An interface is not a word container
It’s rather a Dalmatian in motion.
READING TIME: 4 MIN
Kindly translated by Julio Leal from the original post. Thanks bro!
“All things are always on the move simultaneously.”
This sentence was used by Winston Churchill to describe all the different components of military strategy, and I believe it can be applied to interfaces. Every element in an interface expresses something and provides information when interacting with it. Everything communicates, and all elements pose an influence: sizes, structure, colors, buttons, font types, words, lines, boxes. And space.
And beyond every individual element, our brains can help but create connections, as they are not independent elements: positions, orientations, proportions, distances. The slightest change in an element will not only impact everything as a whole, but also all elements individually.
And all of the above creates the Message, the Experience in capital letters, as perceived by the user.
Not a Dalmatian, just a set of points.
Contents and Containers
One of the meanings of ‘content’ is ‘the things that are held or included in something.’ And I can’t help thinking that content (specially when referred to texts, but also to images and videos) is inaccurate, as it kind of indicates that the rest of the interface, what surrounds it, is a container, an irrelevant landscape where words are contained (there are no content designers in that sense). Though obvious, it’s still relevant: the interface is not a container of words, it’s rather a way to express messages. Messages are designed with a purpose, through information and meaning, and their graphic language molds the textual language and vice versa. Regardless of our area of expertise, we need to work and understand both.
Specialization means we focus our energy on a specific area we want to excel at, but this can lead to a limitation of our knowledge areas or interests. And we may also end up having a limited version of our purpose and impact of what we do. And this certainly affects our outcomes.
What happens if UX designers ignore the messages of their designs just because that’s something the copy guys deal with? Or, are there UX writers claiming to have more strategic roles in their organizations and not being perceived as a simple copywriting job, limiting their vision and focusing on linguistics only? We all have heard things like ‘those painting the boxes’ or ‘those filling gaps with words’.
Specialization should not lead to designing products with a fragmented perspective. User experience on products and services should not be influenced by team structures or organizational charts within a company.
As Edward Tufte puts it, decisions on design cannot be made unilaterally, as the local optimization of designs will not translate into satisfactory global outcomes.
What are the boundaries of our work?
I think specializations could become more valuable within corporations through workflows and methodologies that act as the glue and make combined work relevant, as opposed to sequential work. Additionally, if our knowledge steps into the surrounding areas, and we trespass our individual duties, every specialist will give what they do best, but not only considering their context, but other’s context too.
It’s not about words, colors or shapes. It’s about designing effective all-round solutions to specific problems. Keeping this in mind will help us better understand design as a whole, where elements move with just one voice.
⁂
Any question or idea is more than welcome. You can comment below or email me (aloha@tuelfworks.com)
IMAGE: Getty Stock.