Weighing up UX
Tags: uxfest2021, uxlondon, conference, talks
Published: 2021-06-29 11:00:05

---
title: Weighing up UX
published: true
date: 2021-06-07 14:36:24 UTC
tags: uxfest2021,uxlondon,conference,talks
canonical_url: https://adactio.com/journal/18186
---

You can listen to an audio version of [<cite>Weighing up UX</cite>](https://adactio.s3.amazonaws.com/audio/journal/weighingupux.mp3).

This is the month of [UX Fest 2021](https://2021.uxlondon.com/)—this year’s online version of UX London. The festival continues with [masterclasses every Tuesday](https://2021.uxlondon.com/masterclasses/week-one/) in June and [a festival day of talks every Thursday](https://2021.uxlondon.com/rest-of-the-fest/day-one/) ([tickets for both are still available](https://2021.uxlondon.com/tickets/)). But it all kicked off with [the conference part](https://2021.uxlondon.com/conference/day-one/) last week: three back-to-back days of talks.

I have the great pleasure of hosting the event so not only do I get to see a whole lot of great talks, I also get to quiz [the speakers](https://2021.uxlondon.com/speakers/) afterwards.

Right from day one, a theme emerged that continued throughout the conference and I suspect will continue for the rest of the festival too. That topic was metrics. Kind of.

See, metrics come up when we’re talking about A/B testing, growth design, and all of the practices that help designers get their seat at the table (to use the well-worn cliché). But while metrics are very useful for measuring design’s benefit to the _business_, they’re not really cut out for measuring _user experience_.

People have tried to quantify user experience benefits using measurements like [NetPromoter Score](https://articles.uie.com/net-promoter-score-considered-harmful-and-what-ux-professionals-can-do-about-it/), which is about as useful as reading tea leaves or chicken entrails.

So we tend to equate user experience gains with business gains. That makes sense. Happy users should be good for business. That’s a reasonable hypothesis. But it gets tricky when you need to make the case for improving the user experience if you can’t tie it _directly_ to some business metric. That’s when we run into [the McNamara fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy):

> Making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others.

The way out of this quantitative blind spot is to use qualitative research. But another theme of UX Fest was just how woefully under-represented researchers are in most organisations. And even when you’ve gone and talked to users and you’ve got their stories, you still need to play that back in a way that makes sense to the business folks. These are stories. They don’t lend themselves to being converted into charts’n’graphs.

And so we tend to fall back on more traditional metrics, based on that assumption that what’s good for user experience is good for business. But it’s a short step from making that equivalency to flipping the equation: what’s good for the business must, by definition, be good user experience. That’s where things get dicey.

Broadly speaking, the talks at UX Fest could be put into two categories. You’ve got talks covering practical subjects like product design, content design, research, growth design, and so on. Then you’ve got the higher-level, almost philosophical talks looking at the big picture and questioning the industry’s direction of travel.

The tension between these two categories was the highlight of the conference for me. It worked particularly well when there were back-to-back talks (and joint Q&A) featuring a hands-on case study that successfully pushed the needle on business metrics followed by a more cautionary talk asking whether our priorities are out of whack.

For example, there was a case study on growth design, which emphasised the importance of A/B testing for validation, immediately followed by a talk on [deceptive dark patterns](https://harrybr.medium.com/bringing-dark-patterns-to-light-d86f24224ebf). Now, I suspect that if you were to A/B test a deceptive dark pattern, the test would validate its use (at least in the short term). It’s no coincidence that a company like Booking.com, [which lives by the A/B sword](https://adactio.com/journal/13109), is also one of the companies [sued for using distressing design patterns](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41769488).

Using A/B tests alone is like using a loaded weapon without supervision. They only tell you _what_ people do. And again, the solution is to make sure you’re also doing qualitative research—that’s how you find out _why_ people are doing what they do.

But as I’ve pondered the lessons from last week’s conference, I’ve come to realise that there’s also a danger of focusing purely on the user experience. Hear me out…

At one point, the question came up as to whether deceptive dark patterns were ever justified. What if it’s for a good cause? What if the deceptive dark pattern is being used by an organisation actively campaigning to do good in the world?

In my mind, there was no question. A deceptive dark pattern is wrong, no matter who’s doing it.

(There’s also the problem of organisations that _think_ they’re doing good in the world: I’m sure that every talented engineer that worked on Google AMP honestly believed they were acting in the best interests of the open web even as they worked to destroy it.)

Where it gets interesting is when you flip the question around.

Suppose you’re a designer working at an organisation that is decidedly _not_ a force for good in the world. Say you’re working at Facebook, a company that prioritises data-gathering and engagement so much that they’ll tolerate insurrectionists and even [genocidal movements](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html). Now let’s say there’s talk in your department of implementing a deceptive dark pattern that will drive user engagement. But you, being a good designer who fights for the user, take a stand against this and you successfully find a way to ensure that Facebook doesn’t deploy that deceptive dark pattern.

Yay?

Does that count as being a good user experience designer? Yes, you’ve done good work at the coalface. But the overall _business_ goal is like a deceptive dark pattern that’s so big you can’t take it in. Is it even possible to do “good” design when you’re inside the belly of that beast?

Facebook is a relatively straightforward case. Anyone who’s still working at Facebook can’t claim ignorance. They know full well where that company’s priorities lie. No doubt they sleep at night by convincing themselves they can accomplish more from the inside than without. But what about companies that exist in the grey area of being imperfect? Frankly, what about _any_ company that relies on surveillance capitalism for its success? Is it still possible to do “good” design there?

There are no easy answers and that’s why it so often comes down to individual choice. I know many designers who wouldn’t work at certain companies …but they also wouldn’t judge anyone else who chooses to work at those companies.

At [Clearleft](https://clearleft.com/), every staff member has two levels of veto on client work. You can say “I’m not comfortable working on this”, in which case, the work may still happen but we’ll make sure the resourcing works out so you don’t have anything to do with that project. Or you can say “I’m not comfortable with Clearleft working on this”, in which case the work won’t go ahead (this usually happens before we even get to the pitching stage although there have been one or two examples over the years where we’ve pulled out of the running for certain projects).

Going back to the question of whether it’s ever okay to use a deceptive dark pattern, here’s what I think…

It makes no difference whether it’s implemented by ProPublica or Breitbart; using a deceptive dark pattern is wrong.

But there is a world of difference in being a designer who works at ProPublica and being a designer who works at Breitbart.

That’s what I’m getting at when I say there’s a danger to focusing purely on user experience. That focus can be used as a way of avoiding responsibility for the larger business goals. Then designers are like the soldiers on the eve of battle in [Henry V](http://shakespeare.mit.edu/henryv/henryv.4.1.html):

> For we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.