
How to Pretend You Know UX When You Don't - JoelMarsh
http://thehipperelement.com/post/66097606120/10-ways-to-pretend-you-know-ux-when-you-dont
======
raverbashing
This is bad, comes across as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" rant

"There is no such thing as a “design perspective.”"

Hello? There's a whole theory of design: grids, colors, hierarchy, typography,
etc. It's not as simple as "drawing something pretty" as most may think. This
may of course clash with UX and a good professional will know how to balance
them. (And of course some may pull this card as to push their personal
preferences, as developers pull the "this can't be done" card often for the
same reasons)

About 7: yes, it's a bad idea if you do it blindly, but it may often be your
best guess. Adapt to your situation and check if it works for you.

~~~
JoelMarsh
I love this comment, thanks for writing it. There is a DEFINITELY a theory and
a method to design. I would never say otherwise, and you're absolutely right.

The second part of your comment was precisely what I was getting at: people
who hijack "UX" or the "design perspective" as a way of justifying their
preferences without any further discussion.

I literally saw this happen the day I wrote this post. They offered no other
explanation than "The design perspective says..."

If you're working with a grid, you can certainly discuss how something fits or
doesn't fit, or works within that grid. Colours have meaning, hierarchy is
crucial in aesthetics and usability, and typography is a whole discipline of
its own. I wholeheartedly agree.

If someone knew all of that and used it to justify their choices, they
wouldn't need to co-opt the "design perspective" as their argument of choice.

It's when someone says that "Blue is the best colour for links" or "the 960
grid is the most usable" or "sans serif is the most readable" — from a design
perspective — that we have a problem.

Thanks again.

~~~
nilliams
If a person can backup or explain their use of terms like 'the design
perspective' with appropriate nuances, it's not bullshit.

If they can't, then sure, they're bullshitting you.

That's not to say the simplified version of the rule isn't useful though. It
can save us from forever explaining x years of experience to everyone we
encounter, as well as potentially confusing people new to the subject.
Teachers do this a lot, intentionally.

~~~
JoelMarsh
Agreed.

------
coldcode
Sometimes I laugh when I see articles like this. Yelling at people is so
effective.

Before there was UX there was UI. UX is a modern concept that basically came
with the web. Yet people designed effective interfaces in applications long
before the web (which is why it was called UI). Back in the 80's the idea that
artist type people could design interfaces was not common at all, in fact it
was more of a programmer speciality (today people laugh at this). The point
was that you were trying to identify how people could effectively interact
with your application and generally you had to do that in code. There was no
Photoshop to draw pictures in. I used Hypercard in those days when I needed to
show how I thought it should work to product managers or other programmers.
Then I did the implementation. In those days you usually had to figure it out
yourself as their were few resources to even look at.

Today the concept of UX is very different and few UX people would ever
consider implementation part of their job of even consider it in their design
work.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> Before there was UX there was UI. UX is a modern concept that basically came
> with the web. Yet people designed effective interfaces in applications long
> before the web (which is why it was called UI).

In a submission about design bullshitting, nice job (by Po's law, I can't tell
if you are serious or not)! UX has been around for far longer than the web.
The term UX gained popularity in the 90s to emphasize that its not just about
the visuals.

These days, things are a bit more specialized: we have visual designers whose
primary tool is Illustrator (a few are still crazy pixel-based photoshoppers,
but most have moved onto vector), but then we also have lots of interaction
designers whose primary tool is visio and powerpoint (many designers in web do
both and might even code, but this doesn't work for complex products). Most
programmers still don't get design and can't really tell the difference.

~~~
coldcode
I'm talking about the 1980's, the 90's was the transition period to UX from
UI. In the early days the visuals wasn't much since the OS's had so little to
work with. Basically we were inventing what an interface was in those days.
Most application categories (besides the web) were first seen in the 80's.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Graphic (visual) designers existed in the 80s and much longer before that,
even if they weren't working on computers back then. Interaction design, on
the other hand, comes about in the 70s but doesn't get its name until the 80s.
Even today, most people don't grock what interaction designers do (hint: its
not visual).

------
eof
Came looking for little nuggets of wisdom; being a programmer that has mostly
had other programs as my 'users'.

Left with nothing more than having spent some time watching the OP pat his own
back.

(I Still don't know how to pretend I know UX or feel any better at sniffing
out fakers)

~~~
GhotiFish
This is my feeling as well. I wanted to have a more rational foundation for
how I design my interface, but this is a list of pet peeves, this does me no
good!

------
dingle_thunk
11\. Write an article like this one.

------
saltvedt
Perhaps even more infuriating than this is the notion that by virtue of being
a user of a system, the user knows how the UX should be.

It's often repeated that "developers don't know UX", but some has taken that
to mean that UX/UI decisions should be taken by anyone other programmers.

~~~
nchlswu
and as a 'UX Designer', it's hard to avoid this. I loathe when peers use
rationale, but I understand.... because as a designer, ou're expected to use
your experience as a guide you

------
mattkevan
Extract the UX part and the article could be a primer on how to blag your way
in pretty much anything.

That's not to say I disagree with what it says. As a UX designer I've been on
the receiving end of most of these - and probably perpetrated a few as well.

(Slightly off-topic: I don't think the term Information Architecture is
helpful even though that's what I do. IA, UX, UE, EA, whatever - it's all
design. Though Information Architect or Experience Architect does sound
fancier than just Designer.)

Design perspectives are vital as good design is about finding creative
solutions to problems, best practices and patterns are useful as they help
avoid common mistakes and research and testing is useful for refining and
developing existing ideas.

However, the main difference between a blagger and a real expert is that the
latter is able to articulate where and why each rule, guideline, finding etc.
should be followed or broken.

------
stevecooperorg
Not a lot of concrete help, here. What _am_ I looking for in a good UX
conversation?

I would be interested in an article that explains how a good conversation
proceeds. Any thought?

~~~
JoelMarsh
No, you're right. I wasn't aiming at a "be-all, end-all" post though... just
highlighting some common ways people piggy-back their preferences on "UX".
However, your suggestion is good and I added it to my (relatively short) list
of articles-to-do. To be fair, a good UX conversation can take many forms
depending on the project and context, but there are certainly key points to
cover no matter what.

I have written about good ux before:

[http://thehipperelement.com/post/51160057897/ux-is-a-
science...](http://thehipperelement.com/post/51160057897/ux-is-a-science-not-
an-art)

[http://thehipperelement.com/post/51569751954/protip-
tuesday-...](http://thehipperelement.com/post/51569751954/protip-
tuesday-5-launching-is-an-experiment)

~~~
tsieling
Thanks for stepping back in to clarify. I think what hurt this article the
most was its emphasis on conflict over collaboration. How can people work
around these habits of dressing up preferences? Telling them to 'call
bullshit' is kind of empty, and it sounds like you've got experience that can
inform those situations better.

------
300bps
This article is spot on. It is applicable not just to designers but to
anything web-related in general that is not a hard science. I've seen these
techniques used most often in discussions of design and SEO.

I am amazed at how many times I've heard from charlatans, "We have data that
shows..." which is analogous to your "The research says..." Then when you ask
for the non-existent data it turns into a "don't look behind the curtain"
discussion straight from the Wizard of Oz.

Don't let the angry designers commenting here make you think that your post
isn't accurate. It is. I suspect a lot of people erroneously think you're
talking about them merely because they've never had the displeasure of working
with a true fraud who uses these techniques constantly.

------
nextstep
This is terrible, it's just a list of 10 things NOT to do. I didn't learn
anything about UX.

~~~
alextingle
Useless AND insufferably smug.

------
meerita
I love when people list some fallacies online. It's a good reminder of the
practices you need to avoid. This article does that in a funny way but the
problem i see is the lack of solutions that the author offers in it. There's
little to learn in there, in my humble opinion, for any person interested in
UX.

This article would be awesome if every point is related in the sense of
situations. For example, you're in situation A where you probably will need to
use the infamous X argument, don't use it, try to argue Y better. That
explains both problem and best exit and, also denotes the process you need to
do for making a seriously good UX.

~~~
jbeja
Is a rant what would you expect?

~~~
meerita
I said what I would expect. You can't tell someone what is bad if you can't
say what would be the good side of it.

------
runningdog
The title should be "How to argue with someone who knows what they are doing
when your self efficacy exceeds your ability"

------
annnnd
Great article but terrible (misleading) title. :)

Unfortunately, the info is mostly helpful in hindsight. One must have had an
experience with a so-called "UX expert" to really appreciate this article, but
I'm not sure it would have helped me in occasions I had the clash with some
self-appointed UX "guru"... But it was a fun read nevertheless and very very
very true! Thanks!

------
prof_hobart
>Never use jargon if you can help it.

Funny in the context of an article peppered with the term "UX". I know what it
means, and I suspect most people on HN know what it means, but does the
average "client, boss, and colleague" know what it means? If not, then it's
jargon.

Oh, and "eye tracking, card sorting, .. , A/B testing". Ditto.

------
jonahx
JoelMarsh,

I enjoyed this article and agreed with all the points. However, I am calling
bullshit on the title "Experience Architect"

~~~
JoelMarsh
That has been my title for several years. If you can be a User Experience
Designer or an Information Architect (both well-established job titles), what
is wrong with "(User) Experience Architect" if you do both?

~~~
jonahx
To be honest, both "User Experience Designer" and "Information Architect,"
especially the latter, have a ring of bullshit, but they are at least in
common enough use that I know approximately what the job actually entails
(again less so with information architect).

So when you make the change to "Experience Architect," dropping the "User"
prefix, it becomes vague to the point where I literally had no idea what you
did for living, although I guessed from the article's content that you worked
in UX somehow, presumably designing user interfaces or consulting about them.
But as someone who (rightly) rails against vagueness in marketing and against
bullshit that masquerades as expertise, I would think you'd be averse to a
title which trades clarity for puffery.

~~~
JoelMarsh
Your thoughts are not uncommon, unfortunately, but they come from a lack of,
or confusing, information... not a high level of bullshit.

And oddly enough, I wrote an article about that too. :) Maybe this will help:

[http://thehipperelement.com/post/47950319899/do-you-have-
the...](http://thehipperelement.com/post/47950319899/do-you-have-the-wrong-
job-title)

~~~
jonahx
Another good article. It has not changed my mind, however :)

As someone who values making scientific decisions, I would challenge you to
survey people in the tech industry (programmers, visual designers, UX experts,
etc) and ask them if they know what an "Experience Architect" does.

It is difficult enough that some people don't know that user interaction and
user experience are jobs different from a graphic designer and front end
developer. But I think user interaction and UX are at least somewhat known. As
you said: "If you do information and interaction and UX, go with “UX” as a job
title."

It sounds like "UX Designer and Information Architect" might be accurate in
your case? And it sounds almost as impressive as "Experience Architect" :)

------
mattyfo
The author of this article failed in stating up front a basic assumption about
UX which is that you need to be making your decisions from a position that is
informed by quantitative and qualitative observations about the actual users.

When you collect the data you can test things 'from a design perspective' and
'best practice' standpoint and see if those hold true. Any other way and
you're making stuff and justifying your decisions after the fact.

If you're not talking to users then you're not doing USER experience design,
you're just making up an experience design. See Whitney Hess:
[http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2011/04/23/youre-not-a-user-
expe...](http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2011/04/23/youre-not-a-user-experience-
designer-if/)

------
Demiurge
Ok, so as someone who has used the "design perspective" to avoid verbalizing
something I simply understood to be true intuitively, what are good resources
for understanding the theory and explaining UX choices?

~~~
JoelMarsh
I respect the fact that you asked. :)

There are lots. Not to be self-serving, but I post all the best links I find
on www.thehipperelement.com, if you feel like scanning through them.

But a few, off the top of my head are:

\- www.alistapart.com \-
[http://www.uie.com/articles/](http://www.uie.com/articles/) (run by Jared
Spool, I think) \- www.smashingmagazine.com is a bit hit and miss, but what
they lack in quantity they make up for in quantity. \- www.unbounce.com \-
www.goodui.com is a good, quick, visual reference for best practices. You
could make a career just from enforcing some of those, haha.

And these two books would lay a good foundation in general:

\- "Web Form Design" by LukeW (his blog is also interesting) \- "Don't Make Me
Think" by Steve Krug

If you only spent a few hours on those you'd be ahead of the game. And if
there is anything you feel is missing from the world, let me know on Twitter
and maybe I can write something about it. @HipperElement

Hopefully that helps.

~~~
Demiurge
Thank you, I'm actually prepared to spend a lot more than a few hours. I wish
this was integrated in Computer Science programs. Not being able to
objectively justify some of my choices has been pretty traumatic and your list
nicely summarized why :)

~~~
JoelMarsh
This was nice to read. Let me know if there is anything I can help with
(seriously).

------
grumblestumble
So let's break this down:

1) "From a design perspective" \- bad wording, true, but the underlying idea
is "from a user-centric perspective" as opposed to "from an implementation,
engineering, or data-centric perspective". The latter still being
unfortunately the driving force behind most interfaces, any designer will need
to use some form of this phrase fairly frequently in most real-world
situations.

2) "Best Practices say" \- again, this can be misused, but heuristic and
expert evaluations of an interface are the bread and butter of most designers'
toolset. A/B testing, on-site user testing, user interviews, et al, are all
great tools, but in many cases, they're luxuries. When you're part of a small
team trying to hit a MVP, starting with baseline best practices is the
pragmatic way to go. Insisting on reinventing every dropdown or tabset is a
sure fire way to singlehandedly sink a startup.

3) "Let's use an analogy" \- generic, applicable to any problem-solving
endeavor. This has nothing to do with UX. This is where the whole article
started really stinking of linkbait.

4) Jargon - industry jargon is a powerful way of communicating specific,
granular concepts to a peer audience. Yes, if you're using UX jargon when
presenting your ideas to an outside audience, you're doing it wrong. But
saying jargon is wrong is just dumb, and once again, jargon is hardly a UX-
specific phenomenon.

5) "The research says" \- let's just repeat #2 and blather on some more

6) Again, see #2.

7) Ok, so the basic idea here is that the True Pure UX involves coming up with
brilliant new concepts in a vacuum. Leveraging successful ideas is verboten.
I'm not sure how this guy could get anything done without the support of a
20-person UX team, with the other 19 people covering for his theoretical
brilliance.

8) To be perfectly honest, I don't think I've ever heard the term focus groups
used by anyone in the UX field, and I've been at it since '98\. But you need
10 bullets on that list, I guess.

9) Probably the only point on this list that I agree with, and something I'd
never seen until very recently. The concept of "stupid users" has obviously
been entrenched in the development side since Day 1, hence the need for UX in
the first place. But it's definitely disturbing to start seeing supposed user
advocates start to toss this one around.

10) Big numbers are bad unless they're the right big numbers. Gotcha, mate.
Misusing statistics and measurements is obviously an epidemic confined solely
to the UX sphere, and not a basic human foible.

------
nchlswu
to be fair, there are some use cases where focus groups (maybe not traditional
focus groups, but focus group style discussion) can be useful. I'd generally
still agree with that comment as well though

------
timme
I'll take data over bullshit articles like this any day.

------
rfnslyr
How is this @ +50 votes? Why do people vote on these articles? I've seen
awesome articles floating at ~10 with 0 comments a lot of the time.

