The problem with UX and Design in the digital world

There is a fundamental flaw that exists in the structure and relationship of the “UX” and “Design” disciplines.

If you read that sentence, you noticed several potential points with which you might take issue. First, you could say that “UX” is not the proper term for the discipline. It is “Interaction Design” or “UE” or some other title or acronym. You could also say, “Excuse me, but UX is design. You’re an ass for not being able to make the distinction.” The difficulty in constructing this opening sentence illustrates the essence of the problem that I am discussing here.

In order to explain, I need to give a little history. Also, it needs to be noted here that I am not talking about the technology aspect of design here in case you are wondering about the utter lack mention of developers or technologists.

In the beginning, Designers reigned supreme

It was not so long ago that roles like “Information architect”, “User experience”, and “Interaction design” didn’t exist. Or if they did, they weren’t in the web design business. In the mid-90’s designers did everything. I remember a time before wireframes even existed. To be fair, web sites weren’t nearly as complex as they are today, but there also weren’t any existing guidelines or conventions. Every week brought a new site to the web that brought something new to the table - some things good, some things not so good. I remember when tables first came around, then frames, then Shockwave, and the web as we know it began to take shape. For better or for worse, the people figuring it out were designers.

It wasn’t too long when the web advanced to the point where sites became very complex, and real business had to be integrated into what was going on. Things like strategy entered the picture. Real processes came into being and things like wireframes came into existence.

At this time, designers thought quite a lot of themselves. We had figured out the web all by ourselves, we clearly knew better than any of our clients how the Internet worked, and we needed a lot of people to do the tedious work we could not be bothered with. We had big “creative” problems to solve. (if you can’t tell, the air quotes are for extra sarcasm).

Enter the Information Architect

When sites became complex, so did the process and deliverables. It became very standard practice to use wireframes before design began. But god forbid a designer should create them. Someone else needed to do such unglamorous work - enter the Information Architect.

There evolved a feeling among designers that they would begin work when they had the proper information. This included a brief, a strategy deck, sitemap and wireframes. Obviously over time the deliverables were even more diverse and in-depth, but this was somewhat the first round of items that designers demanded in order to start being creative. If a strategy deck wasn’t to our liking, we sent it back. If we didn’t like the wireframes, we ignored them. After all, we were “creatives”.

There became a point in all this where a combination of arrogance and often laziness forced Information Architects to start making critical decisions, and dealing with some of the most important issues that a project would face. This is when the discipline began to evolve. The deliverables were more complex, incredibly thought out, and ultimately resolved to the point where the design team could pretty it up and take all the credit.

This is pretty much where things start going all haywire.

Re-branding the Information Architect

At some point in the evolution of Information Architecture, the most important and critical decisions started being made in the wireframes. Designers had opted out of the IA process and instead wanted to be handed a set of ‘finished’ wireframes. From the design view, wireframes were just boxes with the content that needed to be designed. But what they became were all the upfront design thinking and research without aesthetics.

Information Architects were quickly becoming both the more passionate, innovative and critical part of the design process. As the discipline evolved, new titles emerged that reflected a new level of recognition for the craft: Interaction Design, User Experience, etc.

An “IA” deliverable started out as – here’s all the information, now you can solve the problem. A “UX” deliverable was becoming – here’s the answer, now make it look pretty.

The core issue

While this overall evolution is occurring at different places and in different forms in every agency type and company culture, it is a huge dysfunction that exists in the industry. The strangest part of it seems to be that it is rarely acknowledged or discussed.

Both disciplines combined do the essential work to create great design, the problem is that for the most part both work without a true understanding or appreciation for what the other does. The secondary issue is the underlying tension in the ambiguity of their relationship. When you get right down to it, both groups feel they are the ones doing what is important. While that is a fairly natural feeling, the vague nature of where one begins and the other ends creates an underlying animosity. You need only sit in one ‘debate’ where there is a disagreement between disciplines to see what a structural divide exists. I think one of the most obvious clues to the ambiguity is the discrepancy in understanding in whether the new discipline is User Experience, Interaction Design, Information Architecture, etc. There are so many names and acronyms (UE, UX, ID, IxD, UI, IA, etc.), it illustrates the lack of clarity and understanding of exactly what the discipline is.

If you understand what the “UX” discipline aspires to be, it prompts the question – why do you need a designer for anything else than to make the result pretty?

Alternatively, if you understand what a designer has always been, it prompts the question – if a designer is doing their job, why do you need UX?

The answer has been that the specialization of tasks has provided for a more streamlined and efficient production model. This divide facilitates a production model where specialists make the part and then pass it along. This model helps environments produce things faster, but not better.

Sleeping with the frenemy

There are several ways that the camps live together, and it tends to depend on the nature and culture of the environment that determines both their success and harmony:

One camp rules the roost – Regardless of the ‘collaborative’ rhetoric, most larger entities are driven by one discipline or the other. When asked, of course, these firms are a ‘collaborative environment that vigorously debate issues and that the best ideas emerge as a result’. This is a very common description, yet somewhat of an industry yeti. They are rumored to exist, but I have been hard pressed to find them. When pushed, at the end of the day, one discipline tends to own the final decision. Large entities need structure, process and definition and this issue continues to defy that with the exception of a completely ‘silo’ approach, which inflames rather than reconciles the issue.

Polite consensus – The more awful version of the above scenario is that teams can practice collaboration in a more civil manner and when disagreements occur there is civil debate and a polite compromise is made. No one’s feelings are hurt, but in turn there is often a distinct watering down of quality.

Non-polite disagreement – The most awful scenario where there is no structure, no respect, and no trust, turning debates into shouting matches driven by ego where the loudest voice (or the one willing to shout the longest) wins.

Chemistry – This is the most rare and successful instance, but one that certainly exists. In order for people of differing views and skills to work together and mutually search for the best answer, there needs to be a trust and respect that cannot be structured in a process or org chart. This relationship happens in smaller environments or instances where people just happen to work well together. What must be absent is the presence of ego and a sense of territorialism.

Reconciling the divide

The first step in bringing harmony between these two disciplines is to acknowledge that there is a fundamental flaw that currently exists.

What I would ultimately like to see is all of the distinction between UX and Design erased by simply acknowledging that they are different tasks and not different people. Meaning, just because there are two different steps, who said there needs to be two different people? Why do they have to have separate names that create the very divide and tension that needs to disappear?

Both disciplines need to have a little more honesty in acknowledging what they don’t know and what they’re not doing.  

The way I see it, the UX discipline is the more innovative discipline, and the designers are basically resigning themselves to being decorators. To retain both disciplines, neither has the true understanding to lead the process. In broad terms, UX has the knowledge to start a project while designers have the knowledge to finish it. To me, this doesn’t work.

If you are part of conceiving and visualizing a solution, you are a designer. Drawing distinctions like “UX” designer, “Visual” designer etc., creates silos allowing people to stay ignorant of critical understanding that they need to possess in order to create truly great and innovative work. A designer needs to go back to being someone who approaches a problem from start to finish, not just a part.

To illustrate my point, if you were tasked to design a book but you required that a black and white version of the book be given to you dictating its size, how the text was divided, where the imagery went etc., then you didn’t design the book. You decorated it. Similarly, the individual that created the black and white version of the book also did not design the book. They organized it. To any classically trained designer, this would be a laughable premise. The role of a designer is to approach the problem in its entirety. While this hypothetical book ultimately had a ‘design’, there was not an entire design solution. Fundamentally, this is a critical problem that places the success of the outcome on the sheer luck that these separate pieces that are created not only work when placed together, but some type of vision and innovation happens in the process.

While the metaphor of a book to a web site is far from a one to one comparison, the core idea - that a designer needs to approach problems in their entirety - is still valid. 

Ultimately, if a UX designer is going to propose a visual solution (wireframe), they need to learn the entire vocabulary that defines a visual solution – color, grids, composition, imagery, typography, etc. Not to mention the core communication principles such as branding and positioning. To propose a visual solution with no grasp of these, and other design concepts, is somewhat pointless. The result will be flawed by definition.

Additionally, if a “designer” is going to step up and act more like a designer (and not a decorator), they need to get back into the nitty-gritty of the core problem – understanding the user habits, understanding the competitive space, doing research, and even making wireframes. If you are a trained designer, then you were taught all these things as a matter of design problem solving. It’s time you get back to doing that.

In other words, both need to learn what the other knows and become complete designers again.

Moving forward or backward?

A designer, in its purest form, is someone who is trained to solve a problem in its entirety. A designer’s education is always rooted in understanding a problem from its core, understanding all factors that influence the problem and ultimately shape the solution.

At the end of the day, design that is completed by individuals in task-based silos lacks both a comprehensive approach and overarching vision. All the talk of ‘collaboration’ is just a great sounding band-aid that spins a flaw into a benefit and avoid facing or resolving the core issue.

The industry, as well of all of us who live within this realm of it, all face a choice of whether we will continue to expand this divide or reconcile it. Are we creating designers who turn part of their brain off because it is someone else’s job?

At the moment, there are shining examples of individuals that bridge this gap, but they are the exception, not the rule. I would like to see a new breed of designer who can approach a solution in its entirety become the rule, not the exception.  



Comments

[Ryan Snelson]

Right on Steve. I couldn't have said it better.

[Michael Paige]

(Caveat: I'm gonna grit my teeth and not talk about tech.) I absolutely see your point. My understanding of "Designers" is they are problem solvers/communicators. And the fundamental questions are always - what information needs to be communicated? - and - how best to do that? I can absolutely see "Designers" filling the role that is now springing up as UX/IxD/etc. After all, it's "Design", and a good designer should be able to "frame" the information, and then graphically design (pretty up) an interface to communicate that information. What I see though (agency generalization), are graphic designers who have little/no interest in the information architecture aspect of website design, and are happy to spend their time with grids, color wheels, and typefaces, and leave the user interaction design to someone else, hence the split. This dichotomy doesn't need to exist, true, but specialization isn't a bad thing. It's the territorial disputes that cause problems. The larger the sites, and more complex the information, the more "specialists" there are. Take a BA for example. Usually they're just a subject matter expert. The smaller the site, the more a "Designer" takes on these multifaceted roles. I think it comes down to something you said - there needs to to be respect between the disciplines/specializations. We're all "Designers" tackling the problem of helping our client(s) reach an audience. We're all just coming at the problem from different directions.

[Stephen Fritz]

Michael,

Caveat very noted. It was a tough topic to discuss as there are so many caveats and wider issues.

You have a great point about "specialists", as everyone does sort of naturally tend to find one thing they're great at. I think my over-arching theme is that as people begin to specialize, it should begin from a more comprehensive view and become more specific - or specialized. My concern is that people are beginning with a limited view or settling for a limited role because it fits more neatly into an agency's structure, not because it creates better solutions.

[Dan Klyn]

Stephen: using simple visual renderings to more clearly explain complex structural and semantic principles is not tantamount to proposing a visual solution. Perhaps in the way that a pupa proposes a butterfly.

In my experience, folks who *have* mastered <cite>the entire vocabulary that defines a visual solution – color, grids, composition, imagery, typography, etc. Not to mention the core communication principles such as branding and positioning</cite> – when these folks make wireframes, they're often designing the butterfly.

When IA's make wireframes, we're developing a set of instructions to generate a butterfly.

Too hair-splitty of a differentiation to be helpful here?