When I started designing in the 90s there was a massive revolution taking place due to the advancement of technology, computer power, ability and the internet. Creativity was being sparked and some unique, progressive and imaginative design was happening.

Concepts in design were changing from the 2D printed static page to interactive dynamically generated content. Photoshop and Illustrator were a big instigator in experimental design. SOHO design studios such as Tomato were generating design concepts that shifted graphic design and typography use.

In the early days of the world wide web the technology to generate content was limited. Much was still static pages of data and images. But as bandwidth increased the ability to utilise server power to dynamically generate content was unlocked.

But UI interface design, how we interact with content, and our expectations have stagnated. We are no longer challenged by the need to explore a UI when we visit a new website. We all but expect it to function as we have grown accustomed to. Is this a good thing?

The problem is, as the life of anything develops it converges to a point where everything ends up being the same. You visit a website and expect a welcome landing page that will serve simplified synopsis of the site's content, and you expect a navigation system that takes you to standard sections such as news, about, contact etc.

As a designer one aim is to challenge the user to explore, to think and consider the source they are interacting with. To deliver something that makes them discover something new, different or unexpected.

I'm bored of visiting sites that are clones of every other site. Yes, it makes it easy, but where is the expression and individuality of a site, the character of the business or individual behind it?

Why are we stuck with generic layouts? Design is led by investment. Creativity is always stifled by the paying clients who most of the time like to play it safe.

The only space where UI design is free to be experimented with is gaming. Even the shift from the PS4 to PS5 changed the OS UI and how you interact with it. I remember the first time I used a PS5 and really didn't like the interface, having used a PS4 for so long. But use it for a day and you quickly appreciate it is far more fluid and less clunky. The way areas are accessed removes the issue of needing to scroll up and down through icon menus to find what you need.

And games themselves often use unique interfaces, allowing true creativity. Not constrained by an OS's UI requirements, thr freedom is there to experiment.

One area that is still behind is car UI design. It is catching up faster now most new cars have touchscreen infotainment and many virtual cockpits, but even this is lagging behind in design, logical UI and interaction. But there is the danger that individuality of manufactures will be replaced by a converging standard interface. Much like smartphones a standard cross manufacturer OS could eventually be the standard with the only difference being the physical car, not the in car interaction with it. Much like buying a phone from Samsung or Sony. They are still both running on the same OS, just when different hardware offering different capabilities.

Is convergence a good thing? Yes in terms of compatibility and ease of use. But no in terms of innovation and design innovation because it removed competition and creates stagnation.