I came across a quote today that accurately summed up my sentiments on the state of user experience design today and resonates with me on so many levels. In his book “Steal Like an Artist” Austin Kleon writes:

"If we’re free from the burden of trying to be completely original, we can stop trying to make something out of nothing and embrace influence instead of running away from it." 

Let’s be frank. Working as a designer in 2019 is nothing like it was even a scant decade ago. Sure, the industry has matured, users behavior and expectations have changed and the technology to deliver our content has grown exponentially. But these are all to be expected. 

No, the real tension lies in the pressure for designers to constantly be creative (innovating) but also user-centric (ensuring the solution is usable).

And there’s the rub.

Agencies, art directors and clients pay designers to be creative and produce something unique. Designs that push the envelope and that are somehow superior from what was on trend only the month before. 

And so we innovate, we experiment, we combine and draw inspiration from external sources all in the name of being original. And this is entirely appropriate if we were talking simply about art.  That’s arguably what art is all about - creativity, expression and inciting a reaction from the viewer or participant.

Innovation for the sake of innovation

The trouble is, as soon as we layer actual utility (e.g. the need for something to actually function and serve a purpose)  on top of gratuitous creativity (e.g. innovation simply for the sake of being different), they tend to cancel each other out.

Here, let’s take an example. Imagine we were tasked to completely redesign the common kitchen fork. If we approached this assignment with no other objectives than to simply be “original”, I could see us quickly arriving at concepts like these:

Now, let’s fold in utility. Do these new designs still do the job of helping us pick up food off of our plates? Could we see ourselves actually eating dinner with one of them? 

Sure. If we had to choose between savagely eating with our hands or using one of these abominations, I suppose the answer would be yes. 

Most importantly though, do any of these designs actually improve on the original? Do they solve a problem where their predecessors failed? Hell no.

Conventions and familiarity 

The point I’m making here is that as designers, we need to tread the line between innovation and actual utility carefully. Conventions are established for a reason, and as human beings, we gravitate towards the familiar by default. We need to remind ourselves of this each time we’re being pushed to be “creative” when the task doesn’t point to a clear benefit to the user. And more than this, we must be confident in challenging our clients in situations like these when we know that their requests will ultimately compromise the end result.

In short, design and creativity must always be tempered with their potential impact on usability, utility, and usefulness. If your unique flair, complex gradients or disruptive use of typography aren’t elevating the utility in a meaningful way, chances are you’re doing your client - and their end-users - a disservice.