Menu
Hey all, Shona here! This past week, I have been deep into the rabbit hole of competitor research (44 and counting,13 more to go - send help 😂).
Very quickly, I noticed a particular style of website that I just don’t like, especially in the “creative” space. Think generic monochrome headers, overly corporate layouts, stock photos of people smiling at laptops, and copy that reads like it fell straight out of an AI tool without anyone even taking the time to edit out the obvious AI language. 🙃
But the thing is, most, if not all of these companies are clearly doing well. They have plenty of clients, followers, and in a couple of cases, notable awards. So it had me thinking: at what point is this purely my personal preference? When is ‘good or bad’ design actually subjective?
Design sits in this weird grey area; it's simultaneously rigid and flexible. There are long-standing, traditional rules, essential accessibility guidelines, and well-tested UX principles. But then modern trends sweep in, upend everything, and suddenly you’re wondering whether the rules you learned still stand, or whether they’re out of date.
So of course, I went down a second rabbit hole. Where is the line between subjective preference and objectively “good” design? 👇
When designers talk about objective standards, they usually mean things like accessibility, functionality, clarity, and usability. Fancy words aside, this just means the things that make your design actually usable for humans - the real people who will be consuming the things you design.
For example, having clear navigation that doesn’t leave visitors guessing where they need to go, or making sure your font colour isn’t so pale that people need sunglasses to read your text. Accessibility, for example, is objectively measurable. According to research by WebAIM, around 96.3% of homepages in 2023 still had basic accessibility issues, like low contrast text or missing alt-text for images, which is objectively not great.
These are not opinions. If people cannot see, read, or interact comfortably, the prettiest layout in the world will still cost you conversions, trust, and revenue. If users can’t 'see' what you’re selling, they can’t buy it. 🤷♀️
Subjectivity is important too though...
Okay, so we know that objective standards matter. But if all design followed the exact same rules, everything would look identically bland, boring and forgettable. Personal taste, brand personality, and creative style are what make you memorable; it's how people recognise you even when your logo isn’t staring them in the face.
Back to those sites I didn’t love. They’re neat and functional, but to me, they feel cold and interchangeable, often just a copy and paste of a WordPress template, which always confuses me, especially when the site is built by someone who is promoting their own web design services 👀. As I’ve been doing my competitor analysis, so far, there are about 20 websites out of the 44 where I think if I printed the hero sections, stuck them on a wall, and asked a room of people to pick out what makes each one unique, I genuinely think they would struggle. That's what got me thinking about whether my dislike is just taste or something more.
Subjective style is where you get to be different, but saying that, it still needs boundaries. The key is not letting your personal preferences overtake basic function. You might absolutely love that neon yellow text on a crisp white background, but unless your customers are bees (in which case, fair play), it’s probably not a smart choice. Creativity should amplify the message, not complicate it. Finding the ‘sweet spot’ between memorable style and clear functionality is what separates forgettable designs from ones that people remember and choose to come back to.
There’s no shortage of examples on either side. Ever landed on a local restaurant’s super stylish website only to spend five frustrating minutes trying to find their menu? Or maybe you’ve seen a site that’s technically perfect with quick loading times, great accessibility, but it's so bland you immediately forget it existed.
For example, Craigslist: objectively speaking, it's pretty awful to look at - it's clunky, dated, and screams "1999 dial-up era". But millions of people continue to use it because it’s so straightforward and easy to use. It does exactly what it promises, no more, no less, no faffing around.
On the flip side, there's Apple's website. It's a great balance: super sleek visuals, modern aesthetics, but still incredibly clear and accessible. They've nailed the objective basics, but their subjective styling and personality turn a website visit into a ‘brand experience’ (I usually hate that term, but it works for this example). Even if you're not an Apple fan, you probably know how their site feels: simple, elegant, and effortless to use, yet it looks unique enough that you could instantly tell it belongs to Apple, even if their logo wasn't there.
Then there’s the sweet spot of smaller brands like Monzo and Oatly, which build on clear objective basics with brilliant subjective touches. Monzo's friendly, casual copy makes banking feel less intimidating and boring, which is a big achievement in itself! Oatly’s playful and borderline cheeky approach makes oat milk memorable, which isn't exactly an easy feat either.
You don’t need to run a studio for this to hold some value. Think about the things you use every day: your LinkedIn profile, your CV, a presentation, your portfolio, and even your Instagram.
Jamie and I have a hard rule for any work we put out, whether it’s client work or our own: the “second pair of eyes” rule. When you’ve stared at something long enough, whether that’s a website design or a LinkedIn newsletter (hi! 👋), you stop seeing the easy mistakes and fixes. So before anything goes live or gets sent to a client, we send it to each other first. That little buffer catches typos, uneven spacing, and the things your brain can ignore after too long looking at the same screen. It’s basically the grown-up version of those school “peer review” tasks we all moaned about. Turns out they were really onto something.
I'm by no means saying that every single piece of work we put into the world is absolutely perfect; we're both humans, and human error exists, as do our personal preferences! But it certainly gives us an extra chance to look through a fresh lens before sharing it outside of our two-man studio and putting the Creative Compass name on it.
So, here's the conclusion I've come to (which you can take or leave 😉) - ‘good’ design isn’t a choice between being objectively/traditionally optimised or subjectively to your taste. You need to find a good balance of both: Too subjective, and you risk your audience leaving frustrated. Too objective, and you risk being generic and forgettable. So, it really is about balance. Trust your instincts, but make sure your design works first.
When you evaluate design, ask whether the personality supports the message or steals the spotlight. Check that clarity, readability, and usability still lead. The strongest work comes from teams that think about their audience and blend function with flair intentionally, not because they just like the look of it. Subjective style gives your brand life and makes you memorable. The objective function makes it easy to engage. Get both right and you land in that sweet spot!
.png)