3 ms·
Eh, specialization is good, if you can afford it. There's real value in having dedicated QA people, security people, DBAs, Ops folk, and yes, UX people. What
by thrower123 7y ago
Eh, specialization is good, if you can afford it. There's real value in having dedicated QA people, security people, DBAs, Ops folk, and yes, UX people. What I can't help but notice is that we're trying to make everybody wear all the hats at once, in many cases these days. There's also value in being a jack-of-all-trades, or a T-shaped person, but you just can't be expert at everything, and some aspects are going to fall through the cracks.
- httpsterio 7y agoI assume you didn't read beyond the title, as your point is pretty much the basis of the article. It calls for a wider adoption of the design-thinking, users first mentality and embraces various types of ux designers. So, the article actually criticises how broad the term ux is and that we should have more specialisation and appreciate that.
- thrower123 7y agoNo, I read the whole thing. It brought to mind the protestations that eliminating dedicated QA teams at Microsoft wouldn't cause any problems, because now quality would be everyone's responsibility.