Why I think Ryan Carson doesn't believe in UX Professionals, and why I do | September 5, 2010

In a fantastically timed bit of linkbait, Ryan Carson called bullshit on the title of “UX Professional” while attending the dConstruct conference we organise in Brighton. At the conference we announced that we were hiring a Senior User Experience Designer so it would be easy to put two and two together and assume that he was calling us out. However I actually understand where he’s coming from. I don’t agree with him mind, but I do understand.

Back in the early days of the web you just had web designers. These multi-disciplined individuals would design the pages, code up the table based layouts, set up the database and program the CMS. They were able to do all these jobs because the field of knowledge back then was fairly limited and hence the outputs were fairly basic. You could also argue that websites were basic precisely because they were designed and built by a single person, but that’s probably for another article.

As the field of knowledge grew and sites got bigger and more complex, distinct roles started to emerge. First the roles split into designer and developer. Then as sites demanded more off their back-ends you’d have database architects, systems administrators, systems architects and a whole slew of sub roles. Similarly on the front end you would find people who specialised in interface design, front end development, motion design and, more recently, user experience design.

Now user experience design is an interesting one as it’s both a series of activities (research, information architecture, interaction design etc.) as well as a job title in it’s own right. For smaller projects it’s perfectly feasible for a single person to plan the architecture, sketch the wireframes, design the interface and even code up the pages; just in the same way that it would be perfectly feasible for a single builder to plan and build an extension to your house. However as a project becomes more complicated you need more people with deeper expertise. So just as large building projects require quantity surveyors, draftsmen, architects, interior designers, wayfinding designers and a whole host of other experts, so do websites.

I think the reason Ryan thinks that “‘UX professional’ is a bullshit job title” designed to “over-charge naive clients” is because he’s never actually been in the position to need one. If you look at Ryans’ background, he worked for agencies in the late nineties and early noughties when the field of user experience was still in it’s infancy. As such I suspect that he’s never worked with a team of dedicated UX people.

In more recent years Ryan has become a conference organiser and content publisher, producing relatively straightforward websites which really don’t need a dedicated UX person. He’s also dabbled as a start-up entrepreneur, although sadly none have been a huge commercial success as of yet. In fact, Ryan is very much embedded in the bootstrapped start-up culture where all you need is a smart designer and developer to see your ideas come to life. So in early stage start-ups where you’re designing for people like yourselves, you can definitely get away without a dedicated UX person if you’ve got a talented team with enough overlap. However once the project grows, you’ll probably benefit from the help of a dedicated UX professional.

10 years ago I thought much the same way as Ryan. I couldn’t understand how companies could spend millions on a website when a designer and developer could knock something together in a weekend. Similarly why would anybody need a pretentious title like Information Architect when I’m perfectly capable of putting together the site map for the brochureware site I was working on myself?

Of course I quickly learned how naive I was being. There’s a huge difference between knocking together the site-map for a piece of brochureware and developing a complete ontology, taxonomy and controlled vocabulary for a site with hundreds of thousands of data-points. Similarly there a big difference spending a couple of days working out wireframes in balsamiq for that shopify project you’re working on and spending months prototyping and testing a complex application with hundreds of interactions.

Sadly I do think Ryan has accidentally hit on something here, and it’s a trend I’m seeing more and more of; web designers with an interest in user experience re-branding themselves as UX professionals. So there are an increasing number of people out there who are calling themselves UX designers because they’ve sketched out some wireframes and sat in on a couple of usability tests.

By contrast a typical UX person will have a much deeper understanding of cognitive psychology, human computer interaction and design research than their graphically focused colleagues. They will have more experience running stake-holder interviews, usability evaluations and ethnographic studies. They will be more versed in the creation of personas, concept models, scenarios, user-flows and storyboards. They will be able to create wireframes and experience prototypes using a wide range of tools and to differing levels of fidelity depending on the questions being asked and the intended audience. In fact there are a whole host of skills that differentiate a UX designer from a more general web designer. So if this sounds like you why don’t you check out our job for a user experience designer at Clearleft

As far as Ryan is concerned, I suspect he isn’t as naive as he sounds. After all, he’s been in the industry for a long time and even ran an online UX conference a few months back which Clearleft spoke at. So I can’t believe Ryan would put something on he didn’t believe in just for the money. If he did, that would show a real contempt for his customers. Instead I suspect it’s just a way to stir up controversy and drive traffic to his site. However if Ryan really believes there’s no difference between a web designer and a user experience designer I’m sure we can supply him a big list of books to read and conferences to attend in order to change his mind.

So I suggest that the UX community bear in mind where Ryan’s coming from and realise that for some people UX is just a quality attribute or set of activities. After all, not everybody on the web is building the kind of large scale projects that benefit from a dedicated UX resource. Sometimes a UX savvy web designer is just enough.

Posted at September 5, 2010 6:50 PM

Comments

Steven Grant said on September 5, 2010 7:40 PM

Can’t disagree with any of that Andy, certainly on the high level of projects. Carsonified certainly aim their market at the freelancers who in the main are dealing with smaller clients who don’t need big team projects.

However, when you’re dealing with government, multinationals etc then these things are key.

I went on a usability course with User Focus and I didn’t appreciate the level of detail these guys pay to behavioral psychology. The best have logged hours in the lab as well as Phd’s their area.

It’s not needed for everything but for some projects it’s essential.

Darren Geraghty said on September 5, 2010 7:53 PM

Excellent rebuttal Andy. I completely agree that for some ‘small’ projects a ‘small’ team with some general appreciation for user experience will suffice.

However as you have just said, those who have worked on larger projects with many stakeholders and greater expectations of the final product will know that a sound UX strategy becomes not commodity but a necessity.

On a much broader scale UX is a crucial requirement not just for websites/software but in many areas such as industrial/service and product design encompassing the many scenarios and touchpoints which which a user engages with your product or service.

I think ill stated context played a large part in the attention that Ryan Carson’s article has garnered and it did strike me as link-bait from the get-go. Ryan failed to recognise that UX is not just about web design - though those who have never taken it seriously may have failed to note this point.

Touché Andy!

Paul McKeever said on September 5, 2010 8:32 PM

Link-bait indeed. Ryan’s “UX professional” argument doesn’t make any sense and his definition of user experience isn’t one I’ve ever heard before. Really disappointed that someone with so much influence would talk so much trash.

I don’t think the root cause is anything to do with project values (i.e. UX only becomes important on bigger projects) but about personal values - what you believe is important.

For me - user experience is about finding out what people really want, and then crafting a way to deliver that (and hopefully deliver real value for whoever is paying for all the work too).

Knowing HTML / CSS is a help but not the starting point.

Grr.

PS - your link for the job vacancy goes to http://thinkvitamin.com/online-conferences/ux/ ??

Guy said on September 5, 2010 8:37 PM

Do UX designers limit themselves to the web or are they involved in other fields like automotive switch gear, department store layout and such like? I’d be uncomfortable not to have the word ‘web’ in my job title if that was the sole focus of my work. So who would I got to for user experience design for something like a new elevator control? Would that be a UX designer or something else?

Ash Donaldson said on September 5, 2010 9:02 PM

Guy: If you wanted something like lift controls, a cockpit, command & control centre, or nuclear reactor interface designed, you’d go to a Human Factors Engineer.

Whilst there are many HFEs working in the web as UX Professionals, the UX title hasn’t really spread outside commercial ventures to mission-critical situations. If it ever does, I’d be scared to hop in a lift or on a flight. ;)

Richard Monk said on September 5, 2010 9:14 PM

I have been in a position where my career prior to 2009 had largely involved working on relatively small scale sites for small-medium businesses and non-profit organisations. But during mid 2009 through to now I have moved to working on much larger scale web apps serving millions of visitors each month.

I think Andy is completely right here - my perception of the dedicated role of UX designer has evolved with my own experience and I’m happy to admit my own naivety as recently as a year ago. Having now had the real pleasure of working with some fantastically experienced UX designers I much better understand the role, and appreciate its part in the workflow.

Complexity is key here - I think Andy sums up well the problem of how to tackle really large scale projects with thousands of possible user interactions, and the answer, much like in any industry is to split the work into discreet tasks. Once those tasks are established it is the duty of any good business to find the most suitably qualified person to do the job, and as such a job title is born because those tasks are common to projects all over the place.

HOWEVER - this is not to say that a UX designer is not simply a subset of the greater ‘Web Designer’ category. But if Ryan believes that in any business you can just hire jack-of-all-trades / generic web designers and generic web developers for every role, that I’m afraid that he is sorely mistaken.

It takes years to develop the intricacy of knowledge required to form a career specialism of a professional, and to undermine that is really sad.

I wonder if Ryan believes the same is true elsewhere like the medical profession for example. Would he be happy for any generic Doctor to perform the work of a Surgeon or a Psychiatrist?

UX Designer is the product of the web industry evolving and growing up. There are still a million sites that go up every day no doubt that are built in exactly the same way essentially that sites were in 2000. But there are also a good proportion of infinitely complex sites or web apps that require a very different approach to construction and iterative improvement.

But much like Andy, I suspect a cheap shot from Ryan here hoping for traffic. Frankly I’d hoped that you wouldn’t rise to a response, Andy - but I’m actually very glad that you care enough about the professional respect of your colleagues.

Paul said on September 5, 2010 9:52 PM

Nothing more than a desperate cry for traffic Andy, distance yourself and your company far away from it.

Ryan’s thought process is very dated and small time, give him a week at a large agency and he would see what UX peeps are there for ;)

Paul Seys said on September 5, 2010 9:56 PM

Great response Andy, couldn’t agree more.

Calum said on September 5, 2010 10:07 PM

I’ve worked continuously as a usability engineer, information architect, user experience designer, interaction designer et al. (my exact job title has varied by company and role) for nearly 20 years, with mission-critical (air traffic control) software among my past projects.

I’ve never once worked on a web-based project, nor do I foresee doing so anytime soon. In fact I find myself increasingly irritated by the commandeering of UX-related job titles, conferences and even informal gatherings by the web community. A vast amount of software is still designed and consumed, requiring the full range of requirements gathering, prototyping, usability testing, information design and visual design that has nothing at all to do with the web.

James said on September 5, 2010 10:22 PM

Well informed and observed response. Good reading.

Daniel Szuc said on September 5, 2010 11:24 PM

What WE think and what the MARKETPLACE is asking for is an important distinction.

Currently there is healthy interest in UX/CX from business. Thats a good thing. Given this opportunity and interest its important we continue to “educate the market” on the “range of UX skills” we have to offer to help them make their products and services better and more valuable. Those different skills should be improved, refined and widened if needed.

We should also appreciate that terms like UX, user research, usability, design, IA, UXD (to name a few) have different levels of acceptance in different markets. Dont think your vetical market view is THE world view.

Bottom line, product teams are still looking for talented, deep thinking and experienced designers.

Rimantas said on September 6, 2010 5:57 AM

“developing a complete ontology, taxonomy and controlled vocabulary for a site with hundreds of thousands of data-points. “

Wow. Looks like Ryan is right after all.

Guy Carberry said on September 6, 2010 8:25 AM

The main problem with the title “UX professional” is that it doesn’t really mean much to a lot of people that want help with their website.

People generally understand the term “web designer” as it at least has the word “web” in it.

User Experience design is far broader than just web design. I have met user experience designers for leisure centres, shopping centres and people who slave over the ergonomics or automotive switch gear.

But most of the buzz about UX design on the web seems to be focussed on the web side of things. I think it’s much more than that. People with UX skills should be able to apply them to more than just the web. So I guess that’s what differentiates UX designers from web designers. UX designers shouldn’t limit their scope to web sites alone.

Mark Ford said on September 6, 2010 11:40 AM

You hit the nail on the head in the first sentence “linkbait”.

As far as I can see Ryan’s only motivation for posting his rant was to drive traffic to his site. It’s the sort of stunt he’s pulled before & it’s precisely the sort of behaviour that made me lose respect for him (and stop following him on twitter) a long time ago.

Andy Budd said on September 6, 2010 12:04 PM

While I appreciate all the positive comments I think some people may have misinterpreted the intention of this article. While Ryans’ initial post may have been a spot of linkbait, that doesn’t really bother me. If you’re in the publishing business it makes sense to post provocative articles which drive traffic. Furthermore I wasn’t trying to have a dig at Ryan. In fact quite the opposite. I can totally see where Ryan is coming from, despite disagreeing with his somewhat inflammatory conclusions. All designers will benefit from having a sense for UX and if you’re working or a relatively small project in a domain you know well, you can get away with having talented generalists. However outside that domain of experience, if you’re building large scale sites for a complex set of users, specialism comes into play. You can’t blame somebody for having a specific set of beliefs based on their personal experience in the field. All you can do is highlight the broader context and hope people are able to see beyond their current horizons. A difficult task to ask at the best of times and one that is often uncomfortable and to be rebelled against. Hence the current divide.

Zach Inglis said on September 6, 2010 12:37 PM

I enjoy UX and understand how important it is to a project. In fact in our last client my UX process probably took longer than my design process.

I do agree about people self labelling to whatever the latest industry buzz words. It does frustrate me.

I think the main designer behind the project should be significant in the UX process. Understanding why the UI is the way it is, makes a difference on what styling takes place. Knowing that a piece of text rests on the bottom right quadrant of the screen (rather than for the sake of it) to help pronounce it could potentially change the design. Even working closely with people, there are certain skilled subliminal decisions.

Unless I am misunderstanding that your UX Designer is not only mocking up wireframes?

John Moore said on September 6, 2010 12:43 PM

For anyone who doubts the huge range of skills that the ideal “UX Professional / Designer” would ultimately have they need only read your current vacancy Andy… and I would go so far as to say that if you can find any single individual who is skilled and confident across all these competencies you’ll be very fortunate indeed.

We’ve found within our small predominantly web-focused team, that while we expect them all to be broadly experienced and skilled, they all still have specific expertise in different (and overlapping) areas. We’ve observed that this is as much about personality as it is about training or experience, and we relish the unique perspective that each of them brings to any particular project.

For example - our expert on research, data analysis and analytics complements their team member who (from more of a brand comms background) will be more comfortable creating a content strategy and information architecture, and they may jointly collaborate with one of our more ‘design’ focused team on starting to sketch out the start of a user interaction and page flow. And of course all this before actual interface design and subsequent development.

As Ryan himself points out in the more recent update http://thinkvitamin.com/ to his original post - a project of any significant size will need a significant team, and by working to individuals skills within a close and well-knit team we are able to maximise the effectiveness without significant ‘bloat’ for our clients.

Broadening the team and the thinking on any project (within a managed framework) often brings the ‘magic’ that if left to a solitary practitioner may be lost - and our clients deserve the magic!

Nuno Rod said on September 6, 2010 2:05 PM

So…i’m new at this but a “graphically focused colleague” isn’t able to or shouldn’t dwelve in other disciplines, but a “real” UX Professional is able to do Interaction Design, IA, Wireframing, Usability, card sorting, and more?

So, why are also “real” UX professionals dwelling in Interface Design and Visual Design? Shouldn’t that be the work of the “graphically focused colleague”?

So , what makes you in title of calling yourself UX Professional and saying that I, a “full fledge designer” with a degree in Design, that has worked in graphic and Web design shouldn’t try and dwelve on the UX business?

Yes, i am one of those “graphical focused collegue” that wants to work in UX and had some studies of disciplines in College like ergonomics, usability and the likes. So what is my place in the world? I am still trying to figure that out…

Andy Budd said on September 6, 2010 2:32 PM

Nuno, I know very few (if any) fully fledged UX people who do any graphic design, whereas I know plenty of interface designers that do some UX work. So I’m not really sure I follow your thread.

My point is that the UX field is so big, it requires your full attention to gain mastery. Likewise, interface design is a specialism which takes years to do well. Some say you need 10,000 hours of practice to master a particular discipline, so that’s approximately 10 years of work.

It’s perfectly reasonable to do a bit of interface design and a bit of UX. In fact this is what some are seemingly arguing for. So I’d say that you stop being an interface designer and start being a UX designer when the bulk of your work is focused on UX activities and not graphic design activities. However I wouldn’t be as crude as saying it’s 51%, 75% or 99%. That;s for you and your potential employees to decide.

That’s assuming that you want to make a distinction. Just because some people earn a living purely as UX designers doesn’t mean you have to. It’s down to your own skills, interests ann mind-set. However I would definitely encourage you along the UX path as there are surprisingly few UX designers with any serious graphical ability. So it would be good to see more people in the industry with visual design sensibilities.

Nuno Rod said on September 6, 2010 3:19 PM

First of all thank you for replying.

I do understand your’s and Ryan’s point of view and like you said there is a bit to both arguments.

What i meant was that as a designer i do understand the necessity of UX diciplines. I wouldn’t be a professional designer if i dind’t. And even though i am still learning i feel i am capable of being a good Ux Professional in the long run because i am willing to learn the real stuff.

So i guess both of you have a point, because all kinds of professionals will arise. Some will deserve the title some won’t…but that’s the drama of most disciplines…Designers in general suffer from the same problem, having someone with no qualifications calling themselv designers because they learn how to mess with photoshop…but that’s another rant.

Thank you for your advice for i will certainly follow it.

James Mathias said on September 6, 2010 5:01 PM

Regardless of whether or not you are right or wrong Andy, the way this post is written feels like a thinly disguised attack on Ryan’s character. as Jeff, earlier said (…passive aggressive much)

To be fair, I have not had the opportunity to read Ryan’s original piece that so clearly offended you into response. I am, however, certain this type of immature jab back is not helping any of us create a more professional view of the industry to outsiders.

Andy said on September 6, 2010 5:11 PM

He called your whole way of life bullshit and you respond with “Sadly, he may have hit on something there”

How embarrassing for you.

Only slightly more embarrassing is the idiot above who hasn’t even read Carson’s post. How can he possibly comment?

Jason Grant said on September 6, 2010 10:13 PM

Pretty much agree with everything that was said.

Let’s refer to the sites which don’t really need UX people as ‘Dog kennel’ sites for the sake of the argument.

Ryan is an expert and very good at producing great Dog kennel sites and I rate his company for that.

Otherwise he has no qualifications to comment about the subject matter.

Nicely argued Andy.

Zach Inglis said on September 7, 2010 6:07 AM

These comments have turned ridiculous and juvenile. It is no longer a debate and now a flame war.

@Andy - So what if he insulted someone’s way of life? You always have enemies and he is not be the first, nor the last person to disagree with something you do.

I don’t care if he agrees or disagrees with something and to be honest, do you really care all that much yourself?

As a company, we take on projects of $50k-$250k and in those it has not been hurtful to marry the UX and Design work.

I’ve worked on MUCH larger projects and there the design team doing both the UX and the design did not hinder it in my opinion.

For example, UX and Design are too close in my opinion to separate. Red buttons sell more than green buttons; that is a UX statement but a design decision.

Andy Budd said on September 7, 2010 8:32 AM

Just to clarify that the last comment by “Andy” isn’t me. It’s somebody else called Andy :-)

Andrew said on September 7, 2010 8:37 AM

Hey Andy. I have worked with the web across many of the largest digital agencies in my time and while I fully appreciate the value of good UX thinking I have always been skeptical about the value of UX as it’s practiced as part of the integrated agency offer. I think you’re right. There are a lot of under qualified (and often very senior) UX practitioners out there, usually these are people who use the web but don’t really have any real deep skill in Technology, Design, Copyrighting or Project Leadership and are looking for a place to slot in - UX is an easy target for this as it appears waffle can get you a long way and to be honest I don’t think most people understand what they’re buying.

I have always judged UX practitioners by those who are able to separate fact from opinion. It’s very easy to have an opinion about how a problem should be solved but to be able back that up with established research, metrics and data is a rare skill and one that demands continuous improvement/investment. How many can demonstrate measurable results? For example how many UX pro’s out there working with the iPhone can cite the various UX research papers from which the iPhone interface inherits? The reason for the distance of items from the side of the screen, the timing of the spring effects etc etc. It exists, Apple obviously knows about it and I’ve been shown it by a UX practitioner who really knew his stuff.

Also I think that there is a difference to the approach of UX within different areas of the web industry (if such a thing exists) and it’s the web we’re looking at here I think. Start up’s and savvy web businesses demand deep UX thinking, they want to understand they’re customers as their survival depends on it, they’re also usually savvy to the relevant disciplines and know what they’re buying. Agencies on the other hand don’t. It’s an over serviced, broken industry where the clients buying web services frequently don’t know what they’re buying or why and where an over serviced opportunistic marketplace breeds a cheap and quick mentality, in these circumstances mediocre resources flourish. The agency model is broken, but that’s a discussion for another day.

I’ve enjoyed this (somewhat snippy) discussion as poorly timed as it may have been. I disagree with a lot of what Ryan has said in the past but I think he’s kicked off something interesting here. As an impartial observer. I think it’s the Agency scenario that Ryan was talking about, where UX is just part of the process and honestly doesn’t really provide much value other than a source of a few documents to make a client feel like they’re getting value for money. I think you see it from the other side where, as it’s you’re main business offer you’re engaged when good, research qualified UX is demanded and it’s value understood. You’re already as at an advantage as you’ve been brought into the mix with certain expectations already set. That’s my take anyway - you’re mileage may vary.

As a final note, I don’t think these observations just apply to UX, I think it’s easy to try and cut out UX as a site can exist without it however poorly it ends up hanging together. Technology on the web frightens me (I work in this area), the lack of rigour, inexperience and the whole cheap and quick mentality applies there too. Again there’s a lot of mediocre practitioners out there scripting sites, not applying quality software engineering principals. At a most basic level, I would never enter details into a marketing site. I just don’t think my data is safe. Anyway I digress, again a discussion for another day…

Keep up the good work and hopefully we’ll meet one day.

Zach Inglis said on September 7, 2010 8:42 AM

@Andy Budd - I am relieved to hear :)

Andy Budd said on September 7, 2010 8:49 AM

Zack, to be honest I don’t really care THAT much. I mean, I’m not loosing any sleep over it or anything. However if people can write blogs posts over the most trivial things, I thought this discussion was worth a response. That’s what blogs are for after all. With that comes the dangers of the odd trivial comment and as with any impassioned response there are a few in this thread. However I’ve read through the comments and they’re mostly well reasoned and thoughtful so I don’t see a flame war myself. In fact, if you want to complain about flame wars I’d look at the comments in the original article, comments in which initiated this post in the first place.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I’ve never seen any of your work so obviously can’t comment whether it could have been improved with dedicated UX help. The truth is that there are plenty of companies out there building big sites and applications with no UX assistance at all. However there are also plenty of companies out their building really terrible sites. So I don’t think that “we don’t do it so it must be wrong” is a particularly useful or valid argument. What concerns me is that you think design and UX are too close to separate. While this is obviously true if you have your designers doing the UX work, for most companies that recognise UX as a distinct discipline, this couldn’t be further from the case. As such I suggest this demonstrates a lack of understanding about the UX field rather than a lack of distinction.

User Experience is now both a set of activities and a profession in it’s own right. The rise of the UX professional has been both swift and in response to market forces. The UX industry in the UK is incredibly buoyant at the moment, with companies realising a need for dedicated UX help and staffing accordingly. So while you can debate the merits of UX and whether you prefer to work with a team of generalists or a team of specialist, you can’t deny the existence, validity or utility of the profession.

Andy Budd said on September 7, 2010 9:18 AM

Guy, while I agree that User Experience is a much broader discipline which encompasses anything with an interface (and some would argue anything which includes interaction of any kind), you can still specialise in the web. That’s definitely where our interest lay. However this no more makes you a web designer than specialising in engineering for the aviation industry makes you a mechanic. You’ve also got avionics, arodynamics, propulsion and a whole host of other professions. Complex problems always require multi-disciplinary teams to solve them.

The problem is, as we’re still a growing industry we’ve got some people building Wright brothers style aircraft in their back garden out of wood, canvas and automotive parts and others trying to figure out how to build the early generation of passenger planes using more industrial techniques. However we all still call our selves aircraft engineers and this can becomes a source of frustration and confusion. If I can build an aircraft in my back garden, why would I ever need a team of specialists? However without those specialists, you’re never going to end up with the world of modern aviation.

So as we start to push our industry forward people will begin to find that they can’t learn everything to the same level of proficiency. This is why people end up splitting designer/developer roles, specialising in specific languages or in specific parts of the technology stack, or learning disciplines like Information architecture, interaction design and content strategy. So I personally value the emergence of specialists and it means our industry is starting to mature and get better at what it does.

Yay for us!

Guy Carberry said on September 7, 2010 10:11 AM

Hi Andy, cheers for the reply.

Presently, UX seems to be very much a “web” project term. Yet is doesn’t include the word “web” in the label.

My job title is “Web user experience designer” and I appreciate that my employer included the “web” part. I think that it anchors down the scope of my work.

All of my work is research, testing, wire-framing etc for web based projects. I never do any other kind. But I was wondering if UX professionals have a broader scope which is why they don’t include the “web” part.

So my point is essentially about how we effectively communicate the nature of our work to uninitiated folk using a mere job title!

To that end I think that I can see some value in the point Ryan was making. Purely from a “job title” point of view, mind.

Andy Budd said on September 7, 2010 2:00 PM

Glad you don’t agree with the “over charging naive clients” bit then or we’d both be dammed!

Sean Pook said on September 7, 2010 4:58 PM

I think people’s perceptions of UX are very much influenced by their exposure to the profession. It’s not set in stone like other industries and titles and that’s fine as we need to maintain a degree of flexibility depending on the client and project.

Personally I like the title UX Architect or designer as long as it does encompass the design cycle and isn’t just a miss-labelled graphic UI design or an Information Architect.

xian said on September 8, 2010 1:34 PM

I liked this debate the first time around, when it was called “37 Signals would never hire an information architect.”

Zach Inglis said on September 8, 2010 7:11 PM

@Andy Budd
Yes. That is very true.

I understand why you do it and I am not saying it’s invalid because we do not do it, only by my opinion. I am saying that I disagree because I also believe that it sounds too much like design by committee.

I would not expect an agency to purely have a Typographer separate to a designer. I feel the same about the UX. Even when providing design on an already established brand, it is the designers role to OWN the ‘feel’ of the site.

I understand why you would need a UX designer. UX is extremely extensive work. I have spent many months working out the full flow of a website with a client before. However, because I was the one hashing it out with the client, I knew WHY things were the way they were. It definitely made me understand how to style certain elements better because I knew the intention behind each one.

(You guys at Clearleft provide yourself on having a small agency feel. Yet having another person in the production line makes it feel more like a larger agency, no?)

Matt Kump said on September 9, 2010 2:38 AM

Hate to interrupt the flow, but I just thought I’d say this is fascinating stuff.

I honestly can’t form an opinion either way. At first, I naively felt that UX and UID were waaaaay too close to separate, but not having a UX expert in the firm I work for (which has 50 people mind you) or ever meeting a single UX Professional here in Vancouver, I was naturally biased.

I’d like to observe a project done by a company that uses both the UX Pro(s) and Designer(s) to form the finished product, to get a better understanding of where one role begins and another begins.

I’ve suppose I see the position of UX Specialist as a ‘specialized’ web designer. Like, as mentioned above, a typographer, or a logo designer is to graphic design. The only flaw with that theory is the deliverables… what does a UX expert deliver to the design team, and also does the design team feel more like ‘stylists’ at that point? When I receive a font or logo to work with, that feels like a piece of the puzzle, but my understanding of UX experts seems like they lay out all the pieces in the right order, and I just click them together.

Thanks for this post Andy. I love it when there are well thought out debates, because that’s the only way to generate theories which can then be investigated.

Matt Kump said on September 9, 2010 4:58 AM

Erm… *one role ends and another begins…

Jonas Flint said on September 9, 2010 7:46 PM

This is a argument about semantics. These folks at the core are indeed web designers that are working on larger scaled sites. I see Ryan’s point actually. It seems anymore that we get too hung up on titles and specializations. It seems almost bureaucratic and snobbish to me. But perhaps I’m being naive. At some point and time this big bad UX designer had to start on the little stuff, no? So then is a UX Designer simply a Web Designer with more experience in larger sites? I say screw the titles and get to work already. ;)

John said on September 16, 2010 3:06 PM

I agree with you, Andy.

But kindly remove the drop shadow on the title of your posts. I’m sorry to say this, but it hurts my eyes.

Stewart McCoy said on September 20, 2010 4:07 PM

Andy,

I appreciate your articulate distinction between a UX savvy web designer and an actual UX designer who works on enterprise-level projects.

I wrote a similar response to Mr. Carson’s post. You can read my article here:

http://stewartmccoy.com/portfolio/article/re-ux-professional-isnt-a-real-job