Comment by ilaksh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilaksh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>If you can lay out all the major screens and the design then that’s worth its weight in gold. Design is also just about as hard to find as programming.

I am going to put myself out there by honestly saying that, as a programmer, I have never understood why people believe the above statement, and I disagree. Please don't take this as a negative comment (I know people will, which is why most people would not write a comment like this). I am just trying to understand.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe its worth its weight in gold. Here is the starting point for my perspective:

1. An analyst, customer, boss, or someone who is not a programmer, describes in words what they want the software to do. I take that description and spend a couple of days building a prototype web application. I don't create the screens in Photoshop first because A) it will take longer and B) I'm not trying to create the ultimate user experience, I am trying to build functional software that we can start getting feedback and iterating on.

2. Analyst, customer, boss, designer, or someone who is not a programmer, looks at the prototype, may or may not acknowledge that the software now has the primary functionality requested, and starts criticizing the appearance or user experience. Its actually easy for him to find flaws: its not very attractive (there was no time invested in making it attractive) and some use cases could involve fewer clicks.

2A. Here is the issue I have: it really seems to me that a significant portion of people believe at that point that the programmer was unable to conceive of an attractive design or shortcuts that would improve the user experience, and that is the context and justification for the entire field of design.

Anyway here is my experience: if you can't code, then you probably cannot actually create a better user experience than me. If I am given time to work on a design, then I will optimize the user experience as much as possible given the features of the software platform and budget. If there really aren't budget or time constraints then I can disregard the inner workings of the platform to some degree because I know I will have time to code whatever interface I can conceive of.

Maybe some designers can help me understand.

> An analyst, customer, boss, or someone who is not a programmer, describes in words what they want the software to do.

That depends heavily on their words being in sync with both their actual vision in their head and your understanding of what those words mean.

Rather than trying to answer this here I'll point to a great definition of what UX design actually is. Hint, it's not "laying out a page" or "painting the picture".

http://uxdesign.com/ux-defined

If you can do all of the above and you are a rock star developer, my friend, you are a rare breed.

Why not go straight to code? Iterating through conceptual ideas via sketches, wireframes, research etc to get an experience correct is a million times more effective and efficient than iterating through it in code.

None of what I wrote contradicts that description of UX. I did not imply that I thought it was laying out a page or painting the picture.

Also I did not mean to imply that I thought that going straight to code was the best approach. But you can honestly do a fair amount of that sketching/wireframing etc. in your head and with verbal descriptions, and then after a one or two iterations of that or actual mockups I think you would gain the most from a real system.

Anyway, based on that description, I will definitely start putting UX design on my resume, because I have already incorporated most of the substantial points made there.

Also, in regards to http://uxdesign.com/ux-defined, I have never in my life had so much smoke blown up my ass in the process of an ostensibly (partially) technical discussion.

I am definitely going to have to start practicing this UX design stuff, in case there is actually something more to learn, and because it looks like people are using a lot of bullshit to justify getting paid a lot more to not have to do the real work/problem solving (coding).

> [..] I have never in my life had so much smoke blown up my ass in the process of an ostensibly (partially) technical discussion.

Very harsh words but I'm afraid I have to agree. That article doesn't really tell you what UX design is. Back on university I attended an interactive systems class, which was very focused on UI and UX design. I found it to be rather vague and everything but precise in definition. I believe UX is a very blown term these days anyway, just as I believe "design" is an inflated term.

What I want is a precise definition of good UX, that doesn't feel like "make it idiot-proof".

Disclaimer: I make no claims whatsoever to be good at UX design. Actually, I couldn't care less. I'm one of those weird code monkeys who favour function over everything else. Maybe that's what UNIX made me to be ;)

big words... let's see your work

EDIT: sorry that's a bit flippant, but you just sound overly dismissive of a specialized field. Nobody disputes that a good user experience is important. This is why people specialize in it. Now, just taking you at your word that you do in fact design and code amazing experiences- obviously most developers are not as highly skilled as you. If I want to build a good product, it's going to be very hard to find someone as amazingly talented as you. I am left with the choice of hiring a good developer and a good designer and building a good product. Sounds good to me. This is why the profession exists.

If I can find a UX designer who is also skilled at visual design (more common than one who is also a full fledged developer), the product will also look good. Also, are you good at researching, setting up user testing, and designing marketing material and other graphics as well? How do you find the time? you must be a true god among men

Reply on news.ycombinator.com