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 20256 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

It was the kind of product that would photograph well and hold up in a design review.

But as soon as you started using it, things began to unravel.

took longer than expected. Decisions appeared at the wrong points. The 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.

That’s usually where the problem sits.

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 , shaping the , compliance and business rules layered on top over time. None of those things are wrong in isolation, but when they all surface directly in the experience, the result is friction.

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

You see the same across very different industries.

At Co-op Bank, years of ageing and had created that technically worked, but felt heavy and unintuitive for customers.

Across the NHS, the problem existed at a much larger scale, with hundreds of sites, inconsistent structures, and different teams all approaching content and in their own way.

With Travelbag, the issue showed up in a different form. Users were comfortable browsing, but when it came to committing to a high-value purchase like a holiday, hesitation crept in because the experience didn’t do enough to at the right moments.

Different , same underlying issue. The experience wasn’t structured in a way that supported the user.

The real issue

Where UX tends to get misunderstood is in when it’s applied.

It’s often brought in after the key decisions have already been made, once 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, simplify interactions, and remove some friction, 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.

Where UX actually works

The real impact comes earlier, before the shape of the experience has been locked in.

That’s where you can step back and look at what’s actually happening. Why the exists in its current form, what the user is being asked to do, and whether that effort is necessary. It’s where you can challenge assumptions, simplify , and remove unnecessary steps before they become embedded in the product.

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 the of while reshaping so they felt more intuitive and less demanding for customers who were not naturally digital-first.

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 with and reassurance at the right points.

In each case, the value didn’t come from how things looked. It came from how they were rethought.

Key takeaway

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

Why this matters

This is where the distinction becomes important.

This isn’t about making something visually appealing or producing deliverables for the sake of . It’s about understanding how an experience holds together, where it starts to create effort, and how that effort can be reduced or removed entirely.

UI plays an important role in that. It helps create , , and makes interactions feel considered. But it can only do so much. If the structure underneath is confused or overly complex, the interface can’t compensate for it. The result is something that looks polished but still feels harder to use than it should. If you want to see how that plays out in practice, look at the case studies or the services work.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services. The work usually starts where things have become harder than they need to be: unclear journeys, inconsistent products, competing priorities, or teams trying to move forward without a clear direction. I help simplify the problem, shape the right next step, and turn complexity into something people can actually use.

Previous feedback

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer

01/20