OPINION

Why UX, UI, CX, IA, IxD, and other sorts of design are dumb

How we are drowning design in meaningless jargon

Let me ask you first: what do you do? What title do you put on the resume and why? In this article, we’ll explore how design titles and disciplines turn out to be disconnected from the real world.

The “zoo” of design disciplines is scary.

You might have already encountered different attempts to distinguish between UX and UI, UX and CX, or UX and product design. Just google it, and you’ll inevitably get a bunch of “UI vs. UX designer” or “UX vs. product designer” comparison tables. Venn diagrams — those colorful overlapping circles — are especially adorable.

After seeing a lot of such things, I noticed that they share one trait — selfishness. Designers are talking about designers, instead of the value design can bring to the world. That’s why such diagrams only serve as a topic for designers’ snobbish chatter at the office coffee machine. For the majority of people who do not live in the world of pixels, fonts, and canvases, it doesn’t ring a bell.

Whoa, design titles. They are worthless!

I remember the time when I tried to “enlighten” clients and rolled my eyes at them when they confused “sacred” design terminology. Now I know for sure who creates so-called clients from hell — designers from hell. Such as me several years ago. The difference between UX, CX, UI, IxD, etc. is theoretical and often exists only in the designers’ imagination.

Furthermore, design acronyms are the result of bad design. Think about this: can professionals who strive for clarity and simplicity call their jobs so unclearly that they need to explain them?

“UX/UI designer” sounds as awkward as “vegetable/carrot salad” or “vehicle/bus driver”.

“UX/UI” is the champion of dumbness. What does the slash mean, I wonder? So, do you do both things or one of them at a time? If these are two essential parts of one profession, why not use a single term? If these are different things, why do you do two jobs simultaneously? Moreover, why do two elements of different logical levels stand together? User experience is more general and exists before, after, and even without any user interface. Why is the word “user” mentioned twice in this 4-letter acronym?

They are the same picture.

Even such a popular title as User Experience Designer (UX Designer) is a goofy pleonasm, basically, using more words than needed. It’s similar to saying Quality Assurance Tester, Talent Acquisition Recruiter, or Software Engineering Developer — as if it gives you more importance.

I have a hypothesis that the modern outbreak of design disciplines and creative titles is a reaction to stereotypes. Maybe we are adding descriptive words and replacing “designer” with “strategist,” “architect,” “analyst,” and “developer” to escape from the “make it look sexy” attitude? The latest trend is to call yourself a product designer. “Product” has become the new “UX” these days. Isn’t it a vicious circle? The word “design” has lost its initial meaning, and instead of bringing it back, we annihilate it by employing all these evasive words.

Why don’t we call ourselves designers anymore? When did “design” cease to mean anything?

What if all the exotic titles are just our reaction to stereotypes?

All in all, there is no matter what you call yourself and your approach if the result of work lacks tangible value. If a designer draws wireframes, prepares prototypes, and conducts workshops, but cannot deliver a solution to a problem, who would care about tools and methodologies?

So, what are designers supposed to do, in the first place? Where is the balance between drawing mockups and influencing the world? There is a popular idea that a T-shaped skillset is the best for a designer. It means a designer has a deep competence in the core topic and decent knowledge in the rest of the areas.

However, we are living in a weird age when the design industry is evolving fast, and people risk obtaining two dangerous skillset types. I call them the “I-shaped designer” and “em-dash-shaped designer.”

Different skillset shapes.

The first one is a specialist who knows only one narrow area, and if anything is beyond it asks to consult another specialist, for example, “Oh fuff, I don’t draw icons. I’m a UX designer. I pass my wireframes to a UI guy.” Or, “I pick the color palette. You’d better ask about the business model that girl at the whiteboard.”

What’s next? Will there be Blue Button Designers? (Do not confuse with Red Button Designers.) Flat Icon Architects? Customer Journey Map Strategists? Principal Sticky Note Peelers? To feel how grotesque it sounds, try modifying non-design jobs: Steel Hammer Carpenter, Lurssen Yacht Sailor, Asian Flavor Cook, Beretta Gun Soldier, Canon Mark V Photographer.

And since Design Thinking is popular nowadays, there is another problem — em-dash-shaped skills. These folks attend dozens of conferences and courses and know a little bit about everything. It’s not bad; we all used to be novices at some point. What is awkward is when they start to mention all the areas they pretend to know. For instance, UI/UX/Web/Mobile/Desktop Designer or Service/Product/Project Manager.

I don’t think this knife can be actually used.

You may disagree with the thoughts above, “Yeah, it sounds cool in theory. But these buzzwords are exactly what recruiters and potential clients are looking for.” Well, this is right to a certain extent. But what about professional dignity? If it becomes trendy to call our job “Pixel Mover” or “Photoshop Operator,” will we put that on resumes to be easier discovered?

I think large companies have also contributed to unteaching designers to be… designers. This zoo of design types is the result of granular work distribution in big teams. Designers are doing their small parts and gradually unlearning to see the final goal. Throw stones at me, but the end-to-end design process is a must for any designer, although they can specialize in something.

Methods vary for every industry but the core is the same: research, ideation, testing, implementation.

Every time, I find it quite exciting to realize that Design Thinking is just the good old Scientific Method applied to modern-day business and technology.

If we call ourselves designers, I believe we should take responsibility for the whole product’s fate even doing a small portion of work at a time. If icons, wireframes, mockups, icons, or prototypes are neat, but what people get is a disaster, designers haven’t done their work. Let me make myself clear. I don’t promote being a design generalist versus a design specialist. Just pointing out that our work is more responsible than we imagine.

Now we can return to the questions from the beginning of the article. What are we? What are we actually doing? And here is another observation. Designers’ area of responsibility grows each year. Present-day titles more and more reflect how we work because there is not much difference between the principles of designing a mobile interface and a microwave oven. “If you can design a thing, you can design anything,” said Massimo Vignelli. It means the designer’s mindset is more important than tools, and you’ll learn the tools fast if you know what to do next.

Seems like these are rather stages of the design profession, not different professions.

We should be able to show the measurable value of what we consider is right. Sometimes designers propose solutions that don’t bring immediate income but, for example, attract loyal customers. Loyalty and the company’s reputation will bring money in the future. The trick here is to show how it’s possible. It’s like playing chess: the more steps ahead you think, the more credibility and trust you gain.

Understanding and proving the value of design is one of the basic topics in our profession. Fima, pixel perfection, customer journey maps, and visual language don’t make us designers. In the same way, a hammer and saw don’t make someone a carpenter. We are designers when we solve problems and contribute to something valuable.

When team members talk on different levels of abstraction.

There will always be people and situations that break the reputation of our profession. A popular joke says, “There will always be someone who can do it cheaper.” Fortunately, there are simple things everyone can do to support the credibility of designers.

👋 Hi there! I enjoy two things — sharing knowledge and drinking good coffee. If you like what you are reading now, feel free to support me via the “Buy Me a Coffee” platform ☕ Thank you! ❤️

Summary

1. Call your job clearly

After decades of evolution, only the word “designer” has been unchanged. We put many words before the “designer” and sometimes even instead of it, but does it stay meaningful for long? That’s why referring to a particular tool or methodology in a job title seems so unwise. This is your backstage; no one cares about it if you bring value. When you come to a surgeon, you don’t check the steel mark of their scalpel, do you?

At all times, companies weren’t searching for wireframe artists or button creators. They need problem solvers and money multipliers, even if they don’t say it explicitly. So let’s call ourselves designers more often: it’s a valuable and proud profession with an exciting history.

2. Showcase the value

Design is a public profession that involves more exposure than other activities: each designer unknowingly influences the perception of other designers. I believe the reputation of design is in our hands, namely how we position ourselves and showcase our work. In our info bubble, of course, we know what designers do, but the general public has quite a vague understanding.

What people see labeled as “design” is what they think design actually is. That’s why it makes a huge difference if someone “designed look and feel for a financial app” or “2x sped-up the onboarding to a financial app.” One thing is the“design of a new logistics VR concept,” but a “VR concept that can save up to 40% of the delivery cost” is quite another.

3. Know design impact facts

People constantly challenge our designs, and the larger the project is, the more cautious everyone will be. So, designers should collect and generate evidence that our work positively impacts business and society. One of the examples is Forrester’s study on how design thinking has affected the economic performance of IBM.

On the other hand, there are widespread myths about the value of design; for example, “$1 invested in design brings $100 of income,” which is just an easy-to-remember formula without any substantial proof. Repeating general phrases will only compromise our profession, whereas accurate scientific studies strengthen what we do.

Recommended materials

If my humble article drew your attention to the topic, I highly recommend checking out the following pieces:

• “You Have Been Lied To,” Mike Monteiro’s keynote at the Interaction Conference 2015. One of his thoughts is that everything that helps designers to do their job is part of their job.
• “When Companies Question the Value of Design,” an article by Alan Cooper about the reasons designers cannot communicate the value of their work in terms of money.
• “Design for a Better World,” Don Norman’s book on how design creates meaning, impacts sustainability, and becomes humanity-centered.
• “How Designers Destroyed the World,” Mike Monteiro’s talk at USI.
• Bonus: George Carlin, “On soft language” and “Flight announcements,” classical comic show episodes about words and meaning.

Instead of post scriptum

• ✍️ Here are all my design articles on Medium.
• 💼 Let’s connect on Linkedin. Drop me a note if you want me to present the topic of this article at a conference or meetup.
• 🏰 Bored by design articles? Check my other blog about photography and overlooked architecture.