Dlod

The design rules we adopt usually come from the experiences of other designers we respect, revelationary experiences that have helped us in our work, a reaction against bad practices or ways of thinking that ring true to how we think about and execute design.

But in trying to turn these experiences into practical rules we can use to help our work we sometimes focus on the rules at the expense of what we’re trying to achieve. An excellent example of this is consistency. Anyone who has been flummoxed (or watched users become flummoxed in testing) by links that change style, menus that move around or any other factor that changes just when we think we have figured out how an interface works knows that consistency is vital in making something useable.

But the consistency rule can (and often does) take on a life of it’s own. Once a way of doing something is set it often becomes mandatory that this is consistently implemented across a system. But if in a specific context on that system the usability improves if that consistency is broken, then we are short changing ourselves if we carry on for consistencies sake. We’ve lost sight of the fact that consistency in this case is a way to enhance the usability of a system, it is not a goal in itself.

I’m sure this all seems blindingly obvious, in fact I initially questioned if it was even worth blogging about. But despite the seemingly obvious nature of how to use rules when we are designing I constantly come across designers defining good design with absolutist words like ‘never’ and ‘always’.

The ones that really make me chew on my own hands are the ones that start ‘A good designer never …’ or ‘A good designer always …’.
A quick example: ‘A good designer never allows form to dictate function’. This rule is too simplistic, the relationship between form and function is very intimate. This also completely ignores the fact that sometimes the function is the form. For example in household industrial design objects are sometimes on display more than they are in use. A kitchen radio may only be used a few hours a day and rarely retuned but it is always on display, the form is a vital part of the function of that object. It may be legitimate for the use of that object to hide tuning functionality out of the way if it improves the aesthetics of that radio.

In practise I actually think the form follows function thing works really well as a guideline and I rarely break it, but I resist it as a rule. If I come across a conflict between form and function I ask myself what benefits the overall experience favouring the functionality of favouring the aesthetics. And usually, despite how it may seem from all my ranting on this blog, I fall down on the side of functionality. But the point is I think about it, I don’t just immediately fall into a predefined position.

Hypocritically I’m aware that I veer towards this language all the time on this blog but this reflects my poor writing style rather than my lazy thought process as a designer. A good designer never says never I hope. Rules are useful but hopefully we are smart enough to think about the reasons behind them and think about whether they are relevant before we carelessly bust them out all over the place.

Graphic Design, Interactive Design, User Experience

Posted: March 23rd 2010 | « All The Pies Faster! »