I came across multiple different reasons why UX design should not be called design or why a UX designer is not really the designer of user experiences.
For example:
User experience (UX) cannot be designed or crafted because:
- UX depends on the user and each user is different
- UX depends on the context in which the product is used
- UX evolves over time
- ... (add reasons yourself)
Can it be that the above reasons make it very hard for us to design a good user experience but not necessarily make it impossible to do so?
Let's consider it is not possible to design, but can we influence it?
UX design/designer is a buzzword. But isn't this a good thing? Buzzwords get things sold (see cloud-computing) and is giving the field a lot of positive intention.
If we are aware of our limitations, for example: that a user's experience depends on a lot factors which we cannot directly influence), should we be concerned about using the right terms?
What other terms are available to pick from? (for field (UX design) and function (UX designer)
N.B.: I know a lot of different subquestions are included, but they all relate to my first questions. Feel free to pick all or just a few to answer.
Reference article on Smashing Magazine
Not sure of the date, but similar sentiments from the people at Zurb
Answer
You're asking a deep question but I think on somewhat flawed premise.
User experience (UX) cannot be designed or crafted because:
UX depends on the user and each user is different
Now let's define Design, I rather like Wikipedia's definition:
Design as a noun informally refers to a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawing, business process, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns) while “to design” (verb) refers to making this plan.
Are we not using plans and conventions to sculpt the experience? How is this not design?
Furthermore, design is fairly often used for fields in which the final result is subjectively valued; Graphic Design, Interior Design, aesthetics and taste are different so the "user's" experience of art, graphics, music ect are always different. I find nothing in any definition of design that requires the result to be objectively valued, which seems to be the reason your hypothetical people disregard it.
Let's consider it is not possible to design, but can we influence it?
If you are influencing the experience, that is design. Just because you don't have 100% control does not mean you are not designing. Even engineers don't have 100% control over all conditions, that doesn't make it impossible to design a system which works, despite uncontrollable inputs.
Psychology faces many similar criticisms that you bring up. People aren't always the same, so how can their brains work in a predictable way? Without going too deeply into the arguments, I think it's important to note that many psychological techniques aren't important because they always work but because they work better than a placebo. If you can prove that your design increases conversion rates better than no change or than an absurd change, you have objective evidence to support your design.
It's not impossible to design experience, even if it is impossible to convince some people that it is. Framing experience instead as "interaction" or "usability" really has the same problems, does it not? Neither of those are 100% objective either, if you argue against UX you argue that nothing subjective can be deisgned.
No comments:
Post a Comment