{"id":20787,"date":"2019-04-30T11:30:02","date_gmt":"2019-04-30T11:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.heartinternet.uk\/blog\/?p=20787"},"modified":"2019-04-30T11:30:02","modified_gmt":"2019-04-30T11:30:02","slug":"form-over-function-beautifully-designed-things-that-simply-dont-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.heartinternet.uk\/blog\/form-over-function-beautifully-designed-things-that-simply-dont-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Form over function: beautifully designed things that simply don\u2019t work"},"content":{"rendered":"

We can all think of examples of design – whether it be website design or product design – where the designers clearly forgot (or ignored) the needs of the user. The form (the look of the thing) has completely eclipsed the function (the usability of it). It looks great, but you can\u2019t use it.<\/p>\n

The Apple Magic Mouse 2 has received a lot of attention in this regard. It\u2019s a lovely thing, until its battery starts to run down; then you have to upend it and plug the power cable into the base. At which point it\u2019s about as fit for purpose as a tortoise rolled onto its back.<\/p>\n

True, the mouse takes a matter of minutes to charge up, so this certainly fits into the category of \u2018First World Problems\u2019 but, it still interrupts the workflow. And, when one is paying the thick end of \u00a370 for a mouse, is it too much to expect to be able to charge it and use it at the same time?<\/p>\n

Form ever follows function<\/h3>\n

The architect Louis Sullivan famously wrote “form ever follows function”, back in 1896, and every architecture and design student has been taught that ever since.<\/p>\n

A key part of this principle is that the designer must consider the function of this<\/em> project to be more important than the established precedent of previous, similar projects. So, an important part of the Form Follows Function dictum is that Form Does Not<\/em> Follow Precedent.<\/p>\n

This, then, might explain why there are examples (so very many examples) of objects being re-designed simply to make them different – and not to make them better. Once Microsoft had reached the pinnacle of Mac-level usability with Windows 7, did it really<\/em> have to then go one huge leap further – and throw all that away with Windows 8? In trying to design a UI that worked identically on both laptop and phone, they ignored the fact that people use laptops and phones in very different ways. What works fine with thumb and index finger on a phone – liking posts and swiping right – doesn\u2019t help you when you\u2019re writing essays at college or doing your business accounts.<\/p>\n

They didn\u2019t think (enough) about the users.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s put this in web-design terms: if you design your UI without reference to the likely UX, you are unlikely to produce software which is easy and intuitive to use. You are, in essence, ignoring the needs of the end user. If people can\u2019t use the thing you are creating for them, you are failing at the most fundamental level.<\/p>\n

You can\u2019t widget all the people all the time<\/h3>\n

It isn\u2019t possible to design a widget (I\u2019m using \u2018widget\u2019, here, as a generic term for any gadget, device, app or doohickey that ever needed designing for mere mortals to employ) that suits all of the people all of the time.<\/p>\n

Until such time as they can mass-produce genetically identical people, we human beings will stubbornly continue to be annoyingly, eccentrically different. Some people are tall, others short, some people will have experienced widgets like yours before, others will be first-timers. People will have different needs and abilities; different interests and skills.<\/p>\n

Try to design a can opener that works equally well for left and right-handed people, and you\u2019ll realise that all design is a process of compromise between what the user wants and what is physically, financially or technically possible for the designer to deliver.<\/p>\n

The committee stage<\/h3>\n

Back in the 1960s, the comedian Allan Sherman created \u2018Peter and the Commissar<\/a>\u2019, a parody of Prokofiev\u2019s \u2018Peter and the Wolf\u2019, whereby the music has to go through a committee stage. Thanks to the input of the committee, the music ends-up being \u2018improved\u2019 from the timeless classic we were taught at school, to a formulaic bossa nova.<\/p>\n

As Sherman rhymes, at one point:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve all heard the saying, which is true as well as witty,<\/em><\/p>\n

That a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

There isn\u2019t a designer out there whose blood doesn\u2019t run cold when they hear that their design is being \u2018passed by the steering group\u2019.<\/p>\n

This is because we humans – as willfully individual as we continue to be – perceive things very differently. Show a website to ten people and they\u2019re seeing ten different websites, because they\u2019ve lived ten different lives and formed ten different personalities. They\u2019ll be having ten different days and be in ten different frames of mind.<\/p>\n

Add to that, if they use the site, they will immediately have ten different experiences.<\/p>\n

All experience is subjective, existing in the mind of the experiencee. So UX is an internal, often emotional, response to your UI. You have to accept that (until such time as you can plug straight into the mind of the user, bypassing their personality entirely) not everyone will \u2018get\u2019 what you\u2019ve done. You have to decide how many users you\u2019re willing to lose.<\/p>\n

The inability to accept that you can\u2019t create the same experience, the same understanding, in all users, is why committees fail at design.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

Passing the baton<\/h3>\n

Another issue is brought about by the way that the same person – or same team – is not always responsible for the entire planning and manufacturing process.<\/p>\n

If Team B fails to understand the instructions or intentions of Team A, then they will not do what Team A expects. That\u2019s simply a problem of communication and can be addressed through better systems.<\/p>\n

But then there is the sheer stubbornness of human nature. If the constant flow of internet memes is anything to go by, this becomes particularly apparent in building work.<\/p>\n

If the plans say to build a balcony on a wall with no windows, or attach a fire escape to a wall with no doors, a certain type of jobsworth builder will do as they\u2019re told – without double checking – and cheerfully move on.<\/p>\n

After all, guv, we was only followin\u2019 orders.<\/em><\/p>\n

This situation can come about through an understandable lack of sympathy among the outdoors-come-rain-or-shine builders towards the problems of the designers in their air-conditioned offices. But there is also a lack of empathy among either group for the professionalism of the other.<\/p>\n

This is why it\u2019s important that designers spend time with the people who will bring their designs to life. It helps the people at the manufacturing end feel more involved in the decision-making. It helps the designers keep their feet more squarely on the ground.<\/p>\n

Forgiving the fail<\/h3>\n

Human nature is also the fuel that ignites social media scandals.<\/p>\n

In this age of instant infamy, any unguarded and unwise comment can travel the world in seconds – gleefully spread by people basking in the schadenfreude of watching another celebrity career in freefall.<\/p>\n

Design fails (such as the Magic Mouse with which we began) are welcomed as a platform whereby the powerless can, supposedly, speak truth to power – by sticking the metaphorical boot in.<\/p>\n

Yet, some design fails are greeted with considerable patience and understanding – and this seems to come from a sense of brand loyalty.<\/p>\n

Fashion designers enjoy an almost unique cult of personality. Red carpet celebrities are asked \u201cwho are you wearing\u201d, as though the fashion designer\u2019s personality and their products were one and the same thing. This gives a rarified upper echelon of designers a pre-eminence and dominance unlike any other field of contemporary design – a power which they are only too happy to exploit. It doesn’t matter how unwearable the shoes, how unfeasible the frock, how monumental the price – brand loyalty and the drive for conspicuous consumption will win out.<\/p>\n

The Lotus Elise is another good example of this. Devastatingly beautiful to look at, with a ferocious engine under the bonnet, one of the car\u2019s key selling points (along with all of the Lotus cars which preceded it) is its road-hugging low-profile. This means that the seat of the driving chair is a scant few inches above the road, and the roof of the car – at its highest point – is just 45 inches above the road – much, much lower than any normal road-car.<\/p>\n

Presumably designed for slim, sylph-like models to get in and out of with flexible ease; the well-fed middle-aged men who can actually afford to buy the thing, are less graceful in their ingress and, particularly, egress.<\/p>\n

Such was the problem, there are several<\/em> YouTube how-to videos on the best way to get into and out of a car!\u00a0 One would be forgiven for thinking that, if you\u2019re old enough to drive, you\u2019re probably sophisticated enough to negotiate your way round a car door. Seemingly not.<\/p>\n

Yet, the Lotus is so loved by petrol-heads, that you will barely find a discouraging word. Everyone clearly knows there\u2019s a problem, but no-one seems to mind.<\/p>\n