About UX
About UX

Good UX:
What it is & what most companies get wrong about it

Intro

I've worked on projects for startups, small businesses and global brands. No matter the size, industry, or stage of any of the companies I work with, one common theme persists with all of them… A true understanding of and deep appreciation for good UX is often lacking.

To some extent that's ok and even expected. After all, if a profound understanding of UX was innate, I wouldn't have a job. But not understanding something makes it hard to know if you need it or how it can help. So part of my job is helping businesses understand what UX is, the difference between good and bad UX, and how they can elevate their user experience.

What is UX?

The simple definition of User Experience is exactly what the name implies. It's the experience a user has when they interact with a product, service, interface, process or system. That's usually the extent of most people's understanding.

The deeper definition involves a user's emotions, perceptions, and behaviors during each interaction. Good UX should create intuitive, efficient and satisfying experiences tailored to the user's needs and expectations.

The last word in the previous paragraph is the most important. So, let's dive even deeper and talk about expectations for a moment.

Expectations
& UX

Expectations & UX

When designing user experiences, managing user expectations is what determines if the UX will be good or bad. It's one of the most important aspects of UX design yet it is almost always overlooked or misunderstood.

Let's talk about what that means
In general, a user's expectations are subjective. During any given interaction, one person might expect X to happen while another expects Y. Other times, there is a consensus. Societal conditioning, norms, culture, or environment will create a collective expectation when using a certain product or service.

For example, the DMV. I was born and raised in LA. DMVs in big cities are a nightmare. So I've been conditioned (by my own experiences) to hate the DMV. The buildings are ugly, wait times are long, the staff always seem rushed and annoyed, and processes are slow and unintuitive. Not to mention if you forget something there's no grace or consideration, they push you aside and tell you to make a new appointment. It's a miserable experience. Therefore, my experience shaped my expectation and my expectation of any DMV experience is was as low as it gets.

This is why simply meeting expectations can get businesses into trouble. I know the DMV isn't a business in the traditional sense, but it serves as an extreme example of meeting expectations. After all, unless you're not from LA, you'd never think that a different or positive experience is even possible at the DMV.

Fast forward to a few years ago when my family and I moved to a small town in South Carolina. As new SC residents, my wife and I needed new driver's licenses. Because of my past experiences, I already knew what to expect. I waited to go for as long as I could but I eventually managed to summon the courage to finally go in for a new license. While the building was as ugly as I expected it to be, that's where the similarities with the DMV in LA ended.

I waited less than 5 minutes before my name was called which was shocking to me. When I got up to the counter, the lady behind the desk greeted me kindly and with a smile. We went through the required paperwork and proof of residency without issue but when it was time for the vision test, I realized I forgot my glasses. I only use them when driving at night so I don't keep them on me. I knew that as soon as I told her I didn't have my glasses, I'd immediately be dismissed and would have to return another day.

But the complete opposite happened. I told her I forgot my glasses and they might be in my car. She said, "That's no problem, go ahead and grab them, I'll wait." I quickly checked my car and they weren't there. Now I had no choice but to come back another day. I went back inside and told her I didn't have them and instead of turning me away she said, "Do you want to try the vision test anyway? Maybe you can just squint a little." Amazed by her patience, I accepted the challenge and took the test. The letters were super blurry the smaller they got and I felt the pit in my stomach grow larger because I was taking forever to make out each letter and expected her to grow impatient and throw me out. On the last one, the smallest one, I couldn't get it. No matter how much I squinted or adjusted my face, it was too blurry. I told her that and she told me to guess what I think it is. My first few guesses were way off before she started giving me hints. Without telling me what the letter was, she would tell me if I was hot or cold until I eventually got it. The whole experience shattered my reality, expectation and perception of what an experience at the DMV could be. I was in and out in less than 15 mins, was treated with respect, and the staff was happy, caring, and patient.

The relationship between my initial expectation, based on my experiences going to the DMV in LA, and the experience I actually got at the DMV in South Carolina is the difference between good and bad UX. Too many businesses simply design their UX based on the current or conditioned expectation the majority of their users have. If users/customers aren't expecting much, they feel they don't need to offer much. They simply match their expectation. It's lazy. Basically if the user doesn't care and is already expecting X experience, why should the business care and spend more money to make it better? They just give their users exactly what they expect to get.

For some things, matching expectations works. Like a 5 star restaurant. You expect an exceptional experience and often get it. But the part most businesses miss is that the only reason that restaurant is rated 5 stars is because they didn't give their customers what they expected when they first opened. They gave them more, and because of that, a 5 star experience is now the new expectation when dining at a 5 star restaurant.

In contrast, your local McDonald's, with a 1.5 star rating on Yelp, doesn't feel the need to do better because customers don't expect anything more than a 1.5 star experience.

TL;DR: Good UX isn't about meeting user expectation, it's about exceeding it. No matter the product, service, process, or system. Every interaction a user or customer has should be a delight.

TL;DR: Good UX isn't about meeting user expectation, it's about exceeding it. No matter the product, service, process, or system. Every interaction a user or customer has should be a delight.

The role of UX designers

Good UX designers create magic, and in the world of UX design, there are 2 types of magic. The first kind is visible or apparent magic. This type is clearly evident to the user when they have an exceptional experience. It's an experience that is so much better than the user thinks it will or could be that it sticks with them. An experience that alters user perception and exceeds expectation. The second type is invisible or imperceptible magic, of which only the designer is aware. These are experiences that are magic simply because the user doesn't know it is.

Apparent magic

Like most people, I've applied for many credit cards over the years. Sometimes getting approved, and other times not. Regardless of the issuer, the experience was the same. A long application and approval process that often takes weeks before a decision is made. That decision often comes in the mail. The envelope will either have your card or a letter telling you why it's not in there.

Then Apple Card dropped. After it was released, I didn't apply right away because I hated applying for credit cards. I already expected a poor experience and wasn't in the mood to go through another long approval/denial process. Then, one day, I was bored and applied out of curiosity. In terms of UX, what I experienced was indistinguishable from magic. I opened the Wallet app on my iPhone and tapped "Apply" for Apple Card. I was asked for my income and SSN. Then, literally seconds after submitting the requested info, I was notified that not only was I approved, but my card was already active and ready to use with Apple Pay and that I would receive my physical card in a couple days. The whole process took seconds. I was so shocked that I called everybody I knew to tell them about it. I sounded like a crazy person. But that's because, as a UX designer, I pay attention to the little things. Little things most companies often miss. So, when I have an experience that completely shatters conventional wisdom and my own expectations, it feels like magic.

Apple made it too easy. In that moment, every other bank or credit card issuer suddenly felt irrelevant and outdated. Apple got it. They looked at the industry standard approval process and even though Apple Card applicants would have never expected to have a better or different experience (since that's how every issuer and bank did it), Apple thought different. They know that matching user expectation isn't good enough, so they did better and it made a lasting impression on me.

That experience forever changed my expectation and perception of what applying for a card should and could be like. Now, if any bank or issuer resorts to the old way of doing things, it will be noticeable to me right away and will sully my opinion of them.

When it comes to UX, the biggest mistake a company can make is assuming "good enough" really is good enough.

Imperceptible magic

When a complex process or system is so smooth and devoid of friction that users never know or even think about the time, care, consideration, planning and engineering required to make it that smooth… it's magic, albeit invisible to the user. In that case, it's not magical because of what the designer did, it's magical because the user will never know about it. The user was never removed from the moment, never prevented from moving forward or made to wonder why something was or wasn't happening. They just were. They'll never know, not because they don't care, but because they are never made aware there's even something to care about. They used a product, process, or system and it just worked. Their expectations didn't need to be exceeded because they had none to begin with. A good UX designer anticipates user behavior, removing all traces of friction before the user ever has a chance to expect something, or form an opinion.

It's like the ending of that one Mission Impossible movie. The IMF pulls off a seemingly impossible feat, saving countless lives. Lives of people that didn't even know they needed saving. In the last scene, the crew gets together in a public place to unwind and act normal for a minute before the next mission. They are sitting outdoors at a restaurant, surrounded by children, friends, couples and families all laughing, talking, playing and enjoying each other. People who are all totally oblivious to the fact that if not for the actions of those 4 or 5 special agents sitting at the table just a few feet away, none of them would be there. But they are never made aware of that fact. And that is what is magical about it. It's magical simply because they'll never know. They'll never have to worry about it or alter their perception or lives because of it. They just need to keep smiling, laughing and talking like nothing ever happened. Because to them, nothing did.

Of course, I'm not comparing myself or other UX designers to the IMF. I'm only using that as an example to illustrate how sometimes the magic of good UX is when users don't even know the experience they had was good at all. To a user, "good" experiences only exist because bad ones do. But when a user doesn't experience the opposite of a good experience, the fact that it's good is imperceptible to them because only the designer knows what could have been had they not done what they did to make it good.

Good UX designers know that "good enough" is bad UX and more importantly, they know why and how to make it better. That's what I do. I quickly and effortlessly identify the friction points within a business and simplify complex processes and systems. I have a profound understanding of user expectation and create experiences that either exceed it or go unnoticed.

The problem with "UI/UX" & UI/UX Designers

When describing what I do, I avoid using the term "UI/UX". UX is almost always attached to UI when talking about the design of a digital product or service. On the surface, using UI/UX isn't a big deal. It's a quick way of categorizing a specific need, skill or process. But, while it my seem harmless, using it creates two false implications that can lead to problems later on. First, it implies that UX is exclusive to the interface, rather than to the user. Second, it implies that UI & UX are same or codependent. In reality, good UX is not determined by or dependent on the UI at all, but good UI depends entirely on good UX. The way "UI/UX" is used might be the reason many people and companies think UX refers to what happens when a user clicks a button or interacts with UI. It's not, that's just cause and effect. It's the natural consequence of a given action.

For example, if a lumberjack (user) see's a tree in the woods (UI) and cuts it down (interaction), the tree falling and making a sound is not UX. UX isn't the result of UI being acted upon. That's just reactive UI. The tree falling and making a sound is the natural consequence or reaction to the lumberjack's action. Good UX considers the user well before the interaction is even made, shaping the experience during the interaction and predicting the lasting effects the interaction will have. In this scenario, good UX design would involve helping the lumberjack consider which tree to fell, the angle of the cut, the direction of the fall, the possible uses of the wood, if it falling will disrupt or injure anything living in or around it, and that the void created by a specific tree's absence will allow the remaining trees around it to occupy the void and grow larger.

Therefore, good UX should always be about the user, never the UI. It isn't the process of sending a user to another page when a button is clicked. It's about considering why the user should be sent to another page, the benefit of that decision over another, and what the user expected to happen vs what actually did. It considers how they'll feel during the interaction, what they'll remember, if the value of the product or service is easily perceived, and if they'll use it again. UI's only purpose is to provide a mechanism to facilitate the overall UX. But that mechanism only exists because the UX design dictates it needs to. Not the other way around.

You may have noticed that when describing the experience I had while applying for Apple Card, I never once mentioned the UI, and that's my point. UI isn't UX. The experience I had was entirely off-device. My experience wasn't restricted to the Wallet App (UI) and therefore it didn't end as soon as I closed it. That's what's missing. That's what many fail to understand about UX.

If you want to get serious about UX, stop hiring UI/UX Designers.

When I say, "there's a problem with UI/UX," I'm referring to how the term "UI/UX" is used and perceived. It creates a false confidence that, if not addressed early on, can lead to major problems down the road. Problems a company could have avoided. After all, you hired a UI/UX designer to create your product or service, but soon wonder why user engagement & loyalty is down. This happens when too much confidence & trust is placed on "UI/UX."

I want to be clear that some designers or companies who use that term in their titles or job listings do in fact understand the relationship between the two and do care about UX. But because the term is so easily misunderstood and abused, I caution companies not to put all their eggs in the UI/UX basket and expect everything to hatch.

Therefore, if you really want to get serious about UX, before you hire, make sure those who list "UI/UX Design" in their bios or titles truly understand the difference. A better approach would be to hire a UX Designer that also does UI or a UX Designer to lead or consult your UI design team.

How does a business know if it needs to improve its UX?

If a business currently has customers or plans to in the future, it needs to improve its UX. Throughout my career working on projects for startups, small businesses, and global brands, I have never come across any business or client that didn't need to or couldn't improve their UX. There is always room for improvement. Even ultra successful companies like Apple, Google, Meta, or Tesla can improve their UX, and they constantly do.

There is a common saying in business that is thrown around a lot when developing a new product or service: "Perfect is the enemy of good." While I appreciate the meaning behind it, the way it's used in business often creates more problems than it hopes to avoid. It's often used by project managers or team leads to either sound smart or shutter criticism & concerns before rushing a product out. To be clear, I am not advocating for perfection. Perfection is unattainable, and if perfection is a requirement for a product or service to be launched, it never will be. The part I'm concerned with in that saying is the "good." The problem is that when the saying is used, "good" is almost never defined. Without consulting a UX designer, a company will never be able to effectively determine what "good" means before a product is launched. Obviously there's a benefit to making something exist first and making it good later, but once a product of service does exist, "good" is open for interpretation.

Defining "good" is what a good UX designer does.

Wrapping up

Good UX is vital to the success of any company, and as a company's competition grows, the need for and importance of good UX grows with it. But getting somebody that truly understands UX is even more important.

Digital services companies that don't understand UX hire UI/UX Designers. Companies that do understand it hire UX Designers that also do UI.

Create a free website with Framer, the website builder loved by startups, designers and agencies.