On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:56 AM, dave malouf <[email protected]> wrote:
> THEN! there is the false idol of UX. What the heck? Let's fess up > and admit that UX is as jargonny as Web 2.0. It is marketing speak > geared towards a segment of our world that needed it. For so much of > Design it is just a given. It is hubris to think that There are no > interaction designers, and that they are all UX Designer. Hell, I > know quite a few who would rather be called Industrial Designers, or > Product Designers. > It seems to me that you can make an "id[ea]l" out of any of these terms--"UX" or "Design" (with a capital "D," no less). They all speak to this seemingly ineffable thing that we do (or think we do or at least think we want to do). If you keep the discussion at the idealistic and theoretical, the terminology doesn't seem to matter so much. If you ask me (I know, you're not ;) ), it really is more just about the Quality Without a Name that we are all aiming for in an idealistic sense. Practically speaking, though, many people outside of this rarified air are just now coming to grips with the reality (as opposed to the hype) of what real "UX" professionals have been trying to communicate for a long time now. And they're still (what nerve!) calling it "UX." It seems to me that only recently a tipping point has been reached--many and more managers and executives are finally starting to buy into it and actually fund it in these last few years. It is slowly starting to be understood and valued by professionals in adjacent fields--those we have to work with. It would seem ill advised then, at least for the practitioners--I mean those who have to convince others to pay for their work as somehow profitable and convince colleagues to take advantage of and respect their expertise--to suddenly re-brand themselves as something else for the sake of preference or refined academic precision. I don't think there has to be this dichotomy (even animosity at times) between academic and practitioner, but if the academics dismiss and deplore practical and pecuniary concerns out of hand, I think it will be inevitable. If there is real, practical value in trying to re-define and/or re-label and then (most crucially) re-educate the masses in some new terminology, I say go for it. But it rather seems like we're splitting hairs a lot of the time on this list--you say *po-tay-toe*, I say *po-tah-toe*. I didn't see JJG's talk, but I imagine it probably made a lot of practical sense. -ambrose ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
