It is the very familiar things in life which are often the most difficult to define ... So it is with the concept of craftsmanship. We know what we mean by it, or seem to do so. We can call to mind examples of it and we can recognize it when we see it, or so we think. We speak of good or bad craftsmanship as if we had built-in standards and criteria ready to hand. And the closer we look at it the more complicated it all becomes. –Harold Osborne, The Aesthetic Concept of Craftsmanship
As more research, explorations, and speculations into “the future of UX” (and AI’s role in it) come online, one idea is continually held up, like a shield, in front of the practice of designing the software interface. That’s the idea of “craft” as a central pillar of the discipline—a singular differentiating factor between human- and machine-driven digital production. And the more I see craft mentioned as a power of the designer, the more I feel that a definition or working understanding is urgently needed. After all, as I wrote in response to Figma’s “make designs” feature back in late June 2024, if we can’t define a term, we probably shouldn’t be resting our careers on it.
At the time, I also highlighted a prevailing feeling that design had, at that exact moment, been commodified; a notion that had, at best, arrived too late. The act and process of design (and the entire system of design as a phenomenon) has been commodified at least since it became uncoupled from the direct production of objects. With the introduction of mechanized mass production, the disciplines, actions, and practices required to produce material culture were gradually separated and specialized. Industrial design, machine design, engineering, and operation became discrete functions and those occupying each function could be (and were, and still are) swapped in and out at the will of whatever organization had hired them.