I think there's an interesting connection here between what UX actually encompasses and how people interpret what the discipline is supposed to do. The terminology is one part of that, but there's also the gap between what something is intended to mean and what people understand it to mean.
I've explored both sides of that in a couple of pieces:
Benedikt, I share the frustration, but I'm not sure the name is where the problem lives. Human factors has been through this cycle. The Human Factors Society became the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in 1992, usability became UX, and each rename was supposed to fix how people understood the work. Stakeholders read a role by what they see it deliver. If the visible output is screens, the role gets filed as screens, whatever the title says. What changes the perception is tying the work to decisions: the feature that got cut, the error rate that dropped, the requirement that changed because of what the research found. Once people see that, the title starts to matter much less.
John, thank you very much for this insightful comment. Your option can be a real alternative. It’s much harder, though, because it requires a high level of professionalism.
This! I’ve been a UX Designer for many years and I love the theory and application of UX but have more often than not I’ve been a catchall for making things pretty across the org. I’ve found that so many companies that do not understand that there are different types of designers just like there are different types of engineers. It’s like hiring an environmental engineer when you have a software problem.
Yes! Thank you. The amount of people I’ve had to kindly ask not to tell my design partners that they’re here to “‘make the deck look pretty” is embarrassing. These are smart, talented colleagues with MFAs, decades of real design strategy 🙈
Depending on the work, experience design in itself can be too fluffy for some. “Oh they just make “feel” nice.
I’ve found it increasingly hard to find product organisations that don’t think of Design as an afterthought. It’s likely the industry I’m in, but a lot of my Design friends are finding it challenging no matter where they go… unless they go back to an agency.
I think there's an interesting connection here between what UX actually encompasses and how people interpret what the discipline is supposed to do. The terminology is one part of that, but there's also the gap between what something is intended to mean and what people understand it to mean.
I've explored both sides of that in a couple of pieces:
The Interface Is Not Only a Screen - https://beforeinterface.substack.com/p/interface-not-only-a-screen and
The Interpreter Gap - https://beforeinterface.substack.com/p/the-interpreter-gap
They might be relevant to this discussion.
Benedikt, I share the frustration, but I'm not sure the name is where the problem lives. Human factors has been through this cycle. The Human Factors Society became the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in 1992, usability became UX, and each rename was supposed to fix how people understood the work. Stakeholders read a role by what they see it deliver. If the visible output is screens, the role gets filed as screens, whatever the title says. What changes the perception is tying the work to decisions: the feature that got cut, the error rate that dropped, the requirement that changed because of what the research found. Once people see that, the title starts to matter much less.
John, thank you very much for this insightful comment. Your option can be a real alternative. It’s much harder, though, because it requires a high level of professionalism.
This! I’ve been a UX Designer for many years and I love the theory and application of UX but have more often than not I’ve been a catchall for making things pretty across the org. I’ve found that so many companies that do not understand that there are different types of designers just like there are different types of engineers. It’s like hiring an environmental engineer when you have a software problem.
Exactly! And experience design is much more about workflows and user journeys that about the color of a button.
Yes! Thank you. The amount of people I’ve had to kindly ask not to tell my design partners that they’re here to “‘make the deck look pretty” is embarrassing. These are smart, talented colleagues with MFAs, decades of real design strategy 🙈
Depending on the work, experience design in itself can be too fluffy for some. “Oh they just make “feel” nice.
I’ve found it increasingly hard to find product organisations that don’t think of Design as an afterthought. It’s likely the industry I’m in, but a lot of my Design friends are finding it challenging no matter where they go… unless they go back to an agency.
This is an industry-wide problem indeed! We need to consider design skills like any other skills. This is why I suggest using a different name.