Here are some interesting finds on UI/UX of the week!
Login Page Design. Great article hailing from the Invision blog. This article provides useful recommendations on the buildout of effective Login pages. It includes recommendations on topics such as social login (or integration of social media platforms as a means to easily access a product), bypassing usernames (focusing instead directly on e-mails), showcase the opportunity to visualize the password, among others. It’s well worth a read, particularly when one triages these recommendations with accessibility standards (labels on forms, validation of forms, error messages). Highlight of the article includes:
“Save your user the headache of having to come up with and remember a username for your website. Instead, have them sign up using their email address or phone number. Does your user really want to come up with a username? Or is it just another chore for them on the journey to register and login to your website? LinkedIn gives users the opportunity to log in with either their phone number or email address.”
Information Foraging. Interesting article from the Nielsen Norman Group, focused on the topic of Information Foraging. This topic basically illustrates how individuals browse the internet, with the intent of satiating an information need. Succinctly: how do users browse the internet, and how do they decide on what to focus on. It’s an interesting perspective, building analogies with animal behaviors that can be observed in nature. Worth a read. Highlight of the article includes:
“In other words, if people have a question, they will decide which webpage to go to based on (1) how likely it is that the page will provide an answer to their question, and (2) how long it’s going to take to get the answer if they go to that page. (Animal-behavior science shows that a similar type of optimization holds true for animal foraging — hence, the optimal foraging theory that served as source of inspiration for Pirolli and Card. Basically, an animal needs to eat more calories than it expends, or it will starve and ultimately die without offspring. Across many generations, animals have evolved highly optimized food-foraging strategies.)”
Teams and Productivity. Great article from the Fast Company, on the topic of team building and productivity. It’s a particularly pertinent article, as teams in general, and Design teams in particular, can grow at a dramatic rate, leading to paths (and outcomes) that are less productive, unified and at times alienating team members themselves. The article illustrates and advocates for an empirically tested solution, with teams up to 15 members, with that number (or interval) being hailed as the one that produces the best results (in terms of convergence, empathy, communion, shared understanding, among other factors). Highlight of the article includes:
“The lesson is that there is a hard limit on the size of a group that can build and maintain a long-lasting, critical level of empathy and shared purpose that brings out maximal performance. This simple concept seems to be lost on companies that continue to build out ever-growing departments tasked with tackling the most ambitious business challenges, whether those challenges are digital transformations, automation, or “insert-today’s-change-management-buzz-word-here.” The more complex the challenge, the more bodies businesses seem to throw at it. Instead, I believe we should all be thinking small: 15-person or fewer “mini-tribes” that have been curated as a team to have each others’ backs and are tasked with a specific, clearly defined mission.”