I’ve only worked once with a UX person and all they did was order other people to produce design documents before any software was written. Like, he didn’t design anything himself and didn’t even critique others’ designs. He made over $300K and eventually left for a job on the west coast making twice as much. He stopped talking to me entirely after the client had me write a prototype TV guide-type app for Blackberry. I created it entirely myself and the client loved it and wanted it released to the public exactly as it was. UX guy insisted (client didn’t care at all) that all software needed a design document before any coding could take place, so he was forced to order somebody else to produce a design document for my app which already existed. He wouldn’t even look at me when we passed in the hall after this.
I assume that this is not actually what a UX person is supposed to be doing, but I have no idea what their real job is.
The issue with newly emerging and poorly defined professions is that I could apply to any arbitrary position of that title, pretend like I’ve got expertise in a universal structure for it (managers love structure) and sound vaguely knowledgeable (hiring managers often don’t know the subject matter).
By the time they’ve figured out that I’m not actually contributing anything of value, I’m taking off to other pastures that aren’t about to wilt, my experience serving as selling point for the next sucker to hire me.
Of course, the people I just fucked over have no way of telling whether that’s me being a fraud or whether it’s the entire profession that’s actually worthless and overhyped.
Some, like you, err on the side of “I assume that person was a cunt”, while others default to “UX is completely useless”.
Heh.
Design documents are only useful if those deciding the design are making it and are ready before the coding starts.
And then there is this confusion of which “Design Document” one is talking about. It could be a UI/UX document or it could be the software design document, which would comprise multiple flow-diagrams, helping anyone pick up a project for maintenance and extension.
I’m guessing that the design documents might’ve been something in the vein of ‘user stories’ (if I correctly recall their name), which describe what some typical users would want to do with the app, so that the actual UI design would focus on these features being available front and center. This is a very legitimate design technique, and a good designer should always question why any elements must be present in the UI and whether they solve the user’s goals.
This Blueman thing would definitely benefit from such approach, because right now it exposes a lot of technical details about which I don’t care, while simultaneously making my everyday operations with it inconvenient.
Yeah that dude was just a dick, but probably confidently, and in a field people don’t know much about, so he was able to get away with it.
I work with UX people frequently, and while they do love a good style guide, they’re usually more concerned with the overall usability, legibility, and accessibility of an application. They’re the people who (should) ensure your application works as expected and follows design and accessibility standards.
Ah, this reminded me of another reason this dude hated me. One of my responsibilities with this gig was ensuring that the client’s mobile apps passed accessibility testing. Making an app accessible is tedious work and every time we released an update the accessibility would be broken again. I tried to get this dude to bake the accessibility requirements into the design documents themselves on the off chance that the other developers would actually read the documents (lol as if) and make accessibility work from the get-go. He wasn’t having it and couldn’t be convinced that it mattered if blind people could use the apps or not. I had to sic the client (who faced enormous fines for failed accessibility tests) on him to get him to do it.
I’ve only worked once with a UX person and all they did was order other people to produce design documents before any software was written. Like, he didn’t design anything himself and didn’t even critique others’ designs. He made over $300K and eventually left for a job on the west coast making twice as much. He stopped talking to me entirely after the client had me write a prototype TV guide-type app for Blackberry. I created it entirely myself and the client loved it and wanted it released to the public exactly as it was. UX guy insisted (client didn’t care at all) that all software needed a design document before any coding could take place, so he was forced to order somebody else to produce a design document for my app which already existed. He wouldn’t even look at me when we passed in the hall after this.
I assume that this is not actually what a UX person is supposed to be doing, but I have no idea what their real job is.
The issue with newly emerging and poorly defined professions is that I could apply to any arbitrary position of that title, pretend like I’ve got expertise in a universal structure for it (managers love structure) and sound vaguely knowledgeable (hiring managers often don’t know the subject matter).
By the time they’ve figured out that I’m not actually contributing anything of value, I’m taking off to other pastures that aren’t about to wilt, my experience serving as selling point for the next sucker to hire me.
Of course, the people I just fucked over have no way of telling whether that’s me being a fraud or whether it’s the entire profession that’s actually worthless and overhyped. Some, like you, err on the side of “I assume that person was a cunt”, while others default to “UX is completely useless”.
Heh.
Design documents are only useful if those deciding the design are making it and are ready before the coding starts.
And then there is this confusion of which “Design Document” one is talking about. It could be a UI/UX document or it could be the software design document, which would comprise multiple flow-diagrams, helping anyone pick up a project for maintenance and extension.
I’m guessing that the design documents might’ve been something in the vein of ‘user stories’ (if I correctly recall their name), which describe what some typical users would want to do with the app, so that the actual UI design would focus on these features being available front and center. This is a very legitimate design technique, and a good designer should always question why any elements must be present in the UI and whether they solve the user’s goals.
This Blueman thing would definitely benefit from such approach, because right now it exposes a lot of technical details about which I don’t care, while simultaneously making my everyday operations with it inconvenient.
Yeah that dude was just a dick, but probably confidently, and in a field people don’t know much about, so he was able to get away with it.
I work with UX people frequently, and while they do love a good style guide, they’re usually more concerned with the overall usability, legibility, and accessibility of an application. They’re the people who (should) ensure your application works as expected and follows design and accessibility standards.
Ah, this reminded me of another reason this dude hated me. One of my responsibilities with this gig was ensuring that the client’s mobile apps passed accessibility testing. Making an app accessible is tedious work and every time we released an update the accessibility would be broken again. I tried to get this dude to bake the accessibility requirements into the design documents themselves on the off chance that the other developers would actually read the documents (lol as if) and make accessibility work from the get-go. He wasn’t having it and couldn’t be convinced that it mattered if blind people could use the apps or not. I had to sic the client (who faced enormous fines for failed accessibility tests) on him to get him to do it.