Beyond "Shape, Color, Text, Structure, Texture, Motion" in UI Design

Stop Talking About "Shape, Color, Text, Structure, Texture, Motion" in UI Design

For years now, within the design community, there's been this tendency to describe UI design using the terms "shape, color, text, structure, texture, motion." While seemingly straightforward, this framework, in my opinion, oversimplifies UI design and ultimately hinders deeper understanding.

I've noticed many designers, especially when presenting solutions or crafting design language, fall back on this familiar acronym. However, whenever I see someone using "shape, color, text, structure, texture" to explain a design concept, it feels forced and superficial. This is particularly true for shape, texture, and structure. Due to the homogeneity of UI design today, these aspects have become quite limited in what they can offer.

My critique of this framework stems not from a lack of academic backing or influential design teams endorsing it. Rather, its shallowness and lack of practical application are my primary concerns.

Why "Shape, Color, Text, Structure, Texture, Motion" Doesn't Hold Up

1. Superficiality and Lack of Depth:

The framework relies on a visual arts perspective to understand UI design, which is suitable for beginners but falls short when tackling advanced concepts. It fails to capture the complexity of user interactions, information architecture, and strategic design decisions.

For example, how do you define "shape" in the context of a complex interactive dashboard? Or how do you analyze "texture" within a highly dynamic user interface? These terms become vague and ultimately unhelpful when applied to the nuanced world of UI design.

2. Unclear Origins and Purpose:

Unlike established design principles with clear historical roots and theoretical foundations, the origins of "shape, color, text, structure, texture, motion" remain obscure. Its purpose seems primarily descriptive rather than prescriptive.

It lacks a coherent framework for problem-solving or guiding the design process. Attempting to apply it directly to real-world UI challenges often leads to frustration and dead ends.

3. Ignoring the Interactivity of UI:

Perhaps the most significant flaw is its complete disregard for the interactive nature of UI design. UI stands for User Interface, emphasizing the crucial element of user interaction.

Focusing solely on visual elements ignores the flow of information, user behavior patterns, and the overall user experience. This narrow perspective ultimately leads to designs that are visually appealing but functionally flawed.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond Superficial Frameworks

"Shape, color, text, structure, texture, motion" might serve as a basic starting point for discussing UI design with non-designers. However, it's not a robust framework for professionals seeking to create meaningful and impactful user experiences.

Instead of relying on simplistic acronyms, let's embrace frameworks that acknowledge the complexity of UI design, prioritize user experience, and foster a deeper understanding of the interplay between visual aesthetics and interactive functionality.