User Interfaces Shouldn’t Be "Sexy"

17 comments

Can we please stop saying “…and the user interface is sexy”!  User interfaces should not be “sexy” nor are they!  User interfaces should be clean and simple, presenting only the information necessary for the task at hand.  The user interface should be designed with the end user as the sole focus, not how the applications and workflow should look and be laid out nicely on the screen. 

Don’t get me wrong…UI is important and I have been talking a lot about usability for the past 3 years.  I really think though, many of the HCM application vendors are missing the boat, investing in fancy-pants AJAX-Flex technology and attempting to drive users into their application instead of going to where the users hang out…primarily Microsoft Office, Google, and their defined home page of choice (mine happens to be iGoogle).  That means utilizing third-party plugins, building widgets, enabling RSS, etc.

As I mentioned on the Analyst Panel at HR Technology Conference, innovation to me isn’t necessarily finding that next breakthrough, but delivering incremental functionality (ie a Microsoft Outlook plugin) that advances the way people use the application.

Now time for the shameless plug, if you haven’t yet visited the Center of Excellence, please go check it out.  Register if you may.  Just please don’t call it “sexy”!

Technorati Tags: , , ,
  • http://www.hrsmart.com Greg Strange

    People often confuse the exterior with the interior, inferring that if it looks nice it must have everything they need. The usability of an can sometimes be linked to the way things look (whether sexy or not) but the functionality almost never can. It’s the difference between having a nice looking sports car chassis on a tricycle (it’s still a tricycle) and having a sedan body on a Ferrari engine (it’s actually a Ferrari). Especially when the person buying the software is not the person using the software, it creates an even bigger disconnect between sexy interface and intuitive design. Sometimes the tradeoff between looking good and being good is application performance, accessibility and solid functionality.

  • Jason Corsello

    Smearing some lipstick on a pig may add some color, but it is still a pig!

  • http://www.hr-xml.org/blog Chuck Allen

    The over-emphasis of the UI in vendor pitches is frustrating, but understandable. It occurs to me that the “shootouts” you see at HR Tech are sometimes a bit skin-deep, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to go more deeply into applications in the shootout medium and still have them be compelling visual theater. Benefits like flexible integration and configuration often have to be experienced before they are appreciated. If you have 60 seconds in front of a prospect in a trade show setting, I guess it is understandable why a vendor goes with the “sexy UI” pitch.

  • http://bijl.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/art_may_be_a_li.html Jerome

    Jason this is a good debate and clearly beauty cannot be skin-deep. Nor purpose.

    Rather than retyping a new reply, here is a link to a contribution I did a while back on the topic…

  • http://www.hrmdirect.com/hrm2/blog/ Colin Kingsbury

    There is no group of people more responsive to another group of people’s needs than vendors. The catch is that [successful] vendors pay attention to what buyers actually do, and not just what they say they want to do.

    There are a lot of bad reasons why salespeople end up running companies (e.g. being good at selling themselves), but one of the good reasons is that no one knows how customers actually behave at the critical moment better than a successful salesperson. It’s a rare vendor that argues with its customers and wins. That’s what independent consultants are for :)

  • Jerome

    Previously posted on “beautification is the wrong way” (SAP vs Apple)

    http://bijl.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/art_may_be_a_li.html

    I am a fan of both Hasso and Apple – but here I must side with Apple. (if only to justify my having bought 4 Apple devices in the last 15 months…although Hasso has indirectly been paying my salary for 15 years)

    Hasso may still be remembering the rather unsuccessful “prettification” of the old SAP GUI back in 1999 to the current “MySap” look. This was a skin-deep exercise and never achieved much.

    I think Hasso’s analogy is off-base. Apple is not beautiful for the sake of being beautiful, it turns out that it looks good (or can) because it supports elegant solutions and processes.

    Windows in fact has many more great-looking “skins” than Mac and yet never looks as clean. Conversely, it is hard either to improve or degrade the Mac look and feel.
    Apple has managed to streamline its processes to what is Needed rather than what is Possible. Minimalism is about focusing on Outcomes rather than eliminating Features.

    This all smacks of good “use-case”-based development…which is exactly Google’s approach too. Of course all of this was pioneered by Mother Nature first: natural selection + random mutation + 5 billion years = the ultimate UAT workbench … (I am also a Karl Popper fan)

    So it is all about purpose. Google is clear about its purpose, much clearer than SAP right now. SAP should look at Apple’s ethos rather than design. The look and feel will take care of itself.

  • http://www.theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com Thomas Otter

    Much to think about here, but rather than rabbit on about UI here (There is lots over on my blog)
    I thought tell a true story from a demo .

    10 years ago in Italy.

    The American HR manager of a multinational said to me
    “This UI isn’t sexy”
    Before I could launch into my carefully scripted objection handling defence, his Italian colleague replied,
    “In Italy, Women, she is sexy.”
    He continued,
    “In Italy, some cars she is sexy, like a Ferrari!”
    He concluded,
    “But in Italy, Graphic user interfaces, she is never sexy.”

    We won the deal, and it turned out to be a great project.

  • http://www.selectminds.com Steve Kuhn

    Good comments, all. I’ll add my couple of Lincolns:

    I once interviewed for the design department at one of the big enterprise software companies. I was told by more than one person on the team that the company’s CEO was repeatedly stressing that the next release of the software “has gotta be sexy.” I didn’t take the job.

    Let’s set the bar real low: Good software design should be consciously task-based, and driven by knowledge of the needs of intended users. The UI should convey just enough information to satisfy those needs. But plenty of software doesn’t even clear that hurdle. And so the Google homepage still stands as a brilliant innovation after all these years: just enough to enter a search and get the results. “Sexiness” is not relevant.

    Heck, let’s set the bar higher: Many companies aspire to the triumvirate of Usable / Useful / Desirable. So, a product (software, stereos, your mobile phone) should be useful (that is, it does something of genuine utility), usable (the intended audience can figure out how to use it), and desirable (it has a certain something that makes it a lust-worthy object). The products that nail these things sometimes are, indeed, “sexy”, but sexiness does not detract from its utility and its usability. Of course, the iPhone qualifies, because it is highly desirable as an object, but also most people I’ve spoken to find it genuinely easy and enjoyable to use.

    Unfortunately, as Greg and Chuck both note, the people buying enterprise software won’t necessarily be the ones using it. Vendors are encouraged not only to create sexy (and possibly irrelevant or difficult) interfaces; more often they’re also encouraged (forced, really) to graft in a Frankensteinien set of features to meet various red-line feature requirements. The result is an unwieldy monster. Vendors work to provide clients what they need, but it takes just as much dedication and vision to convince a client of what they DON’T need.

  • http://agileui.blogspot.com Rob McKeown

    It is important to remember that what might appear to be a “sexy” user interface is actually a carefully orchestrated mechanism to facilitate interaction. Technologies such as Flex or Silverlight are not intended to simply add visual flash to an application. Obviously to an unskilled sofware engineer or designer, that might be all they can achieve. But, careful and purposeful use of what you call “fancy-pants” technologies can add tremendous value to the end user.

    Think about the things we use everyday, from car dashboards to your tv remote control. No doubt you have used some that have frustrated you. And you have probably used some that have delighted you. Usually this is because what you need to do is easy and the controls to those things are where you expect them. In terms of a software applications, we as designers strive to accomplish the same delight in use. That ease of use does add financial value in terms of more efficient use and enhance productivity.

  • Jason Corsello

    Steve- Excellent comments. Thanks for posting!

  • http://www.authoria.com Tod Loofbourrow

    The world of business software has a lot to learn from the world of consumer products. Good industrial design, which produces “sexy” feeling products like iPhones, iPods, Nike Plus, Reach Toothbrushes, Harley Davidson motorcycles, and Razr phones is about design for ease of use, usability, and familiarity with a hint of discovery.

    Jason Averbrook says it well in articulating the power of great wizards, incredible dashboards, ad-hoc workflow, metrics, and analytics in driving useful, consistent interfaces which invite manager use:

    http://www.knowledgeinfusion.com/coe/blogs/infuser/2007/10

    Leighanne Levensaler of Bersin & Associates says it well when she distinguishes “sexy value-add” from “sexy gratuitous” user interfaces (http://www.bersin.com/tips_techniques/07_oct_hrtechshootout.asp).

    If sexy means compelling, clear, purpose-built, and inviting – bring it on!

    The time for boring business software is long past. The time for useful, compelling, clear, self-explanatory, and yes – inviting or sexy – business software is upon us. The era of the green screen is over. We can do better. And consumers turned employees and managers demand, deserve, and are finally beginning to get, better.

  • http://www.authoria.com Tod Loofbourrow

    The world of business software has a lot to learn from the world of consumer products. Good industrial design, which produces “sexy” feeling products like iPhones, iPods, Nike Plus, Reach Toothbrushes, Harley Davidson motorcycles, and Razr phones is about design for ease of use, usability, and familiarity with a hint of discovery.

    Jason Averbrook says it well in articulating the power of great wizards, incredible dashboards, ad-hoc workflow, metrics, and analytics in driving useful, consistent interfaces which invite manager use:

    http://www.knowledgeinfusion.com/coe/blogs/infuser/2007/10

    Leighanne Levensaler of Bersin & Associates says it well when she distinguishes “sexy value-add” from “sexy gratuitous” user interfaces:

    http://www.bersin.com/tips_techniques/07_oct_hrtechshootout.asp

    If sexy means compelling, clear, purpose-built, and inviting – bring it on!

    The time for boring business software is long past. The time for useful, compelling, clear, self-explanatory, and yes – inviting or sexy – business software is upon us. The era of the green screen is over. We can do better. And consumers turned employees and managers demand, deserve, and are finally beginning to get, better.

  • Pingback: systematicHR - Human Resources Strategy and Technology » Give Me A “Sexy” UI Any Day

  • Pingback: Tribute Media » Give Me A “Sexy” UI Any Day

  • Pingback: Collab@work » Blog Archive » Desirability

  • http://profiles.google.com/angeloeno Angelo Eno

    sasasa

  • Pingback: Who Are We Designing For?

Previous post:

Next post: