21–29 of 29 posts
Honestly, I think those methods are only useful if you already pretty much know what you're doing in general, know all the key principles, and are trying to get a handle on the specific case you're designing for.
People who don't know what they're doing usually try to hide that behind process-wanker-hood.
Do startups use these? Some do, some don't. Depends on the time frame, the resources available, and the knowledge and skills of founders.
This is similar to software development methodologies (agile, TDD, XP, etc). Some coders at startups are aware of these software development methodologies and follow them diligently. Others follow their own loose interpretation of these.
Some startups are successful purely with the blind, gut-feel approach: one smart programmer writing code with no methodology, plus one talented UI designer likewise working intuitively without the detailed upfront work. Of course, many startups fail, or have severe growing pains (Twitter for example).
Methodology and process, whether in coding or in UI, helps reduce the risk and insure successful outcome. You can still fail, and many do. Also many teams (especially in older, stagnant organizations), follow these processes blindly, as empty rituals. Ceremony does not guarantee success.
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…
> The best UX design, in my experience, is simply done by a smart imaginative person who uses the product in a way similar to the users
I agree. Which is why these techniques tend to be less useful in startups: you're working on a product that is far more digestible in size than, say, Visual Studio or Windows. Hopefully you're building something that is of personal interest or applicability to you.
edit: as long as we're picking on products the other person has never worked on, why is Picasa so incredibly ugly and hard to use? Same thing with the AdWords and AdSense consoles.
Personas can help to avoid useless discussion in meetings around UX design decisions, when every attendee (including managers that might be in a contact with the team only once in a while) has their pet peeves, instead of focusing to think it from the perspective of selected persona.
In a small startup, same group of people discuss all the time about the product and are better on the radar about design decisions, thus value of personas as communication tool is a diminished, although they still can be valuable.
(Note: Personas can be also a good thinking and design tool)
It's true many startups don't use them. In my experience this is usually because they don't have the in-house skills or knowledge. They don't have to be complex or expensive in time or money.
Congratulations - you now have an advantage :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Good point. It gives a common language, common metrics, etc. 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.
I do use research techniques though, sometimes. Usually they're really fast, and none of the ones you listed :)
Remember that many of the methods you listed where invented for work on large content sites, intranets and such, not consumer oriented products.
Answer to your question: no, it's not representative of what startups do for ux.
The most important point in here is: UX methods like the ones above give concrete form to gut decisions and help you defend them against pointless changes and management decisions. 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…