I sometimes have the feeling that UX/UI design is not as much of a scientific topic as people pretend it to be... Or at the least, whenever I see the results of this science it's just a/b testing and a bunch of statistics...

I mean, it's telling that the science is investigated by companies that specialise in statistics and the results of the science are... statistics.

I just feel 'if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail' applies here.


@Wolthera Do you have other expectations of science?

What you're describing, broadly speaking, looks like most scientific process: make a hypothesis, gather some data about how A is different than B, use statistics to interpret the data.

@keturn I'd expect it to have actual theories that aren't basic visual design theory. You'd think the interaction part would actually make a significant difference to have something beyond visual design theory but as far as ui science goes it doesn't seem to?

There's also other types of science than statistics, y'now?

@keturn And you know, I expect that if someone goes 'oooh, we did all the science', I'd actually be able to learn something from it, instead of it being just a rehash of visual design basics.

But it is often not, and this gets especially annoying when people go 'oh you should like, invest yourself into learning about all the science these guys did', but then it turns out to be useless.

So ok, UI/UX design is science, it's just useless for actual ui/ux design questions.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Mastodon instance for cats, the people who love them, and kindness in general. We strive to be a radically inclusive safe space. By creating an account, you agree to follow our CoC.