Chapter 7. Aesthetic–Usability Effect

Users often perceive aesthetically pleasing design as design that’s more usable.

Key Takeaways

• An aesthetically pleasing design creates a positive response in people’s brains and leads them to believe the design actually works better.

• People are more tolerant of minor usability issues when the design of a product or service is aesthetically pleasing.

• Visually pleasing design can mask usability problems and prevent issues from being discovered during usability testing.

Overview

As designers, we understand that our work is about more than just how something looks; it’s also about how it works. That’s not to say good design can’t also be attractive design. In fact, an aesthetically pleasing design can influence usability. Not only does it create a positive emotional response, but it also enhances our cognitive abilities, increases the perception of usability, and extends credibility. In other words, an aesthetically pleasing design creates a positive response in people’s brains and leads them to believe the design actually works better1—a phenomenon known as the aesthetic–usability effect. We use automatic cognitive processing to determine at a visceral level if something is beautiful very quickly upon first seeing it, and this extends to digital interfaces as well. First impressions do matter.

In this chapter, we’ll explore the origins of this principle, learn more about how our brains interpret information based on aesthetic attractiveness, and take a look at a few examples that make use of this effect.

Origins

The origins of the aesthetic–usability effect can be traced back to a study conducted in 1995 by researchers Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura at the Hitachi Design Center.2 Prior to this, the relationship between aesthetics and digital interfaces had been largely unexplored. The study, which began as an attempt to investigate the relationship between inherent usability and something the researchers called “apparent usability,” demonstrated the correlation between people’s perceptions of ease of use and visual attractiveness.

Kurosu and Kashimura tested 26 layout patterns of ATM interfaces (Figure 7-1) with 252 participants and asked each of them to rate each design according to both functionality and aesthetics. The participants used a 10-point rating scale to evaluate the usability and visual attractiveness of each design. The results showed that their perception of usability was strongly influenced by their perception of the attractiveness of the interface (Figure 7-2). In other words, apparent usability is less correlated with inherent ease of use than with apparent beauty.

Subsequent research, such as the 2000 study “What Is Beautiful Is Usable” by Noam Tractinsky et al., corroborates Kurosu and Kashimura’s findings and further confirms that the aesthetics of the interface of a system affect users’ perception of the usability of the system.3 The correlations between perceived attractiveness and other qualities (including trust and credibility) have also been explored, as have the effects of aesthetics on usability testing (see the Key Consideration sidebar “Effect on Usability Tests”).

Figure 7-1. Sample layout patterns (source: Kurosu and Kashimura, 1995)

Figure 7-2. Correlation of usability with beauty (source: Kurosu and Kashimura, 1995)

PSYCHOLOGY CONCEPTAutomatic Cognitive Processing

Contrary to what we’ve been taught not to do, people do in fact judge books by their covers. This isn’t actually a bad thing, though—in fact, it’s necessary. Automatic cognitive processing is helpful because it enables us to react quickly. Carefully processing every object around us would be slow, inefficient, and in some circumstances dangerous, so we begin to mentally process information and form an opinion based on past experiences before directing our conscious attention toward what we’re perceiving. This automatic and involuntary mode of thinking stands in contrast to the slower and more deliberate mode of thinking that follows, and it’s exactly what psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman explores in his 2015 book Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux). This psychodrama with two characters, System 1 and System 2, details the relationship between the two forms of cognitive processing and how it influences our decision making.

System 1 operates impulsively and involves little or no psychological effort. It is quick, and there is no sense of voluntary control. This mode of thinking is among the innate abilities we share with other animals, and it enables us to recognize objects, identify danger, direct our attention, avoid loss, and quickly react based on experience or prolonged practice. System 1 is the system that runs automatically and generates information (intuitions, feelings, intentions, or impressions) for System 2.

System 2 operates more slowly and requires mental effort. It is the system called upon when System 1 runs into difficulty, and it provides support in the form of more detailed and specific processing, with the goal of solving the problem at hand. This is the system of thinking that we use for complex problem solving that requires attention. Focus, research, searching memory, mathematical operations (beyond simple arithmetic), and situational awareness are all things that involve this mode of thinking.

The interaction of these two systems centers around minimizing effort and optimizing performance. System 1 handles most of what we think and do, and System 2 takes over when necessary. The implications of this when it comes to digital products and experiences are monumental. We rely on System 1 to quickly identify information relevant to our tasks and to ignore information that isn’t instantly perceived to be relevant. We rapidly scan the available information in search of what will help us achieve our goal, and anything that isn’t a match is passed over. When it comes to the aesthetic–usability effect, System 1 thinking is incredibly important because this is where we form first impressions. In fact, studies have shown that people form an opinion about a website within 50 milliseconds of seeing it, and that visual appeal is a primary determining factor.4 Interestingly, the opinion formed during this brief period—the visceral response—rarely changes as users spend more time on the site. While our first impressions are not always foolproof, they usually are relatively accurate and help us to make quick decisions.

Examples

We’ll start our examples of the aesthetic–usability effect by looking closely at two companies that have put aesthetics at the center of what they do. First is Braun, the German electronics company, which has made an indelible mark in the world of design and exemplifies how aesthetically pleasing products can create a lasting impression. Under the design direction of Dieter Rams, the company has influenced generations of designers with its products’ balance of functional minimalism and aesthetic beauty. Rams’s “less but better” approach, which emphasizes form following function, has directly resulted in some of the most well-designed products ever produced.

Take, for example, the Braun SK4 record player (Figure 7-3), nicknamed “Snow White’s Coffin” due to its white metal casing and transparent lid. Constructed of powder-coated sheet metal with elmwood side panels, it stood in drastic contrast to the lavishly ornamented all-wood products more typically available to consumers at the time of its production in 1956. The SK4 was one of Braun’s first products to pioneer the company’s new contemporary industrial design language in which every detail had a functional purpose, including the plexiglass cover that resolved the rattling at higher volumes observed with metal covers. Products like this one mark a pivotal point in design history, when electronic devices went from being disguised as furniture to being presented as standalone entities that were beautiful and functional.

Figure 7-3. Braun SK4 record player, designed by Hans Gugelot and Dieter Rams (source: Museum of Modern Art)

Now let’s take a look at another example of a brand that in many ways continues Braun’s legacy of functional minimalism balanced by refined aesthetics: Apple. The influence of Braun’s design philosophy on Apple’s products is quite apparent. Devices such as the iPod, iPhone, and iMac echo the beautifully minimal aesthetic of Braun’s product lines while focusing on ease of use (Figure 7-4).

Apple’s attention to aesthetics extends beyond industrial design—the brand is well known for creating interfaces that are both elegant and easy to use (Figure 7-5). In fact, its reputation in this regard has become a competitive advantage and helped to usher in a new era in which good design is fundamental to successful businesses. The attention to detail in everything the company creates has directly contributed to Apple becoming one of the most beloved brands in the world. That’s not to say that its products’ interfaces don’t have any usability issues, but people are much more likely to overlook these issues due to the pleasing aesthetic that’s at the core of the design—the aesthetic–usability effect at work.

Figure 7-4. Apple iPod (top left), Apple iPhone (top middle), Apple iMac (top right), Braun T3 pocket radio (bottom left), Braun ET44 calculator (bottom middle), and Braun LE1 loudspeaker (bottom right)

Figure 7-5. Screenshot of various Apple interface designs (source: Apple, 2019)

KEY CONSIDERATIONEffect on Usability Tests

The positive benefits of aesthetically pleasing design come with a significant caveat.  Since people tend to believe that beautiful experiences also work better, they can be more forgiving when it comes to usability issues. Psychologists Andreas Sonderegger and Juergen Sauer observed exactly how aesthetics affect usability tests.5 Using a computer simulation of a mobile phone, 60 adolescents were asked to complete a number of common tasks. Two separate simulations were used that were functionally identical but differentiated by their visual attractiveness—one was visually appealing (for the time), and the other notably unattractive (Figure 7-6).

Figure 7-6. The two prototypes employed in the experiment (source: Sonderegger and Sauer, 2010)

Sonderegger and Sauer found that not only did participants rate usability higher for the more attractive phone (the model on the left), but the visual appearance of the phone “had a positive effect on performance, leading to reduced task completion times for the attractive model.” What this study implies is that perceived aesthetic quality has the potential to mask usability issues to an extent. This effect applies even when the device isn’t actually easier to use, and it could be problematic when it comes to usability tests, where identifying issues is critical.

Keeping in mind the potential of aesthetics to influence perceived usability, it is important that we mitigate this influence by listening to what users say when evaluating the usability of an experience and, more importantly, watching what they do. Asking questions that lead participants to look beyond aesthetics can help to uncover usability issues and counter the effects that visual attractiveness can have on usability test results.

Conclusion

Aesthetically pleasing design can influence usability by creating a positive emotional response, which in turn enhances people’s cognitive abilities. When this happens, users tend to believe the design actually works better and are more likely to overlook minor usability issues. While this might seem like a good thing, it can actually mask usability problems and prevent issues from being discovered during usability testing.

1 F. Gregory Ashby, Alice M. Isen, and And U. Turken, “A Neuropsychological Theory of Positive Affect and Its Influence on Cognition,” Psychological Review 106, no. 3 (1999): 529–50.

² Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura, “Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Usability: Experimental Analysis on the Determinants of the Apparent Usability,” in CHI ’95: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1995), 292–93.

³ Noam Tractinsky, Arthur Stanley Katz, and Dror Ikar, “What Is Beautiful Is Usable,” Interacting with Computers 13, no. 2 (2000): 127–45.

⁴ Gitte Lindgaard, Gary Fernandes, Cathy Dudek, and J. Brown, “Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression!,” Behaviour & Information Technology 25, no. 2 (2006): 111–26.

⁵ Andreas Sonderegger and and Juergen Sauer, “The Influence of Design Aesthetics in Usability Testing: Effects on User Performance and Perceived Usability,” Applied Ergonomics 41, no. 3 (2010): 403–10.