Roll on another job title. Call yourselves whatever you want, seriously...
That is true, but are not to many title for the same thing? I feel that we add up to much to the noise.
Hmmm, I see your point. But I'm talking more about the situation where we have 14 competing names/titles for each of the 14 competing standards. And the topic is more on the fact that is not about users anymore.
Nope. You're doing the exact thing the comic is saying. There are 15 competing standards.
I think the real problem is we're too focused on humans, and we forget the products we design are used by other beings every day.
You are so true. But I feel that the real problem is that we design the experience of other beings as we, as humans, want to be :(
Unless you are designing for animals who or what else would a designer be crafting an experience for? Isn't it redundant to have to clarify it (the experience) is for 'humans'?
I just feel that not about users, User Experience. At least not anymore. And also feel the need to have a better defined common process, because right now is too much confusion.
On the other hand, you touched a really interesting point - designing experience for animals. But not assumptions of ours, humans. Will reflect on this, thanks.
The "user" is exactly who design is for. The only reason we design anything is for the people that end up using the product. The thing that makes the term "User Experience" confusing is that it's been used incorrectly for far too long. The challenge shouldn't be to come up with new names, but rather spend the energy explaining the wholistic concepts of "User Experience" to your colleagues and stakeholders. UX is not something that is done by a single individual in a single department in a single application.
I echo the sentiment of the others here. We are designers. It's our job to design solutions to problems our "users" have. We aren't designing experiences. The experience belongs to the user.
Like @Nelson Taruc says, call yourself whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you're just a designer.
Yes, we are not designing experiences - we are designing desired experiences. I agree with you, but feel that the term "user" is not enough anymore or does not reflect what UX has become.
The problem is what makes design, design is... same for all design disciplines.
For example; - Design is a process, to create solutions for problems. - To Design, you first understand the situation in all of it's aspects - A Designer should have a world-view, or reflects a shared world-view, where the "ideal" results are also sharing common properties (easy to use, ecologically friendly, long-lasting etc.) - again... design is solving problems.
So, whether you're designing a building, or a jacket, or a car, or a mobile applications... underlying principles doesn't change. And a real design process focuses on the user, otherwise it's not really a "design" process. (or maybe intentionally doesn't focus on the user, to create a different result for any reason, but the key here is intentionality)
Death to User Experience Designer title, long-live the User Experience methodology!
All designers are "user-experience designers", and there is not just one agreed process on how to increase the positive emotions on the users and decreasing/removing all confusing and distracting parts. When someone says, they are User Experience Designer... it's not clear what they're designing, and this is the biggest problem, the source of the confusion. Without explaining who is the user and where they are having an experience, User-Experience Designer title can mean anything really. (Architects, Automobile Designers, Textile Designers etc.)
I tell the designers on our team that you can have whatever title you want on your business card or LinkedIn profile. At the end of the day, though, you're just a designer. No need to sweat the specifics.
But then how will you write medium posts about your job title?
But, what do you tell them when/if they ask you what career path are they on?
I don’t tell them. They tell me.
So, you are saying that a junior that will come in your team will be able to tell you in which career path is s/he on?!
If the title "Designer" is not enough for ANY designer, then it doesn't matter what you put in front of it. The titles are there so you can hide your low self-esteem as a designer.
If you need "User Experience" wording in your title, and if you think a designer is not already cares about the User Experience without that title... yeah you're part of the problem and just trying to find "a better way" to explain what you're doing by making it more vague won't help to make it more clear for anyone.
So if I know nothing about design disciplines, how can I guess what you're designing? - you're an architect... you design buildings. - you're a city planner... you design navigation and the connections in the city. - you're a fashion designer... you design clothing. - you're a "Human Experience Designer"... and you only design a navigation in the website? Oh I thought you're kind of like a "life-coach"...
Yes, that's what we challenge our junior designers to do. We try not to pigeon-hole them into specific career paths. For example, we have a person who would be typically classified as a visual designer, but also enjoys industrial product design and 3-D modeling/prototyping. If that's the career path that person desires, we totally let them pursue it.
Exactly, this is also what we are trying to do, at my company. But we understood that we need to define career paths so they can have an overview of what else is there.
Sure, as long you are doing some actual design work. But honestly, it sounds very redundant, because if you are doing design, you're already taking into consideration the people whos going to use by design principles, otherwise, it's call art. Perhaps you should just call yourself a Designer
Or just Experience Designer. Having in mind that it is all about contextual experience.
It should be all about design, the experience is just a consequence. Experience designer sounds kind too pretentious, in my opinion, because you can not control a lot of variants that contribute to the whole experience.
I see your point but knowing your customer journey, even if you can't control a particular variant, you can at least set the right expectations, etc. It's just like any other constraint.
That's what my role is, but I am probably one of the few that get to do a lot of the "end-to-end" experience design that some one teams may not be able to touch. I also get to have a ton of touchpoint's because we primarily a retail company that and design gets to touch: digital/e-commerce/in-person/product/communication/organization.
I hear you man, I also have worked on retail, advertising and now on tech, so I've been called by so many titles, and I know exactly what you mean about researching all the touchpoints on retail experience. But the point is that design is all about creativity, doesn't matter what you call it, it's about what comes after the research.
The biggest problem is, these definitions and titles are misleading and they do not clearly describes what kind of designer you are.
So you are an "(User/customer/human) Experience Designer". What you are designing exactly? You should be designing experiences and you should be designing experiences, everywhere there is humans.
So you design the experience in an airport too? (navigational signage, landing board interface etc.) So you also design the interaction between the customer and airport personnel? Also you design the experience we have in public transport? Or in our homes? Maybe you are designing the buildings too? And what about our "user experience" with our clothes... as a "user experience designer", you probably designing that too?
What? You only draw wireframes for websites, mobile/desktop apps, and you can only think of navigations if they are on these mediums?
Then what is the source of this grandiose delusion that you call yourself an "Experience Designer"? Your ego?
Designers are designers of what they are doing, not the results of what they are designing. You are not designing an experience, you design X, where the user/customer is having an experience. If you design a shitty X, people will have shitty experience with X. And you are X Designer, because that's what you're designing.
If you're designing a car, and you don't care about the experience people will have... than is that really a car you're designing? Or even the action you are taking is design?
(Sorry, I will continue bashing this kind of articles where people are just trying to look different while missing the whole point of design)
Well, I find your point of view really constructive. I feel that is about everything you mentioned. In my article I'm just saying that is to much confusion and that we don't have an "unified approach to the UX Process" as JB Ong said in his comment. And I agree that we are not designing an experience but actually a "desired contextual experience".
Still it's not clear what it means and if it's accurate to define that designers design experiences. Let me explain what i mean...
First of all, experience is always contextual, which creates the experience. You may have the fastest car in the world, but if the road you are driving is not good enough for high-speeds, then it doesn't matter it's the fastest car or not, you drive as fast as the road permits.
"Desired" part is also assumes that there can only be the "appropriate usage", which eliminates the human factor of discoverability and it assumes that the product can only be useful in certain situation.
We, as designers are guilty for imposing "our way of doing it right" when we're designing and defining systems/products/services. Human-centered design is actually an act to break this bad habit, to think more about randomness and unpredictability about "the human experience".
User experience and human-centered design in that regard understood -mostly- wrong. UX is not about imposing "the best way", it's more about creating a ground for most of the use-cases to be successful; without confusion or distraction, and better with a positive experience.
Human-centered design is not about finding "the one and only right way", but instead being open to errors, and still perform well. This is the most important thing that most of the people are missing about User Experience. Because of that, they use the title "User Experience Design".
Human-centered design suggests "not to design for the best experience, but design the product/service in a way that even the unexpected use cases results in a good user-experience".
Nobody can design the "user experience", but we can "design for the user experience". (You design the product/service --> As a result everyone is having a unique experience of their own, whether it's desired or not.)
But I totally agree. And this is what I hoped to achieve with my article - to start a conversation regarding the confusion in this industry and the need of having an unified process. And with the Experience Design, just because I feel that it is more than the User term.
I find this conversation very informative and constructive.
I don't know. I was thinking to keep my options open for when the robot overlords show up. Don't want them to miss me on LinkedIn.
No, it shouldn't