Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

Names Labels Titles Roles Whatever

08 Aug 2003 by

Mark Hurst’s latest column, Usability Professionals Must Disappear, is fresh fresh air.

Somehow “user experience practitioner” doesn’t roll off the tongue so easily. Hence the inevitable effort for UX-types to name what it is they do: at conferences and in newsletters, for years, I’ve seen the endless discussions. Should it be “usability professional”? “Information designer”? “Interaction architect”? Some other permutation?… Here’s my proposal - easy to pronounce, easy to understand, just two easy words: “Who cares?”

Thank you Mark.

Mark goes on to explain how these endless, self-indulgent “what should we call ourselves” discussions may serve the people in the profession well, but it only serves to confuse co-workers and clients — the very people the “user-centered interaction usability architects” need to work with in order to achieve true success.

Mark’s article reminds me of companies that are obsessed with process, not the end product. In the end, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, what other people call you, or how detailed and meticulous the prescribed proprietary process is. What really matters is achieving the desired results. Yes, a solid, proven process can help get you there, but going through the pre-defined paces is not how you should judge the success of a project.

BTW… For more job title masturbation, see this page from the original 37signals Manifesto. Yes, those are all real job titles from our competitors back in 1999.

11 comments so far (Post a Comment)

08 Aug 2003 | scottmt said...

Read this article for interesting contrast.

08 Aug 2003 | RS said...

"Interaction Architect" is also difficult to articulate. Phrases that won't roll off the tongue often stop in the throat.

08 Aug 2003 | james said...

Both articles make good points.

However the best points in Marks article are about listening and avoiding posturing.

Anytime someone reccommends not caring to careful consideration losses any argument in my opinion.

08 Aug 2003 | fajalar said...

So far, Tog's article has only been good to stir up the waters (again). And as much as I think waters need to be stirred now and again, Tog's underlying premise is faulty.

Mark's apparent premise is not. This is something that has been commentsed upon heavily since Tog put his crap out there for all to see. Girlwonder, Croc o' Lyle, experiencedesign group, and even moi.

And for more masterbatory job title fun...

08 Aug 2003 | Mark Hurst said...

love the links to molly's stuff! especially the job title generator. great stuff.

-mark

08 Aug 2003 | paul said...

the title's i've used over the years either make fun of titles and their (non)purpose (like "web ninja!") or just give a general idea what i do (like "[name],creative lead").

i always find it funny talking to people i know in huge corps that are always vying for better titles, because based on the name their role is called, they get different pay (even if their role doesn't change). silly semantics.

08 Aug 2003 | JackRuby said...

back in the late 90's, during the Big Internet Extravaganza, I was actually given the title "Interactivist"....it was mortifying.

Making up excuses for not having business cards at meetings became an interesting diversion.

16 Jan 2004 | Albert said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.

13 Nov 2004 | naturals big natural said...

Good reading

28 Nov 2004 | click said...

4480 Very well said chappy.

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^