The Interface of a Cheeseburger
All things have an interface. Shaping interfaces is shaping the character of things. The brand is what transports the character of things. When looking at McDonalds, iPod, Nintendo DS it becomes quite obvious that the interface is the brand.
No Forks, no Knives, no Language Skills
16 columns submenu horizontal, I think, standing at the counter at McDonald’s. I scroll left and right and put a simple cheeseburger in my mental shopping basket. 16 columns, yet so usable. “Cheezubaagaa kudasai” I hear myself say, and glancing at the cashier display and the French fry machine interface, I hold my breath: Wow. Why did I never realize? Being a foreigner in Japan, I decide to go to McDonald’s because at McDonald’s I don’t need to deal with language. I could get much better food in a similar price range if I were ready to think, read Kanji and explain myself. But I’m not, as I’m hungry.
I’ll fill you Without any Brain Stress
McDonald’s is very easy to use, I then think, and then the McDonald’s interface looks the same all over the world. Yes, that is why it is so successful. A simple interface. I don’t need to think when entering, ordering, paying, eating at McDonald’s. McDonald’s doesn’t make me think. That’s what the McDonald’s brand promises the hungry stomach: We’re sweet and we’ll fill you without any brain stress.
Sandwiches can be Complicated at Times
While checking out (paying), I decide to go through with this thought, and look closely at the cheeseburger, and yes, indeed. The cheeseburger as has the easiest food interface one could think of. No forks, no knives, no spoons, no plates, no chopsticks. Like a sandwich, but softer and sweeter and above all: Standardized. No alarms and no surprises when eating a cheeseburger. Almost as simple as “the only intuitive interface” - the nipple. Sandwiches can be complicated at times.
The standardization makes the cheeseburger’s interface a branded one. Only a McDonald’s cheeseburger looks like a McDonald’s cheeseburger. I unwrap it and look at the bread and the meat and the ketchup mustard color pattern: McDonald’s cheeseburger it is.
produkter05_300dpi, blogged to AHT from Flickr of eatmydesign
Print this Burger on my Card
And while I chew, and the sugars start tickling my synapses, I think that I should print this cheeseburger on the back of my business card with a new punchy claim. I walk home and start typing this article here on my cell phone, going over that claim and reducing it to two words and a symbol, now, standing in front of my house door, I nod, looking at my new nifty claim:
Interface=Brand
if you can see the interface being the brand…
In the mean time, sitting at my laptop going over that little article, I think: Maybe it is just a deformation professionelle, as I deal with interfaces, usability issues and branding all day long. I just can’t help seeing things that way. But then again, if you can see the interface as the brand, the brand being the interface: You might understand the success of modern branding concepts.
Superficial explanations
The superficialists might say, that brands create identity through consistency, which creates trust. Sounds logical, but brands are not logical, they’re emotional. If you see a brand as an interface it allows you to explore the notion of brand experience being user experience. People don’t analyze usability, they enjoy it. For the customer usability is a matter of well being, while using. And being well means not needing to think in order to act.
iPod or Zune, DS or PS portable?
The iPod was and is successful because it’s pretty easy to use. But then: Where is the iPod logo? On the back! The interface makes the brand. The owner identifies with his iPod through its typical interface (click wheel plus screen), the 3rd person identifies the iPod through the white ear plugs.
And that’s one more reason why the Zune is not much more than a copy. No matter how many features it counts - the Zune doesn’t have its own interface. Not for 1st and not for the 3rd person. It looks like a ornamented iPod with random ear plugs. Copies can’t “kill” the original if the original is that protoypical.
Nintendo DS vs Playstation Portable
Simpler doesn’t necessarily mean less. Look at the follow-up of the Nintendo Gameboy. The Nintendo DS has two screens. When I first saw it I was irritated. Is that the comeback of the Donkey Kong multiscreen, what’s going on?
Not quite. It’s a different, particular, simple, and extremely usable concept. Play in the upper screen, deal with the options in the lower screen. The DS beats the Playstation Portable in terms of interface. And don’t even get me started on the Wii against Playstation3 when talking about interfaces…
The list goes on and on: Look at the Dyson vacuum cleaner against the rest of the world. A part from being a great performer, it has a unique very usable interface. Star Bucks against suck ups. It’s a perfect WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Lego against all other wannabes. Coca-Cola against Pepsi (compare bottles).
Flickr, Craigslist, Ebay, Youtube
Compare Google Search against its twin Yahoo Search. Who wins? The original. Strong online brands, such as Flickr, Craigslist, Ebay, Youtube developed a unique, simple recognizable interface. And they’re hard to beat as their face is not a surface, it is interactive, it is an interface, it is the product itself. Copying it won’t work.
Market Leader with a typically Complicated Interface?
You can establish yourself with a typically bad interface, if you’re early and lucky or if you have the market power to force people to use your product. See Myspace, Amazon, MSN, Windows, QuarkXPress. Once you get to be market leader with a typically complicated interface, you actually have a good shot at keeping your users, as they’re that traumatized that they wouldn’t want to go through another painful learning process. Nowadays you have a better chance to become successful though, if you go for simplicity and usability. And you have a good chance to develop a strong brand by just doing that.
Here’s a Shocker: Jakob Nielsen’s website has a Strong Identity
Usually strong usability, simplicity and a clear focus automatically lead to a strong identity. Here’s a shocker: Internationally acclaimed usability guru Jakob Nielsen’s totally anti-graphic website with all its geeky flaws and its absolute usability approach has a strong identity. Neglecting all notions of good taste, it looks extremely typical. And that is branding. Branding is not pretty, it’s strong. Craigslist and delicious with their standard link colors are not pretty, they’re strong, and as they’re interactive products, they’re strong through functionality. Facebook, maybe is an example of a very usable website that might go for a more audacious interface/brand identity.
Glue a Lego Brick to my Card?
In the mean time, I should print a Lego brick on the backside of my business card. Or glue one to it. With the claim “Interfaces make brands”. Or maybe I should print that cheeseburger on the back and a little red box on top that says: Interface=Brand. As we’re at it, you might as well teach a nonnative speaker which one works well as a claim:
a) Brand = Interface
b) Interface = Brand
c) Interface creates Brand Experience
d) Interface defines Brand Experience
e) Interfaces make brands
f) UI=Brand
g) Interface=Identity
Brand Equals Interface not Surface
That branding doesn’t equal to creating a logo, is an simple truth that brand consultants have been fighting for a long time. Yet it’s never been so clear until recently: Brand equals interface not surface. Recently we get more and more easy to use products. And if you ask the information designer, products become more easy to use, because most consumers are Internet users. The web teaches us consumers to consider usability when buying a product, it teaches R&D how successful a good interface is, and it teaches finance, how profitable usability is, it teaches the marketing department that mere exposure is just a charlatanry that won’t sell products anymore.
And the lesson I learned at McDonald’s? You can have a bad ugly product and still be extremely successful. As long as you have lots of sugar and a strong easy to use interface defining your brand identity.
Books
Jef Raskin: The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems
There has never been any technical reason for a computer to take more than a few seconds to begin operation when it is turned on.
On a first glance his website is not that spectacular, the contents surely are. Some say he has a god complex, other say he doesn’t appreciate modern interfaces. I think, that this guy was so way ahead, that what he describes as an ideal interface in his book will take Apple&Co another couple of years to realize. And that even though technically it could have been done yesterday.
Very funny article. I loved reading it. It gave me a giggle.
Don’t you think it’s a stretch to say that McDonald’s is successful just because of it’s interface? How about a comparison between competitors? Is it not because it’s fast, cheap, and everywhere? The MSG helps too.
Excellent observations but then again this is your business
I agree with your comments on Zune. I believe it will fail miserably. What’s sad is that with all Microsoft’s money and with all the talented Industrial Design firms out there (Teague being my favorite along with some of the stuff Frog Design is doing) they come up with something that is so opposite of elegant, that you have to wonder why the PM of that asset didn’t get fired. If they had been smart they would have partnered up with iRiver who clearly understands the elegance of design. What can you do?…
Jeff Schader CEO | The Skins Factory, Inc. http://www.theskinsfactory.com
Nice touch with the radiohead.
I really respect your logic and insight.
Very nice read.
I like your thinking! I’m a firm believer in simplicity, - if it needs instructions it does not work. The way I see it:
A brand is the summation of the attributes of a range of products. An interface is the summation of a more complicated entity for the purpose of usability. As such, a brand is indeed an interface between the seller and the buyer. Good job on the page design!
All the best Alexey
Alexey, that’s a great explaination, but I would like to point out the “Zen” in this article as well… While we can go into pages and pages of details on the concept, to demonstrate the concept while explaining it speaks so much louder…
For instance, you said, “I like your thinking! I’m a firm believer in simplicity, - if it needs instructions it does not work. The way I see it: A brand is the summation of the attributes of a range of products. An interface is the summation of a more complicated entity for the purpose of usability. As such, a brand is indeed an interface between the seller and the buyer.”
…in fact, all that was really required was “Interface=Brand” You “un-branded” the concept !
Where iA is the “Interface=Brand” people, you are the: “A brand is the summation of the attributes of a range of products. An interface is the summation of a more complicated entity for the purpose of usability. As such, a brand is indeed an interface between the seller and the buyer.” - guy
(however much your explaination appeals to the geek in me, Interface=Brand is the iPod/Cheeseburger to your Zune
dave
Why the heck do you want to go to a foreign country and “not deal with language”? Some stupid americans go to a foreign country and where is the first place they go to eat? McDonalds.
Why you buy one cheeseburger when for same price you eat rice and beans for whole month?
Starbucks? Their interface is horrible. You have to remember which arbitrary non-English word they use for ’small’ every time you go there.
Thanks for the nice words, guys and girls. What can I say? Actually, I just noticed that the original idea of this story was to show that successful websites and applications such as Google and Craigslist get their identity not through skinning but through the basic structure of their interface. But that all I say applies to screen based products is understood, I suppose. Still, it’s interesting that Yahoo’s search interface is a 1:1 Google copy (look at the search result’s page), and we may wonder if that is the reason, why they loose…
Bill: Starbucks does pretty well against the local competition here in Tokyo. Doutor, Excelsior or Veloce are all cheaper, yet Startbucks leads. Why? Quality? Segafredo’s coffee is better (sorry Seth). Marketing power (they don’t do classic advertisement, yet they sell coffee at the “convenience stores”). Branding? Interface? Hm… As far as I can see (I am not a shop designer), the starbucks interface is pretty easy to use.
Arbitrary non-English word: “Shohto saizu” (short size)?
[...] Interesting essay from a branding-marketing standpoint on the nature of user interface as brand identity. [...]
[...] Hilarious blog article - sometimes, one can abstract the Branding or User Interface concept just that far.[...]
[...] Information Architects: The Interface of a Cheeseburger.[...]
Joe Blog - is it me or are you an …? … Nope, it’s not me - you’re definitely an …
Martin Alak - if that’s the best you can do to be funny, please spare us the bother.
Great article btw - makes you think, like all the best writing does.
A fine piece of argumentation. Great examples.
Thought provoking & very good article
What would you think of a TV station owned by a religious group? Should the TVstation completely shed its religious brand to reach out to a wdier audience? It has after all branded itself a “commercial UHF tv station”. What will give the station an undeniable interface? Thank you.
Jerome: IMHO, religious groups shouldn’t own TV stations (philosophers should, but unfortunately they never make enough money to get there). If they still do, they should be open about it. Building a good product and showing who you really are is the only method I support when building a brand. What product does a religious group have? What do they sell?
I might be wrong, but religion shouldn’t have products, shouldn’t sell. Religion at its best is a private practice. I have great respect for religious people: During the first world war, where there was simply no food (meat two times a year!), my Italian great grand uncle Costante Cesa cut the Christmas chicken into halfs, and offered one half to his neighbour’s family who had nothing to eat. He went to church every sunday, but never preached, never looked down upon anybody else, never felt the need to teach the word of God, and according to my grandmother he had a great sense of humour.
So, if you do have a sense of humour as well: The best branding of “the Jesus” apart from the catholic cross (which is probably the strongest brand in the world), I could only think of is this one. Original coloring, characteristic shape, simple mark. But that’s just like my opinion, man.
PS: I usually do not consult for free on matters of branding and such…
[...] unit9のデザイナーが面白いよ！と紹介してくれたページを見たら、日本のサイトでした。インターフェースデザインとブランディングの関係、とか、インターフェースはどうあるべきか？とか、刺激になる文章がたくさんあります。マクドナルドのチーズバーガーは、そのインターフェースこそがブランディングしてる！とか、面白いです。読む価値ありです。＆近所なのでコンタクトしてみるのも面白いかも！[...]
[...]One western information architect in Japan had an epiphany while waiting in line at McDonald’s. Check out this funny but informative piece on why the Golden Arches has one of the easiest-to-use interfaces you’ll ever encounter — and why the iPod’s logo is on the back, not the front. [...]
Thanks Oliver. Maybe the problem is that some fundamentalist Christian groups see themselves as philosophers of the new age. They subtly market themselves as shapers of modern opinion. My brother works for this Asian Christian faith-strain, and they opened a TV station in 1999 with a mission to create a unique values-based television programming which highlights ICT. I felt weird helping him work out their marketing program as they possess a “covert mission”, which is to propagate their brand of fundamentalist Christianity.
I advised him to drop the religious branding completely from a purely marketing perspective. If they really want to be known as an information & communications technology TV hub, they must immediately eliminate all odors of religion. Now I seem to regret my advice to him.
These people should be left alone. They are balck holes.
I agree. Even as a kid, I’ve always believed that faith must be practiced in a very individual manner. People should take great care in keeping it a faith, somewhat a mystery, and never a product.
and thank you also Oliver for the free advise/consultation. I just sought your opinion as i really found my brother’s situation quite perplexing. perplexing for the human situation that is. he’s my brother after all.
salamat.
Great stuff, Oliver. This and other articles on your site exude passion and intelligence. Glad to see someone out there is thinking and driving forward. Nice work.
One comment, though, on your thesis, “Interface=Brand.”
Perhaps it’s a bit of a semantics/set-theory issue, but it means that all interfaces are, at their core, brands.
Although I think it’s probably true in most cases, I can’t help but think that things like nipples (mentioned in your article) make for strong counter examples.
Nipples are interfaces. However they are not usually brands.
Just a suggestion, but wouldn’t it be more precise to say that “Brand=Interface”? Meaning that all brands are in essence interfaces.
Thanks s,
Great input. I’ll try to make that clearer. All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. Sure. I didn’t make that clear. I guess that answers the question about my micro claim.
UI=Brand or Brand=UI ?
Brand=UI !
I’m currently developing a php content management system. This article has made me consider starting the interface again from scratch.
Cheers Mate, Great article.
Thank you, I think this is brilliant.
the ability to spot, use and then to remake usefull interfaces are just some important steps in human evolution. this started somewhere here.
..and this hand-axe is still in use. you can crush stinky cheesburgers with it.
Nice. You are one of the only people in twelve years to get (or at least state) that point about my site’s business value.
I just checked my stats, and it was indeed Mr.Nielsen, or at least someone with access to his stats, as the user commenting as “Jakob Nielsen” came from the Useit.com stats page. I guess he wondered how it’s possible he got so much traffic from a website he never heard of.
As expected Lord Nielsen uses IE7 on WindowsXP with Javascript enabled (unfortunately we don’t know what resolution he runs) and I held him for 6 minutes. Too bad I couldn’t get him to look at my other stuff.
In any case, Lord Nielsen, you just made my day.
Yes Oliver, you are on the base! Congratulations!
Hi, I personally have a usability problem with your site: I usually print internetpages to read them later. On paper I discovered, that there are some links in your text, which I did not notice when reading on screen. I have some kind of color blindness (red-green weakness). So it is very hard for me to see the difference between black and red text, specially if the font-lines are thin. So I nearly missed some interesting information.
Thanks for the valuable information and helpful suggestions on your site.
Hi Dietmar,
After Nielsen’s laudatio, an extremely important comment to keep my feet on the ground. As it looks, I will actually have to change the whole typographic concept of the site. And I probably will. With the amount of users I am lucky to have now, it is crucial that color blind people see the links. They’re not only links, they also allow to scan the page quickly. This issue and the missing search issue will be top priority.
Even though I have this post on my mind called “the end of the idiots” that I can’t wait to write, I should take care of that first.
I’ll let you choose: “End of the idiots”, add a search or link color fixing?
PS: How about blue?
Blue will not work either. Same problem. I have problems to distinguish colors if the there is not much color (as in thin lines). If there are larger amounts of color there is no problem to see the difference. Color excludes all “really” colorblind people.
I’m impressed by your fast response: getting a hint and taking actions (even if you “have to change the whole typographic concept of the site”). I think that’s the way to improve websites, software, whatever…
Dietmar,
Fixed it. What do the non color blind think? Too soft for you now? I’ll check the stats if people still feel like clicking…
Hmm, it’s hard to tell it links should be underlined or coloured. Underlining something in the typographic sense is to make it more important, to make a statement. However on the internet, underlining something has long been the meaning of a hyperlink, along with the blue and red colourscheme (both of which look ugly and only the most hardcore will still use today, Mr Nielson). When it comes to printing out copy, it really depends if you are going to print on a bw printer or a colour one. There are so many factors to cater for, so it would best to stick to, or set, a standard.
IMHO links should be a lighter shade than the copy. (bare in mind that dark blue, dark gray and dark any-thing-else-colour are all the same shade… colour blind people see in shades) Visited links should be in a darker shade than the copy. Since that is not possible, another identifier should be used. So maybe links are a lighter shade underlined, and visited links have the underline removed. Or visa versa. Either way, and I’m viewing on a PC here for the first time in ages, black links with black text is currently what I see, and that, typographically, points toward underlining for emphasis.
keep up the good work, interesting blog.
Thanks Oliver, the change with underlines (standard) links is perfect for me. The menu links on top without underlines are also OK. It’s obvious that these are links.
I’m interested if you notice any changes in clickrates in your stats. Maybe you can post your findings here in a couple of days?
You’re welcome Dietmar. The click rate has actually gone up, but I believe this is more due to the expanded “What Next?” box and the improved caching (site should load much faster now) which I implemented the very same day. I am not quite happy with it yet, as for the non color blind one basic effect has become invisible. The red text marked key points in the text, which is not quite clear or as easy to scan as before. But I’ll keep on trying to find a better and better solution for everybody.
Thanks and i am sure that i can not agree with you anymore!
dude, after reading this, i feel like having a cheeseburger!!!!!!!
‘m interested if you notice any changes in clickrates in your stats Jordan shoes. Maybe you can post your findings here in a couple of days?
i am real love ,. lol Cheeseburger/ oh ..i love .and nike shoes and psp
can i please have that picture for my e-portfolio.
nice! isn´t there a printable version?
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
great stuff. a friend linked me to it and i gave it a read while at work.
im hoping to get into UI design, currently in school to help me out with it (and other aspects of design). i have had a half-grasp on all this for quite but didnt really have a want/need to put it in words.
It was very interesting, thank you. =)
You are reading too much into this just like any academic, its a cheeseburger.
Air Jordan. Yeah right. Thinking is useless. Good appetite.
think bauhaus. hat sich jeh jemand gedanken darueber gamacht, dass nicht alle um 5 uhr morgens vor dem imac sitzen, dass nicht alle english verstehen, aber dass informationstechnologie trotzdem die zukunft ist? vergesst nicht die dummen leute wie mich. vergesst nicht die leute, die keinen zugang zu informationstechnologie haben. vergesst burma nicht.
m.
Super cool piece of writing. Thanks!
ps: the link for: “mere exposure is just a charlatanry” http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6593225 is dead.
This great article has been translated into Polish and published at http://uxdesign.pl/interfejs-cheeseburgera/
Thanks!
Flipping screens, moving screen… blah. When do they come up with a screen-only with a virtual keyboard. Just the screen…www.birmarket.com
nice article.. and a interesting tought! but is it so new? coca-cola proved this years ago, didn’t they?
greets,
a interface designer from the netherlands
Nice article although I not fully agree with the statement that an interface is the same as the brand. The interface is part of the branding is it provides a user experience. But if the rest of the message, say marketing advertisement and other products are not in line with this (brand) message I think you cannot hold this statement.
Dear Niels, of course. Brand=Interface is a metaphor that aims at a radical change in the field of product design and branding; it is not a claim of absolute identity. As for what is more general, the brand or the interface: I guess the product, service or company they relate to is the the more general reference point. Brand is the emotional foot print of product experience, interface is the logic of product interaction.
“I guess the product, service or company they relate to is the the more general reference point”
Couldn’t agree more. But interface is also part of the product experience right? One a detailed level the use of a search engine is a product experience, on a more abstract level the use the product experience also includes the service, support and values of the company. You often see that if the values of the company are not aligned with its interface or product they fail.
Niels, in my understanding there is an interface whenever you get in touch with an artifact. Thus I would consider customer service and support of a company being part of the company/customer interface, just as I consider the counter and the hamburger package at McDonald’s being part of their total interface. Product experience is the result of dealing with an interface and not the bigger container that holds it. The interface is the way you deal with a product/service/company and how it responds, it’s the interactive logic (pre)defining experience.
Hi Oliver,
Yes if you include ’service’ and ’support’ also to the interface then we are talking about the same thing. Although I am not sure that it is common to think of it that way. I haven’t seen many ‘interface designers’ that include it. But it is a theoretical discussion about what and what not to include in the definition of ‘interface’, we are saying the same thing.
Interface =? Brand. Me, not so sure. Interface => Brand. I think is more accurate.
It’s because interface is about what branding theorists call “touchpoints” (moments of interactions between the company/product/brand and the user). Touchpoints are moments where the brand focus (what the brand stands for) can be reinforced. Smart brand-builders make this an emotional AND unique experience.
Jakob Nielsen’s site DOES make a unique experience. But let’s face it. It’s not emotional. Or, at the very least, not in a desirable way. So most of us don’t consider it as a strong brand in the way we think about Apple.
Still, I would agree that it does have a strong identity. But identity, I think, comes more from uniqueness. And uniqueness results from market positioning.
So I would describe the formula like this: Uniqueness + Interface = Brand Positioning + Touchpoints = Brand Unique benefit + Emotional experience = Brand Innovation + Personality = Brand
In the minds of your audience, become the first (category) that (offering). Add personality. Reinforce at interaction, which for digital products or Internet companies mean interface.