On the downside, tweets have to be short, leaving little room for context or differentiation. In addition, there's also a tendency to make messages "stick" by phrasing them in a strong and simplistic way. In some cases, this tendency continues in the sources the respective tweets point to.
Suppose "outsiders" (e.g. potential clients) go online and sample some of this information, would they have to be very cynical to arrive at some (or all) of the following conclusions regarding the UX community?
- UX people think they are experts on human psychology because they know that recognition trumps recall and that people can be motivated by awards and competition. OK, there's more to these issues and they do not hold true in this generality, but that does not seem to bother most of them. Maybe it's more about giving UX design a scientific touch by using what seems appropriate and ignoring the rest of scientific research.
- After all, without that scientific basis, the whole UX design thing seems to be more of a mythology than something real. That becomes obvious, e.g., when they claim that they're "designing memories". (Seen "Inception" a little too often?) Wouldn't designing user-friendly interfaces be more helpful? Or is this too profane for them?
- But then, they do not even agree on what they do. Ask two of them, what "UX design" actually is, and you are likely to get three opinions in return. How do clients know what they get when they hire a UX designer?
- For a lot of them, UX design seems to happen primarily on the web, rendering UX design more or less synonymous with web design. Could it therefore be that "UX design" is simply a new label to market old stuff/services better? And who do clients turn to when they need a redesign for their non-web ERP system, which is not about sign-up forms or conversion?
- The good news is that it should be rather inexpensive for a client to just try out, because a lot of them don't seem to be in it for the money. You can hear them talking about (or writing about, respectively), making users lives easier, providing joy of use or creating memorable experiences. But in their quest to make the world a better place, they don't even seem to think about money at all or consider what they do to be a business. This lack of consideration could backfire when a client actually wants to improve the bottom line by hiring UX designers. Could they be convinced that "making the world better" is not a goal in itself for most clients and that making money is a legitimate objective? Do they know how to handle those business issues or it simply about everyone having that warm, cozy feeling?
In the end, on the web, one has little control over who consumes the information that is put out there. But at least, the UX community should keep in mind that one is not simply preaching to the choir online. There are also parties who are interested to learn about UX but do not have much background, which can lead to them taking simplifications / partial information at face value.
And even regarding communication within the UX community, being a little more rigorous can be a good thing, e.g. clarifying the scope of arguments or defining the terms one uses. This can benefit discussions because the "UX community" is as homogenous as the "community of people who work in a hospital" (which also includes, as we all know, the janitors) and therefore you might not even be preaching to the choir when you think that you are doing just that.
3 Comments:
I think you make some valid points about the UX community when viewing their world from Twitter searches. I agree that there is a lot of confusion about what UX/UXD really is.
Most UX professionals don't want to just "make the world better" but strive to understand a client's business objectives and their audience before creating a user-friendly interface and persuading users to act on those business objectives. A good UX designer is going to integrate in with a business and not just focus on one project, ideally.
Most business are skeptical, because of the UX confusion, and only allow them to work on a single project to "prove" their value. That makes practicing designing user experiences more difficult from my perspective. Unfortunately a lot of Web designers have rebranded themselves as UXD people and don't have the training or experience as a true UX professional. You might get lucky with a great UI designer that just oozes usability - or it could be a flop. Businesses have to decided for themselves on their level of risk.
@Keith: I would agree, or at least I hope, that most UX professionals are not simply about “making the world better” without consideration for the business side of things. Sometimes, however, there seems to be a certain shyness regarding the talk about the business side of UX. This concerns the business of clients but also the fact that UX professionals are doing their job to earn a living and that it is not all just an altruistic act (if there ever was such a thing). A notable exception in that respect is a post by Elisabeth Hubert: “UX… It’s Time To Start Keeping It Real” (http://www.elisabethhubert.com/2011/02/ux-it%e2%80%99s-time-to-start-keeping-it-real/).
Regarding the “UX confusion” (aka “DTDT - defining the damn thing”), Davide 'Fol' Casali referred to it as “can of worms” earlier today (https://twitter.com/#!/folletto/status/113571449729589250), which pretty much sums it up. Even though the “UX community” may be far from agreeing on a definition, reducing UX to web design is, as you say, unfortunate and falls short of being a helpful approach.
Regarding the skepticism (or even risk) of businesses when hiring a UX designer, that will always exist to a certain degree (as with any business decision), but by being a little more rigorous in communication and not overly simplifying things, the UX community can at least help in reducing skepticism and giving clients a feeling regarding the risk (or lack of risk) that UX design actually represents in their concrete case.
A great write up.
However, to me the definitions are clear. My question is, why are we defining and re-defining definitions to fellow UX professionals.
If we're going to explain anything, it should be to new comers, stakeholders, clients and others to which we believe these explanations would bring value and buy-in.
If we're defining terminology to each other, year, after year, after year, that shows outsiders that we ourselves are not even sure about what we are talking about.
I've found myself explaining and defining terminology and design theories to a group of professional UX workers several times which has hindered production and caused pauses within development.
If we are experts, we should know our craft and every terminology that comes with it (well at least most).
To step back and re-explain these pieces to a group of people who already know what we're talking about disrupts the flow of things.
I believe this comes from a desire to declare self worth and justify what we do as a "speciality". But in doing this, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Outsiders smell the blood and know there's something not fully tempered within our craft.
I remember Mario Bourque speaking a few years ago about having a Body of Work.
This is greatly needed. And I'm not just talking about definitions from design cliques who think their "it". I'm talking about real, educational, peer-reviewed elements that are added to the BOW that we can all fall back on and not change every time some body has a question.
I understand that new comers can be a bit confused. I understand stakeholders and clients need to be educated.
I'm not talking about these groups.
I'm talking about laying a foundation and having a reference that we can all fall back on instead of making a big bowl of spaghetti and confusing the issue further with blog articles and re-hashed content because somebody thinks they're smart and wants to question something. (Then everyone jumps on board with "Nice article, I agree! Wireframes are dead")
If wireframe are dead (which they're not because I said so :) Let's agree and put a stake in the ground.
Did the def., of IA change? If so, let's agree and put a stake in the ground.
Can sketching technically be classified as design? No? Then let's agree and put a stake in the ground.
I've stepped back from writing for a while because I noticed that when I wrote an article, many similar articles would appear from the same people over and over again.
I want to make change. Real design change, I don't want to confuse the issues further for people.
For me, there is no confusion. I've made up my mind long, long ago to stay out of the community mix up and just please my employers and clients by giving them superior work.
I'm fully aware that definitions can change over time. I know our craft may be altered by the demands of technology. I know, I know, I know.
But to try to constantly draw a line every time someone writes a blog and then having to play ping pong with the issue is draining. I have removed myself from this.
Personally, I stay educated by following a very, very small and select group of references who I believe set the standards and don't confuse the issues.
There's no more time for this regurgitated nonsense. Design must happen.
Post a Comment