UI/UX Articles and Interesting Tidbits of the Week
October//11//2024
Here are some interesting finds on UI/UX of the week!
Following a brief break.
1.
Common Research Mistakes. Very relevant article from People Nerds and author Nikki Anderson-Stanier, which applies not only to Research but to many fields in the Design world. Essentially the article is a realistic view at the mistakes we all eventually fall into, and how we should learn from them, and hopefully chart a strategy as to not repeat them once again. The author emphasizes three main aspects: Not Asking for Feedback, Ignoring or Being Inflexible with Business, and Not Asking for Help. Some of the great examples of the author always remind of something I learnt very early on in my career: be humble, learn, study, and don’t be afraid to ask questions. Read on, please. Highlight of the article includes:
“Feedback was the scariest thing in the world for me to receive. I was constantly terrified I would get negative feedback on something — even though that is okay and how we learn and improve. I wanted everything I produced to be spot-on perfect. Very rarely is that the case, especially as a user researcher. You are creating things for other people, and, to ensure you include the information they need, you must ask for feedback. Like my secret persona journey, I would do the same for reports or presentations. Unfortunately, it got so bad that I even stopped asking for feedback on research plans, which is against the whole point of research plans as we use them for collaboration and alignment. I was so fearful of someone not liking something that I did that every time I had to create anything, I was under a high degree of stress.”
2.
Opportunities and Risks on GenAI from the Creators’ Point of View. Fascinating article that is in reality the output of a study conducted by Adobe. The responses from creators demonstrate the level of anxiety on how their creative work is being leveraged, similarly to a parasitical type of relationship, without much safeguard for their rights and ownership, when it comes to how Generative AI leverages their content to generate its own. There’s videos currently circulating on social media on how AI is being perceived, including this one of Justine Bateman making a very pertinent point on the unsanctioned use of AI. All this to say, while AI is indeed a tool to further empower human endeavors, it should exist within ethical and legal boundaries, much like everything we get to experience in life. Worth reading and reflecting upon. Highlight of the article includes:
“Creators demand tools that provide transparency into when and how generative AI is used to create content, as well as more control over using their work for AI training. By overwhelming margins, they say such tools would help address many of their concerns about generative AI.
Creators back government regulation around AI and insist it has a crucial role to play in shielding them from AI’s impact — an area where they see a lack of protective laws.”
3.
Ghosting from Prospective Employers Increase. Interesting article from the Glassdoor Blog and Research team, focused on the topic of Ghosting. For anyone who navigates the job market (everyone then), chances are you have encountered plenty of situations where you were ghosted (I remember a few years back applying for jobs online, and getting responses 8 or 9 months later). This study reinforces that the ghosting of candidates has increased since the advent of Covid. It continues to be perplexing that basic professionalism, married with common sense and decency continue to evade the job application process. Responding to candidates in a timely manner creates an impression of efficiency, competency, and respect, from candidates towards organizations, even if it is indeed an automated dismissal that is sent. It’s an interesting and insightful article on a regrettable trend. Highlight of the article includes:
“Ghosting is mentioned in 5.4 percent of interview reviews where the candidate obtained an interview opportunity through a recruiter — making them 1.4 times more likely to be ghosted than candidates who simply applied online (3.8 percent of those reviews mention ghosting). That means candidates who received direct comms from a recruiter are more likely to complain about ghosting than those who applied blindly, perhaps because they feel even more disappointed or disrespected to be ghosted. What about candidates with a referral? They’re less likely to be ghosted, but ghosting is still mentioned in 2.2 percent of referral-based interview reviews.”
