Is UX (User Experience) a Distinct Discipline? YES!
I believe that User Experience is a distinct discipline. There, I said it.
It doesn’t take a great deal of effort to find several arguments that openly disagree with that statement. First, let’s define User Experience.
UX, is no doubt, a hot-button term with many definitions. I even threw my name into the hat last week. I’ll expand a bit on my previous writing for the sake of this expanded discussion.
“User experience design is the methodical process of planning all parameters related to a user’s objective interaction with the subject of the design treatment/assignment.”
That is a bit more robust, and I think, more appropriate. I will break it down further to establish a baseline of what UX covers and encompasses.
- Methodical process: A systematic set of operations/changes made.
- Planning all parameters: encompassing all factors/data points
- User’s objective interaction: An unbiased understanding of the cause/effect relationship between the user/treatment subject.
- Subject/design treatment: The thing we are designing/working on.
Woah — lot’s of details and complexities there. This post needs some UX work, I think. A simpler definition might be:
“User experience design is what people can do to make a product/solution simpler, easier and more enjoyable to use.”
Ah, that’s better.
Did the latter definition hit every single bullet point on the surface? No, it did not. Was it easier to digest? Yes, a whole lot easier.
Look at Apple, and their line of phones and computers. What really makes an Apple product so UX friendly is their ability to make the hardware and software work efficiently and simply. Basically, you get done what you want to get done, quickly, and you expect the outputs provided from your inputs.
Is a Mac any less powerful than a PC with equivalent build specifications? Heck, no! Is there a more detailed process to access parts of your Mac that are not for everyday use? Sure. Why is that? So that the average user can easily access the parts of the machine that they use daily. If there is a need to customize and understand further, Apple has built a fantastic customer service arm (genius bar, anyone?) and a robust set of online tutorials.
With UX defined and explored for the argument, I would like to turn to the definition of a “discipline” according to The ESRC.
- “disciplines have a particular object of research (e.g. law, society, politics), though the object of research may be shared with another discipline;”
- “disciplines have a body of accumulated specialist knowledge referring to their object of research, which is specific to them and not generally shared with another discipline;”
- “disciplines have theories and concepts that can organize the accumulated specialist knowledge effectively;”
- “disciplines use specific terminologies or a specific technical language adjusted to their research object;”
- “disciplines have developed specific research methods according to their specific research requirements, and maybe most crucially;”
- “disciplines must have some institutional manifestation in the form of subjects taught at universities or colleges, respective academic departments and professional associations connected to it.”
So, let’s see if we can’t position this accurately, in a way that satisfies all of the conditions of this definition.
- Object of research: The object of research is “us”, or “humans” that are eligible to use the solution that we are trying to design. We certainly share this with Psychology, Sociology, and much more. This one seems to be a “no-doubt” yes.
- Specialist Knowledge: Here is another layup. Simply check Amazon for books on UX/ User Experience. Dan Norman’s name comes up often, Garrett, Dreyfuss, Disney, Jobs. The list goes on.
- Theories and Concepts: This one is a little unfair, in the sense that UX can borrow from several different disciplines to create a more stratified set of concepts. Many UX concepts can be taken from industrial design, product development, computer science, graphic design and more. What makes UX unique, is the challenge of picking, choosing, mixing, and building the practices necessary to design a custom solution for the design subject. I would make the analogy of designing the U.S. democracy for the founding fathers. Yes, there was a roadmap from Greece, Rome… but they were not sufficiently appropriate for the changes in the world. The design of UX at the theoretical/academic level must take into account several changes in how the ‘user’ can consume and interact. Changes that did not exist in the days of Dreyfuss and Disney.
- Specific Terminology: UX is full of specific terminology and lingo. Again, this can be highly dependent on the solution medium. Is it a web application? Hardware/software solution? Are there peripherals or does the solution operate native? A short look at this list shows that there is much borrowing from other design and product development disciplines. Responsive Design is probably one of the most relevant terms in web projects. “Responsive Mobile” takes things one step further.
- Specific Research Methods: UX has a very rich set of research methods. This can be observational user testing (no treatment), A/B testing, MVT (multivariate testing), Prototype/Alpha/Beta testing and community forums. Product research and competitive analysis as well. The field is loaded with research methods.
- Institutional Manifestation: Well, I suppose the best proof of this is… me! I am currently enrolled at Lesley’s BS in Design for User Experience. Lesley is not the only school doing it either. Several Under/Graduate Programs exist, producing a workforce of much-needed individuals.
For my money, it seems like UX is a discipline.
With much respect to the dissenting opinions out there, I have to maintain my position. Coming from the world of marketing, I can empathize with a need for UX professionals on a team. Although I understand the theory that UX is a mindset and not a discipline, it doesn’t always practically make sense to organize a product team that way.
The issue is, if you have project managers “thinking UX” or marketers thinking UX, designers, etc — you end up with UX from the perspective of that department objective. There is a reason why “Customer Success” has become such a booming job title in tech. In many ways, “Customer Success” could be considered a reactionary component of UX. The prevailing idea at play here is that with a dedicated UX team/contributor; the user benefits independently of the product objectives. This makes the solution better for the user, with no bias.
I welcome discussion, dissension, agreement and everything in between!
