<aside> ▶️ Users often perceive aesthetically pleasing design as design that’s more usable.

</aside>

The part of the Aesthetic Usability Effect I find most interesting is how it can cover up poor design with good aesthetics. If you have two of the same system, and one has better visuals, even if the system is bad, the user will interpret the one with better visuals as better. I think this is something that comes up in a lot of UX design, as I think the general user relates visuals to good design, rather than the design of the system, so whenever there are issues with the system, the visuals would be one of the first issues raised. The way aesthetics can hide poor UX is something I’ve experienced myself, for example on the TransLink website. Now, the TransLink website is really bad, and I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to defend it because I’m not, however, I can understand why it never gets fixed because of the visuals. At a glance, the visual design of the TransLink website isn’t awful, it’s nothing remarkable, but it’s not the worst web design I’ve ever seen, and I think this is why the UX of the website never gets fixed. It’s able to hide behind acceptable visual design which the general user doesn’t mind and in doing so avoids getting proper UX treatment. I’ve felt this for a while about the TransLink website and I’m pleased I’m able to contextualise that now with my understanding of the Aesthetic Usability Effect.