Why UX Design Is Like NYT Connections

UX Design is often obvious when it's done. It all just makes sense. It reminds me of the NYT's game Connections. 

My morning routine includes warming my brain up with a few games. On the New York Times site - Connections, and The Mini. On LinkedIn - Queens

It's fun little way to start the day before thinking about product and UX design.

If you're not familiar with Connections, you're presented with 16 words. Your task is to find the 4 words that belong in the same group. 4 groups total and each group varies in difficulty. IE one grouping is relatively obvious and straightforward, another grouping is a bit obscure, and two groupings fall somewhere in between.

Here's what Connections looked like one day:

So you'd have to find four groups of four. Eagle, Bogey, Birdie, Par was my first guess. Wrong. 

It took me a bit, but I figured it out.

And when I get to the end, everything looks so obvious.

Duh of course Birdie was a proper noun in a Broadway musical title that is spoken like a phrase *eye roll emoji*

Looking at the color coding, the titles, it all makes sense. It's so a-ha, and duh

UX Design Is Like Connections

It reminds me of UX design.

The best design makes sense. You look at it and say "duh, of course that makes sense". It's obvious. It just works as it should.

But getting there isn't. 

You often start with a rough set of data, a rough problem, You know what the goal looks like, but not sure how it'll all shake out. 

It takes some trial and error. A little research. A few wrong turns, and trying out different combinations. A little more exploring and testing. 

You piece together part of the puzzle and the rest starts to fall in place. Eventually you land on a design. And it works.

And when you look at it, it looks so obvious. But initially it wasn't.

UX Design is like Connections.