Love the web

Every designer has encountered the form versus function debate somewhere along the line. While we all know about the fundamental conflict between form and function, my belief is that on the web, the greatest conflict comes about where the visual design of a website is taken from good to great.

I also believe, that the average person doesn't notice the difference between a good design and a great one.

So if striving for visual 'greatness', as opposed to merely accepting visual 'goodness' means making more sacrifices either on a design or usability level, and if most people don't actually notice the difference anyway, then is it worth even trying?

To clarify my discussion below, 'form' refers to the visual aesthetic aspects of the site with 'function' referring to any aspects that you actually use or interact with.

Having one's cake and eating it too.

Surely the obvious answer is to have visual greatness AND usability greatness. Ha, yes of course. Wouldn't we all like to have that. But many times, in fact I'm going to go as far as to say MOST times, I don't think it's possible to have both without compromise.

As a designer, the compromises you sometimes have to make in order to gain (what may seem like debatable) usability improvements can feel like a tragedy. But recently, thinking about the level of design that people realistically appreciate on the web, I am now wondering whether many people actually notice these design compromises anyway.

Thinking about the visual aesthetics of a site, on a scale of 'poor' through to 'great', I believe that as the level of craft, and attention to detail, and overall design resolution is increased, the more likelihood there is of incurring conflict on a functional level.

At the one extreme - the uglier a website is, the easier it is to make it highly functional. Because there are fewer visual restrictions, fewer limitations around colour, grid, layout, type etc, the designer is free to pretty much let function dictate everything. Once design restrictions come into place there are less options available. Take font size for an easy example. Every designer I have ever met will want the font size to be smaller than the average reader wants it. Heard the phrase 'make the logo bigger'? What every client wants, and what every designer doesn't. There's even a song about it.

Making things stand out on an ugly site is easy. Once you care about the visual design however, making things stand out can end up being a designer's nightmare.

Do people notice anyway?

Present the average person with two designs, one good, and one great, and in the majority of cases I predict they will like them both just as much. In fact, I put to you that they will not notice any difference in the scale of design. For them, the site has obviously been 'designed'. It looks nice, it makes them feel good, they like it. And that's enough.

They might not notice if a design is only good as opposed to great, but they'll sure as hell notice when they can't use something properly.

Form vs function - should there be a winner?

In general, websites are functional. Even if the content is purely visual, there is always a functional element to them beyond a printed document like a book, magazine or brochure. Everyone knows how to flip through the pages of a magazine, but not everyone knows how to navigate a website.

So - taking things to the extreme - because the function of a website is so important, why do we even need to bother with the form part of things? There are lots of articles online about the surprising success of ugly websites (eg. The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites).

Function hasn't won out over form entirely.

Apparently human beings are programmed to like attractive things more than unattractive things. When we look at something we find attractive, our brain releases lots of good chemicals. These chemicals effect how we feel about what we're looking at, and in turn modify the brain's response by stimulating the appropriate parts of the brain.

The good news is that looking at something attractive makes people feel good, which then stimulates the brain to make them think more creatively, broaden the thought processes, make them more tolerant of minor difficulties and more open to finding solutions. The brain is effectively helping problem-solve. In other words, attractive things work better. (www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design.html)

Phew!. Form is not just nice to have, it's actually important!

So, while it's obviously important to keep pushing yourself as a designer, to keep on the constant path of design enlightenment, to keep yourself from falling back to design mediocrity, my question is in a heavily functional environment like the web, how much visual excellence should we strive for? If this 'good' to 'great' transition causes more problems than it's worth, then perhaps that's where we should draw the line?

Balance

Ah yes. Balance. The answer that's not really an answer. Maybe between the two, form and function, there is no clear winner. Perhaps it is okay to treat it on a case by case basis. Maybe designers just need to accept that every project will involve negotiation and compromise at some level, incurring more of this the harder they push their website design from good to great.