Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Jason Sack

Jason Sack — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:01:09 GMT

I would suggest studying cognitive psychology and cultural anthropology before learning about the tactical side of the UX discipline.

Jason Sack — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:03:22 GMT

Sounds like a good idea – can we start an ongoing thread of podcast links with mini-reviews that is persistent?

Jason Sack — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:19:58 GMT

Clearly another great way to look at user-centered design. Eliminating anything that compromises a users ability to complete their task or gather their information is a great strategy. In designing user experiences, I have found that the challenge lies in the details – specifically related to the fact that we are many times designing for multiple audiences with diverse needs and characteristics. In this regard, I often separate this effort into two layers. One is a basic cognitive psychological layer (and even this layer becomes challenged when considering users with disabilities), and the other is the socio-cultural layer. UX design gets interesting in situations where these layers collide, even assuming one has the time, budget, and expertise to uncover the necessary insights about the audiences.

Jason Sack — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:33:10 GMT

Oh – sort of like the one that already exists here :) Look forward to digging in to it.

Jason Sack — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:04:21 GMT

I have another take. Adhering to research and process are one way to approach design. Not the only way. The thought that UX-driven means focusing on “what the customer wants” is a rather narrow way to look at UX design. Many times the customer can’t articulate what they want. Additionally, innovation often takes place through the creative process or intuition. And when we talk about analytics data, data can help identify the right questions to ask, but it can’t shed any insight into that which is unobservable – that which is occurring in the emotional parts of the brain. And neither qualitative or quantitative methods can tell you anything about that which does not yet exist. To me, UX is as much about letting the creative process unfold as it is about research and process.

Jason Sack — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:31:58 GMT

Hey Jon,

In todays’ hyper-speed marketplace, in the time it takes to even put together and execute a research plan – not to mention implement and enforce any design “process,” a good designer could have concepted, designed, and built an execution that could then be tested and responded to. I feel that research driving insights is invaluable, but I have yet to see any UX process that results in deliverables that aren’t, at best, out-of-date by the time it comes to execute, or, at worst, completely flawed.

In my experience, a really good small team – say a designer, researcher, developer, and writer/content strategist – can get from point A to point B so quickly that they can then iterate to point C and launch before the “process” has even started. I believe that this is one of the reasons that both Facebook and Google have been successful. I’ve seen personas that spend months in development. If the team is good, they only need a few key points about the audience. Same for business goals.

I’m not into self-flagellation. I’m into doing good work fast, and I have yet to see any process that isn’t counter-productive to that approach. Just my perspective.