The Difference between UI, UX and Getting Something Done
HR software should help us get our jobs done. We should be able to do them the way we currently work. If that’s not the case, the alternative provided should be better than what we do today.
Unfortunately, a misguided view is driving the development and improvement of our tools. Silicon Valley’s current fascination with tools that are too small to be useful in an organization spreads quickly to software vendors. Rather than work the kinks out of a complex organizational undertaking, there’s an app for that.
If you listen in on the software development conversation, you are going to hear two terms over and over again: UI (user interface design) and UX (User Experience design). The difference between the two is the stuff of major debate.
At its simplest, UI is the mechanics of the interface. It’s ‘how’ a user interacts with the underlying software. It is how the interface looks and the placement of objects and functions on the screen. UI usually focuses on simplicity.
UX is the way that the interface feels. It is the experience a user has when she interacts with the software. It is the satisfaction, frustration, sense of accomplishment, feeling of control, and the desire to return. UX focuses on effectiveness and fun.
From a simplistic view, it looks like the difference between today’s exciting interfaces and the legacy systems you find in HR has something to do with UX or UI. There is a groundswell of enthusiasm for a modern ‘look and feel’. Apple’s Mac interfaces are often held out as aspirational standards.
Unfortunately, a good look and feel is not an indicator of usefulness. There is no relationship between a simple interface and a smart way of doing things. While it’s certainly desirable, a positive experience has nothing to do with whether or not a process produces the right results.
Said in another way, a great interface on a bad process is still a bad process. It may be worse than the original if people enjoy using the tool that cloaks a bad process. Fantastic adoption of a stupid idea is less preferable than the alternative.
In software development, there are two halves that get integrated to deliver the functionality we use in our jobs. The back half is where the processing is done. It faces away from the user. It includes the guts, libraries, algorithms and iterative loops.
The UI and the UX are the front part of the software. They ‘face the user’ (user facing). Forms, tags, success screens, search boxes, approval processes, analytics, reporting and log in go here.
The hardest part of software acquisition decision making involves understanding how the two things work together. A beautiful interface with a delightful experience on a bad piece of software is bad software. For example, you can make a search engine go fast and deliver delightful results without ever effectively searching the resume database. If what you’re after is the best candidates, the UI and UX just got in your way.
A cool interface on crummy software is called ‘new skin on an old snake’ or putting lipstick on a pig’. It’s amazing how many people fall for the trick.
The technical part of the software is measured by performance standards. How fast?” How deep? How complete? How much error? How correct? These are the attributes that matter. In the final analysis, ugly software that does a better job is preferable to pretty software that works poorly.
The ideal answer, delightful software that does a great job, is very hard to find. When you see it in the wild, be sure to tell your friends and colleagues. Most of what you’ll encounter is lipstick.
John Sumser is the founder, principal author and editor-in-chief of the HRExaminer Online Magazine. John explores the people, technology, ideas and careers of senior leaders in Human Resources and Human Capital.
John is the also principal of Two Color Hat where he routinely advises Human Resources, Recruiting Departments and Talent Management teams with product analysis, market segmentation, positioning, strategy and branding guidance.