Reaction to "How should a user experience designer be used?"

A new blog post by Jason Buck, a contributing writer for Econsultancy, discusses misconceptions and general perversions of the role of "User Experience Designer." In general, I am in agreement with the points made in the post. I agree that a good User Experience Designer must be a champion of end-user needs, not just a Designer (although, one could argue that inherent in "Good Design" is an understanding of end-user needs). In order for the professional UXD to defend end-user requirements, he/she must be skilled at gathering and documenting them. These requirements, ideally, are gathered as a result of end-user research, which the UXD should be able to design, facilitate, and analyze. In addition, as a conceptual thinker and visual communicator, he/she must translate these findings into intuitive and compelling interfaces for applications and marketing experiences.

It is over the importance of the wireframe, the visual expression of the information prioritization developed as a result of end-user discovery, that my point-of-view differs slightly from Jason's. Let me explain.

As described above, it is clear that a User Experience Designer needs to be more than a "glorified wireframer."  That being said, I think I detect some minimization of the role of "Interaction Designer" by the use of the label "glorified wireframer." Great Interaction Designers facilitate the completion of business objectives as well as key end-user tasks by understanding the research, personas, and behavioral trends uncovered through contact with end-users. It is a pet peeve of mine, to listen to a Usability Professional, such as an Information Architect, boast that he/she has moved beyond "cranking out wireframes," to do something more noble (e.g. - Taxonomy development). Research, conceptualization of the experience, as well as detailed interface design is all integral to User Experience Design. One end of the UCD spectrum is no more important than the other. In other words, the richest end-user insights can be "lost in translation" (poor Interaction Design). That, however, may be Jason's point exactly.

Jason also states that the fact that he is "increasingly contracted out by agencies, with no brief and little or no access to the end client" as a "troubling development." As a business owner and a manager, I'll be very honest in stating that I require reassurance that my contract User Experience Designer is a seasoned consultant, prior to me exposing him/her to clients and end-users. The contractor interview process is too brief for me to gain that confidence, so I need to rely on trusted referrals or my own instincts about the candidate. That being said, I may hire a contractor just because he/she is a skilled Interaction Designer. If that is the case, end-user requirements will be provided to the Interaction Designer. Additionally, the ID will be debriefed by the Usability Professional who conducted the end-user research.

Jason goes on to say that "anyone can draw wireframes" and that he's "seen Project and Account Managers producing nicely laid out wireframes that, to the client at least, look no different from the ones produced by that pesky extra UXD resource they don’t want to pay for any more." I've always maintained that Usability Professionals such as Interaction Designers and Information Architects must be able to show how Design decisions achieve business and user objectives. This rationale and context must be provided along with the wireframe. Additionally, the decisions made to achieve these objectives must be measurable. Only skilled practitioners can follow the guidelines above, so the statement "anyone can draw wireframes" is problematic for me.

I agree with Jason's final point that UXDs should be brought into the project lifecycle at an early stage. I would go further, however, to suggest that Visual Design, Copy, and Technology should also be brought into the project lifecycle at an early stage.