5 ms·

The problem is not necessarily their incompetence, but that they're given the exclusive right to dictate every detail of the UX. The problem is that they often

by carlmr 5y ago

The problem is not necessarily their incompetence, but that they're given the exclusive right to dictate every detail of the UX. The problem is that they often don't know the constraints of the system you're working with, something that only comes with actually working on the implementation. E.g. I was working on a display. The graphics were designed by a UX Team. However the display only had 256 colors, had to be readable outside, had a 320x240 resolution. They had designed everything as vector graphics with highest color settings on really good Eizo monitors. The customer thought the designs look cool, and I wasn't given any freedom in improving them. I tried discussing the constraints with them, but because they were "on top" they wouldn't listen. In the end the customer saw the prototype and said it looked terrible. But I had all the communication with the UX Team and them that I wasn't allowed to make it work for this display. In the end it cost everyone an extra month and a lot of frustration to arrive at basically what I suggested when I first checked the hardware. The problem isn't to learn about UX, it's that you have a "UX person" that may not know about UX and dictates the terms.

spicybright 5y ago
That sounds discouraging. But you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no? If one's priority is design freedom or whatever, a good working relationship with your higher ups is the best chance to enable that. Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about.
- carlmr 5y ago
  >you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no? True, the problem is more when companies become more and more top-heavy over time. These intermediate layers are created. With every layer it becomes less likely that the people that can actually decide won't ever hear valuable feedback until it's too late. >Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about. In the end I showed them what had to be done to make it look decent on this kind of display. Because all layers of management were in the room, they managed to decide to do these changes. It's just a very inefficient way to get to this point.
gherkinnn 5y ago
That very painful example sounds like a bad setup where clear technical constraints weren’t taken in to account. People not listening come in all forms. UX, dev, MBA.
atatatat 5y ago
> necessarily their incompetence, but that they're given the exclusive right to dictate every detail of the UX. Unless you have valid reason to think the user would prefer your way, this sounds like the correct chain of command for a strong product.
- varjag 5y ago
  …aand we're back to waterfall
  - exdsq 5y ago
    Yaaaay, less meetings
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      You certainly mean less meetings once we are past the design phase. Because that phase is a single non-stop months-long meeting. Also, as soon as the design phase ends, the design is discovered to be broken. So the phase must be restarted. Repeat the above for as long as you want. Of course, the kind of place the GGP is complaining bout won't let peasants like developers to take part on that phase, so win-win, I guess.
- carlmr 5y ago
  I think usability is a valid reason. Their design had none.
eecc 5y ago
By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard. It’s like that guy that said: “it’s easy to be a good investor in god times, it’s when recession hits that the pros really shine”
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  > By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard No true Scotsman would ignore the technical specs! The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs. The existence of "true professional" UX designers does not mitigate the vast quantities of average skill UX people most teams will encounter.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs I don't think that's much of an excuse. A graphic designer needs to know about page bleed and colour spaces. A product designer needs to understand the strengths (literally sometimes) and weaknesses of the materials they are working with. And a UX designer for a tech product needs to understand the technical constraints of the medium they designing for, or be able to talk proficiently to someone who does. How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for) if you don't understand to at least some level the medium through which it will be conveyed. Designing something that a user will never see because the colour depth of the display they be using can't convey it is not designing the user's experience at all.
    - bluefirebrand 5y ago
      > How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for) Right. Most designers are not UX designers, they are graphic designers hired to do UX because they can make pretty pictures in Illustrator.
nicoburns 5y ago
IMO if they're not respecting technical constraints then they are incompetent. Good UX people I've worked with not only worked closely with developers to understand technical constraints, but developed a good understanding of the platforms we working with in their own right such that they would often pick up these issues themselves if they'd come across them before.
dgb23 5y ago
Whether we build an OS kernel, a HTTP server or a video game, we essentially translate between two abstraction layers to facilitate communication. It's on us to understand both sides well enough to achieve this. A UI is essentially the highest layer of abstraction we build and thus should follow the same principles as any other. Namely respecting both the lower and the upper abstraction barriers. UX designers are responsible for the language on top of all these layers. They need to understand the human side of things (often through data or through direct interaction such as workshops), but also the technical and artistic side of UI implementation. Direct interaction, written documentation and learning are paramount. The good thing is that we programmers also want to understand the layer above us, so there is a natural pull for programmers and designers to communicate and to refine that communication.
volta83 5y ago
To me it sounds like either you failed to communicate, or your UX persons were bad hires.
- carlmr 5y ago
  I didn't hire them, and I did exactly communicate the issues early on to my manager and the UX people. Everything else was out of my hands.
  - volta83 5y ago
    > I didn't hire them, and Who said you did?
rapfaria 5y ago
I've been through something very, very similar. UX person suggests a design that is sprinkled with choices that clearly are from someone that has not been on the web that long, like wrong icons. We do a meeting and explain what is going on, what the user wants to see on the page, and the UX comes back (usually that same day - how quick of them) with another version, but this version shows that the UX person did not understand the problem again. And again. And again. I've seen the UX person showing a wireframe to the user and asking 'Will this cover all scenarios?'. Client said yes, we delivered the feature monday, and tuesday client was 'hummm, without the hability to do scenario X, this won't be used'. The reason the UX person is so beloved between a bunch of devs is only because of the UI aspect of it - it looks good, something we devs could not come up with. But damn, I would love to work with an UX that I feel that knows what she's doing.

by carlmr 5y ago

spicybright 5y ago

That sounds discouraging. But you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no? If one's priority is design freedom or whatever, a good working relationship with your higher ups is the best chance to enable that. Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about.

carlmr 5y ago
>you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no? True, the problem is more when companies become more and more top-heavy over time. These intermediate layers are created. With every layer it becomes less likely that the people that can actually decide won't ever hear valuable feedback until it's too late. >Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about. In the end I showed them what had to be done to make it look decent on this kind of display. Because all layers of management were in the room, they managed to decide to do these changes. It's just a very inefficient way to get to this point.

gherkinnn 5y ago

That very painful example sounds like a bad setup where clear technical constraints weren’t taken in to account. People not listening come in all forms. UX, dev, MBA.

atatatat 5y ago

> necessarily their incompetence, but that they're given the exclusive right to dictate every detail of the UX. Unless you have valid reason to think the user would prefer your way, this sounds like the correct chain of command for a strong product.

varjag 5y ago
…aand we're back to waterfall
- exdsq 5y ago
  Yaaaay, less meetings
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    You certainly mean less meetings once we are past the design phase. Because that phase is a single non-stop months-long meeting. Also, as soon as the design phase ends, the design is discovered to be broken. So the phase must be restarted. Repeat the above for as long as you want. Of course, the kind of place the GGP is complaining bout won't let peasants like developers to take part on that phase, so win-win, I guess.
carlmr 5y ago
I think usability is a valid reason. Their design had none.

eecc 5y ago

By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard. It’s like that guy that said: “it’s easy to be a good investor in god times, it’s when recession hits that the pros really shine”

bluefirebrand 5y ago
> By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard No true Scotsman would ignore the technical specs! The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs. The existence of "true professional" UX designers does not mitigate the vast quantities of average skill UX people most teams will encounter.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs I don't think that's much of an excuse. A graphic designer needs to know about page bleed and colour spaces. A product designer needs to understand the strengths (literally sometimes) and weaknesses of the materials they are working with. And a UX designer for a tech product needs to understand the technical constraints of the medium they designing for, or be able to talk proficiently to someone who does. How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for) if you don't understand to at least some level the medium through which it will be conveyed. Designing something that a user will never see because the colour depth of the display they be using can't convey it is not designing the user's experience at all.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    > How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for) Right. Most designers are not UX designers, they are graphic designers hired to do UX because they can make pretty pictures in Illustrator.

nicoburns 5y ago

IMO if they're not respecting technical constraints then they are incompetent. Good UX people I've worked with not only worked closely with developers to understand technical constraints, but developed a good understanding of the platforms we working with in their own right such that they would often pick up these issues themselves if they'd come across them before.

dgb23 5y ago

Whether we build an OS kernel, a HTTP server or a video game, we essentially translate between two abstraction layers to facilitate communication. It's on us to understand both sides well enough to achieve this. A UI is essentially the highest layer of abstraction we build and thus should follow the same principles as any other. Namely respecting both the lower and the upper abstraction barriers. UX designers are responsible for the language on top of all these layers. They need to understand the human side of things (often through data or through direct interaction such as workshops), but also the technical and artistic side of UI implementation. Direct interaction, written documentation and learning are paramount. The good thing is that we programmers also want to understand the layer above us, so there is a natural pull for programmers and designers to communicate and to refine that communication.

volta83 5y ago

To me it sounds like either you failed to communicate, or your UX persons were bad hires.

carlmr 5y ago
I didn't hire them, and I did exactly communicate the issues early on to my manager and the UX people. Everything else was out of my hands.
- volta83 5y ago
  > I didn't hire them, and Who said you did?

rapfaria 5y ago

I've been through something very, very similar. UX person suggests a design that is sprinkled with choices that clearly are from someone that has not been on the web that long, like wrong icons. We do a meeting and explain what is going on, what the user wants to see on the page, and the UX comes back (usually that same day - how quick of them) with another version, but this version shows that the UX person did not understand the problem again. And again. And again. I've seen the UX person showing a wireframe to the user and asking 'Will this cover all scenarios?'. Client said yes, we delivered the feature monday, and tuesday client was 'hummm, without the hability to do scenario X, this won't be used'. The reason the UX person is so beloved between a bunch of devs is only because of the UI aspect of it - it looks good, something we devs could not come up with. But damn, I would love to work with an UX that I feel that knows what she's doing.