Hacker News Reader

I've been through something very, very similar.

UX person suggests a design that is sprinkled with choices that clearly are from someone that has not been on the web that long, like wrong icons.

We do a meeting and explain what is going on, what the user wants to see on the page, and the UX comes back (usually that same day - how quick of them) with another version, but this version shows that the UX person did not understand the problem again. And again. And again.

I've seen the UX person showing a wireframe to the user and asking 'Will this cover all scenarios?'. Client said yes, we delivered the feature monday, and tuesday client was 'hummm, without the hability to do scenario X, this won't be used'.

The reason the UX person is so beloved between a bunch of devs is only because of the UI aspect of it - it looks good, something we devs could not come up with. But damn, I would love to work with an UX that I feel that knows what she's doing.

Whether we build an OS kernel, a HTTP server or a video game, we essentially translate between two abstraction layers to facilitate communication. It's on us to understand both sides well enough to achieve this.

A UI is essentially the highest layer of abstraction we build and thus should follow the same principles as any other. Namely respecting both the lower and the upper abstraction barriers.

UX designers are responsible for the language on top of all these layers. They need to understand the human side of things (often through data or through direct interaction such as workshops), but also the technical and artistic side of UI implementation. Direct interaction, written documentation and learning are paramount.

The good thing is that we programmers also want to understand the layer above us, so there is a natural pull for programmers and designers to communicate and to refine that communication.

By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard.

It’s like that guy that said: “it’s easy to be a good investor in god times, it’s when recession hits that the pros really shine”

> By this description they weren’t actually good UX Designers. A true professional will take all constraints into account, particularly in what seems to be a custom display for an appliance/kiosk/dashboard

No true Scotsman would ignore the technical specs!

The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs. The existence of "true professional" UX designers does not mitigate the vast quantities of average skill UX people most teams will encounter.

> The fact is that many UX designers are designers first and foremost and maybe even entirely non-technical when it comes to specs

I don't think that's much of an excuse. A graphic designer needs to know about page bleed and colour spaces. A product designer needs to understand the strengths (literally sometimes) and weaknesses of the materials they are working with. And a UX designer for a tech product needs to understand the technical constraints of the medium they designing for, or be able to talk proficiently to someone who does.

How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for) if you don't understand to at least some level the medium through which it will be conveyed. Designing something that a user will never see because the colour depth of the display they be using can't convey it is not designing the user's experience at all.

> How can you design a user's experience (lest we forget what UX stands for)

Right. Most designers are not UX designers, they are graphic designers hired to do UX because they can make pretty pictures in Illustrator.

That very painful example sounds like a bad setup where clear technical constraints weren’t taken in to account.

People not listening come in all forms. UX, dev, MBA.

> necessarily their incompetence, but that they're given the exclusive right to dictate every detail of the UX.

Unless you have valid reason to think the user would prefer your way, this sounds like the correct chain of command for a strong product.

…aand we're back to waterfall

Yaaaay, less meetings

You certainly mean less meetings once we are past the design phase. Because that phase is a single non-stop months-long meeting. Also, as soon as the design phase ends, the design is discovered to be broken. So the phase must be restarted.

Repeat the above for as long as you want.

Of course, the kind of place the GGP is complaining bout won't let peasants like developers to take part on that phase, so win-win, I guess.

I think usability is a valid reason. Their design had none.

IMO if they're not respecting technical constraints then they are incompetent. Good UX people I've worked with not only worked closely with developers to understand technical constraints, but developed a good understanding of the platforms we working with in their own right such that they would often pick up these issues themselves if they'd come across them before.

That sounds discouraging. But you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no?

If one's priority is design freedom or whatever, a good working relationship with your higher ups is the best chance to enable that.

Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about.

>you can apply the same story about any manager-like figure, no?

True, the problem is more when companies become more and more top-heavy over time. These intermediate layers are created. With every layer it becomes less likely that the people that can actually decide won't ever hear valuable feedback until it's too late.

>Working well with managers is also a good strat for becoming one yourself, and having more influence over things you care about.

In the end I showed them what had to be done to make it look decent on this kind of display. Because all layers of management were in the room, they managed to decide to do these changes. It's just a very inefficient way to get to this point.

To me it sounds like either you failed to communicate, or your UX persons were bad hires.

I didn't hire them, and I did exactly communicate the issues early on to my manager and the UX people.

Everything else was out of my hands.

> I didn't hire them, and

Who said you did?