4 ms·

I do wonder if to some extent the inherently subjective nature of UX/UI design is what keeps it forever going? Designers want to stay employed and not just beco

by g_p 5y ago

I do wonder if to some extent the inherently subjective nature of UX/UI design is what keeps it forever going? Designers want to stay employed and not just become a "bring in one-time at the start" contractor, so they justify changes through continual enhancement or similar, assuming the current solution may be one of a few local optima rather than the global optimum. Lacking objective numerical comparison, perhaps designers and product teams attempt to do metrics-based comparison from telemetry (we raised metric X by changing the design). That leads to an ever changing design that tries to optimise for business objectives, rather than what the user wants. Backend code can be optimised and honed and improved with objective measurements (CPU cycles used, latency, perceived performance, download time for user), but design doesn't give these. In saying that though, rewrites in new languages and frameworks do seem to be becoming the problem for backend - optimisation isn't seem as exciting or career advancing, I guess... Few are optimising code for performance these days though, I'd wager - everyone just assumes your user won't mind your software using 15% of their CPU when sitting idle. Maybe it is just as simple as that metrics individuals are measured on for job performance?

willhinsa 5y ago
There are objective measurements that can be done, but they’re difficult/expensive to do effectively. Like, “How many interactions/seconds does it take our users to find X?” It’s difficult because you have to know what “X” a user was looking for, which requires some varying degree of asking lots of users and reading those responses to be accurate. Measuring “engagement” is far easier to orchestrate practically and organizationally, even though it produces awful software.
- godelski 5y ago
  > Measuring “engagement” is far easier to orchestrate practically and organizationally, even though it produces awful software. Engagement is such a terrible metric. I'm not saying it should be thrown out, but it is classic example of Goodhart's Law[0]. Rage is engagement. Too much reliance on engagement is what got social media into a race to the bottom. That's not the mark of a quality product. Measuring is hard, you're right. But if you're going to use bad measurements (which often is our only choice) they shouldn't be targets. We should understand where they fail and use the information accounting for that, not ignoring it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Not everything can be quantified but things should be at least qualitatively validated by the user base. Sometimes the problems are well know by anyone reading the app reviews and still aren't properly fixed.
torgian 5y ago
Well, take a look at fashion design. Objectively, there are a lot of really crazy designs that no one would wear in the real world. But designs for clothing always keeps changing, even if they are small, subtle changes. I think you can apply the same towards design of anything. Tastes change. While a certain design philosophy might be a godsend in 2010, it might be considered trash in 2015. To be fair, I also think a lot of design decisions are poorly made, and a lot of businesses make poor user experiences. Just like female jeans that have tiny pockets.
- atkailash 5y ago
  Haute couture runway isn’t intended to be worn. It generally shows a concept of the general theme for the season as well as ability. It’s not the same as UI/UX whose entire purpose is to be used, that’s more like the prêt-a-porter lines for fashion (which are also on runways) Female jean pockets being small is entirely a driver for handbags and the like. It’s a poor decision for practicality but entirely a business decision — it’s sorta a dark design pattern I guess similar to how amazon buries privacy settings
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  >> Tastes change. They do, but do they change as quickly as every season?...or sometimes people do those who make money off changing tastes tell you that tastes change that often?
- scns 5y ago
  > Objectively, there are a lot of really crazy designs that no one would wear in the real world. Objectivity is an ideal we can strive towards. And several crazy and expensive designs are worn in the real world. I have seen it with my own eyes. The people who are able to afford those clothes either: - Have bad taste (A subjective judgement which is logically wrong, since it is absolute) - Really like that look - Don't care what anyone thinks of them - Want to display their high status - Want to stand out from the crowd
  - rhizome 5y ago
    Humans are never objective. Ever. Not only that, this inherent and fundamental subjectivity means they could never know what objectivity looks like in order to judge whether something is indeed objective. Because their criteria are subjective. It's not an ideal, it's a legend.
scns 5y ago
> metrics-based comparison from telemetry (we raised metric X by changing the design) Sounds like a conclusion drawn from a correlation to me.

by g_p 5y ago

willhinsa 5y ago

There are objective measurements that can be done, but they’re difficult/expensive to do effectively. Like, “How many interactions/seconds does it take our users to find X?” It’s difficult because you have to know what “X” a user was looking for, which requires some varying degree of asking lots of users and reading those responses to be accurate. Measuring “engagement” is far easier to orchestrate practically and organizationally, even though it produces awful software.

godelski 5y ago
> Measuring “engagement” is far easier to orchestrate practically and organizationally, even though it produces awful software. Engagement is such a terrible metric. I'm not saying it should be thrown out, but it is classic example of Goodhart's Law[0]. Rage is engagement. Too much reliance on engagement is what got social media into a race to the bottom. That's not the mark of a quality product. Measuring is hard, you're right. But if you're going to use bad measurements (which often is our only choice) they shouldn't be targets. We should understand where they fail and use the information accounting for that, not ignoring it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Not everything can be quantified but things should be at least qualitatively validated by the user base. Sometimes the problems are well know by anyone reading the app reviews and still aren't properly fixed.

torgian 5y ago

Well, take a look at fashion design. Objectively, there are a lot of really crazy designs that no one would wear in the real world. But designs for clothing always keeps changing, even if they are small, subtle changes. I think you can apply the same towards design of anything. Tastes change. While a certain design philosophy might be a godsend in 2010, it might be considered trash in 2015. To be fair, I also think a lot of design decisions are poorly made, and a lot of businesses make poor user experiences. Just like female jeans that have tiny pockets.

atkailash 5y ago
Haute couture runway isn’t intended to be worn. It generally shows a concept of the general theme for the season as well as ability. It’s not the same as UI/UX whose entire purpose is to be used, that’s more like the prêt-a-porter lines for fashion (which are also on runways) Female jean pockets being small is entirely a driver for handbags and the like. It’s a poor decision for practicality but entirely a business decision — it’s sorta a dark design pattern I guess similar to how amazon buries privacy settings
TuringNYC 5y ago
>> Tastes change. They do, but do they change as quickly as every season?...or sometimes people do those who make money off changing tastes tell you that tastes change that often?
scns 5y ago
> Objectively, there are a lot of really crazy designs that no one would wear in the real world. Objectivity is an ideal we can strive towards. And several crazy and expensive designs are worn in the real world. I have seen it with my own eyes. The people who are able to afford those clothes either: - Have bad taste (A subjective judgement which is logically wrong, since it is absolute) - Really like that look - Don't care what anyone thinks of them - Want to display their high status - Want to stand out from the crowd
- rhizome 5y ago
  Humans are never objective. Ever. Not only that, this inherent and fundamental subjectivity means they could never know what objectivity looks like in order to judge whether something is indeed objective. Because their criteria are subjective. It's not an ideal, it's a legend.

scns 5y ago

> metrics-based comparison from telemetry (we raised metric X by changing the design) Sounds like a conclusion drawn from a correlation to me.