The Secret They Don’t Tell You in Graphic Design Class
People find things that work well endearing. That’s the secret.
When things work well, we see them in a new light. They become more attractive, more pleasurable, more desirable. Our opinion of them strengthens over time.
Our initial reaction, usually a superficial one based solely on looks, is vaporized upon use. If it doesn’t work well, then no matter how impressive your graphics are, it doesn’t matter. (think about all of the graphic design done for American-made cars). If it does work well, however, then we give it even more value than before, we attribute all sorts of things to it that we wouldn’t otherwise. We think it looks great. That its designers are nice people. That the site owners are credible. Etc. Our opinion of all attributes of a design skyrocket if we are happy using it.
In the graphic design classes I’ve taken they never told us that. It was all about directing the eye, communicating the product’s message, and showing priority. There was never any talk about how people related to the product we were designing the graphic for. Perhaps I’ve only taken bad graphic design classes, but this still seems to be the general feeling…that graphic design exists in a bubble outside of the success of the product and that people will appreciate graphic design as long as it looks good. Most people, however, don’t give a hoot about graphic design unless the thing works well…first.
So, as a graphic designer, make sure that you work on stuff that has the potential to work well! If it does work well your great-looking graphics will get much of the credit. And if your graphics help make it work even better (e.g. if you’re doing interface design), then you deserve the credit. But if you’re working on a project that just can’t work well because of an innate flaw in the product itself then you’re on a sinking ship. Say no to it, and stick to projects on which you can affect the outcome.
This secret is why it’s so important to get people using your software/product/service as fast as you can. If any part of it works, people’s perception of it changes and they’ll tell others. Design becomes social. And others, hearing what they say and knowing deep down we find things that work well endearing, are more likely to take the chance and use it themselves.
And then, after they like using the product, they’ll go back and notice how nice the graphics are.
Make them Care! - Struggling to communicate the value of your product or service? I'm writing a new book that shows you how to make people care about your product or service by clearly communicating the most important bits. For designers and marketers creating product web sites. Find out more.Previous
Find the Edge of Attention
Links to this Post
Comments
1. Sholom Sandalow 5:15pm, Fri 30th, 2006
Great post. As they say…’nothing exists in a vaccum’. As a professional designer, I know that the key to a succsesful product is colaboration. Collaboration ensures that the product features the same equality in its use as it does in its look.
2. Chas. Porter 1:21pm, Wed 5th, 2006
The biggest problem facing graphic design today is that graphic designers still see their role as making stuff look nice. It’s not. All design is problem solving and the problem to be solved by all professional designers is “How do I make this product work better so that it sells more?” The advice, “Make sure you work on stuff that has the potential to work well” is sound advice for graphic design traditionalists, but it’s short-sighted given in the post-Internet world. Today the big opportunity exists for people with problem solving skills and experience who can make their client’s products work better and sell more. So, rather than running from a product with an innate flaw, designers should take the opportunity to reveal the problem, design the solution, and sell it to their clients. It’s what I do. It may not be pretty, but it’s kept this reformed graphic designer relevant and in demand as the world of marketing and design radically changed over the past ten years.
3. Daniel Elmore 8:15pm, Sat 29th, 2006
I’ve been trying to articulate that thought for months. Thank you for that.
4. Nils Davis 9:57am, Mon 7th, 2006
Great post! I think you can make a more general statement. The linchpin to everything good is a working product. Annoying product + good design = annoying design. Good product + annoying design = good design (e.g., Craigslist).
To get to the “great” level, the bar gets higher – the product has to be great, and the design has to be great. (The iPod is canonical for this, as is Tivo.)
The bottom line requirement that the product works – that it does what it’s supposed to do and what the user needs it to do – is something I harp on a lot both in my job as a product manager and in my blog.
5. Jason Martinez 11:38pm, Sat 19th, 2006
I think you’re right, absolutely. I also thing the direction you’re going will end at the fact that design should be transparent. Not unimportant but a user should be able to say that the site was easy to use. That should be the tell tale sign of great design. Designers of course hate hearing this because they feel that their design is not noticed, which is in part true. But with the web as a medium, most sites are tools or publications, not strictly art. We can see the same problems in the advertising field. Although it had matured past this for the most part, especially television advertising, it took a long time to get there.
6. Finland 3:52pm, Sat 26th, 2006
It was a very good article – but let’s all keep in mind, sooner or latter everything becomes relative. Take for instance the pet rock and other such “gimmick’s”. Yea – we can say that rules “apply” but sometimes (maybe most of the time) it’s just luck. Maybe (like the saying goes – the chicken or the egg) we come up with all the “instruction” because something “worked” and we try to explain how it “did” work. When in reality it was just luck in the first place. Just something to think about…..
7. beth 2:10pm, Mon 28th, 2006
I’m afraid I need some context here to fully understand where your article is coming from. Did you major in design at school or no?
8. Steve Jarvis 8:38am, Tue 12th, 2006
My design teacher hammered into his students heads “Form follows function” meaning when solving a design problem… function is the first and most critical element to be solved. So I guess some design schools out there get it.
9. nuke 5:58pm, Mon 11th, 2006
your style is what is attractive…what give’s the attention…but it’s the product that makes them realize and sit back an look at the quality of the art and the product together….Collaboration
10. Lee 1:11pm, Mon 15th, 2007
Great post! I think you can make a more general statement.
11. Alex` 3:35pm, Sat 24th, 2007
Great post! I think you can make a more general statement.
12. Brett Dusek 4:37pm, Wed 25th, 2009
I have mixed thoughts about this article. On the surface it seems to be great advice and an act of sound judgment. Yet, there is a part of me that aches at the real problem at hand. As a graphic designer, our true purpose is building and validating perception. I have to believe that our expertise reaches far beyond the scope of just visual communications, but also usability, objectivity to purpose, and an invaluable third party constructive criticizer of any lacking of product integrity. I have many times voiced my opinion, sometimes even strongly, toward inefficiencies in a product. Sometimes these objections are voiced to deaf ears, but other times it has completely changed the outcome of an entire product. Not by direct intervention into the product development & implementation, but rather by indirect out-of-the-box thinking. Problem solving on a deeper level than was done through the initial tangible a.k.a. “programmers” thinking on solutions. Causing a ripple in the own creator’s perception of his/her/their can cause massive ripples in the product’s quality assurance phase of implementation. We need to do more of this I believe. Maybe we should re-coin our title as a graphic designer to rather maybe perceptual integrator. =) Just a few ramblings.