How to Pretend You Know UX When You Don't

http://thehipperelement.com/post/66097606120/10-ways-to-pretend-you-know-ux-when-you-dont

by JoelMarsh • 13 years ago

61 54 13 years ago

thehipperelement.com

dingle_thunk• 13 years ago

11. Write an article like this one.

stevecooperorg2• 13 years ago

Not a lot of concrete help, here. What am I looking for in a good UX conversation?

I would be interested in an article that explains how a good conversation proceeds. Any thought?

JoelMarsh7• 13 years ago

No, you're right. I wasn't aiming at a "be-all, end-all" post though... just highlighting some common ways people piggy-back their preferences on "UX". However, your suggestion is good and I added it to my (relatively short) list of articles-to-do. To be fair, a good UX conversation can take many forms depending on the project and context, but there are certainly key points to cover no matter what.

I have written about good ux before:

http://thehipperelement.com/post/51160057897/ux-is-a-science...

http://thehipperelement.com/post/51569751954/protip-tuesday-...

stevecooperorg2• 13 years ago

Thanks for the follow-up! These are what I was looking for. :) I look forward to your future work.

tsieling• 13 years ago

Thanks for stepping back in to clarify. I think what hurt this article the most was its emphasis on conflict over collaboration. How can people work around these habits of dressing up preferences? Telling them to 'call bullshit' is kind of empty, and it sounds like you've got experience that can inform those situations better.

runningdog• 13 years ago

The title should be "How to argue with someone who knows what they are doing when your self efficacy exceeds your ability"

nchlswu2• 13 years ago

to be fair, there are some use cases where focus groups (maybe not traditional focus groups, but focus group style discussion) can be useful. I'd generally still agree with that comment as well though

jonahx3• 13 years ago

JoelMarsh,

I enjoyed this article and agreed with all the points. However, I am calling bullshit on the title "Experience Architect"

JoelMarsh7• 13 years ago

That has been my title for several years. If you can be a User Experience Designer or an Information Architect (both well-established job titles), what is wrong with "(User) Experience Architect" if you do both?

jonahx3• 13 years ago

To be honest, both "User Experience Designer" and "Information Architect," especially the latter, have a ring of bullshit, but they are at least in common enough use that I know approximately what the job actually entails (again less so with information architect).

So when you make the change to "Experience Architect," dropping the "User" prefix, it becomes vague to the point where I literally had no idea what you did for living, although I guessed from the article's content that you worked in UX somehow, presumably designing user interfaces or consulting about them. But as someone who (rightly) rails against vagueness in marketing and against bullshit that masquerades as expertise, I would think you'd be averse to a title which trades clarity for puffery.

markdown• 13 years ago

I dislike "Architect" being used in this way. Programmers particularly like the word.

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't designing buildings in the real world, you aren't an architect, and have just co-opted that title in an attempt to appear more that you really are.

raverbashing2• 13 years ago

This is bad, comes across as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" rant

"There is no such thing as a “design perspective.”"

Hello? There's a whole theory of design: grids, colors, hierarchy, typography, etc. It's not as simple as "drawing something pretty" as most may think. This may of course clash with UX and a good professional will know how to balance them. (And of course some may pull this card as to push their personal preferences, as developers pull the "this can't be done" card often for the same reasons)

About 7: yes, it's a bad idea if you do it blindly, but it may often be your best guess. Adapt to your situation and check if it works for you.

JoelMarsh7• 13 years ago

I love this comment, thanks for writing it. There is a DEFINITELY a theory and a method to design. I would never say otherwise, and you're absolutely right.

The second part of your comment was precisely what I was getting at: people who hijack "UX" or the "design perspective" as a way of justifying their preferences without any further discussion.

I literally saw this happen the day I wrote this post. They offered no other explanation than "The design perspective says..."

If you're working with a grid, you can certainly discuss how something fits or doesn't fit, or works within that grid. Colours have meaning, hierarchy is crucial in aesthetics and usability, and typography is a whole discipline of its own. I wholeheartedly agree.

If someone knew all of that and used it to justify their choices, they wouldn't need to co-opt the "design perspective" as their argument of choice.

It's when someone says that "Blue is the best colour for links" or "the 960 grid is the most usable" or "sans serif is the most readable" — from a design perspective — that we have a problem.

Thanks again.

nilliams• 13 years ago

If a person can backup or explain their use of terms like 'the design perspective' with appropriate nuances, it's not bullshit.

If they can't, then sure, they're bullshitting you.

That's not to say the simplified version of the rule isn't useful though. It can save us from forever explaining x years of experience to everyone we encounter, as well as potentially confusing people new to the subject. Teachers do this a lot, intentionally.

greg5green• 13 years ago

This really goes for “The research says…” as well. There is definitely good, peer-reviewed UX research out there, but if someone was well versed in it, they would say the conclusion of that research as fact instead of "The research says this is good".

TelmoMenezes• 13 years ago

The problem is that "design perspective" implies that you indeed mean that you are good at "drawing something pretty" or following trends. Otherwise, everything that involves building things to solve problems is design. In fact, I never understood what the clear distinction between design and engineering is. What is a "non-design perspective"? Trying to do something that doesn't work?

Yes, I know there's a theory of design -- I believe there are several, actually -- but I honestly don't care if you are unable to explain where this theory comes from, how it's validated and so on. And I apply the same criteria to engineering and science, by the way. Otherwise its just arguing from authority.

mostlystatic• 13 years ago

I suppose a non-design perspective would focus on implementing features rather than how the user can benefit from them most easily.

Two sites may allow you to do the same thing, but one of them may be superior from a design perspective.

A site that is stable, maintainable and easy to implement would be superior from an engineering perspective.

The design perspective depends on engineering aspects, since the user experience would be bad if the site is broken.

jdmichal• 13 years ago

An apprentice knows all the rules. A master knows when to break them.

annnnd• 13 years ago

Great article but terrible (misleading) title. :)

Unfortunately, the info is mostly helpful in hindsight. One must have had an experience with a so-called "UX expert" to really appreciate this article, but I'm not sure it would have helped me in occasions I had the clash with some self-appointed UX "guru"... But it was a fun read nevertheless and very very very true! Thanks!

meerita2• 13 years ago

I love when people list some fallacies online. It's a good reminder of the practices you need to avoid. This article does that in a funny way but the problem i see is the lack of solutions that the author offers in it. There's little to learn in there, in my humble opinion, for any person interested in UX.

This article would be awesome if every point is related in the sense of situations. For example, you're in situation A where you probably will need to use the infamous X argument, don't use it, try to argue Y better. That explains both problem and best exit and, also denotes the process you need to do for making a seriously good UX.

jbeja• 13 years ago

Is a rant what would you expect?

meerita2• 13 years ago

I said what I would expect. You can't tell someone what is bad if you can't say what would be the good side of it.

saltvedt• 13 years ago

Perhaps even more infuriating than this is the notion that by virtue of being a user of a system, the user knows how the UX should be.

It's often repeated that "developers don't know UX", but some has taken that to mean that UX/UI decisions should be taken by anyone other programmers.

nchlswu2• 13 years ago

and as a 'UX Designer', it's hard to avoid this. I loathe when peers use rationale, but I understand.... because as a designer, ou're expected to use your experience as a guide you

prof_hobart• 13 years ago

Never use jargon if you can help it.

Funny in the context of an article peppered with the term "UX". I know what it means, and I suspect most people on HN know what it means, but does the average "client, boss, and colleague" know what it means? If not, then it's jargon.

Oh, and "eye tracking, card sorting, .. , A/B testing". Ditto.

mattkevan• 13 years ago

Extract the UX part and the article could be a primer on how to blag your way in pretty much anything.

That's not to say I disagree with what it says. As a UX designer I've been on the receiving end of most of these - and probably perpetrated a few as well.

(Slightly off-topic: I don't think the term Information Architecture is helpful even though that's what I do. IA, UX, UE, EA, whatever - it's all design. Though Information Architect or Experience Architect does sound fancier than just Designer.)

Design perspectives are vital as good design is about finding creative solutions to problems, best practices and patterns are useful as they help avoid common mistakes and research and testing is useful for refining and developing existing ideas.

However, the main difference between a blagger and a real expert is that the latter is able to articulate where and why each rule, guideline, finding etc. should be followed or broken.

nextstep• 13 years ago

This is terrible, it's just a list of 10 things NOT to do. I didn't learn anything about UX.

alextingle• 13 years ago

Useless AND insufferably smug.

coldcode3• 13 years ago

Sometimes I laugh when I see articles like this. Yelling at people is so effective.

Before there was UX there was UI. UX is a modern concept that basically came with the web. Yet people designed effective interfaces in applications long before the web (which is why it was called UI). Back in the 80's the idea that artist type people could design interfaces was not common at all, in fact it was more of a programmer speciality (today people laugh at this). The point was that you were trying to identify how people could effectively interact with your application and generally you had to do that in code. There was no Photoshop to draw pictures in. I used Hypercard in those days when I needed to show how I thought it should work to product managers or other programmers. Then I did the implementation. In those days you usually had to figure it out yourself as their were few resources to even look at.

Today the concept of UX is very different and few UX people would ever consider implementation part of their job of even consider it in their design work.

nekopa2• 13 years ago

On a related note: I read somewhere that your HyperCard methodology was the reason PowerPoint was created- to explain complicated processes visually, so engineers could talk to business people. It's sad to see where that ended up.

coldcode3• 13 years ago

I actually worked on Persuasion which shipped before Powerpoint. That category (presentation software) was another late 80's "invention". Hypercard was an amazing product that sadly died young.

seanmcdirmid2• 13 years ago

Before there was UX there was UI. UX is a modern concept that basically came with the web. Yet people designed effective interfaces in applications long before the web (which is why it was called UI).

In a submission about design bullshitting, nice job (by Po's law, I can't tell if you are serious or not)! UX has been around for far longer than the web. The term UX gained popularity in the 90s to emphasize that its not just about the visuals.

These days, things are a bit more specialized: we have visual designers whose primary tool is Illustrator (a few are still crazy pixel-based photoshoppers, but most have moved onto vector), but then we also have lots of interaction designers whose primary tool is visio and powerpoint (many designers in web do both and might even code, but this doesn't work for complex products). Most programmers still don't get design and can't really tell the difference.

coldcode3• 13 years ago

I'm talking about the 1980's, the 90's was the transition period to UX from UI. In the early days the visuals wasn't much since the OS's had so little to work with. Basically we were inventing what an interface was in those days. Most application categories (besides the web) were first seen in the 80's.

eof• 13 years ago

Came looking for little nuggets of wisdom; being a programmer that has mostly had other programs as my 'users'.

Left with nothing more than having spent some time watching the OP pat his own back.

(I Still don't know how to pretend I know UX or feel any better at sniffing out fakers)

GhotiFish• 13 years ago

This is my feeling as well. I wanted to have a more rational foundation for how I design my interface, but this is a list of pet peeves, this does me no good!

300bps• 13 years ago

This article is spot on. It is applicable not just to designers but to anything web-related in general that is not a hard science. I've seen these techniques used most often in discussions of design and SEO.

I am amazed at how many times I've heard from charlatans, "We have data that shows..." which is analogous to your "The research says..." Then when you ask for the non-existent data it turns into a "don't look behind the curtain" discussion straight from the Wizard of Oz.

Don't let the angry designers commenting here make you think that your post isn't accurate. It is. I suspect a lot of people erroneously think you're talking about them merely because they've never had the displeasure of working with a true fraud who uses these techniques constantly.

mattyfo• 13 years ago

The author of this article failed in stating up front a basic assumption about UX which is that you need to be making your decisions from a position that is informed by quantitative and qualitative observations about the actual users.

When you collect the data you can test things 'from a design perspective' and 'best practice' standpoint and see if those hold true. Any other way and you're making stuff and justifying your decisions after the fact.

If you're not talking to users then you're not doing USER experience design, you're just making up an experience design. See Whitney Hess: http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2011/04/23/youre-not-a-user-expe...

rfnslyr• 13 years ago

How is this @ +50 votes? Why do people vote on these articles? I've seen awesome articles floating at ~10 with 0 comments a lot of the time.

timme• 13 years ago

I'll take data over bullshit articles like this any day.

grumblestumble2• 13 years ago

So let's break this down:

1) "From a design perspective" - bad wording, true, but the underlying idea is "from a user-centric perspective" as opposed to "from an implementation, engineering, or data-centric perspective". The latter still being unfortunately the driving force behind most interfaces, any designer will need to use some form of this phrase fairly frequently in most real-world situations.

2) "Best Practices say" - again, this can be misused, but heuristic and expert evaluations of an interface are the bread and butter of most designers' toolset. A/B testing, on-site user testing, user interviews, et al, are all great tools, but in many cases, they're luxuries. When you're part of a small team trying to hit a MVP, starting with baseline best practices is the pragmatic way to go. Insisting on reinventing every dropdown or tabset is a sure fire way to singlehandedly sink a startup.

3) "Let's use an analogy" - generic, applicable to any problem-solving endeavor. This has nothing to do with UX. This is where the whole article started really stinking of linkbait.

4) Jargon - industry jargon is a powerful way of communicating specific, granular concepts to a peer audience. Yes, if you're using UX jargon when presenting your ideas to an outside audience, you're doing it wrong. But saying jargon is wrong is just dumb, and once again, jargon is hardly a UX-specific phenomenon.

5) "The research says" - let's just repeat #2 and blather on some more

6) Again, see #2.

7) Ok, so the basic idea here is that the True Pure UX involves coming up with brilliant new concepts in a vacuum. Leveraging successful ideas is verboten. I'm not sure how this guy could get anything done without the support of a 20-person UX team, with the other 19 people covering for his theoretical brilliance.

8) To be perfectly honest, I don't think I've ever heard the term focus groups used by anyone in the UX field, and I've been at it since '98. But you need 10 bullets on that list, I guess.

9) Probably the only point on this list that I agree with, and something I'd never seen until very recently. The concept of "stupid users" has obviously been entrenched in the development side since Day 1, hence the need for UX in the first place. But it's definitely disturbing to start seeing supposed user advocates start to toss this one around.

10) Big numbers are bad unless they're the right big numbers. Gotcha, mate. Misusing statistics and measurements is obviously an epidemic confined solely to the UX sphere, and not a basic human foible.

Demiurge2• 13 years ago

Ok, so as someone who has used the "design perspective" to avoid verbalizing something I simply understood to be true intuitively, what are good resources for understanding the theory and explaining UX choices?

JoelMarsh7• 13 years ago

I respect the fact that you asked. :)

There are lots. Not to be self-serving, but I post all the best links I find on www.thehipperelement.com, if you feel like scanning through them.

But a few, off the top of my head are:

- www.alistapart.com - http://www.uie.com/articles/ (run by Jared Spool, I think) - www.smashingmagazine.com is a bit hit and miss, but what they lack in quantity they make up for in quantity. - www.unbounce.com - www.goodui.com is a good, quick, visual reference for best practices. You could make a career just from enforcing some of those, haha.

And these two books would lay a good foundation in general:

- "Web Form Design" by LukeW (his blog is also interesting) - "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug

If you only spent a few hours on those you'd be ahead of the game. And if there is anything you feel is missing from the world, let me know on Twitter and maybe I can write something about it. @HipperElement

Hopefully that helps.

Demiurge2• 13 years ago

Thank you, I'm actually prepared to spend a lot more than a few hours. I wish this was integrated in Computer Science programs. Not being able to objectively justify some of my choices has been pretty traumatic and your list nicely summarized why :)

How to Pretend You Know UX When You Don't

Related Stories