In my opinion these are largely things that the average UI designer should certainly be aware of, but should also not be concerned with reproducing or reinventing.
These low-level interactions are part of the operating system substrate for most applications. Like with the desktop UI before mobile, conventions have been established by the platform creators, and the application UI designer’s job isn’t to second-guess how a checkbox works or how pinch-to-zoom works. Adding your own unique personal animated touch might feel delightful and fun, but more often than not it’s just confusing to the user. (There are exceptions of course — some apps have a user base who thrive on discovering surprises and figuring out the unexpected. But the typical SaaS or mobile ordering app isn’t that.)
The word “design” itself has become somewhat misleading about what the purpose of this job actually is. “Information architecture” was always a better description of the actual bulk of the work.
Architects don’t generally spend any of their time inventing delightful door knobs that turn in unexpected ways. But user interface professionals tend to focus on the micro. Design systems often seem to be just another avenue to tinker with the details of button border styles and similar decorative flotsam.
Delightful door knobs turn in expected ways and are at best well-styled, never to the point of confusion. Not calling attention to themselves, but immediately obvious when you need to open a door.
Creating interfaces that demand attention is annoying at best.
Having smart and creative people spend time on inventing doorknobs is not the best idea.
To be fair, architects will obsess about choosing the right door knob to fit their overall design.
And some architect will obsess about novel ways of opening the door – although it's not always desirable, it may occasionally result in something that makes sense in given context.
It's also fair to add that some design prevail only due to tradition - the US round door knobs are a great example. It's really bad design, if you think of it..
In theory maybe, but all the best designers I know concern themselves with the small details, while the ones who grandstand about information architecture and 'big picture' thinking frequently make glaring mistakes.
On the subject of doors: there was once a professor of architecture who made a point of asking every senior thesis presentation "where is the door?". It was always shocking how many people would overlook this basic detail while focusing on something like the hermeneutic of teleology implicit in a vast spiral corridor.
Architects who focused on doorknobs always got this one right.
Good design requires a tremendously high dynamic range between the micro and the macro. People who understand the importance of motion/animations generally make better decisions about how to structure information architecture at the large scale because it all needs to line up.
These low-level interactions are part of the operating system substrate for most applications. Like with the desktop UI before mobile, conventions have been established by the platform creators, and the application UI designer’s job isn’t to second-guess how a checkbox works or how pinch-to-zoom works. Adding your own unique personal animated touch might feel delightful and fun, but more often than not it’s just confusing to the user. (There are exceptions of course — some apps have a user base who thrive on discovering surprises and figuring out the unexpected. But the typical SaaS or mobile ordering app isn’t that.)
The word “design” itself has become somewhat misleading about what the purpose of this job actually is. “Information architecture” was always a better description of the actual bulk of the work.
Architects don’t generally spend any of their time inventing delightful door knobs that turn in unexpected ways. But user interface professionals tend to focus on the micro. Design systems often seem to be just another avenue to tinker with the details of button border styles and similar decorative flotsam.