Two Wrongs Make a Right

Objectivity & Subjectivity in Design, written by Jon Bliss, Soak's Senior Designer & Animator

A lot of times we will use the word 'design' to describe the aesthetic of a project - the front-end, the look and feel - the fonts and the frills.

We will also say that 'design is subjective' - a seemingly self-evident truth, simply meaning that every individual has their own aesthetic preferences. In effect, the proverbial horse being led to water - whether the horse drinks or not is a matter of taste.

However, I'm not sure this is true.

Firstly (and slightly as an aside), in this industry I think 'design' is far more useful as a verb. It is a set of decisions that are made in order to achieve a common goal. So the first issue is that by making 'design' mean 'only the aesthetics' we do a great disservice to all other decisions made on a project. For example - copy is written with a purpose in mind, as is code. Therefore, both of these are also 'design' processes.

Secondly, it implies that the choice of aesthetic for a project is something rooted in personal preference - rather than a conscious choice made in order to achieve a specific goal.

Thirdly, similar to the previous - it implies that the audience's reaction to an aesthetic is also ultimately up to their personal preferences. But this is what I think is most untrue, and sometimes where we let ourselves down.

What the audience is actually reacting to (and what we should be considering as designers) is whether the aesthetic is suitable for the situation. And - there usually won’t be a reaction at all, unless it’s wildly inappropriate. This still sounds subjective, but my belief is that it’s possible to say that a given aesthetic is or isn’t objectively suitable for a given situation.

What makes an aesthetic objectively suitable or unsuitable for a given situation is based on a cultural consensus. For example - we know that comic sans is regarded as a ‘childish’ font, and much maligned. So if we imagine a logo for a funeral home written in comic sans - the majority of people will look at it and feel that this is somehow ‘wrong’. We may say that this is still a subjective reaction, because some people may think that it’s brilliant - however the important factor is the reaction of the majority.

This is how a subjective opinion becomes, en masse, an objective truth - the cultural consensus. You probably shouldn’t use comic sans for your funeral home logo.

However - the cultural consensus only exists at a given point in time. This can be observed quite easily in wild changes of fashion, music, art etc. that happen, even within closed systems. Something new will appear, and either gradually or bombastically, the cultural consensus will shift.

But, logically - if there is an objectively correct way to present something at a given point in time, then where do these shifts even come from, and why do we tolerate them? I think the answer to this is simply that we’re not creatures of logic.

Several years ago, I was on a website project which had the lofty goal of creating ‘the objective best’ website theme. The theory was thus: by using data to analyse the way people interacted with websites (eye tracking, mouse tracking, ideal length of copy and so on), it would be possible to build pages that were ‘perfectly’ optimised towards getting users to convert. This theory then extended into things like the branding, wherein only certain colour combinations that gave optimal contrast ratios would be permitted on the website.

It was researched, it was planned, and it was built according to those principles. It was, in short, objectively ideal in every way.

The problem was, nobody wanted it.

The end product looked like a website, felt like a website, and was - by all measurable metrics of success - perfectly optimised. But people just didn’t like it.

There was something missing - which, when pressed, people could only describe as a ‘human’ element.

So this is where we run into a snag. We want to say that something can be objectively correct - but here, something objectively correct is being rejected by the majority - making it objectively wrong.

And we’re also finding that the thing that would fix it - the addition of a ‘human’ element that makes it feel ‘right’ - would amount to an arbitrary change that is, by definition, the objectively wrong thing to do. So we have to say that our design is objectively wrong precisely because it is objectively right.

Can this be possible? We have to conclude - yes. This is where two wrongs make a right.

It is possible to forget sometimes that we are designing for human beings, and as humans we crave connections to each other. In our pattern-recognising brains - the break in the logical flow, the flaw in pattern - can be the thing that stands out and appeals. It says ‘a human was here’.

Sometimes graphic design (typography) in particular is referred to as ‘the invisible art’ - i.e. if you notice it, you’re allegedly not doing it right. But I would say that there is value in leaving a footprint in the snow. I have, for example, worked with brands who, after user research, have chosen the brand name that focus groups liked the least -because the name gave people a reaction. We all know the Oscar Wilde quote.

To me, this is also the point where creativity exists. It’s the point that’s wrong, that feels right.

This is where it’s important to remember that whatever design we create also has an original goal that still needs to be fulfilled. A design without a goal is no design at all - and if we forget this, then we run the risk of creating something entirely of style - devoid of substance.

So the job of creating engaging, human-feeling design becomes finding the sweet spot at which the goal is objectively fulfilled - within a framework that is itself somehow imperfect.

So how can I, as a logic-loving designer, make good designs - how do I make my designs right? Simply - I just do them wrong.