day!!"
Some of us would argue that this need not be an either/or... that value and artistic design are *not* somehow mutually exclusive. But the deeper issue might be that we all have our own ideas about what we DO "value". In the case where better-designed things work better, then there's added-value there. And some of us place a great deal of value on artistic beauty, even if we all have our own (culturally-specific) idea of what that means.
[Quadko]: this makes a lot of sense. That doesn't stop it from being a little depressing... "- I bet choosing an (almost) universally inoffensive symbol in the US is worlds more difficult than in Japan."
True enough. But that opens up the whole question of whether finding something "universally inoffensive" (i.e. bland) should always be the goal? Are we consistent in that as a culture? And I do believe that there are some universally inoffensive things about the US which are considered beautiful by most... the rugged northwest coastline. The rocky mountains (I'm biased). Grand Canyon. Yosemite. These things are at once deeply historical and part of what we celebrate. But I'm just using landscapes as one example of things that most people find both inoffensive and aesthetically beautiful.
As for monoculture... the US as a whole is quite diverse, but even in the non-monoculture areas (we definitely have a lot of states that aren't as diverse) like Los Angeles, there still manages to be a vibrant, visual style... lots of DIFFERENT styles, that just about everyone appreciates. LA is a very unusual place, though.
[On Color]: several people have mentioned that the Swiss bills are a little too colorful for their tastes. But while the color is indeed one more usability cue--and an aesthetic component--one of our most cherished artists in the US showed us the depth of beauty that can be found in black & white... Ansel Adams. So we could certainly have monochromatic bills that are still beautiful.
[joelfinkle]: I thought I was using the new bills, or at least that's what the guy at the bank said when I specifically asked for "good specimens" for the photo. But I really don't know. I tried to up the saturation so that you could see the color in the new US bills... but the colors didn't survive the jpeg compressor all that well.
[Patriot]: you don't need to be insulting. I'll edit (again) or delete your comments if you can't make your points without name-calling. And if you want to be helpful, you could try "educating" us on what you see.
[gretchen]: excellent point! I think that's what I was referring to... that the grafitti there is amazing not because their graffiti artists are better, but that their "work" is viewed differently (e.g. respected, celebrated, or at least... better tolerated).
Thanks also to those (like Roy) who pointed out the inconsistency in my comments about "history". Yeah, I have to think about that some more, but what Gray said is exactly what I was thinking... that our notes represent a pretty narrow slice. Where's an Apollo space craft? Rosa Parks? McDonalds? (sorry, couldn't resist).
[Norskie]: Perfect, perfect quote : )
[Paul]: I definitely don't want the government wasting money, but good design should not necessarily have to cost more.
I agree that the size issue is a tricky one... since it trade's one person's usability for another. I have no idea how hard that really is to implement, but other countries have managed (albeit with far less people using them).
[Tom]: yeah, no argument from me on the coins! And even in Switzerland, the coin mapping is wrong -- where the relative sizes don't always match the value (i.e. coin A is physically smaller than coin B, but is worth more than coin B...)
Whew. I'm glad that all I have to do is put a few thoughts and a question out there and all these really smart (opinionated) people--that would be y'all-- add so much more value than I could ever hope to offer.
Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jul 14, 2006 4:55:42 PM
“Does the US suck at design,” you ask? Um, I thought everyone knew that already? [ducks]
But on a more serious note, your observation that in the US designers are a profession separate from everyone else reminds me of a quote by one of my favourite authors, Umberto Eco. While I can’t find the exact source right now (dead trees are hard to search!), the gist of it is that in America (and by extension here in Australia) politics is seen as a profession, practiced by professionals called “politicians”, while in Europe politics is everyone’s right and duty.
As a result, “politics” is something we watch other people do, and we passively choose from the choices on offer -- and the same seems to happen with design.
Posted by: Stilgherrian | Jul 14, 2006 5:31:07 PM
I thought it was pretty clear. There is no design in the US because it costs money and it isn't valued. The bottom line rules everything
Posted by: ArcticFox | Jul 14, 2006 5:42:18 PM
I work with restaurants. I'm continually amazed at the corny, amateurish design of many US restaurant websites, compared to those from other countries.
Posted by: Ken | Jul 14, 2006 7:11:38 PM
In the “grass is greener” mode, I have to say that typographically, New Zealand banknotes suck. The previous paper ones had far superior typography, rather than the current amalgam of Swiss and humanist.
Posted by: Jack Yan | Jul 14, 2006 7:33:01 PM
The problem with foreign bills is that they don't feel like real money--they all have the same texture as Monopoly money. U.S. bills, while I don't like the new multi-colored versions, have a very distinctive texture that I find far more esthetically pleasing than that of foreign paper money.
Posted by: Ice Scribe | Jul 14, 2006 7:53:04 PM
When I was growing up in France, everyone tried to be unique. Everyone wanted to find his or her own voice or talent. It wasn't until I went to an American school that I found myself surrounded by kids whose main goal was to be just like everyone else.
Along the same lines, kids in France are exposed to art every day of their lives. From museums to architecture to history class, they can't escape it. It is part of their experience from day one. My experience with the American education system was almost completely devoid of art. (The one art history class I took was in college, was an elective, and was little more than a cursory look at this foreign and elusive thing called art.)
Yeah, there are great US-based designers out there, but most of their clients pay them to dumb down their work because they just don't know any better.
Great post, as always.
Posted by: olivier blanchard | Jul 14, 2006 9:14:32 PM
Do you remember Back to the Future II? Where Marty goes "back" to what he thinks is the year 1985, only it's some bizarre alternate-reality 1985, where his neighborhood is now a ghetto, rich businessmen rule over everything using ill-gotten gains, and everything's just kind of big and ugly.
Sometimes I feel like that actually happened.
I'm not sure when we switched into the bizarre alternate reality. I think it was sometime during the early 1970s. Right up until then, America had cool design. We had the Space Program. We had the IBM 360. The Boeing 747. The SST. Miniskirts. The AMC Pacer. The American future -- and by extension, The Future -- was going to be streamlined, aerodynamic, modern. It was going to be cool.
Then something happened.
Instead of going to Mars, we got Skylab. Instead of the SST, we got the DC-10. The Vietnamese thing didn't really turn out. The Pacer got laughed off the market, and the mini was replaced by the maxi.
And it got worse. Everything got bigger, uglier. We got SUVs. "Super-sized" fast food. Fake woodgrain, fake chrome, neon accent lights.
I just finished flipping through a Dell catalog. The one with the new XPS systems. They're just painfully ugly. You want to put Visine in your eyes and lie down in a dark room after reading that catalog.
Occasionally a big American company would hit on a really wonderful design -- and then rapidly abandon it. Pontiac Fiero... The Microsoft "Dove Bar" mouse... The Compaq TC1100...
The one American company that seems to have consistently understood design is Apple. Apple products usually look like they fell out of a time machine from some alternate future, the future we were supposed to have, the one where everything was streamlined, aerodynamic, modern. The future that was going to be cool.
Sigh. Now if only I could figure out how to go back to 1972 and steal that sports almanac from Biff.
Posted by: Karim | Jul 14, 2006 10:56:18 PM
I loved the comments about women in Barcelona - so true. When I first showed my American girlfriend http://www.europemoda.com/ she was speechless. Not sure whether it was speechless good or speechless bad but she hasnt bought anything there yet.
But overall I think a lot of US design is funded due to practicality rather than to make a statement. The European weather and climate are totally different and a lot more predictable and urban areas are much closer together even between different countries so theres more desire to seem 'different' wouldnt you say?
Posted by: Matt | Jul 15, 2006 5:20:32 AM
Hello !
I like very much your blog !
Greetings from Belgium.
Cheers.
Reno
Posted by: reno | Jul 15, 2006 6:53:13 AM
In answer to your question in the post title...
No!
Posted by: Earl Moore | Jul 15, 2006 1:22:30 PM
I agree that the size issue is a tricky one... since it trade’s one person’s usability for another. I have no idea how hard that really is to implement, but other countries have managed (albeit with far less people using them).
Population USA (one country, one currency):
298,217,215
Population Eurozone (12 counries, one currency):
312,735,700
Population European Union (25 countries): 457,514,494
We changed the bills of a total of 12 countries so far and more are to join. The population affected by this change outnumber the US population.
An intersting figure would be the number of people using the US currency regularly outside the US and the number of people using the Euro outside the Eurozone, in both cases effectively replacing their own currency.
To bring this to one point: I don’t think the number of persons using US dollars is a convincing argument for not changing the appearance of the currency.
Posted by: Jens | Jul 15, 2006 5:22:21 PM
Jens is right for usage across the territory where the bills are legal tender, indeed. And I rememebr hearing a few years after the apparition fo the Euro about how in some out-territorial uses like, guess, the illegal mafia / drugdeals kinds of uses, the Euro *was* starting to replace the handy hardy all-mighty dollar. It's a question of the security of the currency, of course, but also of the relative size of it, it biggest available printed note, etc. Apparently rich mobsters and their friends find the EUR 500 very handy nowadays (outside the US, of course. I guess mostly the eastern european mafias? I don't know).
One thing people do mention but sort of 'in passing' always and without unrolling the implications is America's puritannical roots. This might be too unimformed of me but isn't there a whole tradition of "beauty is a tool of the devil" extremism? You know, that nearly caricatural culture in which people are required to loathe music (except hymns) and loathe dancing (too much physical exultation can only be sinful) and the like? It seems to me that the USA's reltion to art and design in general can only have been marked by that...
Posted by: jude | Jul 15, 2006 6:45:11 PM
I have some currently from the Czech Republic from about 10+ years ago.... beautiful artwork. And pre-Euro German Marks had scientists on them... including Maxwell's equations.
Ben Franklin is the only scientist on US currency.
Posted by: keith ray | Jul 15, 2006 7:22:57 PM
"I'm sure that much of the success of the iPod is due to the fact that, besides being technologically very efficient, it is beautifully designed."
Yes, designed by a Brit: Jonathan Ives.
The Swiss appreciate design, which is why I buy bags such as "The Aeronaut" from Seattle, WA-based Tom Bihn: http://www.tombihn.com and pay additional 65 USD for shipping, handling and taxes.
Posted by: Swissfondue | Jul 16, 2006 2:55:13 AM
I'm from South Africa where we have similar money to the New Zealanders (also now covered in pretty animals), colourful and sized according to value. I'm now living in the UK where the system is pretty similar, although the notes aren't as pretty ;-)
America was a bit of a shock for me because I had to spend a lot of time learning the difference between the notes. When I questioned why they were all the same colour and size, the explanation my (Texan) friends gave was that it was related to the tipping culture -- when you hand over a folded up note, the recipient (and anyone around) is unlikely to be able to see what the value is.
Posted by: Meri | Jul 16, 2006 5:55:51 AM
from the link Why Beautiful Things Work Better
http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/1278
"results show that when people are relaxed and happy, their thought processes expand, becoming more creative, more imaginative."
were not relaxed, were not happy - therefore were dull.
American 20 yr old who has never left the states
Posted by: Matt Alonso | Jul 16, 2006 9:00:36 AM
The author of this article is a pretty obvious layman who doesn't know the difference between DESIGN and FASHION. "Beautiful things work better" has got to be one of the worst axioms for design that I have heard in the last five years, and gets it exactly backwards. The proper axiom is "Things that work beautifully tend to be beautiful."
Why the hell would anyone put a big flowery design on a manhole cover? Who is supposed to notice it aside from the maintenance personnel, who know exactly where it is already? The simple pattern on the American manhole example is not for looks, it is for TRACTION, and furthermore it helps it blend in with the street, which is what a manhole cover SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO DO.
The only thing this editorial shows is that the author is part of his own problem. He doesn't know ass about design, but thinks it is somehow subordinate to and derived from culture and fashion. Go read a few serious textbooks on the subject, pal, and try again in a year.
Posted by: garote | Jul 16, 2006 3:53:39 PM
Regarding "it's just a blog post":
Unfortunately it's a problem we all have to deal with here on the internet ... there's almost no functional difference between the mechanisms of journalism and the mechanisms of rambling one's thoughts out for the hell of it. Even the feedback - the comments people leave - runs the range from serious argument to freewheeling and commiserating with no structure to separate the two. And they clash like crazy.
So yes, I can understand the frustrations of your position. (Anyone who's had to weather the Slashdot Effect has had a plateful of this.) And I think that something you said here may be helpful in the future:
"I'm simply not good enough a writer to make it clear to people who don't know me when it's just me talking (potentially out of my ass)"
You're being too hard on yourself, because it's not true. You're a good enough writer for your "rambling" to be mistaken for an editorial. That means you're also a good enough writer to work in cues like, "now I know this is just my opinion, but", or, "I'm probably talking out of my ass here, but", ... Another thing you could do (and you do this already, but I'm pointing it out to emphasize it) is to simply rephrase tenuous things into an appeal for help on the subject, and let the commentary shape itself around that. Your appeal to designers at the end of the piece is a perfect example of that.
Of course you could work these in all over the place and still get drowned in the Slashdot Effect, and that's bound to sting. But look at it this way: You're not obligated to respond to any of the comments.
Posted by: garote | Jul 16, 2006 6:15:19 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for bringing this to some of us who aren't as lucky to travel outside of the US. Good observation(s).
Posted by: Michael James | Jul 17, 2006 1:54:23 AM
this is a really retarded post. I'll take the us bills over the swiss anytime. the swiss bills looks like monopoly money.
Posted by: janson | Jul 17, 2006 2:07:45 AM
Hi,
good thing you didn't also scan a CHF 200.- bill. These look plain utterly ugly. At least color-wise.
:-)
Philip
Posted by: Philip Hofstetter | Jul 17, 2006 2:10:33 AM
Tweehonderdvijftig gulden
Why did we need to switch to the Euro? It's a real shame we don't use these anymore in the Netherlands.
Posted by: Cruddy | Jul 17, 2006 2:25:51 AM
I find that americans have the same relationship with their consumer goods as they do food: never mind the quality - it's all about quantity and price. More is better. Cheaper is better. Okay, I'm generalizing, but you get the idea.
Posted by: Polly Esther | Jul 17, 2006 2:43:20 AM
You might suck at design. I guess so. The reason is you're a bunch of wimpy do-gooder puritans who can't impress Europeans.
Posted by: Sune | Jul 17, 2006 2:55:37 AM
I find it hard to handle US notes, on the rare occaisions that I have had to: The notes are uniformly sized, and they are all the same colour.
Australian money, in addition to being plastic, comes in pink, blue, red, yellow and green for 5, 10, 20, 50 and hundred dollar notes. You can easily tell where you stand with a quick glance through your wallet.
But that said, architectural design here in Brisbane seems be pretty much divided between colonial, and well... concrete towers. There are some weird embelishments here and an there, but nothing that I'd call aesthetically pleasing design.
In response to garote's post, I don't see why form and function have to mutually exclusive. Why can't a manhole cover look nice in addition being non-slip? Another, closer to hand example would be Mac OSX. At the risk of igniting a flamewar, I will state that OSX is both beautiful and functional. If you're not used to that functionality, it will seem a little alien, but in my experience, after having being shown how to do things by my friends, I am:
* More productive in terms of getting things done (Quicksilver, expose, more screen real estate dedicated to useful stuff, rather than application chrome)
* A little bit happier because the UI looks more beautiful than windows does.
So in summary, some people may be happy to live in a Borg cube, but there are those of us out there who feel that a little beauty on our lives helps us feel more human.
Posted by: tunaranch | Jul 17, 2006 2:58:35 AM
hi, 1st off... pls don't take any of my comments as anything negative/offensive. it's merely a pov and an observation.
the theory: i don't know why many things in us are visually less appealing than similar things in other country or culture. but i dare guess that it's due to the primary industrial-capitalist mentality. to take myself as a programmer, for example, it would be far easier (read: faster development effort, faster processing, cheaper, etc.) to load tabular text data than it would be to load formatted data, text or otherwise. i realize of course, the world is not exactly programmable. but in the mind of denizens of capitalist society, where time is money, things that are functional can be processed faster than are otherwise.
with that said, i should say, that i don't know anything about how banking machines count money (or anything else at all for that matter), or authenticate that it isn't fake, etc., etc. and i suppose the dimension difference in the european bank notes in your image are also used to weigh in these factors.
perhaps it's simply just difference in thought process, function-driven design or design-driven function. and the effects could be as different as night and day.
Posted by: pragmatic anonymous coward | Jul 17, 2006 3:06:32 AM
What I find kind of funny is that you can pretty much tell an American that hasn't been anywhere, or been around anyone from anywhere else for an extended period of time in how they respond to things. A complete and utter lack of perspective.
The comments about "Monopoly money" and "fake" are telling to me: Most Americans don't realize that this is *exactly* what the REST of the world's first reaction is to seeing American bills "in real life"; they appear "cheap" and "little" and like, well, play money to them.
I've even had *Canadians* say this...and we "joke" Canada here all the time...(good natured, heheh, of course, but still).
-K
Posted by: Kai Cherry | Jul 17, 2006 3:13:42 AM
So the Europeans are better than us are they? Well why dont you just go and live there then you dam liberal.
USA! USA!
Posted by: Alan Thompson | Jul 17, 2006 3:19:02 AM
Hey, the money in the United States is plainer that the money in other countries because the US has better anti-counterfeit technology like embedding microthreads. Other countries which don't have the technology or cumshaw to put that kind of electronic booby trap into their dollar bills have to resort to fancy designs. When the US didn't have that technology, it's currency designs were fancy too.
By the way, buildings in the United States don't have centuries of rich history because the US less than 250 years old! Could THAT be a clue, Sherlock?
By the way, the curly-cue italic font for the comments may look pretty and impress your lisping boyfriend, but it's hard to read. Therefore, you suck at design.
Posted by: Penguin Pete | Jul 17, 2006 3:22:37 AM
The usability of US notes leaves much to be desired, but the aesthetic values of the notes are something different. Even if the US note looks boring, it's design is easily recognizable and has a strong identity. Euro notes are also rather boring in my opinion.
Posted by: Dan | Jul 17, 2006 3:41:35 AM
the green looks greener on the neigbour. i think US dollars designs are fine. they are showing some ellegancy and luxurious that the switzerland money dont have.
Posted by: aleni mesch | Jul 17, 2006 4:14:34 AM
Wow, Switzerland's money is like Canadians! Cute penguin ^^ I actually love the new bills as they have foil to prevent faudulent and are so pretty. lol
Posted by: Jessica | Jul 17, 2006 4:33:16 AM
Penguin Pete:
My UK currency has a metallic thread, a watermark, a hologram, a serial number, yellow anti-copy dots, and tiny text only readable with a magnifying glass.
These are just the things I can see with my eyes.
What does US currency have?
I really liked the dutch lighthouse note though. And yes. I had a board game called "Go for broke" that had us-style currency in it. I have never seen anything like european money in a board game.
Posted by: Bristopher | Jul 17, 2006 4:33:31 AM
"And on the back, you get historical/political buildings that nobody but a history buff gives a crap about."
I abhore people who cannot take pride in the history of their country. I have no doubts many Europeans are very patriotic about the history of their country.
If you want to take a clue from them regarding money design, why not take it a step further and show a little historical pride? More than just history buffs "give a crap" about them.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 17, 2006 4:42:13 AM
These are my favourites of the 3 series of irish pounds. We are now on the euro but werent these pretty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_B_Banknotes_%28Ireland%29
Posted by: mary gilmartin | Jul 17, 2006 5:10:40 AM
On a recent trip to spain I was taken by these street name signs. Each one is individually designed/painted notice the 3 different designs for the same street at 3 intersections
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24878369@N00/tags/streetsigns/
Posted by: maht | Jul 17, 2006 5:45:58 AM
Bring back the almighty Green Money... I hate this coffee stained, Internationalized money. Green was and should always be a symbol of the U.S.
Posted by: hollowex | Jul 17, 2006 6:09:02 AM
Very nice entry. Very informative. Plus you mentioned New Zealand ;) I agree that the US bank notes must be the worst ones in the world?...
Posted by: Jevon | Jul 17, 2006 6:20:24 AM
I agree with much of what you say regarding design and currency; I've seen notes from other places that I find much more interesting than US bills. I did think though, that including the appearence of the women and men of Barcelona to illustrate that US design sucks is bizarre. American women and men are so diverse that there are people here as wonderfully beautiful as any on earth.
Posted by: GregPC | Jul 17, 2006 6:56:53 AM
About the manhole covers- something that I accutally know something about (shock).
The designs on the covers tell the location (neighborhood, ward, district) of the utilities. The color dots inform the person of the services to be found below, although this is not consistant across the country.
Now, how does a kid from WVa know so much about the ground under Japan? My last girlfriend was Japanese, and while in Hiroshima, I spent an evening talking to a guy who was a sells rep for a company that makes the covers for Tokyo.
(Actually, I'd love to get a bunch and use them as stepping stones for a path in my yard, but that's another story.)
Posted by: Henry Rieke | Jul 17, 2006 7:09:08 AM
I firmly believe, like a few others replied, that the US is loathe to put much public money into art. And the fact that we're so surrounded by an unadorned environment creeps into our expectations.
But this withdrawal of artistic money has been gradual. Living in older (east coast) cities, you see in the older buildings and public works projects that there was a time when designers and artisans could make their mark in public spaces. Walk around an old city and really look for these things - you will see.
Posted by: commahater | Jul 17, 2006 7:31:36 AM
You should check out the old Dutch currency, it's sublime. Truly.
The new Euro's suck and you know why? Because it has the overpowering urge to be inoffensive. It didn't use the best buildings or the greatest statesmen out there,nor did they go for the best designer. No, they chose a Swiss bloke to design the currecy. Big mistake. Same as with you guys, you need guts to design something really good.
Americans design needs to pass committees, committees never, ever deliver good design/art/literature.
Truly, check out Dutch currency and feast your eyes. (see wikipedia:)
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_bankbiljetten
Posted by: Roeland de Bruijn | Jul 17, 2006 7:40:50 AM
I noticed a similar thing in Italy. Everything was designed. Manhole covers, too, but everything earned attention to its aesthetic as well as to its function. I even saw cases for those ugly gas and electric meters built with creative design. When they were working on restoring a building, rather than looking at the scaffolding and other construction ugliness, they hung huge panels off the tops of the buildings that were painted with something beautiful such as a view of the restored building to come.
Posted by: Virginia | Jul 17, 2006 7:41:23 AM
Brilliant post. I'm an American, and when they added a bit of color to the currency, I was amazed and in some ways moved. There are people who say they don't want to spend "public money" on something like beautifying our currency, and I think that's a part of the issue.
Ours is a culture that would rather have a bad case of the clap than be taxed for something "unnecessary." No one wants to put money into making this a country about anything other than more money for them. Here, every man is an island, and when he goes to work, that's what he works for-- himself, family and the small group of people in his own little sphere of influence.
I think this is in a way symptomatic of a country without a common, unifying and positive goal. One that doesn't involve bombing the hell out of another country. The sort of thing that actually awakens our inner creativity and willingness to suppress our personal desires for the good of everyone, on a local, nationl and global scale.
Posted by: Mist | Jul 17, 2006 8:28:40 AM
Here's a guess on the money and a joke on the time. Perhaps the US money is as boring and uniform as it is because the US had computer automation before other countries. My understanding is that the dollar size matches the old punch card size - and thus if you were going to automate money handling/sorting with machinery it might be important to have everything the same size - as figuring out how to do mechanical paper feeding right is challenging. The color aspect may be cost or "puritain values" dunno. And now US folk are used to US money and would possibly be weirded by different colored money. Even the recent "new" money designs required a lot of education. Just an idea.
On the time front - I believe I heard this from Robin Williamson (Celtic Bard) - What is the difference between England and the USA? In England 100 miles is a long distance, in the USA 100 years is a long time. Our (that being those of us in the USA) national history (as a nation - I'm not talking about people in the country) is pretty short in the scheme of things.
Posted by: Golda-Rochel | Jul 17, 2006 8:46:51 AM
Just gotta say that I love the colour of our money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_rand
Kathy don't forget that Stormhoek comes from our wonderful country as well, hope to see you in South Africa soon ;)
Posted by: Murray | Jul 17, 2006 8:59:07 AM
The US sees money for what it is and a manhole cover for what it is ... practical/functional. To say that something must be beautiful to be functional is akin to saying that ugly woman can not have babies. Engineers design manhole covers, not artists and if you're talking about history the US history is so relatively short in comparison that of course it would seem to pale when compared with European or Asian. I for one find that boring practical items work best as art is constantly evolving and changing and what may have looked good one day now looks terrible.
Posted by: blah | Jul 17, 2006 9:41:57 AM
As an American who has lived in Western Europe for the last year, I have to disagree about the graffiti. It's often trashy and not very beautiful at all. Pervasive graffiti splattered across otherwise romantic villages from the middle ages is not a great combination. The literal trash along many of the roadways isn't exactly beautiful either -- there's probably a relationship here ("fixing broken windows" comes to mind).
Posted by: Frank Smith | Jul 17, 2006 10:17:27 AM
Alan, you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that Conservative = For the USA and Liberal = Against the USA. Please don't talk such nonsense, and stay on topic rather than fag up the comments with your nationalistic rants.
Posted by: steve | Jul 17, 2006 10:42:29 AM
I love the examples. I have been fortuntate enough to travel to several continents and have been blown away by the design. I loved New Zealand and the music everywhere, enhanced the coolness factor of the whole place. My first trip to Europe left me with my jaw on the ground. The architecture, the art, the effortless style of people on the street, the simplicity and freshness of the food. I didn't want to eat when I got back to The States. My tastebuds were spoiled. While I appreciate the design of the other countries and cultures, though, being abroad gave me a new appreciation for the US. Our style may not always be the best, but we are a young country and there are quite a few things that we do well.
P.S. I agree with the last commenter (Frank) that the graffiti detracts from the beauty of the buildings and the quaint villages. Yuck.
Posted by: jr | Jul 17, 2006 11:01:54 AM
Funny, I was recently asking why Asian web design was so ugly and MySpace-like.
Posted by: Bob Aman | Jul 17, 2006 2:29:52 PM
And we don't even put numbers on the change!
Posted by: steve Garfield | Jul 17, 2006 3:48:34 PM
Well, one needs to remember that US Federal Reserve notes are literally worth nothing. They are sadly excellent examples of fiat paper. Literally the paper is devalued by making it money. Unfortunately, very , very soon we will get an object lesson in the perils of fiat currency. It won't be pleasant. So i can see why there is not a lot of design time spent on the notes. They are literally worthless. This is truth, not fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency
http://www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm
Posted by: Kevin Beckford | Jul 17, 2006 7:05:10 PM
yay for Swiss money!
Posted by: nchenga | Jul 18, 2006 7:20:53 AM
Really sick of people saying US sucks at design, US has no culture, etc. We're the largest exporters of culture in the world. If we suck, they wouldn't be lapping it up. As for the manhole covers, the Japanese covers are ugly and effete. Haven't you heard the dictum "Less is more?" Likewise, the US currency is beautiful and practical. Who on earth wants to deal with different size bills? We have enough trouble folding together bills of all the same size. And believe it or not, the greenback is a major brand--the most recognizable currency in the world. You've heard of branding haven't you?
Posted by: Greenback | Jul 18, 2006 12:27:59 PM
This is a fun post because it really got me thinking about what makes America so great, but our design sometimes so boring.
America is a wonderfully diverse country and this is one of our strengths, but I think our freedom and diversity can sometimes create an interesting side effect: mediocrity. Trying to design to capture the heart of a country as culturally and geographically diverse as America is a difficult task not only for government, but at times I think for businesses too. Americans are ready to yell for their rights quick to point out something they don't like and design is something that can incite this very easily.
With that, to pick an example, how would you design American currency if you could? Put MLK on the one dollar bill and GWB on the thousand dollar bill - or vice versa - and see what happens. Or try to pinpoint our national heroes. Or don't put anyone on the bills, just natural landmarks and see what the states have to say about that. Add color and listen to people complain that the government is spending too much money on printing money. I think in the end, in an effort to create a currency with the least volatile complaints, you may end up with what we have now, which is a low-risk design on our currency (presidents, founding fathers, and landmarks devoted to them are really pretty safe).
I have firsthand experience with this difficulty since I used to design community event materials for city government and to cite an example, an announcement was made at a neighborhood meeting that the neighborhood newsletter would now be available in Spanish. This got the Russians and the Serbians on their feet demanding to know when the newsletter would be in their languages arguing there are just as many Russians and Serbians in the neighborhood as Spanish-speaking people so why weren't they being represented. And this was just one of many complex challenges for something as simple as community events.
But back to the currency, imagine now if you had to design money for a state. I think then there would be more freedom to design because your choices of icons are more limited, and you can easily touch the pulse of the state with less backfire. License plates are a good example of this; there are some wonderful license plates out there. Or, just travel around the country and see what local designers are able to do with their public places and restaurants and such. There is some really good stuff in places you wouldn't expect (like Cleveland).
So do I think US design sucks or we as Americans want to embrace a culture of dull design? No, I just think on a certain level, America has challenges that often lead to lowest-risk, bland results (or you put all the crayons in the melting pot and end up with the color of something close to the shade of... well, money).
Posted by: Christian | Jul 18, 2006 10:25:17 PM
Hello create passionate users crew,
I've been thinking about the design (appearance) and the functionnal (working or not) recently.
I'm living in those pretty europeans countries.
But what's outside don't always reflect what's inside.
If u look around, Italy is one of the most beautiful countries in the world but in term of efficiency or governance (private and public), it is one of the worst in the whole world (dubbed as the sick man of Europe by the Economist).
As long as i've read Create Passionate Users, you guys have been always fond about good progamming stories (that's why I love your blog).
So let me remind you this story (as told by Mr Claude Servain during his network courses) :
TCP/IP protocol was created by Berkeley's students with the help of DOD.
More complexes protocols have been developped like OSI but why did TCP/IP at the end still last and is now being used by the world.
Because it was SIMPLE and built to last.
So, form is important but a malfunctionning or useless object is worthless how beautiful it is ...
What do you think ?
Posted by: Andy | Jul 19, 2006 4:12:17 AM
Mark, in response to your question:
No, it wouldn't indicate a lack of creativity, but rather more constrained cultural standards. It is a more energetic creative culture versus a more sober results oriented one.
-vlad
--------
mysudo.com
Posted by: vlad | Jul 19, 2006 5:26:52 AM
The U.S. Mint prints currency for a lot of other countries. But, every time they've tried to move towards "monopoly money" looks, they get the "I have one gripe about your article, in that you're using old US bills: The new $20 is, by comparison to the old one, garish" response.
I've got sympathy for both ends, though I really like euro coins.
Posted by: Stephen M (Ethesis) | Jul 20, 2006 5:28:02 PM
Andy's comments deserve repeating because he seems to have hit the nail on the head. He wrote:
I'm living in one of those pretty europeans countries.
But what's outside don't always reflect what's inside.
Italy is one of the most beautiful countries in the world but in term of efficiency or governance, it is one of the worst in the whole world
So, form is important but a malfunctionning or useless object is worthless how beautiful it is ...
What do you think ?
I think you summed it up perfectly Andy.
American currency is not the most aesthetically appealing in the world, but you know what? It's not supposed to be! It's currency, not a work of art! It's supposed to express the gravitas and the stability of the American economy. It's supposed to inspire trust that "all will be well if you hold this currency because it is backed by a government that holds its obligations to those who hold it extremely seriously." It's not supposed to be "pretty." It's not supposed to impress with its multi-colored variety, or like the Swiss currency shown above, its gaudiness. It has an extremely important and serious function. When you look at it, you don't want to be struck with how beautiful it is, but to be inspired by deep trust in its worth. THAT IS ITS VERY FUNCTION, ITS ESSENCE!
So if the ultimate judge of the value of a design is how well it conforms to its function, the design of American currency is by far tbe BEST of any that has been described or shown so far.
Furthermore, what could be more appropriate than having on these bills the images of great figures like George Washington, the father of the nation, Benajamin Franklin, America's first great scientist, publisher and diplomat, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of American capitalism, and Abraham Lincoln, the savior of the nation in time of civil war? These were all great men who are worthy of our utmost esteem. When we see their images, we are reminded of the best that our country had to offer the world.
I can't honestly say I'm surprised by the smugness of many of the posts I have seen here. Some people who are not from the U.S. harbor the stereotype that Americans do not understand the cultures of the rest of the world, yet they hypocritically ignore the fact that they are failing to understand American culture. So I'd like to enlighten those people a bit. America has a highly pragmatic culture. The function of an item is paramount. Practicality is seen as what ultimately leads to a better quality of life for everybody. Thus, its currency was designed for the critical function of symbolizing the stability of America and its economy. It's as simple as that.
If other countries want to put poets and modernist statuary on their currency, that



