There is an experience to using a UI (bad colors make for a bad experience), but it is not UX. Totally different. Here's how it Don Norman makes the distinction: there is no medium to UX. That's a fairly large conceptual difference.
Here's another example: user focus. When an important event occurs, should the user not be able to continue a task and be stopped until a decision is made, or should they continue to work and have the error as a notification? At what point in the experience is the user flow of execution halted for input? This is UX because it doesn't care about the UI. UI is after the UX decision and whether you implement it with a popup, or an alternate screen that overlays, or even a CLI prompt in the case when it is not a graphical UI. Maybe a good way for you to conceptually separate them is to think about the behavior and forget whether you are using a GUI or a CLI to implement it.
I can see this is pointless because clearly you have no experience with either in a professional context. I feel like you're just trying to "win" here and not really listening.
> I can see this is pointless because clearly you have no experience with either in a professional context. I feel like you're just trying to "win" here and not really listening.
Don't be an ass.
You seem to have finally elucidated a meaningful, unambiguous distinction between UI and UX as you see it: UX is purely abstract, can be described with nothing more than flowcharts and probably is concerned with what kind of mental model the user forms for how the application works behind the scenes, while UI is any concrete realization of an interface; any discussion of a real on-screen layout of information and controls would fall under UI rather than UX.
I can see how that distinction could be useful in a more or less academic way. Unfortunately, even using your definitions there are a lot of usability concerns to UI, as I originally claimed but you took exception to. Bad UI layouts can lead to objectively, measurably worse usability (eg. number of clicks required, hard-to-hit targets, etc). Those problems are real: you cannot assess usability in your purely abstract "UX" context and then completely set aside usability concerns in favor of aesthetics when you start drawing a real UI. You have to constantly keep usability in mind throughout the entire design process, even when fine-tuning your final UI layout.
(Your definitions of UX vs UI would also seem to lead to "UX Designer" being a job title in the same vein as the kind of "software architects" who don't contribute at all to writing, reviewing or testing the actual code.)
I will never understand why people like you start fights in disingenuous attempts at discussion, with practically know knowledge of the topic. I guess I fell for your trolling. Well done.
Here's another example: user focus. When an important event occurs, should the user not be able to continue a task and be stopped until a decision is made, or should they continue to work and have the error as a notification? At what point in the experience is the user flow of execution halted for input? This is UX because it doesn't care about the UI. UI is after the UX decision and whether you implement it with a popup, or an alternate screen that overlays, or even a CLI prompt in the case when it is not a graphical UI. Maybe a good way for you to conceptually separate them is to think about the behavior and forget whether you are using a GUI or a CLI to implement it.
I can see this is pointless because clearly you have no experience with either in a professional context. I feel like you're just trying to "win" here and not really listening.