Are We Design Pharisees? (1.1.0)
Note: I originally posted this rant on Product Hive, Utah’s awesome UX/Product industry group. I received some excellent feedback from early readers, which I’ve tried to incorporate. My primary goals are to make it more focused and constructive. You’ll see notes throughout on how I can improve.
The first edit is to the title, which was originally, “Are You a Design Pharisee?”. As it was, it set up the whole reading experience as an accusation to be defended against, so I changed it be more constructive, reflexive, and community-oriented.
A friend and greenhorn UX designer recently had an unpleasant experience. He posed a question soliciting suggestions for design inspiration on a̵ our local industry Slack channel.
Instead of addressing his query, several folks w̵h̵o̵ ̵a̵r̵e̵ ̵p̵r̵e̵s̵u̵m̵a̵b̵l̵y̵ ̵U̵X̵ ̵v̵e̵t̵e̵r̵a̵n̵s̵ invalidated his question and lectured him about what questions are proper to ask, imploring him to follow some other process instead. All with a pretty dismissive, unpleasant tone. All told, they created a pretty poor experience for this relative newcomer to t̵h̵e̵i̵r̵ our community.
Note: This post is not about clashes between design noobs and veterans, but my original intro framed it that way, and readers got snagged on it. This proved to be a major flaw in my first iteration. The problem I’m describing applies to designers of all experience levels. I also changed “their community” to “our” because I need to own this community and its problems if I’m going to complain about them.
I hope the irony doesn’t escape you. It’s surprising that as the poster-people for empathy, we can be a little heartless. I̵t̵ ̵g̵o̵t̵ ̵m̵e̵ ̵t̵h̵i̵n̵k̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵a̵b̵o̵u̵t̵ ̵h̵y̵p̵o̵c̵r̵i̵s̵y̵.̵ And that got me thinking about Pharisees.
Note: Added ‘we’, because I’m a UXer, too, and sometimes I don’t think as carefully as I should before responding (cf. this post). I removed the line about hypocrisy because I don’t want to put people on the defensive. Really, I’m just trying to question inconsistencies between how thoughtfully we approach our UX work and how we deal with each other.
The Pharisees were what you might call a group of thought-leaders for ancient Judaism. T̵h̵e̵y̵ ̵w̵e̵r̵e̵ ̵p̵o̵w̵e̵r̵f̵u̵l̵ ̵i̵n̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵i̵r̵ ̵t̵i̵m̵e̵,̵ ̵b̵u̵t̵ ̵n̵o̵w̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵y̵’̵r̵e̵ ̵b̵e̵s̵t̵ ̵k̵n̵o̵w̵n̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵b̵e̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵c̵a̵l̵l̵e̵d̵ ̵h̵y̵p̵o̵c̵r̵i̵t̵e̵s̵ ̵b̵y̵ ̵J̵e̵s̵u̵s̵.̵ Their story is germane because while they started as defenders of an important human cause, they ended up using it to trample people instead.
Note: It was emotionally satisfying to write a zinger like that, but it’s distracting from my core message, which is that our community can do better.
It’s an old story, but a relatable one. They had encountered something wonderful (the laws and salvation of their Almighty God), and understandably exerted great effort to preserve it. They sensed its great value, and were willing to fight to see it propagated.
But somewhere along the way, their approach began to fossilize. They came to judge the practice of others not by i̵t̵s̵ ̵s̵i̵n̵c̵e̵r̵i̵t̵y̵ ̵o̵r̵ its outcomes but by it conformity to their own approach. They relied on short-cuts, heuristics, and stereotypes to make convenient snap judgments, rather than tirelessly re-evaluating new information in light of their core values. Ultimately, their obsession for defending an inspiring cause (justification with God) led them to ignore their values (justice/fairness) in their daily interactions with others.
Note: Sincerity is very important to me, but upon reflection, it’s not a valid criterion for measuring the effectiveness of a design. It’s just nice to remember that people are people and that they’re trying.
In the crass tradition of applying Biblical concepts to tech work (anyone here a tech “evangelist?”), I have to insist that there’s something here for us UXers to learn.
The Jury’s Out
Evaluation, assessment, critique—call it what you will, critically judging what we see and experience is essential to UX work. Else how could we improve user experiences? Since judgment is so central to our work, it’s crucial that we’re conscientious about the ways and means by which we make our judgments. We run into real trouble when our judgments become short-circuited by template comparison.
Example 1—Make It Native
This type of short-circuit evaluation might go like this:
- Apple has a high reputation & brand equity for their iOS app experiences.
- This app shares many visual characteristics with Apple’s native apps.
- Therefore, this app has good UI.
In contrast, a duly diligent critique is unwilling to accept a template example as a proxy for its values, insisting instead that judgments flow from carefully considered priorities and context-specific evidence. It might flow like this:
- First, we value clarity, deference, and preserving the intent of the user.
- We also value brand that gives users a sense of premium, Apple-like feel.
- This UI is beautiful, nailing the brand space. But the hierarchy of options is leading our users away from their primary use-case; it’s a̵ confusing at best, and at worst, too aggressive.
Example 2—You’re Doing UX Wrong
The same problem applies to the UX process itself.
- At my old school, design decisions flowed unidirectionally—problem first, then make designs.
- You’re looking at how other people are solving analogous problems before you’ve thoroughly characterized your specific problem/POV.
- Therefore, you’re doing bad UX and should be more like me.
A more conscientious judgment might flow like this:
- I prefer constraining myself to a very specific problem before I get into designing a solution—it helps me keep laser focus.
- That said, the d.school’s Bootcamp Bootleg suggests that “Analogous needfinding spaces can offer up inspiration, a way to get unstuck, a fresh perspective on a space, or a useful work-around when direct observation is difficult.”
- So what you’re doing might help you characterize your problem space—here’s an idea of where you could look. Just remember to come back and specify your own problem before you get too deep.
Example 3—Arrogance, Perceived & Real
This is a real example of a friend-of-a-friend’s experience interviewing for an internship with a prominent design-focused org.
- Applicant: *Feels like he nailed the interview.*
- Org: You didn’t get the job. Do you want some feedback?
- Applicant: Sure!
- Org: You’re arrogant. Some of your nonverbal cues suggested that you’re too cool for school and that you don’t really want this job.
- Applicant: Thank you.
- M̵e̵ ̵[̵i̵n̵ ̵m̵y̵ ̵h̵e̵a̵d̵]̵:̵ ̵Y̵e̵s̵,̵ ̵t̵h̵a̵n̵k̵ ̵y̵o̵u̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵d̵e̵i̵g̵n̵i̵n̵g̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵m̵a̵k̵e̵ ̵b̵r̵o̵a̵d̵,̵ ̵u̵n̵f̵o̵u̵n̵d̵e̵d̵ ̵c̵r̵i̵t̵i̵c̵i̵s̵m̵s̵ ̵o̵f̵ ̵h̵i̵s̵ ̵c̵h̵a̵r̵a̵c̵t̵e̵r̵ ̵a̵s̵ ̵a̵ ̵p̵e̵r̵s̵o̵n̵.̵ ̵T̵h̵a̵t̵’̵s̵ ̵d̵e̵f̵i̵n̵i̵t̵e̵l̵y̵ ̵w̵h̵y̵ ̵h̵e̵ ̵d̵r̵o̵v̵e̵ ̵a̵n̵ ̵h̵o̵u̵r̵ ̵b̵o̵t̵h̵ ̵w̵a̵y̵s̵ ̵t̵o̵ ̵i̵n̵t̵e̵r̵v̵i̵e̵w̵ ̵f̵o̵r̵ ̵a̵n̵ ̵i̵n̵t̵e̵r̵n̵s̵h̵i̵p̵ ̵h̵e̵ ̵d̵i̵d̵n̵’̵t̵ ̵w̵a̵n̵t̵.̵ ̵S̵o̵ ̵h̵e̵ ̵c̵o̵u̵l̵d̵ ̵h̵e̵a̵r̵ ̵t̵h̵a̵t̵ ̵f̵r̵o̵m̵ ̵y̵o̵u̵.̵ ̵T̵h̵a̵n̵k̵ ̵y̵o̵u̵ ̵s̵o̵ ̵m̵u̵c̵h̵.
Note: My feelings in the last point were authentic, but the sarcasm is distracting and erodes my ethos. It’d be more effective to explain that I’m flabbergasted because I have better data than the interviewers. I don’t know this guy super well, but I’ve had probably a dozen small interactions with him in a professional setting, including occasionally giving input on his work/process. I’ve never seen him act arrogant or dismissive, and he takes input like a champ. So I was baffled that these folks could be so confident in an assessment that seems really off-base.
It’s also dubious that you can read anyone’s stable attitudes and intentions from their body language. At best it’s a very unreliable measure, and at worst it risks screening people by their ethnic and cultural background (though I don’t think that was at play in this specific case).
Finally, commenting on someone’s character is an invitation-only affair. It’s the domain of trusted friends, parents, mentors, and spiritual guides, not prospective employers. Orgs should assess what people can do (e.g. take feedback with openness) not who they appear to be (e.g. seems arrogant).
A more defensible (and professional?!) critique might go like this:
- Org [during interview]: We really value humility and open-mindedness here when it comes to receiving feedback. I have to be honest, I’m getting a vibe that that might be hard for you. But I’ve only known you for 30 minutes, so I want to give you a chance to change my mind. Can you give me an example of how you’ve demonstrated humility and open-mindedness in your UX work? How did you keep yourself open to learning what you needed to learn, even if it was painful for inconvenient?
- [This particular approach is a two-for-one because in you also can watch whether they can react with humility to a pretty blunt critique in the moment].
- Org [later]: You didn’t get the internship. Ultimately, we just didn’t feel it was a good fit. Thank you for your time.
Conclusion—You Be the Judge
Forming judgments is fundamental to problem-solving, and therefore to UX design. But if we don’t want to end up like the Pharisees, stuck in short-circuits and stereotypes that alienate us from folks who could be our best allies, we’d do well to spend time judging our own judgments. Are they defensible? Do they flow from our carefully considered values and adequate data? Or are we cutting corners in defense of our current orthodoxy?
Only you can be the judge.
Final note: Thanks for tolerating the strikethroughs and asides. I left evidence of the edits because my thesis here is that we should apply good UX principles not just to designing software, but to how we behave as a UX community. This is my way of trying that out—feedback on my first run indicated that I missed the mark in several important ways, so here’s the next iteration. There’s still more to learn, so I’d be happy to hear what you think. Thanks for reading!
