One thing that drives me bonkers about tech culture is teaching designers that the bureaucracy is more important than the output — journey maps, documentation, multiple iterations, user research etc etc. All of these are fine tools but the goal is a good product and you can spend months producing mountains of all these design artifacts and still end up with junk.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fonts@sfba.social
@fonts Dealing with this right now, a designer unable to start out of fear of not getting it right, only after all these artefacts are in place can they be sure.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aegir@toot.wales
@aegir I’ve seen that in junior designers coming from really bureaucratic orgs where they feel like they have to prepare enough testimony for a 6 month long trial in order to change an icon.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fonts@sfba.social
@fonts This one is more experienced and more than capable but I think their organisational/country’s culture is the problem. Too much blame maybe?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aegir@toot.wales
@fonts @aegir Design can’t happen without input, ideally user research. When you don’t have anything validated to go from, you end up creating artifacts and getting the org to agree on the shared perspective. The artifacts are there to force the retrieval of information to do our jobs with some hope of success.
Sometimes we fail to twist the org’s arm to provide us with any insight and we end up designing wherever and hoping it sticks. Or designing wherever a Product Manager hopes work. But we generally need lemons to make lemonade.
Also, wireframes are artifacts too.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from laescude@mastodon.cr This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini