『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

概要

 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
  • AI Can Fix Your Broken Research Repository

    AI Can Fix Your Broken Research Repository
    2026/05/19
    This week, Paul and Marcus dig into why traditional user research repositories fail almost everyone in an organization, and how AI is quietly changing the game. There's also an App of the Month pick that's a little too on-the-nose, some pointed Google bashing, and a sheep-based punchline. AI-Powered User Research Repositories The pattern in most organizations is depressingly familiar: user research gets done, a PowerPoint gets presented to stakeholders, everyone nods along or ignores it entirely, and then the research disappears. It might prompt some short-term action, but the knowledge evaporates. Nobody references it again six months later. The traditional solution has been to build a research repository: a central place to store everything from interviews and surveys to usability tests and diary studies. The problem is that these repositories almost always become what Paul generously describes as "dumping grounds." Dense folder structures, difficult navigation, and search tools that require you to already know what you're looking for make them practically unusable for anyone outside the UX team. And who ends up using them? Other UX professionals, the people who already understand the research anyway. Everyone else ignores them. AI changes this in three meaningful ways. First, it makes the initial build far less painful. You can throw everything at it, PDFs, old PowerPoints, interview transcripts, survey exports, and AI will structure and organize that material into something coherent. What used to be a daunting, months-long project becomes manageable. Second, it makes the repository accessible to people who aren't UX specialists. Instead of requiring a precise search query, a conversational interface lets anyone ask vague, natural questions. A product manager can ask "what do our users think about the checkout process?" and get a synthesized answer drawn from five different studies they never knew existed. That's a genuinely different kind of value. Third, and this is the part Paul finds most compelling, it can identify gaps in your research. When someone asks the repository a question and there's no relevant research to draw on, a well-configured AI won't fabricate an answer. It flags the gap and notifies the UX team that this is an area worth investigating. Over time, the questions people ask become a demand-driven research roadmap, shaped by what people in the organization actually need to know rather than what the UX team assumes they need. Marcus pushed back on the reliability question, which is fair given AI's well-documented habit of confidently inventing things. Paul's response: proper setup matters enormously. You instruct the AI explicitly not to fabricate, you add a quality gate that checks answers before they're returned, and you can even have it verify claims against source material. Even with pessimistic assumptions, say one in ten answers being wrong, that's still more useful than having nothing at all. And the failure mode is reassuring: if the AI can't find relevant research, it defaults to generic best practice rather than making something specific up about your users. Paul then connected this to something he's discussed before: AI-powered virtual personas. The repository feeds the persona generation. AI analyzes the accumulated research and builds queryable personas from it. Unlike static persona documents that go stale almost immediately, these update as new research is added. And here's the detail Paul is clearly delighted by: put a QR code on your printed persona posters. Scan it, and you're now having a conversation with a virtual version of that persona. Marcus had recently written about the value of physical personas on walls as simple reminders of who you're designing for, and this neatly bridges the physical and digital. The upshot: organizations that invest in an AI-powered research repository end up with something that prevents duplicate research, makes user insights accessible to everyone, identifies gaps in what's known, and gives the whole organization a quick way to gut-check decisions against actual user data. The reason more organizations aren't doing this, Paul notes with characteristic subtlety, is that UX teams are too small and too busy. "Hire me to do it" being the conclusion he arrived at, live on air. App of the Month Notion Paul's pick this month is Notion, which he acknowledges he's almost certainly recommended before, given that he runs his entire business on it and describes its potential failure as roughly equivalent to his own. The recommendation here is specific though: Notion as the platform for building AI-powered user research repositories. Two things make it well-suited for this. First, structural flexibility: you can organize a repository however your organization needs, and bring in almost any format of research artifact. Second, Notion has a powerful built-in AI agent that can reference, search, and synthesize across everything stored in it. ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    51 分
  • AI Is Showing UI Designers the Door

    AI Is Showing UI Designers the Door
    2026/04/21
    So this month Marcus and I get into a slightly uncomfortable question. If AI can knock out decent interfaces from a text prompt, where does that leave the people whose day job is opening Figma and making screens look nice? We start with Google Stitch, which has been getting a lot of attention lately. Then we zoom out into something I have become mildly obsessed with, which is building AI skills. Not prompt snippets, but reusable, documented processes that let you get consistent work out of AI without drowning it in context. App of the Month This month’s tool is Google Stitch (v2), Google’s AI UI generator. You describe what you want, it produces an interface, and you can do some light manual tweaking. It is not a full replacement for Figma. The editing controls are basic. The bigger story is what it represents. We are now at the point where a decent, usable UI can be generated fast enough that the real value shifts from "can you draw the screens" to "can you judge what good looks like." That is where experience, and yes, taste, starts to matter. If you want to compare approaches, I mentioned Figr again, which I still prefer for the quality of what it produces. Are UI Designers Becoming Vinyl? The question Stitch raises is not "can AI design interfaces". It clearly can. The question is what happens to the job market when "good enough" becomes cheap, fast, and widely available. I found myself telling 2 different clients recently that they could probably skip hiring a UI designer. They had tight budgets, tight timelines, and already had solid brand guidelines or a design system. In those situations, I could push the work through AI, iterate it a bit, and get something perfectly serviceable. That line of advice made me feel a bit grubby. Not because it was wrong for those clients, but because it hints at a bigger shift. My worry is that UI design becomes like vinyl records. Most people will not need it. A small number will care deeply and pay for it. The middle ground shrinks. Marcus made the important caveat here. Some designers will still be in demand because they bring something AI cannot easily fake. A distinctive visual style. Creative judgment. Brand thinking. The ability to make something feel like it came from a real point of view, not a model averaging the internet. We also talked about where UI designers can expand their value, because "I make pretty screens" is not a great long-term career plan. Broaden into UX and problem solving. Look past the interface and into the business problem, user needs, and research.Own the stuff between screens. AI still tends to think screen by screen. Humans are better at flows, journeys, and the messy reality of how people actually get from A to B.Lean into information architecture. For websites especially, the structure and content model matter as much as the visual design. We used a music analogy that will probably annoy some people, which makes it perfect. AI tools can generate "background" output that is fine for low-stakes use. They will not replace great musicians. But they will reduce the number of gigs available. AI Skills As a Career Asset After we finished terrifying UI designers, we moved on to something more useful. I think a lot of roles are going to need an AI toolkit. Not a handful of clever prompts, but a proper library of reusable skills. When I say "AI skills," I mean documented processes that an AI can follow reliably. Think SOPs you can run repeatedly, not prompt snippets you copy and paste. I now have around 60 skills in my library, and it is growing constantly. Outside of the Boagworld website, it might be the most valuable business asset I have. The reason is consistency and context management. AI can produce terrible output when you dump too much information on it at once. Skills let you break work into focused chunks and chain them. We talked about 3 levels of skills: Company-level skills Standard processes that keep things consistent. Proposals. Expense claims. Holiday booking. The sort of stuff that should not depend on one person remembering every step. Team or discipline skills For example, UX teams can create skills for personas, journey mapping, surveys, and top task analysis. That helps remove bottlenecks and lets colleagues do decent work without reinventing the wheel. Individual skills This is where it gets interesting for your career. These are the skills that capture how you do something, including all the weird little bits you have learned over the years. A key point here is that the value is not only in having the skill. It is in creating it. Writing down a process forces you to surface assumptions and explain what "good" looks like. We also got into AI agents. If you describe your skills well, an agent can chain them to complete bigger jobs. I gave a sales example where a meeting transcript can be turned into a CRM entry, follow-up tasks, company research, and a draft proposal with very little manual effort. That is ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
  • Website Rebuilds, AI Tools, and UX in 2026

    Website Rebuilds, AI Tools, and UX in 2026
    2026/03/17
    This month, Paul and Marcus get into a tool that has made Paul cancel his Figma subscription, walk through how Paul has completely changed the way he approaches website rebuilds thanks to AI, and round things off with the latest thinking from Nielsen Norman Group on where UX is heading in 2026. App of the Week: figr.design Paul has been road-testing AI design tools as part of a workshop he ran on AI and UI, and after going through dozens of them, one stood out: figr.design. What makes it work where others fall short? A few things. It lets you feed in a significant amount of context upfront, things like style guides, design systems, and personas, which means the output is far more tailored than the generic average you often get from AI design tools. Iteration is also genuinely fast. You can queue up a whole list of changes and it processes them all in one go, rather than making you wait between each tweak. The prototypes it produces are more realistic than what you would typically get out of Figma. Text fields you can actually type in, accordion states that open and close, button states, fully responsive layouts. Not exactly revolutionary in theory, but refreshingly functional in practice. Export to Figma is available when you need it. The main limitation is that you cannot manually adjust elements yourself. Everything goes through the conversational interface. Paul has also been looking at a tool called Inspector, which runs locally and connects to the Claude API so you pay as you go rather than a flat monthly token allocation. It has been a bit fiddly to set up but worth keeping an eye on. For anyone regularly using Figma for wireframing and prototyping, it is worth giving figr.design a proper look. The shift Paul describes, from hunching over Figma to leaning back and having a conversation with the tool, is a fairly good summary of where this kind of work is heading. Rebuilding a Website in 2026 Paul has fundamentally changed how he approaches website rebuilds, and the shift is largely down to AI making a genuinely hard problem, getting good content onto a website, a lot easier. The old problem Website rebuilds have traditionally meant migrating existing content into a new design. Which sounds fine until you remember that most of that content was written by subject matter experts who know their field but have never thought about writing for the web. The result is pages that lecture rather than help, that bury the things users actually want to know, and that rarely arrive on time, because the content phase is almost always where projects stall. Why things are different now AI has changed three things meaningfully. First, generating content is no longer the enormous manual effort it used to be.Second, doing the research that informs good content, finding out what users actually ask, worry about, and need, is much simpler with tools like Perplexity.Third, AI-powered search engines are pushing toward a more question-oriented approach to content anyway, which makes getting this right more important than it used to be. How Paul works now Here is the process Paul walks through for a rebuild project. 1. Online research Using Perplexity, Paul researches the audience. For a well-known client, he'll ask specifically about them. For a smaller or niche client, he looks at the sector. He is looking for the questions people are asking, the tasks they are trying to complete, their objections, goals, and pain points. This takes about 10 minutes. 2. Personas The research output goes into AI, which identifies patterns and segments it into a set of personas. A couple of hours of back and forth to get these right. 3. Company overview Paul records his kickoff meeting with the client and points AI at the transcript. Out comes a clean summary of what the company does, its products and services, and how it talks about itself. An hour for the meeting, plus 10 minutes for the summary creation. 4. Top task analysis and information architecture If time and budget allow, Paul runs a formal top task analysis, collecting and prioritizing the questions users most want answered. For card sorting, he uses UX Metrics. If there is no time for that, AI brainstorms the top tasks from the personas and company overview. Either way, those tasks get fed into an AI-generated information architecture. 5. Building out the IA Paul builds the IA in the CMS or in Notion, assigning the relevant tasks and questions to each page. Stakeholders can see the structure and understand what each page is there to do before a word of copy is written. 6. Getting stakeholders to contribute Rather than asking stakeholders to write content (a recipe for delays), Paul asks them to do two simpler things for each page: bullet-point answers to the questions assigned to that page, and any other talking points they want included. Bullets only. No pressure to write. 7. Writing the content with AI This is where it all comes together. Paul sets up an AI project with four ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_c
まだレビューはありません