It sounds like a simple and effective business strategy. Develop a well-designed user experience, and it will produce a dependable and desirable product or service, thus leading to higher retention and profitability. Yet somehow, clients, stakeholders, and non-designers seem to manipulate user-centered designs to a point where they no longer consider the user. How does this happen? Perhaps this predicament may lay at the feet of designers.

The growth of standardized UX research and methodology is a consequence of its effectiveness. However, a small portion of the demand for these alluring UX strategies is due to the traditional designer’s inability to persuade and quantify the value of user-centered design to non-designers. Have you ever tried using design language to convince a stakeholder to agree to a user-centered layout? Generally, you receive a blank stare followed by a response with zero relevance to the user problem you are trying to solve.

On the other hand, a similar user-centered design solution presented by a UX specialist will produce a slightly different reaction. Instead of quoting abstract design principles, they speak of complex data, research, and utilize elaborate charts and diagrams. Oh yes, so many charts it will make the finance department jealous.

It is easy to surmise that stakeholders and clients will react positively, most of the time, to what they consider objective design decisions supported by data and user insights — that is, once they get over the cost and timing of investing in UX research. This otherwise positive reaction is reasonable considering the perceived differences designers and UX professionals use to persuade people.

Playing it safe

Businesses love data and research. It makes for safer design decisions. There is less accountability compared to subjective judgment calls when things go astray. “I don’t know what happened, the research indicated…”.

There is nothing inherently wrong with plentiful research and objective information to help make sound design decisions. The problem arises when you rely only on the data to make those decisions. In my article Modern UX design is killing creativity I discuss how developing a better user experience requires taking risks.

Common ground

In reality, there are several approaches UX specialists and traditional designers share. One, in particular, is their focus on empathizing with the user, albeit in different ways. For designers, it is somewhat of an instinctual approach. This “artistic” side of us conveys a message or idea using design intuition, experience, and an ability to envision alternative perspectives to formulate creative solutions for the user. This manner of designing can be considered subjective at times. I discuss this unfortunate perception in my article The hard truth of being a creative professional.

On the other hand, UX professionals gather user feedback, analytics, and even reference psychology to determine empathetic design solutions. Much of the UX process can be perceived as objective in nature. However, both professions use some form of ideation —although their fundamental techniques to discuss a solution may vary.

I am not suggesting that designers do not use logic, data, or formulaic UX methods. Of course we do. The very foundation of great design uses proven psychological design principles that we embrace. And many of us understand how to employ qualitative and quantitative data to formulate design decisions.

Does this mean designer’s instincts and skills are becoming obsolete? The short answer is, that is up to us. We love UX data, seriously. It helps prove something designers have known for a long time — good design equals a good user experience.

Most designers enjoy working with UX professionals and have a great deal in common with the profession— hence the growing overlap in job responsibilities. We finally have an objective method for proving the value of implementing user-centered designs.

However, stakeholders, clients, and non-designers must trust their designers and understand that not every design decision needs to be quantified by data.

The power of communication and knowledge

I believe there are two strengths designers, specifically traditional graphic designers, can develop to ensure they are being listened to when data or evidence is unavailable to back up their designs decisions.

The first is the ability to communicate their design decisions effectively. I recommend a fantastic book by

As stated above, it is challenging to earn trust or persuade others regarding your design solutions. However, there is a practical and ancient method for achieving this — the art of rhetoric. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is “the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion.” He described three primary forms of rhetoric:

• Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker. An ethos-driven document relies on the reputation of the author.
• Logos is appeal based on logic or reason. Documents distributed by companies or corporations are logos-driven. Scholarly documents are also often logos-driven.
• Pathos is appeal based on emotion. Advertisements tend to be pathos-driven.

For a great resource regarding the art of rhetoric, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s section on Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

Sometimes, credibility, expertise, or even logic are not enough to persuade stakeholders or clients. In that case, designers must learn to be assertive.

Generally speaking, there are four major communication styles: aggressive, passive, passive-aggressive, and assertive.

Assertiveness is a social skill that relies heavily on effective communication while simultaneously respecting the thoughts and wishes of others. Designers who are assertive clearly and respectfully communicate their wants, needs, positions, and boundaries to others. No matter the topic, there’s no question of where we stand, which can be highly effective when communicating designs.

The second method for navigating this evolving design environment is to embrace it and seek relevant education — ideally beyond superficial visual design trends and application skills. Growing areas such as digital marketing and UX research are a good place to start because they integrate and complement user-centered design strategies. My article, The Death of Graphic Design, speaks more to these growing industries.

To speak of my own experience, for a moment, I have been designing for nearly 15 years — learning how to code when designers needed to code or creating Flash-based websites when that was a thing (RIP Flash). And beyond learning new applications such as After Effects or Sketch, I believe it is essential to understand the purpose of why we produce designs. With that in mind, last year, I devoted three months towards earning a certificate in digital marketing from Yale SOM — I highly recommend this virtual program for anyone interested in understanding digital marketing strategies such as SEO, social media, and online consumer experiences. And starting in the fall, I have enrolled in a graduate degree program, Master of Science in Information Design and Technology, with the desire to understand deeper UX strategies. But that is enough about me. My point is you can never learn too much. And growing your knowledge helps comprehend how interconnected and vital good design is.

The growing UX industry has shed light on the benefits of good design through quantifiable data. As designers, we should use this revelation to remind stakeholders and clients how our design intuition can effectively solve user problems too. But more importantly, we must learn to speak their language, be persuasive, confident, and assertive regarding our insights and expertise. Learning these skills is vital for a designer’s intellect and continuance. Data is not our enemy. It is a tool we can use to help deliver what we all want, better user-centered designs.