
Hi, I’m a UX Developer - You’re a what? - jtron1
http://uxmag.com/technology/hi-im-a-ux-developer-youre-a-what
======
geebee
As a developer, I have to admit that I feel a lot of ambivalence about this
emerging discipline. It's taken a long time to convince the world of the
benefits of a "developer driven culture", but I think it's critical to avoid
putting developers into a box where they are simply executing specs. I see a
lot of that creeping back in through the new concept of a "UX Developer".

Here are the three big quotes that are making me nervous:

"It’s our job to help translate their vision to the development team in a way
that they can understand and accept"

"Similarly, we need to speak on behalf the developers to help reign in the
designers, at times."

"However, for the traditional developer the application works if it executes
all of the items listed in the functional specs. The focus of the traditional
developer is centered on tasks rather than goals."

Oh man. So the role of a UX developer is to stand in between the developers
and designers and represent the interests of each for us? All the while,
assuming that the mindset of a "traditional" developer is to be myopically
focused on tasks rather than goals?

Everything I read about UX as a skill set I like. Developers and Designers
should be focused on goals. We should strive to acquire the skills and mindset
that are often associated with "UX" (good developers were doing this long
before "UX" became a term or job category).

Everything I read about UX as an actual job role, I don't like. I can't stand
the idea of a worker in my organization deciding that developers are focused
on tasks and need someone running interference between them and the users and
designers.

As I've pointed out in other discussions around UX on HN, one key question is
to ask yourself: would this person be useful on a small team? A developer or
designer with lots of "UX" skill would be even more useful on a small team.
But the type of person described through this post? Not really, and could even
do harm by mucking up the relationship between developers, designers, and the
things that they actually need to be exposed to to write good software.

In short, I believe that UX is a great addition to a developer or designer's
skill set, but I'm not at all convinced that it would be a great job category.

~~~
ZephyrP
I'm inclined to believe the same thing.

I'm not so much irked by "UX Designers", as they have a seemingly useful role
if you consider what they claim. Many of their practices however are laughable
at best and rarely accomplish their stated goals.

Why should I trust your soft approach to UX? If I'm paying you 70,000 a year,
that means you should be providing more than 70,000 a year worth of value -
Otherwise theres not really much point in hiring you. Can any UX designer,
even in principle, provide more than modest value for sites whose users don't
number into the 10s of millions? Keep in mind that its _not_ the difference
between no design and a good design when you hire a UX designer, Its the
difference between a design generated by someone who isn't a UX professional
(but probably is willing to read up on the elements of successful design) and
a UX professional who.... possesses no real qualifications or mechanism to
distinguish him from the non-UX professional save his assertion that he "has
an eye for design". You could hire a High school graduate with an interest in
technology, offer to pay him 25k/yr to sit in a comfy chair and write out
jquery + html and be absolutely stoked about it, how much more of a value
proposition do you get out of a "UX designer"?

I want to clarify this isn't a dig against people who truly provide value and
make a difference for users - Theres some UX & UI people out there who are
changing the face of their businesses by the work of their own hands and their
untamable passion for the human enterprise. But those people would have likely
kicked ass anyway.

So I suppose lastly, I'd be distrustful as a rule of most people who claim to
generate value through soft, rather than hard means. Historically you would
not be unwise to bet on the success of Mathematics and the failure of
subjective analysis in virtually every field ranging from analyzing human
emotions to machine translation, even fields traditionally decried for being
approached mathematically (Because surely a human can only understand what
makes up being human?) have been absolutely revolutionized by using an
approach that has been working for the past 10k years of human history -
Application of cold logic and lots and lots of hard work.

So whats someone who isn't a "science person" to do in an era that
increasingly marginalizes those who cannot do hard mental labor? Well you do
the only thing you can do with nothing but time on your hands - You market
yourself.

[P.S - If you want UX/UI people who aren't full of their own shit, a truly
excellent ex-coworker of mine - Sam Asante @ <http://samasante.com/> is
currently looking for a job in San Francisco]

~~~
kenjackson
_So I suppose lastly, I'd be distrustful as a rule of most people who claim to
generate value through soft, rather than hard means._

I'm sympathetic to you, because I'm the "hard" science guy. When I studied CS,
it was about hard science, because there generally weren't consumer facing
jobs to be had.

But now most of the successful apps, and the ones talked about on HN aren't
technically difficult. The reason things like the Thiel fund even are on the
radar is because most apps, whether mobile or web, could be coded up by a
modestly bright 13 year-old. Seriously. The part that separates great from
forgotten is the UX and design.

There was once a popular saying that went something like, "Well he's no rocket
scientist". I think its fair to say that we'll likely not hear people say,
"Well he's no computer programmer". In fact if anything quite the opposite --
"Anyone can learn it... it's like programming".

------
bugsy
As a designer, inventor, developer and entrepreneur who spends much of his
time trying to improve user experience, I have to say I only noticed this "UX"
label being used about a year ago. A few years ago there was HUI engineer, HI
designer, interface designer, and cognitive scientist, all different names for
the same job just like a job where you develop software might be called
software engineer, developer, programmer, programmer analyst, architect,
designer, etc. Now we have the term UX. I wonder what other labels there are
floating about in the field of interface design.

Until today reading this post I thought UX is just the hip new word for HUI.
Now I find that HUI has been split into two different specialties.

More and more people being added to each part of the task is not a good thing
because the interface needs to be consistent and coherent, not broken into
pieces each designed by a different group with a different philosophy. Oh sure
there can be some document saying what the philosophy is supposed to be; but
mission statements are not designs.

The greatest interfaces I have seen there was exactly one person in charge of
deciding how everything works and that was guided by his personal philosophy
of design.

~~~
rdouble
It's a great work division if you just want to get a paycheck. You get to do
mockups, wireframes, user interviews, write-ups and research. You make 6
figures without having to have studied anything rigorous like engineering or
design. You don't have to do any tedious programming or really anything that
resembles work.

------
ender7
\- There are designers who care more about the user's experience than the
beauty of their graphic design. They obsess about clarity of design, action
flow, and how the average person will view or interpret their graphics and
layouts, rather than something that is purely elegant or attractive. They work
around technical limitations rather than ignore them. Of course, some people
simply call these _good designers_.

\- There are front-end engineers who care more about how the user perceives
the product than how fellow engineers might perceive their architecture. These
engineers obsess about things like UI responsiveness, framerates, and page
loading times. They take user studies with a grain of salt, but they deeply
respect them. They do not like it when other designers or engineers complain
about "stupid users" that just don't understand their interface. They
understand when it's time to scrap a month of work on a UI that just doesn't
seem to be clicking, and get on with the next version instead of digging in
their heels. Then again, some people just call these _good front-end
engineers_.

\- There are managers who prioritize the user experience above all else. They
make sure the people under them do as well. They personally try out and
approve all major product features and liberally cut, prune, and edit where
they think things are too confusing. They make the hard decisions. They throw
away hard-earned features that just don't quite cut it. They understand that
the quality of the final product is _their responsibility_ , and the quality
of a product is increasingly being judged almost solely on the quality of its
user experience. Sometimes these are just called _good managers_.

IMO, a UX person is just _someone who cares_. More about the user than about
themselves.

That said, I think there _is_ a valid new profession somewhere between
designer and front-end engineer. Static mock images don't let you explore
certain kinds of very dynamic interfaces (touch-based ones especially). The
ability to actually program a _demo_ that moves provides incredible insight
into the design process, but most designers are incapable of doing so. I don't
know what to call such a person, even though I am one.

------
waterflame
So basically what I understood at the end, is that your UX developer role...
is fun!? and exiting?!

Let me tell you what a UX developer is. UX developers are people that couldn't
find themselves neither as designers or as developers and got stuck in
between. Those became so many over the years; people interested not in being
perfect at doing one thing, but at being intermediate in everything. Others
are project managers who gained some experience in handling projects, but got
bored of all the wire-framing, analysis and actually doing nothing (at least
the majority), so they decided to get more involved in projects on a
technical/creative level.

The first group, the stuck-in-between, become UX designers/developers with a
few technical tricks. The second group, the managers, became UX analysts and
experts.

So, in reality, your job as UX designer/developer, is to make real Designers
dumb, by not letting them learn how to create usable designs, but designs that
follow your lead and your wire-frames which eventually affect real Designers
creativity. Or maybe real Designers are too dumb to learn how to offer the
user a good experience! The UX developers, on the other hand, don't have an
actual role. So if you're doing the wire-framing, the analysis, the content
management, the information architecture, can you please specify what is a
project manager doing? Plus, if your skills enables you to prototype certain
features, what if you're involved in a super complex project, who's gonna
prototype now? I know, the one who actually does the prototyping and is
actually a real Programmer that knows his language very well and knows its
actual limitations. Not the ones UX developers heard about.

The real definition for your job is ripped of from something every human
should learn how to do and that's communication.

~~~
beseku
I can't down vote this but I really wish I could. As someone else pointed out
this comment seems driven by malice more than anything else...

"Let me tell you what a UX developer is. UX developers are people that
couldn't find themselves neither as designers or as developers and got stuck
in between."

While I find your tone particularly hateful, this is about as close to being
the best definition of how I see a UX developer/designer, without the
derogatory tone of course. They are people who want to be involved in the
earlier stages of a project, and want to know about the technical aspects of
the problem and the design or brand constraints, and are suitably equipped to
deal with the people whose job it is to solve the intricate details.

If you are a developer who can turn out a decent user interface, (maybe on a
web app you were left to do the settings page), or a designer who can
prototype in Javascript to show how modals windows work - congratulations,
that is UX - converging the different disciplines to create a whole. Someone
who works more in doing that and deals less with the nitty gritty of one or
the other is just doing it more, (and probably better for the time and
experience they have). Thats not to say because they don't do the nitty gritty
that they can't, (although I'll admit my design skills trail off before my
technical skills do), its just they are more interested in leaving it to
others.

[Aside: I am a technical guy who has moved much more towards doing prototyping
and UX work. I find alot of the comments in this thread pretty insulting since
they all are assuming I am either a shite designer or shite developer.]

~~~
waterflame
You can read something written the way you want; No I don't like people with
titles because eventually they're over-paid to do nothing. User Experience,
the way its spreading now and the way UX people are trying to force things, is
a way to make things look alike. A strategy created by big corporations to
make their work easier. Where are the customization features every website had
a couple of years ago, where people can create their own UX? Ah, someone
thought he can tell us how to "experience" better. Sorry, I'm too sarcastic
but that's how I see UX. Can you convince a Chinese not to eat with chopsticks
because you think that people that eat with forks and spoons are having a
better experience? Think again!

------
KonradKlause
I'm getting old, thought he is a HP-UX developer...

~~~
mhd
Cripes, who would admit that?

------
micheljansen
I will definitely keep this link handy the next time I have to explain myself
:P

I have found a degree in Computer Science, and the skill set of a developer,
to be more of a handicap than a blessing when looking for the right jobs.
Outside of the startup world, people tend to think that if you can code, you
are best put away in a murky corner and left alone while other people
determine the direction of the product. Interaction and User Experience design
is then left to people with a background in graphics design.

Just because you cannot code, does not mean that I cannot design.

In the end it is more about skills than about roles though. I think having
some passion about design and your user makes you a better developer and
having some years of programming experience under your belt makes you a better
designer.

------
jggube
>> "It’s our job to help translate their vision to the development team in a
way that they can understand and accept."

>> "Similarly, we need to speak on behalf the developers to help reign in the
designers, at times. If they are coming up with concepts that will be
extremely difficult or time consuming to implement, we can explain the
limitations of the technology and the complexity involved in implementing
their designs"

I dislike this stereotype that developers can't communicate and work side-by-
side with designers, and vice versa. It seems the writer thinks developers
can't communicate or speak and need someone to translate for them, like
they're a machine. It's quite disparaging, actually.

I also see a danger in having a middleman, so to speak. Things can get lost in
translation.

~~~
Goladus
I'd say if your organization is large enough to differentiate between "UX
Developer," "Traditional Developer," and "Designer" then yes there are going
to be communication problems. It shouldn't be disparaging to either side.

Also it doesn't have to be a middle-man. 3-way communication usually works
fine.

------
dfischer
This is what I am, and I call this a front-end developer. UX traits are
needed.

------
jrydberg
I think that he just describes the hybrid between a developer and a product
designer. A mix that isn't always good: you shouldn't implement what you
design. But for startups it's often the case.

Regarding @geebee "putting developers into a box where they are simply
executing specs" I think that the "developer driven culture" has gotten us to
the point where we have forgotten that there need to be _a single_ person in
charge of designing the product. Otherwise it will be impossible to keep the
product integrity. Read The Mythical Man-Month.

Also, the "spec" isn't some kind of pseudo-code. It can be the user manual, a
design document or a prototype. Actually, it MUST NOT include any
implementation details, since that is up to the developer to decide. It's his
domain, he knows that better than anyone else. If the developer feel that he
misses out on something, maybe he should try to be a product designer instead.
But for the sake of the product, he shouldn't be both.

------
ricardobeat
A developer who cares for UX is just a _good developer_. No need for the fancy
title - it's more for showing off (and maybe trying to have some authority
over designers) than anything else. "UX Designer" is already a controversial
term.

If we go this route we'll have Business Programmers, Performance Designers and
the like :)

------
radley
This key distinction they're trying to make in this articles isn't about UX,
but rather "UX developer". My understanding of UX is knowing the users &
market and producing a flow.

The key benefit of a _UX developer_ is the prototype and product are one and
the same, and are created with useable code rather than mock-ups. This allows
refinement and iteration all the way through production. We're not so focused
on UI, because that's easy to create with static mock-ups. UX development
takes the next step to determine how the different static UIs work with actual
code and users.

A key difference between UX dev and UI dev: the UX dev won't worry about skins
and other design parts. It's more about the layout, functionality, and ease of
use. Once that's worked out, a designer can make it clean.

------
ia
seems appropriate: [http://ieatpaste.com/2010/10/if-you-have-ux-in-your-title-
yo...](http://ieatpaste.com/2010/10/if-you-have-ux-in-your-title-you-probably-
suck-at-your-job/)

------
wccrawford
There's been times I'd give my right kidney to have a good UX developer.
-sigh- Well, maybe not quite that much.

At a previous company, I tried over and over to get them to hire a 'front-end
developer', when what I really wanted was a UX Developer. I don't think
knowing the term would have made any difference in convincing them, though.

------
sdfjkl
This is a job that's incredibly hard to describe. Well done.

The other hard bit is making companies understand why they need one.

~~~
Jach
"Oh, you're a technical manager. Go get the programmers to talk to the artists
again."

------
lutorm
How is a user _experience_ developer different from a user _interface_
developer? I know how you develop an interface, but how do you develop an
experience? (Or any other abstract noun for that matter. It's like someone
saying they're working on "implementing happy".)

------
ralphsaunders
You're a wizard Harry...

------
snorkel
That's right, it takes skill to make pretty wizzy things that don't scale.

UX Designer: Here's the mockup.

App dev: Did you notice the page layout falls apart when you resize the
browser? You need to add a few float clear divs to fix it.

UX Designer: Oh. Uh, how do you do that? Can you fix it?

App dev: Yes. Now go away.

~~~
rimantas
I've done hundreds of CSS layouts and never ever used a clear div. And even if
one is used it is not usually visible, so UX Designer has nothing to do with
it.

