Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Polarising comment alert.

I find it so hard to relate to HCI and UX as fields. I mean, do real designers creating great products actually subscribe to this theorising or do they just get on with it? I'm probably completely naive about all of this, but from the outside it looks like a lot of talking and a lack of doing.




I'm a designer and I understand what you mean. There are two different things going on here...

1. Design also has its own "architecture astronauts", people who theorize a lot but don't get things done. They are usually in academia, since there are not many companies willing to pay for design astronauting.

2. Design, despite being more closely related to engineering, is usually expressed from the perspective of art. That's why I think most programmers have problems getting a grasp of it. The reasons are mainly historical, but fortunately people are paying more attention to more rational approaches to design (Tufte, Krug).

To me it seems the author is trying to overreach the scope of UX (when it's already huge) with vague ideas of where it should head.


Regarding #1: for some reason this is exaggerated in UX and especially IA fields. I unsubscribed from IA mailing lists because most of the traffic there was argument what IA is and what it is not.


I think that's the spirit of the post, that building persuasive systems is moving/has moved into the real world in a principled way.

Disclaimer: I work with the author, and it's suprised me how much of a 'science' it really is (hypotheses can be tested, and the results can be measured and improved)


In my experience, the best designers bristle at the notion that they "just get on with it". They consider being learned in design a great badge of honor, as important as their innate sense of style. To them, the worst design transgression is harboring any strong artistic opinion without being well-read, theory included.

Loosely related thought: My favorite magic vs. method treatise is Poe's "The Philosophy of Composition". How seriously he hoped to be taken and how ingenuous his motivations are fun to debate, but I love the piece.


Grand theorizing isn't unique to design. I can name probably 20 variants of "x driven development".


It's important to design, but also important to explain and defend your designs.

The sort of ideas expressed in this article help set the stage for subtle design decisions.


I find in almost every field, there are those that enjoy theorizing and those that enjoy doing. The HCI & UX fields are no different.


HCI has both theoretical and scientific models that are often driven by cognitive science, psychology and neuroscience.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: