UX is a Paradigm

By Victor S. Yocco

Ambiguity can be a good thing. Let’s take common fairy tales for example. The protagonist often does something morally ambiguous, such as steal treasure from the rich for the cause of the poor, leaving those reading or listening to the story to question what they might do in a similar situation. Is the protagonist acting morally or not? Is stealing ever OK? Likewise, ambiguity in academic definitions allows for productive conversations about theory to unfold without ever coming to a proper resolution. Academics make careers off of trying to resolve ambiguity. However, most people want to quickly resolve ambiguity in everyday life, which can lead to heated argumentation among those with strong opinions and frustration for those observing and wanting resolution.

Defining user experience (UX) is another example of ambiguity. The Nielsen Norman Group defines user experience as “all aspects of the end-user’s interaction with a company, its services and its products.” Well sure, that’s what user experience is, but what is the field of UX? Is it everything? Is it nothing? Is there a field or position called UX? We say we design user experiences. Some claim UX has nothing to do with UI. Others argue UX is a specific design role. I believe the arguments attempting to define what is and what is not UX are a concrete example of good ambiguity (the kind that makes us think). I also believe that attempting to create a restrictive definition of UX will remain a fruitless endeavor, and creating groups of “us” and “them” serves to thin our ranks where we actually should bolster them.

What’s UX

People have been asking just what the hell is UX since the beginning of time. It’s true — they have found these exact words carved into the blocks of Egyptian pyramids and Mayan temples.

“What the hell is UX?” one of the first musings of the ancient Egyptians.

More recently, I have enjoyed reading the thoughts of some very talented and intelligent people in design, such as Eli Schiff, Mike Atherton, and Ian Fenn. Each author makes great points: Eli’s post provides a passionate reminder that our past is how we got here (don’t discredit the work of visual designers past), Mike explains that UX isn’t about cookie cutter methods and a one size fits all approach, and Ian shows the importance of titles in arguing that UX designers are ultimately creating UX (I disagree). Marli Mostov and UX Booth round up a series of Medium articles attempting to define UX (including some I’ve referenced here), each in a unique way. My concern is that when we attempt to define UX as something as narrow as UI (or not UI) or just the duty of a designer looking across all of the elements of a project, we really are leaving too much on the cutting room floor. I offer that UX is a paradigm, as a solution to this problem.

What’s a paradigm?

First, it might be helpful to explain what I mean by paradigm. In an effort to remain unapproachable, academics have tossed us another word that sounds more complex than necessary. Modern science credits Thomas Kuhn’s work as giving paradigm its current scientific meaning:

Universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners. — Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2012, 50th Anniversary Edition)

Yeah.

I like to think of paradigm as another way of saying “worldview.” Is that any more helpful than Kuhn’s definition? Probably not.

Let me be more specific. As it relates to this post and your life as someone attempting to define UX or attempting to figure out if you can legally call yourself a UX-er, a paradigm is:

• All of the possible practices you might engage in — for example, design techniques, browsers you design for, tools and software you use, your style as a designer, your methods as a researcher, your beliefs as a project manager, and your code as a developer.
• How you explain and interpret phenomenon that occur — for example, do you believe you have control over your destiny? Do you believe your design has the ability to influence users’ behaviors and experiences? Do you believe the magical UX fairy randomly blesses some designs as usable and others as garbage? Do you think that a better understanding of users leads to better design? How do you define usability; through what lens?
• The information you use to inform your beliefs and practices — for example, the design-related literature you read, conferences and trainings you attend, and the experts from whom you solicit advice.

The UX Paradigm

UX is not a single position that excludes others, or specific to one field of practice; it is a worldview one holds. UX can and does include content strategists, designers, developers, engagement leads, researchers, project managers, and potentially insert your position here. UX does not exclude anyone that chooses to embrace it and follow the principles of the paradigm.

While I agree with Craig Tomlin’s 2010 Useful Usability article on the new UX paradigm that the focus of UX is on interactions with the firm and not the device, the rest of his argument is irrelevant to what a paradigm actually is. After saying not to focus on the device, Tomlin defines the new UX paradigm as a focus on designing for PC, mobile, and tablet. This isn’t useful, for we will soon see that with wearable technology, this triangle of devices to design for will become a square. The components of the UX paradigm are much broader.

The UX Paradigm includes:

• A focus on understanding the user — this is a holistic view of the needs, wants, and behaviors of our users. We do not view our design as one size fits all. We make decisions informed by data and our best knowledge of biology, psychology, sociology, and other sciences.
• A specific set of practices — UX design teams use specific methods of design and research, and overall have specific best practices we engage in. For example, UX design teams create mood boards, test prototypes with users, conduct interviews and contextual inquiry, and iterate on designs to include user feedback (and so much more). While not solely confined to UX, design teams functioning outside of the UX paradigm would not consider these to be standard to their practice. Similarly, UX design teams would not be operating within their paradigm if they did not mandate outside input from users to inform their design.
• How we explain and interpret phenomenon that occur — simply put, UX takes a user-focused view on interpreting phenomenon. A product fails because it lacks usability. A product is successful because of its usability. If we want to improve our product, we improve usability. If we want to inform our process, we take a user-centered approach and gather feedback from users or potential users. We create and design for personas based on real users we’ve encountered, and we conduct usability testing assuming the user will find and correct usability issues in our design. To stray from the user focus is to stray from UX.
• The information we use to inform our practice — we have our go-to sources for information: Medium, A List Apart, Smashing Magazine, UX Booth, UX Matters, User Experience Magazine (UXPA) and many, many more. We have our go-to organizations including ACM-SIGCHI, IxDA, UXPA, etc., each with local branches. We have conferences. Seriously, we have so-many-conferences. The point is that you never have to leave the comfortable confines of the UX paradigm to find data to inform your practice, other practitioners with a similar worldview, and tools of the trade that the UX community considers acceptable.

The UX paradigm asks the following questions:

• Who are our users?
• What do our users want to accomplish?
• How do we best meet their needs within the confines of the space we design and the limitations of our resources?
• What is broken?
• What isn’t broken?
• How do we keep what works and continue to improve the experience?

The UX paradigm includes the following critical roles:

• Users
• Former users
• Potential users
• Analysts
• Content strategists
• Designers (visual and interaction)
• Developers
• Engagement leads/relationship managers
• Program/product managers
• Researchers

UX includes UI, UX includes design, UX includes a process, UX strives to understand behavior and psychology, UX focuses on the user. UX is not one of these things; rather, all of these things are needed for the UX paradigm to exist.

I would say if one piece is missing, you are not operating under the UX paradigm. You are not UX. In the same vein, you don’t go from not doing UX to doing UX overnight, just by thinking about it. You won’t get a job “doing UX.” There is no such thing.

Paradigms are inherently flawed

Now try living the rest of your life with that knowledge. By definition, paradigms are flawed in that they are informed by our current best (and fallible) human knowledge of the world and its occurrences. As we evolve in our knowledge, so must our paradigm. In other words, we function under an accepted paradigm until it becomes obvious our views cannot account for the reality of a situation. We must then evolve or shift our paradigm. This does not happen frequently, in individuals or in fields of work and study. Paradigm shifts involve growing pains, shedding past beliefs, and ambiguity.

An example of a paradigm shift would be the transition most of us had from being children that were cared for by someone else, to being fully responsible for our own care and maintenance. Things like bills, jobs, healthcare, and shopping for groceries became a part of our lives whether we liked it or not. A permanent shift in our worldview occurred.

We have seen design paradigms shift from focusing on simple data entry (dos-type interfaces), to providing users as much information as possible in the form of link farms and word walls, to the current focus on displaying appropriate information based on the role of the user and the type of device they are using. Design paradigms tend to shift in response to growth in technology and changes in social norms.

I think UX is larger than a single design paradigm (e.g. responsive design), it is what you design, why you design, and how you design. The UX paradigm encompasses our view of reality, and is a shift from one that failed to put the user first — the creator knows best paradigm. But is the current UX paradigm the ultimate and fully evolved version? History would suggest not; not if we are still growing as practitioners or as a society.

Paradigms are not abstract concepts

I have presented my thoughts on how we should define UX. I do think that UX is a commitment and that you cannot simply say you “do UX.” There has to be something concrete backing up those words. However, UX doesn’t benefit from excluding others. Our colleagues don’t benefit from being told they are or are not in UX; particularly if they are functioning within the paradigm. I believe we all benefit from thinking of UX as a paradigm, a worldview, that has many components. Defining the UX paradigm is critical so that we can focus our efforts on creating good experiences, sharing knowledge, and understanding where the knowledge we have created is applicable. Eventually, we will outgrow UX as well.

My goal is to continue a conversation around what is UX. I think UX will remain a sufficiently ambiguous term into the near future. I have read enough to know that many people will disagree with my view. I’d like to hear your thoughts on my argument.

Victor Yocco is a researcher and strategist at Intuitive Company, a design and development firm in Philadelphia. Follow him @victoryocco. Victor regularly writes and presents on the application of psychological principles to design. His book, Design for the Mind, is available for early access purchase from Manning Publications. Use code smayocco at checkout for 39% off the cover price.