3 ms·
I often think these kinds of posts are bullshit. UX paradigms are not proven to always work outside of its very specific context, spatially, temporally, cultura
by bentt 3y ago
I often think these kinds of posts are bullshit. UX paradigms are not proven to always work outside of its very specific context, spatially, temporally, culturally. When experts come in they make us feel safe, but the only way we get to these answers is by having inspiration to try something, give it to users, measure the results, and iterating on it.
When you try to look backwards and say "this is why it works", that's not a lie, but applying the learnings in a forward moving sense are filled with exceptions and traps. So you're kinda back where you started, where the palette of things to try gives you inspiration, and then again, you gotta put it to users.
Anyway, great for UX people that they command so much money, but I think that's less that they are objective and scientifically based and more because they are good at navigating the politics of decision making.
- shove 3y agoHi, I’m an overpaid UX engineer and I assure you I’m abysmal at the politics of decision making. What I’m good at—exceptional even—is predicting, in advance, before a single line of code is written, whether a given UI idea will “work”; whether users will love/hate/tolerate/be indifferent about it. If I was good at the politics too, I’d be running the place.
- avindroth 3y agoThis is (sadly) an engineer’s perspective. Things don’t have to be “proven to always work” to be useful. If paradigms engender thoughts, they can be useful in context. By your logic, since most heuristics don’t always work, we should throw them out. Don’t throw the baby out, too. Unproven things can be useful.