11–20 of 29 posts
As others have mentioned, it's probably more common to cut as many corners as you can get away with, then refine the experience later as resources, talent and feedback allow.
Personas, storyboards, scenarios: we used all of these at Microsoft. I've used aspects of each within the startups I've worked for or started, but never quite whole hog. Nevertheless, they're likely all valuable tools. Just because you don't need to use a Philips #0 screwdriver every day doesn't mean it isn't critical to have when the situation demands it.
I'm not sure how to say this without coming off as a smart-ass, but isn't "used at Microsoft for UX design" more of an example of what not to do? Last time I tried to use a Windows machine, I ended up shutting it down by accident (was trying to switch users). And don't get me started on Phone 7. The best UX design, in my experience, is simply done by a smart imaginative person who uses the product in a way similar to…
I would say, more, that UX design tools are made to let people collaborate on a design. They're useless for a "smart imaginative person" because said person has no need for collaboration.
These are definitely UX methods used by practitioners in larger workplaces/agencies. The issue is that most startups don't have a UX person that focuses exclusively on UX. For better or for worse, there aren't many resources given to UX in startups so the person (it's usually only one person) that is responsible for UX is often also responsible for UI, visual design, branding, marketing, HTML/CSS, etc. So, someone in…
For the OP, while at an undergrad level those techniques might seem trivial (I can remember being an absolutely arrogant prick while we were learning them!), it quickly becomes apparent either in the workforce or at postgrad level that they're valid and necessary tools for turning out a great UX. There's no point in designing something you find pretty and easy to use, when other users (your personas) might struggle with it.
They might bore you now, and I know from experience that lecturers can take weeks to teach what can seem a simple idea, but if you are seriously interested in UX rather than UI, write them up and put them in a notebook somewhere you can refer to later. You'll almost definitely find them useful :).
Startup with small team - these things are still very useful but it's something you should do fast in your head/notebook or whatever to get a clearer picture for your self and provide your team with better suggestions for doing things (and not some formal "ux deliverables").
When you just go out and design a UI, people start wanting to add things or change colors (bike-shedding). And you, because you just made it up as you went along, can argue aesthetics, but also perhaps feel like maybe other people know as well as you do.
But now you have personas, so when someone wants to add a feature, you can say: which of these people does that actually help, and which of them does it just confuse or get in the way?
And you have card-sorting, so when someone wants to add extraneous nav elements, you can say: what concept does that fall within? Which personas will agree with that organization?
And when someone wants to add lots of unnecessary questions to a form, you can say: how does this affect the rate at which people move through the storyboard and finish this key process? Do we want to jeopardize the completion rate for sign-ups just to get some more personal info?
Now, once you understand this thinking and have the political power to defend your decisions, you might cut out some of these steps or only use them internal to your own decision-making. But as a young designer, these can be helpful both to fashion your design sense and to protect your decisions.
What you're seeing strikes me as the empirical approach to the often gut-based product decisions that happen when building software. Is the gut method as effective? It all depends on the gut. Systematizing these decisions probably leads to more consistent results, but costs time. As others have mentioned, it's probably more common to cut as many corners as you can get away with, then refine the experience later as re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how to say this without coming off as a smart-ass, but isn't "used at Microsoft for UX design" more of an example of what not to do? Last time I tried to use a Windows machine, I ended up shutting it down by accident (was trying to switch users). And don't get me started on Phone 7. The best UX design, in my experience, is simply done by a smart imaginative person who uses the product in a way similar to…
> Everything else is padding for syllabi/books/industry workshops. I would say, more, that UX design tools are made to let people collaborate on a design. They're useless for a "smart imaginative person" because said person has no need for collaboration.
I suppose my argument is, then, that good design shouldn't be collaborated on, but should instead originate in the mind of a single auteur, without the constraint of having to convince or even explain anything to others. As soon as you necessitate UX decisions be communicable and convincing, you begin suffer the weaknesses of design-by-committee.
That's a good thing.