Interface design theories

I sometimes come up with interface design theories. I’ve tried to collect them here.

It feels like visually rich interfaces styles might have made up for the lack of high definition visual content when e.g. iOS 6 was current. Photos and videos were lower quality, and connections were slower. In other words, now that we can consume ~unlimited high quality visual content, the interface naturally steps back. When apps were mostly about text, the interface played a bigger visual role. In other other words, there’s a maximum amount of visual stimulation a person wants. As one type (e.g. photos) increases, other types (e.g. interface styles) should decrease.
It’s hard for a company to “lie” [about themselves in what they release to the world]. e.g. ship high quality software despite a bad company culture.
Software designers like to talk about any medium but their own.
Instrument Serif has quickly become popular because there wasn’t a good condensed editorial serif on Google Fonts before now. Apple made heavy use of Garamond for advertising in the 80s/90s, which associated it in people’s minds with “retro technology”.
When [a popular website] stops using a visual design pattern, it feels safer to copy it for your own website.
The visual weight of an interface element should match how much information it carries. e.g. a screenshot of your product is a good thing to include in your hero section. You wouldn’t put a large plain circle there instead. A circle on its own says ~nothing.
The more visible/understandable something is, the more upset people get when it is copied. e.g. I assume most people don’t care if an app copies the way another app was coded. But if a website copies the appearance of another website, people get upset.
Dark mode is associated with technical stuff because terminals historically have a dark background.
Designers have inspirations they’re willing to admit, and inspirations they’re not willing to admit. Even if they don’t know they have either one.
I assume there is a class of marketing website which is successful (i.e. high conversion rate) when launched because the design of the website is shared a lot with others. And NOT because the design of the website directly improves conversion rate.
The closer a visual technique gets to“realistic”, the less we can accept anything unrealistic about it.
People often have good things to say about e.g. product packaging design from the 1950s. My working theory is that they like it partly because they know it’s from the 1950s. All sorts of emotions and nostalgia and respect for the past is tied up in that.
Design software needs to be heavy-handed with its visual effects (e.g. default drop shadow values) so it’s easier to see that the effect has been applied. The effect is not just the result of the action, but also a signifier that the action was successful.
The more focused the purpose of the website, the more impact the website can have with visual and interaction design. I think “general purpose” websites often need to be more plain, and focused websites can be bolder. e.g. typeface marketing sites, and agency websites.
“Ease of use” is only possible if you add more opinionated design to software. e.g. you start to add rules about what can and can’t be done. This makes the software easier to use, but also adds restrictions. And that turns some people away.
It’s easier to get noticeably good at a visual style if you ~only work in that style. If you are noticeably good at a visual style you’ll inspire other people to use it. But then specific visual styles become more popular than others, and people get bored of them.
There’s a relationship between high quality software and “we’re not hiring”. The simplest way to make high quality software is to keep the team small and focus on a single coherent vision. I assume companies that hire regularly won’t have that.
If you impress people in one way you can fail to impress them in another. e.g. Berkshire Hathaway famously makes a lot of money, which lets them use a “default” visual style for their website. I assume the same website would cause massive issues for a new VC.
Scroll-triggered animation is often used with websites that have simple visual styles because it’s a way to add visual variety/interest and keep it simple. Websites are seen in motion (you scroll them), so more motion = more visual variety.
“This is common and I’m bored now” is a bigger force in how visual styles change over time than almost anything else. With a second theory that designers won’t often admit that because it embarrasses them.
I assume most designers don’t sit down with a theory or strict approach in mind and design based on it. I assume they design based on what feels right and then see if it fits a structure afterwards, if at all.
Unless they’re careful, designers lean towards the easiest way to make an interface more coherent. One easy way to do that is to reduce contrast, e.g. faint text and outline icons.
The macro elements of design (e.g. layout) need less effort to make them stand out/interesting. The micro elements of design (e.g. illustration details) need more effort to make them stand out/interesting.
Software people will find it easier to use your software, even if it’s poorly designed, because they’re experts in “how software works”. But for the same reason, they’re more likely to notice the poor design and judge you for it.
Some techniques are easier to copy “on sight”, and some have a lot of hidden depth that you need to uncover. If you’re new to design it’s better to collect techniques that are easy to copy and still look good.
You can’t make good software because all software fits into a larger context (e.g. an app is inside the operating system context), and the context is probably bad and that has a big impact. So to make good software you’d need to make your own OS etc.
All software is bad and we just get used to it, instead of making good software.
Blocks of text represent a boring, “untouched” area of a design. There’s a strong need to play with it in some way. Otherwise you haven’t “designed it”.
Designers have “best practice” knowledge, but also personal preference. If two designers work together, their best practice knowledge should never disagree. But their personal preferences often will. Not sure how that should be resolved, unless one follows the other.
“What the design community is impressed by” and “what clients are impressed by” are often different. Both are valid ways to get work, but I assume “clients” is a larger market.
A visual style is chosen based on some mix of “purpose and preference”. Purpose = what does this interface need to do, and what visual style helps do that? Preference = what do I and the people who’ll use this interface prefer?
Software quality always involves a sacrifice. Usually of one of these things: 1) Software scope. 2) Personal life/time. 3) Money. 4) Growth
If you want to tidy up an interface that’s too busy, a full redesign is safer in some ways because people understand the reason that something is now missing. If you remove things one by one they might get confused about each one, and wonder if it’s a bug etc.
“[Visual style] is back” or “[visual style] is dead” is not a statement about the direction of the industry or how common the style is. It’s a statement about the person’s interest in the style when they make the statement.
In visual design elements have a “reverse gravity”: the bigger they are, the farther away things should be from them.
Once you have e.g. 60% of the things on the list of what makes a style, people start to recognise it. But I also think that some things on the list play a bigger part than others.
Sometimes different approaches to an interface are a way to signal to people that you approach software differently. Other signals (e.g. performance, reliability, lack of paper cut issues) are harder to notice. A big noticeable difference makes the statement better.
If a company makes software that they use themselves for work (e.g. customer support software), they will make better software overall. But also, the features they use will get more attention/be better, and the features they don’t use won’t.
Impressive new technologies go through phases. First it’s the focus of attention and software highlights it. Second it’s more common, and software treats it as a utility. Some examples: Multi-touch, AI, colour monitors.
The most impressive websites use the same elements, and the same effort, to promote the product in a way that also promotes the company. e.g. every fancy animation is directly related to the product, and helps you learn more about it.
It’s easier to read text if the background pattern follows an easy-to-understand pattern than if the background pattern is not easy to understand. I assume this is because our brains get distracted by our need to understand the background pattern.
One of the reasons that experienced designers often talk about the human side of design is that when you know ~everything about interface design, all of the interface design work becomes easy. The human side (e.g. can we all agree on what to do?) remains hard.
There are different ways to demonstrate “effort” in interface design. One is imagery that was obviously harder, e.g. 3D modelling, illustration. I think another one is how “fiddly” it looks: a small screen like the Apple Watch packed with lots of little things.
Visual styles can become strongly tied to a time in history. Partly because visual styles are created to represent that time. Partly because visual style is an easy thing for humans to focus on/remember.
There’s a life cycle for visual styles: Introduction → Recognition → Popularity → Saturation → Criticism → Avoidance → Dormancy → Introduction… Sometimes a style becomes associated so strongly with a time period that the dormant step is years/decades.
High level landing page layout has settled on a standard pattern. This has allowed more visually extreme styles because people know where to look for e.g. the main call to action. The visual style does not need to call as much attention to the “important” bits.
The more of a design there is, the more systematic you need to be.
Single-use or extremely simple software is the best place to experiment with novel interface design, because people only need to learn one thing and they’re done. The experience is focused entirely on the one interaction.
People don’t talk much about some parts of the interface design process (e.g. visual design) because there’s not much money in it. To be clear, better visual design can make you more money because it e.g. impresses people more. But not as much as e.g. problem solving.
It doesn’t matter what style or approach you use for an interface, if the execution is good. That said, some styles or approaches are harder to execute well. Some are practically impossible. e.g. a fully 3D environment as an interface to write text documents.
A small fraction of the total demand in any market is for high quality. Curious if the fraction is consistent across markets (e.g. “1% of total demand for both clothes and software is for high quality”).
Interface design is easier if you have a clear idea of what is wanted. But I get the impression that it’s hard to be clear on what you want until you’ve tried to design the interface a few times.
You don’t need to be able to invent stuff to be a good designer. But you do need to know how to combine stuff that you find floating around.
Some designers think it is “uncool” to learn directly about the skill set they practice. So they learn about it in secret and don’t talk about it in public.
In light mode you should use shadow effects, and in dark mode you should use lighting effects.
There’s a fluffy measure of visual design you can call “visual satisfaction”. Hard to define, but basically “how much do people enjoy looking at this”. And you can either increase it with flashy stuff. Or you can avoid decreasing it by not making any mistakes.
There are values that all designers think they should publicly support (e.g. clarity, usability, performance), even if their work shows that they don’t care much about them.
The most common route to learn interface design is to do it a lot, learn the theory without realising you’ve learned the theory, then do things that feel right. Then if you’re asked why, come up with reasons that sound good. Which will probably be true.
We like to think of interfaces as made of hard materials, not soft or fluid. This might be because software interfaces are an extension of physical interfaces in the real world. Buttons, dials, displays.
There are three paths software can take, when it comes to features vs. quality: 1) You can add features forever and ignore quality. 2) You can try to increase features and improve quality at the same pace. Eventually bloat makes quality drop. 3) You can add a few features, but otherwise focus exclusively on quality. You end up with a small, world-class product. I think a lot of companies do 2, because they (wrongly) believe they can increase quality and features at the same rate forever.
A lot of what designers think is “making” is actually “curating”: they’re slotting together bits they like (“this typeface, that card style” etc.) from other places.
Books about software design are good for your skill set. Books about other, distantly related fields are often good to understand what you believe in, and help you position yourself as a designer.
There are two kinds of “timeless”. 1) Timeless appreciation: an artefact is created e.g. 100 years ago. Someone sees it now, appreciates it, but they can tell it’s from 100 years ago. 2) Timeless appeal: an artefact is created e.g. 100 years ago. Someone sees it now, loves it, and does not know it was created 100 years ago.
Maybe ANY colour works fine when it is paired with only black and white.
The designers given the time to explore are the ones who set trends. Look at Apple, or Linear: the founder in both cases cares about design. The people who design the products feel safe to explore. They try interesting things. And sometimes set trends for the rest of us.
People have a limit on stuff they can visually process at once. And if a design goes past this limit it’s hard to look at.
Some design knowledge/theory is useful not because it helps make a BETTER decision, but simply because it helps make ANY decision.
Recommendations that you make an interface consistent are the same as recommendations that you use a layout grid. Consistency is not the goal. It’s the method. The goal is that the interface meets a person’s expectations.
If a designer spends a long time on an element, they’re more likely to make it stand out because it “deserves” the attention, even if that element should not stand out.
There’s an effect where hiring managers see a designer’s text-only website and think, “this person must be good at design. They’re so confident that they’ve not even designed their website.”. Like lining up at the start of an ultra marathon in pyjamas.
Imposter syndrome, or a temporary sense that you don’t know what you’re doing, is a result of relying on tacit knowledge.
There’s something about “what the market wants vs. what designers want”: Designers want originality and perfect execution of details. The market wants recreated trends and doesn’t care about execution of details.
You get big picture quality and small picture quality. A company can be good at both, one, or neither. The bigger the company, the harder both is.
If you have different squads working on different parts of a software product, and don’t have a designer who oversees how they all relate, design quality will suffer because it depends on harmony between the parts.
There are visual design qualities that are better or worse depending on taste. But there are some that are universally good. e.g. 1) Clarity, 2) Satisfaction, 3) Harmony. I don’t think any software design, no matter the style, should sacrifice any of these.
A good designer can jump into someone else’s design, fix the objective issues (e.g. alignment), and resist the urge to change the subjective issues (e.g. style choices they disagree with). In the same way that a good lawyer can defend someone they disagree with.
A lot of advice given by senior designers is in the form of a conscious action, when actually those designers follow that advice unconsciously. They have internalised it and keep it in mind throughout the design process.
Interface design is communication design, and can be split into: 1) What the interface says, 2) How the interface says it, 3) What a person responds with, 4) How a person responds.
Standards for software are lower than other design disciplines—e.g. graphic design—because software is more useful and therefore more necessary. We put up with worse because we need it.
Anyone who talks about how bad software is now, is focusing on the incumbents and ignoring the new entrants. Which makes sense: Google, Meta, Apple, Spotify, etc., have all been around a long time. They’ve declined.
Visual design is split into “how to design an interface” and “how to think about designing interfaces”. I think I prefer the second. I think it’s also harder to learn about. e.g. “here’s how you use a grid” vs. “what is structure? what structure should you use? why?”
Some companies look for one of two things in your portfolio: 1) Case studies that closely match the sort of work they do. 2) Impressive companies in your work history. If they don’t find either, they reject you.
Designers don’t like to talk about what inspired their design for the same reason that a magician doesn’t show how a trick was done: because then it’s less magical.
Designers’ personal websites are the concept cars of the website design world: exciting, beautiful, advanced. But not practical or commercially viable.
Commercial visual styles seem to travel/spread in two ways: companies copying other companies, and agencies/freelancers having a personal style and using it for each similar project.
If you intentionally design for a specific audience, instead of “the general public”, you can break more rules. e.g. using unfamiliar interaction and visual design patterns because your audience are both curious and technical.
Saying “yeah I look closely at what my peers are doing” seems cheap and not cool. Every designer seems to believe that they should be above all of that “learning from others” nonsense.
Part of the reason that design feels less fun now than it was 20 years ago, is that a lot of software is made by big companies. Thousands of employees. Millions of people using them. The product of design is for a larger audience, and plays it safe.
When designers “break a rule” in a good way, they’re actually ignoring one rule in favour of another—often more subtle—rule.
All aesthetics are reactionary. That is, every visual style you see, whether it’s considered a trend or not, is a reaction to something else.
If every website was 98% identical to every other website, 98% of people would be happy. The 2% would mostly be designers.
Dashboards only exist for people to feel like they’re in control, and for designers to practice visual design.
If everything we make was well-designed, 99% of it would still be unimpressive to look and and to use, and that would be fine. But this is (partly) why 99% of things are not well-designed, because most people don’t want to work on something that will end up boring.
If you come across a designer who seems to do everything (successfully) by gut feel, it’s because they’ve been around so much good design that they’ve learned the rules without realising it.
Designers are less excited about mobile. A desktop-sized viewport provides more opportunity for expression. That’s hard to resist. A small viewport is a much bigger restriction, and so it’ll be an after-thought to most designers.
Designers who think design isn’t fun any more are actually talking about their job and not the state of the art.
Shape is a powerful clue that an interface element is an example of a certain pattern. If the shape is as expected, you can take more risks with other qualities (e.g. colour, contrast).
The more structured you make any information, the more space it must take up.
Visual techniques like gradients have returned, but where before they were applied directly to design elements people interact with (e.g. buttons), now they are applied to elements that can be ignored (e.g. the website background).
Visual design is judged as “bad” based more on mistakes made than a lack of advanced techniques. For example, poor alignment is worse than a lack of gradients or interesting textures.
Colour is the style choice most at risk of trendiness. As soon as you make something black and white it feels “timeless”.
It’s OK to use the same thing (e.g. typeface) as everyone else, as long as it doesn’t stand out. Playfair Display is easy to spot, so it’s worse if “everyone uses it” than Helvetica. Or, no-one complains about the use of white, but if too many use the same gradient, etc.