Consistency dictatorship
Published May 13, 2024
Consistency dictatorship in UX Design
As product designers we are often at odds with feedback of “this isn’t consistent with that component in our Design System” or “there’s a component that can be reused even thought isn’t the exact solution for the hurdle you’re facing”. What is consistency, really?
It can be broadly categorized into four main types: visual consistency, functional consistency, internal consistency, and external consistency. Each type plays a crucial role in shaping user perceptions and interactions with a product.
Visual Consistency:
Visual consistency refers to the uniformity of aesthetic elements across a digital product. This includes colors, fonts, layout structures, and button styles.For example, if a button that submits forms is always colored green, users will automatically associate this color with the action, speeding up interaction time and reducing errors.
Functional Consistency:
Functional consistency involves ensuring that interactive elements behave in the same way across different parts of the application. If a swipe gesture deletes an item in one part of the app, the same gesture should not archive an item in another. This type of consistency is crucial for accessibility as well, as it supports users with different abilities in understanding and interacting with the product.
Internal Consistency:
Internal consistency is the harmony within a single system. This means that all components of the product should consistently follow the same rules set within the specific environment of the product. For example, if a mobile app and its web version are designed from the same set of internal rules, users can switch between the two platforms effortlessly.
External Consistency:
External consistency refers to the consistency of a product with other products in the market or within a single company’s range of products. It ensures that users feel at home with a new product based on their previous experiences with other similar products. Apple is a prime example of a company that excels at external consistency; their software and hardware products all have a similar look and feel, which reinforces brand identity and improves user experience across different devices.
In the chapter titled “Billboard Design 101” from his insightful book “Don’t Make Me Think,” Steve Krug champions the principle of recognition over recall, emphasizing its importance in the design of visual hierarchies, hyperlinks, and content layouts. His arguments are compelling, illustrating how well-structured design can ease user navigation and understanding. However, Krug also emphasizes the ultimate goal of striving for clarity, advocating for the wise use of consistency as an effective means to achieve this. In the same chapter, he offers a cautionary note:
And finally, a word about consistency.
You often hear consistency cited as an absolute good. People win a lot of design arguments just by saying “We can’t do that. It wouldn’t be consistent.”
Consistency is always a good thing to strive for within your site or app. If your navigation is always in the same place, for instance, I don’t have to think about it or waste time looking for it. But there will be cases where things will be clearer if you make them slightly inconsistent.
When is ok to ‘break’ consistency
Through my experiences (so far), I’ve identified specific instances where deviating from established patterns can not only be justified but necessary. Firstly, user feedback is invaluable. When users report that competitor designs offer a more efficient experience, this is a critical signal that our current designs may be falling short. Adapting to incorporate more successful patterns from competitors can significantly enhance user satisfaction and usability.
Secondly, the rapid pace of technological advancement necessitates innovation. Sticking strictly to existing designs can stifle creativity and hinder progress. When catching up—or ideally, surpassing—competitors, introducing innovative design solutions can be a game-changer. It’s about evolving with the times and the technology to stay relevant and competitive.
Lastly, experimentation is a cornerstone of improvement in UX design. When experiments reveal new patterns that resolve multiple user issues, it’s a clear indication that these innovations should be adopted. Such findings can lead to breakthroughs in how users interact with the technology, making their experience more intuitive and enjoyable. In these scenarios, breaking consistency isn’t just acceptable; it’s imperative for growth and user satisfaction.
Certainly, the idea of breaking consistency does not imply abandoning all established components. Reusing core components that foster user familiarity is crucial. As product designers, it is our responsibility to discern when and where it is appropriate to challenge the status quo. We must be bold enough to propose innovative changes, even if these suggestions may initially meet resistance within the team. Our goal is to enhance the user experience by balancing the comfort of familiarity with the necessity of innovation, ensuring our designs remain both intuitive and forward-thinking.