Design Fads vs. Design Trends

Design Fads vs. Design Trends

May 06, 2013 Opinions

The phrases “design fads” and “design trends” are often used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing. The distinction between them is subtle but important, and it is convoluted by the fact that something can be both a fad and a trend.

Let’s talk about fads and trends:

Design Fads

Fads are the peer pressure of design — they happen simply because “everyone else is doing it.”

The iconic fad of the Web 2.0 era, aside from calling it the “Web 2.0 Era,” was the glossy button. In the mid-2000s, glossy buttons were all the rage. They started popping up on websites everywhere, like digital jelly beans that reflected light that had no source. Websites that had no other dimensional elements would have glossy buttons, just because it was the thing to do. I’d accuse those designers of being lazy, but glossy buttons were kind of a pain to implement, so there’s no other explanation except they were following the herd.

If a design technique is popular only because “all the cool kids are doing it,” it’s a design fad.

Glossy Buttons

 

Design Trends

Design trends, on the other hand, emerge organically. As the digital landscape changes, similar design problems will naturally result in similar solutions.

If large search inputs are more popular now than they were two years ago, it isn’t because they’re a fad, it’s because the current digital context encourages it. Likewise with responsive design, sliding menus on mobile devices, and larger body fonts.

The digital field is so new that borrowing techniques from each other is inevitable. Almost every social network has a news feed of some sort. Does that make it a fad? No, as long as it’s being used sensibly. It’s a natural progression, so it’s a trend.

The Noun Project

Flat vs. Skeuomorphic

The conversation du jour in digital design is flat vs. skeuomoprhic. It’s a tricky thing to discuss, because each technique is both a trend and a fad.

So-called “flat design” is a trend because it is the natural direction for digital design to take. Not every flat website is a copycat. It is a style arrived upon by numerous designers independently while developing an appropriate aesthetic for their work. As our users grow more accustomed to the digital vernacular, there’s less need to represent functionality through skeuomorphism, making flat shapes an increasingly obvious choice.

Of course, flat design can be a fad when used for the wrong reasons. Plenty of designers use it incomprehensibly, simply because they thought it was “the next big thing.” But this is a reflection on those designers, not the trend itself.

Skeuomoprhism similarly straddles the line between trend and fad. It is still exceedingly useful, especially when building software for an audience that is not yet immersed in the digital world. Making digital tools look like their physical counterparts is a simple, nonintrusive way to convey meaning and lighten the cognitive load on users — in those cases, it is certainly an appropriate choice.

On the other hand, skeuomorphism is often used “because it looks cool.” “Because is looks cool” is never a good excuse for choosing a design style, unless one of the project goals is to “make it look cool,” which it should never be. Making design decisions based entirely on personal preference or aesthetic choices reeks of hack work: form should always support function, lest we find ourselves becoming professional decorators rather than professional designers. Misusing skeuomorphism this way is to embrace it as a fad rather than as a trend.

Conclusion

Design has no room for fads. If something’s a “fad,” then it’s probably decoration and not design.

There’s nothing wrong with using a technique that has suddenly become popular, as long as we’re using it appropriately. At the beginning of the year, our own Gannon Burgett wrote an article entitled 13 Design Trends for 2013, which included things like Larger Search Inputs and Animation as Affordance. These are trends, not fads, because their rise stems naturally from our current digital context.

As always in the world of design, we should be conscious of how we are using every element on the screen. Is this necessary? Can it be simplified? Does it move us closer to our project goals? If we can justify everything on the screen, we are doing something right. If we are using styles and elements simply because we saw someone else use them, we are embracing the unhealthy pattern of following fads, to the detriment of ourselves and our clients.

Design responsibly.

  • Tyler Shuster

    Great article, Jordan. I think that again the rule is “form follows function.” The problem with Apple’s botched skeumorphism is that they did things simply becuse they appeared the same as devices in the real world. We should first replicate the function, then the form will come later. Skeumorphism would be very welcomed in software like Illustrator perhaps, where the workspace could be rendered in 3D so that I could work with media like a traditional illustrator. Tools of any kind on the computer replace tools in the real world, so it is fair that that their appearance is skeumorphic – it’s preserving culture and aiding in a transition to the digital.

    On the other hand, flat design is being adopted for what it should be used for: interfaces. Interfaces have no equivalent in the physical world. So how do we design for them? By following the same rules as life itself follows: using the golden ratio, percentages, and musical intervals. After we have used those to divide space, we can place only the elements we need in, and nothing more. Flat design is misnamed: it’s not really “flat,” it’s just minimal. Metro is ok but not great because they flattened something that already existed and that someone else created (whether culture or Creation). When we design “flat” or minimal interfaces, we are growing our own.

List Grid
Load More