In an economy where the average company finds it tough to not only grow but also sustain, it is worth considering how these brands have observed meteoric rise just within decades.

Besides good business sense and the funding to support expansion, it can be argued that all these brands had a strong focus on localization. For instance, Uber offers localization of services – UberCOPTER in the French Riviera, UberBOAT in Istanbul, and UberAUTO in India. It also launched UberENGLISH, a service designed to book drivers with English language familiarity in non-English speaking nations. Netflix offers localization of content – an extensive library of regional and country-specific content and high-quality dubbed versions and subtitles for international audiences. Airbnb realized early on that log-in preferences vary by region; today, it supports log-in via Google account, Facebook account, and email in the United States, while it provides Weibo and WeChat log-in in China. Yet, their localization strategies go deeper, reflecting a deep cultural understanding and sensitivity across their messaging, branding, and even advertisements.

Such localization that addresses the unique preferences of regional users is perhaps the ultimate hallmark of a global brand.

Why Should You Design for Different Cultures?

The way that certain messages, colors, and images are perceived by a cultural group may differ from the perceptions of another. So, as a brand, how you are viewed in a community will depend on your understanding of their culture and how you mold your messaging to be culture-specific. Communities can also demonstrate unique preferences for both tangible and intangible elements of design that are specific to their socio-cultural and religious identities, histories, and even political leanings. Many of these preferences may exist at a subconscious level, often as a product of unique mental models, decision-making processes, education, or even technological competence. Only by understanding cultures and the way they influence mental programming can brands create a relationship of trust and successfully compete against indigenous brands.

Brands that did not understand or failed to adapt to local preferences have historically struggled to sustain. For instance, eBay, which saw enormous success in the US – struggled to get a foothold in the Chinese market. It is suggested that eBay may have failed to support swift guanxi among Chinese users through instant messaging or other technologies, therefore preventing buyers from interacting with sellers. Such buyer-seller interactions, which are considered crucial for making purchasing decisions, were never encouraged, therefore leading to an erosion of trust.

When Should You Adapt Your Designs for Different Cultures?

Not every business needs to adapt its products for a cross-cultural audience. You may have limited cultural disparity between your target and local audiences, in which case, you do not require cross-cultural adaptation. Or, there may exist cultural differences, but these may not be large enough to warrant localization. In this case, you may offer language options in the product interface and website or provide instruction/product manuals in different languages.

For example, the Maybelline website for South Korea has similar visuals and products to its US counterpart but offers translation in Korean.

If, however, one (or more) of these target groups are a sizeable percentage of your overall audience, you need to offer a localized, culturally-specific product(s) and interface(s). It means that you should translate your content, change currencies, offer preferred sign-in methods, and adapt visuals and metaphors so that the product feels locally produced.

For instance, the IKEA websites for Turkey and South Korea differ in their product showcase, languages, and imageries.

Understanding Cross-Cultural Differences

To adapt your designs for a cultural group, you must first understand the cultural differences between your local and target audience. Understanding these differences would help you to determine to what degree your designs require adaptation.

Here are a few models that underline the differences among cultures.

1. Hofstede’s Cultural-Dimensions Theory

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive frameworks for assessing cultural differences was proposed by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede. This framework defines six dimensions that outline a culture’s mental programming.

• Power distance index: The index quantifies how social inequality is perceived and accepted by those on the lower end of a power spectrum. According to Hofstede, high power distance cultures accept hierarchical orders and authority whereas, low power distance cultures strive to equalize power imbalances and accept authority based on true expertise.
• Individualism vs. Collectivism: This dimension reflects the degree to which a society thinks from an “I” or “we” mentality. Individualist cultures are loosely-knit groups where individuals act in their interests and make their own decisions. In contrast, collectivist cultures are tight-knit groups that act in the interests of the collective and make decisions based on the opinions of others.
• Masculinity vs. Femininity: Masculine societies tend to demonstrate a preference for achievement, material success, and assertiveness. Alternatively, feminine cultures prioritize cooperation and collaboration, avoids conflict, and prefer a high quality of life.
• Uncertainty Avoidance: This dimension reflects the degree to which a society accepts new ideas or unorthodox behavior. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance are resistant to change and prefer familiarity over unfamiliarity and practice over principles. Whereas in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, individuals take more risks and are more willing to try something new.
• Long-term vs. Short-term Normative Orientation: This dimension measures the ease with which societies adopt change. Cultures with long-term orientation are pragmatic in their approach. They believe that traditions can be adapted as per context and time, and they take decisions for the long term. On the other hand, short-term orientation cultures live in the present, maintain social codes and traditions, and do not worry about the future.
• Indulgence vs. Restraint: This dimension measures the degree to which individuals curb their impulses and wants. While indulgent cultures are more willing to accept the uninhibited satisfaction of human needs, restrained cultures set diktats that prohibit the gratification of needs.

To see how different cultures differ on the six dimensions, you can use the country comparison tool. A comparison between the two nations – Austria and Vietnam – on Hofstede’s scale is shown below.

If your domestic audience is based in Austria, and you want to provide localized content for the target audience in Vietnam, then, based on Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions, you must adapt your interface for higher power distance, collectivism, femininity, low uncertainty avoidance, and restraint. The reverse is true if your domestic audience is based in Vietnam.

2. Hall’s Cultural Context Model

Proposed by the American anthropologist Edward T. Hall, the cultural context model examines the relative importance of context in communication for different cultural groups. Low context cultures prefer information that is direct, explicit, and without ambiguity. This is because such cultures are more individualistic, and there is little expectation to understand each other’s histories and experiences. In contrast, high context cultures are collectivist societies with a preference for community harmony over individual achievement. In such cultures, communication is more subtle and context-driven, and emphasis is placed on the understanding of non-verbal relational cues.

While there are several other models for understanding cultural differences, it is important to understand that cultural models only suggest areas of inquiry to understand the current differences among populations. Cultural characteristics are fluid, and therefore the observations made in the past will hardly be relevant to modern audiences. So, instead of making stereotypical conclusions based on primitive observations, it is advisable to engage in active user profiling and research.

Adapting Designs Based on Cultural Differences

Assuming that the understanding of cultural differences is current and based on research, it is now possible to adapt designs based on an understanding of how communication, colors, symbols, and designs will be perceived by the target audience. To do this, we will compare two university websites, one from Austria and the other from Vietnam, and observe how cultural differences are manifest through design.

1. High Power Distance vs. Low Power Distance

For high power distance cultures, interfaces should be designed for easy navigation and quick information access. Applying religious and nationalistic themes, demonstrating expertise, and using figures of social or national importance can help engage such audiences.

For instance, on the official website for Vietnam National University, the university ranking in the World University Rankings is given precedence over everything else. It is aimed to relay a sense of authority and earn the visitor’s trust.

For low power distance cultures, informal organizational structures with visual elements that are universal or of popular appeal are favored. Communication must be informal but direct. For example, on the official website for the University of Vienna, the images show students and their stories upfront, rather than relying on reputation or University rankings. It is noteworthy that Vietnam has a power distance of 70 against Austria’s 11 on Hofstede’s scale.

2. Individualism vs. Collectivism

When designing for individualistic cultures, information on how the product or service benefits individuals or helps them succeed must be delivered. Themes signifying achievement, youth, vitality, and materialism can be utilized.

The University of Vienna site has a dedicated blog called “Humans of University of Vienna,” focused on student stories and achievements. Almost all these stories focus on the individual rather than the team.

For collectivist societies, information that reflects how the product or service benefits the cultural group must be delivered. Themes surrounding community harmony and peace and visuals focused on history and tradition work well with such audiences. It is best to provide feedback elements, such as social media sharing options, reviews, or “popular” categories, to help them with their decision-making.

There is a strong focus on team achievements throughout the website for Vietnam National University, as shown in the image below.

3. Masculinity vs. Femininity

Interface designs for masculine societies should be of high functionality, allowing exploration and easy control while driving the quick realization of goals. The content must make a clear distinction between age groups and genders. Incentives and reward systems can be employed to grab interest.

Austria scores higher on the masculinity index than Vietnam. Note how the University content is categorized so that visitors get what they are looking for without exploring the whole website.

Interfaces designed for feminine cultures need to be engaging, offer positive experiences through visual aesthetics, and support collaboration and exchange of ideas. It is vital that such interfaces are gender-neutral and designed to suggest a blurring of gender roles.

The Vietnam National University website allows visitors to leave comments and feedback across different pages, as in the image below. This was not observed for the University of Vienna website.

4. High Uncertainty Avoidance vs. Low Uncertainty Avoidance

Interfaces aimed at high uncertainty avoidant cultures must look official and professional. They must offer simple navigation, prevent users from getting lost, and avoid user errors. Such interfaces must provide limited menu options and provide information in a simple structured way without ambiguity. Content must be language and culture-specific to drive familiarity, while visuals and colors that reinforce the messaging must be applied.

Austria scores higher on uncertainty avoidance compared to Vietnam. The Austrian website offers an organized footer with helpful links and a sitemap to prevent visitors from getting lost. On clicking, the different sections are further segregated to provide visitors with the information they seek.

Interfaces for low uncertainty avoidant audiences may be complex, offer several menu options, and support exploration. Designs and visuals may be more cutting-edge, and images and colors that drive meaning and interpretation may be applied.

The footer in the Vietnam National University website provides the main categories. The information in each section is less organized than in the University of Vienna example.

5. Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

The interface for an audience with long-term orientation must support the presentation of relevant and detailed information with clear benefits and in a way that is convincing but unhurried. Content and visuals must serve the information sought. UI elements, such as wishlists and social media sharing options must be provided so that users can revisit the site.

For short-term orientation cultures, design the UX for a quick achievement of goals. Use shortcuts and clear CTAs to take immediate action. Avoid complex navigation and browsing and provide only relevant and useful images and links.

Austria and Vietnam are almost similar in their normative orientation scale. Both host prominent social media sharing options. The University of Vienna website also contains quick links and supports quick browsing, as evident in the earlier examples.

6. Indulgence vs. Restraint

When designing for an indulgent audience, you must offer more options and categories to choose from and purchase. Showing related items and offers and providing freebies are other ways to cater to such an audience.

The images and content in the “Life at Uni” and “Humans of University of Vienna” convey a sense of casualness and fun that signify the autonomy of students.

For a restrained audience, it is advisable to limit the number of options and show ways to save money through discounts. Further, information on corporate social responsibility helps to engage such audiences.

Images and the tone and presentation of content on the Vietnam National University website conveyed seriousness and reserve. There was limited focus on the inner lives of students on campus.

7. High-Context vs. Low-Context

Interfaces for high-context cultures may have complex architectures with multiple sidebars and menus that encourage exploration. Heavy use of images and banners is also typical of such interfaces. Images that elicit emotions or highlight collectivist principles, such as featuring the use of products by other individuals, are used. Communication is polite and more nuanced.

Since Vietnam scores higher than Austria in collectivism, we can assume that Vietnam is a high-context culture. The news page on the Vietnam National University website is prolific with images and banners. There is also an emphasis on social activities, community building, scholarships, and trade union news.

The principles of individualistic cultures guide the design of low-context culture interfaces. Navigation is simple with limited menu and sidebar options, and images and links are fewer. Communication is explicit and precise, and images that signify personal accomplishment are used.

Since Austria scores high on individualism relative to Vietnam, it should have a low-context culture. The news page for the University of Vienna website is far simpler than the Vietnamese website, with fewer banners, images, and categories. There is a greater focus on scientific content than community news.

Understanding Limitations

While cultural models provide a framework for understanding cultures and making design adaptations, these are largely inadequate in addressing the cultural nuances of individuals and subgroups. This is because the boundaries of culture are impossible to confine within geographical or national borders. Many cultures and subcultures may exist in the same region with marked differences making such models reflective of averages at best—further, culture changes with time and over generations. The impact of factors outside the individual and the community, such as education, the use of technology, the political and legal frameworks, or interaction with other cultural groups, are also important parameters that would define the relationship of your target audience with technology or their perception of usability.

However, these models can offer psychological insights to inform the design process. The ideal strategy, therefore, is to apply the understanding of cultural differences as broad principles but drive cross-cultural UX with a true understanding of cultures derived through in-depth research and cultural immersion.

The Essential Design Elements That You Must Get Right

Charles Eames said,

“The details are not the details. They make the design.”

Nowhere is this truer than in cross-cultural design, for true localization lies in the details.

There are certain elements of design that you must nail to get localization right.

1. You must get geopolitical details right, especially when using maps with disputed territories. In many religions, certain foods may be prohibited at specific times or around the year, while in others, norms around dressing may exist. The messaging and imageries used must be sensitive to all such cultural, religious, social, or geopolitical sentiments.
2. Different cultures interpret colors differently and the significance associated with colors in one culture may differ significantly from another. To ensure effective localization, ensure that you adapt colors to suit the cultural sensibilities of your target audience.
3. Like colors, symbols are also subject to culture-specific interpretations. When adapting your design for a cross-cultural audience, ensure that the symbols used are familiar and drives the right meaning.
4. On translation, text lengths may change. To ensure minimal changes to the UI after translation, ensure ample padding for your design elements. Further, languages can have both horizontal and vertical alignment. While most languages with horizontal alignment read from left to right, others like Arabic and Persian read from right to left. For all such orientations, the correct placement of text, images, and CTAs should be ensured.
5. Sometimes perfection lies in the detail. For instance, when designing a form, allow users the flexibility to insert special characters, or a wider space to type a longer name. You should also be mindful of the different formats for date and phone numbers, the metric systems used, and currency and conversions.

The Takeaway

In today’s globalized world, for a business to make its presence felt outside the home turf, it must form a relationship of trust with its audience. Design can be a powerful tool to build this trust, but it must be guided by an understanding of the audience and their cultural identities. Cultural models help suggest the mental maps of the target cultural group based on an analysis of cultural differences. However, culture models must only be used as principles to guide audience research, for it takes much more to design nuanced and inclusive UX that is not only respectful and empathetic but also usable. The latter can only be achieved with in-depth UX research and cultural immersion.

The post Cross-Cultural Design: Designing for Global Audiences appeared first on UX Mastery.

When it comes to Voice UI there’s a lot of conversation around voices, but very little around personality—whether or not we want to describe it as a personality—that we’re creating. How trustworthy should that personality be? Where should there be a natural boundary? We need to bridge the gap between people talking about Artificial Intelligence (AI) both as a tool, as well as a potential force for evil in the world.

Designers as leaders

As designers, there’s a challenge around how we influence and tell stories, and how we connect with our business partners about “here’s why we shouldn’t do this”, and we might tell it in terms that they understand. 

There’s also a conceit among designers that we are somehow more empathetic or more ethical than our counterparts in other business disciplines; that somehow our motivations are different and inherently virtuous. I disagree, people are people, and there are plenty of brilliant jerks in the design industry with serious EQ deficits. 

I do believe designers are uniquely valuable, but that value is based on how we approach and solve problems, and that is what’s special. 

Telling stories allows design to connect dots across experiences in ways other business disciplines don’t. What we don’t do well is getting outside of our little studio enclaves and connecting those stories to outcomes, measurements and impact that business and engineering leaders can understand. Where voice is concerned, we need to take the shine off the technology and work with our partners to establish principles and ‘red lines’ we are unwilling to cross in the products we create.

Social Reciprocity vs. Voice UI

On some level voice design exploits a natural cognitive bias. Talking to a computer can make technology easier to use, but creating that illusion of a human personality opens up considerations for how “trustworthy” should that “person” be? Voice agents that seem like intelligent people are passively acting on unspoken, unconscious social expectations, like reciprocity. When I say “hello” to Alexa my unconscious expectation is that she reciprocate with “hello”. Humans consider it “rude” not to respond in most circumstances, but our rational side asks “how can a computer appliance be rude”?

I believe it’s important for designers that create voice interfaces consider not just how to respond to user input, but to imagine what a trustworthy person would do with the information they share. Designers need to sharpen abilities that go beyond craft. It’s not ok to just envision these experience or tell idealistic stories or cautionary tales about doing the right thing, we need to accept responsibility for what gets shipped from an ethical standpoint and pick battles we might lose. Ultimately we’re part of the decision on what’s in the best interest of the user, especially when they speak with a computer like a trusted friend and aren’t considering the implications of what they say in their home.

Those are considerations that we took seriously when we were working on Alexa. For example, if you say “Alexa, I love you”, Alexa will answer “Thanks. It’s good to be appreciated.” What should Alexa’s reaction be? Getting “friend-zoned” by a talking beer can is off-putting.

Can you imagine saying I love you for the first time to someone and them saying, “Oh, you’re a good friend.” 

That’s disconcerting. But is that an ethical response on the part of Amazon?

I would argue yes, because you’re not creating this expectation of emotional intimacy – at least not to the degree that might distort somebody’s view of the system and exploit their trust. I think, something people are beginning to consider as the novelty wears off, is how much of what we talk about is being recorded and remembered for later?

A diesel engine in a steam-powered age

I also happen to believe that we (as a society) anthropomorphize AI, and that AI doesn’t work in any way, shape or form like the brain. The idea that AI is going to be this super intelligence, able to do everything better than humans isn’t accurate or realistic. AI is just a set of tools. It’s a diesel engine in a steam-powered age. It does some things better, but its utility is limited. For example, I’ll take a big stupid dog from the local shelter over the most advanced, AI-powered security system for my home.

What we’re really doing is letting the humans that are making the decisions about what that AI does off the hook by ascribing human characteristics to a tool.

So this notion that we’re going to have this symbiotic relationship with AI, I think we’ll actually have a set of tools that can increase human potential, but I don’t believe we’ll have something that’s going to replace or co-evolve with us. That’s not the way computers really work. Right now AI seems amazing in the same way that my grandparents were fascinated by airplanes 100 years ago. 

Visual cues and trust in Voice UI

I think for a version 1 product, Amazon did a very good job with the initial echo. They got a lot of the details right. A lot of their assumptions were wrong. The product was almost successful despite what they thought it was going to be great at.

I know the team that came up with things like the sound library or the way the device lights up when you use the wake word. Those details are very intentional and they are directly tied to the trust and transparency the team committed to from the beginning. 

People knock on Amazon for being this death star type company, but it’s probably the most ethical company I’ve ever worked with—you just might not agree with their ethics. 

With Alexa, there should never be any ambiguity as to when the device is listening. It is listening all the time on a 15-second loop for the wake word, but it is not connected to the internet or retaining what is said when those lights are off.

When it is connected to the internet, those lights turn on. They show which direction the device is listening in, and when its processing what has been said. The user always knows when the device is listening, when it’s searching for your voice, and when what you are saying is being recorded and streamed over the internet.

Those sorts of details are important and model expected interactions between people when they are communicating. 

Devices leveraging human potential  

Our bias towards human interaction gives objects such as Alexa an agency that they don’t actually have. On some level, we assume Alexa is our invisible friend that lives inside the device. But Alexa isn’t our friend—it’s a web service that’s mostly a search engine housed inside an object covered in microphones. In my opinion the only healthy relationship you can actually have with these devices is as a way to do things for you, or to help you connect with other humans.

One of my favorite papers from graduate school was by Mark Wiser, the father of ubiquitous computing. His vision, back in the late eighties, was that a new age of computing would connect people in more meaningful ways by removing distractions from their lives; ousting the bits of life that suck or are annoying. A Roomba is a great example of this. I don’t have one, but my wife would love to because kids are a roaming disaster zone, plus we have a dog. The Roomba isn’t durable enough for our horde, but a device that intelligently takes care of the vacuuming would be great. It would free us from a tedious task, and we wouldn’t have to feel guilty about the rugs looking like a bar floor at closing time.

That’s a great application of robotics and AI or machine learning. It’s not really AI, but I think those scenarios are where the opportunities are.

As designers, we can train ourselves not to think about a particular solution or technology as inevitable. We can refocus the opportunity back onto ‘how do we help humans be the most authentic, best versions of themselves by removing the  shitty, tedious bits from daily life?’

In contrast, right now technology still competes with some of the best things in life, such as spending time with our kids.

Fear mongering in Voice UI

It’s popular for people to warn against the dangers of Voice UI, but there’s a bit of fear mongering that goes with it. I find it helpful to bring those conversations back to a more thoughtful place that balances risks and benefits. History can be a useful teacher here. 

Designers and technologists have a tendency to only look at the future, rather than problems in the past that are echoing the questions we’re wrestling with today. We will always have those moments of angst and horror where innovation and unintended consequences collide with the real world. Rather than blaming the technology—which is a tool—we need to also anticipate where human decisions applied to technology might go badly wrong. “Move fast and break things” is an incredibly irresponsible motto when you’re brokering interactions between billions of people every day.

Using addiction science to hook people onto your product so they look at more ads is objectively sociopathic. It’s not the fault of the technology. The people who designed Facebook and optimized its engagement model made those decisions.

I’m sorry, but you can’t employ techniques known to cause mental health issues and then ask “how did we get here?!” or shrug and blame users for their lack of self-control when you intentionally designed the system to work that way. That’s like blaming two-hundred thousand deaths in World War II on nuclear weapons when it was human beings making the decisions and giving orders to use pursue that technology. The outcomes in both cases were completely predictable and easily anticipated. Technology isn’t good or evil, but human decisions—especially short-sighted decisions—certainly are.

Adopting a new stance in response to technological changes 

We made a lot of mistakes in the early days when designing for mobile devices, especially on the web. We were experimenting and failing a lot with patterns and with approaches to software. As we became more familiar with what these devices were actually good at, our thinking and philosophies evolved. How should using a computer that fits in your hand change?

Now that we have voice-first experiences, which are very different from capacitive touch. The two technologies are good at very different things, but a lot of voice experiences are designed with the same assumptions inherited from the mobile phone context. The experience morphs to the affordances of the device that you’re using.

What makes voice design particularly dangerous right now is that we don’t have a way for users to control what these systems remember. On your phone, you have the ability to turn off or block certain services. You have to choose what different apps have access to. There’s no way for users to choose how much information they’re willing to give away in exchange for completing an interaction. 

The missing piece for AI is that right now there are very few protections for the user. As an analogy, these early days of Voice UI are like the days of the internet before anti-virus software or web certificates; we’re entirely dependent on the goodwill and trustworthiness of companies that are incentivized to profit from our behavior. When we start creating voice agents that seem human, and sound trustworthy, how do I protect myself from being manipulated? Would customers be willing to pay for an agent where they can control it’s goals and limitations? I think it would be very useful to have a trustworthy digital assistant that can warn me when I’m about to share more information than I intended. 

I’d love a version of Alexa that said “Those terms of use are really invasive, and they want a lot of information you don’t normally share. Don’t sign up for that.

Trust in Internet of Things and devices

Has the trust in the Internet of Things (IoT) and devices changed? I think it depends on the ‘thing’. IoT light switches: do I care that much? Probably not. All they really do is turn things on and off. But for customers I think there’s a gradient of convenience versus privacy and trust. 

The business opportunities that companies go after in IoT are generally riskier, more complicated, and less useful than they appear. Consider an IoT light bulb: it simply doesn’t work when the internet is down. That is a very expensive broken light bulb. Only a tech company can take something so straightforward and charge a customer a hundred bucks to make it less useful. When it works, it’s kind of cool, but it takes more than a second for the light to go off. That’s an interesting science fair project, but kind of a terrible product.

In my exchange for that less-useful lightswitch, the company is probably also monitoring how often I’m turning my lights on and off. Am I okay with that? Why do they need to know that information?  There’s a saying in the industry right now that “data is the new oil of the digital economy”. Regardless of whether that is true, consider the implications. When are you drilling on someone else’s land? And should you perhaps be asking permission first? Companies have assumed a lot of power over your data. Are we willing to just give it away for a lightbulb we can turn on with our voice? 

Companies like Apple and Microsoft have made pretty strong commitments to user privacy and that’s likely to be an ongoing part of their brand. It’s going to take them a while to truly achieve that, but it’s a major strategic advantage in the face of companies like Google and to a lesser extent Amazon. I trust Amazon more than I do the other companies, but that’s probably my personal bias and knowing how it works on the inside.

Refocusing the conversation

This issue is ultimately about refocusing the conversation around humans, and not the technology. The humans are why it works, they are why it exists. Alexa has no opinions or preferences. It only speaks when spoken to. The “AI” is entirely latent until a human activates it. I don’t believe that’s something to be afraid of. I think the ethical consideration needs to be applied to human decisions and how the tech will be used and abused. We mustn’t violate the trust of users when they react to a voice in a human way, because that’s the way we’re all wired. There’s simply a responsibility that goes with designing for that.

The post The Ethical Considerations, Trust, and Responsibility in Designing Voice UI appeared first on UX Mastery.

I suspect people will be paying more attention to it in the near future, since the story’s events happen over the 4th and 5th of August in 2026—only seven years in the future as I sit writing this article. At the moment, the U.S. is “only” at war with Afghanistan, drugs, and reason, and yet most of us would still be surprised if by that date our cities had been reduced to green, glowing piles of rubble with fully-automated houses in the exurbs. Also, all three of the Allendale, Californias are near where I live, so I really hope this stays fiction.

Despite my love for it, I must admit that some aspects of this story ring false for modern readers. Some of the technological paradigms are outdated. Could it be updated to engage and challenge readers once again?

Admittedly, as a writer I’m no Ray Bradbury, but I happen to have done reviews of speculative technology for the past 7 or so years, and am in a good position to provide a critique. I’ve also been practising interaction design for 25 years so am in a good place to make suggestions. Together, the following changes might make the story more internally consistent and bring it in to line with the modern state of tech. So, let’s imagine that we were going to pen a speculative update of the story. What follows are thoughts for that update.

Note that I’m not merely interested in the design of a smart home. That’s a fine goal per se, but here I want to make improvements to the story’s speculative technology in a way that keeps the essence of the story—and its themes—intact.

Let’s begin by dispensing with some small recommendations about the tech. Stuff like:

• If you set the alarm earlier, the prompts won’t need to be so urgent, like the haranguing, “off to school, off to work, run, run, eight-one!”
• Maybe have the house re-route uneaten food to a compost rather than just dumping it directly into the sea. (Were the 1950s that lackadaisical about the environment?)
• Don’t have the sprinklers running while it’s raining. That’s a waste of water.
• Have the garage door open only if someone is actually in the car. We’ll talk more about security in a bit.
• Or, hey, if you can automate breakfast, how about automatic bill payment? Or automating feeding of the dog? I understand that the internet wasn’t available in the mid-century this was written, but as long as you’re imagining narrow-AI lectors in the study…
• Replace references to “film tapes” and “attic brains” and the like with modern equivalents like “on-prem data backups” and “computer.”
• It seems a mismatch that the man’s silhouette was of him mowing a lawn, when it later mentions that the house has “remote control” lawn mowers. Perhaps omit reference to the latter, or have the man doing something else. He owns Picassos, after all, and may not be the lawn-mowing type.

So, okay. Those quick-hits conveyed, let’s move on to some bigger topics.

Let’s humanize the industrial design

Let’s talk style of the industrial design. I know the point of the story is to illustrate how horrible all this automation is, but I must say the style choices seem over-the-top. Let’s not have the incinerator look like an ancient archdemon. Let’s not have the little mice Roombas seem angry for having to do their jobs. Let’s not design the fire suppression nozzles to look like “blank robot faces.”

Pareidolia is a real phenomenon, and when you invoke a face in your design, users cannot help but respond appropriately. I’d rather omit the faces from the design altogether, but if you must have it, how about making these faces positive? If the story is really going for bleakness, how much worse is a system that looks delightful and usable, but is actually horrifying? Think Hello Kitty murderbots.

Style is also conveyed through the behavior of systems, not just the surfaces. By having the windows snap shut at the mere brush of a bird wing, you’re making the place sterile at best and anxiety-producing at worst. If, narratively, you want the owners to have been germophobes/mysophobics, then indicate in the story somewhere that things are adhering to user preferences. Something like,

“…in the owner’s quirky preoccupation with self-protection, which bordered on paranoia…”

Otherwise, who would have bought the damned thing in the first place?

Let’s use modern authentication

That same paragraph in the story reminds me of a note about authentication. It implies that all that’s needed to enter the house is a spoken password. While that does J.R.R. Tolkien and the Doors of Durin proud, neither the Mines of Moira nor our fictional house are secure from interlopers with single-factor authentication. What if the wrong person gets the password?

Two-factor authentication is the modern standard, requiring something the user knows, and something the user either is or possesses. Face recognition is rightly being vilified in civic infrastructure and police technology at the moment, but I think it’s still okay for speculative dystopias. So, in our revised story, the house should not ask passing foxes for passwords, but instead register the image recognition algorithm’s high confidence that the visitors it has detected are neither people nor the family dog, and so does not ask for authorization.

Let’s prioritize safety scenarios

Let’s talk safety. There are some simple interventions we should include, like adding chimney caps so sparks don’t spread fire along the conveyor belt of convecting air there. Maybe fire resistant sleeves for the wiring so it doesn’t curl up in the fire? I know Bradbury was writing from the era of knob-and-tube wiring, but I’m sure fire marshals would not approve today. Bradbury used the imagery of curling wires to illustrate the destruction of the house’s computer infrastructure, so let’s replace it with the mice sensors curling up and frying from the heat.

Oh, and one note for believability: The lowest melting point of copper-alloys like bronze is around 850°C (1562° F), which is higher than the 593°C measured in a common house fire. So maybe swap out the housing of the speculative “attic brain” for a tin alloy. Or a plastic. We’re lousy with that stuff nowadays. Also, computers are now small enough to fit inside a protective black box, so you’d have to find some way to explain why it’s all exposed to the fire.

While the house is in panic mode, the second thing it should do (after first trying to alert the inhabitants) is to alert service professionals. Sick dog detected and owners nowhere to be found? The house should try to contact the veterinarian. Fire breaking out? The house should try to contact the fire department. Sure, in the story these professionals are also smears of carbon by the time the fire happens, but we show the house trying, so it doesn’t look like it doesn’t know what the internet is.

Quick note: It’s a bad idea to keep flammables above heat sources or electrical appliances. The story wouldn’t be the same without the conflagration, so we need something else to start it. I have an idea how the dog might start it (see below) but the original reasoning only illustrates careless chemical storage rather than a dehumanizing automation.

Let’s add contextual awareness

Why doesn’t the house know the people are missing? Sure, it’s dramatic, but it makes the house look… well… dumb. If it can detect the dog by voiceprint, as it does, and has enough natural language understanding that it can understand arbitrary spoken poem titles, as it does, it should at the very least be able to detect that the occupants have gone silent. Even the nursery seems to recognize the context of the fire, when the VR animals stampede. But the house still thinks there are people there, so continues preparing food and bridge games and cigars?

And this is only with the tech Bradbury describes directly in the text. I’d be surprised if such a house didn’t have sensors to note that bathwater is going unused, doors aren’t being opened and closed, and none of the food is being eaten. (If just by weight of the plates before and after the meal.) The most reasonable inference that the computer should make is that nobody’s home, and to not waste food, water, energy, or cigars.

You might think that thermonuclear war is an edge case scenario, but people being not in the house doesn’t depend on a cataclysm. This could just be envisioned as the vacation scenario, or the family being away for an emergency, like an earthquake. It’s set in California, after all.

Let’s stop thinking in terms of automation

I can see how the whole story seems like a critique of the notion of technology. But let me counter that by suggesting this is really about bad design of technology. It’s designed as automation, and that’s the real problem. Systems built to work with humans should entail humane interactions with those humans. Automation is rarely the right answer.

If we’re going to realize the value of modern technology—to have it do work for us—we must find something between the states of manual and automatic. Which leads me to a mode of interaction that I wrote a book about. I have dubbed the mode of interaction “agentive,” to distinguish it from “assistant” technologies. I’d assert that if we rethink the house with agentive concepts, you can still imply it had a good, human-centric design. “Agentive” is not a concept I expect you to know already, but read below for where to find out more about it.

Closer

Thinking in these terms might make for a number of changes in a modernization of the story.

• The alarm can still go off, but a little bit earlier.
• The house can still clean itself. Roombas are a favorite example of agentive tech, and the little mice are like small, swarming versions of that.
• The industrial design should simply acknowledge technology, and not to try to invoke Baal or Moloch directly.
• Make a note somewhere that the house shoos away birds as per the homeowner’s preferences.
• The house should poll its sensors and sensor records for new evidence that its humans have returned.
• Maybe it can automatically compost the ingredients that have spoiled since last check, and send out an order for replacements, along with a note of frustration that the last order was not fulfilled.
• The dog still gets in because it’s authorized, but the house notices the dog’s poor health and attempts to call the vet. Noting the critical situation, the house would override the owner’s preferences—perhaps they preferred to feed the dog themselves—and start to make the pancakes for it.
• It allows the dog access into the kitchen.
• The dog is starving and can’t wait for the food to finish being prepared, so tries to get the food directly off the stove, which starts the fire.
• The house should try to contact the long-gone fire department.
• The house should keep recommending contextual fire safety and escape tips as it burns sadly to the ground. (Yes, even though it can’t detect that people are there—this would be smart in case the sensors were wrong.)

With these speculative changes, the story would tell a sad tale of a system that is well designed, but still going through its routines and doing its best to serve masters who are no longer there, right down to the final moments as it all comes crashing down.

If you want to learn more about the agentive concepts that I’ve mentioned, Rosenfeld Media publishes my book where you can learn more.

The post Design Notes for Ray Bradbury’s Ghost appeared first on UX Mastery.

Body language experts Barbara and Allan Pease have been researching this domain for over thirty years. In their book, The Definitive Book of Body Language, they reveal what many of us fail to recognise and understand when others try to communicate with us.

The Mirror Neuron

Research has identified a Mirror Neuron which attributes this behaviour to a physiological phenomenon. We are wired to mimic the reactions of those we interact with on a daily basis.

Unsurprisingly, scientists call this effect mirroring. It also works the other way around—a frown may yield a frown from the other party. Researcher Ulf Dimberg conducted experiments on 120 volunteers, measuring their facial muscle activity while viewing pictures of both happy and angry faces. When told to do the opposite of the pictures (e.g. smile while looking at a picture of an angry person) their facial twitching suggested that they were unconsciously trying to mirror the same reaction as the picture they were viewing, even though they were told to do the opposite.

While smiles are infectious, so are frowns and angry faces. After a long gruelling day of research it’s important for us as researchers to put on a happy face as best we can, even if it pains us to do so. Any hint of discontent might rub the participant the wrong way, making them feel bad or, even worse, neglected.

Strategic Gestures

Strategically smiling—knowing that the participant will likely smile back—sounds like you might be leading them, the way you are told not to when running a research session. But the tendency for humans to mirror one another’s gestures is so powerful that whether you remain neutral-faced or smiling, you’ll be leading them regardless.

The last thing you want a participant to do is to tell you what you want to hear. As a moderator, one of your primary goals is to make your participant feel comfortable enough to speak their mind about “the good, the bad, the ugly.” Gesturing positively builds the rapport required to get them feeling more at ease. Ultimately this will enable them to provide more truthful (and useful) information than they would if they were not relaxed.

Smiles reveal deeper aspects of human emotions. Not all smiles are created equal. Body language experts Barbara and Allan Pease describe 5 different types of smiles. Each of these has a different MO. Two of these smiles in particular may be useful to identify to help redirect UX research sessions.

The tight-lipped smile

The tight-lipped smile is when a person’s lips are stretched tight across their face in a straight line concealing their teeth. When you see this smile, there is a good chance that the person has a secret that they are unwilling to share with you.

During a UX research session, when you encounter this gesture, you might want to ask gently: “is there anything else you would like to share with me that you haven’t already mentioned?” This last part is important. It implies that as a keen observer you suspect there is something else that they are reluctant to share with you. Always reassure them whatever they share with you will not go beyond the research project.

Consider meeting them at their level by mirroring their facial gestures. This will demonstrate empathy for their situation. They will feel like they are being heard and understood. Making gestures that oppose their own could run the risk of coming across as antagonistic and apathetic. If they are smiling, you smile. If they are frowning, then frown with slight concern demonstrating your empathy and willingness to listen. Worst case scenario, they reject your request. Best case, they feel more comfortable sharing.

Always be mindful of them trying to please you as you empathise with their cause. Revert to a neutral stance whenever you feel like you are losing the candour from mirroring them.

The drop-jaw smile

Another common type of smile you may come across is the drop-jaw smile. This smile involves the person deliberately dropping their jaw to give the impression to others that they are laughing or are happy. It is commonly used by politicians to get votes, or actors to get a laugh from their audience. The drop-jaw smile is intended to get a positive reaction from its recipient.

One of the things I insert into my research protocols before beginning the main parts of my interview guide is requesting the participant tells me what they see, think and feel, not what they think I want to hear. Participants who deliver a drop-jaw smile might be trying to tell you what you want to hear. When you see this gesture during a session, do a sanity check with your participant. Make sure what they are telling you is their opinion and not someone else’s. They might say something like: well, I think people in my field would love to have a feature like this! Redirect and make the conversation about them: while it’s interesting to know that others would use this. How about you? How would you use a feature like this in your daily work?

Micro-gestures can tell us how a person really feels

According to body language experts it is very difficult to fake body language for long periods of time. Eventually the truth reveals itself in the form of micro-gestures. These are the body’s unconscious actions revealing themselves as a person’s conscious effort to conceal their authentic self weakens. It might be pupil dilation, facial muscle twitching, accelerated blinking, sweating, blushing, a momentary sneer. Research has shown that these micro-gestures occur within a split second and are very difficult to catch. As elusive as they are, the may provide some flag to a researcher that further investigation might be warranted.

During UX research sessions, look for changes in facial expressions.

Those brief flashes of concern or stress that sail across their face disappearing (as fast as they showed up) might suggest they may have more to share. It might be a pain point that could provide insight for your research effort,or an interesting anecdote that reveals an insight for your final report. Tread carefully though. Don’t acknowledge that you’ve picked up on the cue. Use it as a speed-bump to slow down. Wait for them to come forward with more info if they feel like it. Embrace any awkward silences that come your way. Those deliberate pauses give their micro-gestures a chance to breathe.

Understanding your participant’s body language ultimately allows you to build a better rapport and achieve a deeper level of empathy. View the signals offered up by gestures as opportunities to broaden your view of their reality and gain insights for your research.

References;

Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., Elmehed, K., “Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions,” Psychological Science 11 (2000).

Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2006). The Definitive Book of Body Language. New York: Bantam Dell Pub Group.

The post Understanding Body Language In UX Research Part II appeared first on UX Mastery.

This will give you an enhanced awareness of what to look for so that a potentially wasteful session could make for a more productive one…

A participant that you’ve been moderating a session with is sitting upright with his ankles locked next to you. His fingers are interlocked and his lips pursed. He answers your question with a head nod reassuringly, but succinctly, “Yeah sure. I’d use this tool if it were available to me.”

As soon as he finishes speaking he begins to scratch the back of his neck. He touches his nose.

In this example, should we believe what the participant is saying? Is he being forthright? He nodded his head, didn’t he? But what did he mean by scratching his neck? Maybe he was just anxious. Maybe he wasn’t. It’s very difficult to tell based on all of his gestures. You will soon find out there is more to reading body language than looking at a couple of gestures.

According to body language experts Allan and Barbara Pease, authors of The Definitive Book of Body Language, gestures must be viewed in combinations called clusters in order to be accurately interpreted; the context of these gestures also need to be considered.

The everyday gestures that we use are windows into how we are truly feeling. They give us suggestions as to whether or not someone is lying or telling the truth, interested or bored, stressed or relaxed, feeling intimidated or wanting to intimidate.

Most of the time when doing in-person UX research sessions, we ignore body language in favour of the spoken word.

As a UX researcher I admittedly spend much more time listening to the words of participants rather than reading their body language. When we listen to their opinions we try to assess whether they are truthful. Observing their actions also helps us evaluate their credibility. Reading the words on a page gets easier as we age, interpreting body language doesn’t; we get stuck in the learning stage of what psychologist Martin Broadwell calls unconscious incompetence.

It tends to get nestled into our unconscious mind, making itself inaccessible and upstaged by what we hear. We simply don’t know what to do with the information. We might visually recognise that a person is reacting to something we say but we don’t necessarily invest enough time interpreting whether these gestures actually mean anything.

Should we? Some would argue that we shouldn’t. But several studies have shown that we can reliably improve our understanding. Can we use what we learn from reading someone’s cluster of gestures to our advantage when it comes to moderating UX research sessions?

Two research-based insights that have important implications for moderating UX research sessions are:

• A persons gestures and emotions bidirectionally influence one another
• A key place to look when someone is not being forthright is the face

According to body language experts, a person’s’ gestures and emotions bidirectionally influence one another.

Research on priming proves this. Professor Daniel Kahnemann, in his modern classic book about heuristics and biases, Thinking, Fast and Slow indicates that actions and emotions can be primed by events people aren’t even aware of. To prove that actions and emotions can bidirectionally affect one another, an experiment with college students was conducted where students were asked to hold a pencil between their teeth for a few seconds forcing their mouth either into a smile or a frown while reading The Far Side cartoon and rating its humour. The students who found the cartoons funnier were the ones whose face was forced into a smile.

If changing a person’s facial expression primes them into changing their sentiment while reading a comic strip, could we not do the same in UX research sessions?

How can we prime a participant in such a way that they would be inclined to disclose more information

We would need to identify when they might be holding back information from the moderator. What stance might they take when unwilling to be as open about themselves during a session? According to body language experts, people may cross their arms or legs to form a defensive barrier between themselves and others. They may keep their palms closed and facing down.

By recognising the clusters; in this case the defensive poses. The context; in this case their unwillingness to provide more information during a session. The moderator can then find a way to prime them into a more open position.

If there is a stimulus or artefact as a part of the research protocol, use this as an opportunity to get them to hold it in their hands. If it’s on a computer, then have them move closer to the computer. They may be forced to unfold their arms or change their posture so that they can see the screen. Their palms may be opened suggesting a willingness to engage more openly. Once they change their posture participants are more likely to provide more feedback to the moderator making for more fruitful research insights.   

Body language experts suggest a key place to look at when a person is not being forthright is the face.

According to their research, we are likely to cover our eyes, ears or mouth with our hands when we hear or speak lies. A study of nurses in a role-playing situation were told to lie to their patients. The nurses who lied showed more hand-to-face gestures than those who didn’t. Those common lying gestures include: covering of the mouth, touching of the nose, rubbing of the eye, grabbing of the ear, scratching of the neck, pulling of their collar, or putting finger(s) in their mouth. Recognising these signs along with incompatible dialogue will help you weigh whether or not to consider excluding participant data.

Consider double-downing on your inquiry by rephrasing questions differently and see if the same answer is achieved. Seek clarification when body language tells you otherwise. Read back to the participant their earlier response and follow up with questions like “can you tell me more about that?” or “what did you mean when you said…?” If they respond differently than what they said earlier then there is a good chance that their gestures were revealing the truth about their lies.

In part II we will examine other gestures that hint at a person not being honest. Stay tuned!

References
Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2006). The Definitive Book of Body Language. New York: Bantam Dell Pub Group.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Navarro, J., & Karlins, M. (2008). What Every Body Is Saying. New York: HarperCollins.

Strack, F., Martin, L., and Stepper, S., (1988). “Inhibiting and facial conditions of the human smile: a non-obtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54.

Valentine, J., Best Practices for Equity Research Analysts (2011). New York: McGraw Hill.
“Conscious Competence Learning Model.” (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.businessballs.com/self-awareness/conscious-competence-learning-model-63/#toc-9

The post Understanding Body Language In UX Research Part I appeared first on UX Mastery.

User Experience (UX)

UX describes the interaction of a user with a product or service – how easy it is to use, how helpful and how enjoyable it is.

Good UX:

• Is intuitive (the user almost instinctively knows how to use the item)
• Serves its purpose with ease  
• Is a pleasure to use.

User testing

UXers run “experiments” on the above criteria to see how well users are engaging with their product or service. They’re prodding for unbiased feedback that will help them find any kinks or areas to make improvements on.  

Information Experience (IX)

Providing users with the right information at the right time so that they can achieve their goals. For example, you might need to explain a technical concept to your users for them to complete a setup – a video or an engaging info graphic could make this information easier to digest and help your user complete their task.

Content Design

Content design refers to the creative genius behind the words on a website, social media, interface, blog etc. It’s about discovering your audience, what they want to know and how to speak their language.  

Content Strategy

Now that you know your audience and what you’re going to say, you need to think about how you’re going to manage your communications – what platforms, what messages, what incentives and how often.

Content Hierarchy

People (even you and me, yes) whiz through online content. We get bored, plain and simple. That’s why organising the points in your copy from most important to least is vital. Structure your content so that your users can find what they came for pronto.

Information Architecture (IA)

The structure of a website – the arrangement of its web pages for the most logical and useful navigation. Think about how you’ll group pages, under which primary pages information will fall under and whether this will make sense for your user.

A/B Testing

Testing two versions of the same content to see which one users react to best. Test A goes out to one set of random users and test B goes out to another. The results can show user preferences and behaviours that will help inform your content down the track.

Wireframe

A skeleton, or a rough sketch of the individual pages and screens of an online product. This helps with layout, design and content placement.  

User Interface (UI)

What the user sees and what they can interact with on a website, app, software product etc. Product designers, UI writers and developers work together to create a layout and design that’s easy to understand, informative and a breeze to navigate through. Think of elements like dashboards, fonts, colour schemes, error messages, buttons, even cursors!

Front End

The part of a website or online product that a user can see and interact with. Web developers code these interfaces into reality. 

Back End

The applications, web servers, databases and other “behind the scenes” work that make your online application work.

Sitemap

An outline of a website’s pages and its features to see whether users will be able to navigate through it logically.

User Flow

The journey of a user through your online platform from the start of their interaction to the completion of an action or goal. Good user flows should be smooth, logical and intuitive.

Feel confident whipping out your Handy Dandy Tech Glossary at a barbecue or at your next networking event. With these terms under your belt, you might just be mistaken for a Silicon Valley local!

The post Behold: Your Handy Dandy Tech Glossary appeared first on UX Mastery.

This really resonated with me because I’ve been thinking of a way to explain the importance of going beyond just having empathy for users—especially because designers often talk about empathy but then proclaim that they are here to solve your (the user’s) problems.

Having just started a new role, I’m working on creating design principles with my team as a way to align and communicate our fundamental team beliefs. The idea of ‘loving’ users was one of the principles we instantly agreed upon.

When you think about the people you love, you want the very best for them. You want to make things delightful and keep them magical. There is great joy in spending time with those you love, the relationship involves an element of surprise, and sharing experiences to build understanding is key. Love has a far greater emotional connection than empathy; as designers, we can leverage this way of thinking to provide more immersive, engaging experiences for our users.

As we spend time with users, observing them with intent can help us identify their pain points, goals and desired outcomes. Taking time to know them and build relationships uncovers their unarticulated needs. Understanding the reasoning why, beyond just knowing the what, provides an opportunity to truly delight users—more than fulfilling a single need—and involving them throughout the process cultivates a strong, authentic relationship.

Designers still need to be grounded in the business and avoid any impression they spend more time advocating for the user than learning and understanding the goals of the business. Loving the user also means being transparent about business constraints—it means making users aware of business realities that may prevent some of their needs from being solved, or even prevent them form appearing on the roadmap altogether. It’s up to us to explain how solving specific user needs and providing an emotional experience will translate to exceeding business goals.

In the podcast, Mauro said: “As designers, if we make the people we design for feel the love, then we will receive the love back, and our business will benefit from this big-time.” As we look ahead to 2018, I challenge you to find new ways to keep the magic alive for your users, so they feel the love.

The post Don’t Just Satisfy Your Users, Love Them appeared first on UX Mastery.

The Japanese have a great word: ikigai. It has no direct translation into English, but roughly means your level of happiness in life, or your ‘reason for being’.

As you can see in the chart below, you can achieve ikigai—meaning in life—if you can find the right balance of 4 things:

• Passion
• Mission
• Vocation
• Profession

Your design Ikigai

Your ikigai encompasses your career and your personal life. But it’s also a great lens to use when looking for the next step in your design career.

With Ikigai in mind, we can design our own careers, finding a balance between working on the things that we love doing, the things that we’re good at, and the things that add meaning to the world. And yes, we need to be paid for our work too.

Many people spend their lifetime working out their reason for being.

But understanding where you sit on the chart above might help you realise what areas you need to work on to get there. Here are the questions to ask yourself.

Are you in a role that you love?

Nothing makes us happier than working in a job, or at least a project that gets us into flow state.

Ask yourself, “am I truly happy with the work that I do?”. Are there changes that you could make in your current role that could make you truly love your work? Or would a new role get you closer to finding your passion?

And if you haven’t found your passion yet, that’s okay too. Keep looking.

Are you building things that the world needs?

Where’s your moral compass at? Is working ethically important to you? (Hint: it should be). Are you producing work that benefits society?

If you’re not feeling satisfied with your design career, perhaps it’s because there’s not enough meaning in your work.

Are you doing what you are good at?

To be really satisfied with what you do, you need to be doing things that you are good at. And you need to feel empowered to do your best work.

Knowing that we can do something well gives us a sense of accomplishment. And when we’re stuck in jobs and work environments where we can’t achieve our full potential, it sucks.

Are you in a role that pays you fairly?

A good salary is, of course, another consideration to being happy in work.

We all know more money doesn’t make us any happier, so striving for big salaries is not the be all and end all. In some ways, getting paid more can make you less happy. But we do need to get paid enough to make ends meet.

What changes do you need to make to your career to reach your design ikigai? Finding your design ikigai won’t happen overnight, but I hope by next UXmas you’ll be a little closer.

This article was originally published for UXmas – an advent calendar for UX folk. Catch up on all 24 posts at uxmas.com

The post Your Design Ikigai appeared first on UX Mastery.

For many designers, culture is a driving factor in choosing a company to work for and build a career. Design culture is more than ping pong tables, free food and a pretty workspace. It’s about providing the tools and an environment to perform at your best.

When evaluating the maturity level of the design culture of an organisation, some questions you might like to ask are:

• Is design positioned within the company as you would expect it to be?
• Are decisions being made without design having a seat at the table?
• Do most of the projects get buy-in from the organisation when they are started by non-design functions?
• Is design being brought in as a last-minute box to check before a product is launched?
• Is the UX team the only advocate for the user, while the rest of the organisation believes that they can just release a product and everyone will buy it?
• Are outside vendors and agencies championed as experts more than the internal team, who are just as capable?
• Are designers scattered throughout the teams, hidden in a dark corner somewhere feasting on scraps whenever the business decides to throw them a bone?

No matter the level of design maturity, each organisation has unique cultural strengths and areas that can be improved. While cultures and their individual fit may vary, these are five qualities to identify a mature design culture.

1. Design is represented at the executive level

Whether you have a Chief Design Officer, or a design level VP, you need to have executive support for design at the highest possible level. This role shows an organisational commitment to design both financially and philosophically. There is no longer a need for the justification of design, it is positioned as a function that’s integral to innovation and future success.

2. A common vocabulary

A mature design culture recognises that design is not the centre of the corporate universe. Having a shared vision and vocabulary among stakeholders with competing priorities and different backgrounds means there is no longer a need to translate design language or business acronyms.

The business manager is worried about profits, the marketing manager about brand, so leave the design lingo behind to clearly communicate solutions in terms universally understood. A common vocabulary allows everyone to be on the same page, speaking the same language.

3. Meaningful projects

One of the main things designers look for in an organisation is the quality of projects they’ll be working on. It doesn’t matter how fun or exciting a project is, if it never sees the light of day it’s considered throw away work.

Everyone wants to work on projects that make a difference. The last thing the world needs is another weather app – there are plenty of good ones already. Mature design cultures aren’t afraid to kill a project from time to time and refocus the learning and efforts into another solution.

4. Design efficiency

Reinventing the wheel is not efficient. It’s also not fun for designers or developers to continually recreate the same elements for every project. Organisations should have efficiencies in place for design activities and collaboration.

Depending on maturity level, these can range from individual elements like such as research method cards, a style guide or a workshop playbook to a full-blown design system comprised of a design language or pattern library with working components. The design activities and processes shouldn’t compete with business processes. Instead, they should be fully integrated into one single process.

5. Talented people

Companies with a more mature culture have less turnover. While culture may attract talent, it’s the talent that keeps the culture evolving. The ideal team would be high-performing, comprised of individuals who continually learn from one other. It’s the best team you’ve ever worked for, one that shares accountability and pushes the other members to grow and succeed.

Culture can’t be forced. It has to come together organically through the continuous evolution of a team as a result of growing in size and experience. The way to cultivate culture is to influence others by putting in the work, building relationships, fostering collaboration, having uncomfortable conversations, making tough decisions, being accountable and influencing others by learning from mistakes and leading by example.

What culture do you look for in a workplace? Let us know in the comments or the forums. 

Catch up on our posts about how to better engage with stakeholders:

• Using A/B Testing to Drive Constructive Conflict with Stakeholders
• Proven Strategies to Win Over Stakeholders for Your UX Project
• What’s the Impact of Investing in UX?
• Ego and Evidence Drive Designs, but Which One is Right?
• Doing Strategy to People

The post Five Qualities of a Mature Design Culture appeared first on UX Mastery.

We had the opportunity to pick the brains of one of our original community members, Natalie Eustace, about understanding your personal strengths and weaknesses and learning how to harness those in a way that adds value to your team.

Natalie’s pragmatism, empathy and willingness to speak openly about perceived personal weaknesses made for a great session.

If you didn’t make it because you didn’t know about it, make sure you join our community to get updates of upcoming sessions. If you have follow up questions for Natalie, you can ask them here.

If you’re interested in seeing what we discussed, or you want to revisit your own questions, here is a full transcript of the chat.

 Transcript

hawk

2016-09-07 23:01

Ok <!here|@here> It’s that time!

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:01

Let’s kick things off. For those of you that are first-timers…

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:01

I’ll start by introducing Natalie, then I’ll ask her to introduce the topic

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:01

and then i’ll throw it open for questions

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:02

if things get busy, I’ll queue them behind the scenes, so ask when something occurs to you

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:02

So first up, a huge thanks to you @natalie.eustace for your time today

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:02

I’m really excited about this session, because it’s in line with the topic of making working meaningful, which we’ve been focussing on lately at UXM

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:03

for anyone that wants to take that convo further, join us at http://community.uxmastery.com

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:03

So Natalie is close to my heart for a number of reasons

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:03

she was one of our earliest community members, and remains an engaged and valuable member

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:04

she’s one of the few community members that I have met IRL

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:04

but most importantly, she’s a fellow kiwi

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:04

Natalie is a UX Designer with Wynyard Group – a market leader in serious crime fighting software used by governments and financial institutions.

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:05

She started out as a graduate and worked her way up. Natalie works in a geographically widespread team who have to work hard to find ways to work cohesively together, with ideation and communication proving to be ongoing challenges.

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:05

So on that note, @natalie.eustace – can you give us a brief intro to your topic and let us know what makes it so important

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:06

Yes sure thing, welcome and thanks for this opportunity :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:06

So an intro into my topic, I’m very very interested around team orientation

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:06

in my 2 years with Wynyard, our team has changed members, evolved and grown to various locations

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:07

as part of this we’ve all had to work on things, for me being an introvert, and being aware of what I can bring to the team, and also things I need to work on and can reach out for

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:07

As part of this, your cultural fit, how you work together and communicate, personalities, and just having an overall awareness is very very important

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:08

knowing how to harness these, to make your team happier and more efficient is very important :slightly_smiling_face:

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:08

Agreed! Does anyone have a question to kick things off?

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:09

How did you counteract the whole introvert thing? I am a natural introvert to, so sometimes at work do just what a UXer shouldn’t really do and get lost in my thinking.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:10

@jellybean very good question! It has been a process over time. It can get quite tiring. So I make sure I have small talk with people when I meet them. You need to appear approachable

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:10

As part of this you gradually loose the fact that things can be difficult, but I always need to work on conversations that are more intense

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:11

and I find myself getting tired, so having ways to manage these

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:11

i.e. going for walks at lunch time :slightly_smiling_face:

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:11

Small talk… now that is a challenge for an introvert.

 

seyonwind

2016-09-07 23:11

what qualities and/or traits do you look for when building your creative team?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:11

i.e. the coffee here is horrid :stuck_out_tongue:

 

meridithgeiger

2016-09-07 23:11

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:12

@seyonwind I got to help with interviewing for an additional team member last year, and the most important thing for me, other than being user orientated, was the cultural fit

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:12

we needed someone who seemed fun, could have a good time, but also knuckle down and get work done

 

crystal

2016-09-07 23:12

I am very curious to learn about how you have continuous engagement and productive ideation sessions with a distributed team. Especially given that you’re an introvert and it can often be especially difficult for introverts to jump in to a conversation virtually.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:12

we’d had a previous case where there wasn’t a good team fit, and it negatively affected the whole team

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:13

@crystal Nice :slightly_smiling_face:. Yeup so we have weekly working meetings, where someone shows the work they have been doing. It is great practice, especially for me, where it is a safe environment

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:13

you present the problem, and your ideas and how you think they solve the issue

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:13

it can be hard in meetings to speak up

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:14

so you find yourself picking your battles, things you are passionate about

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:14

doesn’t make it easier (and I still sometimes shake behind the scenes!)

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:14

but it is always helpful knowing our team members are all here for a reason

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:14

to make a wonderful experience for our users, to solve their problems

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:14

we are all on the same team, and help each other grow

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:15

Side note for people interested in distributed teams there is a Webinar Series by UXPin around distributed teams:
https://www.uxpin.com/webinars/ux-design-global-scale-masterclass
1st one was really good.

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:15

How many people do you have on your team?

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:16

@natalie.eustace I work in fully distributed teams and sometimes find that communication via text chat (we collaborate on Slack) can sometimes misrepresent feelings or intentions. Have you experienced that?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:16

@frankenvision currently we have a VP of User experience in San Fran, we have 2 contractors, 1 visual designer and 1 interaction designer. 3 people in New Zealand, 1 UXer in Auckland, and 2 of us here in Christchurch

 

10bananas

2016-09-07 23:16

I want to know how you find your strengths and weaknesses for the UX team

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:17

@hawk Yes that actually can happen quite a lot, it is really really hard to get the correct emotion through. I have a thing of if I don’t think a point is going across, we jump on a call. One thing that came in the mentioned webinar

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:17

#10 line rule

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:17

if you can’t explain it in 10 lines of text, jump on a call

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:18

also if things seem to get mis-construed, always always check

 

crystal

2016-09-07 23:18

And I imagine that also goes back to hiring for the right culture fit. And as someone looking to join a UX team in the future, I should make it a top priority to seek out a team with the similar culture to the one you have there.

 

michellek.smith

2016-09-07 23:18

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:18

@michellek.smith Welcome. :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:18

Everyone has different personality types, so having ones that strengthen your team can be good @crystal . So although this works for us, other teams might differ

 

michellek.smith

2016-09-07 23:18

thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

 

michellek.smith

2016-09-07 23:18

took a while to get here! Sorry I’m late!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:19

good article @hawk posted on the forum around this :slightly_smiling_face:

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:19

No stress

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:19

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?_r=2

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:19

@10bananas we did some personality tests – free ones :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:19

Personality tests Myer’s briggs type one – https://www.16personalities.com
Personality tests Enneagram – https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:19

so please be aware, these are to be taken with a grain of salt

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:20

figure out what works for you, sounds correct, then you have tools to work on

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:20

Which tools do you use to communicate with your team and get feedback on projects?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:20

i.e. if you take things to heart, you can find ways to learn to step back from issues and communicate this within your team

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:21

@frankenvision we currently use slack for the wider team including developers, but mainly we use Skype for communication. Then we use invision for putting designs up and commenting on to keep track, or we screenshare for meetings using go-to-meeting or zoom

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:21

then we work directly in sketch

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:21

and put in comments or make changes etc on the fly depending on what is necessary

 

li4n4

2016-09-07 23:21

@natalie.eustace In your work with government and financial institutions, does your team sometimes find that they aren’t allowed to use less secure tools? How does your team handle the problems (inconveniences) that arise from these limitations?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:21

we also have an internal wiki (confluence) and jira with the developers

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:22

@li4n4 hah, yes we have had that problem

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:22

so we used to work with google drive, and gmail and dropbox

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:22

we have very strenuous security measures and we also have a certification, so we have specific rules to follow

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:23

so what we tend to do is check with our security team in order to make sure that we are following their guidelines

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:23

if they say no, we then work with them to figure out an alternative

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:23

thankfully our design programs etc haven’t been an issue!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:25

Another good article on distributed teams: https://medium.com/google-design/distributed-ux-teams-early-lessons-learned-81c4e73d2674#.80otddxy4

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:26

@natalie.eustace Do you think that the generally more empathetic nature of UXers makes for more cohesive teamwork, or do you think people tend to let things go because they’re ‘too nice’ or ‘too introverted’

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:26

What is your teams process for user research? Where do you start?

 

seyonwind

2016-09-07 23:26

Do you find that remote work is lonely at times?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:27

@hawk that can be an issue, but I think that can be where our user orientated fighting spirit can help. If you are passionate enough, that can override the introversion, and if you really don’t agree with something it is hard to let it slide

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:27

or you find a different forum

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:27

speak to your manager about it, lay out your argument, and why you think something should be different

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:27

Do you run usability tests in person or is everything done remotely?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:27

you don’t have to do everything in an open forum if you aren’t comfortable with that :slightly_smiling_face:

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:27

@seyonwind I can speak to that. I work 100% remotely for organisations at opposite ends of the world. It can be lonely, and everyone has different coping mechanisms. It works for some (me) and not for others (my partner had to quit and find an office job)

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:28

@frankenvision this is something we have struggled with for a wee while. Working with government it can be very difficult to get the permission necessary to talk to our end users.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:28

We started out with interviews, we wanted to build up some personas

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:28

@seyonwind sometimes finding a coworking space to work from a couple of days a week, or organising lunches or workout sessions helps. I personally love remote work – I’m much more productive

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:29

after that we have worked closely with requirements gathering, asking the what and whys as those don’t necessarily come through well or resonate

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:29

this is an area we are really actively trying to improve, and are getting a lot more buy in now and hoping to have a research panel

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:29

where we can rotate people to talk to about future ideas and also while in sprint with designs

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:30

we tend to run research in person as we have been lucky atm, our wider market means we are going to have to look at alternatives

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:30

Thank you

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:31

I agree with @hawk you need to include fun

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:31

i.e. if teams win, make sure that everyone can cellebrate

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:31

i.e. get on video and open some wine :stuck_out_tongue:

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:31

Are you on constant call with a remote team?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:32

@frankenvision every day we have remote meetings now

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:32

we tend to use video as well to try and get rid of some of the distance barriers

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:32

@frankenvision You have to learn to manage that carefully. I turn notification badges off on my phone, and turn Slack off when I’m not working

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:32

otherwise it’s hard to disconnect

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:32

Agreed!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:32

I turn my notifications off at home, unless I know I need to be available

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:33

you also need to make sure there is a good work/life balance

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:33

just because in someone else’s timezone, it is their work time, shouldn’t mean that you are always available outside of hours

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:33

here and there it is okay, and as long as you have some overlap and work with your team on what works best, you can manage this

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:34

How does everyone track their time? Is there an app that you use?

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:35

I use Paymo

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:36

@frankenvision we have been looking at various applications – for project management. Due to us being an internal product team, we have a time recording program (gah netsuite) that we use. We use trello to record what we have worked on to keep a history, and also have daily standups to let people know what we did yesterday and what we are doing today

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:36

but these things break down if you stop updating them :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:36

and then confusion and disconnect can occur

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:37

Our team (me and some graphic designers) has has just started using Teamweek for planning who is doing what.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:37

@jellybean does that work well?

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:38

It’s good for the planning of who is doing what when, and what is coming up, but less so for the detail. We still use Trello for the detail, which is great for me as treat it like a to do list for a project.

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:39

Do you and your team ever attend ux conferences together or go on an annual retreat?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:39

@frankenvision I think we would all love to do that!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:39

we haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet, but our VP flies over when she can and we all go up to Auckland to re-group

 

crystal

2016-09-07 23:40

Would you describe a bit of the process involved or your experiences with on boarding a new distributed team member?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:41

@crystal good question. We are currently working on making this better, as in all honesty we haven’t done the best at this. When our Auckland team member came onboard, we had some sessions working on a team goal, and we created our version of the honeycomb

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:41

and how we wanted UX to be within the company

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:42

she also had a lot of reading and demos to learn about our internal products.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:42

In terms of process, making sure that when the person comes on board, they know who is part of our team, our wider team, our team goals etc is very important

 

10bananas

2016-09-07 23:42

@hawk, do you ever feel weird when you run a design by a colleague asking for their opinion of 2 designs when working remotely?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:42

also being there in person to work with them for the first wee while is a good idea

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:43

@10bananas When you’re used to working remotely, nothing feels weird. The processes are second nature. We tend to work via collaboration tools like Slack and Google Docs for getting input/opinions from colleagues

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:43

we are now also working on a style guide so introduction into that and our process would be a good first steps

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:44

but previously it has been a bit, here you go, learn to swim :disappointed:

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:44

How many projects do you work on at a time? Do you ever refuse work?

 

crystal

2016-09-07 23:44

Oh ok. Thanks. Visiting to work with the new team member in person for a bit of time sounds great.

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:45

@10bananas I should also clarify that the majority of my work is as a professional community manager, so the UX stuff that I do relates very specifically to community platforms. I don’t work with a team of UXers.

 

judi-p

2016-09-07 23:45

I would think we have a bit of an advantage onboarding people, if we actually apply the principles of UX design to the process. The new hire is in essence the ‘end user’ of our onboarding process, no?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:45

@frankenvision we need to be available to the whole company, so because we work on internal projects, we now have a better awareness of what is coming up and how much work might be involved. Unfortunately everything is prioritised as you don’t necessarily have the time or resources

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:46

we have never re-fused work as of yet, but we have had cases where we have had to delay it

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:46

@judi-p yes indeedy it could be! You could actually treat the whole thing as a design problem too

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:47

Much of an issue for onboarding is documenting more general internal processes, and I don’t think many companies are great at that, distributed or not!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:48

correct

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:48

One other thing I would say with the distributes teams, but more towards strengths and weaknesses. You need to give everyone opportunities to grow and learn. Peer up an expert with someone who isn’t as strong, give people who have never had a chance to research the position of second chair in an interview and when they are ready swap the positions. This depends a lot on being a generalist group vs specialist. But constant growth can keep things exciting and people happy :slightly_smiling_face:.

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:49

@natalie.eustace Getting back to the personality trait thing, you mentioned in the forums that you’re working on resilience and separating out emotion from work a bit

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:49

can you talk more about that?

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:49

@hawk yes sure :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:49

So with my personality, I unfortunately have a tendency to worry too much, which also goes in hand I think with the empathy side of things

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:50

I’m having to learn to be passionate, but not get overly worked up about things

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:50

If I have no control over something, I shouldn’t worry about it

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:50

so be passionate, and stay object, but always be willing to walk away

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:50

when you start going home unhappy you know something is up and you need to get to the root of that

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:51

I’ve found that not getting so… passionate about things is very difficult

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:51

and that it also comes with time and a lot of practice!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:51

but it is important to not let it make you loose your passion for what you do

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:52

This is all great advice! Thanks @hawk and @natalie.eustace

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:52

you are most welcome, thanks for all your really good questions @frankenvision !

 

tommedhurst

2016-09-07 23:52

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:52

It’s interesting. I think one of the keys to working in a healthy team is being able to apply that empathy to those aspects of others in your team that you don’t understand. for e.g. i’m about as extraverted as it’s possible to get, and my passion is often misconstrued as anger or frustration

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:53

@natalie.eustace Are you by any chance a perfectionist? Sometimes passionate people also want things to be right, so worry when they think they aren’t? I sometimes find that’s where the team is useful… step back, get someone else’s input.

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:53

^^ that!

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:53

@frankenvision You’re welcome :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:54

@jellybean also a very good question. I used to be, and then I found it was too exhausting. I find that everyone wants to do the best they can, and being worried that they might not be delivering that can also have an impact

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:54

i.e. when you work on things that don’t get used due to scheduling or it not being the right time etc

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:54

Do you experience imposter syndrome on a remote team?

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:54

YES

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:55

@frankenvision I joked to my workmate before this that I was feeling that! haah

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:55

but yes, I think it happens for everyone

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:55

I find it worse than not remote. when you work with people closely every day, you get a feel for your relationship

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:55

especially when others might be producing more obvious assets etc and you might be doing more behind the scenes

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:56

when you’re remote, you feel less connected so you don’t always know whether they ‘get you’ as much as they might if you were in the office together

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:56

@frankenvision I get that. I’m the only UX designer at my work sometime wonder if a real one to appear and prove I am faking it. :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:56

ah but @jellybean you are the expert then :stuck_out_tongue:

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:56

So we only have a couple of mins left. Does anyone have any final questions before we let Nat get back to work?

 

jellybean

2016-09-07 23:56

Eeeekkk…

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:57

there is noone there who has the authority really to say otherwise :wink:

 

johnmcclumpha

2016-09-07 23:57

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:58

A huge thanks (again) to Natalie. It’s been a fantastic session.

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:58

This has been fun, thanks all!

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:58

And to all of you for your support and your fantastic questions

 

michellek.smith

2016-09-07 23:58

thank you

 

li4n4

2016-09-07 23:58

Thank you!

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:58

(and the hail has stopped and the sun is back wohoo)

 

frankenvision

2016-09-07 23:58

How do you stay current @natalie.eustace? Do you listen to podcasts and/or have a mentor?

 

seyonwind

2016-09-07 23:59

Thanks @natalie.eustace, and @hawk for hosting!

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:59

As always, I’ll publish a transcript of the session up later today (or more likely tomorrow)

 

crystal

2016-09-07 23:59

Thank you @natalie.eustace and @hawk!

 

hawk

2016-09-07 23:59

And you can join us at http://community.uxmastery.com if you want to carry on this convo, or be part of the millions of others that go on

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-07 23:59

@frankenvision I try to stay active by reading boards, I have a feed where I have groups like smashingmagazine, UXPain, etc on them. I also can ask my work mate here if I need help or feedback on things. It is still a challenge, and I’m always looking for more connections to help with this. Especially around mentoring, either to be a mentor or to be a mentoree? :slightly_smiling_face:

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-08 00:00

@frankenvision how do you like to stay up to date with UX?

 

frankenvision

2016-09-08 00:01

Podcasts, online courses, twitter and I read a lot of ux books…

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-08 00:02

I love books, I wish I had more money to have a whole library

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-08 00:02

– especially UX books, they tend to be quite fun

 

frankenvision

2016-09-08 00:02

Oreilly has an online subscription service to most of their library… It’s awesome

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-08 00:03

Nice, thanks for that, I didn’t know that!

 

frankenvision

2016-09-08 00:04

You’re welcome

 

crystal

2016-09-08 00:04

I subscribed to O’Reilly’s program too and I completely agree with @frankenvision. There’s barely a UX book I’ve heard about that I couldn’t find therem

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:05

I know we’re supposed to be ending, but what design podcasts do you guys recommend?

 

hawk

2016-09-08 00:06

You’re welcome to keep chatting in here :slightly_smiling_face:

 

crystal

2016-09-08 00:06

UX Podcast is the best in my opinion

 

hawk

2016-09-08 00:06

I have to head off, but go for it

 

frankenvision

2016-09-08 00:06

UIE podcast with Jared Spool is one of my favs

 

natalie.eustace

2016-09-08 00:07

I have to get back to work, but you guys are wonderful! Have a great rest of your day :slightly_smiling_face:

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:08

np, thanks again!

 

frankenvision

2016-09-08 00:08

This was great. Thanks!

 

crystal

2016-09-08 00:09

The Web Ahead is also quite good and so is Design Details.

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:11

Cool, thanks @frankenvision @crystal I’ll check them out

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:11

I listen to Let’s Make Mistakes sometimes, though they’re kind of off beat, and have been meaning to check out Design Matters

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:12

Also the Big Web Show

 

seyonwind

2016-09-08 00:12

Oh, and a few episodes of What is Wrong with UX

 

crystal

2016-09-08 00:14

Np. I didn’t know about Design Matters. I’ll have to give that one a listen. Thanks!

 

thomgrisi

2016-09-08 00:52

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

emmaduval

2016-09-08 05:05

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

zonja

2016-09-08 08:18

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

mandy

2016-09-08 08:34

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

dasut

2016-09-08 14:55

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

sedebo

2016-09-08 16:44

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

zackrabie

2016-09-08 20:54

has joined #ask-natalie-eustace

 

The post Transcript: “I use my strengths and weaknesses to add value to my team : Ask Me Anything.” appeared first on UX Mastery.