3 ms·

Yeah, that's gate-keepery nonsense. Back in the day the discipline of UX was completely unheard of - yet we had better user experiences than in the last decade

• Terretta 4y ago
  > Back in the day... Depends which day one goes back to. Web projects I've been involved with since early 90s considered user modalities, affordances, predictability, and frictionlessness. To clients we used utility words like straightforward, coherent, clean, functional to describe the system, and experience words like delight, effectiveness, familiarity, ease, as sensations a user should have using the system. Not sure when I first recall the abbreviation UX, probably mid-90s. Mostly we just called it Design, a blend of things one might do making comfortable office furniture and effective graphic design and editorial layout for a magazine. Perhaps things were interesting then because design was an emerging intersectional craft and interfaces were experimentally evolving. Digital UX wasn't yet the ubiquitous sameness of content marketing scaffolding.
  • kybernetyk 4y ago
    I meant real software. Not web anything.
    • kergonath 4y ago
      > I meant real software. Not web anything. Now that sounds way more gatekeeper-y than what you complained about before. Websites and web apps are by and large terrible in terms of UI and UX and would benefit a lot from people who know what they are doing in terms of design of the user-facing parts. Still, they are the software a lot of people interact with for a significant chunk of the time they spend on a computer.