The copy-paste problem
Open any European B2B software product and you will see San Francisco. The same rounded corners, the same friendly illustrations, the same pastel color palettes, the same chatty microcopy. European tech has imported not just Silicon Valley's business models but its entire aesthetic and interaction philosophy.
This is a problem. Not because American design is bad — it is often excellent — but because design carries values, and those values are not always ours.
Design as embedded values
Every design decision encodes assumptions about the relationship between the system and the person using it. Silicon Valley's design language encodes specific values:
- Casual familiarity. First-name basis, friendly tone, conversational interfaces. This reflects a culture that values informality and accessibility.
- Engagement maximization. Patterns optimized for time-on-screen, notifications that pull you back, infinite scrolls. The user is a resource to be captured.
- Individual empowerment. The "you" at the center of everything. Your feed, your recommendations, your dashboard.
These values make sense for consumer social products built in California. They do not necessarily make sense for European defense systems, enterprise software, or public infrastructure.
What a European design language might look like
I am not proposing a manifesto or a style guide. I am suggesting that we should be intentional about the values our design communicates. Some starting points:
Formality where it serves clarity. Not every interface needs to be friendly. Sometimes precision and formality communicate respect for the seriousness of the task.
Restraint over engagement. European design could lead in building interfaces that respect the operator's time and attention rather than competing for it. Notify only when it matters. Show only what is needed.
Collective context over individual personalization. In operational and institutional settings, the team's shared understanding matters more than individual preferences. Design for shared situational awareness, not personal dashboards.
Transparency as default. Europe already leads in data privacy regulation. Our design language should embody the same principle — making system behavior visible, explainable, and auditable.
Sovereignty is not just about where the servers are. It is about whose values are embedded in the interfaces people use every day.
Why this matters for defense
In defense especially, design language is not trivial. The tools we build shape how operators think, decide, and act. If those tools are built on interaction patterns designed for engagement rather than effectiveness, we have a strategic problem.
Europe is investing billions in defense technology. It is time we invested in a design philosophy that matches our values and our operational reality. Not as an act of cultural protectionism, but as an act of clarity about what we are building and why.