Here’s the video.
The tech and the tools may be updated and it’s 3 years old but 80-90% of the reasoning, methods and approacehs are still as relevant.
Paris Web is a great conference. I was really impressed by the professionalism of the organisers, by how accessible the talks were – real-time French subtitling (which were helpful for me too!) of all talks and on-stage signing. Lots of talks were in English also.
It won my prize of “Best food at a UX conference. Ever.”.
If you are looking for an interesting conference (and you also speak French), I can highly recommend it.
No design without (user) research; A great talk (with video) by Belén Barros Pena given at 2019 Libre Graphics Meeting (LGM) conference in Saarbrucken. The talk was about why and how to incorporate design research practices into free software projects, but it applies to all projects.
The tool we use to turn around user research findings fast at Monzo; this comes from Samantha Davies. The answer might not be what you’re expecting. (Spoiler: it’s not what you’re expecting.)
Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action; A handbook from Brussels Privacy Hub & ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) on how to process personal data as part of humanitarian operations, particularly those in charge of advising on and applying data protection standards.
SOUPS 2019 Round-up; A nice short summary of some interesting papers and presentations at SOUPS 2019, collated by Simply Secure. (I contributed to it!)
Aphasia community; provides resources about aphasia, information about aphasia communities (mainly in Australia), best work practices, support for people working in aphasia communities. (via Dr. Abi Roper)
The race to create a perfect lie detector – and the dangers of succeeding; A Guardian newspaper article about
We need to talk about dyslexia at work; a nice blogpost about dyslexia in the work place and how to improve support for people who live and work with dyslexia.
A beginners guide to getting into user research; A ma-hoosive list of resources (in the form of a Notion.so note) about how to start doing user research.
Lámh signing system; the manual sign system used by children and adults with intellectual disability and communication needs in Ireland. With Lámh, speech is always used with signs and only key words in a sentence are signed. (Lámh is the Irish word for hand)
Events, and conferences
Interesting things to read
Do you write a blog? Do you have opinions about things? If so, your “honest opinion” is defined by legislation (in the UK).
You are not a brand; Thank God someone finally said it.
Ashley Fowler from @USABLE_tools reiterated during “Designing for extreme risks” workshop that a common problem is that developers design tools primarily for themselves and not for a specific user group #SOUPS2019@n0gat on Twitter quoting Ashley Fowler from Internew Usable Tools project
Security and privacy
How to effectively use a Password Managers; a nice article about research from CyLab at Carnagie Mellon University presented at SOUPS 2019 (Why people don’t use password managers effectively).
Drama; “is a Mac app for designing animations and prototyping user interaction. It allows you to create an entire structure of interconnected Scenes with transitions between them and then run a simulation of such prototype.”
Blueprint; “Blueprint is a React-based UI toolkit for the web.”
Protect you Nextcloud account; using Confidential Technology’s 2FA Hardware token authentication. This means a Nextcloud user can protect their account with a physical hardwre device combined with their password. And the software is open source.
I saw a message today to a mailing list (essentially) asking – what impact does Brexit have on the accessibility of UK websites – specifically UK government (anything that ends in .gov.uk).
A worrying, but understandable question. The answer came that websites will still have to comply with the:
- UK Equality Act
- Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (2018)
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
- ISO standard ISO 30071-1
What was not mentioned was that the requirement to be accessible will only really apply for services available UK residents.
If the service is for non-UK residents (and I may be incorrect) non-UK citizens, then this a11y requirement may not be required.
(Post is in draft. This is the beginning. Check back later..)
Everyone wants to build a usability research lab. You don’t always need one. You can do a lot with some low cost equipment.
Building a research lab
I’ve built small-scale labs when I worked in government. They are not a build and forget type of resource. They take time and effort to manage.
It’s very easy to waste £60-80K on something you don’t need. Seriously. Hire another 1-2 user researchers instead.
If you don’t have 1) time, 2) budget to manage the lab, and/or train your staff to use it, you ‘re not making good use of your equipment, or finances!
You can however build a small lab, less than £6-10k. Which is still an investment you need to justify.
The alternative is to provide your user researchers with their own, small portable lab which gives them most of the equipment they’ll need to carry out regular research/testing.
If they need more, there’s always commercial labs.
Portable research lab
Here is my portable lab. It consists of about £/€120 worth of off-the-shelf equipment, mostly bought from Amazon.
(Use the image below as a link and click through to see the annotated version on Flickr)
Nick Fine explained it nicely in a LinkedIn comment:
[…user research, especially lab-based user testing, is HUMAN SKILLS based, not tools. The tool merely facilitates the research, it doesn’t do it for you.]LinkedIn comment
(This post has been sitting in draft for a few months. Today I was tagged in a discussion about researching with vulnerable/distressed people and I just pressed publish. The post started out as an email I sent to the UK GDS User Research mailing list on the topic of doing user research with vulnerable people.)
In 2017-2018 I worked on a web service for compulsive gamblers created by a non-profit organisation (funded by the gambling industry) at the request of the UK Gambling Commission.
(NB: Many participants would disagree with this “compulsive gambler” label, but according prior research they were).
The service “epic user story” was for:
a compulsive gambler to be able to ban themselves from accessing online gambling websites and smartphone gambling apps
What follows below is a mixture of learnings I had about my professional work and how to conduct research with vulnerable users, and also advice to others who may need to do the same
Seek professional help!
I was reasonably comfortable with my approach in terms of ethics, and consent. However I still felt I needed expert psychological review of my approach to the work.
I made contact via a project stakeholder (who was also a trained clinical psychologist and addiction therapist) with a chartered psychologist and academic researcher also connected to the project.
This was because the project was going into a difficult psychological area which I was not trained in. I am not a professional psychologist. I’m a user centred design professional.
The purpose was to review my intial approach to the project, review my consent documentation, and “after research” support and care information.
They also provided me with some academic research papers to understand more. I used these papers to carry out a short literature review.
This lit. review helped me enormously to understand the psychological states my participants were in, their rational for their behaviour. It gave me a better understanding of the language they would use.
Remote / in person research
Initially I expected to carry out this research in person. In person research allows for more emotionally rich research – you can see the non-verbal communications we all make.
When it became difficult to carry out in-person research I switched to telephone and Skype calls.
This proved to be very successful. People seemed to open up and speak frankly. I can’t say why – if it was the distance, speaking to a “disembodied voice?
This was totally unexpected, but made for better quality research. The learning for me was challenge your expectations of research methods.
For the participants
Frame research clearly
In the pre-research session communications I made it very clear that I was not a gambling support therapist – I was not capable of discussing effects of gambling on the persons life. I was designing software.
While this may have an effect on limiting discussions about the reasons your participant has been become vulnerable, it should also limit cathartic but difficult conversations which you are not trained to deal with. This is to protect both the participant and youself.
Anonymity by default
Due to the potentially massively negative effects (financially, professionally, psychologically) on their lives of their gambling activities, I mandated this research would be anonymous.
The only person who would know the participants real identity was myself and my colleague who was present for the session.
When transcribing I removed all references to specific names, cities – I replaced them with geographic regions (e.g. north east/south west), companies, actual ages – I replaced them with ranges (e.g. 20-25 years old).
The transcriptions were available to my project team members but not the originals.
Clear scope, explicit consent
I made the research scope clear – I am researching how the participant needs to carry out this goal of banning themselves from gambling using the system we are building.
I explained I am not a trained counsellor and so cannot legally, give advice or support about gambling activity. I made sure:
- I got clear written informed consent
- that they understood they were free to stop the research session at any moment
- that they understood they could refuse to answer any question
The purpose of consent is to put the participant in the position of power – not to have them “exert” this power, but to show them they can trust you. You will do no harm.
During my interviews, I asked personal questions. The purpose was to understand how they would react if they were asked a similar quesiton during the registeration process.
To my surprise, participants were very willing to answer them – they knew this service would help them deal with their current situation.
The “value” proposition was clear to them.
Like doing research with participans who have access needs, you also need to be more patient with participants.
Some may want to go off the research topics, and you need to be more patient and empathetic with them than in a less emotive situation.
When they cried we took a break.
Your job is being the user researcher. Listening to the participant.
When dealing with difficult topics, this can often mean a lot of silence. You’re job is to be comfortable with awkward situations. That often means being uncomfortable (within reason) so that the participant is not.
Be comfortable with silence.
Address research sessions confusions (and iterate)
After doing 2 pilot studies on the project I found some participants seemed confused – they seemed to think *I* was doing psychology research into compulsive gambling.
I adapted my research interview preamble to make this explicit – going to the point of saying it was against the law for me to ask about the psychological effect of their activity.
I listened and then tried to bring the conversation back on topic – the topic I was researching was what compulsive gamblers needed from the website we were developing.
Once the “research”part of the session finished, I gave the person some time to gather their thoughts, and reflect. This was often just 4-5 minutes of silence where nobody spoke.
Once finished, I then provided them with signposting to gambling support signposting in their community.
Some people may not deal well with the realisation they were a compulsive gambler. Some were genuinely not aware of the support available.
So you need to provide them with signposting to professionals who can help.
The purpose of this support is to shorten the gap between the decision and action to get the support – don’t just provide a national resource.
I gave participant a small flier with information about support they could access local to them – a telephone number, a local support office.
This was not judgemental, it was to assist them in the event they made the decision to follow it.
Respect, don’t patronise or sympathise
The participants I spoke with, even though their lives were in terrible situations, didn’t to want my pity.
They were very interested in helping as they waned to help others in similar situations.
I tried to keep my distance in terms of sympathy. Give them a tissue, not a hug. When they cried we stopped for a while.
If you feel you are beyond your capabilities reassess. Don’t be afraid of asking more experienced colleagues for help.
For the researcher
It is very easy to forget about the impact of research on the researcher.
Normally we are researching light-hearted topics. They don’t effect us much.
This was not one of those cases. After a solid week of interviews, hearing about the effects of the participants gambling activity started to have an effect on me.
I expected to hear some difficult stories but I wasn’t prepared for the sheer number of them.
On reflection the input of the chartered psychologist professional minimised this.
Do no harm (to the researcher)
I was not a professional psychologist and so needed support too. The psychologist who advised me on how to insure my research minimised any effects on the participants also had a lot of good advice most practical being – expect to be effected by the research.
I was planning a large portion of my research to be qualititative interviews, with formative and summative usability testing.
The chartered psychologist reminded me of some good supports to put in place for myself and the participants:
- designate a colleague(s) to speak to about it when the research effects you. Speak with them regularly
- it is acceptable to talk to this colleague about your feelings or reactions to the data you find
- it is not acceptable to identify participants in any way or talk about the person individually, or their individual circumstances
(Personally, I was lucky that I had someone at home to talk about how the research affected me. This was very helpful.)
It was helpful to have a colleague with me at times (acting as “note-taker”). Post-research session we spoke about what we’d just heard, and we’d deal with the situation
While this may sound like a terrible experience, it was anything but that. It stretched my user-centred design research skills greatly, but led to good, actionable, ethical research which was used to build a service that had a positive impact on it’s users.
Looking back, I don’t think I’d have done anything differently, except maybe taken more breaks between interviews.
I’ve been using my XPS 13 developer machine more and more over the past few months after recently installing POP_OS (Ubuntu based with a very nice and usable Gnome 3 theme).
Last week I updated to POP_OS 18.10, which brought lots of changes. One of those unexpected changes was the function (F buttons) stopped controlling things like sound, media player, turning on/off keyboard backlighting, turning on/off wireless connectivity.Continue reading “Fixing fn button controls on your POP_OS laptop post-update 18.10”
(This is an open letter to The Association of Computer Machinery)
Dear ACM Events team,
This is a light-hearted constructive criticism of your events sign-up form. It is meant to be helpful.
In a previous life I was an engineer but I went to the light side and became a Human-Computer Interaction professional.
My profession is user-centred designer – user researcher and ux designer.
One of the great things of studying in university was getting access to your wealth of academic research. Since then, I’ve stayed a member of the ACM as I didn’t want to loose that access.
Even though I recognise that your focus (certainly up ’til now) has been computer professionals who write, develop, create technical works, I still stayed a member. I think sometimes UX people feel like the unpopular cousin. 😉
(Aside: I say up ’til now, as I am well aware of the recent update of the ACM Code of Ethics 1)Link to ACM Code of Ethics https://ethics.acm.org/. I am also continually amazed by the human-centred design articles, commentary and thoughts that are expressed in the pages of CACM. Not forgetting the Interations magazine.)
Be still my beating ♥
You can imagine my happiness when I saw the below mail that popped into my mailbox – “Register now: March 7 Talk on inclusive UX Design with Google’s Jen Devins and Nithya Sambasivan 2)Link to the ACM’s event page https://on.acm.org/t/building-a-culture-to-support-inclusive-design/1203!
Finally! The ACM is holding a really interesting talk about my profession. I’ve got to sign-up.
I quickly scrolled to the bottom of the form to get my details submitted, but when it came to my professional role….my heart sank. These are the only professional roles I could find.
No explicit mention of user researcher, user centred designer. All I could do was choose “other”. 🙁
I’ve had the same issue when I’ve registered for other events and talks. The most applicable box(es) I can put myself in are:
- Researcher – industry
- Practicioner – Software/Apps Designer/Dev/Eng or
- Practicioner – systems architect/Designer/Engi
I appreciate that you’ve got statistics, metrics, and other data to run, but I’d argue the data you’re gathering is skewed, as you’re possibly not gathering the right data.
Me, a practictioner – user centred designer, is definitely not the same as Jane, a practictioner – Software Engineer.
What I’d like to suggest
Please consider including some professional roles for human-computer interaction professionals.
If you ask me, the least would be:
- user researcher and
- ux designer
I hope you’ll consider my suggestion. Thanks for reading this.
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||Link to ACM Code of Ethics https://ethics.acm.org/|
|2.||↑||Link to the ACM’s event page https://on.acm.org/t/building-a-culture-to-support-inclusive-design/1203|