Yes and no--I think no treatment for truly poison eye. Some wiggle room for the raised eyebrow or slightly jaundiced eye. Also need to "try it" (not buy it) sometimes to be sure.
I find certain footwear foot-flattering across a lot of years, regardless of how the styles change.
I find certain vamps and toes and heels and volume and lots of other aspects of footwear either foot-flattering , or not, for me and it strongly drives what I will buy or not. Fortunately these aspects are often available as sub-styles within a shoe type, so there are a lot of choices out there, but it means I’ll gravitate toward a certain look for my particular foot almost more than the style update itself, and I’m not finding it, I may be stymied in updating in some areas.
I assume it’s based on my sense of foot volume, length, proportion with leg, but it’s so intrinsic for me that it may override whatever “look” might seem fine to other observers. I’ll only go for certain vamp proportions in a slipper flat, and find a lot of loafers look wrong; ballet flats have to not be typical snub-nosed but have a higher vamp and more oval toe; oxfords have to narrow in or widen out at just the right place. These looks may or may not be as much on trend as another variation that I don’t like as well on my feet. Add all that to comfort issues and it’s a tall order!
I’m guessing this approach is not that unusual and applies to all types of wardrobe items, else we’d all dress alike. But as Angie has noted, some people focus more on cutting-edge style or trying new styles and others more on traditional figure-flattery goals.
My “good” lesson from wardrobe updating and YLF is to not always be sure I can tell how the shoes will look until I try them on. That is probably for 2 reasons—an actual adaptation of my “poison eye” after styles have shifted for awhile, or just the way certain materials, trims, and color combos create the needed effect in ways I might not have imagined. That is a lot easier and more fun to do in B&M stores than experimenting by mail, though.