Don’t be deceived by the UX/UI role
How come companies are looking for combined UX/UI roles? UX and UI are two completely different competences, the first analytical and problem-solving, the other creative and emotion-based requiring a fair bit of talent. In the name of multi-disciplinary teams, how come companies take the short-cut and opt for roles with two separate/distinct competencies? Let me tell you why this is a bad idea and why the end-result will suffer. I will also present a better idea which will yield a much better result with marginally higher cost.
UX is all about understanding people — needs, incentives, knowledge, characteristics. With that information, solutions are created to better those people’s lives. You need to understand how humans work — individually, socially and under internal and external constraints and pressure. Only after that, you can come up with solutions that have a chance of making it.
UI is all about emotions — how do I want people to feel when seeing or using this. What does these colors, formats and structures convey to a person? Do they feel safe? Cool? Happy? UI requires understanding the emotional side of humans and how to make people feel and react to visual stimuli.
After decades of nagging about bringing distinct and varied disciplines to the table, are we to just scrap the multi-disciplinary philosophy? And when we’re at it why don’t we just use people that are developers-managers-designers-testers? Well, the answer is that today’s projects are too big and complex. No one single person can manage the complexity of today’s projects so we need more people. The competences that are needed are also so demanding that no one can know them all and have the required experience. So we need a number of people, a team, with different skills to have a chance of delivering a successful result. Yes, there have been a few people that have had all that but I say they were just lucky. If you count yourself in that privileged club, believe me you’re not.
Let me make an analogy from house building. Two distinct skills needed to create a successful and enjoyable home are the architect and the home decorator. The first lays out the framework, plans and designs in which way the building will be used in general, eg the floorplan. Will the kitchen be next to the living room or the dining room? Has the hallway enough space for coats and shoes? Should we face the balcony south even though the entrance is from the bedroom?
Once the floorplan is preliminary set, the home decorator can get to work. What colors and tapestry can I use to make the living room cosy? Will there be a conflict in appearance if we use a marble sink and wooden kitchen doors? What floor material will blend in with the rest of the building?
In house building different people handle these two skill-sets and mindsets because it is overwhelming for one person to manage. Instead, a team of architects and home decorators work together to create the best solution. Why is design in our world any different?
So how come companies are rejecting UX focused people in favour of UX/UI? Well, the simple answer is ignorance and money. As they do not really understand the implications and complexity of design they cannot understand that you need more than one person. It’s about what the interface will look like, so why more people? With multidisciplinary teams, the various knowledge and experiences are to be aired to find the optimal solution, but with a UX/UI role that is only happening in the mind of that person.
UX in itself is a philosophy but also a toolbox of methods and processes, where no one can master all. A few companies seem to see UX as a set of skills, all separate roles, and have designed their organisation according to that. This gives rise to another problem — fragmentation and evil handoffs. When splitting the UX role, people focus on their area of responsibility and less on the actual end-result, making the separate parts well-executed but with no one caring for the overall picture. Not to mention all information that gets lost in handoffs.
A way better solution than the UX/UI role is to stick with the multi-disciplinary philosophy — include both a UX:er and a UI:er in your project. As the UI:er does not need the same amount of time, that person can be shared between other projects, which makes for better results both UX wise and UI wise. UX wise because that person comes with more experience and focus; UI wise because that person has more experience and automatically ensures a consistent design across the projects. A UI could also be contracted on a freelance basis.
In the fragmented example, I would actually advise the same solution. Let the same person(s) be responsible for all UX related activities throughout the project to ensure a high level of quality and reduce handoffs. This will give the person a higher sense of involvement thus caring more about the end-result. Even better is a small team of UX:ers, all active in UX-related activities throughout the project. Some critical activities are executed by the whole team, otherwise workload is split when appropriate. This will result in higher quality of the end-result as well as a rise in dedication and job satisfaction.
Companies still opting for UX/UI role will continue to delude themselves and not really utilize the power of collaborative multi-disciplinary teams that can solve hard problems and reach ambitious goals.
