Is Standardization of Digital Design a Threat to Innovation?

In conversation with the Chief Design Officer at Moonraft discussing the existing paradigm of digital design, and the challenges it brings to creativity and innovation.

Has consolidation of interface design ideas into minimalistic formats killed creativity for new designs? Are designers today, using the existing interfaces, eliminating the ideation phases of digital design? Savy begs to differ…

As Savy Aluvathingal, Chief Design Officer at Moonraft Innovation Labs, talks about this current phenomenon, these questions can crop up in the minds of the not so enlightened! The CDO of Moonraft gave an interesting insight into the current culture of following certain set-templates for interface design explaining why it’s actually a good thing in the world of digital design. According to him, the narrowing down of digital concepts has helped businesses focus on the real intention of creating a user interface — addressing the customer’s needs. Here’s a snippet from the conversation with the much-experienced man.

What exactly do you mean by the consolidation of concepts with respect to digital design?

Savy–The last decade has witnessed a consistent increase in digital maturity in all aspects possible — retail, banking, social, and education to name a few — and naturally, there has been a pattern formed in the minds of the users when it comes to digital consumption. When we think of social media, the first image that comes to our head is Facebook, again when someone talks about texting it’s difficult to go beyond WhatsApp or Snapchat. The concepts of digital touchpoints are shrinking because a vast majority, especially pioneers in the field, have dominated the territory dictating the ways of consumption. This has led to enterprises wanting to stick to the same formats and templates that have already been tested as having a universal appeal.

So what does this mean — is it really in the best interest when it comes to the question of creativity in producing something new? Wouldn’t a new company want to showcase a flashy website or a completely different kind of interface as compared to its competitors for its mobile application?

Savy–It actually makes sense for businesses to focus on the relevance of the users by its end product rather than investing in new interface designs. The smartness of a business lies in identifying where its novelty should set in. The main objective of any company should be to provide value to its customers. By following the same minimalistic templates, businesses can reach different goals and concentrate on building better solutions. Think of it as a language, why waste time inventing new words when you can use the same ones and create a different meaning altogether? Design as a language bears the same interpretation. Enterprises are succeeding today by providing the same formats. Digital design is powered more by the core business message it communicates rather than the novelty in the look of its interface. Picture Uber and Lyft, for example, the latter used the same existing design and still made sure it worked because, at the very core, it managed to provide some form of functionality that competitors lacked. Or business models such as Urban Clap or Handy, who have leveraged the same technology of connectedness and used it to fill in gaps in customer needs.

Does this standardization diminish the scope for innovation in design?

Savy–There is no clash with innovation because of the standardization of interface design. Innovation is not necessarily synonymous with invention and it certainly does not imply surface-level change. Innovation should come through technology providing the user with a new concept in functionality, enabling a different use that addresses a crucial pain point in existing digital consumption. Core concepts are borrowed across companies and yet all are succeeding in making a mark in the digital space thus using interface design as a uniform language. The marvel of innovation lies in repurposing ideas towards a clear objective.

How does this impact the actual process of digital design? If the business demands to stick to certain templatized concepts, does that mean there is no need for initial user research to assess and identify what sort of interface a user would prefer?

Savy– I feel there has been restructuring in the process when it comes to user research for digital concepts. The need for user research to understand customer gaps is definitely a crucial step but what can be reduced are the discoveries around interface paradigms as the formats in use have already proved to have a global appeal. Instead, it makes more sense to validate the end product through user testing.

As a last thought, why do you think this templatized formula has set in?

Savy–Technology, as it has always emerged to be, is not only dynamic but constantly evolving. Consumers keep waking up to find new and more convenient ways of digital use each day which reduces their past efforts. Concepts such as ‘Advanced Search’ are extinct now as Google clearly wants to transfer any sort of extended exercise from the user to the technological capabilities. Hence it is easy to comprehend, in today’s fast-paced tech age, that there are machines that spit out cool interfaces that can put UI designers out of jobs. Why then worry about innovating the interface when there is so much more for the user and the business to understand especially from an emotional standpoint? Businesses have learned over the course of time that success does not depend on new concepts in interface design alone but also on providing user-centric digital solutions.

As the conversation draws to a close, the topic is still very much alive in our minds — digital interface as a uniform language. As more and more businesses are leveraging existing paradigms of applications and interfaces, more gaps in customer satisfaction are getting filled. Business organizations are no longer investing time in new interface designs but in new ideas that optimize the customer experience.

Unique concepts of UI are no longer a parameter of success for a digital business, instead, value addition for the customer is what really counts.

Digital design, like religion, is trying to find the common ground for all by narrowing down the canvas to minimal frameworks. However, as the world is polarized, global formulas may not work for all. As of now, in the case of conceptual consolidation, as long as it continues to provide relevance and meaning to consumers, it is a good thing in this constant journey of ‘digital’.