A few weeks ago, Mig Reyes, Head of Product Experience (PX) at Duolingo, revealed that Duolingo had renamed the UX function to “Product Experience.” This has resurfaced the decades-old debate about the different design roles — UI, UX, UI/UX, CX, DX, Product Designer — and what they should and shouldn’t entail.
Despite some qualms I have with this reveal, I think it presents an opportunity to finally put the debate to rest in more ways than one. Let’s dig in.
Firstly, it doesn’t really matter. And here’s why.
Let’s say that you’re a PX designer now, or that your team’s called the PX team now. Nothing’s changed. You’re still building the same product, for the same users/customers, using the same tools.
The only thing that could possibly change is the mindset, which…fair enough, I guess. Why should we call it UX design when there are customers involved that don’t actually use the product? Or, why should we call it UX design or CX design when revenue is just as important? After all, the product can’t exist unless it generates enough revenue to sustain its own existence.
So perhaps PX design is the best way to describe the function.
But does it matter? No. Great products were built before and great products will be built again, regardless of whether we’re calling it PX design, UX design, or whatever else.
The problem is that “PX design” is out there now, among many other terms that people don’t agree on or fully understand. This harms new designers who are still figuring out the industry and the product design process, and frustrates the heck out of those that like to put a label on things (like me and everyone else!).
So what now?
Even if we were to clearly define PX design today, the chances of the industry accepting this definition, by my estimation, are approximately zero. I’ve already read dozens of “UX is dead” tweets and Medium articles, and I just know that we’ll be seeing “PX vs. UI” ketchup bottle memes for years to come regardless of a definition, so who am I kidding? This ship is sailing at full speed.
Since Duolingo didn’t really provide a clear definition of PX design, let’s start there. You’ve probably already read Reyes’ post. My attention was caught by the sentence, “Duolingo is a product-led company”:
Almost all companies are product-led. If you can’t be in business without having a sustainable product, then you’re product-led.
Duolingo was product-led before, and it still is now. It’s fine to re-emphasize that stance, but it’s important to clarify that Duolingo already was product-led before this announcement. To not do so seems disingenuous, as if the intention was to let people believe that they’ve pioneered an evolved form of product design or UX design. I read it as a technical way of saying, “Actually, we are kind of in it for the money” — which is, of course, totally fine.
If we can put that aside, I actually very much agree with what Mig Reyes said. Perhaps I would’ve liked them to say “PX design is a better term for what we’re all doing…” (because it is) “…and here’s why…”. However, I understand why they wouldn’t want to make arrogant claims (as I’m doing, although I hope you’re not taking me too seriously, either).
All that to say, the post leaves a lot to be desired and I don’t think that’s healthy. “UX is dead” headlines aren’t healthy. So first, I want to clarify what’s been said — from my understanding, at least:
So there you have it. UX design is very much, checks pulse, alive. It’s just that the term feels a bit, as Reyes said, antiquated. Which is fair.
Well, if you’re designing a product, then “Product Experience Design” hits the nail right on the head, doesn’t it? In addition, it goes without saying that products have users and customers (who can be the same person), and the term “PX design” is very inclusive of that. I did see an absurd “What’s a product without users?” comment, but I think it’s a stretch to conclude that PX design excludes users just because “users” isn’t in the term.
Products also need to be financially sustainable in order to keep existing, and PX design is inclusive of that too — whereas UX design or CX design aren’t, necessarily. PX design includes all stakeholders.
As an added bonus, I think that PX is more inclusive of developers too. I’ve always thought of development as a subset of design, as there are certain parts of the experience that only developers can take care of, such as performance, certain aspects of accessibility, and navigating technical limitations. Developers aren’t just builders of the design.
Personally, I’ve always drawn a large circle around design and development, since at the end of the day we’re all building the same product in some way. There are times when you have product managers tending to comments, designers designing prototypes, and developers inspecting handoffs all in a single Figma file at the same time, all working to build this one product experience.
I fully believe that design roles aren’t determined by skill anymore. At this point we can all:
Instead, the value of a modern designer is determined by their ability to think about the user, the customer, and the revenue — to juggle all of those balls at once. I think the skills gap has been closed. There are so many blogs, courses, and even tweets (though a lot of bad ones, sure), and so there’s just no reason to have a skill deficiency that prevents you from designing any given part of the product experience. Your choices are (or should be) guided by research anyway.
And to bring this back to the Duolingo post, this sentiment is echoed throughout the hiring process too. Mig mentions that they hire Product Designers, Product Writers, and Product Researchers — what use is a UX researcher for a B2B product where a separate person (the customer) makes all of the buying decisions? Not as useful as a product researcher that not only sees the bigger picture, but understands the relationship between the user and the customer and how in some way or another they might make that decision to adopt the product together.
In short, I don’t think many companies want to hire designers who can only do certain things, only see things from a certain perspective (e.g., the user’s perspective), or is something-first — from my experience, that’s just not what the hiring landscape looks like out there. And I think that when PX design is described in this way (instead of being thrown onto the battlefield like a grenade), the roles and responsibilities of a designer are much clearer.
I don’t like the performative nature of inventing new terms and publicly declaring them to the world without much explanation, especially when it really muddies the waters even more. But I do like the “PX design” term, I hope it sticks, and I think that the Duolingo team could be onto something. Fingers crossed that we get something more substantial from them.
PX design, UX design… which one is it? Does it matter?
Ultimately, they’re both just words. They don’t define or change the design function or the function’s output in any way.
That being said, PX design does encapsulate what a designer typically does, and should do. It’s just a shame that Duolingo has opted to throw this new term around so casually, knowing that it muddies the terminology, confuses people, and agitates the industry, which in my opinion is fairly counterproductive and comes across as disingenuous.
PX design is a neat term that I hope sticks around, though I doubt every design team and UX blog will adopt it right away. It won’t impact the actual work for those of us in this field — we’ll still design user experiences, customer experiences, user interfaces, or do research — but maybe it’s time to retire all of this terminology in favor of PX design (for the most part anyway), since the industry tirelessly debates what it all means to no end. It’s counterproductive to quibble over semantics when designers typically do all of it anyway, especially to new designers that feel the brunt of this confusion, leading them to wonder what their roles and responsibilities are, or should be.
So, why PX design? It’s simple, really. Our job is to design a good product — that’s the only thing that’s objectively true at any given time. They’re not users or customers before they discover the product, they’re not users while they’re not using it, they’re not customers until they’ve purchased it, we’re not designing for either when we’re designing for profitability or we don’t even know who our audience is yet.
True UI design is a zombie role that only executes according to spec. If you’re doing more than that (which, of course you are) then you are more than that, so many of these functions don’t truly exist.
If you’re designing a product, then you’re a product experience designer. If building a sustainable product is a requirement for you to be in business, then you’re product-led. All products have user interfaces and all product processes require research, so the terminology just doesn’t need to be as precise as it is.
It’s just not that nuanced.
So as much as I love the term PX design, I can’t say that I would’ve put it out there with no explanation. But I guess it’s here now, and I do advocate for sticking with it (and only it), so let’s.
Thanks for coming to my rant. I’m Daniel Schwarz, PX designer, I guess. Thoughts are my own. There’s a comment section just below (let me have it), but maybe don’t take me too seriously.
LogRocket lets you replay users' product experiences to visualize struggle, see issues affecting adoption, and combine qualitative and quantitative data so you can create amazing digital experiences.
See how design choices, interactions, and issues affect your users — get a demo of LogRocket today.
Dive into the world of mobile UX design and explore the best practices, common challenges, and examples of apps that are doing it right.
Clickable text seems simple, right? Until a button blends into the background or a ghost link disappears on hover. Let’s fix those clickability fails.
Neon lights, chunky buttons, and pixel-perfect nostalgia — retro-futurism in UX is more than a vibe. It’s a strategy. And here’s how to use it.
No designer works in a vacuum. If you want your ideas to land, you need facilitation skills. Let’s talk about what that really means.
Learn more →
