Branding is bit subtler than that — you’re not going to really say anything about Target’s consistent styling, versus Walmart’s fairly austere aesthetic, but you definitely get a different “feel” from each, before looking at their actual contents/stock.
I don’t know whether fonts are really that important to the total equation, but “not terrible enough to walk out the door” is generally a very low bar to meet when designing a thing.
Another example in the app space — you know enterprise apps will get the job done, but they’re downright unpleasant to use; from aesthetics to workflow efficiency, they just barely hover over “dealing with it isn’t worth the output”. But that’s generally not where you want things to sit as a design goal.
> Another example in the app space — you know enterprise apps will get the job done, but they’re downright unpleasant to use; from aesthetics to workflow efficiency, they just barely hover over “dealing with it isn’t worth the output”.
While this is a good point, i don't feel like a discussion about fonts is relevant here. For example, when working with Jira, i don't care about what font it uses, as long as it is legible (e.g. even whatever is the default sans-serif font would work), whereas what actually matters to me in such a context is the responsiveness of the UI and how well it works, UX over UI.
If Jira's interface is laggy and slow, or just cumbersome to use because their implementation of custom fields is weird, no font or logo choices will make any of that markedly better. In my eyes, how something looks is largely decoupled from how well it works - if Jira were a GTK/Win32 app with almost no styling, but worked faster than it currently does, i'd probably get more value out of it than i currently do, fancy UI or not.
(just using Jira as an example here, because their UI redesign did make things slower and got some backlash from users that was ultimately ignored, i bet the same applies to a lot of other software out there, e.g. how Flutter apps oftentimes break right click behaviour in browsers etc.)
I’m not sure I understand the point about enterprise apps, because that can go both ways. Custom company application tend to be the worst, because they apply all the company branding guidelines, rather than just applying to system defaults.
I’m not making the case that one being better than the other, or really trying to say anything about custom vs enterprise.
My main point is simply that there’s a significant gap between “it can be used” and “it can be used well” — and a designer’s primary job is to bridge that gap (generally the engineer in us takes us to “it can be used”). That (some? many? majority?) designers aren’t competent is a separate concern… but their abstract goals are fairly obvious and intuitive if difficult to specify concretely
And we understand this intuitively, because there are many apps in our section of the universe that fall under it can be used — back-office apps, enterprise apps, etc a constant offender (not say good ones don’t exist, or bad custom apps don’t exist, or bad designers/designs don’t exist… etc — but we’ve all probably encountered a good few that are astoundingly unpleasant to use)
yup, users then even feel violated because some "great" manager somewhere told devs to screw over users settings and for example force user to look at animations, which is like 100 times worse than fonts mentioned earlier.
I don’t know whether fonts are really that important to the total equation, but “not terrible enough to walk out the door” is generally a very low bar to meet when designing a thing.
Another example in the app space — you know enterprise apps will get the job done, but they’re downright unpleasant to use; from aesthetics to workflow efficiency, they just barely hover over “dealing with it isn’t worth the output”. But that’s generally not where you want things to sit as a design goal.