5 ms·

A comprehensive list of UX design methods and deliverables

123 points by davesailer 6y ago

EFFALO 6y ago
can experiences be designed? or are they co-produced with the service/system?
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Yes you can design different experiences on top of the service/system. Customer support, packaging, onboarding process, flows etc.
- csours 6y ago
  Everything is UX. UX starts with underlying data analysis - see Taxonomy and Card Sorting on the linked page. It continues through the development process. It doesn't directly comment on service implementation, but it does help specify what those services need to deliver
- torwayburger 6y ago
  I think so. Some examples of places where this has impact but is often overlooked could be when you change car brand. Or if you go from one phone OS to another. The UX features will be slightly different, and there will be a learning curve. Pulling down to update on feeds/pages/apps is as natural as clicking icons by now.
- cnorthwood 6y ago
  Co-production is a form of design, no? You design within constraints and it should be happening in tandem with the development of the system so they both feed into one another.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Every time the term “UX” is dropped, what follows is incomprehensible vagueness dressed in bizarre jargon that would make postmodern grievance studies quiver in awe. > Value Proposition Canvas: > A reductive process in the early stages of product definition that maps out the key aspects of it: what it is, who it is for, and when/where it will be used. Helps the team narrow down and create consensus around what the product will be. Is this perhaps a transformative critical framework that investigates a reductive analysis of social cohesion factors that lead to an embedded matrix of exploratory identity formation?
- heyn05tradamu5 6y ago
  I like how the example you used actually uses plain language "what it is, who it is for, and when/where it will be used", but because you approached this with the mindset that you're right and UX people dumb, you failed to see that and disproved your own assertion.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    There is always plain language in between terms such as “reductive process”, “value proposition canvas”, and “product definition”, of which I have no idea what they mean.
    - heyn05tradamu5 6y ago
      The section you quoted defines exactly what it means by product definition - and the entire thing is a definition of value proposition canvas. If you can't understand the meaning of these things when they're clearly defined then I don't know how to help you.
    - mvuijlst 6y ago
      A value proposition canvas is a canvas (could be a poster, could be a whiteboard, whatever) on which you put what value you propose to deliver. A reductive process is a process where you take many ideas and boil them down to fewer ideas. The opposite would be something like a brainstorm, where you try to get more ideas. And I don't really think you actually have no idea what "product definition" may mean. :)
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        And then it doesn't make sense. In your interpretation, a proposal of a value one attempts to deliver is a process wherein one takes many ideas, and boils them down to fewer ideas. That is not what the meaning of the term “proposal” is; no one uses it to mean a process wherein many ideas are reduced to fewer. A proposal is simply stating one's plans, not a discourse. > And I don't really think you actually have no idea what "product definition" may mean. :) I normally have an idea, but not in this context, as it speaks of stages of a product definition. A definition does not have “stages”
intrepidhero 6y ago
I am disturbed by the number of times "user" is replaced with "consumer" and "computer program" with "company" or "brand". Language is important for keeping the goal in sight. There is a science to designing human computer interactions. But there is a subtle difference between wielding that science in the service of the humans in those interactions (users) and wielding it solely in the name of increasing the company's bottom line. The former will lead to a better product, will improve customer satisfaction and lead to sales. The later leads to a dystopian, exploitative relationship, even when it increases revenue. The difference is the goal: Serving users or serving shareholders. The language of UX design needs to be carefully crafted to keep a the focus on empathy with users.
- asoneth 6y ago
  I definitely agree with the sentiment. Note that there has been debate in the field about the term "user" for decades. Some people object because it is ambiguous, some because it reduces people to their interaction with your software, others due to the connotation with drug use. (For example: https://medium.com/microsoft-design/we-have-customers-not-users-1f208f16ad3a https://medium.com/microsoft-design/we-have-customers-not-us...) I've had people replace instances of one with the other in my documents, so I don't read too much into it these days.
- erydo 6y ago
  This view is over-simplistic. Many—perhaps most—products are designed to serve more than one kind of user. Obvious example: building an e-commerce platform. The merchant is a kind of user. The customer is a different kind of user on that same platform. Yes, they're humans, but they're not doing the same thing. Any B2B or B2C type product will have at least two very distinct roles like that. And in those cases, arguing that everyone is just a person as a sort of moral position is destructively vague. It's more difficult to serve someone's needs if you can't start to narrow down what they're trying to accomplish. While I totally agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't conflate personhood identically with their role in a product, solving useful problems does require that you de-scope and discretize the interactions a bit.
- buckminster 6y ago
dgb23 6y ago
I have very little direct experience with the UX specialization, although one could argue that everyone is somehow involved in it, I never worked directly with a UX Designer[0]. If you squint, you can recognize this approach as an iterative specification for a product or a set of related products. Some interesting take-aways for me: - UX seems to put a lot of value on visualizing data, thought and processes in different forms. They range from simple, ad-hoc, to quite involved. - A huge part of this work revolves around communication and testing: getting the right feedback and then analyzing it. - In software, they should probably be directly talking to engineers and UI designers, to provide the right set of problems to solve. This is maybe a good way to cut off management hierarchies that understand neither (users and implementation). [0] I've also seen the term "Engineer", "Architect" and others associated with it, but from talking to a UX "Architect" from a large company, I found that the best description would be "Designer" or "Director", because even though there are sometimes data-driven inputs their bread and butter seem to be very design, and communication focused. Maybe "Analyst" is a good term too.
- beckingz 6y ago
  There is a lot of value in visualizing information. Especially if you need to communicate that information with design, product, and engineering stakeholders who understand visual information better.
  - dgb23 6y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. I also think the visualization space is vast and under-explored. Especially in the "hardest" cases like taming complexity, very abstract concepts and discovering new ideas.
Geminidog 6y ago
This is just your standard formalization of a process to make it sound more professional and seem more legitimate. It's similar to agile.
JacobSeated 6y ago
I am a multimedia designer, by education, and I tend to still dislike some of these methods. Often I find them to just be a distraction from getting actual work done. Does not mean I would not use some of them, but I really prefer to just get the work done.
hendry 6y ago
No mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law ? I call bullshit.

123 points by davesailer 6y ago

EFFALO 6y ago

can experiences be designed? or are they co-produced with the service/system?

ThomPete 6y ago
Yes you can design different experiences on top of the service/system. Customer support, packaging, onboarding process, flows etc.
csours 6y ago
Everything is UX. UX starts with underlying data analysis - see Taxonomy and Card Sorting on the linked page. It continues through the development process. It doesn't directly comment on service implementation, but it does help specify what those services need to deliver
torwayburger 6y ago
I think so. Some examples of places where this has impact but is often overlooked could be when you change car brand. Or if you go from one phone OS to another. The UX features will be slightly different, and there will be a learning curve. Pulling down to update on feeds/pages/apps is as natural as clicking icons by now.
cnorthwood 6y ago
Co-production is a form of design, no? You design within constraints and it should be happening in tandem with the development of the system so they both feed into one another.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Every time the term “UX” is dropped, what follows is incomprehensible vagueness dressed in bizarre jargon that would make postmodern grievance studies quiver in awe. > Value Proposition Canvas: > A reductive process in the early stages of product definition that maps out the key aspects of it: what it is, who it is for, and when/where it will be used. Helps the team narrow down and create consensus around what the product will be. Is this perhaps a transformative critical framework that investigates a reductive analysis of social cohesion factors that lead to an embedded matrix of exploratory identity formation?

heyn05tradamu5 6y ago
I like how the example you used actually uses plain language "what it is, who it is for, and when/where it will be used", but because you approached this with the mindset that you're right and UX people dumb, you failed to see that and disproved your own assertion.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  There is always plain language in between terms such as “reductive process”, “value proposition canvas”, and “product definition”, of which I have no idea what they mean.
  - heyn05tradamu5 6y ago
    The section you quoted defines exactly what it means by product definition - and the entire thing is a definition of value proposition canvas. If you can't understand the meaning of these things when they're clearly defined then I don't know how to help you.
  - mvuijlst 6y ago
    A value proposition canvas is a canvas (could be a poster, could be a whiteboard, whatever) on which you put what value you propose to deliver. A reductive process is a process where you take many ideas and boil them down to fewer ideas. The opposite would be something like a brainstorm, where you try to get more ideas. And I don't really think you actually have no idea what "product definition" may mean. :)
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      And then it doesn't make sense. In your interpretation, a proposal of a value one attempts to deliver is a process wherein one takes many ideas, and boils them down to fewer ideas. That is not what the meaning of the term “proposal” is; no one uses it to mean a process wherein many ideas are reduced to fewer. A proposal is simply stating one's plans, not a discourse. > And I don't really think you actually have no idea what "product definition" may mean. :) I normally have an idea, but not in this context, as it speaks of stages of a product definition. A definition does not have “stages”

intrepidhero 6y ago

I am disturbed by the number of times "user" is replaced with "consumer" and "computer program" with "company" or "brand". Language is important for keeping the goal in sight. There is a science to designing human computer interactions. But there is a subtle difference between wielding that science in the service of the humans in those interactions (users) and wielding it solely in the name of increasing the company's bottom line. The former will lead to a better product, will improve customer satisfaction and lead to sales. The later leads to a dystopian, exploitative relationship, even when it increases revenue. The difference is the goal: Serving users or serving shareholders. The language of UX design needs to be carefully crafted to keep a the focus on empathy with users.

asoneth 6y ago
I definitely agree with the sentiment. Note that there has been debate in the field about the term "user" for decades. Some people object because it is ambiguous, some because it reduces people to their interaction with your software, others due to the connotation with drug use. (For example: https://medium.com/microsoft-design/we-have-customers-not-users-1f208f16ad3a https://medium.com/microsoft-design/we-have-customers-not-us...) I've had people replace instances of one with the other in my documents, so I don't read too much into it these days.
erydo 6y ago
This view is over-simplistic. Many—perhaps most—products are designed to serve more than one kind of user. Obvious example: building an e-commerce platform. The merchant is a kind of user. The customer is a different kind of user on that same platform. Yes, they're humans, but they're not doing the same thing. Any B2B or B2C type product will have at least two very distinct roles like that. And in those cases, arguing that everyone is just a person as a sort of moral position is destructively vague. It's more difficult to serve someone's needs if you can't start to narrow down what they're trying to accomplish. While I totally agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't conflate personhood identically with their role in a product, solving useful problems does require that you de-scope and discretize the interactions a bit.
buckminster 6y ago

dgb23 6y ago

I have very little direct experience with the UX specialization, although one could argue that everyone is somehow involved in it, I never worked directly with a UX Designer[0]. If you squint, you can recognize this approach as an iterative specification for a product or a set of related products. Some interesting take-aways for me: - UX seems to put a lot of value on visualizing data, thought and processes in different forms. They range from simple, ad-hoc, to quite involved. - A huge part of this work revolves around communication and testing: getting the right feedback and then analyzing it. - In software, they should probably be directly talking to engineers and UI designers, to provide the right set of problems to solve. This is maybe a good way to cut off management hierarchies that understand neither (users and implementation). [0] I've also seen the term "Engineer", "Architect" and others associated with it, but from talking to a UX "Architect" from a large company, I found that the best description would be "Designer" or "Director", because even though there are sometimes data-driven inputs their bread and butter seem to be very design, and communication focused. Maybe "Analyst" is a good term too.

beckingz 6y ago
There is a lot of value in visualizing information. Especially if you need to communicate that information with design, product, and engineering stakeholders who understand visual information better.
- dgb23 6y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. I also think the visualization space is vast and under-explored. Especially in the "hardest" cases like taming complexity, very abstract concepts and discovering new ideas.

Geminidog 6y ago

This is just your standard formalization of a process to make it sound more professional and seem more legitimate. It's similar to agile.

JacobSeated 6y ago

I am a multimedia designer, by education, and I tend to still dislike some of these methods. Often I find them to just be a distraction from getting actual work done. Does not mean I would not use some of them, but I really prefer to just get the work done.

hendry 6y ago

No mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law ? I call bullshit.