And killer consumer apps now amass millions of users in the blink of an eye.

In our own design process we often get stuck asking ourselves, “How does <InsertPopularApp> do it?”

This is quickly followed by questions such as, “Well, what are users used to?” and, “Can we use similar concepts for inspiration?” It’s a natural reflex. The force to create a unicorn is strong in all of us.

But while killer apps and Ikea style websites do positively influence the masses, we should recognize that our natural instinct to want to replicate, use-for-inspiration or follow the leader are reflexes. They’re good reflexes, but they’re reflexes nonetheless.

They’re questions that any smart product manager, UX designer or developer would ask. But like any other impulse, we need to learn to control them. Reinventing the wheel is actually part of the gig. We need reinvention just as badly as we need conformity — arguably, even more.

Somebody has to do it, so ask instead, “Why shouldn’t it be me?”

Because while we must always keep an eye on cost, efficiency and expectations, there are dangers to standards. Here are a few elements of balance to keep in mind, despite pressures and predilections.

Familiarity vs. Fit

Implementing familiarity allows users to feel as if they know it, but do they thrive with it in the context of what you’re building? Always jumping to the most common denominator tricks people into the wrong priority of consideration. It predisposes people to first ask, “How is this done?” instead of, “What is the best way for our users to do this?”

Now that is not to say that users will always know what’s best on a broader scale. They often don’t. But the shift in question changes the frame of mind that is critical to creative thinking. Maybe a better horse isn’t the best way of getting from point A to B.

Take infinite scrolling for example. Infinite scrolls are everywhere, from social media to eCommerce and even mom & pop blogs. Hundreds of thousands of people have decided that smart-loading vertical navigation is effectively the default navigation for users looking to receive information. Before this it was grid layouts.

It took a company like Tinder to try something new — card based swiping — and now we’re seeing a trend towards this type of information distribution instead.

This looks way too familiar. Source: Tinder Blog

Consider for a moment the undying popularity of “listicles”. Why does everybody love them?

One reason is because they’re fun and efficient to share alongside personal commentary (“OMG, #8 is totally me…”).

But a bigger reason is because they offer a sense of certainty and a clear insight into the upcoming interaction investment. With a numbered list, people know what they’re going to get and exactly how much of it. For many people in many contexts, that is a very anxiety-free experience. Not for the glamour-image ogler, but certainly for the laser-focused information seeker.

It’s important that users aren’t surprised by unnecessary spins on commonplace concepts (we can all just stick with the gear for “Settings”), but it’s more important that we respect the context and preferences of the user. Often those two paths will converge (they are popular for a reason after all), but it’s important that we allow that convergence by thought and not just precedent.

Efficiency vs. Engagement

Responsive design is another design/implementation method that has crept its way into the everyday lexicon of website design as well as HTML5 and hybrid app development. It’s “future-proof”, it’s effective for sharing (single URL) and SEO, and it’s infinitely easier to manage than alternatives from an upgrade perspective. It’s also cheaper than a stand-alone native app.

It’s efficient. But is it engaging?

It’s a very relevant question to consider.

Again, the two (efficiency and engagement) will often converge, but perhaps it’s not always the case. Or better yet, perhaps there’s a higher level of convergence for both?

Many people are happy with incremental creative improvements. However, many of the most transformative people, and plenty of early adopters thrive off of rigorous innovation. They’re truly able to reach full capacity when they’re helping set a new standard.

Not only is this something to consider at the individual level, but something to consider at the brand level.

Leaning vs. Leading

Lately, much emphasis has shifted to the beauty and magnetism of the content and away from the elegance and innovation of the experience. In some cases, this is the right focus. In some cases, it is not.

Look at a website like Seven Digital Daily Sins, or an app like Phind. They have taken some standards and some popular practices and have used them to inspire elegant and unique experiences that offer just enough familiarity for quick adoption, but more than enough individuality for credible leadership.

You don’t always want to go out on a limb, but if you want users to perceive you as a leader, every once in awhile, you’ll need to take a leap.

Enough people have been bitten by the short-sighted decision to design and build from scratch — “Why don’t we just build it ourselves?” (*cue cringes*) — that nobody wants to burn cycles on nominal wins when tools and trails have already been blazed and proven to save money and satisfy users.

But if the goal is overall growth and success, then you can’t lose sight of priorities. Perhaps re-inventing the wheel is exactly what you need to do? In the world of product development and UX design, innovation is integral, context is critical, and the user, not the content, is king.

Published by: Cahill Puil

Interested in working with us? We’re looking for great UX and UI designers → Apply Here

Hey, hey, hey — thanks for getting this far! If you’ve found value in this, I’d really appreciate it if you’d hit the like button.