Ontiveros @ Textdriven

In the 1930’s, the Soviet government wanted the world to believe it was living the dream: rapid modernization, economic miracles, etc. To support this cause, it created the magazine USSR in Construction, home to some of the most innovative graphic design of the past century (see layouts at this Backpack page).

The magazine was published in Russian, English, French, German, and Spanish editions and exported to the West in order to send a message about Soviet economic success (with no mention of the unsavory truth of Stalinism: persecution, state terror, famine, etc.). Each one was devoted to a specific topic, like aviation, the army, coal mining, etc.

The issues became aesthetic adventures in the hands of designers like El Lissitzky (images @ Getty Research Institute, images @ Howard Schickler) and Aleksandr Rodchenko (images @ Luminous-Lint, images @ Howard Schickler). They created a new breed of publication — an avant-garde amalgam of minimal text, larger-than-life photography, photomontages, complex gatefolds, pop-ups, and more.

A review of “U.S.S.R. in Construction, 1930-1940,” offered this summary:

The magazine was beautifully printed in rotogravure on heavy stock, the photographs reproduced in green, blue, purple, sepia or black and white, sometimes in different colors on the same or facing pages. Text was minimal, pictures strong, design in the best issues audacious and inventive, with four-page panoramic fold-outs and triangular fold-out flaps. How effective it was in selling Communist doctrine abroad is unknown, but even today it is thoroughly convincing propaganda for the revolution in design that Soviet artists helped foment and spread across the world.

To really get the vibe, it’s best to check out the large format (dimensions = 16.5” x 11.5”) and fold-outs in person. If you’re in London, the Tate Modern Museum is currently displaying a bunch of spreads from the magazine.

Some more images:

Original story: Matt

Leona’s vs. The Hummus Place

The 37signals office used to be located next to Leona’s, an Italian restaurant. Every time we’d go there, we’d crack up over the length of the menu (PDF). It’s huuuuge: seven pages and over 2,500 words. The beast should come with an executive summary. Here’s just one sample spread:

On the other hand, here’s the menu at The Hummus Place in NYC. Three options and that’s it. Sure, you don’t get a vast array of choices. But you don’t have to spend a century reading the thing either.

Less choice = less suffering

Here’s one big reason why we always talk about less here: Endless options can actually produce genuine suffering. “The Paradox of Choice” (good summary at the New Yorker) talks about how options can actually be “de-motivating.” Offering shoppers samples of six items yields more sales than offering samples of 24, students who are offered six extra credit topics are more likely to write a paper than students who are offered 30, etc. In some cases, just one additional choice can produce outright analysis paralysis. People wind up frozen by indecision.

Interface choices

This applies to interfaces too. Here’s one way to do an event form:

Here’s another way (this is from the calendar coming soon to Backpack):

Minimizing choice noise

Options seem nice on paper. But each one adds up. Once you realize the evil impact they can have, you start to look at them differently.

For us, the first step is to eliminate superfluous choices whenever we can. Some choices are unnecessary because the alternatives aren’t really all that much different. Something good enough will work out fine. For example, at Basecamp, it’s 25 messages per page. No option to change it. That’s good enough so that’s the way it is. Done.

If an option proves it’s worth, we’ll still try to find a way to minimize the choice noise (i.e. anything that makes people think). We offer fewer choices and keep the ones we do offer offscreen unless someone requests them via a click (like in the Backpack calendar shot above). The result is less “huh?” moments and more flow.

UI as benevolent dictator

People want to outsource choice (see the Robert Reich bit here). They want experts to make decisions for them.

It can almost seem cruel to take away choices from people. But think about it this way: By paring down options, you’re giving people the gift of time and attention they can spend elsewhere.

Related: Video of Barry Schwartz, “The Paradox of Choice” author, speaking at Google

Original story: Matt