I’ve come across a question: “If hiring for an in-house [UX] team, is it better to hire a seasoned pro or an enthusiastic recent Grad?”
Actually, the questions was a bit more verbose and implied that the seasoned pro would be more expensive, that they would have both good and bad habits and that they might have problems with authorities; while the recent grad would be cheaper, with fewer habits, less experience, and could be exposed to new usage trends.
That made me think: is either of them better than the other? How can anyone tell? To find an answer for myself, I’ve decided to strip the implied pros and cons because they seemed to refer to particular candidates, while I was interested in a more general view.
Most people would begin by analyzing the value of experience and trying to compare it to the value of enthusiasm and fresh ideas. I personally do not think this is a good way of finding the answer because by doing it, we’re a priori assuming that the “seasoned pro” had lost his enthusiasm and can’t bring new ideas. While that may be true in many cases, it can’t be accepted as a general rule; User Experience and Design is creative work and one can’t be creative if they shut down and stop accepting new things.
When my train of thoughts came to this point, I’ve realized that maybe the way the question was presented was flawed in itself. What the inquirer desired to find out was, how to determine which of any number of candidates would be the best asset.
There could be a long, even neverending debate on what makes a good UX Designer – I’m going to pass on that and leave this to those with more time on their hands. To me personally, this turned into the opposite question:
What makes a bad designer?
Is it even possible to say “[Tom or Ted] is a bad designer”? Design is a matter of perception; it is deeply personal and emotional – how can anyone be a judge?
I don’t think there can be a truly unbiased way of judging this, but I’ve tried to come up with a list of attributes that I believe prevent a person from achieving their full creative potential. To me personally, these are warning signs that the designer is less “good” than others.
“Nothing New” – Fixation on Status Quo
Becoming too focused on current state of things means losing the big picture. A truly creative person always looks ahead, searches for new ways of expressing various ideas, and brings them to the table. Sometimes these are met with less enthusiasm, sometimes with outright denial, but that doesn’t matter. It’s the occasional case when the new finds its niche and is accepted by the artist’s consumers (in the case of UX Design, stakeholders), that counts.
“Good Enough” – Lack of attention to detail
There is no “good enough” when it comes to design. Passion and enthusiasm for perfection must be the driving force behind everything a designer does. I’ve known people who called themselves designers but lacked this passion entirely. Maybe they have resigned on trying to improve, maybe they have lost their drive, or maybe they just didn’t care anymore. Whichever is true, lack of passion is a killing blow for an artist; he can either take a break andtry to regain his footing and new energy, or throw his imaginary brush away and do something else.
“Almost” – Lack of consistence
You’re driving across the city, following traffic signs. How would you feel if a right turn was suddenly signaled by a clockwise spiral instead of an arrow? Or if traffic lights switched from traditional colors to completely different ones? Or if they were replaced by a signal arm? That’s how a user feels when facing an inconsistent language of User Interface. Defining this language to be flexible and comprehensible is one of the key elements of User Experience, and so is consistent usage of the language. We’re trying to help our users, not confuse them further.
“My Way Or Highway” – Unable to compromise
In an ideal world, a designer would be able to let his imagination fly and we would see only visually stunning results. Alas, the world we live in is not ideal and so a designer needs to compromise. Corporations have their own guidelines that are enforced. Users are used to a certain way of communication with software. Existing applications can’t be redesigned from scratch without major effort and there is never enough time for a complete overhaul. And so on, et cetera, repete ad nauseam. The ability to accept such compromise is necessary; instead the designer needs to find ways of working with (and around) limitations imposed on him. Sometimes it’s downright dirty but nobody said that being a UX Designer is a glorious job.
“I’m The Expert” – Overblown Ego
I’ve left this one for the very end. To me, this is the greatest flaw of any creative person. An egoist is very quick to shut out all and any input or feedback. An egoist would refuse good ideas and solutions simply because they weren’t his ideas. A designer can’t afford to be self-centered, even maniacally controlling. Doing so shuts the designer off from sources of inspiration and from new ideas. An artist needs to listen, learn, absorb new things, move on. I don’t really know about you, but I have never known a creative artist worth the name with napoleonic tendencies.
In Conclusion
These are the five show-stoppers I have come up with for myself. I’m not claiming universal knowledge and endless wisdom. I’ve only seen both good and bad ways of doing things, I have tried them and, at some point in history, I’ve been there and done that, too. I’ve learned from my mistakes.
My own answer to the question that inspired this article would be:
Choose whichever designer is more humble and willing to work hard, to try and fail and learn from it. Both experience and passion are irreplacable, but the real key to being a good designer is open mind and open heart. Napoleons can rule and destroy, but they can’t create.