In today’s world, everyone is a design critic. With consumers’ easy access to the corporate ear through social media comes highly accessible opportunities to improve user experiences. Plus, in the growing digital age where most people live in interfaces almost as much as their real lives, the spotlight on visual communication has expanded from the creative population to the general public.
Whether you’re frustrated with Netflix’s poor organization of movie options, enjoying the “Sort by ‘Price: Low to High’” option on a retail site, or feeling enticed by a Facebook ad for a product you didn’t know you needed, you’re (probably unknowingly) assessing graphic design.
With the rising population of design critics, it brings to mind questions like: How do we measure the strength of a design from a consumer perspective? How do trends affect our experiences? And how does the evolution of visual communication affect our opinions and experiences? It’s time to enhance our way of thinking about design criticism — to polish the lens through which we look at visual communication.
When looking at an ad from the 1920s, 50s, 70s, etc. one typically gets an immediate sense of the era from which it originated. But have you ever wondered what will be the defining visual design characteristics of this decade? What will we look back at and say “that was so 2010s?”
This question came to mind a few years ago while attending the Cincinnati Bockfest parade. A local business’s van rolled through in a branded vinyl wrap and suddenly I had an “aha!” moment. I found myself noticing their brand identity, identifying the aesthetic as a clear reflection of the current era.
This modern design status-quo often dictates people’s opinions, but I think viewers sometimes misuse “good design” to describe what is actually trendy or current design. While various design techniques fall in and out of style over time, not all trendy designs are strong visual communication and vice versa. For example, in one of my first college design classes, we were taught that the use of drop-shadow was outdated. My peers and I misinterpreted that point as “the use of drop-shadow is poor design.” I eventually learned that although the use of this technique often appears outdated and therefore unappealing, it is not necessarily a reflection of bad visual communication. (In many cases, it can actually be used quite tastefully in a modern way, but I digress.) Even when used distastefully, if the composition communicates the message successfully, isn’t that the primary indicator of good graphic design?
So where do we draw the line between “good” and “on-trend” design? These days, the motifs I notice in modern visual communication are geometric shapes and patterns, symmetry, monoline styles, metallics, handwritten display fonts, knolling, and, of course, flat and minimalistic design. It’s easy to mistake designs with these elements as well-done, but that’s not a guarantee.
In the end, the success of a design, no matter the level of modern aesthetics, is dictated by its ability to achieve its goals. Good design may not always be on-trend and may be mistaken for bad design when in reality it is just outdated. Sometimes good design is unappealing to those immersed in mainstream trends, but draws in its target audience nonetheless. Other times, on-trend styles contribute to the quality of a design when used to strategically target a specific audience.
Think back to past eras’ aesthetics: although they look outdated, is the message clearly communicated? It is important for designers and critics alike to know the difference between “good design” and on-trend design. But it’s imperative for designers to be consistently immersed in the world of design education in order to stay sharp. It’s one thing to be well-versed on the principles of superior visual communication — it’s another to have the ability to adapt to modern aesthetics. Decent design communicates, period. Good design communicates strategically. Great design does so at a superior level.