Home >
If you're like me, you've been hearing a lot about this amazing thing called User Experience. It's supposed to turn your normal, old, web 1.0 piece-of-garbage application into a shining beacon of hope in a world beleaguered by bad interfaces. If you're like me, you've been watching the explosion of User Experience from somewhere between the forefront and the sidelines, enjoying the arrival of the requisite acronyms (UX, XD, EX, UXD, etc.), and trying to figure out exactly where and what the forefront even is. If you're like me, you've been a little skeptical of this vague and magical term for a while now, and if you're anything at all like me, you've been wanting someone to clear things up.
User Experience: Past and Present
Most people like to talk about User Experience in reference to Apple. Sometime after the advent of the iPod, the collective consciousness woke up and realized that things like form-factor and ease-of-use really matter and can really help sell products, or so the story goes. Never mind that companies like Kodak have been preaching this for years; none of us really got it until Apple showed up. Then Adobe started preaching the message, using the term to differentiate every product if offers, and the rest of us followed suit: User Experience became a big differentiator for our business. Everyone can learn a technology, the sales-pitch goes, but not everyone can solve your users' real problem.
And to an extent I think we were all right on. A lot of the applications we used over the last 10 years were a mess, and looking back we're all amazed at what we put up with. User Experience certainly does matter, and yes, it is probably the primary reason you all own iPods and very few of you own an iRiver Jukebox.
But as with any successful, new, and vaguely-defined industry, the User Experience field has brought with it a lot of confusion, and created a lot of confused people. Confused clients, who know they need User Experience expertise but are unsure of how to get it, and a confused work-force, who has started labeling themselves as User Experience experts without really understanding it. This group is very well-intentioned, and either doesn't know the difference between what they do and real User Experience work or are just as eager to learn as anyone else. Yet they know that talking about User Experience sells projects and so continue to talk it up.
We've seen this happen before. Remember the early days of web 1.0, when every graphic designer was suddenly a website designer, and every programmer was suddenly an expert in HTML? Remember when Flash 5 came out and everyone re-did their websites in Flash, because it was supposedly more "engaging" to have animations and lens-flares on everything? The recent trend towards bringing User Experience into the confusion is a good thing - it's a recognition that User Experience is important, and represents a shift in our industry. But that doesn't mean we should let the confusion go unchecked or wait for the web to sort itself out - conversations like this are how the sorting gets started.
The reason I think this is important is that I'm seeing too many people buy into User Experience methodologies that are half-baked, if baked at all. User Experience, for most people, boils down to making pretty interfaces. Good color palettes, Flash for everything, and anything that sort of looks like a Mac interface are often presented as the whole of good User Experience. I'm not saying these things aren't good and very, very important; they're just one small piece of the much larger User Experience field.
What it is
So that's a lot about what User Experience isn't. I'd like to talk a little bit about what User Experience is.
I really would like to. But I need to confide something in you: if I did I'd be making it up. Adding to the noise. Talking out of my proverbial rear-end. I've been around a lot of great designers and I think I have something to say, but I really can't put it in succinct terms for you. I'm a developer, and even if User Experience is something I'm really interested in, I'm not an expert, so I won't act like one.
I've had the good fortune of working with some real experts though, and so what I can offer you is some perspective on how they're different from the rest. Here are the top five things I see real User Experience experts doing that the rest of the industry hasn't picked up on yet:
1.) They run "discovery sessions." Before your project starts, they sit down with you and try to understand your domain. They focus on the work flow and the architecture and they know how to ask the right questions about your brand. Just about every exercise is focused on extracting user objectives and user stories, which brings me to my next point.
2.) They focus on user stories. They try to drive your application on user pain points rather than requirements or features. Most of the discovery session is focused on getting as much information out of you as possible about these stories, but the subtle part of it is that they're also trying to get you to change your mind set. Focus on users, not features, they seem to be constantly hinting, though they'll rarely say that outright.
3.) They do user research. This is absolutely critical, and one of the biggest differentiators. Does your UX expert go back to his shop and throw together a few comps after your initial meeting? Real experts don't - they have a healthy respect for how much they don't know, and they absolutely insist on observing real users at work before they ever start a wireframe.
4.) They're often not visual designers. Visual designers are great and the visual aspects of an experience are certainly important, but similarly, programmers are great, and software security and performance are also important. A real User Experience expert might have started their life as a designer or a developer but now they're something else entirely. They don't live in photoshop or fireworks or Eclipse - they spend their time in something more like psychology, trying to understand the way people think. They have experience in the growing fields of human computer interaction, or in the age-old field of information architecture.
5.) Finally, they know that good User Experience is really the same thing as Customer Service. User Experience is the thing you provide your users, who are your customers, and so User Experience is just a specialized form of Customer Service. If your supposed User Experience expert can't return your phone calls, shows up late for meetings, can't write a coherent email, and generally doesn't take the time and effort required to provide a good experience for you, his or her customer, then there's a good chance they won't be very good at providing a good experience for your customers either.
When you're evaluating User Experience experts, whether it be a firm who wants your business or a potential hire who wants a job, pay close attention to these five things. If they understand them, then in my experience they're the real thing and worth a closer look. If they don't, then it's likely you're dealing with someone inexperienced.
Looking Forward
As we come to the end of 2008, I'm both encouraged by the progress the User Experience field has made this year, and very challenged by the ways I'd like to see it mature in 2009. Hopefully by this time next year we'll have some better definition around what the experts do and who they really are, and a little more rigorous approach to the way the rest of us can get there. I'm encouraged by the progress others are making, things like Francisco Inchauste's UX Revolution and all of the work done by Adaptive Path, and hope forces like those will continue to mature the User Experience field.
I wanted to end this piece with a series of links to the experts. I had some stuff from the Adaptive Path crew in there, a shout out to Ethan Eisman, a link to Alan Cooper, and a few other websites I found, but I don't really know if it's that great. I'd like to open it up to you - do you have a good list of User Experience links? Are you an expert with your own blog? Comment it up - add your resources to the comments and help spread your knowledge.
Tag Cloud
Podcasts & Screencasts
@InsideRIA on Twitter
Follow InsideRIA on Twitter
Facebook Application Development
Hi RJ,
Interesting piece. It is always interesting to see people try to assimilate UX into their own world. I had to read this a couple of times, but on the 2nd time through, I really learned to appreciate where you were coming from and I'd like to take some time to fill in some blanks for your readers who you are assuming have little contact with good user experience practices.
1. It's not just one thing
The reality is that UX practice usually falls on many shoulders, or on one person doing many things. We call UX an "umbrella" of disciplines. A great diagram of this effect (not the only one, but a recent great attempt) is by Dan Saffer (probably one of the best practitioners of UX and more specifically Interaction Design you'll find out there). Here you'll see that Information Architecture, Interaction Design, HCI, Visual Design, Industrial Design, etc. all fill a portion of what is UX. In the end, UX is that element that defines the rules and presentation for what goes into an experience that developers can then decide how to build to make happen.
2. I actually don't think "user research" is critical
Some will argue this point, but many people practice UX w/o ever doing user research. Of course, this all depends on how you define user research. But the idea of having to do interviews, observations and usability tests as being "mandatory" to the process is one a little naive (I mean ya can't always afford the time or money to do it), and well assumes that the methods involved as practiced are right for all contexts.
3. What is critical is understanding user's needs
What all UX practitioners agree to is the necessity of understanding user needs. This is not always what users ask for, but rather what they really need. It takes a lot of analysis to get tot he latent needs inside of manifest statements, but it is this "fuzzy" area where UX really does its magic and provides the greatest value.
4. There is design here
While like you said many UX peeps aren't visual designers, many are indeed designers. I.e. I'm an interaction designer and rely on many of the same methods and techniques that other types of designers use like sketching & prototyping.
Ok, I gotta make a plug! ... One of the best resources for learning about specifically interaction design (IxD) (what I would consider the most relevant to Rich Internet Applications; I teach workshops on IxD & RIAs) is the conference called Interactions09 | Vancouver . I'll be teaching an intro to IxD workshop at the conference on Feb 6.
Anyway, thanx for trying to help bring UX to the masses.
I'd like to recommend probably 2 of the most important books on the topic for your readers.
Don Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things" - A seminal book which better than any other sets up the stage for UX.
Bill Buxton's "Sketching User Experience" - Probably one of the best UX books to come out in the last 2 years and sets up the stage for how UX practice needs to move forward regardless of medium.
-- dave
see http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org for an association serves and is made of User Experience Professionals.
Lyle, thanks for commenting and clarifying.
The term 'user experience' has been around at least a decade - Web 1.0? ;) when I was introduced to the concept by Challis Hodge and Parrish Hanna.
I prefer framing the practice more like: Product Manager + Customer Advocate.
Hey RJ -- I think you nailed it for the most part. I was thinking of this very topic last night after reading a whole slew of posts on Twitter about who is/isn't a UX professional, what that means, etc, etc.
I'd like to add something to your post. Most of the professional "User Experience" professionals that I know share a couple of common traits. First off, there are not a lot of people my age (mid 30's) that were lucky enough to find a college program that had anything to do with our careers. Kids that are in school now, or those that have recently graduated are a bit more lucky, as HCI has grown to incorporate most of the things we deal with related to UX strategy and design.
While this is the case, most of the people I encounter that are great at user experience design I can only classify as "thinkers". Some come from liberal arts backgrounds, others come from design schools. Some have made a transition from computer science to experience design.
And there are more that I'm not sure what their backgrounds are from an academic perspective, but have found themselves with a job title that contains "user experience" through a career path that brought them down the road of Web/Interactive design and development, primarily working with clients up-front to capture requirements, perform user-centered design tasks (like what you express in your post) and play the role of information architect.
It seems to me as if a large percentage of the "experience design" community comes from either a visual design or information architecture/library science background. In fact, I think it is a unique situation for information architecture as it started as a very specific discipline and as the web evolved and grew, so did the discipline of information architecture. IAs were originally all about applying the concepts of library science to the organization and structure of content. As the web got bigger, the job of IAs grew into essentially being the folks responsible for documenting the Web site / software experience as it pertained to users and user needs.
Now that we've evolved to the point where interfaces can be more complex, engaging, unconstrained, etc, we have seen this explosion in people who practice "user experience" design professionally.
User experience is about ideas. It is about taking a business' goals and long term strategy and finding a way to align it to their customers' needs, wants, and aspirations for the interactions they have with the business. It isn't only about software anymore either. User Experience really applies across channels, and as you stated, it really is just a more detailed and academic way to view "customer service".
It is about understanding the needs that people have, and working to address those needs (or over-deliver if possible!) in a way that also aligns with the goals of the business behind delivering the experience.
A whole other conversation could be had about what actually defines an experience today. I think it is safe to say that with the convergence of all types of media today, experiences range from telephone voice-prompt systems to web site to mobile to touch-wall kiosks to car dashboards to.... you get the picture.
The way that we consume and interact with information is exploding, and right along with it is the necessity to design the experiences associated with such.
2009 is going to be an exciting year.
Thanks for the thought-stimulating post. I hope it stirs up a good discussion among everyone in the community.
Last point: I really do feel strongly that at some point we will be able to stop classifying "design", as the merging of communication channels has also brought us to a merging of design expertise.
Good design is good design is good design. :)
It's funny that Apple is so often cited (and I've often used Apple as an example myself) because what Apple is really, really good at is old-fashioned industrial design. The objects themselves are so damn sexy they create a halo over the whole experience of using them. Yes, that's experience design, but definitely not the user research led kind! They are also very, very good at avoiding feature bloat, which in practice is incredibly hard to do.
As David said, it's not just one thing. I think the good 'experts' have a sense of the holistic nature of user experience design and steer particular projects toward the most relevant methods and approaches for the thing being designed. Apple can skip user research because Apple makes consumer products--they can design for themselves. If you're like me, and tend to create a lot of browser-based applications for business use (and for businesses wildly different than my own) you damn well better know how and when to do task-oriented user research, or you are very unlikely to create something useful. In other words, I think the real experts know that the answer to what makes 'good design' is often "it depends" and can articulate what it depends upon and how to get there. I'd say IDEO is a very good model of this "use the approach that will yield the greatest results" approach.
Interesting article and very good comments. thx.
Hi.
I liked your post. Has many interesting reflections. I think it's good for the profession this type of analysis.
Is the article that I would have liked to write to me. :)
Hi,
user experience and the associated gurus, thinkers and writers have been around for ever, but it's only recently that they came to the web. Somehow people thought that because the web is only pages you don't need to think about user experience. That's how we stuck with crappy webmails forever. But even with old tech it helps to think about your user's needs!
RJ_
Great primer for UX input and defining, especially in the this context of RIA's.
Your points are valid and I feel the key issues you bring up are the relation of storytelling to customer satisfaction. The new ROI these days, particularly in interactive media and applications is the "value add" - not that it should be - of a quality customer experience. From the Apple store (marketing engagement) to the packaging (learnability), and final daily use of a product (usability) leads all to multiple points of engagement and most importantly the deepening of the customer/user's positive value in the overall experience.
Recently I've been trying to key in on how to communicate that user story from engagement, introduction, acceptance and ultimate efficient use of a solution throughout the production cycle: to client/stakeholders, to design, to development, and ultimately seeing that become reality in the product and testing/use of the solution.
Beth's comment on IDEO as a prime example is key: the three prong model of biz viability, tech capability, and most of all user desirability feels right on for the growth - as we're calling it - of user experience or desirability of use, engagement, and repeat customer satisfaction.
Overall, some key elements of a "User Experience Expert" are a few of my favorite things:
All that said, your post has got me going a bit, and I love the dialogue and comments and look forward to hearing more from this community.
Oh, my inspirations/"mentors": Jessie James Garrett, Alan Cooper, Donald Norman, Edward Tufte, Dan Saffer, among others.
Hi RJ,
Just to add to your views, what I would like to point out here is that today’s RIA's are basically good usability practices which are being implemented by latest technologies.
Earlier to book a ticket online one had to go through couple of pages/steps in sequence before the task is done. Today the whole process can be done in one single window and in much lesser time.
To conclude whatever the background awareness in good usability practices will help in the long run
Regards
Subbiah
Wow. Unbiased, empirically based observations of human behavior and the utilization of systems engineering are the hallmarks of this discipline. All else, while useful, is extraneous and present only because of the particular application of the discipline. You wouldn't use a graphic designer if you were practicing experience design in the context of coal mining. This discipline was formalized long before anyone even knew what the 'web' was.
Very interesting article. I have been a web designer/developer for well over 10 years and just recently have a new job and a new title as UX Designer. I am learning very quickly that I definitely have a lot to learn!!
I would disagree that UX is just another term for customer service. I agree that you can't have a great UX if your organization has lousy customer service, but I like to say that UX has a quality of totality to it. You might have great customer service, but if your website stinks that's going to bring down the whole experience. Or if your store is poorly laid out and people can't find things easily - that's going to impact on the UX. Every touchpoint needs to be a part of the overall UX.
Your five "what it is" points are helpful. I would add one more to that list - an important one. It is different. Again, lots of stores and services have great customer experience - it is almost universally expected or you won't build return business or loyalty. But a UX has to stand out from the crowd. If everyone is giving great service, that's not enough. The true UX will be found where there is a combination of differentiation, totality of the experience and the delivery of meaning to the end user/customer.
David,
I will step up to say that if you think user research isn't necessary, then you don't know what you don't know. In over 250 projects, I have found that every one of them started off solving the wrong problem and it was the user research that identified the right problem. And I'm not talking about a subtle shift, I'm talking about redirecting a company strategy or focus. Without making sure you are are solving the right problem (through user research), the best you can hope for is to solve the wrong problem very well.
For instance, a recent client provided an enterprise software that they marketed and designed for IT folks. Within an hour of my first user observation, I discovered that the real users were the HR folks. This was proven out in every subsequent observation. This required a complete shift in marketing, design, sales, and support. Prior to this user research, the company was struggling. After the redesign, they are the major player in their market and this redesign virtually changed the entire market.
As for the other person's comment that Apple's success is based on good ID, the iPod took over a market that was already saturated with over a hundred other MP3 players, not because it had a sexier design, but because it completely changed the interaction model, or user-experience, of the tasks. Prior to the iPod, you had several disassociated and independent components, each with their own look and feel, that you had to use in order to download, manage, and upload into your MP3 player. The iPod was an integrated set of these 3 tools with a single common interaction model. the iPod "comes" with iTunes, so with one tool you have a seamless integration of all the tasks that allow you to listen to your favorite tunes. That's user-experience applied appropriately.
The one thing that the article really left out is the integration of UCD processes with the business and marketing aspects of the company. RJ states that UCD begins at the discovery stage. Actually, we apply it much earlier than that, and our clients tell us that it makes a bigger difference than any other UX process that they've seen. The first thing that we do is identify observable and measurable business and marketing objectives. Everything else that we do has to relate directly back to those objectives. Our clients cannot afford to spend money on a design that doesn't' support their business or marketing objectives. Without a focus on the objectives, you are likely going to just put lipstick on the pig.
Even more interesting is that in the 250+ projects I mentioned, none of the clients had clearly defined business or marketing objectives. To quote Lewis Carroll in "Behind the Looking Glass" (AKA Alice in Wonderland), "if you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." In the 60's, President Kennedy challenged NASA to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. You could ask anyone at NASA - an astronaut, an engineer, a janitor pushing a broom at 3:00 in the morning - what are you doing? They all had the same answer. We are going to the moon. And guess what, we made it.
Without that singular focus on the objectives, it is almost impossible to design, develop, and market the best solution. Go ahead, ask around your company and see how many different answers you get to the question, "what are the project's business and marketing objectives?" Moreover, see if they are written down anywhere.
User-experience is only part of a solution. It works in concert with other disciplines to help create the right solution that meets the users' needs and supports the business' objectives. The iPod change the user-experience of the day, but it also had good ID, packaging, and marketing. Remember, though, the older MP3 players had good marketing, ID, and packaging, too. But they lacked the user-experience that the iPod provides. And guess who owns the market?
This isn't to say that a good user experience can save a bad product, but a bad UX can certainly kill a a good product.
@RJ: I think you pretty well covered the basics as far as an organisation who is looking to step into the UX world is concerned. Sometimes though UX can and does happen by stealth. Take my organisation for example - about 7000 employees, huge number of projects. While Im one of the "UX gurus" as far as the organisation is concerned, there are many advocates out there doing their thing to improve the overall customer interaction. Im also not usually introduced as the "UX designer", more frequently Im the "guy who will help your project sort out your content and transactions, and makes sure stuff works".
@David Malouf: Absolutely agree, research is not in itself mandatory. A great deal of UX can happen based on previous experience, gut feel and guerrilla testing. Many projects these days expect to turn out iterations of a product over a short period of time, so UX work becomes partly a tactical strategy.
@Dave Meeker: I think you are right about the general evolution of skills in the UX field. Previously I was considered an IA. I have degree qualifications in information science and internet marketing. A lot of my skill comes from, oh dear its been that long....., 12 years in the web game....
@Travis: Efficiency and optimising the result for people is a good thing isnt it! I too get a kick when something just works, and the customer doesnt even really notice. Im a bit of a weirdo as well though, I get more of a kick watching a test victim screw their face up in a tight ball in agony while attempting to complete a transaction LOL...
@Larry (and the others who mentioned Apple): My take on Apple? They got domination of the market through clever marketing, and providing a unique service ie iTunes. That's not to say either of these products are actually any good. Can iTunes manage my massive library of MP3 audio files - well no, not really. Does the "genius" technology built into the latest generation iPods actually create playlists I want to listen to? Some times. On the other hand, is the product just so sexy that you have to have one? Yup. Ive got a graphite one, with a shiny silver back on it. This is an example of "feels like a wet dog, runs like a wet dog, smells like a wet dog, looks like a cute fluffy little puppy with puppy dog eyes that you just want to cuddle". In my mind thats not what UX is about.
Ill finish my rambling with this comment: experience is a very personal thing. Sometimes thinking UX is not enough. You have to think ME. "My Experience". I get as many senior managers, project managers and other influential members of staff to use the products they are creating. I tell them they need to think "Its all about ME", "What this is going to do for ME", "What's the end result for ME". etc etc. Its funny how often you hear "I don't think this works for me."
So makes you think it would work for someone else then?
@Dave W., @Nathan:
If there's one theme I hear Adaptive Path going back to over and over again, it's that we don't really understand our users. We're not our users, we don't think like our users, and unless we do research, we won't get inside of their heads. It's tempting to think you understand them and tempting to think you can think like they do, but 9 times out of 10 we really can't.
I've seen this play out in my own life a few times. Features I thought were totally obvious just weren't to most people, and if we'd done some research up front it could've been avoided.
That being said, I'm sure there's some good intuition you can develop over time with enough research. Observe enough people and you'll start to understand better how they really would use your application. I'd argue that research is always important, but if you've done a ton on the last 9 apps it might not be as important on your 10th one.
@Nathan W.
I agree that Apple has great ID and marketing, but I think you missed the other point, that they came into a market somewhat saturated with 100+ other MP3 players, and took over the market. While their UX design doesn't necessarily support your specific needs, given that you are much more of a power user than the average (based on your description), the average Joe, not only liked the sexy packaging, but also how much easier it was to find, download, and play back their songs. In this case, you are not the user they were focusing on. Had you been on the design team, I would guess that your perspective would have suggested a very different interface.
I have a degree in Cognitive Science and had Don Norman as my professor for quite a number of my classes, so I would be considered "classically" trained (if there was such a thing in our field). That said, I have to say that I don't think you quite get it, yet. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending. I just think there are things you have yet to learn. There is more to good UX design that you allude to. You probably have come a long way from where you started, but it's a continuous journey, and there is still much to learn.
I have some of the most successful designs out there, and they are successful due, not to some self proposed design genius (that I most certainly do not posses), but, to relying on good user research. Einstein once said that if he had 20 days to solve a problem, he would spend the first 19 defining it and the last day solving it. Good user research defines the problem better than anything else. Don't rely on the "existing" problem statement. I've worked on over 250 different projects, and all, and I mean 100%, of them had a dramatically incorrect problem statement.
As I am known to say, without good user research, the best you can hope to do is solve the wrong problem, very well.
This is a good post with a lot of interesting points. In particular the bit about user research.
I disagree with David Malouf's point about user research though.
If you never observe people using interfaces then you are not an expert in user experience.
The whole discipline revolves around first hand experience of user behaviour. How do you know how users are likely to behave if you never see them behaving?
You can read all the best practice books you like and they will be very helpful. But reading books doesn't make you an expert. It just makes you well read.
I understand David's point about not always having the time and the money to do user research. But that's where the real experts experience comes in. They draw on their knowledge of past research when there is no time or budget to carry it out on a particular project.
If you have no time or money to carry out any research and you fall back on the advice of someone who has never carried out such research, then you haven't been doing UX. You can say the word 'user' as much as you like in meetings but you're working off assumptions not expertise.
I've always liked this quote from net futurist Clay Shirky to help guide, at the 10,000 foot level, the qualities of an expert:
"Arrogance without humility is a recipe for high-concept irrelevance; humility without arrogance guarantees unending mediocrity. Figuring out how to be arrogant and humble at once, figuring out when to watch users and when to ignore them for this particular problem, for these users, today, is the problem of the designer."
Also, I tend to agree with David Hamill above. While there certainly have been plenty of innovations to come out of a design process that doesn't originate with user research, I don't think you can call yourself a user experience design expert without having spent a great deal of time in intense observation mode. Similar to an anthropologist on location, the best user experience designers spend eons of time observing consumers closely and interviewing them in real-world settings to ferret out those unmet needs.
I feel slight relief after reading this article. I have both a BSc and MSc in the fields needed to be a usability specialist and I love reading anything about Psychology. But recently I have felt more and more pressure to also be a designer and an information architect and a prototyper. Job descriptions now seem to want you to do 3 jobs but just get the one salary. Due to this pressure I have recently been experimenting with some designing and intended to learn how to prototype using Flash.
I'm glad to hear that you agree that we are psychologists and not designers or Flash experts ;) The next thing then would be to convince companies that they need more than one person. I personally feel that ui design and usability should be kept as separate people as can you ever really be unbiased when testing your own design? It is so difficult anyway to not give any verbal or non-verbal cues to users when testing. Can anyone really be brilliant at both design and research? They are probably more suited to one skill than the other.
Great post--especially the parts about user research and user stories. I come across people (developers or graphics designers) who call themselves usability/ux people and have never talked to a user.
Great article! I also agree with David Malouf's excellent comment.
Thanks RJ.
Stu.
I would disagree that UX is just another term for customer service. I agree that you can't have a great UX if your organization has lousy customer service, but I like to say that UX has a quality of totality to it domain name registration. You might have great customer service, but if your website stinks that's going to bring down the whole experience. Or if your store is poorly laid out and people can't find things easily - that's going to impact on the UX. Every touchpoint needs to be a part of the overall UX.