Consistency means nothing

Words create a false sense of agreement. My line of work relies on many words loaded with meaning, but lacking concrete definition. Words like quality, craft and simplicity. These are abstract words. And in the abstract, people generally agree on their meaning. But definitions stray wildly once those abstract concepts get specific and real.

This is a problem–a big one. It represents a single instance of a more pervasive issue. where People use the same words to communicate different things. People assume alignment when reality is quite the opposite.

The word consistency is a loaded term in my work. To some it’s a mantra, to others it’s a slur. If you ask five people what consistency is, you’ll get ten different answers. Some people think it means everything looks and works exactly the same way. Others are a little more loosey-goosey in interpretation. These differences matter.

One thing I’ve come to believe in is the power of shared understanding. It seems so obvious, but it’s shockingly rare in organizations. It’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion if the words used don’t line up.

Consistency is a broad term. More specificity is needed to be useful for the context of design. Here’s my imperfect definition of consistency in regards to design:

The characteristic of following a logical, perceptible, and predictable pattern.

Those three attributes–logical, perceptible, and predictable–are all important.

• Logical means that decisions are intentional, rationale and rule-based. And those rules lack contradictions. In short, “2+2” always equals “4”.
• Perceptible means that the logic is simple enough to be [discernible]. There are plenty of logical formulas that don’t seem logical. The logic needs to be clear to the end user, otherwise it’s worthless.
• Predictable means that not only can they notice the logic, but that logic helps them know what to expect. Either consciously or subconsciously, people should be able to “finish the sentence”.

This is my definition of consistency and what I use to assess consistency in a design (or lack thereof). Mind you, this alone is severely lacking in detail to be actionable. There’s still plenty of room for interpretation in this definition. This, definition, would need serve as a nucleus for examples and use cases to prove useful.

A definition supported by concrete examples and detail is a great start. But sadly it doesn’t make things easier. Consistency in and of itself isn’t a “thing”. It’s not a binary state. It’s a spectrum. On one side there’s the complete lack of consistency–disorder. On the other there’s absolute consistency–homogeny. And then there’s everything between. Each has its place

Modern software is a paradox. On one hand it’s more conformist than ever. On the other hand, most are hilariously inconsistent in execution. The majority of software from large orgs leans towards disorder. This is often due to how large orgs operate. Siloed teams make siloed decisions to support their siloed goals. Most decisions are quite logical in their independent vacuum. But those independent logical decisions end up seeming quite illogical as a whole. It’s common knowledge what the negative outcomes are. It’s not a great place to be–except when it is. Sometimes a little surprise can shake things up. A little goes a long way, but it has its place.

Homogeny is typically not possible in a large organization. The sheer number of contributors and the pace of development make that unrealistic. I advise against even trying. I’ve observed attempts that resulted in square-pegging round holes at scale. It’s illogical to force things together that don’t logically fit. Consistency for the sake of consistency isn’t consistency–it’s circular logic. And even if absolute consistency is achieved, it could come at the cost of a boring experience. Monotony can be just as bad as chaos. That said, there are plenty of situations where you want to keep things nice and boring. Like forms.

There’s a time and a place for everything. A little chaos can be helpful to shake things up. On And yes, there are rules that should be inflexible.. But 90% of the time you’re aiming for the messy middle of consistency.

This is what makes this a difficult topic. Each organization’s relationship with consistency is going to be slightly different. Their ideal amount of consistency will vary as well. But establishing that relationship and finding that right amount doesn’t just happen. It requires conversations, debate and (healthy) conflict. Those things don’t happen without a shared understanding of what the hell consistency really, actually means.

Designers like to design. Developers like to develop. But neither can do their job well without a shared understanding and common language. Words like quality, craft, simplicity and, yes, consistency need definition. And not a dictionary-level definition. They need exhaustive, gory, and unambiguous detail. They’ll remain contentious and unreachable topics until that happens.

Consistency is essential. But to what degree, and in what situations? That’s up to each organization to decide. But without definition, this mess will persist.