Menu

UX

What UX is and isn't

Most people think they know what UX is. They don't. And you can usually tell within a few minutes of using a product.

Why UX is not the visual layer, where it usually breaks down, and what actually changes when the structure underneath is rethought properly.

31 July 20254 min read

In short

Why UX is not the visual layer, where it usually breaks down, and what actually changes when the structure underneath is rethought properly.

Where this starts to break

But as soon as you started using it, things began to unravel. Journeys took longer than expected. Decisions appeared at the wrong points. The flow felt like it had been built around internal rather than what the user was actually trying to achieve. Nothing was obviously broken, but nothing felt easy either. It required more effort than it should have, and that's always where users start to disengage.

UX isn't about how something looks. It's about how it behaves when someone tries to use it. In most of the work I've been involved in, the biggest issues haven't come from visual design. They've come from how things have been structured underneath: different teams owning different parts of the journey, shaping the flow, compliance and business rules layered on top. None of those things are wrong in isolation, but when they all surface directly in the experience, the result is . The user ends up navigating the organisation instead of completing their task.

UX isn't about how something looks. It's about how it behaves when someone tries to use it.

The same pattern in different contexts

At Co-op Bank, years of and had created journeys that technically worked but felt heavy and unintuitive. Across the NHS, the problem existed at a much larger scale: hundreds of sites, inconsistent structures, different teams all approaching content and journeys in their own way. With Travelbag, the issue was different again. Users were comfortable browsing but when it came to committing to a high-value purchase, hesitation crept in because the experience didn't do enough to trust at the right moments. Different contexts, same underlying issue: the experience wasn't structured in a way that supported the user.

The reason the repeats across such different organisations is that it has an organisational cause rather than a design one. Wherever a journey crosses several owners, each owner optimises their own section, and nobody is accountable for the seams between them. The user is the only person who experiences the whole thing.

Where UX tends to get misunderstood

UX is often brought in after the key decisions have already been made (once journeys are defined and are in place) with a brief to improve what's there. At that point, the scope naturally shifts towards . You can make things clearer and remove some , but you're still working within a structure that may be fundamentally flawed. That's why UX sometimes gets reduced to surface-level improvements. Not because that's what it is, but because that's the point at which it's introduced.

The misunderstanding is reinforced by how the work gets bought. A brief to improve the has a clear scope and a predictable cost. A brief to establish whether the journey should work this way has neither, so the first is what gets commissioned and the second is what would have moved the numbers.

It also shapes who the work is judged by. is assessed on how it looks in a review. Structural work is assessed on what happens weeks later in the , which is a slower and less flattering loop.

Key takeaway

The biggest UX gains usually come from rethinking the structure underneath the experience, not polishing the surface.

Where UX actually works

The real impact comes earlier, before the shape of the experience has been locked in. That's where you can look at what's actually happening (why the journey exists in its current form, what the user is being asked to do, whether that effort is necessary) and challenge assumptions before they become embedded.

On the NHS work, that meant moving away from simply improving content and instead rebuilding the structure and from the ground up. At Co-op, it meant working within legacy while reshaping journeys so they felt more intuitive and less demanding. With Travelbag, it meant recognising that users weren't just completing a transaction. They were making a significant financial decision, and the experience needed to support that. In each case, the value didn't come from how things looked. It came from how they were rethought.

None of this requires a different skill set so much as a different point of entry. The same questions asked at the point a journey is being agreed cost an hour and change the shape of the work. Asked after it has been built, they cost a rebuild and usually get declined.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services.

Previous feedback

I had a fantastic experience working with Andy. One of his most impressive achievements during our time at NHS HEE was masterminding a deeply complex information architecture for a new platform that brought together a large number of legacy websites.

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer