Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
UX Principles and Longevity · Acedra
Home
Explore
Computer Science
UX Principles and Longevity
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
76 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:01
[Kate:] Welcome to the keynote session! My name is Kate Moran and I'm a UX specialist with Nielsen Norman Group. You may not be aware of this, but 2018 is actually Nielsen Norman Group's 20 year anniversary. That is 20 years of research-based UX guidance. We are so happy that you could be here with us this week to help us celebrate and also to be a part of this milestone with us. Now I hope you'll join me in welcoming the UX guru himself, Dr. Jakob Nielsen.
0:51
[Jakob:] Thank you very much, Kate. And thank you everybody for spending the beginning of the evening with us. I want to talk not about what I think people often talk about in these types of presentations, which is what's new, what's leading edge and what is the latest fad. We do that a little bit at the conference here as well. But that's not a lot. I actually want to talk about what's not new. What are the things that really keep being long-lasting in our field? That's what I want to focus on.
1:22
This means I'm not going to talk about these things like particular screenshots, particular devices, particular services, dialog boxes, interface designs, or things like that. Here are some of the older ones that I've worked on or analyzed over the years. I just wanted to point out a few that are interesting, historically speaking. The upper left was Apple's eWorld, which was their attempt to make their own version of the internet or the web which didn't last very long.
1:54
Has anyone here actually used or had an eWorld account? Anybody? I'm the only one. Okay! That shows you why it failed. Lower left is a Japanese device from NTT called the Eggy. I really used to love when I went to Tokyo and could go into the Docomo stores and look at all the fancy mobile devices they had. They had a lot of very specialized things that you couldn't buy in the rest of the world. Today all the mobile phones are the same, they all look like a little brick, so that
2:23
part is not as exciting anymore. But what's interesting to look about this device from 2001, this was a specialized device for taking selfies. It then could transmit to your friends. That is no longer a special device, it's just a feature on your smartphone. What's interesting to look if you look closely at the photo on this old device... This shows you one of these immutable facts, which is that people love to put little emojis or stickies on their selfie photos.
2:54
That was true in 2001, it's true now, it's probably going to be true for another 20 years or forever. That's the human nature and that's a lot of what this is about. So I want to start talking about one of the early examples of a successful user experience project. This was from 1984, the Olympic Message System developed by IBM for the Olympic Games that year. It was kiosks that were scattered around the Olympic village with what we today would call voicemail.
3:22
Back then, most people didn't have that. Particularly most of these athletes that came from all over the world didn't have that. So it was a special development project that had to have this very easy, walk up and use type of functionality because the athletes were focused on their competitions and not on learning an IBM system. It had to be really easy to use. Some of the design challenges that they had back then were that many had never used a
3:48
push-button telephone before, and it was a very international system because the athletes came from all different countries. They delivered this user interface in twelve different languages, which even today is quite impressive, very few designs ship in that many languages from the beginning. It also had to be supportive of a lot of different issues -- I'll highlight one which is people coming from different countries, many did not use the Latin character set, so they
4:14
didn't know how to spell their names. They knew their own name in their local language and character set, but not in this alphabet. Passwords were also in the Latin alphabet. So the solution to several of these problems was that they recorded a video with a mime, which takes care of the language problem right there. You can see this screenshot from the video where the mime is showing you where on your ID badge you can see your name spelled in the character set used at the Games.
4:45
So, some of these design challenges are certainly not with us anymore. We don't really have to face users who have never seen a push-button telephone before. But others are with us, like for example how to deal with a truly multi-national, international project. Those things are still very difficult to do today and have not actually been solved. Three things that they did for their project are the reasons why it was very successful.
5:10
A lot of athletes used this despite often coming from very low-tech countries. Remember, this was 1984 so it was very low-tech at the time. They had three design principles. First was early focus on users. Find out the users' characteristics. Now, today we might call this persona development. We have an entire day on that, today actually. So they didn't use that word but they had the same general idea. Observe users doing their normal tasks; field studies are what we call this now.
5:40
Empirical measurements, test with real users, start by testing what they called printed scenarios. Maybe today we would call that paper prototyping, but it was the same idea. It evolved to ever more elaborate prototypes after that. The third principle was iterative design. You can never make the perfect user interface the first time you try no matter how good a designer you are. You have to go through this cycle: design, test, measure, redesign.
6:07
The more times you do that, the more times you can drive up the quality of the final design. In fact they went through 200 design iterations for parts of their design. Even today, this is a very impressive number. But these three principles are essentially what we teach today. We use slightly different vocabulary but that's the same thing we do today. So that's what I mean when I talk about immutable characteristics of user experience. These things keep being the same.
6:39
Now, despite these three principles being really the foundation for quality design, people didn't know about them. They did a study while they were working on the project where they asked several designers and program managers to list what they called the "main steps" to design systems. Only 16% mentioned all these three principles despite them being so basic. Early focus on users, empirical measurement, and iterative design. Only 16% mentioned all three.
7:13
In fact, more people -- 26% -- mentioned none of these very basic things. Now I would hope that if somebody were to do this study again today they would get a bigger percentage of people mentioning these principles. But I actually think even today that it's not the case that everybody actually would mention all three. And it's even more the case that not all projects would follow all three principles, despite them actually being truly basic, fundamental and required for quality design.
7:44
So we'll find that a lot of immutable rules fall into this realm of user experience process. Advice for good process tends to be the same year after year. One of them is this point about testing with real users. Here are two photos of a usability lab that I used when I worked at Sun Microsystems in 1994. But it could have been a photo of today. It's the same idea: you put a computer, you put a person with that computer, you have some cameras, you have a one-way mirror, you have
8:18
a green plant in the corner. Every usability lab has to have a green plant in the corner! And you have the back room where all of the project team members sit there. They are isolated from the user by the one-way mirror so that the people on the team can go "Oh NO! Why did they click the wrong button?" This happens year after year. The only way that you can tell that this is an old photo is the computer itself. It's big and clunky because that's how they looked back then.
8:49
Here's a photo from a study that we did more recently. See, thinner computers, smaller cameras, but the same basic idea. You sit next to the user and you observe what they do. You film it and you can look at the video later. A few more years later, even thinner computers and even smaller cameras but the same setup. I can keep taking these photos every year and they will keep looking about the same. That said, there are certainly some things that change the basic process of user testing.
9:16
So I'll show you a photo from a more recent study we did. This is a study that we did with eye-tracking and mobile devices. I should point out, first of all, that this is not a real user. This is one of our own experts who is playing the user to try out the equipment. Our study facilitator here who just gave the intro - all of our test facilitators are too professional to actually laugh at the users. We don't do that! But we can laugh at each other.
9:45
This looked like a torture device, this thing, but it was eye-tracking for mobile devices. This was one thing that we were trying out at the time. So some things like that you do a little bit differently. But basically, things remain the same year after year after year. I want to go back even further to the year 1628. This is a photograph of the ship the Vasa, which is a Swedish warship and it is in a museum in Stockholm.
10:10
You can go and see it today, it is a really great museum and well worth seeing if you're in Stockholm. But in 1628 this was the biggest ship in the Swedish navy and the biggest ship that had ever been built in Sweden. So when they had just finished constructing the ship and it had never been out sailing yet, the newly appointed captain came aboard the ship and said "We have got to test the stability of this ship." He got all of the sailors on the deck and got them to run back and forth.
10:39
All of the sailors run to one side of the ship and then all of the sailors run to the other side of the ship. And as these guys run back and forth, the ship started leaning more and more. At this exact moment the admiral of the Swedish navy comes down to the dock and orders the captain to stop the stability test because this is the flagship of the navy. It has to get out on the water - that's why they built this ship! Not to have the sailors run back and forth.
11:10
So, the captain does as he's told and they set sail. They sail out, leave the dock and reach the middle of Stockholm harbor. There's a gust of wind and the ship keels over. It sinks on the spot in the middle of the harbor. This is why they have later recovered this ship and it's in a museum. It's good for us, maybe, but it was bad for them. It was that unstable that it didn't even get out of the harbor. It was that unstable a ship!
11:40
This story proves two things: the first thing it proves is that Star Trek was right, captains are smarter than admirals. The second thing may be more relevant for us which is: test before you launch. This is such a basic, basic point. But if you don't test and you just launch, your ship or your product it has a big chance of catastrophe or failure in the marketplace. It's kind of like, right now there is a popular K-Pop song says "You've got two choices, yes or yes."
12:19
You can test or you can test. Your design will be tested by users, either before you launch or after you launch. That's your only choice: yes or yes. Test or test. So that was the story about The Vasa. We have a lot of constants in the user experience process because we are dealing with people, because we are dealing with some of the inherent things about design. User-centered design works better than system-centered design or internally-focused design.
12:48
Early focus on users works better than late focus on users. This has been the same decade after decade. I predict that if I were going to do a talk in ten years that I would say the exact same points because this is a fundamental, immutable rule. More iterations are better. You can never design the perfect interface the first time you try. Every single iteration you do of the design, you improve the quality.
13:09
It's better to have low-commitment, discount usability methods and prototypes for the early iterations because you will discover design flaws. In fact, there's only one rule about usability testing which is that if you do a usability study and you discover nothing wrong with the design, it proves you did the test wrong. Not that your design was perfect, because that does not exist. So you will always discover ways of getting it better, better, better and even better the more times you can do it.
13:41
So you have to make those changes. And it is easier to make that happen in a company or an organization, given human nature, if you haven't invested a lot -- both in terms of resources but even more so in terms of commitment or emotional attachment to your wonderful design idea -- if you've slaved over this for weeks, it's hard to be told that no, it's wrong go and change it. If you've worked on it for a day, that message is more easily received and it's more likely that the changes are made.
14:13
And last, we have to look at both the experience architecture (the big picture) and the details of the user interface on every screen. Both matter. I've seen many cases where an otherwise wonderful design sank to the bottom of the harbor because one button, one word was wrong and people clicked the wrong button because these details matter so much for users' ability to use an interface correctly. So that's why, one of the many reasons that UX design is hard, is that you have got to
14:48
get both the architecture right and all the details right as well or you will fail. I want to show you, as a little experiment, this piece of art and ask you what is this a picture of. I think most people would say this is a picture of two boats or ships at sea. In fact, it's a Japanese artwork and the title is The Torch Shrine in Oki Province. Now, where's the shrine? You may well think that this is a picture of two boats but it is a picture of a shrine. Now, here's the shrine.
15:21
If you look closely... very closely... you can see the gate into that religious place. This is an artwork and the artist is playing with us. We start to think and get the wrong impression of what this is supposed to be a picture of. This is acceptable if it's art. If it's design, it's not acceptable. There's a difference between art and design. Design has to have a functionality and you have to be able to use it easily.
15:49
Art you can ponder and think about and chuckle over and be inspired by and all of these other things. Design has to work. So why is this the case? These are immutable rules. Things that are big and colorful and in the foreground are more notable than things that are small and in the background and in muted colors. Honestly, those rules were true back in 1853 and they are true now and they will be true in another hundred years. These are immutable rules. I want to go back even more in history.
16:20
We'll go back to the year 750 BC to Athens, Greece. Here is a grave memorial -- a small section of a bigger memorial -- and it shows the funeral. You can see the dead person lying there, you see all the relatives tearing out their hair. Oh no! It's so terrible! And you feel that. If you look closely you will see that just to the right of that dead person you will see a smaller person, probably their child. This is a person who lost one of their parents.
16:57
This is a child who lost one of their parents. It's really a sad scene. Another thing to notice about that is that if you look at the artistic style it is a primitive drawing style. This is a type of art style that makes some people say that "Well, my seven-year-old nephew could have drawn something better." It turns out that most people's nephews are not actually Picasso, but people think so anyway. It is a very primitive, simplistic drawing style.
17:26
Let's go forward a few hundred years, still staying in Athens, Greece. Here is another grave memorial. It is still old but it's not as old. It's from 400 BC. So we move from the Archaic Era to the Classic Era. This is exactly why it's called the Classic Era because this is classic art. This is the type of sculpture that has made for thousands of years people say that the Greeks were an artistic peak and knew how to make great statues. It's a beautifully done, artistically done marble piece.
17:56
But what does it actually show? It's a grave memorial, but it shows the deceased person as a young woman sitting there looking in her jewelry chest that her maid is presenting. She is pondering what earrings to wear for the party tonight. That's not a sad scene of death: it's refuting the reality of what actually happened. We can analyze these two grave scenes at two different levels. We can look at the surface design; the artistic appearance of the picture and say that the
18:30
previous one, the Archaic one was very primitive in its drawing style. This is a very sophisticated depiction of a scene. Or we can look at the deep design and say what is being shown in the old design is the reality of death and this is rejecting reality. There's surface design and there is deep design. This was true more than 2,000 years ago and it's true today as well. We have got to consider both. Another thing that is annoying to me about today's world is that I think in the user
19:07
experience field we have what I call vocabulary inflation, which is people coming up with new words for the same thing constantly. It's super annoying, not just annoying but it's also detrimental to the field because it leads to a lot of miscommunication of people not understanding each other, people thinking that there are two different terms for two different things. No, it's the same thing with two different names.
19:33
I'll show you some of the phrases used for the general field throughout my career. We've used all of these different things to refer to basically the same thing. There are little tweaks on them but this is basically the same thing. This is true for a lot of more detailed elements as well. What you often find is that there will be something that is 98% the same as the old thing and perhaps 2% different but it will get a completely new name.
20:04
I would rather say that "This is that old, well-known thing that you already know about, but I would recommend that you change this 2% of it a little bit. That would probably be better for your project." But no, that's not what people do. They come up with a completely new, fanciful term for what is basically the same thing over and over again. They keep re-inventing terms for the same thing. I think that there are many different reasons for that.
20:28
One of them is that some people are ignorant of the field and the history of the field and they genuinely think that they have come up with something new even though they are coming up with a small tweak on something that is well-known that has been done for thirty years already. That's one reason for the new words, that people don't know that they exist already. That's ignorance. Another reason is that the user experience field is still a somewhat oppressed field. Not as much as it used to be.
20:55
We have come a long way. But still, in most companies, it is not the most prestigious or the most well-funded discipline. So some people have the feeling that if they just use a more fanciful vocabulary, if you don't use the old, well-known words, but instead this new, fancy thing then that must be more important. The solution to a lack of respect is to come up with a new fanciful vocabulary — but no. Using fancy words will not get you respect. Producing results will get you respect.
21:35
That's what we should focus on rather than always changing the names for the same things. A last reason for this vocabulary inflation is that some people deliberately do it. They deliberately set out to make their own name for something that is actually quite common. But they make a little tweak on it and now it's a proprietary process. And if you only use Brand X name for something, now your product will be successful even though it is the same as always.
22:06
I would much rather than companies would promote themselves by saying that "We are more insightful, or deeper, or better at doing the things that we have known for 30, 40 years." But that is often not the way that it is done. People like to have vocabulary inflation and to invent their own terms, their own proprietary terms, leading to ever more confusion in our sorry little field. That, I think, is sad. Let's get rid of this vocabulary inflation and keep a simple vocabulary instead.
22:38
That would be much nicer. We also have a lot of immutables in the web -- not just in the process but in the web itself. One of the big characteristics of the web is that it's just big. The web is for all practical purposes infinitely big in terms of the amount of information. There is about fifty billion pages on the web, which means that if you were going to assign to yourself as your full-time job to read the web that would take more than half a million years. Which is clearly not happening.
23:12
People know that. Users know that. That's one of the reasons that they have developed this very ruthless approach to screening information online: scanning rather than reading in-depth, jumping between pages and this is also why they use search so much. It dives straight to where they want to go, not where the company would like them to see. Not only is there so much stuff, but most of it is bad. Most information is wrong or boring or it is going to take you forever to dig out a
23:42
small nugget of good stuff in there. Users know this also. This is one of the reasons why they're so quick to leave a website at the smallest provocation. That's why it's so important to pay attention to credibility, trust and persuasion guidelines. By the way, that's why we have a full day of that at this conference. People are inherently skeptical of things that they see on the web, they are not inherently very trusting.
24:11
Because there is so much, it's easy to get lost, which is why we have so many guidelines on helping people find their way and establish their context. This is also why we have to reduce demands on their short-term memory, which is also one of these immutable facts. People have a very limited amount of brain capacity and it's not getting any bigger. People ten years from now will have about the same short-term memory as today and we
24:35
will have to retain all of the many design guidelines that follow from these principles. There has been a nice study done by Microsoft Research where they analyzed two billion page views and looked at how long time people stayed on the page and therefore what is the probability of someone leaving a webpage after a certain duration of a visit. What you can see is that the probability of leaving is extremely high in the first
25:02
few seconds. If you are one of the few webpages where people actually stay for two minutes, two minutes is like eternity on the web, but if people stay on your webpage for two minutes then the probability of them leaving right then is fairly low. The first twenty seconds or so are key. This is where the curve bends. In the first twenty seconds, you have to capture people there, convince them that this is a credible, useful site to them or they are going to be out of there.
25:37
People cannot read a very large number of word count in twenty seconds so you have really got to be concise in your communication. We have two gaps in User Experience relative to delivering what we should do. Sites and designs in general often fail on that. What we want is usefulness. That is to say, we want to actually do something for our users. For a design to be useful it has to have two quality parameters: utility and usability.
26:11
Utility is a question of "Do you do something that people need and want?" Usability is a question of "Can they use it?" The point is we need both. Bad utility means that you have something that people people don't need. You could have the most wonderful user interface design, but if the interface is designed to the wrong features, people are not going to use it. Why should they bother? Even if it's a great design, if it does the wrong thing it's for nothing.
26:43
But at the same time, if you have great utility you have all the right feature but people can't figure out how to use them, it's also all for nothing. That feature that people can't figure out how to use might as well not exist because you're not going to use it if you can't figure out how to use it. That means that we need to satisfy both of these two. This is why in design projects we often have these two different gaps to overcome to deliver that goal of usefulness.
27:17
The gap can be a utility gap or it can be a usability gap. To illustrate that, I'm going to show you an example from a research project that we recently did. The details are published on our website. We studied intelligent assistants: some of the current AI assistants and voice assistants. These are things like Amazon's Alexa or Apple's Siri where you can ask the assistant to do something and maybe it will give you a good answer.
27:43
What we did is a study where the users were all users of those types of systems and they were asked to record every time that they had a need that they would like to get help on from their assistant. There was a long list of different user needs. We discovered that only in 7% of those cases did people actually get their problem solved by that assistant. This is terribly low! We had two other categories. In about a third of the cases, 34% of the cases, is that gold area where AI can do it,
28:20
however people did not choose to use it. Then we have a big category, which is 59% where the current artificial intelligence is not up to the task and can't do what people want it to do. This is where I talk about those gaps. The utility gap, which is that top box, is where the tasks can't be done at all -- the utility is just not there. The middle area, the usability gap, the computer could do it but users do not do it because
28:50
it is too difficult to do, too cumbersome to use, or some other usability problem explains why people don't do it. If you look at these two, you might think that it looks like the utility gap is the most serious. It's the biggest for sure and so that is where we should focus our investments on building better artificial intelligence. But let's look at this a little more carefully. Let's look right now at things that are possible to do with today's technology.
29:15
That's what was the two bottom boxes on the previous bar chart. I used the same color coding so green is the tasks that people actually did and that was 7% as the percent of all tasks. Let's look at only what's possible with today's artificial intelligence technology: it's 17% of those tasks. And what's possible but not done is 34% of all tasks but 83% of the possible tasks, things that could already hypothetically be done. That's huge.
29:44
The usability gap is actually a huge percentage of what's possible. Now I want to do an exercise where we'll do a hypothetical projection into the future. This is the data from the current state of the art based on the study that we just did this year. Let's assume we had perfect artificial intelligence. We have done so much work in AI that now the computer can do every possible thing that users want. This of course will take some time, but let's assume that that is done.
30:13
Let's make one more assumption which is that the usability of the new features is the same as the usability of the old features. I'll admit that this is just an assumption because we are just doing a scenario for the future, but I think that this is a realistic assumption that usability of the new features is the same as usability of the old features. This means that the chart will now look like this. New features that become possible are now colored either green or gold in the same proportion
30:43
as the old features. Now we can re-organize the groups together and we will see that the area that represents tasks actually done has now grown to 17%. This means that we have had an increase in tasks done by 10 percentage points. We go from 7 to 17. This is actually great! We more than double so this is worth doing. But at the same time we see 83% not done because of that usability gap if we assume that new features have the same bad usability as today's systems.
31:22
That's what leads me to say that the usability gap is enormously serious for getting these types of products really used more in the future. We have to make artificial intelligence more suited for human behavior so that people will both be able to do the tasks and want to do the tasks with their assistant. That is crucial! Crucial to make that happen. I want to show you a longitudinal data chart, which is very rare that people do this,
31:58
but for many years we collected user satisfaction data where every time we studied a website we would ask the test users to rate on a 1 to 7 scale their satisfaction. It was subjective satisfaction, with 7 being very satisfied and 1 being very dissatisfied. On this chart here each dot represents one test of one website and they are sorted by years from the very old studies to the more recent studies. What does this data show? It shows that there is no trend.
32:35
I can't do any data analysis that shows that by X percent per year there's a change... There's no change. There's no change in user satisfaction year over year. Let me first ask you: is it the case that websites today are just as bad as websites were during the dot-com bubble? No, this is not right. This is not the case. Websites today definitely are much better than they used to be. I worked on these things back then and they were terrible!
33:08
Today's websites still have their problems but they were really terrible, really bad. There was only one good thing about websites back during the dot-com bubble and that's that it was very easy to be a usability consultant. They were so bad that being a usability consultant in those days was like shooting fish in a barrel. You just had to look at them for a very short amount of time and then you would be able to say
33:33
"Oh, you can double your business by stopping these five stupidities that you are doing that are preventing people from using your website!" Sites are definitely better today. So why is satisfaction not up when quality is honestly up a lot? That's because subjective satisfaction is not a matter of the quality of the delivered product or experience. Satisfaction is a matter of the relationship between what you get relative to what you expect.
34:04
It's very expectation-driven and what happens is that users' expectation for the quality of your website is based on their collective experience of all the other websites they use. That's what forms people's expectations. What happens is websites are getting much better and that means that people's experiences using these other websites are much better. That means that their expectations of your website are now much higher which means
34:32
that their satisfaction is not going to get any better even if you improve the site. In fact, if you are one of those companies that does collect customer satisfaction data year after year and your satisfaction score this year is the same as your satisfaction score last year, this proves that you did a good job. Stagnant customer satisfaction data means that you have done a good job in improving the quality of your design to keep up with user expectations.
34:59
Now, if you have a higher customer satisfaction score then that doesn't indicate a good job but a great, exceptional job. You've improved enormously, not just improved like other people. But this is one of those immutable rules of user experience: user satisfaction is not really going to go up because demands or expectations are going to increase comparatively with what the entire rest of the world is doing.
35:27
That means that we constantly have that job of continuous improvement, continuous quality improvement is one of those immutable rules of user experience. We have to keep getting better because the customers are demanding that we get better or they will just abandon doing business with our website. That's another immutable rule. A lot of these things just keep being very, very constant. I want to close with what I think is the biggest constant of them all which is that UX is people.
35:59
It's not technology, it's not really about computers, it's about people. It's about people in two ways. It's about people in terms of the users. It's about the people who are actually using our design and we have to design for them, for their characteristics, which often are not changing very much. That's one way in which UX is people. There's another way which is not talked about quite as much which is that it's people in the sense of the design team of us.
36:27
It's the people who are working on these projects. That's why these process issues are both very important but also tend to be about the same because all of these criteria for how you go about designing a good user experience. They tend to be about the same because UX design is incredibly complicated. There are so many different details that combine in so many different ways. You've got to get them all right and this is not something that you can do by just sitting
36:57
there waiting for inspiration to strike. And then it springs out of your brain! And then here is a wonderful website or artificially intelligent agent or whatever... The first idea is never going to be the best design. This is why we have to think about the human characteristics of us, of our inability to be perfect, our humanity as well. So that's how UX is about people. We have that duality in many, many ways, and I've hinted at some of them throughout this talk.
37:29
We have to talk about utility and usability. We have to consider the surface design -- is it beautiful? -- and the deep design, the more true experience. All of these things have to be done, the architecture and the user interface, tiny details about the buttons and so forth; all of these things. There's a lot of duality to user experience products, which is why we have to have good, solid processes in place to make sure that we cover that gamut and that we do good work
38:01
on multiple levels at the same time. That's why it's a complicated thing to do. The only good news about it is that it's such a complicated thing to get right so that we certainly will have job security forever. I don't think that I'll ever give a speech that says "User experience problems are solved and we can all go home!" But it's a long-term project. We've come a long way but there is an even further long way to go.
38:29
But if you just remember one thing, take away one thing back and hammer it in to your teammates and the rest of your company it's this one message. UX is people. Thank you very much!
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat