There have been many interesting discussions on the role of the designer and developer in building apps and interactive products. Recently Eli Schiff has been lamenting the fall of the visual designer.
I believe there is a problem recently with the quality of software design. I find myself frustrated with new operating system updates such as iOS 8 or Yosemite, or mobile apps or websites that seem proud but are confusing to use (yes, include mine if you wish).
Great software I think is software that is easy to use. This ease of use is directly related to what the user wants to get done, her concept of what that is, how well she can translate that concept in using the software, and how well that concept is reflected back to her.
This mental model I think is the heart of software, and the heart of user interfaces.
You could call it ‘content’, which brings to mind the popular phrase nowadays ‘content is king’. However, in software, I think everything is content. The user interface is another form of content that is absorbed, and instead of only being read, it is also used.
A button says ‘I can do this thing. Press me to do it.’
A navigation menu says ‘You are looking at this particular section, I can go to these other sections if you like, just press one of them.’
A body of text says ‘Read these words, and the only interactions will be scrolling and navigating links within.’
A user interface is a series of these all stitched and balanced together, and as whole represents a greater concept to the user. A series of smaller familiar patterns assembled to form another familiar or at least logical pattern.
It is essentially communicating. The best UI design is one that knows how to communicate well, both at first glance and continually as is it is being used.
Where I agree with Eli is that the new ‘flat’ design trends can sometimes be poor at communicating. Their individual elements can be arbitrary (like being able to tell if something is clickable), and the greater user interface and mental model can be half-baked.
However, where I want to emphasise is that communication is the essential key to a user interface, and should be the stick that all UIs should be measured with. I think simplifying the visual effects on UIs can bring clarity if done well, which aids with what is being communicated.
What also aids communication is the wording used through a UI, the way elements relate by being distinct or similar to others in appearance and layout, and the simplicity of the concepts being interacted with, which again I think is the heart of software.
Software with a very apparent mental model and user experience can be treated with either a realistic or flat visual style and be easy to use. However, I think the mental models behind the UIs of iOS 8 and probably even the Apple Watch have suffered, both conceptually and in their communication.
Ease of use must be solved both in design and development. Someone having strengths in either or both does not necessarily mean they are good or bad at creating something that communicates well.
It is the conceptual and communicative part of software, as well as the visual and as well as the technical, that they must do right.
This is what I think of when reading that Steve Jobs quote, that ‘how it works’ is about the concept and its communication:
Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.