Conversation

Replying to and
But it’s a fair point: you can almost always find usability issues, and you’re almost always going to have to launch with some, and it’s not always obvious which are truly critical. On top of that, some issues are very time consuming or complex to fully solve. Experience helps.
2
10
True. Also "Shot down" is highly emotive language. An alternate framing is "weighed up the potential problems against the opportunity cost, and decided that even if there are inherent usability issues, it made business sense to launch anyway"
1
6
Replying to and
So true! It’s classic Fundamental Attribution Error First: if you saw the facts, you’d agree with me. Then: oh you see the facts but don’t agree? You must be too stupid to understand Then: oh you understand fully but don’t agree? You must be evil. Pure tribal thinking
1
15
When designers gripe that our colleagues refuse to prioritize UX issues as highly as we think they should, we need to update our beliefs. When they refuse to accept our assessment that the issues exist at all, they are burdening us with persuasion we should not have to do.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @andybudd @johncutlefish and @vgr
And a lot of design rhetoric goes towards, “how can I persuade others to see it my way?” Much less goes towards, “hang on, what if it’s ME that needs to update my beliefs?” Ironically, it’s when you come in truly open to you being wrong that you start to be able to influence
3
7
Not sure why I’m tagged here but I’ve nearly always been on the opposite side of this issue and in my experience it’s usually fine to ignore designers and ship because there are usually bigger risks/uncertainties baked into the release that overwhelm design considerations.
3
5
IME designers tend to resist thinking in terms of probabilities and risks if they are sensitive to them at all. Design is a binary to most of you — it either has integrity or is somehow philosophically compromised.
1
7
Show replies