top of page
outlier-logo.png

It doesn’t have to be pretty, but it does have to work



We’ve all heard (and probably rolled our eyes at) the saying: “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”. As well as being annoying, the phrase is so overused it’s lost all impact.


When measuring bad versus good versus perfect, we can plot our systems or implementations on a spectrum. At one end we have utter shit, at the other, we have multi-dimensional perfection: technical, philosophical, valuable, beautiful.


The question is how close to perfect should we aim for? And at what cost? Because effort expended rarely correlates directly to how far you make it up the spectrum. Getting halfway up does not mean you’ve made 50% of the total effort required. If you repeat the same level of work, you aren’t guaranteed to reach perfection.


In fact, we very quickly start seeing a law of diminishing returns play out. Getting from 50% to 60% might be relatively straightforward. 60% to 80% is doable. Getting from 80% to 90%? Expensive but achievable. That last 10% is where money and time evaporate in the blink of an eye.


The answer is to switch focus from perfection (whatever that means) towards value and impact delivered. If you can deliver value quickly and efficiently that’s obviously better than having something that looks great but doesn’t actually work. I’m sure most of us would baulk at the idea of delivering pretty systems that don’t do their job. Yet just as many of us can point to systems where this is absolutely the case. Why? Because it’s relatively easy to make something look good. Just roll it in glitter.


Often, we can trace this decision back to brand or reputational impact. If your competitors release systems that are both pretty and work well, then that’s setting the bar. But remember, you don’t have to compete on the same ground. Maybe you can deliver functionality that’s significantly better but doesn’t look great. Maybe you can deliver incrementally on a promise.


A perfect example is Apple with the iPhone. The first iteration didn’t have copy/paste. There were no custom apps. We didn’t get a genuinely useful way to add attachments to emails for going on 10 years. But there was a promise. A promise Apple consistently delivered on: what you want will come and it will be good because look at the other stuff we’ve done.


(Now if they could just sort out email search…)


So, the moral here is that impact and value trump pretty. Not everyone likes it, but it’s true. You’ll meet lots of people who say that if something looks nicer it will be “easier to use” and will make them more productive or better at their jobs.


But we should always start with function before form. So many people try to put form first because it’s relatively easy to present something visually pleasing with no substance. It feels like progress. Now all you have to do is make it do stuff. The trouble is that’s way harder if you started with form.


There are some hideous looking systems out there that are designed to help users get their work done efficiently and effectively. At first glance, we might think they’re not user friendly. But user friendly doesn’t automatically mean it looks nice. It means its designed to satisfy the user need effectively.

bottom of page