{"id":4289,"date":"2016-11-02T23:37:28","date_gmt":"2016-11-02T23:37:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marvel7077.wpengine.com\/?p=4289"},"modified":"2020-09-03T12:00:49","modified_gmt":"2020-09-03T11:00:49","slug":"defense-homogeneous-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marvelapp.com\/blog\/defense-homogeneous-design\/","title":{"rendered":"In Defense of Homogeneous Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

The whole \u201cHomogeneity of Design\u201d topic is creeping up again. That\u2019s cool. We\u2019re all special flowers in our own way. But I\u2019d like to make a few points about product design, as I see it.<\/p>\n

<\/div>
<\/svg><\/div>

\n\"In digital product design, industry wide established paradigms are good\"<\/p><\/span><\/blockquote>\n

The first thing I\u2019d like to say is that I am a very visual person. I really like to create unique and distinct visual experiences and have enjoyed doing so my entire career.<\/p>\n

But\u2026<\/p>\n

In digital product design, industry wide established paradigms are good (I assume most of us know this, but I think it is worth reminding). Users learn to expect certain behaviors, because they are used in so many places. Pull to refresh, swipe to dismiss, navigation patterns, even underlines for links. These are all style or interaction choices in a designers arsenal that a user, off the bat, would probably know how to use or what they stand for. This is good. It means that we are all collectively teaching users how to use digital products. We are all, in a way, in this together. Yeay! It does<\/em> mean that your app might slightly resemble a different app, but that is ok. Jackets all look the same too, but hey, I\u2019m pretty sure I know where my pockets are.<\/p>\n

<\/div>
<\/svg><\/div>

\"Digital product design isn\u2019t abstract visual expression.\"<\/p><\/span><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s funny, I don\u2019t see anyone complaining about the homogeneity of, say, a book\u2019s table-of-contents or an ATM interface. They don\u2019t because it works and has worked for such a long time, why change it? On the other hand, every TV manufacturer thinks they need to be unique and create random remote and interface designs. Needless to say no one likes relearning how to use their new TV, amirite?<\/p>\n

Digital product design isn\u2019t abstract visual expression. It\u2019s a conversation framework between a human and a computer. The components and interactions we create as designers are like parts of a global language. Just like you wouldn't want to have a conversation that\u2019s fragmented into multiple languages, you wouldn\u2019t want unique fragmentation in the way you communicate with your computer.<\/p>\n

<\/div>
<\/svg><\/div>

\"The components and interactions we create as designers are like parts of a global language.\"<\/p><\/span><\/blockquote>\n

Building products in the digital space really does mean you need to let your ego go. Designing a slick homepage that looks different than the rest is super important but not my only goal. My first goal is to make sure that people understand and enjoy using the product I am working on. Making it look visually different from the competition is important for the brand, but can\u2019t be in exchange for it\u2019s usability and function because a bad experience is sometimes way more costly to the brand than homogeneity. Remember Ello? Exactly.<\/p>\n

I see a lot of complaining about Dribbble. Look I get it, it has its issues it needs to solve, but blaming it for instigating homogeneity within the industry is completely missing the point. For example, the homogeneity of a product\u2019s color isn\u2019t because of Dribbble but because of the very nature of choosing colors for a product. We product designers need to consider accessibility, consistent primary action colors that work for links and for buttons, error states, confirmation states, etc. The reason there is a lot of blue in digital products is the same reason there is a lot of black in fashion, it just works. <\/p>\n

<\/div>
<\/svg><\/div>

\"Try creating a robust product styleguide using bright yellow as a primary action color, I dare you.\"<\/p><\/span><\/blockquote>\n

Now, I\u2019m not here to say we\u2019re suppose to all use Bootstrap and call it a day. God no. Character is super important in a product, but a lot of that character isn\u2019t only in its visual design. In fact, a lot of it isn\u2019t. It\u2019s in the micro interactions, it\u2019s in the copy, it\u2019s in the nuance. Perhaps a sign up screen shouldn't be too adventurous with its visual design, but it can have fun with its call to action copy, or with its animations, or with its error states.<\/p>\n

Understanding when to break free from common or platform native patterns is part of the art of product design. It\u2019s like a secret weapon that should be used sparingly and only at the right time. When used too frequently, people lose trust in the product because it breaks from the norm causing confusion and begging the question if the creators are compensating for something. When never used, people lose trust because it seems like the creators didn't put any time into making the experience feel welcoming or abandoned it completely. Nuance is hard to get right and it takes time and experience.<\/p>\n

<\/div>
<\/svg><\/div>

\"Understanding when to break free from common or platform native patterns is part of the art of product design.\"<\/p><\/span><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s easy to blame product designers that we are not looking for \u201cbetter answers\u201d (i.e. better designs, or new ways of thinking of things), but this sounds very naive to me. If I know certain patterns work and make users happy, why risk their happiness? Would you want your bank\u2019s app to feel like a \u201cnew experience\u201d, or do you just want to know your checking balance and how to transfer some cash?<\/p>\n

80% of the time the wow factor of a product is getting the user to their desired intent in the shortest time possible. Sure, make them smile along the way with some character in the other 20%, but don\u2019t let your \u201cunique\u201d design get in the way. (I\u2019m just throwing numbers here, this isn't backed by science clearly but you get the point.)<\/p>\n

Of course, I\u2019m not saying don\u2019t ever experiment. Nothing in life (or in product design) is black or white. But if you do experiment, do it slowly and responsibly. Make sure it has a purpose that serves your users and not only serves to impress Designer News Bros\u2122. You may come up with a unique interaction that is actually an improvement to common paradigms, a new metaphor here, a new layout there. But this doesn\u2019t happen over night. It\u2019s not like graphic design or traditional content driven web design that relies almost exclusively on infinite possible aesthetic choices.<\/p>\n

So, in the time being, swallow your pride and allow yourself to be a tad homogeneous for the sake of your users and your business. We talk so much about having empathy as a designer. Well, perhaps here\u2019s where some of our empathy is needed, by applying restraint.<\/p>\n

This post was originally published on Yaron's Medium profile<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The whole \u201cHomogeneity of Design\u201d topic is creeping up again. That\u2019s cool. We\u2019re all special flowers in our own way. But I\u2019d like to make a few points about product design, as I see it. “In digital product design, industry wide established paradigms are good” The first thing I\u2019d like to say is that I am a very visual person…. Read More ￫<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":4301,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[498],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ui"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\t\n