3 ms·
Nowhere in this article does he actually mention: -Talking to users -Interviewing users -Doing user testing -Making sacrificial prototypes This is a great
by superhuzza 8y ago
Nowhere in this article does he actually mention:
-Talking to users
-Interviewing users
-Doing user testing
-Making sacrificial prototypes
This is a great way to develop a product that people don't need, with no way of knowing how good the UX actually is. I've worked like this before, and it really does produce suboptimal results. You really shouldn't even be making wireframes before validating assumptions and needs first.
NNgroup has a lot of writing on trying to shortcut UX:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-without-user-research/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-without-user-research/
- ptttr 8y agoThe author mentions it in the first paragraph, just chooses to focus the article on the design part: "At this stage, I'm going to assume you've conducted some user research or at the very least, spoken to potential customers to test your assumptions. That way you'll be much better positioned to turn your ideas into actual design."
- superhuzza 8y agoHe added it after I made my comment on HN (I'm fairly sure it's in response to my original post): https://web.archive.org/web/20190329103120/https://www.simonmccade.com/blog/how-developers-and-tech-founders-can-turn-their-ideas-into-ui-design https://web.archive.org/web/20190329103120/https://www.simon... Anyways, it still doesn't make sense to talk to users once and then just go crazy with UI design. A lot of user research requires having prototypes (digital ones too). It's a back and forth, rather than a waterfall of talk to users, think, whip up some design.