The Interface Follows the Function

The COVID-19 pandemic took the world by surprise. Although we were technologically prepared to meet the challenge, it’s evident that the world economy, societies, and probably the mental health of many weren’t quite as prepared as we would have liked. The reality is that this has all happened before. And it will happen again. The experiences we go through help us understand both the current and future state of our planet.

The first traces of Tuberculosis go back to the Paleolithic Age, where we have discovered evidence of the sickness in Pre-Columbian Neolithic remains. However, the illness’ peak was in the XVIII century, specifically in western Europe. It was in 1882, when Dr. Robert Koch identified the cause of the sickness, that various clinics and hospitals emerged for its treatment.

In modern architecture (emerging in the early 20th century), a popular saying is that “form follows function.” This was demonstrated in the age of its most memorable architects that emerged following the peak of the pandemic (the end of the 18th century, up to the 20th century). The notable Le Corbusier, Groupius, Wright, Aalto, the list is long. Please excuse me, as my passion for architecture might be showing here.

The obsession to avoid disease and the advances in diagnosis techniques impacted the construction norms in the era in which Modernism was born. You can find many references to what I’m talking about, as well as a few excerpts, in the book X-Ray Architecture, by Beatriz Colomina. The rectangular shape of spacious openings, minimalistic, without any ornamentation, some of which even appeared in furniture design, were some of the most notable impacts of the era.

In her book, Colomina shares some phrases extracted from “El constructor“. Here are a few examples:

• “Architecture in the 20th century is like an old couch filled with tuberculosis.”
• “We need to raise houses up from the ground, because moist soil is where sickness is born.”

Environments that were clean and pure, both physically and mentally were what Architects went after. In furniture design, the reduction in ornamentation was justified because dust could collect in small crevices. The great discovery in 1880 of the explanation of Tuberculosis due to damp and dusty spaces with poor ventilation were taken into account when designing new living spaces. New materials and techniques replaced sculpted wood and upholstery. Washable materials, aerodynamic shapes that were also easy to wash and move.

Environments that were clean and pure, both physically and mentally were what Architects went after. In furniture design, the reduction in ornamentation was justified because dust could collect in small crevices.

The Paimio Sanatorium, created specifically for the treatment of tuberculosis, was designed by Finnish Architect Alvaar Aalto, and took into account some of the related medicinal discoveries. Sliding windows, covered balconies, minimalistic appearances, and a conception that the building was “a place to heal.” The layout and design of the hospital rooms were heavily considered as well. They used rounded edges instead of sharp sharp edges to facilitate cleaning.

Aalto´s total commitment to genuine and meticulous functional design, that brought together both psychological, social and technical factors, as well as the reluctance to accept the rationality of structural lines, as well as any intent at stylistic codification. Form follows function. These are such strong foundations that mark his work, and allowed him to take rational decisions with regard to the use of space.

The architecture and experience design for users share the same anthropocentric root. If buildings or entire cities can be custom tailored for the needs of individuals and societies, why would it be different in software design? Although the functionality of digital products primarily responds to specific interests (Objects, Key Results and Initiatives, or OKRs, for example), they usually respond to the needs of a business. Routinely, we expect to get a return on the costs to create software. Clearly, the need to balance the needs of the business and needs of users seems obvious. But don’t forget that users are our clients. And also, don’t forget that in a world with expectations to have everything immediately, users still have the power to choose and reject easily which products they use.

Does your interface respond to the need to help users achieve objectives? Does it use graphic elements that support and facilitate the transmission of information in the human-computer interaction? Does it avoid using decorative elements that don’t offer any support whatsoever to our objectives? I imagine that you validate your designs before bringing them into development. Surely, you’ve had the temptation to leave in place a decorative element because it was pleasing to the eye. But remember that for modern architects, the decorative corners are places that collect dust, and don’t contribute anything to the function of the application.

Elements that work very well in interfaces are those that reduce the time it takes a user to understand a particular context. They help the user to make decisions with the use or absence of visual elements. We might remember Hick’s Law, which says that the more stimuli (or choices) users face, the longer it will take them to make a decision.

Maybe you’ve noticed the proliferation of flat or vector illustrations. The simplification of the details and the abstraction of forms eases our understanding. Fewer cognitive resources are necessary to process the information presented. Icons are also very useful for this. Not to mention, emojis, for the same purpose — surely, at some point you’ve thought to yourself “Ugh, my colleague won’t stop sending me messages, this is so frustrating!” Or maybe, your thoughts could be represented as simply as 🙄?

Elements that work very well in interfaces are those that reduce the time it takes a user to understand a particular context. They help the user to make decisions with the use or absence of visual elements.

In conclusion, we have a few questions to ask ourselves. Do our interface designs help to resolve problems and challenges of the business? Does our UI respond to real needs? What are the design principles that we should always follow?

If you design user interfaces, you shouldn’t forget that your visuals should help support your objective. Your experiences should be a journey of conversion (for the business) and of success (for the user).

In your day to day work, don’t forget that you help to solve problems. Keep in mind the needs of users, of the business, and the technical requirements to be developed.

Ask yourself, does your interface follow function?