
Why Rounded Corners are Easier on the Eyes - waterhole
http://uxmovement.com/thinking/why-rounded-corners-are-easier-on-the-eyes/
======
danilocampos
I can no longer see a conversation about round rects without thinking of this
fascinating story on developing the first Mac's drawing subsystem:

 _"Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this
room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some
of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside,
there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill
to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle
with rounded corners that he could find.

When Steve and Bill passed a no-parking sign with rounded corners, it did the
trick. "OK, I give up", Bill pleaded. "I'll see if it's as hard as I
thought."_

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_E...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt)

Interesting example of Steve Jobs' leadership style that _doesn't_ revolve
around him being an asshole. Also, given how prevalent round rects were in
classic Mac system software, surprising to consider they almost weren't
possible on early systems.

Amazing, the cleverness once required to create things we now take for
granted.

~~~
jamesbritt
Did they just ignore all the non-rounded rectangles around them? They're
everywhere, too, and I fail to see how this does or does not argue for their
use.

~~~
ellyagg
It's simple if you think about it. Making rectangles with rounded corners
takes work. You have to go out of your way. That so many craftsman, engineers,
etc. did so is suggestive.

Moreover, looking at a lot of rounded rectangles will have the same effect
that the examples in the linked article did. You'll notice that objects with
them are more appealing than their counterparts.

~~~
jamesbritt
_That so many craftsman, engineers, etc. did so is suggestive._

In many cases it suggests that leaving a sharp corner, such as on a table,
would risk injury to some users. But in general, that something took extra
work, says nothing about the rationale behind it. Maybe it's a way of showing
off skills; I've certainly seen that in _code_ , where the people did
something the hard way for reasons other than "this is what is best for this
situation."

 _Moreover, looking at a lot of rounded rectangles will have the same effect
that the examples in the linked article did. You'll notice that objects with
them are more appealing than their counterparts._

What I notice is that sometimes they are appropriate, sometimes not. They are
not universally appealing.

In many cases they give things an inappropriately childish (childlike?)
feeling.

------
philh
I don't like the diagram example because it looks like B is being given some
form of precedence over C. The lack of symmetry throws me off.

I would suggest having it round in both directions and removing the bottom
edge of the 'triangle', so that it looks more like a curly brace. I'm not sure
though, that might look weird or too cute.

~~~
grannyg00se
I agree it definitely looks as though B comes first and then C is a secondary
option. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with the other diagram that doesn't
have a curvy path. I think this example is different because it's a three path
node. It doesn't jar the mind as badly as a two path node having a sharp
vertex.

------
extension
I can't believe that never occurred to me: rounded corners are like _serifs_
for borders. They make the structure more obvious when boxes are packed
together and aligned.

~~~
intellection
You put it into words. Nice fit.

Letter and layout create space with edge and curve.

One big graphical language..

------
ars
Maybe I'm strange but I found the sharp corners much easier to see.

The round ones were distracting, especially the rounded arrows. I also found
the pointy circle much nicer to look at.

With sharp corners you have 4 things to look at and process - each line. With
the rounded ones you have 4 lines, 8 spots where a line changes into a curve,
and 4 curves.

At least that's how my eyes do it - they notice the curve for each corner and
that wastes time.

~~~
pyre
Shouldn't that be:

    
    
      4 lines and 4 corners
    

vs

    
    
      4 lines, 8 spots where line changes to curve and 4 curves
    

If you have to process the fact that a line changes into a curve, then why
don't you have to process that two lines are intersecting, or 'changing' at a
90deg angle?

~~~
ars
I thought about that and mathematically it makes sense, but that's just not
how I experience it. The corner is "simple" there is nothing there for me to
process, so I don't need to notice it.

------
fuzzythinker
I don't think the answer is so binary. I think non-rounded corners convey a
feeling of simplicity. And because of that, I believe using rounded corners in
a simple design can actually be harder on the eyes. Take HN for instance. If
the corners were rounded, would it really be easier on the eyes? Well, I guess
we would need new users to verify that.

Or take Microsoft's or anyone's tile UI for instance. I think the tile UI
gives a feel of simplicity. If the tiles were rounded, would it really be
easier on the eye?

------
espeed
When I was considering what to name "bulbs" (<http://bulbflow.com>), the round
corners of the letters was one of the factors. For example, I think the round
letters in google and apple help give the brands a soothing feel.

Likewise, I think the soft edges in the python and ruby syntax are more
pleasant, and I find it irritating to switch between python and sharp-edged
languages such as JavaScript }{ -- this may be one of the reasons lisp is so
beloved :)

~~~
cousin_it
Your homepage looks like a rectangle with sharp corners. Have you considered
making them rounded? ;-)

~~~
espeed
But then it would no longer be a _golden rectangle_ :)

------
gurraman
I've found previous articles from the same source a bit thin. And I have a
personal dislike of the author after reading the comments on another article
on the site:

[http://uxmovement.com/navigation/designing-tab-navigation-
th...](http://uxmovement.com/navigation/designing-tab-navigation-the-right-
way/)

I was happily surprised as this was a pretty good read with some interesting
references (with criticisms as well). I hope the articles keep improving!

~~~
cturner
I found this one extremely thin.

There's a title that says we're "hard-wired" for rc. Then makes claim that our
aversion to corners is a result of socialisation (i.e. not hard-wired). The
case is simply ridiculous. Do parents not mind when we play with jelly-fish,
but get upset when we eat sandwiches? Do schools round the corners on
textbooks lest children suffer physical or emotional damage from those nasty
sharp corners?

There's no substance here, just vague claims and circular citations.

~~~
cobrophy
The some of the examples were pretty moronic: Is a sunburst easier to process
than a circle - well yea but you could equally have a complex object with
rounded corners that was harder to process that a triangle.

Would you trust your child with a beachball or a scissors... really?

------
josefresco
I couldn't help but think about WP7 and how they chose an angled/square
interface in "sharp" (hehe) contrast to Apple's rounded UI. Will this simple
principle hurt them?

------
zobzu
can't believe _SPIKES_ and _SCISSORS_ are compared to squares, in order to
claim rounded corners are "easier on the eye". Squares are more space
efficient and just fine on the eye. If you make a ball with 100 tiny ball
forms coming out of it, its going to be just as hard to process as spikes.

Can't believe people can even follow such thoughs. wow.

------
chipsy
If brightness at the edges is the visual cue, would you get the same effect as
rounding by fading out straight corners?

~~~
ristretto
it's an illusion created by the visual system, which will persist unless you
completely remove the corners. It's similar to why you perceive the edges on
your ceiling to be brighter.

------
mannicken
Rounded corners are friendly. It's almost as if they say "come play with us,
we won't bite or cut you".

Sharp corners on the other hand are more like "I'll cut you if you come near
me."

Perhaps this means that one can constrain user by placing sharp corners on
contextually unavailable objects, and rounded corners on available objects.

Speaking in terms of progressive disclosure, one can animate sharpness of the
corners depending on if the users need to interact with the info inside of the
corners.

Then it's more like "oh, ok, now I won't cut you -- you're cool, boxes around
me told me that, come enter me".

------
molecule
optimization: like rounding corners when piloting a vehicle: it shortens the
distance of travel. in the visual case, fewer arc degrees, fewer saccades for
the eye to traverse, fewer bytes sent down the optical nerve to the brain for
processing.

------
ristretto
There are some exaggerations there. Corners, like edges in general attract
attention and our visual system exaggerates them (but not in the retina as is
suggested). Just like gradients, round edges do not attract attention. I don't
think it's true that the computational/metabolic cost is different for the
visual system. So, use corners when you want to attract attention (that's why
arrows are jagged for example)

------
bluedanieru
The two flow diagrams don't convey the same information because the left one
lacks symmetry and singles out B. As such there is significant cognitive
overhead as you have to convince yourself they mean the same thing (and only
in this context, in most contexts I would not consider B and C to be
equivalent choices). It can be easily fixed, but wasn't.

