When it comes to innovating motion in digital products, designers, stakeholders, and engineers hold four old-world beliefs. These antiquated beliefs can make motion innovation an uphill battle for designers and motion advocates looking for opportunities and leverage, both with users and product metrics.

Belief 1: “Motion is not a core aspect of the user experience”

Pinterest

According to this belief, the core of the digital product is the research, UX, and engineering work that goes into executing the UX designs and screens. What follows from this belief is that motion is separate, something which does not play a major role in usability. This belief neglects examples like the Pinterest App where motion is used to simply and effectively transition users from a list view to a detail view with minimal impact during major context switching.

Belief 2: “Motion is just an add-on”

iOS

The second belief is that motion can be ‘added-on’ ‘at the end’. The idea here is that once the ‘real work’ has been done (designing static screens and making them interactive through code), the design and engineering team can begin thinking of ways to ‘add delight’ to the user experience. This belief neglects clear examples of interaction concepts that could not exist without motion (for example, the iOS app switcher is an entirely motion dependent interaction).

Belief 3: “Motion is animation”

Disney

The third belief is that motion is animation. In this view, the term ‘animation’ includes things that move, and draws from a distinctly non-UX domain: that of classic animation. This builds on the first belief, that motion is not a core part of the user experience. In this view, motion is viewed as giving ‘personality’ to a product, though this term is poorly (if ever) defined, and when it is, often included with edge-case and rarely relevant examples. This belief neglects the fact that the principles of animation (from Disney) have no relevance to user interfaces, as I write about in a previous article here. These principles exist to solve a fundamentally different problem — character appeal and representing organic bodies in physical space, as well as maintaining quality control of a corporate product.

Belief 4: “Motion is context specific”

The fourth belief is that certain types of motion work best for certain contexts. In this belief, it may even be accepted that motion plays some (undefined) role in the user experience. However, in this belief, the role is murky and not well understood. According to this belief, certain classes of motion are best applicable to certain designs or scenarios in the interface, for example, the display of a menu. This belief is analogous to using a specific shade of blue that has been verified through rigorous testing to perform the best as a button. This belief neglects the fundamental complexity and variance of motion, nor does it consider motion itself to be a fundamental property of user experiences. This belief treats motion akin to a debugging tool for UX designers. It has the effect of silo-ing motion to specific use cases, rather than serving as a powerful partnership with the UX.