
Thursday session
Thursday session
I’ve had my head down for the past six months putting the line-up for UX London together. Following the classic design cliché, the process was first divergent, then convergent.
I spent months casting the net wide, gathering as many possible candidates as I could, as well as accepting talk proposals (of which there were lots). It was fun—this is when the possibility space is wide open.
Then it was crunch time and I had to start zeroing in on the final line-up. It wasn’t easy. There were so many times I agonised over who’d be the right person to deliver the right talk.
But as the line-up came together, I started getting very excited. And now when I step back and look at the line-up, I’m positively vibrating with excitement—roll on June!
I think it was really useful to have a mix of speakers that I reached out to, as well as talk proposals. If I was only relying on my own knowledge and networks, I’m sure I’d miss a lot. But equally, if I was only relying on talk proposals, it would be like searching for my keys under the streetlight.
Putting the line-up on the website wasn’t quite the end of the work. We got over 100 proposals for UX London this year. I made sure to send an email back to each and every one of them once the line-up was complete. And if anyone asked for more details as to why their proposal didn’t make it through, I was happy to provide that feedback.
After they went to the trouble of submitting a proposal, it was the least I could do.
Oh, and don’t forget: early-bird tickets for UX London are only available until Friday. Now’s the time to get yours!
Check it out—here’s the line-up for UX London 2025!
This is going to be so good! Grab a ticket if you haven’t got one yet.
UX London takes place over three days, from June 10th to 12th at a fantastic venue in the heart of the city. To get the full experience, you should come for all three days. But you can also get a ticket for individual days. Each day has a focus, and when you put them all together, the whole event mirrors the design process:
Each day features a morning of talks, followed by an afternoon of workshops. The talks are on a single track; four consecutive half-hour presentations to get you inspired. Then after lunch, you choose from one of four workshops. All the workshops are two and half hours long and very hands-on. No laptop required.
On discovery day you’ll have talks in the morning about research, content design, strategy and evaluating technology, followed by workshops on discovery and definition and behavioural design.
On design day there’ll be talks on interface design, a healthcare case study, inclusive design, and typography, followed by workshops in the afternoon on data visualisation and ethics.
Finally on delivery day you’ll get talks on conversion design, cross-team collaboration, convincing stakeholders, and improving design critiques, followed by workshops on facilitating workshops and getting better at public speaking.
Every workshop is repeated on another day so you’ll definitely get the chance to attend the one you want.
Oh, and at the end of every day there’ll be a closing keynote. Those are yet to be revealed, but I can guarantee they’re going to be top-notch!
Right now you can get early-bird tickets for all three days, or individual days. That changes from March 15th, when the regular pricing kicks in—a three-day ticket will cost £200 more. So I’d advise you to get your ticket now.
If you need to convince your boss, show them this list of reasons to attend.
See you there!
About halfway through this talk transcript, Aaron starts dropping a barrage of truth bombs:
I understand the web, whose distinguishing characteristic is asynchronous recall on a global scale, as the technology which makes revisiting possible in a way that has genuinely never existed before the web.
What the web has made possible are the economics of keeping something, something which has not enjoyed “hockey stick growth”, around long enough for people to warm up to it. Or to survive long past the moment when people may have grown tired of it.
If your goal is to build something which is designed to flip inside of ten years, like many things in the private sector, that may not seem like a very compelling argument.
If, however, your goal is to build something to match the longevity of the cultural heritage sector, to meet the goal of fostering revisiting, or for novel ideas to outlast the reluctance of the present and to do so at a global scale, or really any scale larger than shouting distance, then I will challenge you to find a better vehicle for doing so than the internet, and the web in particular.
It’s great to see the evolution of HTML happening in response to real use-cases—the turbo-charging of the select
element just gets better and better!
A ban on tracking-based personalised advertising will provide an incentive to reinforce sustainable alternative models and, in fact, will be a condition for making them viable. The advertising industry already has sustainable, proven concepts for effective online advertising that do not require targeted tracking and personalisation (e.g. contextual advertising).
One of the perks of speaking at conferences is that I get to travel to new and interesting places. I’d say that most of my travel over the past couple of decades was thanks to conferences. Recently though, I’ve been going places for non-work related reasons.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Spain, making my way to the beautiful medieval town of Cáceres for a traditional Irish music festival there. This was the second year that Jessica have been.
It’s kind of perfect. Not only is it a beautiful location—the stand-in for King’s Landing in House Of The Dragon—but there are non-stop sessions late into night, often outdoors. And of course the food is great.
It’s not easy to get to though. Last year we flew into Madrid and then took the train to Cáceres the next day. This year we did it slightly differently and flew into Seville instead. Then we took the four-hour train journey the next day. After the festival, we did it all in reverse.
That meant we had two evenings in Seville to sample its many tapas. On our last night in Seville, we had local guides. Blogger Dirk Hesse and his parter took us to all the best places. Dirk had seen that I was going to be in town and very kindly got in touch with an offer to meet up. I’m very glad we took him up on the offer!
Going to Spain in mid September felt like getting a last blast of Summer sun before returning to Autumn in England. The only downside was that the trip involved flying. But we’ve been on one more journey since then and that was done the civilised way, by train.
Jessica went to a translator’s conference in Strasbourg. I tagged along. We got the train from Brighton straight to Saint Pancras, where we got the Eurostar to Paris. From there it was a super fast connection straight to Strasbourg.
While Jessica was at her event all day, I was swanning around the beautiful streets, sampling the local wine and taking plenty of time to admire the details of Strasbourg’s awesome cathedral.
I love the way that Claire L. Evans writes.
UX London 2024 is done …and it was magnificent!
It’s always weird when an event like this moves from being something in the future to something in the past. I’ve spent the year so far fixated on getting the right line-up, getting the word out, and nervously watching the ticket sales (for some reason a lot of people left it to pretty late in the day to secure their spots—not good for my heart!). For months, then weeks, then days, this thing was coming towards me. Then it was done. Now it’s behind me. It feels strange.
I’ve spent the past few days decompressing and thinking back on the event. My initial impression of it has solidified with the addition of some rumination—it was really, really good! The best yet.
I wish I could take the credit for that, but it was all down to the fantastic speakers and my wonderful colleagues who kept things moving flawlessly. All I had to do was get up and stage and introduce the speakers. Easy peasy.
I will say that I am very proud of the line-up I put together. I had a nice mix of well-known voices alongside newcomers.
With some of the speakers, I knew that they’d deliver the goods. I didn’t spend any time fretting over whether people like Emma Boulton, Tom Kerwin or Ben Sauer would be great. I never asked myself whether Brad Frost would have valuable insights into design systems. I mean, does the pope shit in the woods?
But what really blew me away were the people I didn’t know. I hadn’t even met Clarissa Gardner or Benaz Irani before UX London. They’re not exactly fixtures on the conference circuit …yet. They should be. Seriously, I go to a lot of events, and I see a lot of talks, so I don’t offer my praise lightly. Their talks were great!
There were numerous times during UX London 2024 when I thought “More people need to see this!” More people need to see Benaz’s superb talk on the designer alter-ego. More people need to see John’s superb presentation—he put a ton of work into it and it really paid off.
And everyone needs to hear Harry’s blistering call-to-arms. His presentation was brilliant and much-needed. Oh, captain, my captain!
Oh, and needless to say, the closing keynotes on each day were just perfect. Rama, Matt, and Maggie bestowed so much great brain food, it was almost like a mini dConstruct.
I’m so grateful to all the speakers for really bringing their A game. I’m grateful to all my colleagues, especially Louise, who did all the hard work behind the scenes. And I’m really grateful to everyone who came and enjoyed UX London 2024.
Thank you.
We don’t store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don’t create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don’t retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not.
UX London is just three weeks away! If you haven’t got your ticket yet, dally not.
There’s a last-minute addition to the line-up: Peter Boersma.
Peter is kindly stepping into the slot that Kara Kane was going to be occupying. Alas, since a snap general election was recently announced, Kara isn’t able to give her talk. There’s an abundance of caution in the comms from gov.uk in this pre-election period.
It’s a shame that Kara won’t be able to speak this time around, but it’s great that we’ve got Peter!
Peter’s talk is perfect for day three. Remember, that’s the day focused on design ops and design systems. Well, Peter lives and breathes design ops. He’ll show you why you should maintain a roadmap for design ops, and work with others to get the initiatives on it done.
You can get a ticket for an individual day of talks and workshops, or go for the best-value option and come for all three days. See you there!
Alright, so last week I gave you the low-down on each day of this year’s UX London:
But the line-up for each day wasn’t quite complete. There was a mystery slot at the end of each day for a closing keynote.
Well, I’m very happy to unveil the trio of fantastic speakers who will be closing out each day…
Rama Gheerawo is the closing speaker on day one. Rama will show you how to frame inclusive design in the context of UX.
I’ve been trying to get Rama for UX London for the past few years but the timings never worked out. I’m absolutely delighted that I’ve finally managed to nab him! His talk is guaranteed to be the perfect inspirational ending for day one.
Matt Webb is giving the closing keynote on day two. Matt will show what it’s like to live and work with AI. You know my scepticism on this topic but even I have to hand it to Matt; he’s finding ways to use these tools to create true delight.
Honestly it feels like a bit of a cheat getting Matt to wrap up the day—his talks are always incredibly entertaining so I feel like I’m taking the easy route. If you’ve seen his appearances at dConstruct you’ll know what I mean.
Maggie Appleton is the final speaker on the final day of UX London. Maggie will show you how to explore designing with large language models. Again, even a sceptic like me has a lot to learn from Maggie’s level-headed humanistic approach to AI.
I’m so happy to have Maggie speaking at UX London. Not only am I a huge fan of her website, but I also love her presentation style. She’s going to entertain and educate in equal measure, and she’s certain to leave us with some fascinating questions to ponder.
With that, the line-up for UX London 2024 is complete …and what a stellar line-up it is!
Grab your ticket if you haven’t already, either for the full full three days or if you can’t manage that, day tickets are available too.
Use this discount code to 20% of the ticket price: JOINJEREMY. I’d love to see you there!
UX London runs for three days, from June 18th to 20th. If you can, you should get a ticket for all three days. But if you can’t, you can get a one-day ticket. Think of each individual day as being its own self-contained conference.
The flow of the three-day event kind of mimics the design process itself. It starts with planning and research. Then it gets into the nitty-gritty product design details. Then it gets meta…
Day three, Thursday, June 20th is about design systems and design ops.
Maintenance matters, not just for the products and services you’re designing, but for the teams you’re designing with. You can expect a barrage of knowledge bombs on alignment and collaboration.
The bombardment commences with four great talks in the morning.
After the lunch break you’ll have your pick of four superb workshops. It’s not an easy choice.
Finally we’ll finish the whole event with one last closing keynote. I’m very excited to announce who that’s going to be—I’ll only keep you on tenterhooks for a short while longer.
When step back and look at what’s on offer, day three of UX London looks pretty unmissable. If you work with a design system or heck, if you just work with other people, this is the day for you. So get your ticket now.
But be sure to use this discount code I’ve prepared just for you to get a whopping 20% off the ticket price: JOINJEREMY.
If you can’t make it to all three days of this year’s UX London, there’s always the option to attend a single day.
Day two is focused on product design. You know, the real meat’n’potatoes of working at the design coalface (to horribly mix my metaphors).
The day begins with four back-to-back practical talks.
After lunch, it’s decision time. Whereas the morning talks are sequential, the afternoon’s workshops run in parallel. You’ve got four excellent workshops to choose from.
Finally there’s one last keynote talk at the end of the day. All will be revealed very soon, but believe me, it’s going to be a perfect finisher.
If a day of outstanding talks and workshops on product design sounds good to you, get your ticket now.
And just between you and me, here’s a discount code to get 20% of the ticket price: JOINJEREMY.
UX London is just two months away!
The best way to enjoy the event is to go for all three days but if that’s not doable for you, each individual day is kind of like a mini-conference with its own theme.
The theme on day one, Tuesday, June 18th is design research.
In the morning there are four fantastic talks.
After lunch you’ll take part in one of four workshops. Choose wisely!
After your workshop there’s one final closing keynote to bring everyone back together. I’m keeping that secret for just a little longer, but trust me, it’s going to be inspiring—plenty to discuss at the drinks reception afterwards.
That’s quite a packed day. If design research is what you’re into, you won’t want to miss it. Get your ticket now.
Just to sweeten the deal and as a reward for reading all the way to the end, here’s a discount code you can use to get a whopping 20% off: JOINJEREMY.
Sunday session
It’s been dispiriting but unsurprising to see American commentators weigh in on the EU’s Digital Markets Act. I really wish they’d read Baldur’s excellent explainer first.
John has been doing his predictable “leave Britney alone!” schtick with regards to Apple (and in this case, Google and Facebook too). Ian Betteridge does an excellent job of setting him straight:
A lot of commentators seem to have the same issue as John: that it’s weird that a governmental body can or should define how products should be designed.
But governments mandate how products are designed all the time, and not just in the EU. Take another market which is pretty big: cars. All cars have to feature safety equipment, which varies from region to region but will broadly include everything from seatbelts to crumple zones. Cars have rules for emissions, for fuel efficiency, all of which are designing how a car should work.
But there’s one assumption in John’s post that Ian didn’t push back on. John said:
It’s certainly possible that Meta can devise ways to serve non-personalized contextual ads that generate sufficient revenue per user.
That comes with a footnote:
One obvious solution would be to show more ads — a lot more ads — to make up for the difference in revenue. So if contextual ads generate, say, one-tenth the revenue of targeted ads, Meta could show 10 times as many ads to users who opt out of targeting. I don’t think 10× is an outlandish multiplier there — given how remarkably profitable Meta’s advertising business is, it might even need to be higher than that.
It’s almost like an article of faith that behavioural advertising is more effective than contextual advertising. But there’s no data to support this. Quite the opposite. I wrote about this four years ago.
Once again, I urge you to read the excellent analysis by Jesse Frederik and Maurits Martijn.
There’s also Tim Hwang’s book, Subprime Attention Crisis:
From the unreliability of advertising numbers and the unregulated automation of advertising bidding wars, to the simple fact that online ads mostly fail to work, Hwang demonstrates that while consumers’ attention has never been more prized, the true value of that attention itself—much like subprime mortgages—is wildly misrepresented.
More recently Dave Karpf said what we’re all thinking:
The thing I want to stress about microtargeted ads is that the current version is perpetually trash, and we’re always just a few years away from the bugs getting worked out.
The EFF are calling for a ban. Should that happen, the sky would not fall. Contrary to what John thinks, revenue would not plummet. Contextual advertising works just fine …without the need for invasive surveillance and tracking.
Tracker-driven behavioural advertising is bad for users. The advertisements are irrelevant most of the time, and on the few occasions where the advertising hits the mark, it just feels creepy.
Tracker-driven behavioural advertising is bad for advertisers. They spend their hard-earned money on invasive ad tech that results in no more sales or brand recognition than if they had relied on good ol’ contextual advertising.
Tracker-driven behavioural advertising is very bad for the web. Megabytes of third-party JavaScript are injected at exactly the wrong moment to make for the worst possible performance. And if that doesn’t ruin the user experience enough, there are still invasive overlays and consent forms to click through (which, ironically, gets people mad at the legislation—like GDPR—instead of the underlying reason for these annoying overlays: unnecessary surveillance and tracking by the site you’re visiting).
When I wrote about my time in Amsterdam last week, I mentioned the task that the students were given:
They’re given a PDF inheritance-tax form and told to convert it for the web.
Rich had a question about that:
I’m curious to know if they had the opportunity to optimise the user experience of the form for an online environment, eg. splitting it up into a sequence of questions, using progressive disclosure, branching based on inputs, etc?
The answer is yes, very much so. Progressive disclosure was a very clear opportunity for enhancement.
You know the kind of paper form where it says “If you answered no to this, then skip ahead to that”? On the web, we can do the skipping automatically. Or to put it another way, we can display a section of the form only when the user has ticked the appropriate box.
This is a classic example of progressive disclosure:
information is revealed when it becomes relevant to the current task.
But what should the mechanism be?
This is an interaction design pattern so JavaScript seems the best choice. JavaScript is for behaviour.
On the other hand, you can do this in CSS using the :checked
pseudo-class. And the principle of least power suggests using the least powerful language suitable for a given task.
I’m torn on this. I’m not sure if there’s a correct answer. I’d probably lean towards JavaScript just because it’s then possible to dynamically update ARIA attributes like aria-expanded
—very handy in combination with aria-controls
. But using CSS also seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It was interesting to see which students went down the JavaScript route and which ones used CSS.
It used to be that using the :checked
pseudo-class involved an adjacent sibling selector, like this:
input.disclosure-switch:checked ~ .disclosure-content {
display: block;
}
That meant your markup had to follow a specific pattern where the elements needed to be siblings:
<div class="disclosure-container">
<input type="checkbox" class="disclosure-switch">
<div class="disclosure-content">
...
</div>
</div>
But none of the students were doing that. They were all using :has()
. That meant that their selector could be much more robust. Even if the nesting of their markup changes, the CSS will still work. Something like this:
.disclosure-container:has(.disclosure-switch:checked) .disclosure-content
That will target the .disclosure-content
element anywhere inside the same .disclosure-container
that has the .disclosure-switch
. Much better! (Ignore these class names by the way—I’m just making them up to illustrate the idea.)
But just about every student ended up with something like this in their style sheets:
.disclosure-content {
display: none;
}
.disclosure-container:has(.disclosure-switch:checked) .disclosure-content {
display: block;
}
That gets my spidey-senses tingling. It doesn’t smell right to me. Here’s why…
The simpler selector is doing the more destructive action: hiding content. There’s a reliance on the more complex selector to display content.
If a browser understands the first ruleset but not the second, that content will be hidden by default.
I know that :has()
is very well supported now, but this still makes me nervous. I feel that the more risky action (hiding content) should belong to the more complex selector.
Thanks to the :not()
selector, you can reverse the logic of the progressive disclosure:
.disclosure-content {
display: block;
}
.disclosure-container:not(:has(.disclosure-switch:checked)) .disclosure-content {
display: none;
}
Now if a browser understands the first ruleset, but not the second, it’s not so bad. The content remains visible.
When I was explaining this way of thinking to the students, I used an analogy.
Suppose you’re building a physical product that uses electricity. What should happen if there’s a power cut? Like, if you’ve got a building with electric doors, what should happen when the power is cut off? Should the doors be locked by default? Or is it safer to default to unlocked doors?
It’s a bit of a tortured analogy, but it’s one I’ve used in the past when talking about JavaScript on the web. I like to think about JavaScript as being like electricity…
Take an existing product, like say, a toothbrush. Now imagine what you can do when you turbo-charge it with electricity: an electric toothbrush!
But also consider what happens when the electricity fails. Instead of the product becoming useless you want it to revert back to being a regular old toothbrush.
That’s the same mindset I’m encouraging for the progressive disclosure pattern. Make sure that the default state is safe. Then enhance.
Lovely photos by Marc from Patterns Day!
Trys threads the themes of Patterns Day together:
Jeremy did a top job of combining big picture and nitty-gritty talks into the packed schedule.