『Boagworld: UX, Design Leadership, Marketing & Conversion Optimization』のカバーアート

Boagworld: UX, Design Leadership, Marketing & Conversion Optimization

Boagworld: UX, Design Leadership, Marketing & Conversion Optimization

著者： Paul Boag Marcus Lillington
無料で聴く

【Amazonプライム会員限定】今ならプレミアムプランが4か月 月額99円。

10月19日まで。※適用条件あり
Boagworld: The podcast where digital best practices meets a terrible sense of humor! Join us for a relaxed chat about all things digital design. We dish out practical advice and industry insights, all wrapped up in friendly conversation. Whether you're looking to improve your user experience, boost your conversion or be a better design lead, we've got something for you. With over 400 episodes, we're like the cool grandads of web design podcasts – experienced, slightly inappropriate, but always entertaining. So grab a drink, get comfy, and join us for an entertaining journey through the life of a digital professional.Boagworks Ltd 経済学
エピソード
  • Your UX Team Is Set Up for the Wrong Job

    Your UX Team Is Set Up for the Wrong Job
    2026/09/15
    This month we look at why most in-house UX teams are organized around work that no longer arrives in the way it used to. Product owners, developers, and marketers are all producing design with AI tools long before anyone thinks to raise a ticket, and telling them to stop has quietly stopped working. We talk about what to fund instead, how to measure a team that is no longer the bottleneck, and where Marcus thinks Paul has gone too far. We also cover a new tool that gives a freelancer something close to a staff team, a new free email course, and the unexpected link between bees, a man with a bin on his head, and the power of consistently turning up.App of the Month: Grok BotGrok Bot launched in early beta on 11 August 2026 from SpaceXAI and Cursor, and it is the first AI tool in a while that has genuinely surprised Paul. Rather than a single chat window, you spin up a set of agents with their own roles, so there is a chief operating officer to talk to day to day, plus a finance person, a marketer, a salesperson, and a designer. Each one has its own computer, they brief each other, and they keep working after you shut the laptop.What makes it interesting is the complete absence of setup. There are no API keys to find and no MCP servers to wire up. You tell it which service you use, it pops up a button, you log in as you normally would, and it handles the rest. If there is no connector, it falls back to a browser. Paul asked it about a client message sitting in Slack, and it read the thread, gave him advice, created a task for Monday, added a note to the relevant meeting, and then offered to write the Slack message telling the developers what was happening.For freelancers who lose hours to the admin they are least confident about, this is the closest thing yet to having colleagues. Marcus raised the obvious concerns about privacy and about becoming too reliant on output nobody checks, which is fair. Paul's answer to the second one is a quality control agent whose only job is to check everyone else's work, with the caveat that both can still be wrong.The catch is the price. It runs at $200 a month, although that does include Cursor.How the team is set up for the wrong jobEverybody is designing nowPaul used to insist that only proper UX people should do UX, and he is honest that a good part of that was protecting the job description rather than protecting the user. That position has become much harder to defend. Product owners come back from an hour with an AI tool holding a prototype and a flow that mostly hangs together. Developers generate interface options before the ticket has even been refined. Marketers build and test their own landing pages. Some of it is good, some of it is plausible rubbish, and all of it turns up before anyone thinks to involve design.The complaint Paul hears most often from in-house teams is some version of how do we stop people doing this. In our experience you cannot stop them, because going around you is faster than waiting three months for a slot. The consequences are real, they are just delayed. Somebody ships a prototype that looked fine, and six months later the accessibility has failed quietly, the conversion rate is poor, and the product looks like it was built by three different companies. By then everyone has moved on and the rework never gets attributed to the decision that caused it.Cutting the team is the expensive responseMeanwhile the money is going the other way. Headcount that leaves is not replaced, and the seat at the table turns into being asked to comment on decisions that have already been made. Cutting the team is the expensive response, because the work does not disappear, it just gets done worse and later.What to fund insteadThe organizations getting this right have moved design upstream, away from producing every screen. Fund the team to set the conditions instead of being the only route to a wireframe:A design system with real usage guidance, so a developer at 4pm can make a decent decision, or brief an AI to make one, without booking time with a designer.Playbooks for the work that keeps repeating. Landing pages are the obvious one, because marketers are already building them and they are not conversion experts, copywriters, or developers.A research repository that anyone can query, so the findings get used in the meeting six months after the readout instead of dying in a slide deck.Office hours, audits, and coaching as the service, with the hard political work still firmly on the books.How you measure the teamHow the team is measured has to change with it. If people are still judged on screens produced and tickets closed, the queue rebuilds itself inside a month, because nobody can afford to spend a week writing guidance that tanks their own numbers. Measure whether other people shipped something decent without design touching the file. Measure whether last quarter's research got referenced again. A quieter team is a sign the setup is working, not ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    52 分
  • Brand Guidelines Are Ruining Your Website

    Brand Guidelines Are Ruining Your Website
    2026/08/18
    Why print-first brand systems break online, and how to push back without demanding a full rebrand. I've been grumbling about this one for years, because although almost everyone now meets a brand through a screen, we're still handed identities designed for brochures, business cards, and the occasional exhibition stand, and then told to make the website behave itself. So this month I have a proper rant about it and Marcus does his best to talk me down, which he largely manages. We also get into top task analysis, which is one of my favorite research techniques, and the free app I've built because I got fed up running it the hard way. App of the Week Top Task Analysis is a free app I've built to make top task analysis considerably less painful, mainly because I'd spent years running it with a spreadsheet, a survey tool, and a fair amount of swearing. How top task analysis works Top task analysis is a technique Gerry McGovern came up with, and it works a bit like a survey except that it stops people from being greedy, because an ordinary survey hands you a long list of everything your users say they'd quite like and no sense whatsoever of what they'd actually walk over hot coals for. This forces them to prioritize, so you end up knowing which small handful of things the majority genuinely care about. Gerry's classic example is the Microsoft Office knowledge base that kept answering more and more questions and kept watching its satisfaction score slide, because the answers people actually needed were buried under a hundred they didn't. I use it for all sorts, from shaping information architecture and working out which objections are worth answering, through to prioritizing features and deciding what has earned its place on a dashboard. Roughly 80% of your users want about 20% of what's on your site, and this is how you find the 20%. What the app does The reason nobody runs it as often as they should is that it needs at least 2 rounds, one to gather the tasks and another to vote on them, so the app handles both in a single pass. You seed it with a starter list from AI, from the client, or from whichever stakeholder shouts loudest, and it genuinely doesn't matter if that list is a bit rubbish, because visitors can search it, pick the 5 tasks that matter most to them, and add anything that's missing, which then appears for everyone who arrives after them. A second screen asks them to put their 5 in order, and the back end lets you see the lot, merge the 14 different ways people phrase the same task, and tidy up anything unhelpful. And yes, there's a profanity filter, because I have met the internet before. Marcus made the good point that you want a segmentation question alongside it so you can see top tasks broken down by audience, which is already in there, and he also dug up a hospital trust site we worked on years back where we dropped the top 8 tasks straight under the main navigation. They're still sitting there 8 years later, which either says something flattering about the technique or something less flattering about how often that site gets touched. Give it a go It's free, because I did think about charging for it and then couldn't be arsed, which is not the sharpest business decision I've ever made. Have a play and tell me what's broken. The app: Top Task AnalysisThe step-by-step guide: Top Task Analysis: A Free App And Step-by-Step GuideFeedback: paul@boagworld.com When brand guidelines fight the web Most people meet a brand through a screen these days, and yet the web is still treated as the place where you paste in whatever was designed for print. A branding agency mocks up a homepage that has never met a real sentence, the guidelines get signed off after 18 months and roughly all of somebody's political capital, and then some poor soul is handed the job of protecting it, at which point they'll defend an unreadable contrast ratio to the death because it's sitting on page 47 of the PDF. Consistency matters and I'm not arguing otherwise, but being consistently difficult to read isn't much of an achievement. Marcus agreed with the general complaint and pointed out that Headscape has described itself as a brand interpreter for digital for something like 15 years now, for exactly this reason. He also told the story of a charity working with deafblind people whose shiny new sub-brand logo failed color contrast checks, and if I'd invented that example nobody would have believed me. A brand should serve the organization and its audience, so the moment its rules make the website harder to use, those rules need to change. What a brand actually is A lot of the confusion comes from shrinking brand down to a logo, some colors, a typeface, and a photography style, when all of that is really just the clothes the organization turns up in. The brand itself is closer to a personality, made up of what the organization believes, how it talks, and how it treats people when nobody important is watching, and your copy ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    51 分
  • Designing Beyond the Chatbot

    Designing Beyond the Chatbot
    2026/07/21
    AI is changing far more than the speed at which designers produce work. In this episode, we talk with Josh Clark and Veronika Kindred about their book Sentient Design, how intelligent interfaces can respond to people in the moment, and why designers need to understand the character of AI before they can use it well. --- Use the code SENTIENT-BOAG to get 20% off the book through Aug 31 at rosenfeldmedia.com. --- Designing With AI as a Material Josh and Veronika describe AI as a design material, much as paint, paper, code, or the web itself can be materials. Every material has a grain. It has qualities that make some things easy and other things awkward, unreliable, or downright foolish. Designers get better results when they understand those qualities rather than forcing the material to behave like something familiar. Large language models are probabilistic. They can interpret intent, adapt tone, change formats, and produce many plausible variations, but they may also give different answers to the same question and present shaky information with alarming confidence. That makes them poor choices for some deterministic tasks, especially when a single correct answer matters. Asking one to count letters or provide an exact food-safety temperature without verification rather misses the point of what the material does well. Designers need enough experience with AI to make an informed choice about when to use it and when to leave it alone. Refusing to engage with it leaves that decision to ignorance, which has rarely been a dependable design system, despite Paul's suspiciously successful career testing the theory! The comparison with the early web runs throughout the conversation. Print designers initially approached websites with expectations shaped by paper, while the people who learned HTML and understood the new medium found different possibilities. AI creates a similar shift. Its rough edges can feel threatening, particularly when companies use it to cut costs or flatten skilled work into production, but those edges also point toward forms of interaction that were difficult or impossible before. Moving Beyond the Chatbot Chat has become the default AI interface, partly because our culture has spent decades imagining intelligent machines as talking machines. It can be useful because both the input and output remain open, but a blank text box also makes the user do a great deal of work. People must know what to ask, how to phrase it, and how to judge the resulting wall of text. Sentient Design describes 4 broader postures for intelligent experiences: Tools accept an input and return a controlled, precise output. Shazam is a familiar example.Chat uses a turn-based exchange, although those turns can involve images, interface components, or shared artifacts rather than paragraphs of text.Agents receive a goal, plan and perform the work, then return with a result. They still need direction, oversight, and review.Copilots remain quietly present, notice context, and offer assistance when useful, much like spellcheck waiting behind the scenes. These postures allow teams to choose an interaction that fits the task. A conversational box might suit exploration, while a focused tool is better for a clear transaction. An agent can handle delegated work, while a copilot can notice opportunities without demanding constant management. Josh and Veronika also share examples of AI taking part inside an existing interface. Salesforce's Generative Canvas assembles relevant components using trusted customer and calendar data. Miro's sidekicks can enter a canvas with their own cursors, while Pointer participates in a Google Doc as an editor, using the collaboration patterns people already understand. The interesting design question is how intelligence participates in an experience, not where to bolt on another chat window. Defensive Design for Uncertain Systems Trust becomes a design problem when systems are probabilistic. A generic disclaimer saying that AI can make mistakes does very little for someone deciding whether to believe a specific answer. Confidence scores often fare no better because most people have no useful way to interpret a claim such as “73% likely.” Defensive design communicates uncertainty through language, interface, and context. A system can present an answer as a signal rather than an unquestionable fact, show nearby possibilities, reveal where information came from, and give the user sensible points for review or intervention. Veronika describes “spaghetti scenarios,” borrowed from weather forecasting, where several possible paths are shown together. A search interface can do something similar by presenting adjacent questions and contrasting answers. This helps people see how wording, assumptions, and context affect the result. Tone matters too. Human beings constantly signal confidence through phrasing, body language, and shared cultural habits. AI systems tend to speak with the polished ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 9 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません