Hey @vaexperience! Love your insightful videos. I watch them every day. I'm just a bit confused about your explanation of UX right now. UX is the user's experience itself, right? And as you said design thinking and sprint are tools to design a product to create a good User Experience. Are there any other methodologies to create a UX-proofed Product? UX is not a methodology, correct? And why should a UX Designer feel threatened by Design Thinking? What does traditional UX mean? And of course, there are UX Laws to follow while designing. So many questions, I hope it's ok. Thank you for your Wisdom :)
Design Sprints and Design Workshops are IMO best used to directly involve skeptical stakeholders and show them that there is a structure to the whole UX process. A lot of times companies think that they do UX but their "perfect" solutions are usually hypotheses straight out of a single person's mind.
This is so true. I've been practicing UX for more than 10 years now, and recently I've been working with Design Thinking practitioner who is clueless about UX (it's fundamentals, or heuristics). And when we get into ideation, we always get stuck into the the fundamentals of design thinking mindset as design thinking practitioners always move in linear process. If there's anything ux designers should learn, is the fact that there are 1000 ways to skin a cat - basically a ton of ways to approach problem solving. Tunnel visioning to a specific pipeline will only lead you to analysis paralysis specially when you decided to pick a process first before getting your feet wet with the problem. As Don Norman once said, designers break the rules, sometimes they just go build right away, because then you can learn fast.
I've been making just a bit of UX and have studied my masters related to it. I made once Google's design sprint and that was quite confusing. On the other hand I learned that things can be done very fastly. That's a good lesson. On the other hand it was quite strange to rush forward before even doing proper research about the services current users and without defining the problem properly. Sprints are good, BUT the problem is people don't realize their limitations. They expect that what the sprint gives can be the best solution. No need for further study... That's the problem.
@vaexperience can you create a video on the specific use of ux processes in all stages of the projects. For example, when to draw user journey maps, when to do empathy mapping, when to do storyboarding.
Buttons that change positions is a bad idea and doesn't really solve the problem. We typically want the users to learn the pattern and use the platform seamlessly. This just forces the users to look for the button every time they shop and it's quite annoying. Also eventually, with enough customers, the the whole screen would've been touched so it becomes pointless.
After watching some of your previous videos my first thought about the first project was: why don't you just have sanitizers beside the cash desks 😆 saves money time and lack of consistency
Totally. But if a company gets a consultant team in they will likely to propose to build flying cars over simple busses to display the value... and I think this is exactly what happened here
That was my first thinking too, and the simple and easy one, but then I thought "Is there a better touch screen surface that could be used (or created) that could stop the transmission of any biological things?" Is there glass that exists like this? Maybe a mixture of a glass and plastic, etc, etc
After pausing your video - I think solution is confusing for repeat consumer who will set his expectations next time for the checkout/payment button. User will have to look for the position of button every time and this could be frustrating, even though we place any note/hint for them.
How do I know if I’ve empathized enough so I can start solving the problem? What is the measurement for reaching a point of “ just enough empathy” to start moving onto the next step?
I researched this after taking several weeks of the google ux course. I have some background with UX/UI design but I lack the foundation. I thought it was strange that the course focuses on design sprints.. I was wondering about the core principles of UX.. this video helped clear things up for me. Glad that I have other courses to balance out the information
Hi :) just came across your comment and as a newbi in the files of Ux design, I was just wondering which other courses do you have on the topic, so that I could also check them out and learn new stuff :) thanks
I'm confused now. For me Design Thinking and Design Sprint are both parts of UX as such. UX is not something you learn isolated from the other two necessarily but it's enveloping these two methods and more aspects.
Hi, I watched a few of your videos and love them! As someone who is beginning their career in UX, I want to understand the difference between Stanford design thinking and double diamond. I feel they are different, but at the same time, they are quite similar. Would you explain how are the two different so as to understand which one to choose to work and follow? Would really appreciate it! Thank you!
I can't give an official answer, but from what it looks like, double diamond is more of a mental shortcut to see how a designers work cycles between expansive vs. concentrative thinking. In the opening phases of both diamonds, there is more exploration and brainstorming of ideas. In contrast, the closing of the diamonds involve prioritization, decision-making, and ruling out of ideas. As for Stanford, well, they are one of the institutions that have developed design thinking as an idea, and as such they have delivered their own framework on the elements of design thinking. (FYI, the institution that made the double-diamond framework was the British Design Council.)
What's wrong with it? 1. I think this solution makes it difficult to place the checkout buttons in the most optimal position in the screen. This could slow down interaction time as its not what many users expect. 2. The solution doesn't support memory or learning. If I came back to the store I would be annoyed with the system because I would have to relearn the where the new menus and options are placed.
Yeah the design would be confusing, I do agree. If it was Intergrated to our way of thinking when we go out to stores then great. Great concept at first, but to me, it would be a challenge for anyone over 50 to find the button to continue. Plus the employees would have to clean it Maby after every 3 -5 users. Giant all ready cleans thier screens after every person. So I see why this would be better but i think it’s complicated and confusing and a lil more effort than needed . To me at least
Video paused. It looks like they put a lot of focus on being innovative and not usability (and other UX factors/principles/guidelines/laws). Which means they probably ran a Design Thinking process of some sort. They should have also looked at it from a usability perspective to get some balance. Innovation is great when it's usable, not when it's novel.
Findability, discoverability, affordance, consistency, the list goes on...oh boy, I don't even know where to start with all the problems this thing has. It's novel idea, but let's just think about the scalability and sustainability from the product strategy stand point, eventually you're still going to ran out of a "fresh spot" where no one has touched previously....unless you have a store clerk wipes down that screen with disinfectants every hour or so... So. From my experience, Design Sprints are only good for well defined medium size problems that you need generate one or two ideas that can be used for validation purpose. It's not that helpful for conceptual design(big problems) or small design problems that heuristics is suffice. Design sprint is not a one size fits all design activity. For larger problems, it's best to start with generative research to gain user insights before diving into design sprints. Design Sprints are more tactical touch points in the larger UX strategy.
They found the opportunity and hastily took the course of action into POC resulting in many tangible outcomes. Too many unanswered questions to the MVP. It's like they built it because they already had thought of building it! A total mess of Ux. Solving a problem just to create another problem.😆
I really cherish this channel. Im a junior UX Researcher and learn so much from your videos. Thank you
Glad to hear that!
Hey @vaexperience! Love your insightful videos. I watch them every day. I'm just a bit confused about your explanation of UX right now. UX is the user's experience itself, right? And as you said design thinking and sprint are tools to design a product to create a good User Experience. Are there any other methodologies to create a UX-proofed Product? UX is not a methodology, correct? And why should a UX Designer feel threatened by Design Thinking? What does traditional UX mean? And of course, there are UX Laws to follow while designing. So many questions, I hope it's ok. Thank you for your Wisdom :)
finally someone with some sense!
Design Sprints and Design Workshops are IMO best used to directly involve skeptical stakeholders and show them that there is a structure to the whole UX process. A lot of times companies think that they do UX but their "perfect" solutions are usually hypotheses straight out of a single person's mind.
Would it be fair to say that a Design Sprint is just a hackathon project ready to be implemented as a base prototype?
This is so true. I've been practicing UX for more than 10 years now, and recently I've been working with Design Thinking practitioner who is clueless about UX (it's fundamentals, or heuristics). And when we get into ideation, we always get stuck into the the fundamentals of design thinking mindset as design thinking practitioners always move in linear process. If there's anything ux designers should learn, is the fact that there are 1000 ways to skin a cat - basically a ton of ways to approach problem solving. Tunnel visioning to a specific pipeline will only lead you to analysis paralysis specially when you decided to pick a process first before getting your feet wet with the problem. As Don Norman once said, designers break the rules, sometimes they just go build right away, because then you can learn fast.
Doesn't sound like a good designer to me if this person only moves linearly
I am learning so much from watching your videos. Thank you so much for sharing this amazing source of information. This one is quite helpful.
I've been making just a bit of UX and have studied my masters related to it. I made once Google's design sprint and that was quite confusing. On the other hand I learned that things can be done very fastly. That's a good lesson. On the other hand it was quite strange to rush forward before even doing proper research about the services current users and without defining the problem properly. Sprints are good, BUT the problem is people don't realize their limitations. They expect that what the sprint gives can be the best solution. No need for further study... That's the problem.
@vaexperience can you create a video on the specific use of ux processes in all stages of the projects. For example, when to draw user journey maps, when to do empathy mapping, when to do storyboarding.
Buttons that change positions is a bad idea and doesn't really solve the problem. We typically want the users to learn the pattern and use the platform seamlessly. This just forces the users to look for the button every time they shop and it's quite annoying. Also eventually, with enough customers, the the whole screen would've been touched so it becomes pointless.
After watching some of your previous videos my first thought about the first project was: why don't you just have sanitizers beside the cash desks 😆 saves money time and lack of consistency
Totally. But if a company gets a consultant team in they will likely to propose to build flying cars over simple busses to display the value... and I think this is exactly what happened here
That was my first thinking too, and the simple and easy one, but then I thought "Is there a better touch screen surface that could be used (or created) that could stop the transmission of any biological things?" Is there glass that exists like this? Maybe a mixture of a glass and plastic, etc, etc
After pausing your video - I think solution is confusing for repeat consumer who will set his expectations next time for the checkout/payment button. User will have to look for the position of button every time and this could be frustrating, even though we place any note/hint for them.
How do I know if I’ve empathized enough so I can start solving the problem?
What is the measurement for reaching a point of “ just enough empathy” to start moving onto the next step?
Love this video! I was frowning when I first saw the concept of the moving button and now I understand why 👀
if you frown, the users would be confused as hell
I researched this after taking several weeks of the google ux course. I have some background with UX/UI design but I lack the foundation. I thought it was strange that the course focuses on design sprints.. I was wondering about the core principles of UX.. this video helped clear things up for me. Glad that I have other courses to balance out the information
Hi :) just came across your comment and as a newbi in the files of Ux design, I was just wondering which other courses do you have on the topic, so that I could also check them out and learn new stuff :) thanks
Great work! Useful!!!
What’s wrong with it ?
It’s more PX (pandemic experience) than UX ;)
I'm confused now. For me Design Thinking and Design Sprint are both parts of UX as such. UX is not something you learn isolated from the other two necessarily but it's enveloping these two methods and more aspects.
Hi, I watched a few of your videos and love them! As someone who is beginning their career in UX, I want to understand the difference between Stanford design thinking and double diamond. I feel they are different, but at the same time, they are quite similar. Would you explain how are the two different so as to understand which one to choose to work and follow? Would really appreciate it! Thank you!
I can't give an official answer, but from what it looks like, double diamond is more of a mental shortcut to see how a designers work cycles between expansive vs. concentrative thinking. In the opening phases of both diamonds, there is more exploration and brainstorming of ideas. In contrast, the closing of the diamonds involve prioritization, decision-making, and ruling out of ideas. As for Stanford, well, they are one of the institutions that have developed design thinking as an idea, and as such they have delivered their own framework on the elements of design thinking. (FYI, the institution that made the double-diamond framework was the British Design Council.)
@vaexperience, can you do a video of service design? :) I would love to learn about this from you!
Well said! Appreciate the work my friend, subscribed
What's wrong with it?
1. I think this solution makes it difficult to place the checkout buttons in the most optimal position in the screen. This could slow down interaction time as its not what many users expect.
2. The solution doesn't support memory or learning. If I came back to the store I would be annoyed with the system because I would have to relearn the where the new menus and options are placed.
Yeah the design would be confusing, I do agree. If it was Intergrated to our way of thinking when we go out to stores then great. Great concept at first, but to me, it would be a challenge for anyone over 50 to find the button to continue. Plus the employees would have to clean it Maby after every 3 -5 users. Giant all ready cleans thier screens after every person. So I see why this would be better but i think it’s complicated and confusing and a lil more effort than needed . To me at least
This is amazing!!
I've been following your videos! I hope I make this time!
Video paused. It looks like they put a lot of focus on being innovative and not usability (and other UX factors/principles/guidelines/laws). Which means they probably ran a Design Thinking process of some sort. They should have also looked at it from a usability perspective to get some balance. Innovation is great when it's usable, not when it's novel.
Spot on!
Is this a final product or them testing to see if users are more adaptable to this process than we think?
Recommend best masters course for becoming UX designer and even Recommend best bootcamp
This is so insightful
i think its wrong bc it simply makes me think :)
Findability, discoverability, affordance, consistency, the list goes on...oh boy, I don't even know where to start with all the problems this thing has. It's novel idea, but let's just think about the scalability and sustainability from the product strategy stand point, eventually you're still going to ran out of a "fresh spot" where no one has touched previously....unless you have a store clerk wipes down that screen with disinfectants every hour or so...
So. From my experience, Design Sprints are only good for well defined medium size problems that you need generate one or two ideas that can be used for validation purpose. It's not that helpful for conceptual design(big problems) or small design problems that heuristics is suffice. Design sprint is not a one size fits all design activity. For larger problems, it's best to start with generative research to gain user insights before diving into design sprints. Design Sprints are more tactical touch points in the larger UX strategy.
What’s wrong with the concept? Mental models for the user can be messed up if buttons are wherever.
They found the opportunity and hastily took the course of action into POC resulting in many tangible outcomes. Too many unanswered questions to the MVP. It's like they built it because they already had thought of building it! A total mess of Ux. Solving a problem just to create another problem.😆
Were the designers drunk?
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥