Neuroesthetics and Product Design
Spent last Tuesday at "In the Age of Too Much" during London Design Festival, and Katherine Templar Lewis's session on neuroesthetics got me thinking. As a product manager across B2B platforms for nearly a decade, I've seen how the industry typically prioritises functionality over aesthetics. It's a logical approach: B2B users are more forgiving of interface quirks, and "it works" often takes precedence over "it works beautifully." This logic has shaped countless product decisions I've been part of. Sprint planning sessions where design polish gets pushed to "nice-to-have." Stakeholder meetings where visual refinements are questioned against feature delivery. User research that focuses on task completion rates rather than user satisfaction scores.
When brain science meets interface design
But Katherine's research on how our brains actually process visual information made me question this trade-off. When she showed how aesthetic design directly impacts cognitive load and decision-making speed, it made sense in a new way. The emerging field of neuroesthetics - studying how our brains respond to aesthetic experiences - reveals something crucial: beautiful design isn't just pleasant, it's functional. Research from cognitive scientists shows that well-designed interfaces help brains work more efficiently, reducing mental fatigue and improving decision-making. When people interact with aesthetically pleasing interfaces, their brains show reduced activation in areas associated with cognitive effort. The visual cortex processes well-designed layouts faster, leaving more mental resources available for actual problem-solving. We've become rather comfortable with the idea that B2B interfaces don't need to be beautiful, yet we're asking users to spend several hours daily in these environments. What if this acceptance is actually imposing a hidden tax on productivity?
The real cost of "Functional" design
Consider the typical enterprise software experience: dense information hierarchies, inconsistent visual patterns, colour schemes that prioritise "professional" grey over cognitive clarity. I've watched users navigate these interfaces countless times - the slight pause as they scan for the right button, the extra second needed to parse a poorly structured data table, the mental fatigue that builds over hours of fighting with clunky workflows. Studies suggest these seemingly minor friction points impose measurable cognitive overhead. Research in environmental psychology shows that aesthetic quality directly impacts cognitive performance. If this applies to physical spaces - and anyone who's worked in a dreary office versus a well-designed one knows it does - why wouldn't it apply to digital ones?
When visual design aligns with how our brains naturally process information, users complete tasks faster and with less mental effort. Clear visual hierarchies reduce the cognitive load of scanning information. Consistent interaction patterns create mental shortcuts. Even something as simple as proper use of whitespace can significantly reduce visual stress.
Cognitive ease as infrastructure
This got me thinking about patterns I've observed but never fully connected. Users gravitating toward certain features not just because they're more functional, but because they feel easier to use. Customer feedback praising interfaces as "intuitive" when they're really praising good aesthetic organisation. The correlation between design quality and user adoption that we often attribute to other factors. What if we started treating cognitive ease as a proper feature rather than nice-to-have polish? This isn't about making things "pretty"- it's about reducing the mental overhead required to interact with our products.
Some practical implications I would like to explore:
Visual hierarchy as information architecture - clear visual hierarchies don't just look organised - they reduce the cognitive effort required to process information. Users shouldn't have to work to understand what's important.
Consistent design patterns - when users learn an interaction pattern once and can apply it everywhere, we're building cognitive efficiency into the system itself. Every inconsistency forces a micro-decision that drains mental energy.
Evidence-based aesthetic choices - colour, typography, and spacing decisions based on cognitive research rather than arbitrary brand guidelines. For instance, certain colour combinations enhance memory retention while others create visual fatigue.
Thoughtful micro-interactions - smooth transitions and clear feedback loops that align with natural cognitive processing patterns, reducing uncertainty and mental load during task completion.
Of course, there is practical challenge and implementing this isn't straightforward.
How do we measure cognitive load in B2B interfaces beyond traditional usability metrics?
How do we communicate the ROI of aesthetic investment to stakeholders focused on feature delivery?
These aren't just design questions—they're product strategy questions. They require rethinking how we define and measure user success, how we prioritise development efforts, and how we build business cases for quality.
Moving forward
I'm keen to try experimenting with neuroesthetics principles in upcoming builds. The idea that we can reduce mental fatigue through thoughtful visual design feels like untapped potential - particularly for real-time monitoring dashboards where cognitive clarity directly impacts decision speed, complex data visualisation where aesthetic choices influence pattern recognition, and multi-step workflows where visual consistency reduces learning overhead.
What fascinates me most is the possibility that better design isn't just about user satisfaction—it might be about human performance. If we can reduce the cognitive overhead of interacting with our products, we're not just making software that works better. We're making software that helps people think better. Because if we're asking people to spend significant portions of their working lives in the environments we create, shouldn't those environments be designed with their brains in mind?
