Design has long been celebrated for its power to stir emotion and shape perception. In fashion, architecture, and automotive design, beauty often takes centre stage. From Marilyn Monroe’s iconic white dress to the Sydney Opera House or the BMW 2002, these are designs that linger in memory.
Of course, not all design is so timeless. Some creations miss the mark, Lady Gaga’s meat dress, the Reliant Robin, or North Korea’s Ryugyong Hotel remind us that style doesn’t always translate to success.
But in the physical world, there’s one saving grace: bad design is usually obvious.
In digital, looks can be deceptive
Humans are naturally attuned to visual cues. We understand symmetry, shape, and contrast without needing to be taught. When something looks off, we feel it instantly.
In the digital world, though, appearances are more complicated.
A clean, modern interface can hide a poor experience. A polished layout might look professional, while the content is inaccessible, the navigation confusing, or the calls to action unclear. In short: a bad digital experience can look good, and a good one can look bad.
That’s because the most important parts of digital design, clarity, usability, and structure, are often invisible.
The problem with “looking right”
Consider the ubiquitous hamburger menu. It’s sleek, subtle, and widely used. But research shows it actively harms discoverability and slows users down. What appears minimal can actually reduce efficiency.
It’s a broader issue:
- Clear vs confusing CTAs – they often look identical
- Structured vs scattered content – equally well-polished
- User-first vs internal logic – visually indistinguishable
- Inclusive design vs inaccessible – rarely obvious on the surface
When aesthetics are mistaken for usability, everyone loses, especially the user.
Brutalist interfaces. Exceptional results.
It’s not just that bad can look good. Sometimes, good design doesn’t look good at all.
Some of the world’s most effective digital platforms are, frankly, unremarkable in appearance. What they do share is something far more valuable: clarity, function, and purpose.
- Craigslist: minimal imagery, dated fonts, but still the global leader in classifieds
- Google: famously sparse homepage, designed to focus purely on task completion
- Amazon: visually cluttered, yet unmatched in conversion, logistics, and trust
- GOV.UK: utilitarian in design, but delivers near-90% satisfaction across UK services
These platforms don’t succeed despite their design, they succeed because they prioritise performance over polish.
The real definition of good design
In physical products, beauty can dominate. In digital, usability wins.
Good digital design doesn’t demand applause. It enables action. It earns trust by being useful, accessible, and intuitive. It makes people feel confident and in control, not confused or overwhelmed.
And crucially, it puts users, not brand aesthetics, at the centre.
So, when judging digital design, ask this:
Does it help people get where they need to go - quickly, clearly, and confidently?
If the answer is yes, it’s good design.
Even if it doesn’t look like it.
