423 private links
The goal was to show how you can use patterns from the GOV.UK Design System to design complex case working systems.
The prototype was complete user flows with URL changes. No validators, only examples of flows with the existing design system.
That’s 100x harder to do with Figma. The audience is focused on the Figma navigation instead of experiencing the design. It also hides problems: transitions, loading states, error states adn edge cases.
Done subtly and in moderation scroll fade can look fine†. Alas and to my dismay, subtlety is not a virtue of scroll fade proponents. Nor is timing. I’ve built too many websites that got almost to the finish line before I was hit with a generic scroll fade request. Fade what? Everything! Make everything fade into view! It’s too static, you know? Make it pop!
Winning arguments against: accessibility, impact on core web vitals
Friction exists to make us notice what we’re doing. [...] Bad friction is friction without purpose. It exists by accident, or through neglect. It asks more from the user without offering anything in return. [...] Good friction is different. It’s intentional. It’s added with a clear reason, and it earns its place in the experience — often through utility.
Good frictions:
- Holding ⌘Q to quit a browser session is a deliberate pause before closing everything
- A brief delay after sending an email, allowing you to undo before it’s final
- Intentional pagination instead of infinite scrolling is progress with awareness
- A warning when an email mentions an attachment but none is included is a small check before sending
The use of a lot of icons in menus is a bad pattern.
12px icons are also too small for details.
A contact page that avoid contact, exactly.
The problem was, they were thinking about their inspiration sites from an aesthetic point of view, not from a user experience perspective
I see this example so much! https://res.cloudinary.com/nicchan/image/upload/w_752,h_718,c_lfill,f_auto/v1765177043/contact
The discounting rates led the client to undervalue the team and treat them as executors rather than experts. They argue that clients (and sometimes designers) often dismiss early design phases like discovery, and wireframing as boring hurdles to reach visual branding, but it's so much important! The takeaway is that service providers should educate clients on why these foundational steps matter, because understanding the “why” and getting structure right is essential for good design—even if it’s less exciting than prototyping or visual identity.
By blogging, I’m putting a body of work out there that communicates my values and ethos. While much of the details of my client work has to remain private, these posts can be public, and hopefully they can help me find people who resonate with what I have to offer. Or you know, just be bold enough to communicate ‘Fuck off’ to those who don’t!
Perfect in combination with the UX Devil method: find the worst pattern possible, and create the UI to avoid this UX Devil.
Numéro fictif utilisable en France:
01 99 00
02 61 91
03 53 01
04 65 71
05 36 49
06 39 98
Source: https://a42.fr/numeros-fictifs
- Copy and paste blocked?
- Contextual menu blocked?
- Keyboard shortcuts blocked?
- Autoplaying videos?
- URL tracking parameters?
Inconsistencies spotted. The URL scheme are hidden or displayed without clear rules
« Le design, c'est faire des produits utilisables, limiter frictions, risques et déceptions »
« Idées reçues : pas la peine de demander aux utilisateurs, les designeurs ne savent faire que du cliquodrome, pas besoin d'UX pour le backoffice »
Intéressant, les orateurs disent bien qu'ils ne travaillent qu'avec des gens convaincus des beautés du libre. Sinon, la migration ne se passera pas bien. Il y a assez de travail avec les gens qui sont volontaires, il ne faut pas perdre de temps avec les autres. (C'était dit moins brutalement.)
Against toast notifications
On définit le but : est-ce que c'est pour expliquer, guider, ou juste faire plaisir ?
On pense à la fréquence : plus c'est utilisé, moins ça doit bouger
On reste rapide, toujours sous les 300 ms
On donne le contrôle, en respectant toujours les préférences de la personne qui utilise l'interface.
"Needy programs" are becoming too intrusive
It uses GSAP
The issue isn’t that people asked for faster horses. It’s that “What do you want?” is a terrible research question.
Ask these instead:
- What’s frustrating about traveling with your horse?
- Tell me about the last time you needed to go somewhere far away.
- What stops you from traveling more often?
- How does weather affect your trips?
Good research uncovers problems. It reveals pain points. It helps you understand what people are actually struggling with in their daily lives. What they’re working around. What they’ve given up on entirely.
Here’s the irony: the same people who quote Henry Ford to avoid user research are now using AI to build products faster than ever.
How to understand users?
- ask about the past, not the future
- focus on behavior, not opinions.
- dig into the why
- listen for emotion
Only 8% clicked on traditional search result links when an AI summary was present, versus 15% without one. Additionally, only 1% clicked directly on the links within the AI summaries.
Browser session ending after viewing a search page occurs in 26%, compared to 16% for pages with traditional results
The AI summaries tend to feature a higher proportion of links to Wikipedia and government sites.