I for my part think solving problems should be the main goal of a particular design. If it takes its cues from things done before because they serve the best then it is the way it is meant to be. Uniqueness therefore is the icing on the cake and can not be the solely purpose of design.

I think when we talk about being "unique" in design, we're really talking about the experience & interaction of the product on the whole.

For example: Paper & Clear are very unique products. Visually they're nothing new there but the interactions & gesture both apps have are unlike anything else. When the interactions and experience is nailed down, we should then tailor our design around them.

I think that's what makes a unique design.

So what you are basically saying is that if one part (IA, specifically gestures) is unique or new it doesn't matter that the other one (visuals, aesthetics) is not and the whole package is still called unique design, right?

I think that a certain sum of unique aspects in a design begets a unique experience. This sum is no specific number, and this theory may not always hold true.

Spotify is not unique in its interface, but it unifies processes and characteristics of several other services into a singular product. The experience of Spotify, for me, is different from that of iTunes, Rdio, Pandora. That could make it unique.

@benefritz of course not. What I'm saying is that they both go hand in hand: the design and experience. I'll use the same example Cole gave with Spotify.

Spotify is a music player, so is iTunes, so is Rdio. Ok yeah they might look different, have buttons in different places but I wouldn't call Spotify unique. In this example, the experience of these products is what makes them unique.

Agree, the outcome of your experience will be 'unique' if you experience something that is novel to you (may it be one specific thing or a combination of things) and it creates a lasting, distinctive feeling as a response.

It leaves a mark that cannot be replicated anywhere else or by any other product.

Okay, then I would rather speak about overall unique experiences than unique design as design is only a small part of how an app/website/service is perceived by its users. On a sidenote I like the experience with Rdio better than that with Spotify. But more people among my friends use the latter and in Europe releases happen faster.

@timothy made a good point. it's about unique experiences more than about unique design. and creating a unique experience has a lot to with authenticity, I believe. so, the question might be how to build something that feels authentic and creates a long-lasting experience?

I believe a design is 'unique' if it's the perfect matching design to its context. If every context is unique -as it is- every specifically crafted design to this context must be unique.

In a nutshell, a design is 'unique' when it solves a 'unique' problem.

@Antonio fully agree. that's what I meant with authenticity. you nailed it.

I was never a big believer that every design is meant to solve a problem, some designs just create new experiences, solving a problem always looked too much generic to me, because you can apply it to almost every job description you can think of... but... Creating new experiences, that's a completely different story. For me unique design happens when you create unique experiences. The same problem can be solved in many different ways by focusing on different things. Some architects prefer to focus on light, others on textures, others on colors... At the end it's what you feel, what the author focus was, what things are being transmitted to you.

Kinda disagree with Antonio here. I don't think solving a unique problem makes a design unique. You can take a very boring, common problem and come up with a fantastic, unheard-of solution, and you'll could still say you have a unique design. Actually, a lot of innovation in design is happening by finding new and better approaches to old problems.

@VladGeorgescu I think both solving a unique problem and solving an common problem in a unique, and effective, way yields a unique design.

You guys made me go to wikipedia, there was so much evolution in the last years in this field that you kinda have to go back to find clear answers for this. It's clearly about the direction you take, the path you choose, the things you want to focus on, and the uniqueness that comes from it. If you want to create a unique design, you need to approach design with your own point of view, your own style, your own direction, your own problems. Much like an artist.

You have to put your own problems in there.

Many people thing great design comes from smart ways of solving big problems, no, great design happens when you throw your own problems into it. People are not that smart, they need a logic motivation to get where they are now, to build what they build, to talk about what they talk... We don't just pick up a problem and solve it just because we are designers, we create new things, we feed people with new experiences because that's what we struggle with, thats what we want to change, that's what we want to see in the world.

Sure, there are interfaces or patterns that are unique when first implemented (clear, or path's navigation UI), but since design is iterative and trends are constantly changing, something that is unique in this respect is not so for long.

@Antonia and @Alex make great points, and if I may expand, design is unique when it creates a distinctive and singular emotion or experience for the user/view OR when it offers a distinctive solution to the user's problem. That problem may be abstract or even unknown to them, such as listening to music through a beautiful interface. Or it may be more concrete, such as a need to let them check the weather while offering an interface that is engaging.

But it's all subjective to the user/viewer.

To understand 'unique', I think we should also understand its antonym: common, mediocre, normal. Uniqueness in design is basically taking a 'not normal' approach in producing design elements. It could be the experience design, visual aesthetics or interaction design. It should be something that trigger user's emotions I think. I love how path designed its menu interaction. It defines unique. Simply because no one has done it before, it's beautiful visually and experience-wise, and it's a nice solution for interaction on small screen.

Like I said earlier I feel being unique in our field has very little to do with pixels and a lot to do with experience and interactions.

Path's menu system is unique because of the interaction, it was never done before on iOS. I'm pretty sure when they guys at Path were planning stages of the app, they came up with the unique interaction on paper before they even opened Photoshop.

We have to remember the products we build aren't just for the eyes, they also serve a purpose and when we find refreshing and new ways to fulfill that purpose (through UX): then we can call our design unique.

Jean-Marc Denis presented a fantastic UI on Dribbble (dribbble.com) for quickly changing the mode/capabilities on an iOS device from the lock screen. This offers a new and perfectly executed solution to a frequent user problem (its a pain in the ass to get to settings and put your phone on airline mode, for example, when this offers a quick solution via hotlink).

I think this is an excellent example of unique design. While quick links from the lock screen already exist - the iOS camera link, or similar Android capabilities (dribbble.com) that some Dribbble commenters pointed out), this approach for this particular problem for this particular device has not been taken before.

This great article essentially about Skeumorphism and Flat Design pretty much sums it up for me: blog.wells.ee