Happy New Year from UX Booth! 2015 was an exciting year for us. We turned seven years old, broke 70,000 twitter followers, launched a critically acclaimed newsletter, and published our best content yet.
As we start 2016, this is a great opportunity to catch up on UX reading, and reflect on all we learned in 2015. Here are 10 UX Booth articles that got a lot of attention this past year—and with good reason! We’ve got beginner’s guides, persona how-tos, and philosophical discourse, all focused around the field of user experience.
When Cooper offered a persona building workshop in June, we had to check it out. Lucky for us, Eeva Ilama shared her experience with UX Booth, giving a full overview and her thoughts on Cooper’s Putting Personas to Work course.
Information architecture is an often misunderstood job title. Are they designers? developers? managers? All of the above? In this article, updated in December 2014, we discussed the field of information architecture, how it’s related to usability, and the common tools and programs IAs use.
When’s the best time to follow best practices, and when should designers step away from the known? Brendon Cornwell delved into the nuances of best practices in this piece from January. He points out the slam dunks, and the UX misses, and shows us why they happen.
Back in 2012, UX Architect Darren Northcott took a stab at identifying the difference between IA and UX design. These days, if anything, the two fields are further intertwined, and Darren’s article is even more appropriate for helping us make the most of both skill sets.
Ready to get your feet wet in Interaction Design? In this article, updated in October 2015, we touch briefly on all aspects of Interaction Design: the deliverables, guiding principles, noted designers, their tools and more. Novices and experienced designers alike get value from this beginner’s guide.
Agile UX mashups are becoming ever more popular. We were thrilled when Tom Brinton provided a detailed look at user stories, the bite-size snippets that highlight the true goals of an application throughout the design process. Tom showed us how UX designers can use these stories to make our UX processes better.
Mobile devices affect every aspect of our design process. That’s likely why Elaine McVicar’s three-part series from 2012 remains one of our most popular. The first article in the series, on Information Architecture, explores a handful of the most popular architectures for mobile websites and applications.
Guerrilla usability testing is a quick win method of testing designs with minimum effort. David Simon initially wrote this piece on guerrilla usability testing back in 2011. Today, it’s still relevant, still useful, and still referenced frequently by our readers.
This past May we took a deep look into a frequently asked question: what IS UX? Is it a process? Is it design? Is it something more, or perhaps something less? We’re pleased to share this article, as it has sparked many a fascinating conversation.
In 2011, author Chui Chui Tan noticed that forms designed to be used on desktops didn’t always translate well onto smaller, handheld devices. We now know that mobile has gotten even more complex, and forms are still unlikely to translate well. Chui’s article guides us toward appropriate mobile strategies and offers valuable advice.
We also want to thank our sponsors in 2015: Northwestern University, Treehouse, FullStory, Graphic Stock, Hotjar, Optimal Workshop, Bentley University, and many more. If you’re interested in sponsoring UX Booth in the coming year, drop us an email.
From all of us at UX Booth, Happy New Year!
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/uxbooth/public_html/wordpress/wp-content/themes/alpineclover/single.php on line 113
During my years in an agency, I've seen the spectrum of tool experimentation. I've heard passionate user experience designers argue in favor (and equally as often, against) Axure, Balsamiq, UXPin, Invision, Photoshop, you name it. We've tried it. Usually, the outcome is something out of Goldilocks and the Three Bears: the tool is too robust, or too simplistic, too slow, or too buggy, and no one's happy.