Post #2680398

@toxi@mastodon.thi.ng The field of UX has a distaste for depth, any curiosity-driven research is disdained as minoritarian, or not user-centered enough, or art (!). And any in-depth engagement with technology is disdained as implementation and therefore beneath the expression of a "product vision", which they seem very comfortable in appropriating for themselves. I have taught coding to kids, to electrical engineers and physicists. I have taught medical doctors, to code in python for data analysis. I have helped scientists with HPC workflows and write shell scripts to send jobs to supercomputers. All of them understood that coding a little bit would be part of their jobs and learned easily and with the commitment they dedicate to any other subject. But not UX designers, most UX designers see code as somebody else's job. Or if they learn any code they commit the minimum effort, beause "I will not become good at this, but I want to learn so that I'll be able "to talk to engineers"". When so-called No-Code products where a thing, they all praised No-Code as the next paradigm. Now that LLMs have pretty much killed No-Code approaches LLMs are The Thing. But at the bottom it all lies the same disdain for "implementation", and experimentation.