But while this stresses the importance of the aesthetic aspect of interface design, the beautiful interface that actually does support the user, and that holds up as a solid design over time and use, still must be a more successful and therefore more aesthetically positive experience than the beautiful interface that has only a perceived usability.

Over the long haul– when the chips are down — which one does the user turn to? The one that only looks pretty or the one that makes the work pleasant as well? Given that both are pleasant to look at.

What Is Beautiful Is Usable

“An experiment was conducted to test the relationships between users’ perceptions of a computerized system’s beauty and usability. The experiment used a computerized application as a surrogate for an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). Perceptions were elicited before and after the participants used the system. Pre-experimental measures indicate strong correlations between system’s perceived aesthetics and perceived usability. Post-experimental measures indicated that the strong correlation remained intact.

A multivariate analysis of covariance revealed that the degree of system’s aesthetics affected the post-use perceptions of both aesthetics and usability, whereas the degree of actual usability had no such effect. The results resemble those found by social psychologists regarding the effect of physical attractiveness on the valuation of other personality attributes. The findings stress the importance of studying the aesthetic aspect of human–computer interaction (HCI) design and its relationships to other design dimensions.”

Most interesting article and a must-read in relation to this post. It’s a shame I’ve only discovered it now. First thing tommorow I will invade my university library to get a copy of that little gem.

Setting a high standard for the functional success of your design is tantamount to craftsmanship in making useful objects. I argue that the enjoyable use of a functional object is of first importance to any designer who is truly interested in the aesthetics of her/his design.

First and foremost, it is quite possible for something to be beautiful and not usable. There are so many examples out there today that I do not think anymore are really needed. Just think of some cool steros and kitchen appliances that were made just to look good without any sign of usability within them.

Secondly, aesthetics (or beauty) is attached to usability in the sense that I believe you will find many individuals initially believe that something is easily used if it looks good before they even try it. Apple is a good example. You can just look at their computers and get a sense that you would know how to work them. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Ebay. Their first interfaces were very intimidating and they always gave you the sense that you had a lot of work to do just to learn.

Aesthetics help to ease the comfort zone with a user and if the user is calm and possibly happy by the design then it will be easier for them to learn, assuming there is some sort of usability behind it. So I do believe it is possible to put form way over function as some people do and also to marry the two together. It is up to the designer.

I’ve been designing Web sites for over 8 years, and in the design field for much longer so I’ll skip the comment on that first part. I hope that wasn’t directed at me personally. ;)

As far as defeatist thinking goes all I can say is that I certainly don’t think that way. All I’m trying to get across here is that beauty and aesthetics are subjective and should come second to function in most cases. There is no such thing as a perfect design. Period.

But I think most of what you are saying is certainly true. What I seem to be balking at is the way some designers rely on their own, often narrow, opinion of their work and design for aesthetics first.

Who decides what “poor design” is? Is it you, or me, the client, the users?

Good debate. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this for the most part.

On numerous occassions I have put form in front of function – and I will continue to do so. First of all because I see it as part of my job to build and design objects that are pleasing to the eye. Secondly because it enables me to experiment and push boundaries. Putting form in front of function might have ended me up in some tight spots, but in the end it’s all a matter of finding the right equilibrium.

Poor design (or aesthetics) is usually due to budget contraints, tight deadlines or indifference. Another frequently (ab)used argument is: “It works, so why change it?”. The latter is most probably the case with Google. Some people are afraid of (disruptive) change. And to be honest, change can be a disorienting phenomenon.

Then why bother being a designer? That’s defeatist thinking. My initial point you may disagree with, fine. That’s obviously your perogative.

But I also want to make clear that I’m not trying to be “right” on my position here. Read my post on avoid results oriented thinking. I think it applies here. This is one of those cases where the approach and strategy taken by the designer is often just as important as the result.

I’d make the claim that if you don’t believe that aesthetic quality, as it pertains to web site deisgn or interface design, includes functional and usability metrics in conjunction with pleasing graphic and informational display, then it’s probably a good bet that what you design will reflect that position.

Now imagine everyone taking that position. Oh wait… most of the web and software technology out there already reflects this position.