On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Jon [GMAIL] wrote:
1. The language of "user experience designer" is demeaning, as it
implies that a designer first _makes_ an experience and then someone
_consumes_ it %u2013 that consumers are, on their own, unable to
experience things, and that an experience can be mass produced like a
hammer or a toaster. Implicit in this language is the sense of
control, power and ownership, and the idea that a consumer is
helpless to bring anything on their own to a moment in time.
In the spirit of PeterMe, I call, BULLSHIT!
Nowhere does use equate consumption. Similarly, control, power, and
ownership are neither denoted, nor connoted by the phrase "user
experience designer". And nowhere does the phrase suggest mass
production or that anyone, a consumer or a user, is "helpless to bring
anything on their own to a moment in time."
In
reality, people bring the complexity of their wants, needs, desires,
and world views to an experience, and this in turn actively changes
that experience.
Agreed. We call this culture and mental models and understand it
through user research and observation (including testing). Right?
This comment about language is commonly written off as being "just
semantics", yet the issue of semantics - of meaning, and the
importance of language - is critical in order to form a philosophical
grounding for our work.
Which is why the opening arguments about consumption and helplessness
and control and power are total crap. If semantics are important, we
can't just toss serious critiques like that out into a public forum
with a jillion people who may have little to no idea where you're
coming from and even less time to check up on what you're saying.
If we have a responsibility to the subtleties of our semantics, then
we have an equal responsibility to the subtleties of communicating,
making sure the audience is clear on what and why, and not tossing
out crap like "uxd = hitler, obviously."
Don't even point us to John Dewey. You quote the Dewey. Prove the case.
At its heart, the nomenclature issue points to
a distinction between user empowerment and designer arrogance.
Not.
As a
quick example: If I design a set of touchpoints in a retail
environment (the counter, the lighting, the displays, etc), I can
claim control over those touchpoints with a degree of logical
appropriateness. But if I claim to have designed the "retail
experience", I'm implicitly taking control for what the individuals
in that experience are doing - I'm illogically claiming ownership
over the actions, emotions, and thoughts of someone else.
Psych!
Design is not equal to control.
You're illogically suggesting your abilities can reach, phantom like
from the aether, through the interface, across the void of user
perception to manipulate their grey matters with your phalanges.
Dude. We make shit suck less. Woot. I'm unclear on how we've become
doctors of mind control.
2. .... This is not to say
that everyone who has found themselves with this title is not doing
design work, but to point to a trend in corporations of designer as
facilitator rather than designer as creator.
I'm missing back story here. Facilitator vs. creator. Why is this
important?
3. The idea of "interaction design" has a long, rich, and robust
history .... These pioneers discuss concepts that are
ingrained in the fabric of our culture, and their work builds upon
decades of discourse and design from the fields of industrial design,
psychology, anthropology, and the broader humanities.
So. What's the impact? Why do I care? What does that have to do with
"uxd = hitler" and the semantics of a name?
We used to have horseless carriages and alienists.
4. .... We can provide a little value to the larger community by
offering
a concise definition of our profession, but we can provide a lot of
value to the community by offering case studies, repeatable methods,
and a deep and broad theory of our work and how it relates to other
disciplines.
I think many agree here. Even me. (Though you're arguing for concise
connotation as opposed to concise denotation.)
However, I'm a bit thrown. What do points 1-3 have to do with point 4?
4 seems antithetical to the other 3.
--
Austin Govella
User Experience
Work: http://www.grafofini.com
Blog: http://www.thinkingandmaking.com
Book: http://www.blueprintsfortheweb.com
[email protected]
215-240-1265
Upcoming speaking engagements:
1. MAR 20-22: UX Health Check
IA Summit presentation with Livia Labate (Principal IA, Comcast
Interactive Media) in Memphis, TN:
* http://iasummit.org/2009/
________________________________________________________________
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
