Double Dribbble: Losing Out To Homogenous Design
I’m not deliberately trying to single out dribbble here. Dribbble is typically used as the poster child and a culprit for homogenous design. Not gonna lie. I wanted to use the title Double Dribbble, while also highlighting what happens when we all use the same sources of online inspiration. IE. The sea of sameness effect. After the demise of FFFFound where I’d uncover all sorts of new visuals, there were no platforms that provided serendipitous discovery until Are.na came along. But getting offline, going through old books, traveling, making trips to galleries, looking at things from different disciplines helps. If your only source of inspiration are the most popular Dribbble shots, or the top UI Pinterest boards, algorithmically served, of course, it’s very likely you’ll come up with something that looks just like the sum total of what you’ve consumed. Ideas come from different recombinations of existing ideas and knowledge. This is true of all creative disciplines. The more unique the combination, the higher the chance of leading to a significant breakthrough (1).
There are many culprits from an over-reliance on data, a focus on utilitarianism, the re-use of the same frameworks, and designing templates without a feel for the content. Why am I writing about this? Hasn’t this piece been done before? Sure it has. But every now again I get bored to tears by digital and UI design and go on the hunt for folks who are pushing the boundary. It’s also a good exercise to re-ignite my own interest in a design discipline that I’ve been involved some, way shape or form over the past decade. I share a similar sentiment to Marc Kremers, “Too many sites are just exercises in good, generically appealing taste. Anyone can do that. It’s super boring.” (2)
I’ve reflected on how we got here not only to push myself but to also highlight some of the pieces I go back to and re-read. Disclaimer: I’ve been guilty of going the templated approach on side projects I’ve launched. I also use a bought template on Tumblr. I’m in the process of rolling my own. So I’m part of the problem as well.
How we got here.
Clean, workable, well-designed interfaces are the baseline. When you get to this point, you’re not finished. There’s still more to be done. I’ve re-read Yaaron Schoen’s piece “In Defense of Homogenous Design” and do agree with some of Schoen’s points. There are some learned behaviors and existing digital design paradigms. Examples include, pull to refresh, swipe to dismiss, underlined hyperlinks, etc. The argument as Schoen presents go something like this: “This is great. We’re teaching people how to use digital products and if your digital product looks similar, all good. Jackets look the same, we know where the pockets are.” It makes sense, but my gut feeling is this line of thinking can stop us from really evolving a design (3). I know some restraint needs to be exercised so care needs to be taken as you select the right opportunities to level up on. There needs to be some expressive elements and a human touch. If all we did were the basics we wouldn’t need designers. All we would need are the UI frameworks to paint by numbers with.
We can’t always stick to existing paradigms.
There are instances when we can’t always stick to existing paradigms. One example was highlighted in a designer news thread by Renee P. that goes something like this: a decade ago people hadn’t heard of “pull to refresh” or “swipe to dismiss.” These new paradigms had to be invented (4). But with every new platform, the paradigms will need to be created or advance as the technology evolves. When I was working at a large holding company owned digital agency, I remember a VR commerce project we made for the high-end retailer. We’d demo it to our clients and teach them an entirely new paradigm for VR navigation (5). Staring at a diamond for a certain amount of time to advance the experience. Once folks learned it, it became second nature. I’m not big on VR but thought it was a good example from first-hand experience. There’s a host of new technologies we are still defining interfaces for. Some that have no UIs at all as with conversational interfaces and multiple dimensions when it comes to AR and mixed reality, etc. In the context of new platforms, screen-based interfaces may need to be recontextualized as people learn new behaviors and paradigms.
The other reason to break an existing paradigm is to infuse some sort of character into the product and put a unique spin on it. The question goes something like this, back to Schoen’s Jacket Principle, what if I don’t want to wear the same jacket as someone else, or design one like someone else? If I had a to design one, I might put extra pockets someplace else. Maybe there’s an act of discovery there. It’s about a point of view and bringing something unique to the table. As Alan Kay stated, “Point of View is worth 80 IQ points”. Which leads me to my next point.
An over-reliance on utilitarianism creates forgettable products.
Brett Bergeron, Creative Director at the digital product design studio This Also, presents an argument in his piece on “Good Enough Design” that we no longer have major constraints that bind us to just focusing on utilitarianism. And by not injecting personality into a digital product you fail to keep people’s attention. “More than ever, we are at a place in technology where interfaces can be utilitarian and emotionally expressive at the same time.” Bergeron uses This Also’s Google Dots case study as one of the examples. Injecting the search giant’s digital ecosystem with personality with the use of playful animations. Through an expressive logomark people understood when Google was doing something magical for them. He goes on to note that by not going beyond functional design a lot of products fall into the usable but forgettable category. A reason needs to be given to keep a product installed and opened again. As Bergeron notes, It’s worthwhile infusing the product with character so it’s differentiated. As a result, it protects the initial investment in building it (6).
Solely relying on web metrics discounts the team’s intuition and experience.
It’s been shown time an and again that a lot of digital metrics are bullshit. Especially with the increasing levels of bot traffic and fraudulent media buys. If you don’t have a core community of people using your product and you are heavily relying on media buys you may have a harder time trusting your metrics. Numerous studies are out with numbers showcasing billions of lost ad dollars to bots and click farms. The former CEO of Reddit came out confirming how bad the problem has become. Even Facebook isn’t able to identify genuine numbers.
You can’t do without metrics. We need them but it’s a single data point that needs to be paired with feedback from your community, user tests, research and any information to help set the appropriate context. Unfortunately, too many times I’ve seen clients afraid to make calls or provide their own point of view and instead fall back on metrics as a cover your ass tactic. “The numbers said so.” Also, let’s hypothetically say web metrics were accurate and bots didn’t exist. To use them exclusively to design anything results in sterile outcomes.
When folks do A/B or multivariate tests it’s typically done as a best effort approach. We question the design more than we do the science behind the testing and the reliability of the tests. It’s the combination of data (from multiple sources) and intuition together. Not taking the design team’s years of intuition and experience in coming up with a solution is a miss. Lastly, metrics are used to optimize for the local maximum. To make incremental improvements to an existing design. They can’t tell you whether or not you need a whole new design altogether.
Doing what you know will work.
There are many reasons why we fall into this trap. The independent digital designer and author Paul Jarvis attributes it to being victims of our own success. “Sometimes successful work can lead to less innovation, and then the real making stops. You become more like a factory production line than a meaningful creator.” We fall back on what works because it’s comfortable. Not only that, but we’d like to re-use as much work from the last time to get to the finish line faster. Do that enough you stunt your skills and growth, and start to lose touch. Boredom slowly sets in. This doesn’t mean we can’t leverage design patterns. It’s about determining how best to apply them (7).
Lack of diversity in thinking and experiences.
The digital artist and game designer, Morgane Santos not only points out that we are making more or less the same thing, but there’s also a cultural element here at play as well. IE. “The Designer Daves” of the world. Male, black wardrobe, 5-panel cap. The lack of people diversity in the digital design world produces one point of view. Diversity matters in producing work that’s different. Numerous studies show this. As Santos notes, “So, this whole designing with empathy thing? It literally cannot happen if all designers have the same background, the same look, the same style.” (8)
Marc Kremers echoed a similar sentiment and also related it back to the culture of being a designer, “I think designers naturally just want to fit in, have a nice, cute life, do nice, cute things. Work hard, be nice to people. Read Kinfolk. Raw denim. Beards. Flat Whites. Nice fonts, nice illustrations, nice design. Go with the flow. Just good, tasteful things, experiences, and activities. And before you know it, your life is an Instagram feed, literally indistinguishable to any other designer’s nice Instagram feed. You melted into the digital soup. I don’t know if this rant makes any sense, but I guess my awareness or fear of this singularity is just naturally percolating in my work. I’m a nice guy though.” (9)
This is an excellent reminder to collaborate with folks who aren’t exactly like you or at least to reach out for feedback and perspectives from more diverse groups. It takes effort. It’s way too easy to talk to folks that are just like you.
Disregarding Content
Another issue is not taking a holistic view of what we are designing for. Especially when it comes to content. I’ve listened to an Executive Creative Director once tell a team, “We’re great at making beautiful boxes without anything to put in them.” Very organized and thoughtful experience design without any regard for a greater concept, narrative or developing a paradigm that the best suits the content. Travis Gertz in ”Design Machines: How to Survive the Digital Apocalypse”, highlights the perils of not taking content and it’s unique needs to into consideration.
Gertz compares digital design to editorial design and highlights the emotive qualities editorial design historically has. The divergence between the disciplines is in the following areas: How systems are designed, How content is treated, and how we collaborate. In digital design, we nerd out on our CSS responsive grid frameworks, design systems and obsess over style guides and pattern libraries. The goal is typically to design for maximum template efficiency and component reuse. Unfortunately, this is where things end. In editorial design, the philosophy was slightly different. Editorial design systems are made for variation, not prescription.
Gertz also elaborates on how content is treated in the process. It’s not about content first or content last. It’s about the content’s connection to the design. In editorial design its standard practice for content creators and editors to work hand in hand while designing the system. Content development doesn’t come at a later stage to be plugged in once the design is done. It’s just as important as design and engineering. When digital products are built in an assembly line fashion and the boxes are built before the content exists we’ve missed an opportunity.
With the added complexity in digital design over editorial design, other design disciplines were created. User experience design was needed so that the flow of a site, application or product worked. As Gertz alludes to, this is another step in the assembly line where content isn’t carefully considered as there’s not enough collaboration between the creative disciplines. In digital design, a heavy emphasis is placed on dividing up roles by the stages of a project to gain efficiencies from each of the design disciplines. Unfortunately, this created more silos. As compared to editorial design. Where editorial designers knew the design stack from a system level and how it laddered up to the expression of each piece of content.
Gertz boils down the problem to poor collaboration and a disregard for content. I know this type of tighter collaboration would be harder to scale, but a more editorial lens on things would help guide teams on what should be produced. There’s no need to create a component library of 30 components as a “just in case measure” if the current content only needs 5 of them (10).
Have a concept.
This is critical in other design disciplines. In digital design sometimes we can get away with not having a concept because if the thing works, no matter how basic or boring, you can check the box and tell everyone it works. Or you can fool yourself and everyone else with the cop out that it’s an MVP (Minimum Viable Product). I remember being part of a large scale multi-brand platform redesign team. We had our very intelligent, engineering-minded UX team present the designs by nerding out on how flexible the components were and how great they looked across breakpoints. The clients were bored but did wind up asking some great questions, “How will our X product look in this thing?” and “What about X visuals that were unique to the brand? Will we have those?” Shame on me, shame on us. Making a site responsive or adding parallax scrolling isn’t a concept. A concept should give the team a guidepost when it comes to selecting grids, type, illustration and interaction paradigms. Developing a concept requires research and mining for an insight to ensure you’re in fact solving the right problem.
References
1. Batey, Mark. “How to Have Breakthrough Ideas.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 20 July 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/working-creativity/201707/how-have-breakthrough-ideas.
2. “Exploring Digital Design | Marc Kremers, London.” Exploring Digital Design | Marc Kremers, London, Represent UK, digitaldesign.represent.uk.com/index.php/marc-kremers.
3. Schoen, Yaron. “In Defense of Homogeneous Design — Yaron Schoen — Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 16 Mar. 2016, medium.com/@yarcom/in-defense-of-homogeneous-design-b27f79f4bb87.
4. Schiff, Eli. “In Defense of Homogeneous Design — Designer News.” Open Sans and Baskerville (Libre… — If You Had to Choose 1 Font Pair to Use for the Rest of Your Life –, Developer News, 21 Mar. 2016, www.designernews.co/stories/65889-in-defense-of-homogeneous-design.
5. Publicis Sapient North America. “‘The Apartment — Virtual Reality Retail Experience’ for Retail and E-Commerce (by Publicis Sapient North America).” The Best and Largest Global Advertising Agency Directory & Creative Library — AdForum, Adforum, www.adforum.com/agency/6644039/creative-work/34520718/the-apartment-virtual-reality-retail-experience/sapientnitro-retail-and-e-commerce.
6. Bergeron, Brett. “Good Enough Design — Brett Bergeron — Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 20 Sept. 2016, medium.com/this-also/good-enough-design-29ab5132f3a3.
7. “Everything I Know.” Everything I Know, by Paul Jarvis, Paul Jarvis, 2013, p. 102.
8. Santos, Morgane. “The Unbearable Homogeneity of Design — Morgane Santos — Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 10 Mar. 2016, medium.com/@morgane/the-unbearable-homogeneity-of-design-fe1a44d48f3d.
9. “Exploring Digital Design | Marc Kremers, London.” Exploring Digital Design | Marc Kremers, London, Represent UK, digitaldesign.represent.uk.com/index.php/marc-kremers.
10. Gertz, Travis. “Design Machines.” Louder Than Ten, 18 Sept. 2018, louderthanten.com/coax/design-machines.
Originally published at blog.viktorbezic.com.
