Reviving UX : Insights from technology’s leading disciplines—an introduction to Hx: Human Experience Design and Development

What is Human Experience Design? If you’ve heard me in person or follow me online, you may have heard me talk about it or in other nomenclature: Hx, HxD, HxDD (Human Experience Design and Development).

In 2012, I was immediately attracted to the field of UX and Interaction Design because I had been do ing research, wireframing, flows, and prototyping as a web designer and developer since 2009. But also because I love psychology, the human mind, and the behavior it induces; but more important, the people behind all of this. I was always very inspired by the dedication of UX ideologies centered around the human, the person using and participating in the experience. However, as I worked in the field, met more professionals and analyzed the industry, I noticed a few things, which left me wanting to strive towards something more. Things I've seen across LinkedIn to this day (updated 2025). UX has been considered the intersection of the arts and technology; but, of course, an experience does not have to use technology at all. And there is much more to a tech experience than looks and function. The truth of the matter is that today, for some, UX principles are ideology. There are many parts of great UX that some professionals, due to design maturity, don’t practice or practice wrongly, I’ll get into this later. So if I may be so bold, I took the disciplines I am aware of, practicing, and hopefully good at and merged them into what UX can be and more, which is part of what Hx is. A discipline not centered, but axis-ed around the humans involved because while humans are an investment, it is through a dedicated, diligent human focus that the ultimate pay off comes.

Hx is the intersection between the arts, science, and technology all aiming to build the best possible experience for as many people as possible.

Simply and by definition, technology is the creation and use of tools through our understanding. Science is our pursuit for understanding in a rigorous method. Art is applied creativity towards a message, to express our understanding. Design begins to bring these together as it is applied creativity towards problem solving. I’m sure many of you have heard similar ideations about design being problem solver. All design should be directed towards solving problems—otherwise it is assumptive, otherwise it is art. A key attribute of being a designer is not only noticing imperfections, but also being able to creatively solve them. I’ll be introducing Hx concepts throughout, but in order to talk about and before I talk about what Hx, I have to talk about why Hx is. In UX, it is critical to always ask why first—in fact multiple times. And it is simply that there are some great problems with UX today. Hx intends to be a strategy and to inform the solution. Therefore, let me layout the problems at hand:

1. Many influential stakeholders do not understand the critical importance of the experience let alone an accessible, usable, and viable one.
2. Some practitioners have forgotten about the people, some never considered the people, and are constrained to “concepts” and patterns.
3. How do we apply UX, not adding it as a feature, but integrating into the workflow and development process, innovating with it and through it rather than to it and by it. So that it is viable and profitable; respected, cherished, and promoted.

Before we go any further and I discuss how we solve these problems and improve on UX, let’s discuss what UX is. The first book I read specifically about UX asked this question. Regularly, my professors asked us to answer it too. Yes, it results therein and is of Visual Design, Information Architecture, User Research, Interaction Design, and more; but what UX ultimately is, is crafting an experience. There’s a reason why Disney makes origamI out of towels. Or why a half an hour into staying on The Simpson’s homepage, at one point, something odd would happen like a character saying a catchphrase or moving. These are what we call delighters. But more importantly they are details. They are the icing on the cake, the bow on the present and they can make all the difference.
“But, who cares about towels?”,
“Who would stay on a homepage for half an hour?”,
“We’re not Disney", or It is not a priority for us.”
It is similar impugnments and questions as those that were about online shopping, being online on mobile, and wearable technology at an early point—“No one will do it, so why bother”. These were to some degree widely held opinions—in the beginning. Not any longer. Today, more people access the internet on mobile than desktop, more people shop online than department stores (some even shop online on an IoT device), and Apple Watch sales are leading the entire Swiss watch industry. we have to stop thinking about the experience as a feature of the product and more like the product as a service, as in what service are we doing for the user, for the human. This doesn’t mean sacrifice the viability or profitability, but knowing, practicing, and investing in the user. It’s through this investment that with innovate through it rather than to it.

Now that I’ve talked a bit about my definition for UX and what it should be, let’s address solving the aforementioned problems.

1.) Many influential stakeholders do not understand the critical importance of the experience let alone an accessible, usable, and viable one.

While UX is becoming more and more popular, it is becoming part of a process in a few different ways. What I mean by “part of a process” is not that it is being integrated into corporate workflow and culture; which is a good thing, but if and when it becomes too automated or mechanical of a process can be bad. This has taken a turn for the worse with accessibility. Where in the spirit of efficiency, automated checking is preferred by the general populous of designers and developers. There are simply some criterion and standards that are best to manually verify. Don’t get me wrong, I love machines and automation, but

there will always be something special about the human touch. So filled with flaws, rich with emotion, driven and ambitious: an inkling of great with a pinch of imperfection.

That imperfection is a good thing, but it is what drives us to learn, solve, and become better. But can be a double-edged sword when we see time spent as something that needs over-optimization over quality.

The first, is becoming more popular, there are those that are trying to make UX more efficient and easier to do. This is great, but not when it degrades the methodology. It is sometimes then when people say, “Methodology X doesn’t work so Methodology X is bad for everyone”; or worse bad for us, which is not good for the industry because it created fragmenting. I have seen orgs that refuse to do customer research out of leadership vision, but you know what they say, don't go chasing waterfalls... Bad for us is worse because the fragmentation against industry best-practice impacts the organization and everything it touches. Optimization is great when fine tuning an experience but not when trying to produce results or prove a point. Not when designing for vanity or expertise rather than for people or solutions. Research of all kinds should begin with a hypothesis and lead to a data-driven conclusion. Absolutely not an idea that leads to data-validated proof. We have to be ready to learn what needs adjustment, and eventual polish, with what we are crafting and go back and reiterate with them in mind to come up with a better solution. we even have to be prepared, ready, and enthused about dropping everything, reverting, and starting from scratch if necessary. There is bound to be disappointments if a product is only tested in the end. I have nothing against quality analysis, it is a relative to UX; but, iterative testing must be an early, continuous process not a concluding one. The disappointment comes from having fallen in love with the solution and not tested frequently and often. When so much effort is invested in something, it would be utterly disheartening to see that go to waste. Testing frequently and often with people in mind may seem more time consuming, but it will protect the project, the investment, and further ensure what has contributed to it to launch and success.

And this is where there can be hesitance in understanding how critical proper UX design is. UX is an investment and knowing it can not result in launch can make it seem too risky. Therefrom, an automated or streamlined process which is safer seems more attractive due to its security. However the returns on the investment in Human-Centered Design often results in substantial return even in failure and especially in success or progress.

While it may be hard to create management and stakeholders buy-in, it is crucial sometimes we do research without even a product or something solid at all. That we study people, empathize with them and discover problems in their lives that we can solve. This is not putting oneself into the user’s shoes and saying clearly I want, feel, think, and need this. You can not let yourself nor management do this. Those are assumptions not promotions. It is through promoting the user’s way of life and trying to advance it that we yearn to find a solution.

Don’t “walk a mile in someone’s shoes.” Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes includes the assumption that they fit. Rather see things through their lens, as they see through their experience. That is empathy.

And through Human-Centered innovation and iteration, we should. in a way, it is that UX is becoming too mainstream, but not important enough where it counts and is actually being done right across the entire industry.

Some practitioners have forgotten about the people, some never considered the people, and are constrained to “concepts” and patterns.

While there are doctors of different specialties and function and different courses of treatment, there is most definitely a consensus and uniformity of the practice of medicine within the industry—to a large degree, globally. While UX does not always result in the life altering, it does impact people and can ease one’s life and even, some experiences can cause harm. Except UX has been implemented and is practiced like a religion. Where huge corporate teams with vast resources; and full maturity, dedicate themselves to the profession; scholars consult, educate, and clarify, and others practice parts and different variations of the discipline. I’m not calling for an end in variety or diversity, those are critical in this field, but I am shining a spotlight on some of the intentionally negligent practicing of UX.

This second way is in the vestigial design and development environments where the user doesn’t matter at all and where the user is a primal shell of a human. This can be simplified and better explained in two ways:

1. Disrespecting the user and
2. Disregarding the user.

The birth of UX made a big difference, but while it grew, spreading like a wildfire—in the hearts of design-kind, its reach was more like an ink blot seeping into paper. Some places it was heavy and deep and others less engrained. In the latter, like a superficial stain. It may have seemed to made users the focus where it touched; which it does in principle, but it created blatant disrespect in some cases. Due to it being a buzz word. Hype, as we also see with AI, can be very dangerous. People, companies, professionals began practicing it as a must to avoid a greater cost further down the road. Or claiming it necessary for are for promotion of the business. While, in this case, two things can be true—this is not the empathy UX requires. It began to be practiced in fractions of the whole vision. Some practitioners doing what they felt was best or most appropriate, but not giving the user the full attention they deserve. This can be seen in pseudo research that is impersonal and automated; for example, personas v.s. proto-personas or automated accessibility testing as I earlier mentioned. Granted not everyone is nor can be a mystical UX unicorn or as elite in practice as a UX org high in maturity, but it becomes a problem when practitioners become ignorant and stubborn. Unwilling to learn more or something much more common, unwilling to work across the aisle and bridge the gap. Aligning stakeholders is FUNDEMENTAL in coporate UX; but, believe it or not complete silos still very much exist.
“I’m not a developer, I don’t understand”,
“I’m not a developer, I don’t do that”,
“I’m not a visual designer why should I care”,
or one that I heard once (paraphrase):
“Blind people can’t [do core function], why should we make it accessible?”
I’m happy to say I sat next to a non-sighted student in a Computer Science Lab (class) we shared where she did that very core function and she was published in tech magazine making a big impact at Apple. Tim Cook has sung her praises.
The earlier siloed teams are how some disrespect the user by claiming to be an advocate, but only being an advocate for themselves, efficiency, or business promotion alone. By not striving for the user or truly seeking to solve problems in their lives. Where the people are used as an instrument for other than their gain, but the gain of a business—how can one expect to earn trust that way.

3.) How do we apply UX , not adding it as a feature, but integrating into the workflow and development process, innovating with it and through it rather than to it and by it. So that it is viable and profitable; respected, cherished, and promoted.

This is also happening in another way. For a long time UX was also used to create better products. Better for the business, not the person. Purposely playing on instincts, urges, and drives to embed an unnecessary item into their lives. Something that solves nothing and sometimes even creates problems. I’m talking about pervasive technology. And while it is critical to the business that a product is readily used, there are ways this can be done without manipulating the user. The tech industry and the world is learning this more and more in recent times. So that stakeholders aren't grasping on to buzz-words, but actively learning and contributing toward Human-Centered Product Design.

This quasi-emphasis on the people involved is disrespectful to the end user—and frankly, our colleaugues—it does no human any good. What about disregarding the user?

What is the difference between disrespect and disregard?

• Disregard is a complete lack of acknowledgment.
• While disrespect can touch on this, one can unfortunately accept or partially accept, as valid, something while disrespecting it.

“Great leaders focus the right people on the right problems”

Whether it is disrespect or disregard for the user, we should not seek to overly optimize the process. This lays the foundation or the opportunity for Hx as a UX strategy. A high-compassion methodology I developed when prototyping an AI  assistant and aim to implement in my work. Where some preach and aim to practice UX, but do not. Or where some do not recognize the humans involved. Design and development should not only be humane, but must be empathetic. Perhaps it is because true UX in its whole form is expensive. A key point of Hx design is, that it is a must to look at people as an investment and not sell but promote it as that. In the long run, and sometimes even in the short run, it will create a more profitable, viable, and successful organization and culture, product, and service. Sometimes some people fall into the traps of disrespect and disregard not wholly intentionally, but because they have learned how to do something but not why to do it. This is the difference between a skilled method and an empathetic approach. Yes, all the techniques in UX are skills, but it is important to approach problems with this skillset, with immense empathy. This is another element of Hx that in this case inspired by appropriating models in Machine Learning, the skill of properly matching the right tool to the problem for the best solution. This is a way that more of us can be unicorns by knowing when to apply UX skills a skill in itself. However, there are those that hear bits of ideas, pieces, or maybe a good part of a method; but do not practice it intelligently, empathetically, and whole heartedly. It is almost like viewing a tip in a LinkedIn carousel or hearing it on a design podcast. You can find great information in both of those mediums, but knowledge and insight is often trucated to be bait. Intelligently meaning to solve problems. It is crucial we do not sacrifice the human at the center at some other cost because the user, is a human, the user is of the best investments that can be made.

So now that I have critiqued the current state of UX, I’d like to briefly introduce Hx. This is not to say one should abandon UX as they know it. Prioritizing User Experience is absolutely essential and the above problems must be addressed and solved so that UX is practiced in its full form and not as a trend—that's all Hx is, a strategy for more Human-Centered UX Design. Hx is an extension of UX. Fixed on, but growing from and with the human & human condition, stabilized by accessibility & usability, mapped to creatively striving through arts & research, and applying it through an agreed upon and whole-practiced way through understanding and mindset. Understanding begets understanding. We build products that are understood by understanding all the people, stakeholders and customers, involved. It's a strategy focusing on the elements of UX like accessibility, usability, empathy, intelligence, research, and expression can be better applied to solve the problem that is UX  today. That way, we can make better; more robust, solving, and gainful innovation.

Now let’s discuss how some of the core disciplines and strategies in Hx can help us create better technology and experiences.

Hx: Empathetic experiences for everybody

A.) User Research

This is first for a reason. Because ofted times in the fragmented practice of UX, Research is often one of first core competencies to go. In my experience, this is common in an agency environment, where clients except hard deliverable results; and possible, but to a lesser degree in consulting. In Product Design, it is easy for some to feel like an expert in a high-stakes career, but—I should fairly say, it is equally as easy to have imposter syndrome. However for those with the experience or talent or even hyper-efficient organizations, it is easy to believe we don't need to conduct user research or to bend research in our own lens. There is nothing wrong with customer research—successful products across successful ecosystems have customers not users—but the truth of the matter is sometimes we can conduct research and it doesn't result in ideal findings or findings at all. It is paramount to still conduct research whether that is in the field or remote—our discovered problems, designs, and products must originate and be validated by the people that use them, especially, if we expect them to include them in their lives.

B.) Accessibility

Accessibility is an absolute must and the world is growing more and more aware of this fact everyday. While unfortunately some have learned this after litigation, the fact of the matter is that in Summer 2017, a federal judge established precedent ruling that websites and apps are of a public facing establishments and therefore must follow the ADA or Americans with Disabilities Act with the ruling including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the standard method to do so. I have developed a passion for accessibility from early in my career because with investments in experiences for all peoples, the overall experience for everybody often improves. The best way one can do that is following the WCAG guidelines—as Section 508 unfortunately termed but aptly named only requires a separate but equal experience for those with disabilities; however, often the experiences aren’t even close to equal. As of this updated publication in 2025, it has now become a pattern to a button that enables an accessibility-friendly mode of a digital site across the web. This is precisely separate, but equal. We should never be stubborn enough that accessibility is shrugged off and later becomes a legal problem. We must evolve from compliance to care. WCAG 2.0 comes in 3 levels of compliance in increasing level of accessibility A, AA, AAA and WCAG 2.1 greatly improves on accessibility in touch, intelligent, and more-modern technologies. A good starting point is remembering the aconym POUR or making the interactions, content; and experience as a whole, Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. In echoing the earlier point of automation in UX, it can very easy and tempting to use automated accessibility testing, but there are however key criterion in WCAG that can only be confirmed by a human and the right automated checkers, if you insist on using one, will let you know that.

Responsive design is clear and commonplace, it is designing experiences for all devices. It is more than time accessibility—designing experiences for all people is clear and commonplace too.

C.) The Arts

“it is better to be high-spirited, even though one makes more mistakes, than to be narrow-minded and all too prudent. It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love, is well done.” -Vincent van Gogh

The above quote is not at all meant to belittle the user, but I chose to quote it for the exact opposite, through passion and compassion and the emphasis of the relationship between the people involved, we can create better technology. I chose the above, by van Gogh, because compassion is a pure form of love for which things done in are done with care, done in respect, and done well. We must care about our users. Finding strength in belief in the user, the audience and what is best for them and what is viable and best for the business as one. That once this is feasible and with compassion, great experiences will come.

While the best tech integrates itself into the user’s life, it shouldn’t do so at the cost of the user. We should use the same principles, fortified by research from The Arts, Science, Tech, and on all peoples to build for all peoples. We’re all humans. We’re all your audience. Experiences should sway, move, inspire, and involve us.

Another important point, which I believe in, from the van Gogh quote is the ability for a team, a company, an organization to grow with diversity. That when practicing self and outward compassion. With ourselves and within ourselves we will grow through inclusion, building on each other’s strengths and make up for each other's differences. This was the initial concept of Adam Smith's global capitalist economy although such philosophy may be considered anti-business now. Through learning, reflecting; not reacting, and being the best we can be, the best team we can be, the best company we can be, and; at last, the best society we can be through diversity and inclusion of peoples, experiences, talents, and perspectives—we can make the world a better place.

D.) Development

Now in the next decade since the establishment of HTML5, Javascript APIs and ES6 are becoming more and more supported (originally written in 2020). We must always build with cutting edge technology with graceful degradation. I have built Front-End experiences that do not break in legacy environments or devices. Yet they leverage the best technologies when it is supported. It is important that we do this when building an experience for everybody. To not discount either extreme, but to build things for the largest outreach possible. The key part of this section however is in being a UX generalist, it is important we educate ourselves with as much breadth as possible. Yet depth in some select areas creating that T shape I and we all should aim for. By doing this, we can connect across departments and fulfill a true purpose of a UX Designer to bridge the gap and create the best possible experience through it.

E.) Stakeholder Relationships

In echoing UX Designers educating themselves across disciplines; on the other hand, everyone is a designer. Everyone at the organization. Everything is poetry. It is important that all departments and contributors know we all contribute to and design products through that lens—we must act with compassion. And it is with that compassion, that we flow together like a poem and our experiences become eloquent like poetry.

F.) Artificial Intelligence

While intelligence is what helps us actualize and realize our plans and solve our problems, it is not alone in that which contributes to consciousness or the mind, human or other. We see across species in beings we consider aware or not, that there is an element of opinion that helps one interpret and make plans, have desires. A key element of Hx is purpose oriented design and if we are to create technology designed with a purpose in mind, it should be able to achieve it. This means intelligence is a must and so is the ability to strive. In addition, to create technology that is aware, striving or fulfilling does not necessarily mean that which is super-human or that which could endow or dismay the human race. What will hinder humanity is a continuation of the problems above and what can relieve it is empathetic, purpose oriented experiences, or Hx—in other words, Intelligence applied with human-centered design is how develop experience conscious of those that use them

Apart from empathetic intelligence, we can earlier on create empathetic experiences through thorough and empathetic research in the beginning of our UX workflow. It is beyond important that we learn and experience the lives of all people. Through this empathy, we can hinder our bias and assumptions, problems in Machine Learning and design, and solve problems for people ensuring authentic use and not a cult following or a following through manipulation.

G.) Purpose-Oriented and Visual Design

After we focus in, learn from, and practice these disciplines, the next element in Hx is purpose oriented design and development. When we outline the purpose of a technology or an experience in general, we can craft how it will best achieve that purpose (with our skills and disciplines). Purpose oriented design is a critical element and methodology of Hx. This is how details become delighters and delighters contribute to an experience along with human centered focus as mentioned in subsection E, “Stakeholder Relationships”. The aesthetic-usability effect shows us that even improving the visuals of an experience can make all the difference. Now imagine if we research, built around humans towards a purpose and crafting intuitive and robust interactions and architecture that actually solve their problems. Imagine how fulfilling it would be if we^nbsp;solved those problems in open-ended research! Invest in great visual design and content as well and you might create something wonderful. But know "UI/UX" is a fallacy. Visual Design is important, but we can't rope in UI Design and call it UX—leaving the assumption it is the whole—when it is only a part. This is the earlier mentioned fragmentation of the discipline. Humans are not sacrifices, they’re investments we have to make.

Citing a now well know fact, the current tech landscape has grown very successful through disruption. Amazon and Shopping, Facebook and Media Consumption, TikTok and Trends, Reddit and Communities, Netflix and Television, Ride sharing and Driving to name a small few. But what happens when there is nothing left to disrupt? We do not innovate nonsensically as mentioned earlier in the article—because we can—we shouldn't apply every technology to every problem. When we want to make more of a difference, we go higher up the hierarchies of Hx and we find our solution. I don’t plan to go into detail on the hierarchies as this is an introduction to Hx; but I will, however, introduce the hierarchy of innovation. How we don’t have to dive deeper all the time and sensely apply the latest and greatest pattern or technology to "X"-ify something new, but can spread farther, higher and we may find something unique—a diamond in the rough that’ll lead us to a mine we never thought of exploring. A User Research is the scout and guide that get us there. Whose gems enrich experiences, products, and services tenfold. Gems that glisten so great, they lead current efforts and create new efforts: solving the past, crafting the present, and shaping the future. The singularity isn't a phenomenon to AI alone, but AI applied and researched in a Human-Centered way may be our largest single point of distruption yet—potentially in a good way.

In conclusion, I know I have left you with a scathing review of the current condition UX, but I felt it necessary in introducing Hx—Human-Centered Strategy for Compassionate, Trustworthy Design. As a Human Experience Designer and Developer, it is important that I do not invent things for no reason, but craft solutions to problems. This does not mean I only create things people know they want, but I am motivated by the human condition, striving for humans through empathy, knowing that through investing in humans comes so much. I’ve too long seen classes in UX. Not of talent although it seems that way, but in practice. Most of us, except those disregarding the user, appear to want the same thing.

Now we have to unite in strategy and diversity, but not be constrained by volatility.

If there is one thing I have learned in writing this, it is that I am not a "UX Hippie", but a "UX Idealist." An idealist with a plan for Human-Centered implementation inside and out. That's Hx.

Extra: an introduction to "The Hierarchy of Innovation"

Innovation at its best solves past, present, and future problems. It does this through empathetic esearch that meets the user where they are—sometimes literally. Research at its best is when it is broad and not oriented towards discovering something specific but learning something new.

The hierarchy of innovation details how the further down the ladder we go the more of an investment it will take, but the more impact we will have when designing and developing. Rungs on this hierarchy are (with 10 taking the highest investment):

1. Features
2. Programs
3. Products
4. Interactions and Experiences
5. Algorithms and Methodologies: these are what we do in design and development or what needs to be done
6. Languages and guidelines: how we conduct our workflows
7. Purpose: why we are designing
8. Philosophy: the purpose behind what we are doing and why it matters
9. Brand 
10. Technologies: taking the largest investment, but thoroughly altering the landscape in the greatest impact

In designing to solve problems, it is paramount to know what we are designing and the impact we expect and want to have, and for who and why we are designing it. Beyond KPIs and metrics. To see and communicate the investment it will take and why. These are all approachable through, and will add to, stakeholder alignment in regular touchpoints, service blueprints, and roadmapping.