An Invitation to Elevate Your Design Career

Dear Junior Designer, one of the pivotal decisions in your UX journey will be to intentionally select the types of challenges that resonate with you, the skills you wish to refine, and the impact you want to create. It's ironic that despite the growing popularity of UX design, we're not addressing the full breadth of our field, which inadvertently narrows future opportunities.

The overshadowing effect of familiar applications

The field of UX design is witnessing unprecedented growth. I see it reflected in the influx of LinkedIn messages from recruiters and the eagerness of mentees wanting to enter this space. The membership statistics from Calgary UX, which I lead, reveal a remarkable increase over the past decade. This trend is echoed globally; Peter Ramsey has compiled compelling data from Google and LinkedIn that showcases the sustained growth of UX.

Nevertheless, we are only scratching the surface of our potential. The focus of our profession tends to be on a select few applications, devices, and companies. A glance at top design conferences reveals a recurring lineup of the same names, topics, and brands, creating a skewed perception of our capabilities.

Commonly recognized design teams include giants like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook. While these organizations are undoubtedly inspiring, I urge you to view them as a source of motivation to expand your knowledge and explore new avenues.

Consider conducting an experiment: consult the Fortune 500 list and note how many companies you recognize. As of May 2022, I was only familiar with 105 of them. The top three—Walmart, Amazon, and Apple—were easy to identify, but my recognition quickly dwindled with companies like CVS Health and UnitedHealth Group, which focus on healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Imagine the transformative potential of design thinking in these sectors, especially considering the lessons learned (and overlooked) during the COVID pandemic.

There are vast markets that may appear significant in isolation yet are relatively obscure. For instance, Tesla ranks at 100, overshadowed by companies like HP, which now seem less prominent. This raises questions about how we measure innovation and influence.

What about the most innovative companies? How many can you name? I was surprised to discover Intuitive Surgical (ranked 3rd), which employs advanced robotics in surgery—imagine saying, "C3PO is my surgeon!"

The limited view of available options impacts the aspirations of emerging designers. Many portfolios seem to recycle the same redesigns of Spotify, leaving many to wonder why they fail to stand out. The Spotify team had 200 designers and 2000 engineers in 2018, all dedicated to delivering exceptional user experiences. Why do we persist in revisiting challenges that countless professionals have already addressed?

Your redesign could impress Spotify, but attempting to outshine such skilled teams is akin to challenging an NBA player in a pick-up game. Their experience makes flaws in design or concept easily identifiable.

I'm not suggesting you dive into designing interfaces for surgical robots to enhance your portfolio. There are simpler opportunities to distinguish yourself, especially with so many poor usability examples available. A prime candidate for improvement is the notorious Bulk Rename Utility app, which serves as a compelling showcase for your design and critical thinking prowess, much like Aneel Kaushik's work.

It's amusing to hear complaints about competition or fears of market saturation from newcomers in design. The truth is, we're just beginning to address complex challenges, with a wealth of opportunities awaiting those willing to venture beyond the mainstream.

Monoculture and the Perceived Dominance of UX

New designers often find themselves drawn to the same products and companies, inadvertently empowering those organizations' hiring processes. I frequently hear talented individuals placing all their hopes in a few companies, applying multiple times over several years.

It's perfectly acceptable to read up on interview strategies for specific companies, such as "Cracking the Amazon Interview." However, you must consider whether you're tailoring your profile too narrowly to fit their mold.

You don't have to put your life on hold for a breakthrough. A job you haven’t experienced can’t truly be labeled a "dream job." Often, individuals secure positions at these companies only to pivot to other well-known firms, still branding themselves with their previous employer's name. The significance of a brand shouldn't be so literal. Your life experience should be a testament to your potential rather than a string of previous titles.

This is an exhilarating time for UX! The array of professional choices for UX practitioners feels nearly limitless, yet we have somehow cultivated a sense of scarcity.

We need more designers—substantially more! We need them exploring varied environments and addressing diverse issues. It's essential to broaden the conversation to include designers engaged in a wider array of challenges.

Complex Problems and Where to Find Them

Underneath our daily routines, intricate systems enable our lives to function seamlessly. These systems usually remain invisible until they falter, revealing a glimpse of the underlying chaos that can evoke both panic and awe.

Take, for instance, the logistics that keep our supermarkets stocked. Such infrastructure was rarely discussed until people began hoarding toilet paper in response to a pandemic. Similarly, nobody considers the electric grid's fragility until it fails due to unexpected climate demands. It's surreal that car dealerships struggle to showcase new vehicles due to semiconductor shortages. We navigate a world of increasingly complex technology.

When did everything become so intricate? The truth is, complexity has always existed. It has simply become more interconnected and digitized, often concealed within compact devices.

Consider this historical comparison between the iPhone and 23 other devices it replaced. Which seems more intricate? Attempting to repair an iPhone 13 may provide clarity.

Complexity: A Necessary Element

In a culture that prizes simplicity, it’s easy to demonize complexity. The adage "Keep it simple, stupid" has echoed in countless product discussions. However, when users express frustration over a prototype's complexity, it can signal the end of that iteration.

If we aspire to play a meaningful role in our intricate world, we must reassess our understanding of complexity and discover ways to guide others through it. Complexity is not a hindrance to be eradicated; it is essential for any system to function and evolve effectively. As Paracelsus noted, "The poison is in the dosage."

Understanding Complexity Thresholds

Every operational system possesses a complexity threshold, delineating how much complexity it can sustain before it implodes or adversely affects interconnected systems.

Imagine a highway designed to accommodate between 500,000 to 1,000,000 vehicles daily. If traffic consistently exceeds that threshold, the system fails, impacting related subsystems. How many people do you know who wouldn't live in a city plagued by traffic congestion?

As social conditions shift and fewer individuals commute, investments might redirect from maintaining highways to enhancing public spaces.

Complexity doesn't end there; even within operational ranges, comfort levels can vary based on subjective and contextual factors. A taxi driver, for example, may navigate rush hour with ease, while a small restaurant owner dreads the same journey.

Complexity offers a unique landscape for curious minds, where macro and micro elements constantly influence one another—different roles, emotions, and experiences coexist on the same road, each facing varying levels of compounded complexity.

As UX designers, we must broaden our understanding beyond John Maeda's "Law of Simplicity" and familiarize ourselves with Complexity Theory.

The parallels between Design Thinking and Complexity Theory are striking. Eli Sopow, Ph.D., elucidates Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) in organizations using concepts from Complexity Science. As you watch, consider how these ideas apply to UX, revealing their compatibility.

Simplicity vs. Complexity

It's a common misconception that simplicity is the opposite of complexity. In reality, simplicity is a product of effective complexity management. According to Conway's Law, the design of a system reflects the organization's communication structure.

Any organization that designs a system will produce a design whose structure mirrors its communication architecture.

Forcing simplicity can be detrimental. Consider what you'd omit if you had only 140 characters to convey a message. How much meaning would be lost in the process? This is why platforms like Twitter often become arenas of miscommunication.

Our brains struggle with a lack of complexity; perceived emptiness compels us to fill the void, sometimes leading to absurd conclusions, like adding eyes to abstract art.

The Joys of Navigating Complexity

I have an immense appreciation for complexity, to the point where articulating this passion can feel overwhelming. Imagine wielding a magical telescope focused on a distant planet, allowing you to observe everything from atoms to continents.

Where would you begin your exploration? You may oscillate between childlike wonder and existential dread about the enormity of the task.

Then, one day, your boss emails you to prioritize designing the next generation of that telescope instead of exploring.

Complex applications can evoke similar feelings, revealing a vast and expanding world that lacks clear precedents for design.

Working with Complex Systems

For professionals maintaining and advancing these essential systems, complexity is managed through training, habituation, and, crucially, user interfaces that highlight relevant information and provide control over system elements.

Why don’t we hear more about these interfaces? In some cases, their users operate from highly controlled environments, accessible only to a select few within the organization, often bound by non-disclosure agreements.

Historically, these obscure applications were notoriously difficult to use, fraught with learning curves, and prone to user errors. The control room of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, infamous for its partial meltdown in 1979, has left a lasting impression on public perception and culture.

The efficiency and sophistication of modern interfaces focused on nuclear energy are often overshadowed, stifling discussions about their potential to decarbonize the economy and save our planet.

We must illuminate the design of complex systems, showcase what is achievable, and inspire more UX designers to engage with these challenges.

Identifying Complex Applications

Differentiating applications by complexity isn't meant to be condescending. Rather, I'm using "complex" as a descriptive term, though every app possesses some level of complexity.

It’s likely that a casual gaming app like Candy Crush is far more intricate than the software controlling a nuclear reactor. The distinction lies in how complexity is presented to the user and the autonomy afforded to them in specific scenarios.

In the future, perhaps we will control home-sized nuclear reactors with simple dials, akin to managing smart thermostats, but we're not there yet.

From my experience, here are common indicators that can help qualify an application as complex. This isn’t a checklist but a reference for understanding the kind of software being discussed.

Supporting Critical Functions

Complex systems that underpin our daily lives often go unnoticed. An energy company might utilize a UI to monitor the performance of the electric grid, where the most meaningful representation aggregates numerous small interactions, like an entire town illuminating at dusk.

Lengthy Implementation Cycles and Onboarding

Implementing complex systems requires significant time, including extensive data migrations, intensive training, and internal audits (like cybersecurity) before users can even engage with the system. Planning is crucial even before considering solutions, and the worst-case scenario isn't merely exceeding budget—it's the risk of a critical vendor failing before the project concludes.

Over-Reliance on Training

Industries that utilize complex systems typically emphasize pre-qualified users, rigorous training, and costly certifications. Such a focus can complicate UX design improvements since extensive documentation and retraining may be necessary for any changes you propose.

Small User Base

Designing for consumer-facing applications differs significantly from creating business-to-business solutions (B2B) intended for a few hundred global users. This variance affects success metrics, user recruitment, and change deployment. The scarcity of users can stress the importance of rigorous testing and underscore the consequences of neglecting it.

Pragmatic Over Aesthetic

In complex projects, functionality takes precedence. Many begin as proof-of-concept endeavors, and the look and feel rarely evolve beyond that point. This doesn't mean designers lack responsibilities; we must concentrate on usability, accessibility, and information architecture considerations. Ultimately, this focus can yield an appealing interface, albeit one unlikely to garner likes on Behance.

High Information Density

Users who must constantly monitor a system often develop an urgency to see everything simultaneously. Therefore, the safest approach is to display as much information as possible on a single screen. While there are methods to manage information relevance, the end result often involves cramming more data into smaller spaces than the average interface.

Your strengths will lie in your UI economy and negotiation skills.

Existence of Shadow Systems

While it may sound paranoid, complex systems often give rise to sub-systems that emerge spontaneously to adapt to contextual variability and rigid rules. This phenomenon explains the existence of the dark web, black markets, and jailbroken devices. Identifying these systems is challenging through conventional user testing and interviews, yet failing to consider them in design could yield unforeseen consequences.

Severe Consequences of Errors

Startup culture's buzzwords like "fail fast and often" or "shoot first, aim later" have no place in the realm of complex systems. Mistakes in this context can result in substantial losses—be it lives, dollars, or reputations. This underscores the necessity for thorough user testing; UX is fundamentally about managing uncertainty and minimizing errors.

Isn't that enticing? Wait, it gets even better!

Have you ever pondered why people enjoy spicy food or the challenge of playing Elder Ring? The appeal of tackling the Spartan Race while covered in mud mirrors the mindset of designing complex systems. You know it’s challenging, and you relish the opportunity to prove you can handle it.

There’s a unique pride in realizing that your project may not win design accolades. Complex applications rarely receive recognition, are difficult to articulate in job interviews, and your mother likely won’t showcase that dashboard on the fridge. Recognition isn’t the goal; we have more profound reasons for pursuing this work.

It can be frustrating to spend hours wrestling with a glitchy pivot table that your users love. The data displayed could represent equipment worth millions or critical information about a dire situation in someone’s life. Yet, this is the challenge you choose to embrace, and it’s that choice that fosters a sense of necessity. Your frustration alleviates that of others.

Collaboration is key; you won’t be designing in isolation. You’ll work alongside intelligent individuals, evaluating your workflows, debating design choices, and verifying your rationale. The outcome isn’t random or trendy; it’s the product of extensive discussions, teamwork, and trust-building with your users. Every pixel represents a deliberate decision.

Ultimately, you are defined by the problems you choose to tackle.

"As President Eisenhower advised, 'The simple problems will not come to you. If they could have been solved easily, someone else would have done so already.'"