Imperfection Aesthetics: A Natural Justification for Awarding 100% in Design Assessments
Summary
Imperfection Aesthetics: A Natural Justification for Awarding 100% in Design Assessments. Imperfection aesthetics is an approach to fairer marking in the humanities, especially in design and aer. By actively allowing for imperfection aesthetics, design markers are more free to bridge fairness gaps and award up to 100% for a creative project.
Click the reference box below to copy the citation for this webpage:
Khara, A. (2026) Imperfection Aesthetics: A Natural Justification for Awarding 100% in Design Assessments. Available at: https://www.fairness.design/imperfection-aesthetics (Accessed: ).
Reference copied to clipboard
Abstract
Emphasis on achieving “perfection” in assessments (essays, practicals, portfolios etc.) is both persistent and perilous in higher education. While some subjects and testing methods — mathematics and physical sciences, and MCQs — make it possible to achieve perfect scores, most assessments in design are qualitative outputs with subjective evaluations. Thus, most design students never achieve 100%. Yet there persist expectations, externally from tutors and within from students, to attain maximum marks for design assessments such as app interfaces or exhibition posters. It is challenging enough for experienced tutors to justify giving 100% to professional practitioners’ works, leave aside undergraduates. Since perfect scores then are seldom realised, or realistic, the research asks: (i) When are designs sufficient to constitute the highest mark in the rubrics? (ii) What are the implications for having marking bands that are never awarded by tutors? (iii) How can students confidently state, ‘my design is finished to its best possible version?’ Imperfection aesthetics is useful here. It reframes the definition of “100%” from impossible or immeasurable limits of output (i.e., the perfect design) to more humanised evaluations of top-quality design. This is achieved by prioritising and allowing for natural imperfections as benchmarks of work otherwise well done. And in doing so, it consequently permits awarding 100% to deserving assessment submissions that otherwise might not have been marked so, even though the score-band exists in the rubrics. Thus, imperfection aesthetics becomes an approach to fairer marking in the humanities while addressing perfectionist pursuits, which ironically result in students always falling short. By actively allowing for imperfection aesthetics instead, markers are more free to bridge gaps between awarding distinctions, and awarding 100%. Finally, students are also better prepared for the natural realities of design and the intrinsic shortcomings within production that, in fact, add to the aesthetic appreciation of world-building.
1. The Problem
In design education, top-tier marks (90–100%) are rarely awarded. Unlike subjects with objective correctness e.g. mathematics and physics, design assessments are often constrained by subjective judgments about ‘flawlessness.’ This can lead to systemic grade deflation, inconsistent marking across modules, demoralisation among design students, and perceptions that excellence in the creative disciplines is capped at specific grade boundaries despite rubrics including 90–100% marking bands. Yet within design theory and professional design contexts, perfection is seldom, if ever, the standard or goal. Several influential aesthetic traditions such as Wabi-sabi, Shodō, Kintsugi, Mottainai, Craft Theory, and Critical Making, position imperfection as a core value and sign of authenticity, care, and active presence within design. In other words, top-tier design is not flawless but rather humanised and functional design. So why aren’t design students able to earn a top-tier mark? What assumptions or fears are markers harbouring? And how might imperfection aesthetics offer a corrective rebalancing to stigmas around giving design works a mark of 100%?
2. Aesthetic Imperfections vs. Pure Negligence
Outdated aesthetic traditions and Platonic ideals treat creativity as approaching but never reaching perfection, much like an exponential curve that nears but never touches 100%. This is owing to numerous assumptions around marking design works, including (i) inherited academic norms in design and art; (ii) markers needing to leave room for more improvement; (iii) confusions around taste and judgement; (iv) fear of accusations about favouritism; and (v) viewing design, art, and related disciplines as inherently immeasurable.
Modern imperfection aesthetic theories can help markers overcome such assumptions. This is because imperfection aesthetics accounts for all design works containing irregularities, roughness, variations, and idiosyncrasies. These qualities are not necessarily negligence in the work, but rather indicative of the making process itself: i.e., the same assessment can be subject to varying material responsiveness; engagement with tools and environments; and experimentation that is rooted in past or lived experiences — all of which lead to a diversity of solutions. Such diversity must not become the subject of penalties just because the design diverges from what a marker might consider appropriate. Instead, markers must draw distinctions between natural imperfections that come about from the design process itself, and the act of negligence which is anathema to design and must be penalised.
Negligence is characterised by lack of intention, poor making without reflection, ignoring the brief, unsafe or unethical decisions, and the absence of implementing feedback and further iteration. Negligence is absence of intention, whereas aesthetic imperfections are often the demonstrable results of intentionality. With this distinction, markers can assess works with greater fairness and confidence in awarding the highest marking band on offer.
3. Design Perfection ≠ Design Flawlessness
Aesthetics is a key reason why design assessments lose marks. But while such penalties are justifiable, especially in light of negligence, imperfection aesthetics offers a counter for when up to 100% is not awarded because the design is not “perfect”. In such cases, markers can utilise imperfection aesthetics to balance against subjectivity. The notion that design = perfection comes from outdated modernist ideals, including Bauhaus; Ulm; industrial optimisation. Imperfection aesthetics, however, approaches design not as perfection-oriented in the absolutist sense but as fitness to purpose and usability, which in turn generate meaningful and fulfilling experiences. This is because imperfection aesthetics acknowledges the realities of design:
Leveraging imperfection aesthetics in assessing design works is thus useful for marking more fairly, and also reflects how design works in professional settings. This is because user research, iterations, and prototyping are messy yet necessary processes involving ambiguity; negotiating with creative tools, materials, and environments; and students’ personal responsiveness to constraints. We can therefore start reconsidering design works as deserving 100% when:
4. Wabi-Sabi and Shodō in Assessing Design Works
Wabi-sabi is an aesthetic framework in which errors from natural and human imperfection are understood as visible traces of growth, use, decay, and time. Shodō is the practice of Japanese calligraphy done in ways that embrace dynamic gestures, controlled irregularities, the one-takeness of a stroke, intentional risk, and presence and intuition. This matters in design whereby iteration is unavoidable and failure is informative for the student rather than viewed as a penalty. In both aesthetic frameworks, irregularities in surfaces, form, and finish are valued because they reveal (i) material behaviours; (ii) human-hand presence; and (iii) creative contingencies as part of design processes rather than failures or shortcomings.
Crucially, these frameworks do not excuse poor workmanship and negligence; instead, they distinguish between negligent flaws and meaningful variations that emerges through attentive making. This is because in design, function and precision remain essential. Yet design always operates within parameters of uncertainty: (i) materials and mediums behave unpredictably; (ii) users engage in unanticipated ways; and (iii) makers draw from their own unique perspectives and experiences.
Wabi-sabi and Shodō reframe these as intrinsic to design practices and pedagogy rather than as shortcomings to be penalised. Wabi-sabi and Shodō thus celebrate creative encounters between human intentions, material behaviours, and natural forces in ways that approach imperfection as part of the assessment process. As a result, perfection-as-uniformity is rejected in favour of imperfections that occur alongside making. Consequently, design outputs deserving of 100% can be reframed as those embracing the realities of creative intentions, together with material responsiveness, risk-taking, natural imperfections, and human experiences, while eliminating negligence. This is keenly reflected in professional design in the working world.
5. Design Criteria that Emphasises Imperfection
Professional design, particularly in industry, prioritises outputs so as to fulfil outcomes: movie posters to fill seats, logos to help in brand recognition, apps to facilitate banking etc. Outcome is paramount to deeming a design successful, and real-world design fulfils outcomes through outputs that embrace imperfections: hand lettering utilises controlled irregularity; UX prototyping is iterative and messy; product design values functionality; architecture valorises material patina and weathering — all of which are readily observed in practices such as Wabi-sabi and Shodō.
Amazon Alexa: Voice tones reflect emotion or hesitation, and UI animations are smooth and not perfectly linear, e.g. in Kindle page turns and smart device feedback. These details soften the machine edge and build emotional engagement.
Duolingo: Irregularities in character design, and slight randomness in responses, animations, and encouragement. Employs imperfect praise language that feels human, not scripted, and therefore approachable.
Google Material Design: Button animations and transitions include easing curves that mimic physical resistance, not robotic precision. Google Assistant adds small hesitations to voice interactions that are deliberately non-robotic.
Such imperfections are a form of digital Wabi-sabi and Shodō that make designs feel organic and responsive. Furthermore, managing imperfections aligns with industry practice and does not contradict professional standards. The emphasis on imperfection thus moves focus away from defunct assumptions of flawless design towards realistic and fairer marking rubrics which account for tolerances.
6. Tolerance in Making, and Therefore in Marking
Tolerance is a key aspect in all design works. This is because tolerance allows for natural and intentional variations, i.e., normal / acceptable deviations which occur within the realities and constraints of making and materials. For instance, joints may have a tolerance of ±0.2mm, fabrics tend to shrink, weaves can be irregular, fixtures can use glue instead of nails, and apps can have buttons that do not cater to all thumb sizes. Penalising variations, therefore, that do not stem from negligence but from messy making processes and lived experiences is unfair. Recognising these tolerances in student works, rather than penalising and compelling their elimination, can provide a principled basis for evaluating creative work as complete and therefore deserving of up to and including 100%.
Imperfection aesthetics embraces tolerance, i.e., an ability to perceive beauty outside idealised standards. This means accepting irregularity, valuing the rough edge, recognising human presence, and accounting for transience and incompleteness in design works, while respecting functionality and beauty and, importantly, penalising any negligence. By adopting aesthetic tolerance assessors can recognise any work as being ‘complete’ either through or despite its imperfections, thereby making 100% achievable. This helps to counter the myth perfection = flawlessness, while also reframing marking stigmas.
Consequently, if imperfections are the result of a student’s personal and considered creative choices, then that work should deserve to be awarded 100%. This is because design perfection, or 100%, has been reframed as aligning with the assessment’s learning objectives (which include experimentation, uniqueness of expression, iteration, and any reduction or elimination of negligence) and not ‘flawlessness’ which is often subjectively framed.
7. Conclusion
Imperfection aesthetics offers a strong counter-balance to stigmas around awarding design works 100%. This is because imperfections are often natural, intentional, and meaningful integrations of robust design processes. Accordingly, a student’s aesthetic judgement must not be immediately penalised as a flaw just because it differs from a marker’s perception of ‘flawless design’. Instead, a fairer assessment system allows for students to achieve 100% through engaging with all of the marking rubrics, rather than hoping to meet criteria based on subjective and outmoded approaches. By introducing imperfection aesthetics into our marking calculus, we need not withhold marks of 100%. Frameworks like Wabi-sabi and Shodō offer pedagogical and philosophical grounding for markers to award design students 100% while also accounting for and penalising negligence in a fair manner.
8. Bibliography
Context and Copyright
© 2025 Dr Arjun Khara. All rights reserved. This paper is based on a research poster that is currently being presented at the 2026 LITE Conference at the University of Leeds. The work explores how design assessments can earn up to 100% by leveraging imperfection aesthetics as a framework to justify students’ design decisions and counter-balance preconceived notions about awarding full marks to creative outputs. Content on this page is original research by Dr Arjun Khara and may not be reproduced, redistributed, or adapted without explicit permission. This page documents ongoing research. This work is informed by broader conversations in design theory, anthropology, and ethics. To protect the originality of this work a public timestamp has been created by publishing this page on 22 November 2025. Reproduction requires written permission. The concepts outlined here are part of an ongoing research programme and forthcoming academic publications.