Melissa Eggleston

Is vibe coding displacing the value of user research? I had a great conversation with Jeanette Fuccella about her 2x2 framework for prioritizing user research. I love it. It sparked a lot of new thinking. One point that stood out was how this approach gives researchers and product teams the ability to say “not now” without having to say “no.” Catch the full Glaringly Obvious conversation here: https://lnkd.in/grsRtJ_x This moment stuck with me: “At some point, you’ve got to just take a leap of faith. I’ll arm you with as much evidence and data as I can. I’ll tell you my point of view. But in the end, it’s your decision to make.” I loved that. It also opens up some big questions for anyone working in product. Who actually owns the decision? I’ve been thinking about this a lot. AI and “vibe coding” now give teams faster ways to get feedback. But are we really reducing risk, or just pushing it off? Does this make it easier to ship something before it’s ready? Maybe this shift will test users’ patience. Or maybe it will make early research even more valuable. I’m open to exploring more outcomes. But what matters most is finding better ways to make stronger decisions. → So, who owns the decision? → Is it the person who can move faster with feedback? → The one who connects feedback to the vision? → Or the one who finds a way to monetize it first? I’m interested in hearing how your team is approaching this challenge. Also, a quick podcast update: Thanks to everyone who’s shared ideas and feedback so far for Glarinly Obvious. I’m adding more elements to get it production ready. Right now, I’m working on a proper intro with visuals and music. I really appreciate the support! #productdesign #uxmetrics #productdiscovery #uxresearch

76

23 Comments

A lot of UX researchers aren’t sure what should actually go into their reports. Too often, findings get reduced to a single vague p-value. The problem? That doesn’t really tell the full story. If we want our work to be trusted and actionable, there are at least three things we should always report: p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Each one answers a different question. P-value: Is it real or just chance? The p-value is about statistical significance. It tells you how likely it is that your results could have happened by accident if there was no real effect. It’s useful, but by itself it’s limited, it won’t tell you how important the effect is in practice. Effect Size: How big is the difference? Effect size puts the result into context. Was the change large enough to matter for the user experience? A checkout redesign might show a “significant” improvement, but if it only saves half a second, is that really meaningful? Reporting effect size makes sure you’re talking about impact, not just numbers. Confidence Interval: How precise is our estimate? A confidence interval shows the range of values the true effect probably falls into. A narrow range means your estimate is precise, while a wide one means more uncertainty. This helps stakeholders see not just what you found, but also how much confidence they should place in it. When you combine these three, you give a complete picture: the p-value says whether the effect is credible, the effect size says how much it matters, and the confidence interval shows how reliable your estimate is. Together, they turn a UX report from a loose claim into a story stakeholders can actually use to make decisions.

127

17 Comments

The great thing about developers leveraging agentic coding tools, is that a lot of the same design best-practices for communicating with humans, are also really helpful context for LLMs. I hope this article is a helpful starting point for designers to set developers up for success, especially those using Figma's Dev Mode MCP server. https://lnkd.in/gNi92tmH

64

New Article: Mixed Methods Studies That Mix Many UX teams say they’re doing mixed methods, but they’re really just running 2 separate studies and calling it a day. This week’s article breaks down what real mixed methods looks like in UX research. It covers how to design studies that actually integrate qual and quant, when to use them, and how to deal with conflicting findings. Check it out (especially if you’re a UX researcher or research-adjacent working in the real world). https://lnkd.in/euJtJaJG

39

2 Comments

UX Dictionary — A Six terms. Five minutes. Save this for your next stand‑up or interview prep. Affordance, Accessibility, A/B Testing, Analytics, Atomic Design, and Anti‑patterns. 👉 Affordances guide perception (“this looks tappable”). 👉 Accessibility (A11y) makes sure everyone can use your product — it’s not a checkbox, it’s a business and ethical decision. 👉 A/B Testing and Analytics tie creativity to data. 👉 Atomic Design helps scale consistency across complex systems. If you’re just starting out, train your eye: notice how buttons afford clicks, or how dark patterns sneak into sign‑ups. If you’re scaling up, focus on linking experiments to metrics, and map components atom‑by‑atom in your design system. Want me to continue with Letters B, C, D (with practical examples + mini‑quizzes)? Drop a comment with the “A” term you use daily, and follow along. #UXDesign #UIDesign #ProductDesign #DesignSystems #Accessibility #A11y #UXResearch #UXTips #UXUI

161

3 Comments

If you’re a designer looking to advance your career check this out 👇 A few months back I chatted with several design managers in my network about what they look for in senior level designers. What they told me was super interesting. It turns out that many designers who think they’re ready for that next step are missing some key skills that have nothing to do with the aesthetics of design. Here are five of the most eye opening things I learned: 1. They care more about your thinking than your visuals. A polished portfolio is great, but they’re looking for designers who can explain the why behind every design decision. 2. Collaboration matters more than solo talent. Being great on your own isn’t enough. They want designers who can work with stakeholders, developers, and other teams to move projects forward. 3. They expect you to lead without being asked. Taking initiative, solving problems before they arise, and driving projects forward is what sets senior designers apart. 4. Clear communication is a must. If you can’t explain your design decisions clearly, it doesn’t matter how good they are. Being able to advocate for your work is essential. 5. They value adaptability over perfection. Design rarely happens in ideal conditions. The best designers know how to adjust to tight deadlines, changing requirements, and feedback without losing focus. These conversations were a great reminder that taking your design career a step up isn’t just about leveling up your design skills. It’s about leveling up how you think, communicate, and lead. —- 👉 What’s one skill that you’re looking to improve right now? ♻️ Share this post to help other designers understand what it really takes to reach the next level! #DesignStrategy #UXDesign #GraphicDesign #FreelanceDesign #CreativeProcess #CareerGrowth

78

15 Comments

Why I don’t ask people to think aloud in evaluative research 💭 The ‘think aloud’ method has been a staple of usability testing for decades. But in my experience, the way a lot of researchers use it can introduce some issues: 🚫 Some participants take it too literally, narrating every tiny action. This isn’t how they’d behave at home. 🚫 It makes an already unnatural setting feel even less realistic. 🚫 Once someone starts overanalysing, it’s very hard to bring them back. Instead: ✅ Most participants will talk naturally if you just observe them. ✅ If they’re quiet, you can nudge with simple prompts like “what are you thinking?” I’ve found this leads to more authentic behaviour and better insights than briefing people to ‘think aloud’ from the start. 📨 I cover this in more detail in this week's Desk Notes, my free newsletter. Link in the comments.

60

15 Comments

Accessibility isn’t optional - here’s why inclusive design matters. As designers, it’s easy to get caught up in aesthetics, flows, and shiny prototypes. But here’s the truth: if your product isn’t accessible, it’s not complete. Accessibility in design means making sure people of all abilities can use your product, whether that’s someone with low vision navigating a website, a person relying on captions to follow a video, or users with motor impairments who need clear, simple interactions. Inclusive design isn’t just about compliance or ticking WCAG checklists. It’s about empathy. It’s about asking: Can everyone, regardless of ability, truly use and benefit from this product? And here’s why it matters: - It expands your user base (billions of people live with disabilities). - It improves overall user experience - what helps one group often benefits all. - It shows your brand values people, not just profits. Accessibility isn’t an afterthought. It’s good design. Designers, founders, and product teams: let’s stop seeing it as optional and start making it the standard. P.S. What’s one accessibility practice you’ve built into your design process? Your product deserves a designer who listens - I’m here📌 #enoobongakpan

67

10 Comments

New article from MeasuringU: "What UX Hiring Managers Want and What UX Practitioners Report Doing" -- https://lnkd.in/eZY43_5g Data remarkably consistent with findings we (Lawton Pybus) previously pulled about which method are most common in UXR: https://lnkd.in/eTKp43NA Takeaway for UXRs: This gives you a prioritized list of which methods to learn first AND/OR which methods to add once you're comfortable with the most common methods.

33

1 Comment