Stop trying to "delight" the user with your UI
If a UI "satisfies" the user, that UI is doing the right job
I'm sure you've heard something like this before; maybe read it in a job description or something:
"An eye for pixel-perfect design that delights the user."
"Delight" is defined as:
"Great pleasure; joy. Something that gives great pleasure or enjoyment."
As for myself, I don't experience a never-ending sense of "delight" as I visit all the sites and apps I use during the day. I don't frown in disappointment if the urge to clap and say, "How delightful!" doesn't overcome me as I enter my credit card payment.
Tut-tut, they were unable to delight me. We're done here.
I've taken two Figma UI/UX courses, and the instructor never states that "delight" is an outcome you should measure and drive. (For those that don't know, Figma is a professional application UI/UX design tool, at this time, probably the most widely used one).
They list these non-technical attributes:
simplicity
support
familiarity
clarity
encouragement
safety
accessibility
personalization
satisfaction.
(Accessibility is more of a technical mechanism, but I understand the point, which I think would be better described as "inclusive.")
I've also read several books on UI/UX design and development by authors such as Steven Krug (who states in no uncertain terms, "Happy Talk Must Die"), J.J. Garret, Caroline Jarret, and Stephen Few. There are no treatises on "delighting" the user.
So why does the phrase endure? It sounds right; we want to "delight" our users. Maybe it's good marketing (I'm not in marketing, I'm a developer). It makes the speaker sound user-focused. It's a popular corporate-speak thing.
But the fact is: "delight" is too subjective. Two users can interact with the same UI and answer "Are you delighted?" differently. Until you introduced the term, it probably never crossed the user's mind. I've frequently seen the question generate confusion; "was I supposed to be delighted? What exactly do you mean? Like, happy or something?"
Woe to the developer tasked with obtaining this elusive and unrealistic UI/UX nirvana.
I offer a term that I do think is more useful and which--in my experience and unlike "delight"--is a measurable outcome that rarely confuses users:
"Satisfies."
At the core, UIs are implementations of processes that enable the user to:
Find information
Submit information
Browse content
Interact with content
Your bank, social media sites of choice, fitness trackers, video courses, you name it; in the end, it's those four meta processes that you visit any website or use any app for.
Where does delight come in? Consider the following:
"I use an online yoga site and am often delighted with the classes."
The user is indeed experiencing delight, but it's not with the UI. It's with the content. The old saying holds: content is king. You can create the slickest UI, but nobody will be delighted if the content is weak. On the other hand, you can have a simple nav-find-click UI, even a little clunky, but if the content is first-rate, users may be delighted enough to keep using it.
Consider two of the simplest, rudimentary UIs: Google and Craigslist. For decades their UIs haven't changed much at all. No designer or marketer would call them delightful. They are minimalist, simple, uncluttered with errata, and so forth. Devoid of what most people would consider "design." And yet, you would be hard-pressed to find another website so widely used for such a long time.
But if the job of the UI isn't to delight, then what does a UI do? What do websites like Google, Craigslist, and (for the most part) American Express get right?
Ask users, and they'll tell you some version of the following (I've added the Figma instructor's UI/UX points to each):
I came here to find or do something. It should be immediately clear how to locate or do it (simplicity, familiarity, clarity, satisfaction).
I want to know I'm in the right place (safety, personalization, accessibility, inclusion, satisfaction).
I want to know that it worked as expected when I've done something (encouragement, safety, satisfaction).
I want nothing getting in the way of any of the above, such as advertisements, popup requests for feedback or ratings, etc. (satisfaction).
The common theme? Satisfaction.
If your UI "satisfies" the user, your UI is doing its job. When I go to pay my AmEx bill, believe me when I say I feel no sense of delight. I only want the process to tell me: this is what I owe, this is why, this is how much I'm paying, and the payment is confirmed. I want it to be as straightforward and painless as possible. If you've worked on web properties such as a prominent banking site, you've seen this principle evolve over the years; banking sites used to be all marketing material, which you had to navigate--often with several steps--to get to the process you came to engage. It could be tedious and awkward (some still are, Bank of America, it's time for an update). Now it's all on the front page right after you log in. Marketing material is minimal and tends to be much more context-aware, for example, an offer for a lower-rate credit card after you've made a payment.
I often point at the AmEx site; there's a reason. I worked at American Express long ago and still remember the reported user nightmares. I remember trying to apply for a card, and the process was so shaky I just gave up; I had no confidence. Some years later, AmEx did a significant overhaul of its web property. I got an email offer telling me as much, so I went and looked. Applying was simple; none of the old "delightful" content or "features" cluttered the process. Create an account, log in, apply for a card here, you're approved, your card is on the way, thank you, welcome to American Express.
Did I smile with delight? No. Was I satisfied? Yes. Good job, AmEx. Somebody somewhere was listening. Anything that gets in the way of quickly applying for a card compromises satisfaction and, therefore, results.
Let's stay focused on the user.
Some other examples that seem to get the message:
Yahoo. That website used to be an atrocious mess of marketing and attempts to "delight." I'd grit my teeth when checking my email, which I abandoned when other options were available. It can still seem cluttered, but they have learned many lessons.
AWS Console. It was practically unusable. You could understand the tech perfectly but fail to complete a process--or even start one--because the UI was hopeless. Take a look now. It's all about well-articulated processes. They have more work to do, but it's come a long way. Most general users find it more-or-less "acceptable" these days. Considering the number and complexity of the processes, that's pretty remarkable.
Ekhart Yoga. A great example of how a small, niche business has built itself into a well-respected online brand by staying focused on the user. Sign up, take yoga classes, read/leave feedback, that's what the website and app focus on and deliver. An overhaul a couple of years ago smoothed out some of the wrinkles. In particular, they prioritize user time constraints; how much time do you have? Twenty minutes? Here's a bunch of great classes! No Lulu Lemon ads, and so on. Just quality yoga that fits your style and schedule, simple and to the point.
Chase Banking. I'd have to say; if any financial services website comes close to delighting me with design, it's this one. It's attractive (I like blues and greens), and account status and payment are clear as a bell. There's very little advertising; it's all about what I'm there to do. Great job, Chase.
To encapsulate:
UIs don't delight users. Content does.
UIs implement processes that you want users to engage and complete.
Articulate those processes (I recommend BPMN, a topic for another day).
Validate those processes (primarily user testing, a topic for another day).
The implementation of those processes should, above all else, focus on clarity and simplicity.
Something that doesn't directly support a given user process or interrupts it in any way should go on the chopping block.
For your consideration: consider this diagram by the often bitingly insightful xkcd.com; it's as accurate as a Venn diagram gets. Which side might be more interested in "delighting the user?"
As always, thanks for visiting ProcessUI.