A few thoughts have been lingering in the back of my head for quite some time. And with it a daring theory. Should things be designed more often in such a way that you will deliberatly lose customers/users in the journey of your brand? True to the motto: If you drop out now, it wasn't for you to begin with. And, as a natural consequence, why creatives shouldn't always work according to textbooks.

We creatives learn in our training — no matter if you are going to college, to art school, or even being a self-taught creative — that rules are constant and everywhere. It is clear that we need a certain basic orientation. An apprenticeship and an understanding of how all elements converse with one another.

I graduated in design in 2001. At that time it was normal to researched in books and we bought them in order to learn standard practices and to internalize them as "given and forever".

We were tought things like "Lines can only rise diagonally from bottom left to top right because that's a sign of positivity". Or "The logo must always be on the top left or right, otherwise the client won't be able to recognize you".

Do these rules apply now and for the rest of eternity? Or will they adapt sometime soon? And by whom? Everything progresses quicker every day. How we consume, how and if we demonize or glorify change, how we keep track with things in life, but then certain things stay the same forever?

The question I would like to ask at the end: If creatives surrender to best practice, won't we become dull and continue to shape a world that would let humanity lead towards an even bigger capitalist behavior and studipity?

In UI/UX a best practice is most likely to be seen. This special field of creative work has developed the most concrete rules and standards. After many studies in behaviorism of media consumption, certain insights have emerged as to how users intuitively orient themselves within a certain application. You know what icons are going to be immediately recognized and used without further explanation. Standard layouts that will most certainly lead to a quick purchase and a standardized customer experience.

But: If you standardize everything according to scheme, isn't that like a statement what your brand actually is? My approach has always been "creating world out of a brand and not just create utilities". For instance: In a real shop you aim to create an immersive experiences and not a standardized retail layout. But your web doesn't mirror that experience and works with a standard template.

As a creative, don't we have to follow a certain intrinsically grown knowledge and deliberately implement (at least some) strategies differently in order to create focus? My theory: Let users and clients stumble over things every now and then. What happens if they don't cry out with frustration and drop out? They show commitment.

What about corporate design? Does it always consist of a logo, typeface, fixed colors, photo style and decorative elements? In my mind, I open the school book and read "This is how a corporate design has to be, otherwise it is not a corporate design. The logo is the most important element, so it has to be draftet after this and that. Period." - Rule set up. Forever.

In my professional environment, however, I am currently observing completely different occurancies. Companies approach and tell us that their image has become sober and impersonal. The corporate design went from neat to "too clean" and defined them rather as a big industrial player instead of the warm, personal team they are.

Aren't our ways and methods changing because society and the broad economy continue to transform?

If corporate design would be formed as a tool using new methods and a systematic approach, weren't there more opportunities? Instead of creating a rigid standard, why not an ever-transforming and self-evolving system?

One that continues to adapt in federal states, regions and even abroad. One that opens dialogues for local collaborations and the local clientel. One that involves people instead of just being a stiff business armor. But do school books say how to even get there? Or isn't that the joy and profession that creatives need to develop by thinking out of the box?

Instead of eternally anticipating design standards and best practice, as a creative I prefer to follow the rules of the particular brand and its world that we have developed.

What would be the worst case scenario in a user journey? Instead of three well-known icons on the interface, certain functions arre written plainly, and the users have to pause and orientate themselves for a second. Because it doesn't look standardized. Users who are usually on similar structured pages may take a second longer than users who often browse individual pages.

Will user A stop frustrated after a few seconds and leave the page? (Maybe even crying and being hella confused?) Or does user A generate the commitment to emerge for a second, orientate themself because they want to get to know your brand / idea / world better and immerse into the experience?

Is this creating frustration because we don't have a standardized experience? Or will we lose a few users, but stay authentic with real fans in the long run because we have delivered enough immersion and XP?

Not long ago I was confronted by an expert with a PDF of best practice from 2015 in which I "should finally understand how a website has to be structured so that users would know what to do". Gurl, for real?

There certainly is a logic in user behavior (we still read on from left to right). However, users also learn constanly, consume differently, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes proactively, sometimes they want to be challenged, sometimes they want to kick back. At the end of the day, I am convinced that a commitment will be required from both ends. From brands and creatives to design an authentic overall experience. And by consumers/users/clients who should at least take some time to know and understand where they are and what's actually on the table.

If everything is going to be standardized even more and designed to a scheme, we will of course increase the accessibility. Everything becomes easy because everything is the same. People will consume faster and companies will close deals quicker.

But don't we have a responsibility to be advocats of great creative work and, given where we stand, to not just worship the gods of capitalism at all cost? Wouldn't people become even duller and lose more attention span?

I am sure that every brand should have its own set of rules. Brand "standards" should be set up authentically and become more agile, i.e. quickly changeable and adaptable. If you have the feeling that something is not working the right way, you can test specifically to verify or falsify your theories. If something doesn't work, change it.

Brands that deliver immersive experiences and don't follow a best practice are being perceived as authentic and evolving. The willingness to dive deeper into these worlds, with their values, promises and attitudes, is therefor established more actively and with commitment. — Or not at all, because an audience who doesn't identify with your brand has actively dropped out as a consequence of natural selection.