3 ms·

There's even a machine intelligence agent that will critique your logo online ;) https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/ https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/ Some of my fa

There's even a machine intelligence agent that will critique your logo online ;) https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/ https://brandmark.io/logo-rank/ Some of my favorite posts online are of the sub-genre: company rebrands all design elements, and a well-respected design professional offers genuine critique. I also love reading about process at elite design firms like Pentagram, and how much thought (or emotion) goes into work. I think a trusted online channel where you could solicit critique for UI / UX experiments online, perhaps through synchronous live video, would be cool. It would probably be invite-only, heavily moderated, etc. But the benefit is input from use cases you yourself would never dream of. Naturally, double edged sword.

superhuzza 7y ago
Us designers actually do use a system like that to get UX feedback. But for the most part, we pay users to do it over a platform usertesting.com. There are a few reasons we pay participants: * We want to recruit certain demographics, which most would not overlap with people hanging out i developer channels online. * Recruiting participants and filtering them is very time consuming - we can run way more tests by just paying participants * We don't always work on 'cool' systems - not many people are interested in testing a checkout flow or employee intranet. * Testing flows and providing feedback can be time consuming and tedious, which leads to dropouts. Paying users generally ensures they actually try to finish the tasks and provide feedback. Live video (generally moderated testing, with follow up questions from the interviewer) is done sometimes, but logistically it's quite hard and often more expensive. Generally speaking it's easier to set up unmoderated tests, that are kind of like an interactive survey overlaid on the application being tested. With this method you can still do screen capture and an an audio/visual track of the participant giving their thoughts.

superhuzza 7y ago

Us designers actually do use a system like that to get UX feedback. But for the most part, we pay users to do it over a platform usertesting.com. There are a few reasons we pay participants: * We want to recruit certain demographics, which most would not overlap with people hanging out i developer channels online. * Recruiting participants and filtering them is very time consuming - we can run way more tests by just paying participants * We don't always work on 'cool' systems - not many people are interested in testing a checkout flow or employee intranet. * Testing flows and providing feedback can be time consuming and tedious, which leads to dropouts. Paying users generally ensures they actually try to finish the tasks and provide feedback. Live video (generally moderated testing, with follow up questions from the interviewer) is done sometimes, but logistically it's quite hard and often more expensive. Generally speaking it's easier to set up unmoderated tests, that are kind of like an interactive survey overlaid on the application being tested. With this method you can still do screen capture and an an audio/visual track of the participant giving their thoughts.