However, I believe whether or not a solution is aesthetically pleasing has as much, if not more, bearing on the its ultimate success as any of these other factors. Lets take an example. Mike works for a large manufacturing corporation, and has been tasked with producing a set of dashboards to allow upper management to more easily keep track of stock levels and when they might impact the lead times the business can offer to their customers. He makes a few initial stabs at producing some charts that highlight stock with a long lead time that is below or close to a reorder level. The results look great, and Mike is keen to show them off to his manager. When he does, his manager also thinks they look great, and initially responds extremely positively. With a bit of further discussion, both realise that what they are really interested in is the accuracy of the reorder value rather than how close a particular stock item is to that value. However, the initial positive reaction is not lost. Although both realise more work needs to be done, both Mike and his manager are pleased with what has been produced so far, and most importantly Mike is keen to go back and work on it again to improve on the positive feedback.Software is ultimately a tool that allows people to complete a task that would be slower, or impossible without it. The success or failure of any tool is therefore entirely dependant on how well people engage with it. The aesthetic value of a tool may have no bearing on it's functionality, but it has a massive impact on how willing people are to engage with it.
There are many parallels that bear this out, and in a world where we have more and more control over the physical appearance of the tools we produce, it is no coincidence that the most successful tend to be the best looking. Business is about people, and aesthetics is important to people.
