Every so often, the UX industry rediscovers its distrust of interface aesthetics. Show a polished interface, and someone will immediately ask where the research, process, diagrams and strategic rationale are—as if aesthetics automatically excluded thoughtful design, while a visually unrefined product somehow proved intellectual depth.

This topic keeps coming back like a boomerang and, frankly, it is becoming exhausting.

Of course, an interface can look good and still fail. I wrote about this in UI That Looks Good vs UX That Actually Works. An attractive visual layer will not repair a poorly designed flow, an unclear information architecture or logic that forces users to guess.

But the opposite is equally true: an interface can be functional and look good. In fact, many products should meet both conditions.

Where Did the Distrust of Aesthetics Come From?

For years, UX professionals fought to ensure that their work was not reduced to interface design. Designers wanted to demonstrate that their role included research, process analysis, information architecture, interaction design, solution validation and collaboration with the business.

That was a necessary change. The problem is that the pendulum swung too far.

At some point, aesthetics stopped being treated as one of a designer’s competencies and began to function almost as evidence of superficiality. “Pretty pictures” became a phrase that could quickly undermine someone’s work without anyone checking whether meaningful logic existed behind the screens.

In my review of the book “Badania jako podstawa projektowania user experience”, I wrote about hearing comments during interviews suggesting that my portfolio contained nothing more than pretty pictures. Meanwhile, I had been improving designs created by other UX designers precisely because those products did not work functionally.

A beautiful screen is not proof of an absent process. It is simply a beautiful screen. Only an analysis of the design can reveal whether it is supported by logic, an understanding of the user and correctly designed system behaviour.

Interface Aesthetics Does Not Mean Decoration

In discussions about “pretty screens,” aesthetics is often reduced to illustrations, gradients, animations and visual effects. In internal tools, however, it is usually about none of these things.

A good aesthetic experience can be created through:

• properly selected colours;
• readable typography;
• consistent spacing;
• well-planned white space;
• a logical information hierarchy;
• consistent alignment;
• controlled data density;
• predictable component states;
• appropriate contrast;
• a clear visual distinction between primary and secondary actions.

This does not require artistic experimentation or weeks spent decorating screens. Often, HTML, CSS, a well-prepared design system and a designer who knows how to use the available tools consciously are enough.

“Consciously” is the most important word here.

A design system provides components, tokens, colours and rules, but it does not make every decision for the designer. It will not determine which information should dominate, where space is needed, how visual emphasis should be distributed or how a complex process should be organised. A ready-made system can reduce the number of low-level decisions, but someone still needs to know how to use it to build a coherent product.

IBM describes the Carbon Design System as a collection of reusable components, patterns, guidelines and code intended to support the faster creation of consistent digital experiences. Carbon provides, among other things, colour tokens, a typography system, a spacing scale and accessibility standards. The system itself emphasises that colour should be determined by function, contrast and the role of an element—not used as arbitrary decoration. See Carbon: Color and Carbon: Accessibility.

This is what aesthetics means in a mature digital product: not decorating the interface, but organising its form consistently.

“This Tool Does Not Need to Be Pretty”

In one of my recent projects, I worked on an internal tool supporting financial crime analysis. I was told that the application did not need to be pretty.

But what does a statement like that actually mean?

Does a serious domain require an unpleasant interface? Should analysts working with large volumes of data receive a visually unrefined product simply because their work is not consumer-facing? Does the absence of customers viewing a sales page mean that visual quality no longer matters?

No.

In internal tools, aesthetics may be even more important than in an application used once every few weeks. People spend hours working in these systems. They analyse data, compare records, move between contexts, search for relationships and make decisions that can have serious consequences.

In this environment, aesthetics does not mean “wow” as a special effect. It means visual calm, predictability and a sense that the system has been designed consciously.

I have already written about this in the context of designing tables as operational workspaces. When someone spends several hours a day using an application, the use of space, the hierarchy of actions and the visual stability of the interface affect their everyday experience.

This is not an indulgence. It is part of the quality of the working environment.

Carbon Did Not Design the Application for Me

I used the existing IBM Carbon Design System in this project. I did not create a colour palette or a new component language from scratch. I worked with values and styles that had already been defined.

However, applying them correctly, managing white space, organising the hierarchy and building the layout consistently was enough for a straightforward application implemented in React to begin looking exceptionally good.

It did not look good because I added artistic illustrations, fashionable gradients or an animation covering half the screen. It looked good because it was coherent.

Colours behaved consistently. Elements had clearly defined roles. Space separated information instead of pushing it apart arbitrarily. Typography created hierarchy. Components looked as if they belonged to one product rather than having been collected from several libraries over successive sprints.

The design system provided the raw material. My task was to use it to build the right structure.

It is similar to architecture. Access to good materials does not guarantee that every building will be well designed. At the same time, you do not need to fire every brick yourself to create a good space.

The “Wow” Effect Is Sometimes an Effect of Comparison

In this project, I also reconstructed flows based on an existing reference platform used for complex data analysis. The source system was functional and extensive, but its interface represented a different generation of product design.

When compared with such a system, a new product can create a “wow” effect without relying on spectacular visual techniques. It only needs to be more consistent, more readable and calmer.

This matters because “wow” does not always mean that the designer was trying to create something flashy. Sometimes, it is simply the natural result of removing visual chaos.

However, an aesthetic impression should not be confused with proof of usability. An attractive interface can create a positive first impression, but only user behaviour can demonstrate whether the product genuinely supports people in completing their tasks.

Nielsen Norman Group describes this as the aesthetic-usability effect. Users tend to perceive attractive products as easier to use and are often more tolerant of minor usability issues. In my experience designing interfaces, users gradually become accustomed to an attractive interface and begin to notice—and report—when something no longer works as they expect. The effect has its limits: aesthetics may soften the perception of minor inconveniences, but it will not rescue a product with serious usability problems.

The correct conclusion is therefore not: “aesthetics is dangerous.”

It is: aesthetics and functionality should be evaluated together, but they must not be confused with one another.

I also wrote about this relationship in my review of “Laws of UX”. Even the most beautiful application will become frustrating if it does not allow users to complete their tasks. But that does not mean we should design less attractive products. It means we cannot stop at the visual layer.

What Are We Actually Criticising When We Say “Pretty Screens”?

There is a legitimate criticism of portfolios that show only final mock-ups without context, states, constraints or explanations of the decisions behind them. A screen alone cannot answer questions such as:

• What problem does it solve?
• What flow does it support?
• Which states have been considered?
• What happens when an error occurs?
• How do permissions work?
• How does the solution scale to larger volumes of data?
• What trade-offs were made?
• Was the interface validated?

But this is a criticism of the lack of information about the process, not a criticism of visual quality.

If the logic is missing from a portfolio, ask to see the logic. If the states are missing, ask about the states. If it is unclear how the flow works, the problem is the absence of a documented flow.

Attacking the aesthetics will not provide any of that missing information.

Moreover, a designer who can build sound logic and refine the interface at the same time is not less competent. They simply possess an additional skill.

Ugliness is not proof that research was conducted. Inconsistency does not demonstrate systems thinking. An unrefined interface does not become more strategic simply because it resembles a tool created by an IT department fifteen years ago.

Colour Selection Is a Competency, Not Cosmetics

I completed both a course in design aesthetics and a separate course devoted to selecting colours for UI. I did not do this because I wanted to become a screen decorator, but because colour is a communication tool.

Colour can:

• establish hierarchy;
• distinguish primary actions from secondary ones;
• communicate status;
• warn users about risk;
• signal change;
• group related information;
• build product recognition;
• affect readability and accessibility;
• reduce or increase visual chaos.

Poorly applied colour makes a product more difficult to use. When it is applied well, the interface feels natural—even if the user cannot explain why.

The same applies to white space. It is not an empty area that must be filled. It is a tool for organising relationships between information.

In data-heavy products, however, this does not mean maximising spacing. Operational tools require an appropriate level of data density. The designer’s task is to find the balance between the amount of information presented and the user’s ability to process it quickly.

Aesthetics is not about making everything large, bright and spacious. It is about ensuring that the form corresponds to the nature of the work.

A Client May Simply Want a Beautiful Application

One of my clients said directly that he wanted a beautiful application because he looked at it all day.

I can empathise with that. I see no reason to fight with a client simply because their needs also concern the appearance of the product.

If the client is also an everyday user of the system, their aesthetic needs are part of the user experience. This does not mean that every colour preference should be implemented uncritically. It means that we should understand what lies beneath the statement, “I want it to look good.”

It may be about:

• reducing visual fatigue;
• improving readability;
• giving the tool a professional character;
• creating a sense of order;
• building trust in the system;
• feeling proud of the product used by the team;
• increasing employees’ willingness to adopt it.

The designer’s role is not to respond, “UX is not about pretty screens.” The designer’s role is to translate a general expectation into specific design decisions that do not compromise usability, accessibility or the logic of the system.

We Do Not Have to Choose Between Thinking and Aesthetics

I primarily design internal tools, tables, configurators and complex systems. Most of them leave little room for visual fireworks. They do, however, leave plenty of room for good design.

For appropriate contrast. For consistency. For typography. For thoughtful use of space. For clear hierarchy and colours that communicate instead of merely decorating.

We do not have to choose between “beautiful” and “functional.” We can—and should—design products that meet both conditions.

The problem with “pretty screens” is not that they are too pretty. The problem only begins when we do not know what exists beneath them.

If a refined visual layer is supported by sound flows, states, business rules, accessibility and coherent architecture, attacking its aesthetics is not a defence of UX.

It is a defence of a false division that the industry should have left behind many years ago.