Mar
26

Laura Kalbag on Freelance Design: The Illusion of Free

Source: A List Apart

Our data is out of our control. We might (wisely or unwisely) choose to publicly share our statuses, personal information, media and locations, or we might choose to only share this data with our friends. But it’s just an illusion of choice—however we share, we’re exposing ourselves to a wide audience. We have so much more to worry about than future employers seeing photos of us when we’ve had too much to drink.

Corporations hold a lot of information about us. They store the stuff we share on their sites and apps, and provide us with data storage for our emails, files, and much more. When we or our friends share stuff on their services, either publicly or privately, clever algorithms can derive a lot of of detailed knowledge from a small amount of information. Did you know that you’re pregnant? Did you know that you’re not considered intelligent? Did you know that your relationship is about to end? The algorithms know us better than our families and only need to know ten of our Facebook Likes before they know us better than our average work colleague.

A combination of analytics and big data can be used in a huge variety of ways. Many sites use our data just to ensure a web page is in the language we speak. Recommendation engines are used by companies like Netflix to deliver fantastic personalized experiences. Google creates profiles of us to understand what makes us tick and sell us the right products. 23andme analyzes our DNA for genetic risk factors and sells the data to pharmaceutical companies. Ecommerce sites like Amazon know how to appeal to you as an individual, and whether you’re more persuaded by social proof when your friends also buy a product, or authority when an expert recommends a product. Facebook can predict the likelihood that you drink alcohol or do drugs, or determine if you’re physically and mentally healthy. It also experiments on us and influences our emotions. What can be done with all this data varies wildly, from the incredibly convenient and useful to the downright terrifying.

This data has a huge value to people who may not have your best interests at heart. What if this information is sold to your boss? Your insurance company? Your potential partner?

As Tim Cook said, “Some companies are not transparent that the connection of these data points produces five other things that you didn’t know that you gave up. It becomes a gigantic trove of data.” The data is so valuable that cognitive scientists are giddy with excitement at the size of studies they can conduct using Facebook. For neuroscience studies, a sample of twenty white undergraduates used to be considered sufficient to say something general about how brains work. Now Facebook works with scientists on sample sizes of hundreds of thousands to millions. The difference between more traditional scientific studies and Facebook’s studies is that Facebook’s users don’t know that they’re probably taking part in ten “experiments” at any given time. (Of course, you give your consent when you agree to the terms and conditions. But very few people ever read the terms and conditions, or privacy policies. They’re not designed to be read or understood.)

There is the potential for big data to be collected and used for good. Apple’s ResearchKit is supported by an open source framework that makes it easy for researchers and developers to create apps to collect iPhone users’ health data on a huge scale. Apple says they’ve designed ResearchKit with people’s privacy values in mind, “You choose what studies you want to join, you are in control of what information you provide to which apps, and you can see the data you’re sharing.”

But the allure of capturing huge, valuable amounts of data may encourage developers to design without ethics. An app may pressure users to quickly sign the consent form when they first open the app, without considering the consequences. The same way we’re encouraged to quickly hit “Agree” when we’re presented with terms and conditions. Or how apps tell us we need to allow constant access to our location so the app can, they tell us, provide us with the best experience.

The intent of the developers, their bosses, and the corporations as a whole, is key. They didn’t just decide to utilize this data because they could. They can’t afford to provide free services for nothing, and that was never their intention. It’s a lucrative business. The business model of these companies is to exploit our data, to be our corporate surveillers. It’s their good fortune that we share it like—as Zuckerberg said—dumb fucks.

To say that this is a privacy issue is to give it a loaded term. The word “privacy” has been hijacked to suggest that you’re hiding things you’re ashamed about. That’s why Google’s Eric Schmidt said “if you’ve got something to hide, you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” (That line is immortalized in the fantastic song, Sergey Says.) But privacy is our right to choose what we do and don’t share. It’s enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So when we’re deciding which cool new tools and services to use, how are we supposed to make the right decision? Those of us who vaguely understand the technology live in a tech bubble where we value convenience and a good user experience so highly that we’re willing to trade it for our information, privacy and future security. It’s the same argument I hear again and again from people who choose to use Gmail. But will the tracking and algorithmic analysis of our data give us a good user experience? We just don’t know enough about what the companies are doing with our data to judge whether it’s a worthwhile risk. What we do know is horrifying enough. And whatever corporations are doing with our data now, who knows how they’re going to use it in the future.

And what about people outside the bubble, who aren’t as well-informed when it comes to the consequences of using services that exploit our data? The everyday consumer will choose a product based on free and fantastic user experiences. They don’t know about the cost of running, and the data required to sustain, such businesses.

We need to be aware that our choice of communication tools, such as Gmail or Facebook, doesn’t just affect us, but also those who want to communicate with us.

We need tools and services that enable us to own our own data, and give us the option to share it however we like, without conditions attached. I’m not an Apple fangirl, but Tim Cook is at least talking about privacy in the right way:

None of us should accept that the government or a company or anybody should have access to all of our private information. This is a basic human right. We all have a right to privacy. We shouldn’t give it up.

“Apple has a very straightforward business model,” he said. “We make money if you buy one of these [pointing at an iPhone]. That’s our product. You [the consumer] are not our product. We design our products such that we keep a very minimal level of information on our customers.”

But Apple is only one potential alternative to corporate surveillance.Their services may have some security benefits if our data is encrypted and can’t be read by Apple, but our data is still locked into their proprietary system. We need more *genuine* alternatives.

What can we do?

It’s a big scary issue. And that’s why I think people don’t talk about it. When you don’t know the solution, you don’t want to talk about the problem. We’re so entrenched in using Google’s tools, communicating via Facebook, and benefitting from a multitude of other services that feed on our data, it feels wildly out of our control. When we feel like we’ve lost control, we don’t want to admit it was our mistake. We’re naturally defensive of the choices of our past selves.

The first step is understanding and acknowledging that there’s a problem. There’s a lot of research, articles, and information out there if you want to learn how to regain control.

The second step is questioning the corporations and their motives. Speak up and ask these companies to be transparent about the data they collect, and how they use it. Encourage government oversight and regulation to protect our data. Have the heart to stand up against a model you think is toxic to our privacy and human rights.

The third, and hardest, step is doing something about it. We need to take control of our data, and begin an exodus from the services and tools that don’t respect our human rights. We need to demand, find and fund alternatives where we can be together without being an algorithm’s cash crop. It’s the only way we can prove we care about our data, and create a viable environment for the alternatives to exist.


Read the full article

Mar
25

This week’s sponsor: Inbound.org

Source: A List Apart

Thanks to Inbound.org for sponsoring A List Apart this week! Check out their community where inbound designers, developers, and marketers come together to connect, learn, and grow.


Read the full article

Mar
20

Matt Griffin on How We Work: Readable Wearables

Source: A List Apart

A few weeks ago we added our first wearable to the Bearded device lab, and it was an eye-opening experience. The same day that Apple showcased the soon-to-arrive Apple Watch, a Samsung Gear S showed up at our door. This device is a large smartwatch with pixel dimensions slightly greater than the iPhone 3GS. It has Opera Mini and its own cellular and wifi connections, so it functions as a standalone web interface.

So will people use their watch-like devices for browsing the web? Though some may scoff at the idea (and believe me, there’s been plenty of scoffing), stranger things have happened. And if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that if you can use something to get on the web, people will get on the web with that thing.

After some personal use, it seems to me that these watch-sized screens are a totally reasonable way to access web content. And it’s equally reasonable for us to present our content in readable ways on these screens.

As Brad Frost recently wrote, responsive design and future-friendly strategies go a long way to making sure our websites work and display the best they can on devices that haven’t even been invented yet. And it’s true that my first reaction to seeing the sites we’ve built displayed on the Gear was “not bad.” But, as I began to look closely and interact with these familiar sites via a tiny curved screen on my wrist, my perspective began to subtly, but significantly, shift.

My gut reaction to these new smallest-of-screens: I’ve been starting with too big of a browser window. Lucky for us, if we’ve been prescient enough to be writing our CSS in extensible ways (and goodness knows mobile has given us plenty of reasons to do this already), there’s some pretty great low-hanging fruit for us to grab.

The current Bearded site is super simple; a static two-pager with no navigation and very little in the way of bells and whistles. It struck me as a perfect candidate to try out some wearable-friendly optimizations without a lot of distractions. So let’s have a look at what could be done in an afternoon to make it more pleasurable to read on a watch.

Let’s get small

The Samsung Gear S, according to my tests, registers with media queries as a 213px-wide viewport. This is a far cry from the 300px-wide starting point I’ve become accustomed to when styling.

On this new screen size, the range of acceptable type sizes is tighter than what I’ve been used to. My type was mostly either huge and unwieldy or eye-strainingly small. The original site styles utilized headings set in Quadon Regular, which range from 0.875em to 2.5em. But a 213px-wide viewport, to my sensibilities, only tolerates type sizes from 1.1em to 1.6em with that same typeface.

Boldly oversize type loses its appeal on the very small screen. (Left: before; right: after.)

A closing of the typographic aperture seemed called for, but how to do that without reworking a ton of CSS? Enter Past Bearded being kind to Future Bearded. Here’s how, thanks to Sass, we’ve been writing our heading styles for years. First we define the font stack:


@mixin title-face {
	font-family: Quadon-Regular, arial, “helvetica neue”, helvetica, sans-serif;
	font-weight: normal;
}

Then we roll that mixin into our general heading mixin, where we add margin-bottom, line-height, and color:


@mixin heading {
	@include title-face;
	margin-bottom: 0.35em;
	line-height: 1.2;
	color: $heading-color;
}

Next, we snowball all of that into the various specific heading mixins, and add font-size:


@mixin heading-1 {
	@include heading;
	font-size: 2.5em;
}

@mixin heading-2 {
	@include heading;
	font-size: 1.8em;
}

...

Which we can apply to all our headings by default:


h1 {
	@include heading-1;
}

h2 {
	@include heading-2;
}

...

This approach may at first seem a little overwrought, but it provides some terrific practical benefits over time. For instance, should you have something that semantically deserves to be lower down the chain from an h1 (say a paragraph or an h2), but you want it to have the visual appearance of an h1, you can just apply the heading-1 mixin:


h2 {
	@include heading-2;

&.title {
	@include heading-1;
}

Best of both worlds, right?

As is often only possible with Sass, this approach also abstracts major styling decisions away from the low-level CSS implementations. This allows for us to be more agile with changes, even later in the project when our CSS files have grown more unwieldy.

For our wearable type hierarchy issue, I was able to easily make adjustments to my heading sizes by adding media queries to those mixins, like so:


@mixin heading-1 {
	@include heading;
		font-size: 1.6em;

	@include breakpoint($breakpoint-s) {
		font-size: 2.5em;
	}
}

Then I got to sit back, refresh my browser, and watch my sitewide heading typography do its thing. Past Bearded, thank you for being awesome.

Limitations breed innovation

The tiny screens of wearables further restrict the design options we have at our disposal, even more so than mobile screens did before them. But working within this more limited palette is not necessarily a bad thing.

In the letterpress world, for example, we’re restricted to the type we have physically sitting in our cabinets. The weights, sizes, typefaces, and variations we have to work with are extremely limited. And this can lead to some very exciting design work that otherwise we’d never be forced to do.

When we work to come up with a sensible typographic hierarchy for any size screen, we must first consider what we have to work with:

  • font-family
  • font-size
  • font-weight
  • font-style
  • font-variant
  • font-weight
  • text-transform
  • color

The most obvious things (aside from size) that you can use to accentuate your headings are uppercase and bold. Small caps, italics, a new font-family, or color changes may be reasonable options for you, as well.

Though you may not have enough variations in font-size between 1.6em and 1.1em to effectively distinguish six heading sizes from each other, you can mix up font size changes with other type qualities to have that effect, then shift back to your size-based hierarchy as screen size allows for it.

For instance, with the Bearded site headings I chose to use uppercase as a differentiator for two headings with the same font-family and font-size. Then, when the screen is wide enough, I can use media queries inside the mixins to return to my font-size based hierarchy, like so:


@mixin heading-3 {
	@include heading;
		font-size: 1.1em;
		text-transform: uppercase;

	@include breakpoint($breakpoint-xs) {
		font-size: 1.4em;
		text-transform: none;
	}
}

@mixin heading-4 {
	@include heading;
		font-size: 1.1em;

	@include breakpoint($breakpoint-xs) {
		font-size: 1.2em;
		}
}

Where’s that breakpoint gonna go?

Speaking of which, at what point should one add this no-longer-wearable breakpoint? The answer: at a width at which your larger screen design decisions start making sense again. The Gear clocked in at 213px, but it seems like those smallest-screen decisions would be beneficial for widths wider than that. When enlarging my browser up from 213px, my wearable-focused design decisions applied for the most part up until 290px, at which point typography could stretch out a little more, and some multi-column grid layouts could comfortably be put to use.

But not all of the layout decisions from the existing mobile-centric site design made sense at 290px. What’s interesting is that, working at that scale, I actually needed an extra breakpoint. Previously I’d been working with these breakpoints:

  1. < 400px
  2. 400px
  3. 550px
  4. 700px

Now, starting with smaller widths, I’d arrived at:

  1. < 290px
  2. 290px
  3. 350px
  4. 550px
  5. 700px

Not surprisingly, the smaller the screen, the greater the impact that a few pixels has. The difference between 1000px and 1050px may not warrant any design changes at all, whereas the difference between 250px and 300px almost certainly does.

Too small for small

The last thing I addressed was a bit surprising to me: my 1em (16px) body copy type was too small to comfortably read. I’ve always thought of 1em as a font size that was great for web reading. It feels almost clunky, in fact, when compared to the 8pt reversed type I frequently saw in the world of print design. But on this tiny screen on my wrist, there seemed to be a huge difference, at least with this font-family, between the 1em body type and the 1.1em intro paragraph copy.

Increasing the font-size from 1em to 1.1em helped readability. (Left: before; right: after.)

On this site, fixing that was a breeze—I could just increase the font-size of all paragraphs to 1.1em. There was no need to worry about accidentally missing anything, because there was no non-paragraph body copy (i.e. lists or tables). But for a bigger site, this would be too specific of a solution. I could easily end up with well-sized paragraphs and—on some forgotten page—a tiny definition list or errant span. So what might a more extensible solution look like?

Easy—we can just bump up the site-wide font-size for everything below a certain breakpoint! Something like:


html {
	font-size: 110%;

	@include breakpoint($breakpoint-s) {
		font-size: 100%;
	}
}

Of course, now our small screen heading sizes are 10 percent too big. Oh man! Good thing we used those mixins, huh?

Thanks to the Sass-based typographic system we established earlier, adjusting those values a second time won’t be so bad. Who knows, we might even be in pretty good shape when those web-enabled holographic refrigerators finally hit the market in 2016.


Read the full article

Mar
14

This week’s sponsor: SkillFeed

Source: A List Apart

Thanks to SkillFeed for sponsoring A List Apart this week. Sharpen your skills, or learn something new, with free access to their tutorials and courses.


Read the full article

Mar
13

On Our Radar: Present Tense

Source: A List Apart

It seems like we’re always anxiously awaiting the future, complications and all. Take the present moment: HTTP/2 is on its way, with intriguing changes for web development; web publishing has never been easier, but Medium’s latest direction is a mixed bag for authors; and our attention is increasingly in demand (and for sale). We’re living in the future, and we’ve got some mixed feelings about that.

Here’s what’s on our radar:

HTTP/2: On the horizon

HTTP/2 is on the horizon, a long-awaited upgrade to the web’s primary protocol. It promises better security and performance, but I’ve been curious about how it will impact development. Fortunately I came across two interesting posts that are a nice introduction to what HTTP/2 does and how it will affect the way we build websites:

Speaking of better performance, have you seen Tim Kadlec’s What Does My Site Cost? If you live in Angola, this page may have cost $0.32 (USD) to download—something you can bet we’ll be taking a hard look at.

Tim Murtaugh, technical director

Mediummm?

Last month, in a long Atlantic piece about the state of writing for the web, Robinson Meyer asked—for, like, the millionth time—“what is Medium, tho?” Is it publisher, or is it platform? Is it both?

Is it “just Tumblr for rich people”?

“All of the above” seems like the most accurate answer after yesterday’s announcement: custom domains for publications. Now, instead of going to medium-dot-com-slash-whatever to get the latest, you might head to cool-url-dot-biz, and find that it’s actually Medium now, too. You can already see this in action with Midcentury Modern. The magazine’s URL is midcenturymodernmag.com, but once you’re there, it’s Medium all the way down.

So what’s this mean for people like us—people who make websites and work with web content? Will publications flock to replace their custom sites with Medium? Probably not. But many organizations that otherwise might have cobbled together a WordPress blog could easily end up launching a Medium publication instead, and I’m not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, Medium’s invested heavily in design and extremely thoughtful typography. It’s great to see so much content written to be read (not to mention discussed and shared). On the other, as both publisher and platform—both the magazine and the paper it’s printed on at the same time—Medium controls everything about how the content published with it is presented, regardless of the URL it ends up on: layout, type, functionality. Does that leave enough space for authors and organizations?

Sara Wachter-Boettcher, editor-in-chief

We’re living in a future predicted 60 years ago

In my youth, old science fiction short story compilations were a mainstay of my summer reading. One story I vividly remember is Frederik Pohl’s “The Midas Plague,” set in a world so rich in stuff that the poor are obliged to consume constantly, while the wealthy can afford emptiness and silence.

I was reminded of that world as I read Matthew Crawford’s “The Cost of Paying Attention.” It becomes even more real in light of Daniel Levitin’s explanation that the brain runs on a daily ration of fuel that is depleted with every target of focus and every decision—and it makes no difference whether they’re important or insignificant.

Attention is a limited and very valuable resource that we have to protect when it’s our own, and respect when it’s our neighbor’s.

Rose Weisburd, columns editor

A gif about: uncertainty

I am having second thoughts.

What about you?

What stories are drawing your attention? Got any posts, pictures, tools, or code you want to share? (We love sharing!) Tweet us what’s on your radar—and what should be on ours.


Read the full article

Mar
12

Nishant Kothary on the Human Web: There Is No Data vs. Intuition

Source: A List Apart

Few things have widened the chasm between data and intuition as much as Marissa Mayer’s infamous matter of the 41 Shades of Blue a few years ago.

For those of you who live under a rock, let me catch you up.

Back when there were just 41 shades

Back in the golden age when Google wasn’t evil, they used two different shades of blue for the hyperlinks in Search and Gmail ads. The decision was made to determine the one true blue, and it was ultimately Mayer’s to make. Her intuition to split the difference between two final contenders left her uneasy. So naturally, she devised a most elaborate A/B test to determine the best blue among 41 different blues.

And then everyone wrote about it. Bowman. Clark. Fast Company. CNET. Gawker. Gigaom. The New York Times. Even I piled on in my own little way. And the verdict that came out at the end of the human centipede was a collective, “Eww, she did what?!”

Taking a page from Kim Kardashian, who recently owned her own narcissism in this (really, quite effective) T-Mobile commercial, Google’s design team themselves embraced and commemorated their data-driven philosophy late last year in the Googliest of ways. In 41 successive tweets they tweeted—you guessed it—those infamous 41 shades of blue. And the 42nd tweet, in classic Google form, a puzzle:

Those first 41 tweets? A salute to our past, and a look toward our future. #41shades #4285F4

— Google Design (@GoogleDesign) October 23, 2014

We have Will Kirkby to thank for bit-shifting his heart to the solution, an inspirational quote: “we seek to synthesize classic principles of good design with the innovation and possibility of technology and science…”

*Slow clap*

All made up but nowhere to go

Judging by the fun and games, it seems like we’ve all made up. As much as I’d love to applaud us all for putting our demons to rest and working it out, it’s hard to ignore the underlying cause of this years-long kerfuffle: the data vs. intuition debate (if I can even call something this dogmatic a debate).

The debacle quietly renewed the old, tired, artificial, and patently false, division between data and intuition. And from where I stand, divided they remain.

Back to square one. Designers vs. Engineers. Emotions vs. Logic. Intuition vs. Data.

So, before it gets too late, let me just get this on the record: if you find yourself arguing at dinner parties that intuition has no place in the decision-making process (have you noticed that nobody ever seems to do the opposite?), well, then first off: stop lying because nobody invites you to dinner parties. But more importantly, I want to do you a solid and tell you that you may be the accidental modern jackass. Because you’re plain wrong.

And there’s a mound of data that supports that.

Data vs. and intuition

If you’re curious about the data supporting the intelligence of the gut, you can start with Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink. But I recommend it with acute awareness of the polarizing effect of referencing Gladwell as a case for science. So before you cut your losses and head back to your timeline, my second recommendation is the source of much of the great research out there on intuition: Gerd Gigerenzer’s very readable treatise on the topic, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. Its extensive bibliography will satiate those of you who want to dive into the p-values of the randomized control trials, while it doubles as a jumping-off point for the topic as a whole.

You don’t have to go very far into the research before you realize something you’ve always known in your gut: that your gut is frikkin’ smart. From catching a flyball to becoming a world-class athlete, from picking winning stocks to dreaming up entirely new markets, the intelligence of the gut is awesome in the truest sense of the word: it draws awe.

But, here’s the thing: data is just as awesome. 

Data has a way of turning a suspicion into a verifiable fact. It has the ability to replace dogma with truth. To provide answers to vexing problems simply with math. As Christian Rudder writes in Dataclysm: Who We Are, “It’s like looking at Earth from space; you lose the detail, but you get to see something familiar in a totally new way.”

Some of you already know where I’m going with all of this: we’re punching ourselves in the, well, gut, by continuing to pit intuition against data. It’s not one or the other. It never has been, and as much as we try to sell the narrative, it never will be. They are both mandatory in sound decision-making (there’s a good book on that, too, by the way).

The fact is that there is no data vs. intuition.

Finally

Ironically, Mayer’s rationale for her design decision—her execution (or its reporting and our understandable reactions) notwithstanding—was actually pretty sound: “Every design starts with an instinct: It should look like this, or it should look like that. You can actually test it with data. The humbling thing about that is sometimes the data proves you wrong. So for every change I propose, you know, three out of four, four out of five the data will support the change.”

And if you’re to believe the press, it was worth $200m a year. But who knows.

Regardless, here’s a thought experiment: can you see an alternate universe where a Jobs-esque genius gets a standing ovation for employing Mayer’s line of reasoning?

Let your gut noodle on that for a bit.

 


Read the full article

Mar
10

Tools for Mobile UX Design: Task Flows

Source: UXMatters

By Steven Hoober

Published: March 9, 2015

“I create a diagram that describes the entire scope of the system from the point of view of the user—considering all touchpoints, all actors, and all storage and delays.”

Recently, a client asked me to do a heuristic evaluation. They had hired another vendor to design an iOS app for one of their divisions, and it was my job to see how well they had done. And I almost failed. It was way, way too hard to evaluate the design, because it was all pages. There was no overall view of the system, no task flow, and only occasionally had they even really defined an interaction.

This is, sadly, typical of our industry today—and one way or another—this is something that I encounter regularly. While mobile UX designers may like to pretend that no design before the iPhone matters, we stick to many of the principles of 1970s graphic design in practice. Just look up almost any UX design pattern library, and you’ll find nothing but screenshots.
Tools for Mobile UX Design: Task Flows

Mar
10

Understanding and Influencing Business

Source: UXMatters

By Liam Friedland

Published: March 9, 2015

“Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.”—Alan W. Watts

Making a Business Case for User Experience

“You should utilize analytical frameworks to understand and describe the business value of the contributions that User Experience brings to the table. You should be able to present a complete business case for user experience to your corporate management.”

Building modern software products is expensive. The design and implementation of a product user experience typically requires 40% of the overall software development cost. Therefore, on a $2 million software development project, building the user experience will require roughly $800,000 of the project budget. This is a non-trivial amount of money. Of course, just designing and building the product is not the end of it. There are the costs of marketing, advertising, and selling the product, as well as the cost of supporting it after its release. The total expense of creating a software product can easily run into millions of dollars.
Understanding and Influencing Business

Mar
10

Winning Over Wary Participants

Source: UXMatters

By Jim Ross

Published: March 9, 2015

“As UX professionals, we represent users. We’re on their side and strive to improve their interactions with technology. This is a noble cause, so we’re justified in feeling like we’re the good guys—and often, people do see us that way.”

As UX professionals, we represent users. We’re on their side and strive to improve their interactions with technology. This is a noble cause, so we’re justified in feeling like we’re the good guys—and often, people do see us that way. They understand the benefits that we provide in making technology easier for them to use. For example, people who are using very cumbersome applications at work may see us as saviors who will deliver them from the drudgery of using terrible systems.

But what happens when your user research participants don’t exactly see it that way? What if they’re distrustful of your motives and suspect your true goals? In such situations, how can you reassure them and win them over?
Winning Over Wary Participants

Mar
10

Conference Review: UX Strategies Summit 2014, Part 1

Source: UXMatters

By Pabini Gabriel-Petit

Published: March 9, 2015

As more and more UX professionals, consultants, agencies, and other businesses embrace the future that is UX strategy, it was inevitable that there would be more conferences focusing on UX strategy, including some from companies whose primary business is organizing conferences. One such conference is the UX Strategies Summit, which is presented by the Global Strategic Management Institute (GSMI). Their goal is to provide conferences and workshops “covering topics that today’s leaders find most challenging and inspiring.” The inaugural UX Strategies Summit took place in San Francisco, California, at the Marines’ Memorial Club & Hotel, spanning three days—June 10–12, 2014—including one day of workshops and two days for the “General Summit.”

Organization

“Overall, this was a well-organized conference.”

Overall, this was a well-organized conference. Since GSMI are professional conference organizers, they did a excellent job on planning, hosting, and running the conference. Following a full day of workshops, the main conference comprised three tracks.
Conference Review: UX Strategies Summit 2014, Part 1

Older posts «