I'm fairly new to UX/IX design, and I've seen so many people talk
about the benefits/shortcomings of generalists vs. specialists. I had
to take a swing at it, and I think I've cleared up the real issue:
Instead of just asking "which is better" we should be asking
"which is better for our business?"
Too many times the UX civil war seems to revolve around broad skills
or narrow skills, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter which
skill set you have. Both are valuable and necessary.
What do you call someone who sits squarely on the fence between interaction
design and implementation?
I am trying to new employment or consulting opportunities. I can find
opportunities for people skilled solely in wireframing and prototyping. I
can also find opportunities for people with nothing but implementation
skills. Neither of these is what I am looking for. I've been wearing both
hats for over two decades now.
Is the entire market focused on separating these two skills?
Brian Hoffman wrote in another thread: "While many of you have
followed a very straight career path into interaction design, I'm
probably not alone here in having come into this field along a more
I think many of us took the long winding path actually. I was
wondering if we could hear some stories about those pivotal moments in
our careers where we changed from being 'X' in to Interaction
I fell off the engineering centric wagon in 1996 when I was writing
code for a chip that made the LEDs flash on the front of a 10/100
ethernet hub, i.e.