The one about “look and feel”
by Andrew CrowI propose that we never use the phrase “look and feel” again. Ever.
Visual design is often subjective and can be difficult to describe or judge. Often, people lack the language or understanding of the work to accurately express their opinions. Consequently, we use simple terms of the way an object “looks” or how it “feels”.
Speaking in terms of these qualities does a disservice to the design. We cheapen the value of the work by paying attention only to the superficial aspects.
What people are really trying to do is express their thoughts about the design’s effectiveness.
There are many criteria for the effectiveness of visual design. Certainly, the way something looks – its aesthetics – is the most obvious one. The emotional response that people receive when encountering a product is also critical. This is what many try to explain when they talk about “feel”.
But there are other criteria that we should be aware of when speaking of visual design.
Product managers and sales people are keenly interested in how many products are sold. They pay close attention to how visual design can be used to grab consumer attention and move product off the shelves. A product’s ability for discovery can make or break its success.
The visual aspects of a product are also used to reinforce, or even introduce, brand attributes. The way a product looks often conveys what’s important to the company’s brand. Is it friendly, is it sporty, does it offer reassurance or pleasure? People rarely buy a product without somehow buying into the brand’s promise.
Additionally, an object’s meaning is derived from the way it appears to people. For example, the color and size of buttons tell the user if they should use their fingers or their whole hand. Visual cues can convey safety or danger and prompt a person to have an appropriate response. A fluffy bunny on a bottle of poison is much less appropriate than a skull and crossbones.
Certain criteria are more important than others, and not all products or things should be subjected to same evaluations. Sometimes a pretty object is just that. The level of evaluation could be kept to simply “like” or “dislike”.
But during the product or service design process, I believe it’s important to push to the deeper levels of how visual design plays its part.
I understand that nebulous concepts need to be simplified for daily conversation. And, I agree that it’s important to remember the audience with whom these thoughts are discussed. But I worry that too much emphasis is placed upon the superficial when we talk about visual design. Adjusting how we speak of it will help educate and raise the level of discussion – and ultimately produce better products.
Entries (RSS)
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 am
It’s funny: I’ve always found “look and feel” to be a useful shorthand for use with clients, though something I’d never say internally. I think you acknowledge this perspective in your final paragraph, when you suggest that the danger of such simplifications, however practical, is a failure to “raise the level of discussion.” But I’ve found it more effective to educate clients, in particular, by leading with the familiar (including terms like “look and feel”) and then moving the discussion to the deeper questions. If it were a more egregious falsehood, I’d abandon it, but as you point out, when I say “look and feel”—words rarely used apart—most people understand me to be discussing the interplay between the design and the user’s affective responses to it.
On the other hand—and this is the “funny” part, I guess—I’ve always found the phrase “visual design” (which you use liberally) to be vague, and, on most interpretations, just the kind of egregious falsehood I mention: The design of (say) a website is not just visual. It’s engaging with users through visual perception, sure, but also through interaction and other complex modes of cognition and behavior. (This seems true of all aspects of design except, maybe, color.) To me, this is just the kind of really dangerous oversimplification you’re talking about with “look and feel.” If we frame design as “what’s visual about a website” or something like that, well, as you put it: “[T]oo much emphasis is placed upon the superficial.”
My sense is that people add the word “visual” to distinguish the design from something else, or else to distinguish some aspect of the design from some other aspect—but I’m not sure. As an honest question, when does saying “visual design” do something that saying “design” doesn’t? What’s the need there that I’m missing? (And is there a word we could use that avoids flattening design into the visual?)
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
[...] Crow at Adaptive Path suggests that, because of this kind of abuse, “look and feel” should be discarded. I propose that we never use the phrase “look and feel” again. [...]
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
I don’t see how we can afford to discard the term and discourse of “look and feel” and expect the even more problematic and narrow term and discourse of “visual design” to pick up the slack.
I’ve responded at length at graphpaper.com after attempting in vain to fill this little box with my thoughts. Short answer is that I think you’ve started a good discussion about the ineffable qualities that surround and emanate from the visual aspects user experience design, but you’ve ended that discussion too quickly by simply disposing of a problematic idea (“look and feel”) instead of rehabilitating the ineffable quality that our flawed terminology sought to describe.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
To be honest, the point of the post was to begin the conversation about how we discuss the visual design of things (websites, products, objects).
I encourage the discussion, including points of disagreement and new insight. I walked into the studio today to one of my co-workers telling me how wrong I was!
I’m frustrated with this issue and do not have a good solution. So please, let’s keep the debate going.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am
It strikes me that it really isn’t so much the exact words we choose to use when we talk about design with our customers, but our ability to communicate the role of design and its effectiveness (or lack thereof) by using whatever language they can best understand. “Look and feel” may be just right for one person, “visual design” for another, and “what it looks like” to someone else.
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. —Shakespeare
May 24th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Amen. In our business, interactive design is more than how the product looks and feels. It is the product.
A team of the best salespeople, account execs, information architects, developers, and project managers can’t make up for one poor designer.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Like Devon (The first guy) said, I have used “Look and Feel” as a kind of a short hand with clients. To me it is a way of describing the sort of ambiance that the visuals will create. When I think of “look and feel” I think of when you walk into a new home, or a place of business, what is the ambiance, the atmosphere… more than just the “style”, but style that creates a feeling or represents an emotion.
You equated the “feel” part of the pair as how does an object feel, I guess I see it as how does the object make us feel.
The words obviously have a different meaning and use for you.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:46 am
I hate to be a cynic, but given my experience as a graphic design major, professionally as a designer, and now professionally working as a developer alongside designers, that ‘Look and Feel’ is the better term, as it reflects the main concerns of 90% of the designers i’ve worked with (there are a few notable exceptions), and their general level of critical insight and discource. Sadly, i’ve not yet seen much evidence that the more rigarous concerns of Human-Computer-Interaction, communication design, user experience, visual language, or whatever you want to call it have gained much traction outside of academia at all – the overriding majority of designers i’ve worked with come up with something pretty, then attempt to use half-baked attempts at theory and analysis to justify it post-hoc. I don’t think this is a very good state of affairs, but it doesn’t reflect reality in my experience. However, i may have just been very unlucky with the people i’ve worked alongside.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Your use of the word “subjective” illustrates a confusion between ontological and epistemological meanings of the word. DESIGNERS: please STOP asserting visual design is a wholly subjective pursuit – by doing so you associate the field with biases & a lack of rigorous methodological.
Fields that study human consciousness (design included) have a subjective ontology while being objective in the epistemological sense. Your first three sentences disregard the fact that despite requiring a subject, visual design can still make truth claims. Your focus on effectiveness, etc. are a step in the right direction.
Please see here: http://jonhung.com/blog/?p=577
May 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
It depends on the context of the usage, unfortunately i’ve seen it used in a dismissive manner over and over again primarily by developer types (disclosure my background is in development). Its often used in a way that insinuates that look and feel is nothing more than an after thought, the danger is when this disrespect seeps into the business mindset .
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
I used to tell clients who insisted on thinking of visual design as a “skin” that we drape onto something that they should remember the “skin” is the largest organ of the human body, and without it we would die. It evolved with the rest of the organism.
“Look & Feel” can be a useful phrase, but it’s true that more often than not it indicates some ignorance happening in the conversation.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:44 am
I would agree with Mr Foronda and Mr Hinton that unfortunately the term ‘look & feel’ all too often has become synonymous among the business user (customer) and the developer community with that aspect of a web site/application build which deserves some consideration but which has a minor role in the total scheme of things.
In my view and at the risk perhaps of over-simplifying the discussion, the ‘feel’ part is very much about the use of familiar objects and devices (buttons, icons etc;)and their collective arrangement on an interface – in other words the use of recognised usability techniques – whereas the ‘look’ is about projecting the desired character of an organisation behind the site/application and at the same time providing the user with something pleasing on the eye.
I share Andrew Crowe’s frustration however that ‘look & feel’ means different things to different people and perhaps there is a requirement to somehow couch the nature of the UI designer’s role and impact within UI development in less ambiguous terminology if it is to command the level of respect and understanding it deserves from other players within a project’s development.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
[...] To noncreatives, including clients, these terms just invoke the feeling of a mood board: colors, ton… [...]
August 26th, 2009 at 1:57 am
大阪のリサイクルショップ買取・引取り出張サービス実施中！
November 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Great article. For me the term depends on who is using it and in what context. I think if a client or non designer uses it it can reduce branding down to a simple process. I have written a response here. Let me know what you think…
http://www.freddesign.co.uk/2009/11/archive/look-and-feel-and-other-design-buzz-terms/
December 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
[...] del Look and Feel, los prototipos ayudan al desarrollo del(a) Look and Feel, consistencia estilista y de experiencia, dando al diseñador (y a contenidos) ciertas indicaciones [...]