Adam Connor posted yesterday that he doesn’t believe in UX design. Steve Baty responded that much of UX design isn’t design, and pointed me to an article by Jonas Löwgren that contrasts what UX designers do and what “big-D” designers do.
I think I understand the contrasts that are being made between UX and “big-D” Design. Many UX roles actually focus on detailing the product without going through the design process that includes:
- an examination of the problem that is broad enough and abstract enough to consider solutions that seem very different from what currently exists
- a divergent ideation phase
- prototyping to explore and select solutions
The difference between your job title and what you’re expected to do all day
What if someone has those skills, but she is hired into a company or team that defines the role more narrowly? Or what if she goes into one of those narrow roles without a full grasp on the design process? I’m amazed at the carved up job titles I see at large companies. I’ve seen companies hoard the strategy and innovation within the jurisdiction of a few overworked, unavailable individuals. And advocating for best practices within an organization that hasn’t yet learned to value them can be a masochistic practice.
An example from tech comm
I have a technical communication background. Tech Comm degree programs and books by Joann Hackos and Ginny Redish will tell you that you technical writers approach documentation by creating a documentation plan, researching users, writing, testing, publishing, then repeating the process. Many, many technical writers don’t get to do all of that. By the time you do the work of advocating for the full process, breaking down silos, and making it happen for real in an organization, you’re pretty much a content strategist.
Some in the UX field use the methods above. I know UX designers who certainly do know how to design for multiple dimensions of the experience, and were hired for that ability. I know interaction designers who address more of the experience than smooth navigation through the UI. Here is a free HCI course by Scott Klemmer at Stanford that includes rapid prototyping and evaluation of multiple early ideas.
Is it mainly advanced practitioners (or those who went to great schools) who get hired to be designers proper?
Looking at Löwgren’s article, is it really true that UX designers would only observe users in order to improve current workflows? Or is it that a designer with more limited knowledge (or in a job where that is not expected from her, or on a project where exploring possible futures more fully is out of scope or budget) will glean less from fieldwork?
I agree that designers are well equipped to be architects of the big picture and communicators of the design vision. My experience is that breaking down silos is an advanced skillset, and hiring someone who has explicit responsibility for communicating the big picture, and having processes to support that, is a unusual thing that sets the top notch companies apart. I would like to know how that compares to the experiences of others.
But is it sensationalist to say that one doesn’t believe in UX design?
One of the commenters on Connor’s post said it was. I think it might be more accurate to say that some people with the job title are not actually UX designers. Either way, it’s got plenty of potential to be alienating.
I understand the need to discuss the differences between the roles and a standard for what we call design. From what I can see, the benefits of doing that are educating practitioners in order to elevate our work, helping us choose a focus and talk about our work, and helping organizations determine who they need for a given project.
But really, isn’t someone always going to rely on more than a label to know who to hire? Aren’t you always going to have to talk to someone for more than two minutes at a meetup or conference to really know what they do?
