In This Article:

A Field by Any Other Name任何其他名稱的字段

A Field by Any Other Name

"Human-computer interaction," "user-centered design," “usability," "user experience design," "service design," "omnichannel experience design," "customer experience design."  

And now, simply, “experience design”?

These are all terms we’ve used to describe a user-focused philosophy, practice, and approach to designing products and services, either now or in the past. Of course, there are nuanced differences between each of those terms. But when we zoom out, they have plenty in common:

  • A human focus: Belief that the unique needs, psychology, and behavior of humans should be at the center of the design and development process
  • Problem solving: A structured but flexible approach to understanding and solving design problems in experiences
  • Iterative, continuous improvement: An understanding that the best designs are improved over multiple attempts and iterations, by watching closely to see how people respond to changes in the design
  • A shared toolkit: Common methodologies, such as user research, journey mapping, personas, jobs-to-be-done, and analytics data

These aspects of our practice stay the same, regardless of whether we’re designing:

Experience Design: The Umbrella

Experience design (sometimes abbreviated as “XD” — not to be confused with Adobe's design tool) is now being used as an umbrella term that encapsulates all these related disciplines, as well as others such as product and service design,

Experience design describes an approach to creating high-quality, optimized, seamless experiences. It holistically encompasses all levels of the user’s experience, focusing on individual interactions with individual products, the user’s journey over time, and the lifetime relationship the customer has with the organization. This work is informed by research conducted with users and seeks to satisfy user needs while achieving the goals of the organization or business.

The term “experience design” isn’t new — it’s been in use as far back as the early 2000s. Lately it’s become more common, especially in the titles of individuals, teams, or departments. I’ve seen more and more job postings for “experience designer.”

Why the sudden renewed interest in this term, which has been around for roughly 20 years?

I think the shift is a response to two factors.

Roles Are Blending

Companies differ in their understanding of “UX,” especially when UX maturity varies. We’ve never had clearly standardized, consistent labels for job roles in UX. (Anyone who has looked for a UX designer role will be familiar with how important it is to doublecheck the job description and not rely on the title alone, lest they accidentally end up working as a front-end developer.)

Thanks to research democratization, many designers do research work. Product managers and UX professionals are stepping on each other’s toes. People with UX titles often do work traditionally associated with CX, and vice versa. And, at some organizations, CX and UX are being intentionally combined to allow a broader scope for design work.

After the role specialization of the 2000s and 2010s, these trends feel like (a shift back towards generalist roles).

AI is widely expected to accelerate this momentum, as it enables people without technical skills to produce outputs that were not possible before. While the reliability and quality of these AI tools still need improvement, they already help UX professionals accomplish tasks like generating mockups or drafting copy — even if those aren’t their personal strengths. In such a landscape, it makes sense to move towards a more general label for the field and our jobs.

Renaming as a Response to Roadblocks

There’s another, more unpleasant factor behind this shift towards a new name for our field. UX professionals are getting fed up with being pigeonholed as “just making things pretty.” This lack of understanding, combined with economic pressure and stricter budgets, has been largely responsible for the recent layoffs of UX design and research.

To distance themselves from the misunderstanding, a few teams and departments attempt to pivot and rebrand themselves. Some have landed on the “experience” label, while others are trying out terms like “insights research” and “business innovation.”

Do We Really Need to Rebrand?

Is a new name going to fix all UX’s problems? Is it going to release us from the never-ending need (in most organizations) to justify our existence and explain our work? No, it won’t. There are complex reasons behind this, which will need to wait for another article.

Is the term “experience design” overtaking “UX design?” Not by a long shot. “UX” is still vastly more popular and recognized (even if it has inaccurate and limiting connotations to many.) Despite this, I’m partial to “experience design” and think it holds promise to become the new way we refer to our field. (And that’s saying something because, at NN/g, we aren’t big fans of vocabulary inflation for its own sake.) Here’s why.

This doesn’t really feel like a true rebrand. By using the term, I don’t feel like we’re abandoning much — instead, we’re externally communicating that UX is the philosophy and practice of being human-centered.

Plus, “experience design” is much more intuitive than some of the other terms I’ve seen teams experiment with. It isn’t truly a new term — we’re just removing the loaded prefixes (like “user” and “customer”). It is fairly self-explanatory, even to people who are outside our field.

But let’s avoid using an abbreviation for a while, though. “XD “is already taken by Adobe and “XR” is commonly used for “extended reality.”

Conclusion

Our field evolves alongside the wider tech field, as it always has. The technology, economy, terminology, and tools change continually, and we adapt with them while holding onto our core principles. Call it whatever you want, as long as it’s human-centered, common-sense problem solving.