UX Should not be a silo

Should we be "Creating Products, not Experiences" or should We "Stop designing products"?

Apparently Dan Saffer, author of Designing for Interaction, has left Adaptive Path to start his own firm called Kicker. One of Kicker's first posts to it's blog is a friendly jab at Peter Merholz's (president of Adaptive Path) well known mantra of "experience is the product." I can see it both ways. As is typically the answer when UX types bicker about what exactly it is that they do. Something from Saffer's post caught my eye though...

“Experience design” is often just a fancy term for what used to be called “creative direction,” meaning oversight to make sure all the pieces of a product fit together.

Is that really it? At a small-medium company like TBG where do UX and "Creative" sit in relationship to each other? Is there even a need to draw lines, or create departments? In my opinion, regardless of what department someone is in, we all share the common goal of making something that results in a fantastic experience for the people that interact with it. I like framing UX as less of a silo and more of a way to think about the big picture. Certainly anyone who considers themselves a "Creative Director" for an interactive medium practices a lot of what we call UX or experience design... whether they slap a label on it or not.

Comments

[Arlo]

I think a key element of all of this talk is the 'user' part. Experience design and user experience are two very particular concepts. Creative Directors have traditionally had license to ignore the user and just make shit up that they deem interesting. UX people are there to make sure the user is considered along the way, and that human intuition, emotion, and sometimes ergonomics are addressed. UX people are pennant-bearers for usability due to the fact that many creative executives involved in interactive come over from linear media or print, where usability isn't a factor and decisions favoring the user often directly nullify or contradict Creative Direction's ideas. I think the two are quite different, but share a common goal of ending up with a great product or result.

So, is there a need to draw lines? To rephrase that notion slightly, I think there is a need to define roles. Faint lines, ideally. Creative Directors often are the heroes of the projects, the ones who answer questions, have the vision, and have the type-A personalities that can assert their wills to no end. Oftentimes this person doesn't have any room left for considering the user, and there are other people that specialize in users. A project strictly built by UX people would be pretty boring, if you ask me. And likewise, a purely creative project can be a nightmare (see most web sites from 1998 to about, say, now).

We should see better and better products as creative direction sees sourcing from experienced interactive veterans, and not just ported-over print guys or TV people. I think the interactive world is hungry for it, as the 2.0/data-driven/web standards trend of the past few years has pushed aside the fun and wow-factor that earlier sites were so good at (without actually being useful).

[Justin Baum]

Some lively discussion around this post at - http://www.barbariangroup.com/posts/985-ux_should_not_be_a_silo

[Arlo]

Pwnd. Never commenting here again!

[Justin Baum]

I know!!!! I dunno how I feel about this.