Ode to living in the Netherlands

I voted absentee today. In the process I realized that no one has thought about the information design for the ballot envelope. The envelope is important because you must sign it for your vote to count. However, it would be easy to either not realize you needed to sign the envelope or to sign it in the wrong place. Both issues could be solved by better information design. 

Here are the issues:

1. There is no sense of hierarchy. The message that you have to sign the ballot is half way down the envelope and at the same size and color as other text on the envelope. 

2. There is a lot of visual noise. Efforts have been made to draw your attention, but instead of helping the just add noise. For example, there is a red border around the copy that says you have to sign the envelope. This text groups with other red text and creates noise instead of drawing your attention. 

3. There are THREE places to sign the envelope, but only one that makes the ballot legal. There is a place the person delivering the ballot to the polling station in the event the registered voter is unable. There is also a place for a witness to sign if the voter can only mark an "X". And then there is the place for the voter to sign that makes his ballot legal. One of the signature lines is at the top of the page, one has a box around it and one has a small red arrow next to it. Which one do you sign??

4. The layout is a problem. There is a statement that says "Failure to sign below will invalidate your ballot" And the signature line below is actually for the witness and not for the voter. 

This isn't brain surgery. And I am not the first person to realize this is a problem. But what can I do about it? I have no idea short of moving to the Netherlands where they take the time to design their tax forms and other government documents. This isn't just about wanting pretty forms. It is about insuring people's votes count through good information design. 

The Other Side of Good Branding

Almost a decade ago, while I was at Frog Design, I remember a designer coming in for an interview and showing us the new Gymboree logo and branding as part of her portfolio. I remember having a vague understanding of Gymboree and being surprised and a bit cynical about their move into the clothing market (I mean how could anyone compete with BabyGap?!). However, I also remember being impressed with the new look. 

Back then *Brand* was a buzz word and I was in the middle of a branding cult. We knew branding. We tried to get companies to understand about having a consistent voice and appearance across touch points. The reality was most companies had only a vague notion of their brand and didn't have the resources, money, technology or desire to really do branding right. 

One company that over the last decade has done it right is Gymboree. But now I am on the other side of the brand. My toddler wears their clothes and goes to their classes. I tried not to like them. I told myself the clothes were too expensive and their classes don't live up to the hype. I secretly looked down on the moms that got sucked in. I still think their clothes are too expensive, but my daughter wears them. And I still think their classes don't live up to the hype, but my daughters goes to them. I am now one of those moms. 

Gymboree clothing stores are very sophisticated about how they sell their clothes. There are new outfits every month or so and they always have the last month's clothes on sale to get you in the store. Everything is sold as an outfit (down to the socks and barrettes) and a lot of the outfits also coordinate. They have something for every season which just informs us all that our kids *need* a different sweater for fall and winter (yeah right!). The marketing is genius really. If they make it, we will buy it. 

Before I had kids, the only gym for kids I had ever heard of was Gymboree. I assumed I would take my kids. I loved their baby class. But the next level class fell flat. My daughter was 6 months and not crawling and we were left to attempt to use their fabulous, well branded gym structures. The instructor was MIA. It was awful. We literally sat and did nothing. I refused to ever return. 

I then went to gymnastics studios and other gyms classes for toddlers. I fell in love with My Gym. They have active, engaged instructors on the floor that work with the kids to do physical things. The equipment is mismatched but varied and engaging. They have a time in the class for the parents to retreat to allow the kids to be independent with the teachers. They also have a game at the end where the kids have to go into the center of the room alone and do a task. I thought my daughter would never understand what to do or have the guts to do it. But she did and was so happy afterwards. I felt the classes allowed the kids to do their own thing while also challenging them in effective ways. Their branding does not even come close to Gymboree, but their product is better. I was impressed and wanted to sign up. However, it is a long drive from my house so I decided to pass. 

Instead, I reluctantly returned to Gymboree. Their facilities are one big brand explosion with matching equipment, structures and mats. They have Gymbo the mascot and songs that incorporate the Gymboree name. They have CDs and toys you can purchase. The designer in me is impressed. The mother in me isn't. The instructors are OK, but instead of challenging the kids physically, they mainly lead songs. A lot of responsibility is placed on the child to teach themselves through free play. Thankfully, my daughter can probably learn what she needs to at Gymboree through free play. And she LOVES Gymbo the clown. We have already started singing about him at home (that's some marketing with legs!) I am tempted to buy her a stuffed Gymbo because it would make her happy. But I don't want her to get sucked in. 

What is so wrong with my daughter experiencing the type of branding that I have preached to clients? I have prided myself in helping my clients effectively sell their products. The thing is, I just don't want them selling stuff to her. I'd like to live in a world where the best product wins. But the reality is we live in a world where Gymbo the clown wins.

Parking Progress

The city of Oakland recently switched from parking meters to new computerized parking pay stations. There are approx. 2 stations per block and drivers walk to the station, pay their money and get a receipt to place on their dash. I don't think these stations better the lives of drivers so I would hope they benefit the city in some way. However, I am not convinced. 

When thinking about the benefits (or draw backs) of this new system it is good to look at the over all concept model (centralized pay stations vs. parking meters) and then how effectively the pay stations have been implemented. 

The benefits of the pay stations for the average driver:

1. They accept credit cards ($1.25 min)

2. You can move your car within the alloted time and not have to pay again. 

The drawbacks of the pay stations for the driver are:

1. Walking to the station instead of having a parking meter at the space

2. Having to return to the car before going on their way

3. Dealing with the used receipts in their car (Huge pet peeve, they are making a mess in my car)

4. If a machine is broken, the driver still has to pay

5. If a machine is broken the driver has to walk further to make a payment

6. There is no parking meter to visually announce that payment is required (Multiple times, in neighborhoods I am familiar with I read the landscape and do not realize I need to pay, once it lead to a ticket)

7. THIS IS A BIGGY - The new system makes it impossible to add time to the meter. You have to wait 'til the time runs out and buy a new ticket. Or just buy an overlapping ticket if you don't want to be by your car when the first one runs out. 

The drawbacks for the city are:

1. Meter Readers need to check each individual car dashboard for a receipt instead of the meter. 

2. The meter reader no longer checks for the expired meter (a yes/no input) but has to check the date and current time vs. the date and time on the receipt (a variable input).

The benefits for the city are:

1. Less machines to maintain

2. Ability to accept credit cards

From the driver's point of you the experience with the pay stations is worse than with parking meters. Sadly, the driver's experience only gets worse when looking at the implementation of the pay stations in Oakland. The fundamental flaw in the user experience is that that screen displays the current time and then as you add money the same clock updates to the end time of your purchase. By using the same clock to show current time and end time it makes it very difficult to track how much time you have purchased. An approach similar to the parking meters where you purchase a number of minutes would be more clear. Another option would be showing the start time and the end time. I don't wear a watch and always fail to track how much time I have purchased.  

However, the biggest loser in this new approach is the environment. Every car in every parking space between 9 and 6, 6 days a week has a little piece of paper on the dash. The number of trees we are killing in order to park our cars is down right depressing. 

The experience of most people suffers with this new approach. I hope there is some benefit to the city to make it worth the experience cost. But I doubt it.