Understanding "Lipstick on a Pig" in User Experience Design
Written on
The Origins of the Phrase
Have you come across the phrase "lipstick on a pig"? Many may have heard it, and some might have even used it. It never ceases to intrigue me each time it comes up. Let’s take a closer look at what it really means.
The Essence of UX versus UI
"User experience is not merely about user interface."
I couldn’t resist diving into this ongoing debate that I frequently have with my audience. It can be tiresome, but I persist.
Returning to the pig analogy, let's skip the historical details—Wikipedia offers some intriguing insights into the phrase's background. The prevailing notion is that external attractiveness can conceal deeper flaws. However, no amount of cosmetic enhancement can mask fundamental deficiencies. If your product is sluggish, riddled with errors, fails to guide users effectively, and has confusing information, can a visually appealing UI salvage its user experience?
Absolutely not!
The aesthetics of a product cannot compensate for its functionality or the connection it fosters with users. As Steve Jobs famously stated, "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." In this analogy, the pig symbolizes the product (or "UX"), while the lipstick represents the "UI."
Here are a few alternative phrases often used to convey the same idea when discussing improvements to product UX:
- Can we create an attractive user interface?
- How can we inject a "wow" factor into the design?
- Let’s ensure it’s visually appealing.
- It’s time for a makeover.
All these suggestions are merely superficial. The critical decisions regarding the product—whether positive or negative—have already been made, and you may find yourself trying to cover up or disguise poor UX.
This is why the term "UX" will likely remain misunderstood for some time. Terms like sexy, wow, pretty, and facelift are all subjective, varying based on individual preferences and biases. In contrast, user experience is grounded in scientific methods, processes, and measurable outcomes. If user experience isn't integrated into the initial strategy, a visually appealing interface won’t succeed as a standalone solution.
The Consequences of "Lipstick on a Pig"
Consider this scenario: "Let's enhance our presentations with images, illustrations, and icons because a picture speaks a thousand words." This is a classic example of LOAP (Lipstick on a Pig). While visuals can effectively convey messages, they only serve their purpose if the content is coherent. The key question is: do I have the right content to replace with an image?
Looking at enterprise software, products like SAP, Salesforce, Oracle Apex, and SharePoint have undergone numerous cosmetic updates in the name of UX over the years. While their interfaces may appear more modern and user-friendly, they often fail to address the underlying workflow issues that continue to hinder user experience.
In the realm of consumer websites, especially in banking and finance, sites like Bank of America, HDFC Bank, PayPal, and ETrade are gradually improving their user experience, largely due to more agile competitors. However, they still fall prey to LOAP, often applying superficial updates to long-standing features without implementing a comprehensive design strategy.
In advertising, marketers frequently resort to LOAP by using celebrity endorsements to promote products that may be inferior in quality, leading to potential backlash from consumers.
Home and shop renovations can also exemplify LOAP. Some owners may focus on superficial improvements—such as repainting or redecorating—while neglecting essential structural repairs or safety compliance, which can be both risky and detrimental.
The examples of LOAP are vast, spanning multiple sectors such as entertainment, food, fashion, travel, and automotive industries. I invite you to share your experiences or examples in the comments!
Utilizing LOAP Wisely
Whether you are initiating a LOAP request or responding to one, consider these tips:
- Question the intent: If the goal is to radically transform UX, reconsider your design objectives, making LOAP a part of the process rather than the end goal. If the purpose is to disguise deficiencies, acknowledge LOAP as your objective.
- Define outcomes: Sometimes, LOAP serves as a short-term tactic while working towards a long-term plan. Clearly articulating your goals will help you assess the effectiveness of this approach.
- Eliminate biases: Strive for objectivity, even in subjective matters like aesthetics. Recognizing your biases is an essential step in managing them.
- Reevaluate the necessity: At times, you might find that the 'pig' itself isn’t needed, and a new approach could yield better results.
To summarize, "lipstick on a pig" should be thoughtfully integrated into our design initiatives, provided the reasons are sound. Drawing an analogy from the food and beverage industry, LOAP can be likened to garnish.
A well-crafted garnish on a cocktail elevates the overall experience without masking flaws. In contrast, a poorly chosen garnish attempts to conceal bad flavors or odors.
In practice, LOAP should be an integral part of your design approach, aligning with the overarching objective of enhancing user experience rather than disguising a poor one.
I encourage you to share your thoughts and any relatable examples in the comments!