UX Design, and the Danger of Bridges

Nice article, Morten.

You really nailed what I feel has unfortunately been neglected in parts of the UX design community recently (arguably as a result of the 22x growth in the industry, and the somewhat contentious use of UX-related job titles as a form of marketing) — too much focus on the “how” at the expense of the “why”:

Rather than caring too much about roles and titles and responsibilities, UX Designers are beginning to focus on what’s important: the users and their experiences.

You also accurately identified the recent deluge of new approaches and tools — “new toys” — which are appearing almost daily (and, with all their benefits, can be quite overwhelming to keep on top of).

However, I feel there is an element of danger inherent in the new approaches and tools being rapidly adopted and standardised which needs to be recognised and considered alongside the numerous benefits they provide.

In the same way that having greater access to more intuitive tools (thus lowering barriers to entry into design) doesn’t remove the need for a designer to have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of design (with respect to their chosen disciplines), enabling a more fluid, collaborative design process by bridging the gaps between those disciplines (while an admirable goal in itself) isn’t an excuse for sloppy process.

I plan on expanding on this later in a separate piece, but for now I’ll illustrate using the first of the three examples provided in the article: Sketch.app as a bridge between wireframing and UI design.

I love Sketch, and have been using it consistently for the last 6 months (and will likely continue in the future). Having said that, I recognise that it’s only one tool in my toolkit. (Insert “right tool for the job” analogy). Because Sketch has the potential to be used as “one streamlined system to deal with UX, wireframing and final design” (as your friend put it), it makes it very easy to get carried away with small, unnecessary details which may not be required.

In fact — as is so often the case with advancements in technology — the factors contributing to the benefits are the same factors which enables their misuse. This is why I make a point of always starting on paper and remaining for as long as I can in the lowest level of fidelity necessary at the time. By limiting my tools I can focus on achieving my goal without over-investing in a solution. I can make sure I’m focussing on the “why”, rather than the “how”.

This is something a colleague of mine refers to as “fidelity creep”. In the same way that scope creep (uncontrolled — and I would argue, misguided — changes or continuous growth in a project’s scope) could be seen as a result of poorly defined project objectives, he describes fidelity creep as the tendency to over-invest in a design by designing at a higher level of fidelity than is required to meet your objectives at the time.

At the same time, I’m also really excited to see how design tools like Sketch develop, and how we can improve our design processes to build more valuable experiences. I’d love to hear your thoughts (and anybody else who has made it this far) on how we can make the most of the capabilities of our design tools — the “how” — without losing focus of the “why”. I’m on Twitter, and will be watching the comments.