Menu Search
Jump to the content X X
Smashing Conf San Francisco

We use ad-blockers as well, you know. We gotta keep those servers running though. Did you know that we publish useful books and run friendly conferences — crafted for pros like yourself? E.g. upcoming SmashingConf San Francisco, dedicated to smart front-end techniques and design patterns.

Why User Experience Cannot Be Designed

A lot of designers seem to be talking about user experience (UX) these days. We’re supposed to delight our users, even provide them with magic, so that they love our websites, apps and start-ups. User experience is a very blurry concept. Consequently, many people use the term incorrectly. Furthermore, many designers seem to have a firm (and often unrealistic) belief in how they can craft the user experience of their product. However, UX depends not only on how something is designed, but also other aspects. In this article, I will try to clarify why UX cannot be designed.

Heterogeneous Interpretations of UX Link

I recently visited the elegant website of a design agency. The website looked great, and the agency has been showcased several times. I am sure it delivers high-quality products. But when it presents its UX work, the agency talks about UX as if it were equal to information architecture (IA): site maps, wireframes and all that. This may not be fundamentally wrong, but it narrows UX to something less than what it really is.

The perception might not be representative of our industry, but it illustrates that UX is perceived in different ways and that it is sometimes used as a buzzword for usability (for more, see Hans-Christian Jetter and Jens Gerken’s article “A simplified model of user experience for practical application1”). But UX is not only about human-computer interaction (HCI), usability or IA, albeit usability probably is the most important factor that shapes UX.

Some research indicates that perceptions of UX are different. Still, everyone tends to agree that UX takes a broader approach to communication between computer and human than traditional HCI (see Effie Lai-Chong Law et al’s article “Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach2”). Whereas HCI is concerned with task solution, final goals and achievements, UX goes beyond these. UX takes other aspects into consideration as well, such as emotional, hedonic, aesthetic, affective and experiential variables. Usability in general can be measured, but many of the other variables integral to UX are not as easy to measure.

Hassenzahl’s Model Of UX Link

Hassenzahl’s "Model of User Experience"
Hassenzahl’s “Model of User Experience”.

Several models of UX have been suggested, some of which are based on Hassenzahl’s model123. This model assumes that each user assigns some attributes to a product or service when using it. As we will see, these attributes are different for each individual user. UX is the consequences of these attributes plus the situation in which the product is used.

The attributes can all be grouped into four main categories: manipulation, identification, stimulation and evocation. These categories can, on a higher level, be grouped into pragmatic and hedonic attributes. Whereas the pragmatic attributes relate to the practical usage and functions of the product, the hedonic attributes relate to the user’s psychological well-being. Understanding the divide can help us to understand how to design products with respect to UX, and the split also clarifies why UX itself cannot be designed.

Manipulation Link

Hassenzahl explains the hedonic and pragmatic qualities with a hammer metaphor. The pragmatic qualities are the function and a way for us to use that function. However, a hammer can also have hedonic qualities; for instance, if it is used to communicate professionalism or to elicit memories. (Image: Velo Steve5)

In this model, the pragmatic attributes relate to manipulation of the software. Essentially, manipulation is about the core functionalities of a product and the ways to use those functions. Typically, we relate these attributes to usability. A consequence of pragmatic qualities is satisfaction. Satisfaction emerges if a user uses a product or service to achieve certain goals and the product or service fulfills those goals.

Examples of attributes that are typically assigned to websites (and software in general) are “supporting,” “useful,” “clear” and “controllable.” The purpose of a product should be clear, and the user should understand how to use it. To this end, manipulation is often considered the most important attribute that contributes to the UX.

Identification Link

Although manipulation is important, a product can have other functions as well. The first of these is called identification. Think about it: many of the items connected to you right now could probably be used to get an idea of who you are and what you care about, even though some of them would be more important or descriptive than others. The secondary function of an object is to communicate your identity to others. Therefore, to fulfill this function, objects need to enable users to express themselves.

The growth of social media can be explained by this identification function. Previously, we used personal websites to tell the world about our hobbies and pets. Now, we use social media.

Facebook, blogs and many other online services help us to communicate who we are and what we do; the products are designed to support this identification need. MySpace, for example, takes advantage of this identification function; it allows users to customize their profiles in order to express themselves. WordPress and other platforms let bloggers select themes and express themselves through content, just as users do through status updates on Facebook, Twitter and all the other social platforms out there.

Stimulation Link

Gmail notifies users when they forget to attach a file to an email.

The Pareto principle6, also known as the 80-20 rule, states that 80% of the available resources are typically used by 20% of the operations7. It has been suggested, therefore, that in traditional usability engineering, features should have to fight to be included8, because the vast majority of them are rarely used anyway.

This is necessarily not the case with UX, because rarely used functions can fill a hedonic function called stimulation. Rarely used functions can stimulate the user and satisfy the human urge for personal development and more skills. Certain objects could help us in doing so by providing insights and surprises.

From this perspective, unused functions should not be dropped from software merely because they are used once in a blue moon. If they are kept, they could one day be discovered by a user and give them a surprise and positive user experience. As a result, the user might think “What a brilliant application this is!” and love it even more.

In fact, this is exactly what I thought (and found myself tweeting) when Gmail notified me that I had forgotten to attach the file I’d mentioned in an email. If you do a Twitter search for “gmail attachment,” you’ll probably find many others who feel the same.

Furthermore, I think “Pretty cool!” when YouTube enhances its presence by modifying its logo on Super Bowl Sunday (or Valentine’s Day). I also discovered something new when MailChimp’s monkey whispered, “Psst, Helge, I heard a rumor…” and linked me to a Bananarama song9 on YouTube. There are many examples, but the best “stimulating” functions are probably those that are unexpected but still welcome (like the Gmail notification).

Evocation Link

Souvenirs tend to have weak manipulative qualities, but they can be evocative when they elicit memories. (Image: meddygarnet11)

The fourth function that a product can have, according to Hassenzahl’s model123, is evocation, which is about recalling the past through memory. We enjoy talking and thinking about the good old days (even yesterday), and we want objects to help us with this. Even weird, dusty and practically useless souvenirs (with weak manipulative qualities) have evocative function because they help us to recall the past.

In design, we can certainly give a website a vintage look and feel to remind us of our childhood, high school or the ’60s… or the ’30s. But even websites with a modern and minimalist design can have evocative attributes. For instance, don’t Facebook and Flickr (by way of their users and your friends) provide you with a huge number of pictures from the past, some of which are highly evocative?

Thus, UX Cannot Be Designed Link

The MailChimp monkey’s words will probably appeal to some users more than others.

Having said all this, why is it argued that UX cannot be designed? It’s because UX depends not only on the product itself, but on the user and the situation in which they use the product.

You Cannot Design the User Link

Users are different. Some are able to easily use a website to perform their task. Other simply are not. The stimulation that a product provides depends on the individual user’s experience with similar products. Users compare websites and have different expectations. Furthermore, they have different goals, and so they use what you have made in different modes.

Think about it: when judging the food and service at a restaurant, you will always compare what you experience to other restaurants you have been to. They have shaped your experience. Your companions compare it to their previous experiences, which are certainly different from yours. The same goes for software, websites and apps. Evocative qualities vary even more, simply because all users have a unique history and unique memories.

You Cannot Design the Situation Link

UX also depends on the context in which the product is used. A situation goes beyond what can be designed. It can determine why a product is being used, and it can shape a user’s expectations.

On some occasions, you may want to explore and take advantage of the wealth of features in WordPress. In other situations, the same functions may make things too complex for you. On some occasions, you may find it totally cool that the MailChimp monkey tells you randomly that, “It’s five o’clock somewhere,” but in other cases it would feel entirely weird and annoying, because you are using the application in a different mode.

Furthermore, UX evolves over time. The first time a user tries an application, they may be confused by it and have a slightly negative experience. Later, when they get used to it and discover its wealth of features and potential and learn how to handle it, they might get emotionally attached to it, and the UX would become more positive.

We Can Design For UX Link

Are roller coasters fun, thrilling and exciting or just breathtakingly scary? It’s hard to tell. (Image: foilman14)

Many designers label themselves “UX designers.” This implies great confidence in the capabilities of the designer; it suggests that the user experience can be designed. But as explained, we cannot do this. Instead, we can design for UX. We can design the product or service, and we can have a certain kind of user experience in mind when we design it. However, there is no guarantee that our product will be appreciated the way we want it to be (again, see Hassenzahl). We can shape neither our users’ expectations nor the situation in which they use what we have designed.

It is certainly possible to have a fairly good idea of the potential ways a user will judge what we make, as Oliver Reichenstein points out15. Movies, rhetoric and branding demonstrate as much: they predict certain experiences, and they often achieve their goals, too.

However, a thrilling movie is probably more thrilling in the theater than at home, because the physical environment (i.e. the situation that shapes the UX) is different. In the same way, the effectiveness of an advertisement will always depend on the context in which it is consumed and the critical sense and knowledge of the consumer (i.e. the user’s prior experience). The commercials are designed to elicit certain experiences, but their level of success does not depend solely on the commercials themselves.

The difference between designing UX and designing for UX is subtle but important. It can help us understand and remind us of our limitations. It can help us think of how we want the UX to be.

It has been suggested, for instance, that UX is the sum of certain factors, such as fun, emotion, usability, motivation, co-experience, user involvement and user engagement (for more, see Marianna Obrist et al’s article “Evaluating user-generated content creation across contexts and cultures”). In turn, we must address some of these factors when we design for UX, depending on how we want our product to be perceived. If we want an application to be fun, then we need to add some features that will entertain; a joke, a challenging quiz, a funny video, a competitive aspect or something else. We should keep in mind, however, that, as designers, we can never really predict that the application will be perceived as fun by the user. Users have different standards, and sometimes they aren’t even willing to be entertained.

Extra Credit: How To Design For UX Link

Peter Morville’s “Facets of User Experience.” (Image: Semantic Studios16)

Understand UX Link

If we want to design for UX, then we need to understand what UX is all about. For example, knowing which variables make users judge a product might be advantageous, and Hassenzahl’s UX model is one such model for this.

Other models have been suggested as well, such as Peter Morville’s “seven facets of user experience17.” Here, UX is split into useful, usable, desirable, findable, accessible, credible and valuable. As you may have noticed, these facets fit Hassenzahl’s model pretty well: useful, usable, findable, credible  and accessible could all be considered as pragmatic (i.e. utilitarian and usability-related) qualities, while desirable and valuable would qualify as hedonic (well-being-related) qualities.

As mentioned, UX has also been viewed as the sum of particular factors. Other models have been suggested as well, some of which are linked to at the bottom of this article.

Understand Users Link

Following this, we need to understand our users. Traditional methods are certainly applicable, such as user research with surveys, interviews and observation. Also, personas have been suggested as a means of designing for UX, as have UX patterns. Smashing Magazine has already presented a round-up of methods18.

Exceed Expectations Link

Finally, give users what they want — and a little more. In addition to enabling users to use your service effectively and efficiently, make them also think, “Wow, this application is genius.” Exceed their expectations desirably. If you do so, they will use your website or app not because they have to but because they want to.

Other Resources Link

To learn more about UX, you may want to read the following:


Footnotes Link

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23

↑ Back to top Tweet itShare on Facebook


Helge Fredheim is a front-end developer at Bekk Consulting and a MSc student at the University of Oslo, Norway. His thesis on UX patterns was written in Baltimore MD, USA.

  1. 1


    It’s like saying cars cannot be designed for the drivers experience.
    Films cannot be designed for viewers experience
    Advertises design a billboard to aid conversion
    website are no different when thinking about user experience.

    This is a classic example of over thinking a simple concept
    when all you need is a splash of Occam’s razor

    • 2

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 9:10 am

      Not exactly! Cars can certainly be designed for the driver’s experience, and films can be designed for the viewer’s experience.

      But it’s probably hard to design the driver experience. No matter how well designed a car is, the experience will be negative if the the driver is unskilled (the user) or if an accident occurs (the context). These are factors that go beyond what can be designed.

    • 3

      I think you’re actually agreeing. The argument in this article is that you can design for the UX, just like films are designed for the viewer experience and cars for the driver experience. But car designers don’t say they’re designing the driver experience. Filmmakers don’t say they’re designing the viewer experience. That’s why web designers shouldn’t claim to design the user experience. They can only design for it. This is because they can’t design the user, no more than the car designer can design the driver. We design for users.

    • 4

      Ross Johnson

      March 15, 2011 7:47 pm

      I agree. You have some great information in here that gets lost amongst a “shocker article” shell. It boils down to semantics and i doubt most UX designers think they literally design every users exact experience.

      • 5

        Richard Williams

        March 17, 2011 8:41 am

        I agree designers don’t think they literally design every users exact experience.

        This article is really about English. You are correct (in a way) that is wrong to say “I am a UX Designer”, but people don’t mean that they are literally a UX designer. They simply mean that they’ve practiced/think about designing for UX in particular.

      • 6

        Mike Bethany

        March 19, 2013 7:36 am

        The title of this article should be, “How to write headlines that get people’s attention but then immediately loses you all credibility because it’s obvious you chose a sensationalist headline that doesn’t address the real meat of the article and this reader will now block you in my Google results because I hate stupid headlines.”

        But that’s probably too long.

  2. 7

    although it contains good bits of info, ux of this very-hard-to-read article is poor.

  3. 8

    I really think we’re splitting hairs here. That’s not to say semantics aren’t important, but this article seems to be making a big deal out of terminology like “UX Designer” when anyone with common sense understands that an individual user’s experience is wholly unique and subjective.

    It really depends on macro you want to get with the whole thing. For example, fool-proofing isn’t about making sure that nobody can mess it up. It’s about making sure that as many people as possible can’t mess it up.

    So yes, we can design experiences for humans, because we can often evaluate how the majority of humans will engage. Sure, there will always be exceptions. But as Ulrich said: it’s not about designing a user experience, it’s about designing the user experience.

    • 9

      Mikko Tikkanen

      March 15, 2011 11:44 am

      Amen, brother. “You can’t design for EVERY POSSIBLE user, thus the UX can’t be designed”, which is bit like writing 8000 word article how you can’t design a perfect car. True, but tad pointless.

      It all sounds a bit academical. In the end you design the UX for your target audience. Or design their UX. Doesn’t really matter as it’s all about majority.

  4. 10

    Tusen Takk!
    Brings back memories of the product design days.
    Very well put article.

    • 11

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 9:50 am

      Vær så god! ;-)

    • 12

      Very good article. Somehow, i always feel the same regarding the User experience.
      I always debated to prove this point that User experience can never be designed because it is an experience and experience can not be designed, it can be created. For instance:
      In India, a long time back, fiat launches its car with the gear control on the steering of the car. Now, we can say that users were used to that ting.

      But as time passes away, new car companies launches and they created gear control near the feet of the driver. Everybody adapts that. So, User experience can be created not designed as we can create a situation not design it.

      A bit theoretical one, but true…

  5. 13

    I couldn’t agree more. I have never professed to being a designer but interaction and enviornmentals have always been my interest.

    This is why I am UX Professional rather than a web designer or developer.

    Understanding the scenarios of a situation and an items function is far removed from its look.

    command line users will be testament to that.

    You cannot design an experience you can create one.

  6. 14

    Excellent post!

    Knowing your user is definitely key. So long as you don’t take their word as gospel if you ever speak directly to them. The voice of one or even many ain’t necessarily the voice of the majority. Or as Jobs says, sometimes they don’t know what they want until you show it to them! But you’ve covered that in “Exceed Expectations.” Amen sir.

  7. 15

    Great article. At first I was like, “What do you mean User Experience cannot be designed?!”, but your article makes a lot of sense. In fact, reading through your article, a lot of your points seem like common sense when you read them, but are nonetheless not all things I’ve thought of before.

    I think I’m going to print out that Peter Morville “Facets of User Experience” thing… A useful thing to keep on hand to constantly remind oneself what your goals are when designing.

  8. 17

    While the thrust of your article makes sense … this piece misses the reality of business.

    “I recently visited the elegant website of a design agency. The website looked great, and the agency has been showcased several times. I am sure it delivers high-quality products. But when it presents its UX work, the agency talks about UX as if it were equal to information architecture (IA): site maps, wireframes and all that. This may not be fundamentally wrong, but it narrows UX to something less than what it really is.”

    If an agency is referring to their UX capabilities, there is the very likely potential they’re speaking to various aspects of a business. . There’s no debate that IA and wireframes support UX. As an agency they may only be asked to work with a certain phase of the development. They may have been brought in very late in the process. The database struckture may not be able to be changed so that cannot be part of the review. There are literally dozens of reasons why an agency would share these as examples of their UX capabilities. That may be all they can show or that may be what most clients are looking for

    No offense intended but this statement and perspective works in an academic setting.. When you are dealing with practical situations there are plenty of moments where you are required to choose where you “apply” your focus. In most cases it’s where a company has chosen to apply their budget.

    In a perfect world UX is a holistic approach throughtout the org. In the real world that is rarely the case.

    • 18

      Adam Malamis

      March 16, 2011 6:56 am

      @UX Reality – I think you’ve missed the nuance of the article. Sure, you can control for demographic and context to a certain degree, however, even in practicality, one isn’t necessarily able to account for each individual’s specific context and experience.

      An example would be designing your freelance or agency’s website. You can determine that you choose to work with small enterprise in a particular niche, however you can’t control if people outside that niche access your site from Google, referring sites, etc. Their experience and perspective is derived from the sites they’ve seen before, the computer they’re on and their understanding of technology – pure relativism.

      What we can do is “satisfice” ( – take into account the various situations and apply the limited amount of information we have to design for a particular type of experience, not the experience itself.

      Great article!

    • 19

      The issue with an agency, or any other type of UX consultant, is that they make money off of their deliverables. It’s difficult to charge a client and justify the (usually rather high) expense of hiring a UX agency or consultant, and the best way they can justify the expense is to provide documentation and deliverables, and the best way they can demonstrate their capabilities visually is through those deliverables. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t “get” UX, or that they don’t provide the deeper value that the article talks about. However, they ARE in the business of making money, and their focus will be on those things they can charge for, which almost always turns out to be the more tangible deliverables.

  9. 20

    While this article is well written and carries some very valuable information I can’t help but disagree with the primary point.

    I think saying that we cannot design UX because we can’t control the user or their situation is like saying that we cannot build roads because we have no guarantee that people will drive on them and not the sidewalk.

    Clearly not every user will have the same experience with a given design but that certainly does not create the idea that design does not control/create the UX. I think the only way we could come to this conclusion would be that if the distribution of a sample group of users showed that every user had a totally random experience on a web site. This sample group would be just as likely to complete the task that has been designed as they are to never leave the site or bounce off the home page with no action at all.

    To me, the points in this article serve to promote the power of designing a user experience.

    • 21

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 1:26 pm

      Would be interesting to see! Furthermore, it will be challenging, as UX is not very easy to measure or evaluate, but that’s a different issue.

      I guess the UX will neither be totally random nor totally equal across subjects. The lack of randomness supports your point of view. However, the differences will probably support the assumption that UX cannot be designed.

    • 22

      Penelope Singer

      March 16, 2011 6:25 am

      I believe the point is that you can design the environment the user encounters, but not the experience that they have in that environment. Experience is ultimately a personal emotional response, something even the user themselves can’t control. Believing that you can completely control or create the specific experience a user has is naïve; you can only influence or guide it. This article is an excellent explanation of the complexities of UX and merely uses semantics to generate controversy and discussion. It’s a very thought provoking, meaty, and well-written article which does exactly that.

    • 23

      Adam Malamis

      March 16, 2011 6:59 am

      How would you design the control group for such an experiment? I think that there’s a lot of value of figuring how significant “professional design” is vs. the less experienced – hard numbers do make for an easier sale, especially vs. rhetoric.

  10. 24

    UX absolutely takes into consideration aesthetic, interaction, and above else the audience that’s using a site. True user experience designers are not only concentrating on their target end users but a load of other things. We take into consideration where the user might be coming from (other sites, banner ads, emails) what time of day it is, geographical location and sometimes even the weather. We look at creative and what they are used to seeing, what excites and entices. We look at copy, what is empowering. We design an experience for our users and then we test it. We test it to make sure that not only does the user find our product simple to use but what are the feelings that the user is left with after they are done. It IS designing an experience.

    • 25

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 10:57 am

      Are you sure you don’t design products and services, for an intended experience?

      • 26

        Yes. I’m sure. Again, these are semantics. Good UX’ers will design the experience.

        • 27

          Say your design had some water visuals, going for a calm zen like feel. That might be cool with most of your target users but what if one of those users had a loved one that drowned or almost drowned themselves. The sight of water would give these users a very negative experience. The point is that you can try to mold the experience till the cows come home, but you will never know the full history of your user. There’s just some things we can’t control.

          • 28

            The products I design never end up having a bunch of silly water visuals going for a calm zen like feel. No fiery flames, no earthquakes or hurricanes. I don’t do that type of design, in which I could understand your point.

          • 29

            What if?

            I think in reality you have to design for the majority and not worry about the 1 in 100,000 who has a water phobia.

  11. 30

    Although I agree you cannot design “A” Users Experience, to a great extent we must design “THE” User Experience. Yes, each user has a different level of savvy and expectation, but we’ve all been to sites that just plain suck to navigate and where key elements clearly weren’t planned for basic usability.

    Despite the vast variation in site user savvy and internet experience, there are many things we can do as designers and developers to aid even the simplest user in having a more positive experience when they visit our sites.

  12. 31


    March 15, 2011 9:52 am

    The end result of UX is not about making users feel good on the site, but rather successfully getting them to where they need to get. There are a lot of crappy looking, but very successful websites out there, and that is because they produce results for the visitors. I think thel UX focus should be results oriented, because that is the only true measure of success.

    • 32

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 10:00 am

      Interesting point! UX is also about these things, and utility and usability is probably the most important factor that shapes the UX. Good looks and cute mascots (as an example) will probably not help the user if the site isn’t usable, but good looks (again: as an example) can certainly contribute to the UX as well. It is however a blurry thing which is not as easy to measure as for instance “time to task completion”.

    • 33 I agree with your points but I disagree with you about not making the users feel comfortable. If the user is relaxed, they stay focused. If the content is readily available to them, it builds trust. You do not want to make the users think and being comfortable as I said will make them more relaxed and willing to navigate through your site.

      If the user is tech savvy chances are they need the comfort aspect addressed more so than techies.

      Just look at Facebook. It’s a GUI/UX nightmare and I don’t feel comfortable at all trying to navigate and do things. How the heck it’s so popular is beyond me. :)

      • 34

        It was a much better than myspace!
        Better being the key word here.

      • 35

        While making users comfortable can help them keep focus, it is only a part of the pattern. Research in education gives us a clue: they found that some amount of stress of a certain kind helps students focus and remember information better than if the student is totally relaxed. Think of how it is easier to remember something that upsets you than something that doesn’t affect you at all. Likewise, group behavior and other social psychological aspects influence the use of a site like FaceBook, so that their poor IA has less impact than it normally would. But I believe that is part of the author’s point. That so many variables contribute to the experience there is no way to account for them all. Some unaccounted for variables can counter what you planned for. Sometimes that is positive for the interface ala FaceBook and sometimes it is a negative contribution.
        I believe where the author falls short is in calling this a random event. It is deterministic based on attributes of the interface ( design decisions) and events in the users immediate environment ( like just having an argument or being ill etc) so that the variables are only partially controllable.

    • 36

      Michiel Ebberink

      March 18, 2011 6:43 am

      I do agree with you. but sounds more like usability to me.

  13. 37

    Reminiscent of this article: “Can Experience be Designed?”

    And Adaptive Path’s response:

    Not the most unique idea.

    • 38

      Helge Fredheim

      March 15, 2011 10:13 am

      Thank you, Jordan, I hadn’t seen Adaptive Path’s article before. The author and I seem to agree very much. (And no – the design for UX idea is certainly not unique!) Recommended reading anyway!

  14. 39

    I am a firm believer in using most of these techniques for all of my development projects.
    You can design sites all day long with pretty layout and design techniques, but failing to understand proper placement of content, providing a user experience that DOESN’T make your visitors think and implementing effective engagement techniques will not make your website as successful as it could be.

    Building trust, providing a comfortable browsing experience along with the items I mentioned above should be the starting points and foundation of any web project.

    Thankfully my competition doesn’t realize how important these techniques are.

    Shhh, don’t share this with too many people. haha

    Anyway great article and some new things that I wasn’t aware of.


  15. 40

    You can design for a specific user experience, but you can’t design the actual user experience.

  16. 41

    As someone who has been in the web design business for a decade, my feeling is that the whole “UX” thing is just bullsh!t created soley for the purpose of snagging customers. It’s just another buzzword which will find its way to a bulleted list of “features you’ll get with your website!”. Making a website user friendly is part of the game. Of course its important to spend time and resources figuring out the best way to design a site. But lately “UX” is being thrown around like some sort of pretentious hipster lingo. I feel like it’s the kind of thing some entry-level college kid would put on their resume, but no veteran designer with any integrity would bother with. Plus, good luck finding companies that will put an ephasis in UX, unless you’re working at some silicon valley startup. Most companies in the real world just want you to finish the god damn website and not spend weeks drawing flowcharts and meditating on top of mountains to figure out how your websites visitors are going to think before they do.

    • 42

      This comment is almost the comment I wanted to make!

      I smell something on the breeze: designers are having a more difficult time of it in this economy, and becoming a celebrity designer is that much harder. So let’s make a new niche!

      It seems to me that “UX” maps fairly consistently with the “Branding” template. I’ve concluded that if you cannot design for User Experience, then you cannot design a Brand either. But there are plenty of designers serving up huge platters of both, God Bless ’em.

      In both cases, however–branding & user experience–you can only really measure success after the fact. Just be careful of becoming a lemming, and do some serious soul-searching if you discover you’re one.

  17. 43

    Bryan Richards

    March 15, 2011 11:13 am

    The article was okay. I don’t agree with everything.

    Have you seen Helge’s website? Please stop preaching what you don’t practice.

  18. 44

    Karl Peterson

    March 15, 2011 11:26 am

    Semantics. Blah.

    From this article:

    “I invented the term [user experience] because I thought human interface and usability were too narrow: I wanted to cover all aspects of the person’s experience with a system, including industrial design, graphics, the interface, the physical interaction, and the manual.

    Since then, the term has spread widely, so much so that it is starting to lose its meaning.”

    Don Norman, 1998

  19. 45

    I enjoyed this article… and the philosophy of a design approach can be as fascinating as design itself sometimes. I think an interesting point here is when so many designers and devs look at how can we design for each of 1,000,000 possible scenarios, devices or user audiences and start making finite changes to 1,000,000 versions… it may be more important many times to choose a clear goal and give the user many paths to that goal to let them define their experience depending on their own conditions. Its an important thing to remember next time you are sitting in a room with a committee trying to “decide” how your user “should be using” what you designed or are their multiple ways for them to use it if they decide.

    This is the reason I have always had a little chuckle to myself when an exec has responded about a product, software or website by saying “it wasn’t designed to be used that way”… but if its the natural approach your users have taken when they start using what you designed… then perhaps it was designed EXACTLY that way even though you guessed with your committee and with testing that they would use it differently.

  20. 46

    Landscape Architects incorporate in their conceptual site / land development designs a ‘user / use analysis’ prior to kicking out a conceptual plan. It’s a very defined checklist system based on years of historical data recorded from actual observation of the site users and interviews during the site’s post construction analysis.

    It’s pretty cool how it’s performed, taking into consideration the tangible and intangible effects / experiences of the site users. Although there is no guarantee that every user will perceive that their final design is ‘perfect’ the system seems to works well in that it does tend minimize bad user experiences (unless you get mugged in the park).

    In that the objective of both disciplines (site designers / website designers) is the design of ‘Open Space’ in such a manner that will meet the intended needs of the final user (be it physical and / or sensory) perhaps a cursory look as to how their ‘user analysis’ is programmed and performed will be of benefit.

    Hey, it’s just a thought!

    • 47

      Good point. Landscape architects are the forgotten pioneers of user experience. Yet their methods, expressed in the terrain, in flora and fauna, and in broad strokes are far more reliable than those of people condemned to work only in pixels.


↑ Back to top