So, what did I really learn?

Designing is neither an art nor a science - it is the struggle to find a balance between the two. Different designs call for more science (such as an AI chess game) while others are more artistic in nature (such as logo or a company or the design of a T-shirt). When trying to define rules for design, I think the only one that I find consistency in is that there are no rules. The only hope is to use some sort of framework to guide the design process along - and even that is a generous accord to the notion that there's method to the madness of design.

As far as the engineer in me is concerned, I am thrilled that I took NM4210. I won't go so far as to claim every concept presented in lectures was brand-new information to me, or it was something to which I was completely oblivious before, but the course seemed to gracefully tie up many loose ends for me, and give me a great systematic view on designing for experience.

The concept that will stick with me the most is just how crucial "experience" is to a product. This course completely obliterated any remaining thought in my head that a good design means the product serves its purpose well. It is much more than that. With rising competition comes rising benchmarks. A good product no longer suffices. Everything - everything - from the moment the user even hears about the product is being judged. So really, in order to be a successful product, the user must enjoy every aspect of it, not only the usability.

With that said, I have my own opinion of user experience design. With all due respect to any "framework" for design, or any "highly scientific" form of user research, the core of a good design is the designer. The creativity and imagination of the designer is what makes the product; the rest (framework, testing, evaluation, redesign) comprises 10% of it. There is a notion that innovation does not root from adding on feature after feature to something - you either have something innovative or you don't. It follows in the same light that you cannot force smart design. And let's not forget about luck. Sometimes you have to be lucky in design, or at least appreciate the fact that certain intangibles are unforeseeable, such as a person refusing to use a product - even if it is perfect in every way imaginable - to rebel against a certain group or cult.

The conclusion is that one must deeply understand the user. This does not mean spending thousands of dollars to create a living room that mimics his persona, or designing for every single user in the user population because it seems "safe." Understanding the user is a skill - a wisdom that can only be gained through experience. Once one understands the user, one empathizes with the user, and the task almost becomes designing for oneself, even if the product is a stroller for a grandmother. This point highlights the need for "by the book" things like user testing and evaluation, and don't get me wrong, I agree with them - but when it boils down to it, only the designer remains.