Ghost Buttons — Not as bad as we thought? 

Ghost Buttons — Not as bad as we thought? 

Are ghost buttons really as bad as they've been made out to be? Ghost buttons are often touted as low-affordance, and it’s true of many of the examples we see  — buttons with poor contrast placed over images making them difficult to use and confounds A/B tests. We say we are comparing ghost buttons and ‘normal’ buttons but we are really testing accessible vs inaccessible buttons, high vs low contrast designs, high affordance vs low affordance designs (and it’s not a surprise that ghost buttons lose). What happens when we test an accessible ghost button against an accessible solid button?

Towards insertables: Devices inside the human body

Towards insertables: Devices inside the human body

As technology becomes smaller, the way we carry it has progressed from luggable, to wearable and now towards devices that reside inside the human body, or insertables. We demonstrate this trajectory towards devices inside the human body, and carve out insertables as a specific subset of devices which are voluntary, non-surgical and removable.

Online & Search Behaviours of Blind Users

Online & Search Behaviours of Blind Users

We often make assumptions about blind users, however blind users are not homogenous. They differ as much as sighted users in terms of technical ability and search strategies. Just as not every sighted person is tech savvy, not every blind person knows how to use a screen reader well, or utilizes all the power features. This literature review explains the online and search behaviours of blind individuals

Press the pink button — Designing for colour blind users

Press the pink button — Designing for colour blind users

We use colour as a signifier for people, places and things all the time. Probably more than you realise. About 8% of Australian males and 0.4% of females are colour blind.  Like all people with ‘disabilities’, there are certain things colour blind people can’t do. Design can help make the world more accessible to ensure they can do everything those with ‘normal’ vision can. I explore ways to deign for colour blind users, which often improves the experience for everyone. 

Does the NPS tell us what users really mean?

We’ve trained users with the five or seven point Likert scale survey questions, where the middle point means “neither likely nor unlikely”. Yet on the NPS a 5 does not mean "neither" it means the users is a detractor. Does the NPS tell us what users really mean?

Design is as good (or as flawed) as the people who make it

Design is as good (or as flawed) as the people who make it

gave a talk at UX Australia 2016 in Melbourne (August 25–26) . No one sets out to intentionally design a system that is hard to use for — or worse, excludes or discriminates against —  some users. Designers are trying their best. You’re probably a good person, but a human nonetheless, therefore not perfect. Design can only be as good as the people who make it. Conversely, design is as flawed as the people who make it. 

Drunk Kayla & Uber UX

I had a few after-work drinks last Friday and caught an Uber home — this was always the plan, although I probably had one (or three) too many drinks on an empty stomach and was a little drunk (not part of the original intention). I lost my phone and this is a story of that UX. 

You put what, where? Hobbyist use of insertable devices (Part 2)

The human body has emerged as more than just a canvas for wearable electronic devices. Technological size and cost reductions, along with power and battery improvements, has meant items that were once external have become wearable, and even insertable. 

In part 2 we look at our results - what are participants inserting and what does this mean for the future of HCI & UX?

You put what, where? Hobbyist use of insertable devices (Part 1)

The human body has emerged as more than just a canvas for wearable electronic devices. Technological size and cost reductions, along with power and battery improvements, has meant items that were once external have become wearable, and even insertable.

 

Part 1 gives background to my research to be presented at the CHI conference in San Jose this week.

Guys as the new ‘um’

Gendered words can be, and are, damaging to some recipients (and effectively the deliverer). You’re probably not even aware of the fact that you’re alineting or demeaning your audience. I, and a lot of other women, have a visceral reaction to the term and it’s important you are aware of the impacts of choosing to using it. Let's talk about "guys". 

Insertables: I’ve got I.T. under my skin

An intro to Insertabeles, as published in ACM interactions. 

Imagine Dylan, a bureaucrat working in a foreign embassy. Dylan approaches a security door, arms overflowing with confidential reports. Dylan leans toward the door’s access sensor and is authenticated. The door is now unlocked and can be easily pushed open with one shoulder, without the need to put down the documents and fumble for his keys or an access pass. Dylan has an insertable device implanted subcutaneously in his hand that interacts with the transponder at the office door.

It may read as science fiction, but it's already a reality.