> Good design is not valued because it's not well understood. In talking > with customers, prospects, etc., I've found that a lot of them > seem to > think of design only in terms of visual design.
I have quite a nice collection of UX titles and sometimes play mix& match with them: engineer, creative, usability, architect, information, interaction, designer
Yeah, Designers are undervalued lightweights, Engineers are solid, but boring, etcetera
That's why "architect" has cachet: Artsy, but with gravitas, highly paid - and a leader, too
Oh well (and harkening back to an earlier life), I've always had a soft spot for the Dance metaphor. After all, we "choreograph" the User Experience, no?