Why presentations of the UX process are intentionally kept complicated and a simple alternative
There is an ongoing discussion in the UX community about the perhaps intentional obfuscation and complexification of the UX design process to make it appear more technically complex than it really is. This is an ongoing issue in many fields, particularly software, where there is the idea that if something is difficult to understand, then it must also be more valuable.
An analogy would be in mathematics. If there is a problem so complex that nobody understands it, but one person can mystify you with complex sounding words and explanations — which you still don’t understand — you may assume that person is a very intelligent individual. But contrast this with someone who understands the topic and can explain it so you also understand it. Isn’t that better?
The reason keeping things complicated in design doesn’t sit well with me is because UX design is about making the complex simple and easy to understand. It is not hiding behind complexity and putting ourselves in ivory towers. It is about making previously complex and impossible areas simple and easy. When UX design is done right, they should not even be aware it was done at all because they are focused on accomplishing their tasks. If they’re aware of something complicated or hard to understand about the system it means they’re busy learning the system and not accomplishing their goals.
The same applies to teaching and presenting the design process. I believe educators have purposely kept the UX process overly complicated with intentionally maze-like process diagrams and artifacts. This keeps the image of UX as the domain of geniuses and intellectuals. However this misses the actual point of design which is to make the complex understandable and elegant. Therefore, I sometimes like to use a simpler model of explaining the design process which is in reality a lot closer to what actually happens in real life.
There is an image that the “UX Process” must include all kinds of complex diagramming activities such as empathy maps and prioritization matrixes. This keeps it in the domain of the image of high IQ geniuses. Perhaps they fear that by showing the reality of the design process as both simple and circular, they will lose some of their entrenched value in the UX world.
But I have a disdain for keeping UX complicated because as a UX designer myself, I feel frustrated with intentional — or even unintentional — complications. I would rather show something simple and elegant, both in design and explanation of design. Perhaps some will feel threatened if I remove their maze-like process diagrams and prioritization matrixes. But I feel more called to presenting the simple and elegant over the inscrutable and complex.
Therefore I have simplified the classic “UX Process” and I have also presented an alternative design process presentation (it’s not what actually happens during work but it is a way of presenting it).
The classic UX process I would describe basically as: Research, Concept, Design. That’s it. Sorry UXers for making it less complicated.
The alternative process presentation format I use I got from a book called Win Without Pitching Manifesto, and it is: Diagnosis and Prescription. Again, that’s it. Extremely simple.
In the diagnosis part we explain what the problem or situation is. In the prescription part we explain the design solution we came up for it. This is pretty close to what actually happens in the design field, and everything else can belong to one of those two parts. Of course we can draw spiral diagrams of how we’re always going back and diagnosing and prescribing and including iteration and expansion and… But then it would not be easy to understand again.
I understand that by presenting some work this way, some people who prefer lots of complexity in case studies will be turned off. But I also expect this will act as a filter for those who appreciate the purpose of design: to make difficult problems into elegant solutions.
