Hello, I wrote this article. I can check one thing off my bucket list - an article of mine on the front page of HN (spot 28 as I write this). Reading the stuff

Hello, I wrote this article. I can check one thing off my bucket list - an article of mine on the front page of HN (spot 28 as I write this). Reading the stuff here in HN, I agree with almost everything said. My intent wasn't to take a hard line tone, and in retrospect after getting tons and tons of feedback, I'd write it differently, but I'll take this chance to clarify some things, both for myself and for others. It is not written in a snarky or superior voice. It wasn't a rant. If it sounded so, I apologize. It also comes off as a list of "this is what a UX job title should be", which also wasn't my intent. The simplest way to say what I was trying to convey is that if you label yourself as anything "UX whatever", it is perceived as "graphic artist for interfaces." The article often seems to convey that UX "owns" all these different things, like it's a panacea role above all others. It's not. It's not something that I can clearly define. On the little 2-column lists, the things on the left were supposed to be things that I/we "do" in the sense of what often becomes the reality of the job, not in the sense of responsibilities that should be granted to use to be accountable for. And if that large list does become the reality of the job, it's more than anyone can or should do. It was intended to be a "these are some of the things a UX person might be responsible for." And yes there are some silly ones on there. I don't think UX is in a position of being a land-grab of everything that isn't writing code because "it's what we do", but it's more of a "this is what we are often doing" list. And some of the things on it should be owned by other discrete jobs careers. The motivation to write the article came from being in role after role where that list on the left was the list of things I was inadvertently responsible for, but "graphic designer for interfaces" is all that is seen by others, which isn't fair to UX people who don't focus on interface design, and isn't fair to interface designers who don't focus on the UX work that isn't based on UI or visuals or interaction. It's sort of just a response to the introductory conversation I have the first few weeks at any job. "What is your role here?" "Well I'm the new UX guy." "Great! Our stuff is ugly, you're gonna give it that sexy look and feel?" "Yes, but I am going to be doing other things that sort of result in that look and feel you want" And then when I list off some of those things, typically the other person looks at me like I'm a lunatic and we both end up confused on what I'm actually supposed to be doing, and the disappointment that I'm not just there for look and feel. But for sure, the article is not meant to be a land-grab or king of the hill situation of "UX OWNS EVERYTHING", but just a glimpse into the terrible ambiguity of what UX is and how the very common initial perception of "graphic designer for interfaces" makes it even more unclear.