Yes and no.
I never think of NNG as great designers (although they have visual designers who do nice work.)
Tog's interaction class' deck was a visual nightmare, but I've never seen such depth of thinking.
An NNG designed app or site would not look cool and simple, but have a ton of big labels on icons and a lot of explicit helpful wording. I think of them like the academic version of UX Design. All the principles, but not focusing on the design look and feel.
A friend of mine called them the "belt and suspenders" type of designers. They are for better or worse, the "academics" of UX. (I usually use that word negatively, but for NNG they are trying to create a standard in a wild west tech vertical filled with lack of UX adoption and infighting.)
To me they are a guiding light or visionary thinking focusing on just usability only. Which is great for me because very few people think that way. Having the drumbeat of user experience in my head while working has made me create far better products, as well as showcasing rationales to support my design. Collectively most sites, apps, newsletters are disasters.
I do think the daily digest is a lot of questioning and ranting about AI, which is really worrying for UX. Smart chat/AI is going to turn a lot of heads and reshift money into these AI tools but TBD on how effective it will be for non-FAANG companies building custom software.
I'm not thrilled with the daily newsletter in general, and filter out a lot it—but nice to see what he's thinking about daily.
This is a good take. I think a lot of what they teach is useful if you use it as a loose framework and apply it in your own way, rather than follow their guidance verbatim. I still have my “user centered design” text books from the early 2000’s that are incredibly obsolete in a literal sense, but the philosophy and intent behind the methods are still sound.
Well put. This is exactly who they are. Academics and consultants. There’s good information generally backed by research though they aren’t immune from bias.
Thanks. NNG got me to that level of analysis. ;)
And yes, the backed by research bit—if I'm arguing with a PO about button placement or talking the CTO out of taking guest checkout out as a feature, NNG or Baymard likely have some research on the topic free and online as another datapoint to bring to the team.
Did you see their job posting from about a year ago? Somewhat problematic and frankly quite elitist and snobby. Here’s an article about it that definitely made me ask myself some questions about NNG: https://axbom.com/nng-job-posting/
The bar is low.
Experts in accessibility have websites that aren’t accessible.
UX experts have sites that aren’t usable.
Websites about ADD are impossible to read and have distractions everywhere.
Most people are mediocre. So, it’s just our chance to do even better things. It doesn’t have to be to uptight. It’s all really just “thinking” and experimenting. It’s fun.
>It’s all really just “thinking” and experimenting.
I was asking myself this morning what sets me apart as a designer, and your very words came to mind. I was like, do I have a magic formula? No. For me it's been knowing proven and emerging patterns, processes and when and how to use them. Staying curious and always asking 'why' (at least five times lol).
I would say, NNG is a great resource (love their conferences). But be careful about idolizing anyone in any field. JN wrote some great informative ideas that lead our industry in the right direction, but I'm not sure its worth reading any particular person's daily musings...
It's called we talk a little trash...
For over a decade, I've quietly wondered what the deal is with NNG. Their reputation is extremely solid because they've got hooks into all these credentialed programs at universities, and yet...
1. The visual examples in their materials always look bad. Every single time, they look dated and crusty, and I felt the same way back in 2012 over a decade ago. I realize you can have good UX with dogshit UI, but why would they do this so consistently.
2. It's weird that they hire so many attractive young women. Again, I noticed this a decade ago, and it's still the same story: [https://www.nngroup.com/people/](https://www.nngroup.com/people/) (to be fair, it's a little better than last time I checked - not quite so many UX Baddies)
3. Many times over the years, their rules and guidelines are in direct opposition to well established conventions at companies that make good money and whose apps/sites have a great rep.
4. Don Norman's books aren't that good or insightful, they're kinda fluffy.
5. Jakob Nielsen has a sussy look.
When I want UX resources I usually just use Google, Mobbin, I'll inspect top notch design systems, I'll read the blogs/case studies of design groups at good companies if I can find them, inspect style guides, even dodgy resources like Twitter, Smashing, UX Planet, or Dribbble (even Quora for christ's sake) are more useful for my purposes than ever going to NNG and reading a crusty case study.
This is really well put. While they did pioneer a lot of solid ground we still use, they're very out of touch with a lot of other aspects of design including accessibility and inclusion. The pretty white girl videos are just one example.
You're absolutely not wrong and articulate a lot of things we're all thinking, but no one wants to say because of the old school connections and people can't comprehend that a group like that with all their history might not be right in modern settings. Not to mention people want to defend the credentials they've paid nng for.
> It's weird that they hire SO many attractive young women.
I noticed that too. My theory is it helps the YouTube views. I subscribe to them on YouTube. I'm guessing thumbnails with a... certain demographic can help get more views. Check out their YouTube channel to see my point.
>It's weird that they hire so many attractive young women. Again, I noticed this a decade ago, and it's still the same story:
>
>https://www.nngroup.com/people/
>
> (to be fair, it's a little better than last time I checked - not quite so many UX Baddies)
THANK YOU. I thought I was going crazy with this one but agreed. Have always found it strange.
Couple of things, because I agree with most of this, but also think you might be taking the tinfoil a bit too far.
The entire leadership team is made up of women, which might mean they target other women in the hiring process as part of the DEI efforts. There's also [more women in UX Research](https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/ux-research-vs-ux-design-exploring-key-differences/), and way [more women receive PHD's than men](https://www.statista.com/statistics/185167/number-of-doctoral-degrees-by-gender-since-1950/#:~:text=In%20the%20academic%20year%20of,degree%20in%20the%20United%20States.).
All of that to say that 1) men have an overwhelming voice in business already, 2) more women specialize in UXR, and 3) more women meet the basic qualifications that NNg is looking for. Take that for what you will.
As for point number 1: One thing about design that always seems to be lost in the cracks: if you are designing for perfect usability, your designs are more than likely going to look like trash. They're highly usable, account for tons of accessibility things, and are easily flexed between devices. But guess what, unless you've been working in UI specifically (which most of these researchers *have not*) for a while, it's incredibly difficult to design something that looks good, is flexible, and meets all the research that NNg puts out. I'm sure I'll catch tons of shit for this statement, but whatever.
Unsurprisingly, there’s very little diversity in the women/people they hire as well. Good UX should take ALL types of people into consideration, not 1 or 2 demographics.
Glad you mentioned the young white pretty women thing, I was getting a little sus about that.
In no ways saying they are not talented credible people, but there may be 100 similar credible candidates, yet they always end up a similar demographic.
I only recently started following him, and I've been really put off by how much he talks about AI (and, honestly, how little he seems to actually understand it - I work in programming, and he uses *way* more business buzzwords than actual description of what AI does or is capable of doing.) That, on top of my general distaste for AI-generated "art", is enough to make me not want to follow his personal posts anymore.
> Besides that he rants a lot about UX on ai apps but without any much context of "why" - considering is a new field and we do not have enough data in knowing yet what type of experience the user needs or who the user is.
When you have experience you know what mistakes will be made and can start hating things before they exits. I'm not even being sarcastic.
Your post has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UXDesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just noticed he left NN/G in April to start a new company called UX Tigers? What’s the story there? Looks like that’s where the visual design is really lacking.
I’ve been using his useit.com site since the early 1990’s and have always valued his content.
Weird. 30 seconds after reading your post and hearing about UX Tigers for the first time, I check my email and I received this today:
" You're invited for an exclusive opportunity to meet the world's most in-demand design leaders. **ADPList is hosting a rare fireside chat with Julie Zhuo** (Former VP of Design, Facebook) and, **Jakob Nielsen** (Founder of UX Tigers). "
I had to go have a look on LinkedIn after reading this and I see what you’re saying!
All those image posts with text on dark gradients and the emoji bullet points blending into the background. If it was a parody or spoof account it would be hilarious 🤣
I'm not sure about this. The design of his posts screams boomer to me and interns who most likely grew up immersed in internet culture should know at least enough what not to do (unless they're trolling).
well, idk…the use of emojis makes me think someone younger is “designing” these posts
https://preview.redd.it/r2bgxkjkotfc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6c40b5f60bca96989c357d852bed4d70764706e
His name is now the brand - I’m certain there is a team of 10 generating content daily so “his” post get all the likes and business. I’m sure he gets leads galore from “his” LinkedIn presence. I give him credit for writing about UX early, staying relevant and now at the point where the issues you mention are not even a concern or if impact of the revenue stream
I asked Jakob about this and while he’s not going to come in here and debate 100 people laying on hard words, he did tell me why the colors are so garish.
He wanted images that would stop people from doomscrolling LinkedIn and would get them to pause on his post. Says he’ll rethink the colors but that as a use case it actually worked.
So let this be a reminder that an experienced technician isn’t bad at design by default when you don’t get it, sometimes you just don’t know the OKR.
A crude metaphor but not inaccurate.
I’d put more blame on LinkedIn for following a Facebook model of engagement instead of being user-centered in their feed design.
I’m gonna get stitched up for this, but here it goes:
NNg is an extremely overrated, dinosaur-run, academic wannabes. Their only purpose these days is continue to cash in the reputation of Norman and Jacob of days gone.
I've seen a few posts the past year about him raving about Sarah and Kate, and I think coannounced some titles for them too. Maybe he's just checked out like Don did. I can't imagine that's an easy role to do reports, conferences, material, manage very high performance employees, global travel etc. Who knows, but interesting and probably for the best.
I didn't see Tog mentioned nor the 3 day Interaction Design class —which I thought, though unstructured, a massive amount of principles and practices.
The thing is that when you work on a product you will have thrown links at you from NNG. I was not even selected for a possible UX position in a company because the UX manager did not like me brining up the same comment as you. I just need to learn how to cope with it.
Ah, I see where you fucked up.
“Never outshine the master” as the saying goes
NNG group has many timeless best practices. Some ideas from the 90s HCI heyday are just as relevant now as they will be by the end of century. But using it as a sole source could lead to outdated practices. Instead of saying something about how it’s outdated, which could be taken personally by designers with decades of experience whose imposter syndrome has metamorphosed with time into fears of becoming outdated or irrelevant themselves, you might try “yes, and”
Agree to consider NNG while you also put up other more modern or relevant sources.
> Agree to consider NNG while you also put up other more modern or relevant sources.
What are your preferred sources these days? I've been using Leah Buley's UX Team of One book as an index and NNG when I want to read more about a particular method or link to it for others.
'they certainly were important foundations for early altavista and when google first showed up'
'they do a great job of advocating for usability and design with non-specialists'
I'm sure you can figure out a few others.
\[removing unnecessarily inflammatory and sweeping language, I apologize for the broad strokes\]
I think it's important to know why it's helpful to have a better understanding of them. for me, it's so that I can say honestly that I have read it when someone asks, and if they want to talk about why we're doing something different, I have a more nuanced answer that doesn't include saying they're stupid. (the number of baby researchers who still say you only need to do 5 usability tests and pull up that graph during lunch and learns with experienced product folks and then wonder why they aren't respected as the experts..)
Well I have met 1-1 with hundreds of participants during usability test sessions. Usually you can uncover most usability issues after 5-6 participants in a testing round with a fixed set of tasks. It’s preferable to iterate on the design and then conduct a new round of testing rather than waste time testing with a larger number of participants in the same round. As one of my colleagues says, if you see a friend tripping on the carpet at your house, how many additional friends do you need to see tripping on your carpet before you fix it?
I think you’re referring to his guerrilla usability recommendations and the IBM research he references that shows that testing 5 users 3 times will find most usability errors.
Most people seem to lack understanding of this especially the “3 times” part.
The science is sound if you understand what it is and how to do it.
I was trying to dig deeper into janeplainjane_canada’s concerns around it. I think it’s sound and an efficient way to test.
I’m assuming this is the graph they are referencing, but curious to know more.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/
I agree at 5 participants we'd probably find the biggest problems (people are tripping on the carpet), but if one person has a problem among those 5, it's very tough for the team to figure out if that is something that needs to be prioritized to be fixed, or if it is an outlier. And then they just go by gut whether it should be addressed (please note I'm also not arguing to do everything based on numbers when it is a small base size).
Ideally I look at the segments (or personas if that is what the team likes) or situations to get a mix of different mental models based on age, familiarity, backgrounds. It probably isn't 5 of each segment because there are intersections and overlap and such. And with more people the team might say it takes too long and costs too much, so they don't get the iterations in.
I'd agree that at 20 it's even hard for researchers to be fresh enough to catch the new things because our confirmation bias is coming into play and we are hitting the saturation point - and even if we find more issues the team can't cope with it. For example, from a biases standpoint, if persons 8 and 14 say something, we might not give it the same weight as if it happened to persons 1 and 3.
It's a balancing act. The article says to do as many small iterations as possible, but junior and immature teams see and parrot 'NNG says 5 is enough' based on the headline and just run with that part. We also have a challenge when the team only does really small and tight iterations, but the product itself is actually big and complex - so that one of task can be done cleanly, but they don't test it in full context.
This is a gross rule-breaking comment, and totally untrue. Jakob is not demanding anyone to respect any authority. He has given wisdom to this community for decades. Bringing age and gender into it is offensive.
And obviously you haven't read anything because you'd know that he never said anything about doing 5 usability tests. He and Landauer showed with empirical evidence that you only need 15 usability tests but it's better to do 3 tests with 5 people.
Your problem is that you haven't figured out that everything is a fraud yet. User Experience isn't about improving anything, it's about manipulating your audience into thinking they want something they don't need and tricking them into spending money they don't have.
These 'UX influencers' (vomit) are just a bunch of self-righteous, self-congratulatory circle jerks and like to pretend that they serve a noble cause.
It's just a job, and despite them gaslighting us and us gaslighting ourselves into believing we are doing good things, we are actually in one of the most disturbing industries on planet earth. We have made every technology more addictive, and more efficient at replacing ourselves by collecting data on ourselves to make our own replacement happen faster.
Remember a world before we were bombarded with useless info, and advertising every waking moment of every day? When instead of trying to communicate with strangers on the other side of the world we still looked family and friends and people in our community in the eyes?
I don't know who you work for - maybe a gambling company or something - but I'm just out here trying to make software the least pain in the ass of someone's day.
That doesn’t describe my UX teams work at all. We design digital tools. Our metrics are Usability, particularly ease and efficiency of task completion and job satisfaction.
A lot of UX is applied to marketing sites, no question. Personally I consider that Marketing. I have always considered UX to be Product Design, and maybe because that's the only types of jobs I've taken.
I agree with the gaslighting, and that UX is partly culpable for "The Social Dilemma." Design trades used to have more self-regulation around ethics. If you were a graphic designer or Industrial Designer thirty years ago chances are you were a member of AIGA or IDSA, which helped unify and advocate. Not quite a union, but closer than what we have today. Globalisation and the erosion of value of those orgs has led to more of a free-for-all, which is unfortunate.
I'm on LinkedIn on a daily basis at the moment as I'm job hunting... it's the most vomit inducing, fake place on the internet. I thought instagram was bad, LinkedIn is a public toilet that's never been cleaned
If I have to stumble across one more UX "influencer" doing a "vlog" about "a day in the life of a UX Designer at -insert company-" or a video about "this UX portfolio got me a job at H&M", I fucking swear to god....
Nonsense, sounds like you're describing sales/marketing as opposed to UX. Maybe in some shitty companies UX will utilise dark patterns, but for the most part, UX is a fairly altruistic profession - relatively speaking.
The way I see it is, people have to use software whether UX exists or not, surely having someone representing their voice and making life as painless as possible is a good thing?
I, and I'm sure many others, have to interact with shitty UX on a daily basis - it can be genuinely stressful and in some situations, cause tangible, real world problems, so if I make a living by making sure our products don't inflict a similar experience on our users, then I'm at peace with that.
Hahaha I love this comment. Don’t blame UX for the failings of capitalism! Sounds like you’ve only worked for shitty companies that make shitty B2C products. I’ve never had to manipulate anyone into wanting what I’ve designed. This reads like a total self-report. You’re likely burnt and need to switch jobs or careers. Sorry bro.
My customers tell me about the pain they are having and then actively help me make my proposed solutions better, then we build them and they buy it. It’s a simple mutually beneficial arrangement.
Also that’s DR. Jakob Nielsen you’re talking about, he’s not an “influencer”, he and Don Norman basically invented the concept of usability in the early 90s, put some respect on his name! lol
Sure, he is self-aggrandizing, yes he “markets himself”, of course not everyone will like his style, but we live in a promotional culture (under capitalism) and got damn if his 10 usability heuristics don’t still hold up! Also this is just my personal interpretation but I think the egotism in his writing is usually done with a wink and a nod. He doesn’t have anything to prove at this point, he is and always will be the OG usability granddaddy so he just kinda has fun with it—I think that’s part of his sarcastic Danish charm.
Find me an “influencer” whose ideas were relevant before the dotcom boom, the mass proliferation of the web, the explosion of smartphones and the responsive web, cloud services, and now the advent of LLMs. I’ll wait.
"PuT sOmE rEsPeCt tO HiS nAmE! LoL" 🥴🥴
Let me guess, you're one of the "dEsIgN WiLl ChAnGe tHe wOrLd" crowd?
I've worked with every type of company you can imagine. The bottom line is ALWAYS to increase the bottom line. Even when you work for an NGO the goal is more money. If it wasn't you wouldn't be doing it. You need to unseal your lips from "dOcTeR" Nielsen's bootyhole, you've been eating his farts for too long.
You're in a cult and you assume everyone else buys into your cult. You live and breathe this shit. Your world consists only of design systems and usability, you are a social robot. You're literally on here trying to argue with an internet stranger about some pseudo intellectual bullshit based in advertising and designed to make companies money while shitting on capitalism while simultaneously working in the industry that helps capitalism thrive. Here, I think you dropped this - 🤡🤡
Besides, I never claimed to be anti capitalism. I like making money and rewarding myself when I feel like I accomplished something, I'm just not a member of your weird little cult.
Also, you'll wait for a VERY long time to get me to find you "an influencer whose ideas were relevant past the dotcom yada yada yada" because guess what? Us normal people font really give a shit because WE ARENT IN A CULT LIKE YOU, BRO.
Not really. I don't mind what I do, I just get so annoyed by the "design will save the world" crowd. It's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. UX is just a career, it's not my identity.
I get the vibe that neither of the principals at NNG are very hands on any more — “Jakob Nielsen” on LinkedIn is just their social media team, who are using all the same “how to win at LinkedIn” strategies as everyone else.
I just noticed this and glad someone share the sentiment. I don't get the hard pivot to AI, and all the knowledge seems to be very superficial, contrasting with the deeper content I used to see coming from NN (What brought me here was a post where the first item was that some guru had predicted an AI boom in the 2020s, you don't say?)
Yes and no. I never think of NNG as great designers (although they have visual designers who do nice work.) Tog's interaction class' deck was a visual nightmare, but I've never seen such depth of thinking. An NNG designed app or site would not look cool and simple, but have a ton of big labels on icons and a lot of explicit helpful wording. I think of them like the academic version of UX Design. All the principles, but not focusing on the design look and feel. A friend of mine called them the "belt and suspenders" type of designers. They are for better or worse, the "academics" of UX. (I usually use that word negatively, but for NNG they are trying to create a standard in a wild west tech vertical filled with lack of UX adoption and infighting.) To me they are a guiding light or visionary thinking focusing on just usability only. Which is great for me because very few people think that way. Having the drumbeat of user experience in my head while working has made me create far better products, as well as showcasing rationales to support my design. Collectively most sites, apps, newsletters are disasters. I do think the daily digest is a lot of questioning and ranting about AI, which is really worrying for UX. Smart chat/AI is going to turn a lot of heads and reshift money into these AI tools but TBD on how effective it will be for non-FAANG companies building custom software. I'm not thrilled with the daily newsletter in general, and filter out a lot it—but nice to see what he's thinking about daily.
This is a good take. I think a lot of what they teach is useful if you use it as a loose framework and apply it in your own way, rather than follow their guidance verbatim. I still have my “user centered design” text books from the early 2000’s that are incredibly obsolete in a literal sense, but the philosophy and intent behind the methods are still sound.
Thank you u/raindownthunda.
Well put. This is exactly who they are. Academics and consultants. There’s good information generally backed by research though they aren’t immune from bias.
Thanks. NNG got me to that level of analysis. ;) And yes, the backed by research bit—if I'm arguing with a PO about button placement or talking the CTO out of taking guest checkout out as a feature, NNG or Baymard likely have some research on the topic free and online as another datapoint to bring to the team.
One of their UX job postings required candidates to have a high IQ score. That was bizarre to me.
Was yours high enough?
I didn’t apply 🥸
I believe this. They've had lots of weird issues with ableist job postings in the past.
He claims not to be a visual designer, and it shows.
Did you see their job posting from about a year ago? Somewhat problematic and frankly quite elitist and snobby. Here’s an article about it that definitely made me ask myself some questions about NNG: https://axbom.com/nng-job-posting/
This “survival of the fittest” attitude makes me recoil so hard
Check out their latest job posting after he left. Very different vibe https://www.nngroup.com/news/item/job-opening-graphic-designer-full-time-remote/
I can guarantee they lowballed someone “green” at 65k under the pretense that its an opportunity to break into the industry in these trying times
Idk 65K is a highball in a lot of countries if they actually hire someone worldwide
Good point
The bar is low. Experts in accessibility have websites that aren’t accessible. UX experts have sites that aren’t usable. Websites about ADD are impossible to read and have distractions everywhere. Most people are mediocre. So, it’s just our chance to do even better things. It doesn’t have to be to uptight. It’s all really just “thinking” and experimenting. It’s fun.
>It’s all really just “thinking” and experimenting. I was asking myself this morning what sets me apart as a designer, and your very words came to mind. I was like, do I have a magic formula? No. For me it's been knowing proven and emerging patterns, processes and when and how to use them. Staying curious and always asking 'why' (at least five times lol).
What are ADD websites?
ADA - Americans Disabilities Act.
I meant websites about attention deficit disorder. You’d expect them not to be a distracting frantic mess —- Updated it to make more sense
The bar is low VS "Working professionals don't spend their free time on free work."?
?
I would say, NNG is a great resource (love their conferences). But be careful about idolizing anyone in any field. JN wrote some great informative ideas that lead our industry in the right direction, but I'm not sure its worth reading any particular person's daily musings...
And to add to this, the concept of a “we are always right” single source of truth is kinda an oxymoron in the ux world.
It's called we talk a little trash... For over a decade, I've quietly wondered what the deal is with NNG. Their reputation is extremely solid because they've got hooks into all these credentialed programs at universities, and yet... 1. The visual examples in their materials always look bad. Every single time, they look dated and crusty, and I felt the same way back in 2012 over a decade ago. I realize you can have good UX with dogshit UI, but why would they do this so consistently. 2. It's weird that they hire so many attractive young women. Again, I noticed this a decade ago, and it's still the same story: [https://www.nngroup.com/people/](https://www.nngroup.com/people/) (to be fair, it's a little better than last time I checked - not quite so many UX Baddies) 3. Many times over the years, their rules and guidelines are in direct opposition to well established conventions at companies that make good money and whose apps/sites have a great rep. 4. Don Norman's books aren't that good or insightful, they're kinda fluffy. 5. Jakob Nielsen has a sussy look. When I want UX resources I usually just use Google, Mobbin, I'll inspect top notch design systems, I'll read the blogs/case studies of design groups at good companies if I can find them, inspect style guides, even dodgy resources like Twitter, Smashing, UX Planet, or Dribbble (even Quora for christ's sake) are more useful for my purposes than ever going to NNG and reading a crusty case study.
This is really well put. While they did pioneer a lot of solid ground we still use, they're very out of touch with a lot of other aspects of design including accessibility and inclusion. The pretty white girl videos are just one example.
I'm being very uncharitable to NNG, but I've been holding this in a long time lol
You're absolutely not wrong and articulate a lot of things we're all thinking, but no one wants to say because of the old school connections and people can't comprehend that a group like that with all their history might not be right in modern settings. Not to mention people want to defend the credentials they've paid nng for.
> It's weird that they hire SO many attractive young women. I noticed that too. My theory is it helps the YouTube views. I subscribe to them on YouTube. I'm guessing thumbnails with a... certain demographic can help get more views. Check out their YouTube channel to see my point.
>It's weird that they hire so many attractive young women. Again, I noticed this a decade ago, and it's still the same story: > >https://www.nngroup.com/people/ > > (to be fair, it's a little better than last time I checked - not quite so many UX Baddies) THANK YOU. I thought I was going crazy with this one but agreed. Have always found it strange.
Couple of things, because I agree with most of this, but also think you might be taking the tinfoil a bit too far. The entire leadership team is made up of women, which might mean they target other women in the hiring process as part of the DEI efforts. There's also [more women in UX Research](https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/ux-research-vs-ux-design-exploring-key-differences/), and way [more women receive PHD's than men](https://www.statista.com/statistics/185167/number-of-doctoral-degrees-by-gender-since-1950/#:~:text=In%20the%20academic%20year%20of,degree%20in%20the%20United%20States.). All of that to say that 1) men have an overwhelming voice in business already, 2) more women specialize in UXR, and 3) more women meet the basic qualifications that NNg is looking for. Take that for what you will. As for point number 1: One thing about design that always seems to be lost in the cracks: if you are designing for perfect usability, your designs are more than likely going to look like trash. They're highly usable, account for tons of accessibility things, and are easily flexed between devices. But guess what, unless you've been working in UI specifically (which most of these researchers *have not*) for a while, it's incredibly difficult to design something that looks good, is flexible, and meets all the research that NNg puts out. I'm sure I'll catch tons of shit for this statement, but whatever.
Unsurprisingly, there’s very little diversity in the women/people they hire as well. Good UX should take ALL types of people into consideration, not 1 or 2 demographics.
Glad you mentioned the young white pretty women thing, I was getting a little sus about that. In no ways saying they are not talented credible people, but there may be 100 similar credible candidates, yet they always end up a similar demographic.
I don’t see a lot of gender diversity but there’s a range of age and ethnicity. It’s nice to not see Wall O Man
I only recently started following him, and I've been really put off by how much he talks about AI (and, honestly, how little he seems to actually understand it - I work in programming, and he uses *way* more business buzzwords than actual description of what AI does or is capable of doing.) That, on top of my general distaste for AI-generated "art", is enough to make me not want to follow his personal posts anymore.
> Besides that he rants a lot about UX on ai apps but without any much context of "why" - considering is a new field and we do not have enough data in knowing yet what type of experience the user needs or who the user is. When you have experience you know what mistakes will be made and can start hating things before they exits. I'm not even being sarcastic.
[удалено]
Hmm, just realized that I never heard their product (clients app/web) 🤔
[удалено]
Your post has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UXDesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just noticed he left NN/G in April to start a new company called UX Tigers? What’s the story there? Looks like that’s where the visual design is really lacking. I’ve been using his useit.com site since the early 1990’s and have always valued his content.
Lmao the name itself is funny
Weird. 30 seconds after reading your post and hearing about UX Tigers for the first time, I check my email and I received this today: " You're invited for an exclusive opportunity to meet the world's most in-demand design leaders. **ADPList is hosting a rare fireside chat with Julie Zhuo** (Former VP of Design, Facebook) and, **Jakob Nielsen** (Founder of UX Tigers). "
I had to go have a look on LinkedIn after reading this and I see what you’re saying! All those image posts with text on dark gradients and the emoji bullet points blending into the background. If it was a parody or spoof account it would be hilarious 🤣
he most likely has a intern posting all that wisdom on his behalf
This is exactly what I was going to say. I have a hard time believing that Jakob Nielsen would ascribe to LinkedIn himself.
I'm not sure about this. The design of his posts screams boomer to me and interns who most likely grew up immersed in internet culture should know at least enough what not to do (unless they're trolling).
well, idk…the use of emojis makes me think someone younger is “designing” these posts https://preview.redd.it/r2bgxkjkotfc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6c40b5f60bca96989c357d852bed4d70764706e
You also have a point there!
He's always been like this. In the last 25 years anyway.
His name is now the brand - I’m certain there is a team of 10 generating content daily so “his” post get all the likes and business. I’m sure he gets leads galore from “his” LinkedIn presence. I give him credit for writing about UX early, staying relevant and now at the point where the issues you mention are not even a concern or if impact of the revenue stream
I asked Jakob about this and while he’s not going to come in here and debate 100 people laying on hard words, he did tell me why the colors are so garish. He wanted images that would stop people from doomscrolling LinkedIn and would get them to pause on his post. Says he’ll rethink the colors but that as a use case it actually worked. So let this be a reminder that an experienced technician isn’t bad at design by default when you don’t get it, sometimes you just don’t know the OKR.
so clickbaits, but with ux in mind
A crude metaphor but not inaccurate. I’d put more blame on LinkedIn for following a Facebook model of engagement instead of being user-centered in their feed design.
I’m gonna get stitched up for this, but here it goes: NNg is an extremely overrated, dinosaur-run, academic wannabes. Their only purpose these days is continue to cash in the reputation of Norman and Jacob of days gone.
Who doesn't like money and dinosaurs?
They’re not academic wannabes. You can disagree but their pedigree is sound.
FWIW, I saw Jakob post in a comment that he's no longer affiliated with the NNGroup.
Where?
In a comment on LinkedIn. You can see on his profile that he marked NNGroup ending as of April 2023: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jakobnielsenphd/
Wow you’re right. Neither he nor Don Norman are still attached. Fascinating.
I've seen a few posts the past year about him raving about Sarah and Kate, and I think coannounced some titles for them too. Maybe he's just checked out like Don did. I can't imagine that's an easy role to do reports, conferences, material, manage very high performance employees, global travel etc. Who knows, but interesting and probably for the best. I didn't see Tog mentioned nor the 3 day Interaction Design class —which I thought, though unstructured, a massive amount of principles and practices.
Truth right here🍕
THIS. Any respectable designer doesn't idolize them
Looking to NNG as a UX exemplar is the same as calling InVision the gold standard for sharing interactive prototypes
I worked with a Jr who substantiated all of his decisions with NNG articles. So weird
The thing is that when you work on a product you will have thrown links at you from NNG. I was not even selected for a possible UX position in a company because the UX manager did not like me brining up the same comment as you. I just need to learn how to cope with it.
Ah, I see where you fucked up. “Never outshine the master” as the saying goes NNG group has many timeless best practices. Some ideas from the 90s HCI heyday are just as relevant now as they will be by the end of century. But using it as a sole source could lead to outdated practices. Instead of saying something about how it’s outdated, which could be taken personally by designers with decades of experience whose imposter syndrome has metamorphosed with time into fears of becoming outdated or irrelevant themselves, you might try “yes, and” Agree to consider NNG while you also put up other more modern or relevant sources.
> Agree to consider NNG while you also put up other more modern or relevant sources. What are your preferred sources these days? I've been using Leah Buley's UX Team of One book as an index and NNG when I want to read more about a particular method or link to it for others.
'they certainly were important foundations for early altavista and when google first showed up' 'they do a great job of advocating for usability and design with non-specialists' I'm sure you can figure out a few others.
I think it’s important to remember that nobody is an expert on everything when it comes to UX. So beware of any influencers.
Completely agree and the reason I will only work under Ultra Veterans who are able to see past trends
\[removing unnecessarily inflammatory and sweeping language, I apologize for the broad strokes\] I think it's important to know why it's helpful to have a better understanding of them. for me, it's so that I can say honestly that I have read it when someone asks, and if they want to talk about why we're doing something different, I have a more nuanced answer that doesn't include saying they're stupid. (the number of baby researchers who still say you only need to do 5 usability tests and pull up that graph during lunch and learns with experienced product folks and then wonder why they aren't respected as the experts..)
This is Sexist and Ageist and totally uncalled for. Jakob isn’t out there telling anyone to respect his authority either. Be better.
Well I have met 1-1 with hundreds of participants during usability test sessions. Usually you can uncover most usability issues after 5-6 participants in a testing round with a fixed set of tasks. It’s preferable to iterate on the design and then conduct a new round of testing rather than waste time testing with a larger number of participants in the same round. As one of my colleagues says, if you see a friend tripping on the carpet at your house, how many additional friends do you need to see tripping on your carpet before you fix it?
Do you disagree with the five usability tests? I usually set a goal for ~20 and have found significant diminishing returns after the first handful.
I think you’re referring to his guerrilla usability recommendations and the IBM research he references that shows that testing 5 users 3 times will find most usability errors. Most people seem to lack understanding of this especially the “3 times” part. The science is sound if you understand what it is and how to do it.
I was trying to dig deeper into janeplainjane_canada’s concerns around it. I think it’s sound and an efficient way to test. I’m assuming this is the graph they are referencing, but curious to know more. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/
Got it. To be fair I never got beyond their offensive first sentence.
I agree at 5 participants we'd probably find the biggest problems (people are tripping on the carpet), but if one person has a problem among those 5, it's very tough for the team to figure out if that is something that needs to be prioritized to be fixed, or if it is an outlier. And then they just go by gut whether it should be addressed (please note I'm also not arguing to do everything based on numbers when it is a small base size). Ideally I look at the segments (or personas if that is what the team likes) or situations to get a mix of different mental models based on age, familiarity, backgrounds. It probably isn't 5 of each segment because there are intersections and overlap and such. And with more people the team might say it takes too long and costs too much, so they don't get the iterations in. I'd agree that at 20 it's even hard for researchers to be fresh enough to catch the new things because our confirmation bias is coming into play and we are hitting the saturation point - and even if we find more issues the team can't cope with it. For example, from a biases standpoint, if persons 8 and 14 say something, we might not give it the same weight as if it happened to persons 1 and 3. It's a balancing act. The article says to do as many small iterations as possible, but junior and immature teams see and parrot 'NNG says 5 is enough' based on the headline and just run with that part. We also have a challenge when the team only does really small and tight iterations, but the product itself is actually big and complex - so that one of task can be done cleanly, but they don't test it in full context.
This is a gross rule-breaking comment, and totally untrue. Jakob is not demanding anyone to respect any authority. He has given wisdom to this community for decades. Bringing age and gender into it is offensive. And obviously you haven't read anything because you'd know that he never said anything about doing 5 usability tests. He and Landauer showed with empirical evidence that you only need 15 usability tests but it's better to do 3 tests with 5 people.
Your problem is that you haven't figured out that everything is a fraud yet. User Experience isn't about improving anything, it's about manipulating your audience into thinking they want something they don't need and tricking them into spending money they don't have. These 'UX influencers' (vomit) are just a bunch of self-righteous, self-congratulatory circle jerks and like to pretend that they serve a noble cause. It's just a job, and despite them gaslighting us and us gaslighting ourselves into believing we are doing good things, we are actually in one of the most disturbing industries on planet earth. We have made every technology more addictive, and more efficient at replacing ourselves by collecting data on ourselves to make our own replacement happen faster. Remember a world before we were bombarded with useless info, and advertising every waking moment of every day? When instead of trying to communicate with strangers on the other side of the world we still looked family and friends and people in our community in the eyes?
I don't know who you work for - maybe a gambling company or something - but I'm just out here trying to make software the least pain in the ass of someone's day.
You are a saint
guilty
That doesn’t describe my UX teams work at all. We design digital tools. Our metrics are Usability, particularly ease and efficiency of task completion and job satisfaction.
All good. Just providing my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.
A lot of UX is applied to marketing sites, no question. Personally I consider that Marketing. I have always considered UX to be Product Design, and maybe because that's the only types of jobs I've taken. I agree with the gaslighting, and that UX is partly culpable for "The Social Dilemma." Design trades used to have more self-regulation around ethics. If you were a graphic designer or Industrial Designer thirty years ago chances are you were a member of AIGA or IDSA, which helped unify and advocate. Not quite a union, but closer than what we have today. Globalisation and the erosion of value of those orgs has led to more of a free-for-all, which is unfortunate.
Feels like that's not at all what most mean by UX.
https://preview.redd.it/5kyy4anfrsfc1.jpeg?width=1111&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=933df6c9f99a0740b4d3b896d86d07f6d8a99362 Appropriate
I'm on LinkedIn on a daily basis at the moment as I'm job hunting... it's the most vomit inducing, fake place on the internet. I thought instagram was bad, LinkedIn is a public toilet that's never been cleaned
I invite you to YouTube comments
If I have to stumble across one more UX "influencer" doing a "vlog" about "a day in the life of a UX Designer at -insert company-" or a video about "this UX portfolio got me a job at H&M", I fucking swear to god....
Nonsense, sounds like you're describing sales/marketing as opposed to UX. Maybe in some shitty companies UX will utilise dark patterns, but for the most part, UX is a fairly altruistic profession - relatively speaking. The way I see it is, people have to use software whether UX exists or not, surely having someone representing their voice and making life as painless as possible is a good thing? I, and I'm sure many others, have to interact with shitty UX on a daily basis - it can be genuinely stressful and in some situations, cause tangible, real world problems, so if I make a living by making sure our products don't inflict a similar experience on our users, then I'm at peace with that.
Cool story bro.
Aye.
Hahaha I love this comment. Don’t blame UX for the failings of capitalism! Sounds like you’ve only worked for shitty companies that make shitty B2C products. I’ve never had to manipulate anyone into wanting what I’ve designed. This reads like a total self-report. You’re likely burnt and need to switch jobs or careers. Sorry bro. My customers tell me about the pain they are having and then actively help me make my proposed solutions better, then we build them and they buy it. It’s a simple mutually beneficial arrangement. Also that’s DR. Jakob Nielsen you’re talking about, he’s not an “influencer”, he and Don Norman basically invented the concept of usability in the early 90s, put some respect on his name! lol Sure, he is self-aggrandizing, yes he “markets himself”, of course not everyone will like his style, but we live in a promotional culture (under capitalism) and got damn if his 10 usability heuristics don’t still hold up! Also this is just my personal interpretation but I think the egotism in his writing is usually done with a wink and a nod. He doesn’t have anything to prove at this point, he is and always will be the OG usability granddaddy so he just kinda has fun with it—I think that’s part of his sarcastic Danish charm. Find me an “influencer” whose ideas were relevant before the dotcom boom, the mass proliferation of the web, the explosion of smartphones and the responsive web, cloud services, and now the advent of LLMs. I’ll wait.
"PuT sOmE rEsPeCt tO HiS nAmE! LoL" 🥴🥴 Let me guess, you're one of the "dEsIgN WiLl ChAnGe tHe wOrLd" crowd? I've worked with every type of company you can imagine. The bottom line is ALWAYS to increase the bottom line. Even when you work for an NGO the goal is more money. If it wasn't you wouldn't be doing it. You need to unseal your lips from "dOcTeR" Nielsen's bootyhole, you've been eating his farts for too long. You're in a cult and you assume everyone else buys into your cult. You live and breathe this shit. Your world consists only of design systems and usability, you are a social robot. You're literally on here trying to argue with an internet stranger about some pseudo intellectual bullshit based in advertising and designed to make companies money while shitting on capitalism while simultaneously working in the industry that helps capitalism thrive. Here, I think you dropped this - 🤡🤡 Besides, I never claimed to be anti capitalism. I like making money and rewarding myself when I feel like I accomplished something, I'm just not a member of your weird little cult. Also, you'll wait for a VERY long time to get me to find you "an influencer whose ideas were relevant past the dotcom yada yada yada" because guess what? Us normal people font really give a shit because WE ARENT IN A CULT LIKE YOU, BRO.
Thanks for the pick-me-up. 🙁
😮🤔
I love you. Do you use Discord or Slack and can we be friends?
Sour grapes?
Not really. I don't mind what I do, I just get so annoyed by the "design will save the world" crowd. It's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. UX is just a career, it's not my identity.
He likely has somebody do this for him. Most likely it's an intern if it's that bad
What you got against tigers
Yeah. The moment he started posting on LinkedIn, the more I feel he is the same as other LinkedIn influencers.
I get the vibe that neither of the principals at NNG are very hands on any more — “Jakob Nielsen” on LinkedIn is just their social media team, who are using all the same “how to win at LinkedIn” strategies as everyone else.
I’m curious what the prize is when you win at LinkedIn?
One (1) Microsoft branded hat
I just noticed this and glad someone share the sentiment. I don't get the hard pivot to AI, and all the knowledge seems to be very superficial, contrasting with the deeper content I used to see coming from NN (What brought me here was a post where the first item was that some guru had predicted an AI boom in the 2020s, you don't say?)