So often when we state “this is unethical” we really aren’t applying ethics at all. At best we are saying “I think this is wrong, so doing this is against my ethics”. In my latest post I give an overview of ethical theories and apply these theories to some “unethical tech” scenarios. I show most of them can be argued as ethical by applying these theories. I end with what is, I hope, a better frame to have these discussions going forward.
Rebranding? There’s a lot online about why to rebrand, how to decide new colours, how to get people on board etc. But how should we alert users to the change? These 4 principles should help you guide your choices
It’s only 5 people. That’s an assumption. It's just opinions. UX research isn't _real_ research. Sound familiar? Yeah, us too. That's why Caylie Panuccio and I wrote this post. If you’re a UX Researcher this article will help you fight some battles. If you’re not, it will help you understand the validity of qualitative research methods a little better.
All of my posts will be exclusively on Medium. I will, however, post here with a link to each new article (and the Friends link so that you by-pass the pay wall). I know that’s not the best experience for readers on here (having to click twice) but I promise it will be a better experience to read there.
I know, I know — skeuomorphism ? What is it, 2012?
But, I’m not talking about Skeuomorphic design (where digital things look like real-world things e.g. your bin icon looking like a ... well… bin), I’m talking about skeuomorphism in the way users think about your product in relation to other products in the marketplace.
As with everything, practice makes perfect, and while I’ve conducted hundreds of sessions, I hadn’t conducted any with blind users. Armed with secondary research as preparation, I felt pretty confident going into them and learned some lessons along the way to improve next time. Here’s what I learned
At SEEK we’ve been experimenting with the SUPR-Q. We had a few hypotheses from our first study that we’ve explored through our second SUPR-Q Study. These are:
Tool limitations may negatively impact scores
Drop off could be addressed by improving the survey design
Even with addressing 1) and 2) the NPS would likely still be lower when measured as part of the SUPR-Q than an individual NPS rating, and skew towards aesthetic feedback given the questions asked.
There are predictable questions I get asked over and over again when someone finds out what I research, and that I have 2 microchips inside my body. These same questions pop up on social media every time I appear on TV or in the news.
Some people refused to believe the reality of how these chips work, and there’s no point trying to change these minds; the “the Government is secretley tracking you with a microchip you recieved at birth, it’s all about the New World Order and they’ll switch you off if you don’t comply” crowd.
This post is not for them. This post answers the FAQs for people genuinely interested in learning about the technology and educating themselves on the reality.
According to Tile, Australian’s spend an average of 29 minutes per day searching for something they have lost. To get around the fallibility of human memory, people have taken to ‘life hacks’ so that they can’t forget their pass. Some individuals have gotten small microchips, the size of a grain of rice, underneath their skin for the guarantee that as long as they have their hand (which for the record, none of them have forgotten) they cannot forget their keys.
At SEEK we’ve been experimenting with the SUPR-Q. We first ran it as part of a usability test in face to face research (n=5) to trial, and then went full scale using an on site Hotjar poll (n=1,811) to get a more representative sample for our first benchmark. The SUPR-Q (Standardized User Experience Percentile Rank Questionnaire) is an 8 item questionnaire developed by MeasuringU that is used to measure the quality of the user experience. What actually impacts users likelihood to recommend?
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?
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.