False dichotomy mapping
The weirdest but most intriguing of profiling tools
Out of all the tools I use as part of the Shaping workshops I run, this has to be one of the oddest. But that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.
How to do it
- Take some axes like the ones in this template
- Mark out your breadth of competence with brackets — eg, how deep into UX you go vs. UI
- Mark your centre of gravity — where you feel most comfortable in terms of competence, confidence and comfort
- Add arrows to illustrate how you might want to shift your breadth or your centre of gravity
- Argue the toss over the categories and the mapping approach (or not)Inspired by those annoying memes
How it came about
Out of all the tools I use as part of the Shaping workshops I run, this has to be one of the oddest. But that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.
You’ve probably seen those UX vs UI memes. Terrible, I know. We are so confused aren’t we?
Are you more UX or UI?
I’m guilty of part of the confusion. I used to ask people if they were more UX or UI after seeing their folio, when interviewing them. It would inspire confused looks in many people, but that wasn’t the point. I wasn’t trying to test people.
Well, maybe a bit. Slaps wrist. I wouldn’t do that now.
The point was to draw out what the folio may not have covered. If they said UI, i’d want to see more examples of that. And vice versa. I genuinely saw this as a way of giving candidates the best opportunity to share what they think they were good at.
Too often folios just don’t represent their creators. The gaps are often huge.
I decided that i’d try to plot a few other categories on a series of axes and put them in tension to each other even if there wasn’t necessarily a tension.
Starting with UX vs. UI. But then others like Research vs. Design. Or Qual vs. Quant.
I realised that these items I chose were not the best categories. They were at mixed levels of abstraction. They were a bit confusing. And they certainly were not opposites in my mind.
But I don’t think that really matters. Unless of course you are trying to explain to a group of UX folk. They tend to want to critique everything. Doh! That’s who I was targeting.
It didn’t help that my explanations were at their poorest for this exercise.
Map your range with brackets.
Put a dot where your centre of gravity is.
Add arrows to indicate where you might want to shift your range and/or your gravity.
And it didn’t help that people were confused by some of the categories themselves:
- What do you mean by Flow? Brazilian participants, Interaction Designers and Motion Graphic people got that one better
- What about structure? The IAs understood that one better.
Once people get over the confusing terms, the odd mapping instructions, and the bizarre tensions they usually find it valuable.
Getting a quick aggregate view
In my recent workshops, I use mentimeter.com to capture the aggregate points of gravity within the group. That can be useful in a team too.
But the point — like with many of the profiling tools I use — is not to accurately reflect your competency or skills. It’s to use the imperfect frameworks as a lens. Ask yourself a different question around yourself. Being forced to choose where you sit between two points, arbitrary or not, can be really valuable.
And the arrows to indicate where you might want to shift can be super valuable, because it’s hard to change in too many different directions.
Want to find out more, follow the series
If you want to learn more about the Shaping Workshops I run, and what I have learned over the years, follow me, or read some other articles in the Medium Publication.
Keep your eyes peeled for another post tomorrow.
