Relevance Trumps Consistency

There have been more than a few instances in which I’ve seen some very bizarre things in the context of a user experience that were defended according to the principle of consistency, and while I can acknowledge that consistency has its merits, they pale in comparison to the principle of relevance.   I don’t see this as being a situation in which the two must be negotiated to a delicate balance – but instead I firmly maintain that relevance trumps consistency, every time.

It is said, and rightly so, that the value of consistency to user experience is that it alleviates uncertainty by enabling the user to perform the same task in the same way each time.  As much as humans delight in novelty, they take comfort in familiarity.  Having to learn a new way of doing a task adds to the "cost" of obtaining the benefit and the risk of not being able to succeed at all - and when the margin of value-for-effort is slim, proposing a change has the potential to unbalance the equation.

This is true of the functional aspects of simple tasks (when you withdraw cash from an ATM, anywhere on the planet, you go through the same steps every time and do not need to learn a different procedure) and to the sensual aspects of emotional experiences (when you return to a restaurant, you expect to be able to order the same entree you had before and get the same sensual experience of its presentation and flavor).   Customers can be quite peevish when suppliers make changes to the core values of a product or its associated service experience when they liked what they got the last time.

There is a certain level of dismissiveness to the value of this familiarity, when a provider changes something and declares that their “new way” is something that customers will prefer to the "old way" (in the sense that "old" is always bad and  "new" is always good).  And very often, such claims are either disingenuous or narcissistic, failing entirely to consider whether the novelty that they assume to be an improvement may be seen as an unwanted change by their customers … until then customers leave.

But at the same time, the defense of consistency for the sake of avoiding friction is also a factor in companies who more gradually lose their customers for their failure to remain relevant to changing customer needs.   Particularly in terms of non-functional benefits, such as fashion, tastes change and the firm that refuses to change with them is left behind.

But relevancy is more than mere taste: it is often a reflection of changing needs, whether the change of needs is permanent or temporary.   The temporary aspect is more likely due to implementation of user experience design in the context of a specific task-flow design, as the change over time is more of a strategic adaptation of the firm, but in either situation a problem arises when consistency is valued over relevance, and the result is a design choice that is inappropriate.

General Motors attempted to accommodate this evolution of customer needs, albeit badly, by developing a transition plan to move customers through a family of brands as they progressed through life (Chevrolet in their youth, Buick or Cadillac later in life depending on their financial success).   Porsche seems to be doing this now by offering sedans and SUVs for customers (under the same brand) who transition into family life and find a two-seated roadster to be impractical.  Both firms seem to recognize that consistency is only valuable if the customers' needs remain consistent as well - and that customers' needs do not remain consistent means consistency becomes counterproductive,  Or more to the point, a rigid devotion to consistency is a deliberated ignorance that consistency is less valuable than relevance.

In terms of design, consistency is a quality that can be appropriately used or inappropriately misused – and the distinction between the two is relevance to the experience of the user.   If the user is ignored, which is often a precondition of a very bad decision, consistency among elements of an experience can seem to be a good idea, and one which certainly makes things more convenient to the processes of the service provider.   But when relevance is considered, which is generally a precondition of a very good decision, the distinction between functional and dysfunctional consistency should become apparent.

And perhaps that is the best mediator of the argument, and the best defense of relevance in the face of an argument in favor of consistency.