I am learning HTML and CSS, discovering that browsers implemented rounded corners and shadows using CSS... just about the time that UI went to "flat / sharp corners" without shadows, etc. It seems sad that right when this long-sought ability arrived, we had lost interest.
I came to ask this after seeing questions and answers on this site which linked to articles about rounded corners being "easier on the eyes" (linked in an answer to this question, reminiscent of the decades-long raving about serif and sans-serif) and about "women preferring rounded corners" (and they're more than half the human race and control 63% of spending decisions so we don't want to alienate them)...
Here is a reference for what I am saying: Nielsen Norman Group article
The classical dictum implies that beauty in design results from functionality, and thus, aesthetic considerations in design should be secondary to functional considerations. Designers should focus on elements that are critical to functionality, and only after those have been identified can they start searching for the most beautiful implementation that accommodates the functionality constraints.
The point is, is this field based on research and engineering, or does it blow in the wind? If rounded corners are better, then by God we should stand up for them. Else we should realize and accept that our conclusions of 'betterness' are simply rationalizations after the fact, like most of what people do. That is not wrong, but stop calling UX a science. (and most everything else too)
I didn't write the research, or the other questions and answers on the site, I am just asking if I should take these things seriously?
Material design suggests using very subtle contours as opposed to large rounded, possibly clumsy looking, corners. Surely it moves with the times though, you dont see many bubble cars driving around these days!
First paragraph from the reference (italics added):
Designers use rounded corners so much today that they’re more of an industry standard than a design trend. Not only are they found on software user interfaces, but hardware product designs as well. So what is it about rounded corners that make them so popular? Indeed they look appealing, but there’s more to it than that.
If this question (whether or not our conclusions are subjective) is opinion-based, then I think that shows that the Field of UX is opinion-based.
Let’s start here. UX is a huge field of study. Like a lot of fields, there are objective and subjective aspects to it. In terms of a GUI, debating rounded v. square corners is mostly a subjective visual design decision. One could objectively test customer preferences and such, but at the end of the day, some art director is going to make a call on it.
Whether the visual UI has rounded corners or not may very well play a larger role in how usable the UI is overall. Then again, it may have zero impact. Again, this could be tested objectively, but is usually going to be low priority in terms of the total UX objectives.
Another thing to mention is that while groups like the NNG are highly skilled and have a lot of great data and opinions, context is everything. They are good to listen to, to get an understanding of the foundational rules and guidelines, but one should never adhere to what they say as literal gospel as context is everything and one simply can’t create UX roles that apply to all situations equally.
The concerns you have about articles that say something like “women preferring rounded corners” is a very valid one. We work in a field that tends to (this is my opinion here:) latch on to trivial research to make decisions that really need to take into account many more factors than one particular study of one particular UI.
That said, that doesn’t mean those studies are useless…it’s just that we need to treat them as what they are…little bits of data that can help contribute to a solution—it’s just that they likely shouldn’t dictate a solution.
We are preconditioned over time to what we find in the natural world. Curves are more likely found in nature, while square corners are pretty unlikely, and often where they might occur (eg due to fractures, breaks or other forces) they get worn down over time to make a natural curve again. Square corners simply do not have a place in natural world.
I really don't understand (no comprende!) where do you get this from. If anything, sites are using rounded shapes more and more. Bootstrap and Material are between the most used frameworks/guidelines, and most elements are rounded.
Also, not sure what does it have to do with CSS. CSS will render whatever you instruct it to do. If you want sharp corners,
border-radius:0 will suffice, or
border-radius:(n) for anything rounded
However, there are certain elements that tend to be sharp (usually containers). This is because of structural perception, people tend to think straight lines are "safer" and simpler. Thus, it's common to see a straight lined container containing a rounded-corner button .
As for UX not being a science... well, you're correct. Otherwise, this would be the first time I hear that UX is a science. In any case, it's a discipline that takes from many different sciences. And those sciences include scientific methods to derive ever-changing user preferences. Anything that includes the word "user" will be subjective by default, but you can measure that subjectivity and get information from an statistical average (that will NEVER cover 100% of cases!)
The field of user experience design is a conceptual design discipline and has its roots in human factors and ergonomics, a field that, since the late 1940s, has focused on the interaction between human users, machines, and the contextual environments to design systems that address the user's experience. With the proliferation of workplace computers in the early 1990s, user experience became an important concern for designers. It was Donald Norman, a user experience architect, who coined the term "user experience," and brought it to a wider audience.
Every shape should be the way it is to serve a purpose, or for a reason. "Form follows function".
"Rounded corners are better". This is the main point of your question. No predefined shape is better than any other. A shape/form is good as long as it solves the function of the object. And it is "better" the more effectively it solves this function.
This doesn't imply that there is an archetype form for each object, as alterations in a shape might serve additional functionalities.
Take the case of a shape which solves the object's functionality:
If alterations to the original shape are made purely for aesthetic reasons (without serving any additional functionality) it is not better than the original shape.
If alterations to the original are made to serve additional functionality: it might be better as it solves more actions; or it might be cluttering the main function.
For physical objects sharp corners might be dangerous, we could agree some roundness in corners might be safer. How much roundness is perfect?
There is no canonical answer but maybe we could agree:
Digital objects resemble physical objects. Our brain is used to understand that sharp outer corners can be dangerous, so some roundness looks safer to the eye.
Rounded Corners are best for bestest buttons!
Take, for example, the primary button in And®oid, the Floating Action Button™.
A close examination of the button reveals it to be a rounded square:
There are no circles in modern design, only fully rounded squares.