Do UI Aesthetics Matter?
David Heinemeier Hansson from 37signals wrote an interesting post yesterday on the Signal vs Noise blog.
The post talks about the trivialization of beauty in technology products. The example given was the MacBook Air, Apple’s super-thin notebook. Some people think great design doesn’t matter as long as the function is solid — they don’t give much value to aesthetics and believe that people who purchase something like a MacBook Air are just doing it to impress others.
David argues that aesthetics in technology products are important because they make the product enjoyable to use. You’ll be able to appreciate great design by using the product every day. I agree. I also think good aesthetics give the product character and soul. Of course good design must follow function — which means it must not be superfluous.
What about the user interface — does the way software looks matter? Scott Berkun, who worked on several projects at Microsoft, including IE, Windows and MSN, thinks so:
Scott uses a katana example in his essay. The japanese katana is a weapon crafted with great care and expertise that delivers both, performance and aesthetics.
We get happiness and enjoyment from a lot of beautiful products. Take cars for example. Any car would get you from point A to point B (hopefully), but we just won’t have as much fun driving a Lada as an Audi. Sure, the Audi may perform better, but that’s not the only thing that makes it great — its design and aesthetics are just as important.
In the same vein I believe that by spending a little time making your interface look good would add value. It will differentiate your product and give it polish; but more important, it will make the product experience more enjoyable for your customers. Computers and software are tools, but as most of us use them every day I believe we should care about them and make them the best they can be.
What do you think? Does it matter what an interface looks like? Should you spend time designing an attractive aesthetic? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I was just thinking of similar thing today, particularly Windows UI and their constant using of old Windows 95 icons across the system. I don’t know how it’s in Vista, but XP’s got a great deal of that old elements. I can understand that - it’s older system evolving from system with pretty much different system, but they could include improvements in some upgrades they were releasing. Anyway, for me aesthetics matters, it simply makes you productive and happier with whole environment.
It matters, absolutely.
I’ve been meaning to write about this subject as well. (you always seem to beat me to it Dmitry!)
We often talk about form vs function. and a lot people tend to think, under constraints(time/budget) function supersedes form. Therefore you see ugly products that simply “work.” Even that is debatable.
“Form follows function-that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union”
-Frank Lloyd Wright.
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. It takes the same amount of time to come up with a bad design as a good design.
Regarding web design, a counter argument I’ve seen people making is “Look at Google, Craigslist, they’re successful with ugly designs.” What people don’t realize is their success has nothing to do with their non-design style. They’re successful because they provide good service. Had they look more polished, they’d still achieve the same success and more.
While the aesthetics doesn’t always contribute to function, it certainly invokes a feeling from the users. A good feeling definitely outsells blah feelings.
The adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” holds true even with web UIs. The MacBook Air maybe commonly referred to as a beautiful product, but the quality of being “enjoyable to use” depends on whether I enjoy IT… that is an explicit requirement from ME. That is why some people prefer function over form.
This is why these types of discussions are often rhetorical. Once you realize that good design is just a matter of trying to evoke enjoyment out of as many people as possible, yet you will never ever get everyone, you realize that no single person or group of people is qualified to call a UI a “good” UI. It’s just not measurable form a single vantage point.
I have to disagree with you there Matt. Humans tend to have some basic inherent tastes sitting deep in our genes.
For example, we can use the golden ratio to craft proportions that are pleasant to our eye. Certain colors go better with each other than others — we can craft color palettes that work. We can manage contrast to create a UI that gives focus to things that matter and make the colors easier on the eye. We can give the UI a coherent polish that maintains a similar style throughout and makes the experience feel integrated.
Generally speaking there are many principles you can follow to make an interface more attractive. Of course if you add an artistic style of your own on top to give it your own twist and signature, less people may enjoy it — but I think generally speaking you can judge these things and say one is better than the other in looks.
It’s similar to food critics tasting food in restaurants — of course not everyone may enjoy all the dishes, but you can sure tell the difference between a masterfully created plate of food and that of an amateur cook, and most will appreciate its finesse and quality. I think in the same vein, it’s usually evident when a user interface was crafted with skill.
Don’t do a car analogy again.
Hell yes, a thousand times, hell yes it matters. We’ve been discussing this of late around our shop (our boss was just quoted in an Investor’s Biz Daily article that emphasized the importance of good UI — functions are great, but if users can’t find them, they might as well not exist.
If it didn’t matter to people in general, then Apple wouldn’t have the userbase that it does. If it mattered to “normal” people, but didn’t matter to geeks, then sites like kde-look.org and gnome-look.org wouldn’t exist.
Of course aesthetics matter. It may not be important — or may not be more important than function — to some people, but to suggest that it doesn’t matter in general is foolish.
Hi,
I definitely agree with you. Good aesthetic gives software soul and affects how user feel about it. But it goes hand in hand with UI design(layout, usability). Nice icons, colors and shapes are worthless if not properly laid out. Also there must be a balance, otherwise UI will look cluttered which may affect usability.
I would also notice that make good aesthetic with good design is really really hard and it requires lot of work, testing and iteerative refinement. I’m trying to build nice software myself and it’s really hard and sometimes like today, it keeps me from programming because I’m thinking about how to make UI better :-)
A lot of people misunderstand “design,” and think it has to do with “make pretty” or decoration. Good design is fundamentally about enhancing usability. If the design of an object or interface doesn’t perform that function, then it’s not good design. The MacBook “feels good” to hold: sleek, lightweight, and the user interface resonates with its physical appearance and feel. It raises your expectations about what a laptop should be and how it should function. Good post..
UI aesthetics sure matter when choosing a mate. We are wired to think pretty is better…or is it better is pretty?
UI absolutely matters. I’ve been through a couple start-ups now and the attention to detail for entire user experience (UI included, of course) is what has always set us apart from the competition.
Thanks for that great post. Aesthetics are not about looking good, but about making the user feel at home.
Yeah, a lot of people trivialize what they don’t understand, and programmers rarely understand aesthetics. Hence the term “eye candy”: calling it a cheap sensual pleasure with no nutritional value, instead of a necessity.
Good UI design makes solving your problems simpler.
50 toolbar icons is an example of a terrible UI design. 4 is an example of good design. FYI: 50 major functions in 1 program are either on different levels or you’re in emacs. Most likely you end up constantly filtering through 46 useless items to get to the 4 you want.
The problem is that most programmers think that the program is done when they can make it solve the problem they were tasked. Of course, the program is done when the user can do it, but that’s still a radical concept to most “it compiles! ship it!” programmers.
Lada is good and Audi is’t cheap!
:=)
I actually prefer the Lada to the Audi..
I am in 100% agreement on this. For a long time I have belaboured this point that beauty has a function! Read thisfrom my site at: http://www.yorkali.com
Design isn’t about tools,
it solves the problem,
it gets the job done,
it communicates the message.
Design is risky.
Objective AND subjective.
It is neither form nor function.
Great design does both at the same time.
There is nothing
superfluous about beauty
and there is nothing
mundane about utility.
Design is what design does.
It gets your brand at top of mind,
increases conversions,
fills up the shopping cart,
makes them call now.
I really think that design makes only 10% diffrent. If product is very good it will be used no matter the design.
But if design helps the user understand the functionality better, then it counts a lot.
I agree - no question about this
UI is the only contact between the application/software and the users, the interface has to be pleasing to the eye - especially for those applications where users use frequently (and spend a lot of time on).
The thing is some people won’t admit they have bad tastes and only can produce ugly interfaces (of course I mean those “professionals”).
I thought you’d say that the Lada is more fun :P
They matter. You can always make something look better. However, it does seem that when a lot of people start a project their priority level for pretty buttons is not quite as high as it is for content placement and information architecture and just flat-out usability. For instance, I just purchased Cha-Ching, from midnightapps.com. They released a stable version for purchase while they continue to beta test version 2. In my opinion, what I paid for looks better than it works. I was a little dissapointed after being “Wowe’d” by the gorgeous interface. Hopefully when I upgrade, the product will redeem itself for me.
Agreed, they do matter. However, to re-iterate what was mentioned above, many still confuse “design” and “pretty”.
Design is the entire thing, from plans to build to paint, not just the visual aspect.
UI Aesthetics matter because not only do people like to use something beautiful (in both use and looks) but the IU’s visual style is that particular application’s [i]brand[/i], and that is very important since digital applications don’t have boxes or other packaging (once installed) and the UI (+ user experience) are the elements that constantly re-inforce (or detract) from the brand.
A programmer may not care about the visual appeal of an app because his task is to get it working and refine or expand its functionality.
Visual UI style should not be neglected once the experience design is complete. I guarantee that one could build two versions of an app, identical in all other ways but one with basic, boxy, plain controls and another with well designed, visually appealing controls and the prettier one would sell every time. Leaving off that visual polish leaves an app looking unfinished or incomplete.
With the car analogy, minimalist style can work as a “look” when done intentionally, like the Honda Element (which I own and love). Its utilitarian design is intentional, making it somewhat appear to put function over form.
A basic, unpolished UI is like a car without paint, and who would buy an unpainted car?
It depends on what your building and for the kind of users. If you got the budget and you got the time. Great go and make a beautiful product. If you don’t, go and look at the people your building/designing for.
What are the goals they want to reach with your product. If they want to show off with it then design is very important. If people want to get the job done asap than efficiently is more important and they may not want a great interface distracting them.
People are different one want a car to show off and a other person wants to bring the football team to a soccer match.
Then there is also the matter of cheap design makes people think the product is cheap. If that is your message than cheap not so beautiful design could work for you.
To end this post. My mum is always trying to help me find “good stuff” on the internet. She gave me URL of a great website she thought was beautiful. It was black page with yellow letters you got a headache if you looked at it for more than ten seconds. She thought it was great because she could find anything she was looking for in bright yellow letters.
To end my post great design is subjective and the only person who can judge that is the user.
Aesthetics are very critical to the Desirability, User Experience (UX) and eventual success (or lack thereof) of a product. I recently completed a series exploring the Aesthetics of various popular websites and how you can use that information to make better design decisions…
http://tpgblog.com/2008/09/16/.....-quick-ux/
Leave a comment and let me know what you think.
Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy
http://tpgblog.com
Check This Out, GREAT Information
Have You Seen This? AmazingOOOh