Ok he got me when he said 👌 or 👌 from twice 😱😍 thank you Jakob Nielsen it was very informative and also funny. I’ll do my best for my website and you helped me a lot.
What a mind-full of ideas, such a pleasure to be led through that insightful presentation. Thanks for the ongoing inspiration and guidance! Also, I now see how informative an NNGroup conference would be! I hope to attend some day.
Vocabulary Inflation is an underated and a serious problem! The industry, academia and tools needs to really come together on this and speak the same language. I remember going to a design conference where a representative from @Adobe aregued against the term UX preferring the term Experience Design simply to promote their prototyping tool XD. It was frustrating to hear. Or the fact that Human Factors International makes many the terms mentioned as separate subjects altogether instead of parts of the same. This issue of also applies the design roles. A UI / Visual designer calling themselves UI/UX designer inflates what they do and deflates what UX is. It becomes a major challenge in hiring when trying to hire a UX designer and getting resumes of UI designers. In other fields of computing this isn't an issue. A front end developer isn't confused with a back end developer or an architect or a data scientist. Why do we have this problem? What did those fields do differently that they don't have enough to deal with this problem?
@@Indielancer100000000000%. Because many companies don’t want to have ux designers. That’s because most companies’ head of design is graphic designer. They think ui matters the most and they believe ux is something graphic designers can do automatically.
Very useful information but the ending was more effective "UX is People" .. nowadays everyone uses different-different terminology of UX cause of that we missed the basic concept of UX... Thanks, Jakob.
26:00 Usefullness being Utility + Usability. Reminds me of Juicero, a juicer that does not have to be cleaned at all. Easy, one press of a button. Very high on the user experience. They had 100s of millions in funding in the silicon valley, endorsement from stars like Justin Timberlake. But they failed, likely because of the utility, it was designed to only work with their prepackaged fruits, on an extremely expensive subscription model, $5-7 dollars for a 250ml cup of juice. Then in the same year they failed 2018, a chinese clone, JUlaVE pops up that can practically juice anything, without clean up, the same design, and users can choose to put anything they want inside. It costs about $0.50 per juicing bag to be thrown after use to avoid cleanup. It is actually quite popular in China, but not outside of China due to the stigma of Juicero.
Increible conferencia, sería genial tener un solo termino y evitar crear "nuevos" terminos, es un dolor de cabeza cada vez que lees un artículo o libro y no sabes a que se refieren.
Why is the word ergonomics often not cited in english presentations? Everything described in the user centered approach fits within ergonomics methodologies, it's a field directly aimed at this subject. It's right there in ISO 9241:210 "Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems". The vocabulary inflation is a problem, I try to educate and influence people at work (and outside of work) regularly, sometimes it's just that some people are used to work without any specialized designers or researchers and just have managers, business analysts, functional analysts who act as well as programmers. But then there's also a lot of people who studied interaction design, graphics design or branches closer to marketing who then go in the wide UX field, recruiters often look for programmers with UX knowledge or UX designers who actually only do wireframes and UI, It's very messy... I find that when I talk about the term "ergonomics" to people who haven't studied ergonomics, they just think about the interface and the end product, how it's for things to be well organized and be readable and well presented, never about the process to get a solution tailored to a specific problem, and even less about researching that problem. As if all we know is heuristics and design softwares... when it's a whole process to provide solutions to specific problems, that were researched with as less research biases as possible, and designed following other processes considering iterations and following principles about human factors and patterns. It's not meant to be dumbed down to "how do you make that thing more usable" but it instead should be "with proven research methodologies, find the best ways to improve a person's work/tasks/experience, find and solve the human problems, and if the solution involves designing a thing, make it the best according to the knowledges about that thing, the users and the specific contexts of use. Then it's going to be usable and useful and it will help the user to do things he either couldn't do before or couldn't do well enough."
What is the difference between Voice Assistant usability (mentioned in 2019 keynote) and Voice UI usability (mentioned in 2018 keynote). In 2018 keynote, you mentioned that there's not much usability consultant can do, its more about engineering. Am I missing something? Can you give examples of Voice Assistant Usability issues?
I believe UI usability it is related to the "visual" of an interface, that could be the assets/ patters of voice commands in order to do something. And in the case of VA usability it is more about the way its is constructed, like the journey of an action, and how it is organized with the purpose of being easy to use. What do you think?
Was about to watch this then went to website noticed their courses. How can one charge so much...if one did not have any $$$ one would not be able to progress. Is this an example of the rich getting richer poor just getting poorer? Education should be free or at least affordable! Similar to countries in Germany and Sweden to name a few!
These principles are individualistic abstraction and hence not universal. People may abstract the same principle in a different way and I’m sure NNG will say that is not the same as their principle.
30:30 This is either explained incorrectly or the outright manipulation with statistics. He has just stated that the “utility gap” contains tasks that people are ready to execute, but they are impossible technologically. That is to say, their usability is not in question. And then he states that these tasks both suffer from poor usability and are impossible technologically. Otherwise, they would all become green once discovered.
If some kind of utility does not yet exist, then usability is always in question by default. Usability is the design interface that creates a seamless experience of that utility. You can't assume that it's usable if the utility doesn't even exist. If I wish to have a Voice Assistant on a GPS find all the nearest water fountains in my city, and the UI designer decides to create it but the Assistant makes me jump through hoops to get this information displayed on the map, then it's Usability of this feature sucks. So if this feature doesn't even exist, why would we assume its Usability wouldn't be in question? The interpretation of the study isn't wrong, your assumptions are wrong. They lack common sense.
It is not adding 7% and 7%. It says that those original green 7% in the column chart (out of total red + yellow + green = all tasks) are in fact 17% percent in the pie chart (out of total yellow + green = only possible tasks). They used wrong visualization to convey the message, but the bottom line is pretty interesting and shows the efforts should be focused elsewhere than might originally seem (at least from the perspective of a low hanging fruit...). EDIT: now I see you've probably meant the following slide. But he is not adding 7% and 7% there either, he is adding 7% and 10%. That original 7% becomes 10% out of total when scaled up according to the size of the red bar...
25:20 not entirely convinced of the percentage of "Probability of Leaving the Page Now". If the worst case scenario is pretty much 5% and quickly drops, there is realistically nothing much to worry about. (Other than that really great talk so far!)
The 5% is only the probability during that first second. Even though the probabilities get progressively lower during the second second, the third second, and so forth, they do add up. Thus, the combined probability of leaving during seconds 1-10 is much higher than that of leaving during, say, seconds 31-40.
