Where the design community meets.
Berlin, Germany Senior Product Designer at Lohnwerk Joined about 4 years ago
Omer hasn't posted any stories yet.
This is important, no that's more important, but what about that? isn't that important? holy cow, that's important too, let me highlight that mf right there that looks important too
In a small company, management, marketing, design and sales can be one person too but we don't derive professional roles from this use cases, especially if this roles are specialist roles, if not we use generalist terms, instead of saying Back-End Developer we say Developer or Software Engineer if they're also doing Front-End, DevOps etc.
As User Experience happens internally and externally in all facets and all touchpoints of the organization, ideally it should be a concern of all the departments and at the strategical management level, UX experts should supervise the company-wide effort. In that sense of course UX experts practice will overlap with many departments and roles in varying levels.
BUT, important thing to understand is that User Experience is not limited to a product and if a so-called UX Designer does not hold a position which is in the strategical management and if the responsibilities of that role does not include to impact the overall of UX, then this role is not really a UX role (as it's more concerned with the design of the interaction to create an experience to its users).
Reducing UX to only digital products or only to products or services is against the very thing that makes UX important. Websites, apps, software are gateway to services or functions we want to achieve a particular task or to fulfill a need. We don't use website of airlines to "feel good", so the ultimate expectation of the user is not to feel good, but to buy a ticket and even in itself, this can not be the end-goal as it's just a bureaucratic pass to use a way of transportation. We don't even want to "fly" most of the times, we want to see our family or to conduct a meeting with a client and fast transportation is a convenience we want to use, in that case all the related services and products can not be the end-goal and from this point we can not say the UX of buying a ticket from the website is the ultimate experience we want our customers to achieve. What we (as the service provider) want for our customers to have is a smooth experience without any confusion or hardship to them, so at the end the customer can achieve their goals AND have a positive experience with this particular product/service. If you limit this end-goal to "buying a ticket", everything will be designed around buying tickets which in itself is not the end-goal and it may not be even necessary. Maybe an airline designs the whole ticketing system by eliminating the ticketing practice and if the task of the product team is to design a better ticketing system, this won't happen. The total experience a customer/user have from using the services or the products of a company consists of different smaller experiences and most of the UX Designers are only limited to this isolated experiences, like buying a ticket from the mobile app. And some of this small experiences are not even deemed as part of the overall UX, because of misunderstanding the role of UX. To continue with the airplane ticket example, your experience while waiting in the terminal, when you do your check-in and baggage drop-off, your experience when trying to solve a problem like reporting a missing baggage and waiting for your refund to be processed and all the e-mail communications etc. are part of the whole UX. Unless we look at UX from this holistic perspective, we are missing the main point why we're doing this. Outside of the digital realm, this touchpoints are not addressed by the so-called UX Designers as they have no responsibility over this things. And even all of this small experiences are good, unless they're orchestrated in a manner that guides all this experiences to one whole experience for the customer, it's not effective or even desirable in some cases.
Of course that's the job of the UI Designer. That's one of the biggest misconception in the profession for years that people are mixing up UX with UI, when they mostly think about tasks related to UI to UX Design, then reduce UI Design to a basic visual design.
The term UX coined way before 2002, it was just not misused yet!
User-Interface Design is a sub-discipline of a broader term Interaction Design, but today people mistakenly say "UX Design" is "Interaction Design", while it's not the same thing. UX Design encompasses many facets of the company and its services and products, interaction design is just one of them.
User-Interface is an "interface" between the system (mostly computers) and the user. Most people mix it up with Visual Designers, who are mostly concerned with the visual aspect of a particular design, while User-Interface Designers are mainly focused on the "User" part and they design the Interface to target for a positive User Experience.
User Experience can not be reduced to layouts, wireframes or personas for users (limited to a product or to a service). User Experience Design is strategizing, supervising, planning and executing a general strategy to increase positive user experiences, while trying to eliminate the problematic ones.
You are confusing Product Manager with the UX Designer, as many people falsely use the UX Designer title, in fact they are just UI Designers. One of the reason here is you're thinking of the product teams, while UX is not limited to the product. Your companies' HR practices are part of the UX, as the employees are also internal customers (even if they don't have a customer relationship). How many UX Designers you know can impact on HR practices? or business strategy? or in any other business topic? Almost no UX Designer that works in product teams have any responsibility or effect on it, as they're responsible for the product, they can only affect the part of the User-Interface they are working, or whole of the software, but not whole of the company that UX encompasses.
The problem our industry had was to explain what Designers are doing and why it can not be reduced to "decorating". In that situation "User Experience Design" term was hijacked to package User-Interface Design with a new cover, so companies can put higher price tags on it, then naturally companies started looking for the so called UX Designers, but it wasn't easy because nobody really think of them as UX Designers, as they were not... so the "UI/UX Designer" title was created as a transitionary method to indicate that UX Designers are in fact UI Designers, until it can be reduced to Visual Designer (read: when people see UX, they have to think about the UI). So at the end, User Experience is reduced to wireframes and personas for the digital interactions while forgetting that UX encompasses all internal and external activities of the company. And User-Interface Design reduced to Visual Design, as if UI Designers are only concerned with rounded corners or colors. Still, the importance of Design is forgotten to be told.
In true sense of the word (also in practice), Designers must have their own process to create solutions to problems, and of course you can not create a solution without understanding the problem and its use case with its users and this create the need for research, to understand the users and possible use cases. And the created designs should be tested and iterated over. This basically creates the whole design discipline and even we don't need a term like "User Experience" to explain how design is solving problems, because of it's innate property of usefulness & effectiveness (it can not be useful and effective if the users and use cases are disregarded).
This is not UX Cheat Sheet. This is Product Design Process / Model. They are two different things. Most people don't know the difference and most of the people who call themselves UX Designers are basically User-Interface Designers (Interaction Design).
Definition of User Experience (by Nielsen Norman Group) "Summary: "User experience" encompasses all aspects of the end-user's interaction with the company, its services, and its products."
If you carefully look at the flow, it finalize itself in "Product", but UX is not limited to product development. UX concerns all aspects of a company, with its services and products, from communication to C-Level management, to patterns in relationship with partners and clients, from marketing activities to customer service, to the website and to printed paper forms... UX concerns with everything and most of the UX Designers have no responsibility or say over these things. Today most of the UX Designers are only responsible for interactions and flows in digital products like a website or an app and this is called User-Interface Design.
SF Compact is not a new font, so it's not news. It's not a serif typeface either. So, no, again.
It's not poster's responsibility to design a specific web page for the typeface Apple owns. He posted what he saw there, as a news, as it is a news (of a new typeface).
The title may include “[DOWNLOAD]”, but if the poster’s intention is not about sharing the download link, he would post the link where the content resides.
He could write “Apple Typefaces (with new New York typeface)”, but then somebody else asked why he didn’t just write it as it is now.
still the best illustration:
Dell P2715Q is still a good choice. You can find second-hand around 300-400$.
(Came here to post your article on the topic)
It's a must read if you are picky about your display: https://bjango.com/articles/macexternaldisplays/
Also, I'm using Dell P2715Q and P2415Q (While it conradicts Marc's recommendation, I find these displays to be really good, especially for color reproduction)
It's a subjective topic... I'm using Magic Mouse nearly since it was released, and recently I tried a colleague's Logitech MX 2 Master for only a day, and the next 3 days I had really bad wrist pain. (It wasn't some tingling, it was really bad carpal tunnel pain) So in that terms, Logitech MX Master is an ergonomic disaster, for me.
Most (if not all) of the points are not special for "today". The introduction of the article and the title focuses on "why it's complicated today", but I didn't see any reasoning or opinion about why it's "complicated" and how is it (different than other times, like 1991 or 2003)?
To me the article sounds like "designing for users is hard and confusing", not like "today users are so complicated than yesterday because of this and that".
Especially No.2 baffled me, like when was the time that people didn't expect you to communicate? (There may be too many stimulants now, but also people never had that powerful "banner blindness" before too, so still there is no real comparison regarding yesterday/today, which I was looking for in the article because of the title)
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.