In the field of UI design, there is a saying of "shape, color, word, structure, quality, and movement" to describe the form of UI design. But as an author, I disagree, because there are several obvious problems.
In recent years, I can't tell you when it began, and everyone in the small circle of design in the Internet industry gradually likes to use "shape, color, word, structure, quality, and movement" to summarize the form of UI design, corresponding to the shape, color, text, layout, texture and animation of UI design. Some students like to apply this framework when stating design plans and building design languages, but every time I see someone talking about a plan with various words, I feel far-fetched. Especially the shape, texture and composition, because of the homogenization of the UI, there is basically nothing to talk about in these parts. Composition is said to be very important, but UI design is at most about the grid, texture is also very important, UI design can also talk about the size of the projection at most.
I don't like the idea of "all kinds of words", not because it doesn't have authoritative design theory books or well-known design teams to endorse it, but because the framework is very superficial and far-fetched.
I don't like the idea of "shape, color, and movement" because it has the following obvious problems. This makes it only suitable for introductory learning of UI design, and not for scenarios such as the interpretation of medium and large-scale design solutions and the packaging of design portfolios.
First, the "shape and color of the word structure and movement" is superficial and cannot withstand scrutiny
"Character Construction" is to use the language and perspective of art students to understand UI design, and art students can use it to get started with UI, but they can't use it to advance design.
I think this thing is a bit funny, "all kinds of words and textures" should essentially be to understand visual design in the language of art, and as a result, this thing has not been applied in visual and operational design, but has been widely used in UI design.
Why is that? Is it because visual designers don't like to discuss and ask questions as much as UI designers, and at every turn they carry out a design language revision that is nuanced and needs to be disassembled and carefully argued to find the difference?
Visual designers will discuss shape and color, typography and texture, but they will not use "shape, color, and texture" as a framework to summarize their designs. Because visual designers have a richer graphic design theory to support it.
Take a closer look, "all kinds of words, structure and movement" can't stand scrutiny at all. For example, if we were to use it to disassemble or build a UI, we would soon face a lot of awkward problems.
- Shape: What kind of styling can a UI interface try? Well, after looking around, we can only make an icon and define a rounded arc for the button. But is this all about styling the UI?
- Words: Wait a minute, don't words also have shapes and colors? Doesn't he deserve to be treated like an icon? Except for reader products, most UI designs have very limited control over Chinese fonts, and can only use the system default font, and then adjust the font size, weight, line spacing, and paragraph spacing.
- Composition: "Composition" when learning to draw, "composition" when learning photography, and "composition" when learning graphic design seem to be very different from the grid system that can only be talked about when "construction" is talked about in UI design.
- Quality: The texture is most like a make-up in this framework. When I did skeuomorphic UI, I could still talk about texture, but now the flat and homogeneous UI style can't talk about texture at all, at most, it's just a projection.
- Animation: Animation is really worth talking about in the UI, but an embarrassing scene has happened: the UI designers and UX designers here are not good at animations, but they can only do a little bit.
Therefore, you will find that "all kinds of characters are constructed and moved" is just a kind of deconstruction, a kind of UI deconstruction that has no logic and no meaning (the meaning is very small and close to nothing).
Second, "the structure of various words" is not a good thinking framework
The five elements of interaction design proposed by Mr. Xin Xiangyang, "user, scene, medium, goal, and behavior", are a good thinking framework. "Elements of User Experience" divides product design into strategy, scope, structure, framework and performance, which is a good thinking framework. The double-diamond design model proposed by the British Design Council summarizes the design process as research, integration, conception and realization, and divides the design process into two divergences and convergences, which is a good thinking framework.
These good design thinking frameworks have been repeatedly tested when they were proposed, practiced for a long time in different industries and regions when they are disseminated and applied, and most importantly, they are abstract enough to help you think and solve design problems using these frameworks.
So who first proposed the "structure of various words"? I searched for a long time and didn't find a representative statement and source, the earliest source I searched on Baidu was an article by a visual designer of Baidu in 2018, "Evaluate the visual design of "Baidu Reading Pro" from the "shape, color, character structure, and movement" (https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1616461343352352439&wfr=spider&for=pc)—— There doesn't seem to be a problem with this article, first of all, he uses this framework to "evaluate", not build, not review, and secondly, he is only evaluating the visual design of a product.
Can the "color and color structure" be used to solve design problems and apply to daily UI design work?
No.
Because of some of the embarrassments mentioned in verse 1 above, unfortunately it can't be used to think about problems, because when you think about it, you find that you can't think about it at all. At the same time, he can't help you solve the problem, if you want to create a new UI for a product, and you work on the five aspects of "shape, color, word, structure, and quality", then there is a high probability that it will end in failure. Because these five dimensions are chaotic, strangely ordered, and overlapping with each other.
Therefore, "all kinds of words, textures, and movements" cannot help you solve practical problems in the design process, nor can it be used for design review after the design plan is completed. If you're going to elaborate on a design solution, I don't recommend using this framework either, because there are a lot of frameworks that are much better than him.
Third, the "shape and color character structure" strips away the interactive attributes of UI design, which has serious defects
There is another important reason why "all kinds of word construction" is not a good UI thinking framework, and that is that it has serious flaws. It completely strips out the interactive nature of UI design. If you use this framework to think about UI design for a long time, it will become more and more limited.
Our chaotic industry has managed to crudely separate UI design from interaction design. Based on this brutal split, it seems that UI designers only need to think more about the visual presentation layer and then collaborate with the developer. Is UI design equal to the visual design of digital products? Definitely not.
But if you think about it, the UI design of a digital product is actually based on interaction design. The full name of the user interface is the user interaction interface, and all UIs exist to interact with the user. Rather than appealing to the visual and emotional aspects of a graphic design work, as is the case with a graphic design work, it is not directly related to the user's behavior. UI design has to think about interactivity, and it has to be considered from the start.
In short, "the structure of all kinds of words" is not a design method, nor is it a framework of thinking. It is a tool that will only be used when explaining or packaging design after the design is completed, a simple tool. It needs to be used with caution, or try not to use it at all.
If you're going to explain the solution to someone who isn't a design professional, maybe it's a little bit useful. But if you're a design professional, this framework may not help you. So if you're going to wrap your portfolio, I'd recommend not using it. Because right now, it may not have much of a "wrapping" effect.
This article is written by Everyone is a Product Manager Author【Chai Lin】, WeChat public account: [Chai Lin's Design Notes], original/authorized Published in Everyone is a product manager, without permission, it is forbidden to reprint.
Image from Unsplash, based on the CC0 license.