The frauds are targeting older or less tech-savvy users. They are targeted because they're perceived as having more savings or assets; less likely to be digital natives and trend to trust authority figures or brands. [They have a hard time to] recognise safe vs. suspicious links: differentiate between ads and actual content; know how to verify sources and undertand terms like multi-factor authentication or phishing.

In 2021, there were more than 90,000 older victims of fraud, according to the FBI. It resulted in $1.7 bullion in losses.

On average, older people in the UK who have been scammed have lost nearly £4,000 each.

They are subject to the decision fatigue and if the app or website is already not easy, then scammer can rely on these factors.

UX has a role to play in order to prevent scams to remain unknown. The tips or patterns are already known. I note a few more though: use friction to protect, not hinder; embed contextual education. "What we can do as designers is build systems that make hesitation feel natural [...] and inject small moments of friction that nudge users to double-check before proceeding"

UX has however limitations: "To help those like her, ultimately, additional elements like support contact numbers, face-to-face courses on how to stay safe on your phone, and, of course, help from family members as required."

The dialog blocks the chatbot.

Yes you have to use the chatbot to create an account.

Chats common. The more the AI has output, the more

The chat can be completed with task-oriented UIs.

The UI itself can express intent, so the AI write feeds itself.

The hardest part of the UX is often the refinement; good old-fashioned UI controls can help in this case.

Presets, bookmarks and allowing users to select specific parts of the outcome they want to change or pick for later on.

That experience reinforced what we all know deep down: your best work rarely happens in isolation.

Cooperation: “You do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we’ll check in later.”
Collaboration: “Let’s figure this out together and co-own the outcome.”

The outcome of collaboration is typically a tangible product or a measurable achievement, such as solving a problem or making a decision.

That experience reinforced what we all know deep down: your best work rarely happens in isolation.

Instead of BlurHash that needs aditionnal JS for 83 bits string, some CSS snippets can do the work for Low Quality Image Placeholders (LQIP).

The big disadvantage of pure CSS approaches is that you typically litter your markup with lengthy inline styles or obnoxious data URLs.

A blurHash like method in CSS can also be used and that's what the author is describing.
A more simpler solution is to use one color as placeholder.

The project can be useful to provide search results on a static site.

Doctolib doit fonctionner, puisque c'est un service critique.

J'ai tenté de me connecter à Doctolib. J'arrive pas à passer le MFA. Ni par mail (ça m'a dit que je violais les CGU), ni par SMS (il arrive pas).

Y'a aucun bouton "Renvoyer le code de sécurité". Y'a aucun indice sur ce qui ne marche pas, ni de message "Je n'arrive pas à me connecter".

Autre question démocratique

La privatisation d'un service qui devrait par essence être entièrement public et open.

What we are trying to do is reach theoretical saturation, the point where additional research doesn’t give us new insights.

The image pictures it well: https://swipefile.com/from-data-to-impact and creates a consistent pattern.

A exercice of thought:
Raw data points is random and inconclusive. Information makes them consistent. Knowledge (or Findings) describe emerging patterns in data but aren't actionable. Insights reveal opportunities in this knowledge. Wisdom emerges from insights. Impact is reached while taking action with these insights and wisdom.

Hindsights are reflections of past actions and outcomes.
Foresights are informed projections, insights with extrapolation.

Here’s what it then looks like in real life:
Data ↓
Six users were looking for ”Money transfer” in “Payments”, and 4 users discovered the feature in their personal dashboard.
Finding ↓
60% of users struggled to find the “Money transfer” feature on a dashboard, often confusing it with the “Payments” section.
Insight ↓
Navigation doesn’t match users’ mental models for money transfers, causing confusion and delays. We recommend renaming sections or reorganizing the dashboard to prioritize “Transfer Money”. It could make task completion more intuitive and efficient.
Hindsight ↓
After renaming the section to “Transfer Money” and moving it to the main dashboard, task success increased by 12%. User confusion dropped in follow-up tests. It proved to be an effective solution.
Foresight ↓
As our financial products become more complex, users will expect simpler task-oriented navigation (e.g., “Send Money”, “Pay Bills“) instead of categories like “Payments”. We should evolve the dashboard towards action-driven IA to meet user expectation.

Have you ever walked into a supermarket, pharmacy, or department store looking to buy a specific item, only to find the layout confusing? Perhaps you ended up aimlessly strolling around, purchasing other items? This is deliberate, and known as the Gruen Transfer.

The 'Transfer' part is the moment that you, as a consumer surrounded by a deliberately confusing layout, lose track of your original intentions.

It first appeared on Facebook with the apparition of the feed. [...] "The last time I checked Facebook, maybe 10% of my feed was updates from friends."

In the EU, it is a legal requirement to allow your customers the same method, with the same number of steps and complexity, for canceling as for subscribing. So if it takes 10 seconds to fill in a form online to get subscribed, they need to offer the same ease of use for canceling.

In french, l'effet Gruen

Write like a human: "Monzo’s approach here is so action-focused, in fact, that you’d be forgiven for not recognising it as an error at all: you'll need your phone for that."

Ask yourself:

• would this message still work for someone having a bad day?
• could this language trivialise the issue?
• are we helping users get unstuck, or just showing off?

Use active voice:

We couldn’t process your application because the file type you’ve attached isn’t supported. Please re-attach the file as a jpeg and try again.

The active voices tells us who is doing what, while the passive voice is ambiguous.

Give a clear way forward: for errors a user can fix, we should clearly state what they need to do.

• Check that your card details are correct, or try a different payment method
• Enter your name

When we handle errors with care, clarity and empathy, we not only help users move forward, we show that we value their time, their goals and their experience.

Similar to previous shaares I stored

1. . If you look at 99% of all websites in the wild, everybody who worked on them seems to be allergic to semantics and shit. Headings are random levels, loosely based on font-size, Form Fields have no labels, links and buttons are divs.
2. The whole industry doesn't understand semantics and shit.

So when I teach about HTML I always start with the elements that are obviously interactive. I show them the multitude of UX layers of a link.

s and layers of UX that are added to a well considered form. I show them what happens on a phone when you use an input with a default text type instead of the proper type of email.

See the example between a span with an onclick-event and a proper link: the proper link opens a specialised context menu on right-click.

Why "Semantic HTML" fails? There’s no clear UX feature to point at.

First we need to get people exited about HTML by showing all the free yet complex layers of UX you get when you use the interactive elements properly.

You need a good idea of what UX is before you can understand things like the option to nagivate through the headings on the page with a screen reader.

I didn't know the radio button has an "indeterminate state" :o
I am curious about HTML form validation with HTML and clever CSS.

In other words, talks about what HTML does, and much less about what it means in theory. Let’s talk about user experience, and let’s stop talking about semantics and shit.

Bad #UI
experience: I was trying to send a friend some money via #CashApp
, but could not verify my identity. Here’s what their tech support found out:

“...from the documentation you have provided, we see that you have a legal one letter name. While we understand that is the name chosen and legally granted, we regret to inform you that we cannot proceed with the request at this time.”

I sent a response thanking them for figuring out the problem, and I wouldn’t try to get verified -- or use CashApp -- again.

I also sent them the URL for “Falsehoods Programmers Believe about Names”

Names are changing and diverse. They are so different that a validator for them seems irrelevant.

I.

Most things fail because nobody cares.

II.

Let’s start with what doesn’t work: copying success. Everyone trying to make the next Facebook creates a wasteland of social networks nobody wants.

III

Here’s the core principle: people give a shit about things that meaningfully change their lives.

IV

Solving real problems isn't enough. You also need to solve them in a way that resonates emotionally.

V.

Why didn't someone do it sooner? Because the obvious solution was previously impossible, illegal, or insane.
The sweet spot? When something just became possible, legal, or sane enough to try. That’s why timing matters more than ideas. Being too early is the same as being wrong.

VI.
Communicate why anyone should care. Focus on outcomes.

VII.

Making something people care about often means making something people already care about, just better.

VIII.

The most successful products are often worse in most ways but radically better in one way that matters.

IX.

Sometimes, making something people care about means removing things people hate.

X.

Finally, there’s the hardest truth: you have to give a shit yourself.

XI.
Hit 6/8 (from III. to X.). More is overkill. Less is self-sabotage.

making something people give a shit about doesn’t mean making something perfect. It means creating something meaningfully better in a way that touches people’s lives.

In the end, people don’t care about products, features, or specifications. They give a shit about their lives being better. Everything else is just details.

(XII.)

creating something people give a shit about isn't enough – you have to remember why they gave a shit in the first place.

Example of playbook: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual

What can a playbook contains?

• engage with the digital team: it provides clear guidance.
• digital project lifecycle
• publishing best practices
• help understand the users
• recommends resources
• clarify policies and governance

In order to make the playbook stick, the team has to ensure:

• to make it easy to find
• keep it engaging
• present it as a resource
• share it

Anyways, there’s a real friction between great UX and great security, and I can appreciate a lot of the challenges and compromise required to strike a balance.

The UX is currently hard.

There is often websites that have "bad" UX as listed in the post. The majority starts to have the "better". The "best" does not exist yet.