@ctietze So, I'm all for the critique. The idea that UX helps sell harmful products is a useful observation, but like you I feel that some of the details are a bit off
IMO UX's harm is inherent in how it abstracts away meaningful differences between its various sub-fields
So when he writes "UX needs to make clear distinctions between commercial design work and design as a social good" what he's missing is that the term specifically exists to erase those distinctions. That's what it's for
@ctietze Which means that "we’ll continue to see the worst companies hire the best people to help them make the worst things" is inevitable. Unlike the author, I don't think this is something that can be fixed within the field of UX proper and that the way the field has already defined itself is effectively the problem
At least, that's my overall take. Agreement with the overall observation but not necessarily agreement with the diagnosis. Does that make sense?
@baldur@ctietze heya, my writing isn’t the best so my points are a little muddy. I didn’t intend to say anything about how it can be fixed, in fact I tried to say exactly what you concluded, the way the field has defined itself is what creates the free legitimacy. If a UX practitioner who expected to be helping users instead of marketing products to them is in despair, I don’t see the point in pressuring them into upholding some imaginary responsibility to users
Ah, that makes sense. I liked the article either way. 😄The observations are sound and, even if the exact conclusion didn’t come across entirely, then the criticism was sharp enough to cut through regardless 👍🏻
Yeah that sounds a bit like a “get out of jail” card, or a joker/wildcard to be this unprecise in the selfmade job definition.
I’m generally pro personal responsibility. It’s not helping when there aren’t always clear lines, like blatant lies are, when your job is to sweat some weird details. 😕
Add comment