6 Responses

  1. Eduardo da Silva
    Eduardo da Silva at |

    I agree with your point you made that UX Designers just think of the interface, instead of the actual solution. To me, the reason for that is in the definition of the role, which leads to that mentality. In order to think about the solution, the professional needs to take on the mentality/role of a Business Analyst. BAs tend to think only of the solution and not about the interface. As a BA myself, I noticed that when I combined the skills pf a BA and a UX/Interaction Designer, the results and satisfaction of customers and users improved exponencially.

    Reply
    1. Lis Hubert
      Lis Hubert at |

      Interesting point Eduardo… I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for sharing!

      Reply
  2. Henry McKeen
    Henry McKeen at |

    I think deciphering the user’s needs could have an element of art to it. It’s not always as simple as just getting their opinions or watching the analytics. There are latent, unspoken needs which have to be recognized through empathetic and creative thought processes. I am no designer or developer. Nothing that I provide as an output from my research could be considered aesthetically pleasing, but the content, the distillation of human behavior into digestible principles which lend to tactical solutions – it certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings if someone saw an art to that process. Yes it’s empirical and based on hypothesis testing and carefully building appropriate measurement protocols and ideally leading towards converging data in ways that provide confidence that the observations reflect population/market attributes, but building a perfect recipe is still art even if its removed from the “presentation on the plate” aspect of the kitchen.

    Reply
  3. Gavin T
    Gavin T at |

    Hi Lis, Interesting article. We are emotional beings who form instant assumptions based on what we feel before we take the time to think through what we are actually experiencing. I think it’s a given that the interaction design component for any project needs to be well resolved, and that the solution caters as best as possible to the end users needs and wants. However, no solution – no matter how well tested or validated can override that initial emotional response. So getting back to your initial question, art could be considered as part of the mix, though another way of seeing this aspect could be through the lens of cognitive psychology. Our response to colour, form, motion, etc. has evolved over thousands of years. Scientifically speaking we can design for emotion in the same way we design for utility. Maybe the end result isn’t quite the same, given the different forms of cultural conditioning we all experience, though there is definitely a perceptive reaction working in combination with the aesthetic response. Perhaps Don Norman’s thoughts on beautiful things working better is worth consideration. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design_at.html

    Reply
    1. Lis Hubert
      Lis Hubert at |

      Thanks Gavin! And you make such a great point. I think what’s interesting, from what I’ve seen, is that people confuse that emotional response with Art instead of seeing it as part of a perceptive response. Perhaps I’m making another semantic argument haha. Either way great point!

      Reply
  4. mcshefferty
    mcshefferty at |

    I agree in principal with what you are saying. But just because I don’t consider what I do art doesn’t mean I can’t look back on previous work and appreciate that with further experience/technological advances etc, that I could have done it “better” or would approach it differently given the chance again.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

ten − 7 =