• David RoyerDavid Royer, 1 year ago

    Appreciate his reflection and article may be apt for designers who focus on digital products that have standardized interaction models like design landing pages or ads. But for UX design of complex digital tools I see the move away from aesthetic focus as positive and comparing UX designers to graphic designers who worked for ad agencies is a misleading comparison.

    Architecture - one of the oldest design professions - is a more apt comparison and they have been focusing on things beyond aesthetics for centuries. Architects design to support the needs of the people who live or work in the building and have to consider complex constraints related to materials, building costs, construction limitations, time considerations, use/wear over time, and, of course, aesthetics. Good UX designers do the same.

    Designers of all sorts are in service to the people they design for. Full stop. The cooler-than-thou tastemakers are great for designing products with limited complexity but keep them away from complicated products. Something that looks amazing and stylish but isn't usable or discoverable is not well designed - and I'd go further and say it's the WORST kind of design bc the visual polish suggests it is well designed making the user feel dumb when they can't figure it out.

    Just my 2 cents

    7 points
    • adrian ioadrian io, 1 year ago

      Agree with this... I've seen this happen so many times. Too much focus on making it look pretty. It works to create that great first impression, but once you start using it, the walls start to crumble.

      In my experience (enterprise software) professionals want efficient not pretty. If things work well and gets them to achieve their goals quickly - that's 'beautiful'.

      2 points