When we develop our interfaces, we think about functionality and usability first of all. Meanwhile, aesthetics are what make truly memorable work stand out. Why are most people so attached to Apple products when some of their competitors are more productive and more attractive in terms of price-performance ratio?
Their interfaces are undeniably user-friendly, but they also have a high degree of aesthetics – in interface design, elaborate animations, tactile response, and sounds. This is how the interface has a decisive impact on our purchasing decisions – influenced by aesthetics, we are willing to close our eyes to some imperfections.
So what are the criteria for evaluating these very aesthetics? This is a very difficult question, plus, in addition, aesthetics is an empirical concept, so we can only talk about hypotheses. We will examine these hypotheses in this article.
Usability
Aesthetics is often perceived as a set of factors – for example, poorly matched colors can “kill” the entire effect of a concise and thoughtful interface.
Criteria for visual perception are constantly changing. Not so long ago interfaces in the style of skeuomorphism seemed aesthetic, then they were replaced by flat design, and now – Gloss-morphism and other trends.
Interface design services decided to move away from the sensory-empirical evaluation and identify several categories of factors that help us evaluate the aesthetics of interfaces. We brought a purely intellectual explanation to the forefront.
Sensorics
In an application interface, we read not only the colors and images used, but also the sounds and tactile responses to clicking or performing an action. Aesthetic design stimulates our senses, making us feel positive emotions.
The iPhone, for example, has a very well-designed tactile interaction with the user. Each successful or unsuccessful action corresponds to a different type of vibration – even without seeing the screen, we understand what has happened. The same vibration accompanies the actions in some applications, for example, we feel it when we rotate the timer wheel. And the tactile impact is very subtle – the vibration complements the visuals and sounds but does not draw attention to itself.
Perception
The faster we perceive and process the information in the interface, the more harmonious it seems. The feature of our brain is that it does not like to strain – if we immediately read the picture and understand how to move on the screen, we feel satisfaction and positive emotions. This is why overloaded sites and applications irritate us.
Public aesthetics
Here we turn to the overriding trends and tendencies in society. This can relate to visuals as well as to the context of the interface and its relevance – society should be ready for a new trend. At the same time, public aesthetics is inextricably linked to visual aesthetics.
Here it is appropriate to recall another example from the same sphere – the Vertu smartphones. Their laconic interfaces seemed to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing, and positioning played a major role here. Vertu was the first smartphone, which price was equal to the price of a premium piece of jewelry. Ringtones, case materials, the design of the front panel: everything was designed to symbolize luxury. And possession of a Vertu, even if formally, but ranked you among the elite – this is the social factor.
Conclusion
The factors considered explain the peculiarities of the perception of the user interface. They must be taken into account, they will help predict the reaction of the audience. But it is impossible to guarantee 100% success, considering only these factors. There are a number of criteria that may have a greater impact on the user – that’s why hiring the designer is responsible.
