Hello all.
So have you come across the phrase, “it’s like putting lipstick on a pig”. I love that phrase. The implication is that putting lipstick on a pig will not make the pig attractive. Pigs are just ugly. Unless, of course, you happen to be another pig. However, I don’t think the lipstick will make much of a difference in that case. At least, I presume pigs don’t care about lipstick.
Also, is not putting lipstick on a pig, testing cosmetics on animals. I thought that was considered cruel.
Anyway, I digress.
Design Is Not Magic
I often feel like I am putting lipstick on the proverbial pig in my job. Those are the moments when I am asked to magically fix a fundamentally flawed product, service or interaction with the addition of design magic (our proverbial lipstick).
Take, for example, the form I mentioned recently. The form was a train wreck, and everybody knew it. It had too many fields, poor validation and numerous other problems. Yet they wanted me to use the magic of design to improve the number of people completing it without changing its fundamental functionality.
Another example was a project where the product was massively overpriced compared to the competition. Again, no amount of design will persuade a user to purchase something that is almost twice the price of comparable products.
Or the website so caught up in technical and compliance constraints that to change anything other than the aesthetics was impossible.
Okay, enough examples already. This is just turning into me moaning.
Changing the Design Will Not Fix Underlying Problems
My point is that changing a user interface or introducing a new design is often not enough. You have to address the underlying problems. You have to change the pig.
This is the difference between a UI designer and a UX designer. The former will work within the constraints of the product, while a UX designer will address the underlying problem.
But what do you do if you cannot make the fundamentally required changes?
Handling Unrealistic Requests
Well, to some extent, not a lot. Yes, you can get creative, as I discussed in the past, but that does not always work.
All you can do in those situations is demonstrate the futility of what you are doing and how much not addressing the underlying problem is costing the organisation.
I usually run a survey to demonstrate the extent of the problem. For example, I will ask users why they did not act on a website, offering them a range of options, including the issue I have been unable to change and the site’s design.
I used this approach with the overpriced product. Sure enough, the number one reason by a significant margin was the cost of the product. The design barely registered in comparison. Based on the data I got back from the survey, I calculated approximately the number of lost customers the company was seeing a month.
Did that change their minds… well, no. But it did show that changing the design wouldn’t fix the problem, and most importantly, I covered my ass. I provided evidence upfront that what I had been asked to do would not work, so I couldn’t be blamed when things went wrong.
I realise that being forced to play these games is demoralising and that I am not being particularly inspirational today.
However, you will not win them all, and that is okay.
So what message do I want you to take away today?
It’s Okay to Fail at the Impossible
Well, if you are a designer, I want you to know that sometimes you will be asked to do the impossible and make that pig look attractive. When you fail, that is not a reflection on you, and you shouldn’t feel bad about it.
If you are somebody who works with designers, you need to recognise the limitations of design. We cannot work miracles, and sometimes you need to accept that it is time to replace the pig.
Thanks,
P.S. No pigs were harmed in the writing of this newsletter.
