To do good UX you need to understand the mental models that your users have of your software. You can do that by doing a bunch of explicit A/B tests or you can do that by doing skilled user interviews.
A person who doesn’t do skilled user interviews will project a lot of their own mental models of how the software is supposed to work on the users that might have other mental models.
There are a lot of things about how humans relate to the world around them, that they normally don’t share with other people. People with a decent amount of self-awareness know how they reason, but they don’t know how other people reason at the same level.
Circling is about creating an environment where things can be shared that normally aren’t. While it would be theoretically possible that people lie, it feels good to share about one’s intimate experience in a safe environment and be understood.
At one LWCW where I lead two circles there was a person who was in both and who afterwards said “I thought I was the only person who does X in two cases where I now know that other people also do X”.
My main claim is that the activity of doing user interviews is very similar to the experience of doing Circling.
As far as the claim goes of getting better at UX design: UX of things were mental habits matter a lot. It’s not as relevant to where you place your buttons but it’s very relevant to designing mental intervention in the style that CFAR does.
Evidence is great, but we have little controlled studies of Circling.
My main claim is that the activity of doing user interviews is very similar to the experience of doing Circling.
This is not an interesting claim. Ok, it’s ‘very similar’. And what of it? What follows from this similarity? What can we expect to be the case, given this? Does skill at Circling transfer to skill at conducting user interviews? How, precisely? What specific things do you expect we will observe?
Evidence is great, but we have little controlled studies of Circling.
So… we don’t have any evidence for any of these claims, in other words?
As far as the claim goes of getting better at UX design: UX of things were mental habits matter a lot. It’s not as relevant to where you place your buttons but it’s very relevant to designing mental intervention in the style that CFAR does.
I don’t think I quite understand what you’re saying, here (perhaps due to a typo or two). What does the term ‘UX’ even mean, as you are using it? What does “designing mental intervention” have to do with UX?
To do good UX you need to understand the mental models that your users have of your software. You can do that by doing a bunch of explicit A/B tests or you can do that by doing skilled user interviews.
A person who doesn’t do skilled user interviews will project a lot of their own mental models of how the software is supposed to work on the users that might have other mental models.
There are a lot of things about how humans relate to the world around them, that they normally don’t share with other people. People with a decent amount of self-awareness know how they reason, but they don’t know how other people reason at the same level.
Circling is about creating an environment where things can be shared that normally aren’t. While it would be theoretically possible that people lie, it feels good to share about one’s intimate experience in a safe environment and be understood.
At one LWCW where I lead two circles there was a person who was in both and who afterwards said “I thought I was the only person who does X in two cases where I now know that other people also do X”.
Do you claim that people who have experience with Circling, are better at UX design? I would like some evidence for this claim, if so.
My main claim is that the activity of doing user interviews is very similar to the experience of doing Circling.
As far as the claim goes of getting better at UX design: UX of things were mental habits matter a lot. It’s not as relevant to where you place your buttons but it’s very relevant to designing mental intervention in the style that CFAR does.
Evidence is great, but we have little controlled studies of Circling.
This is not an interesting claim. Ok, it’s ‘very similar’. And what of it? What follows from this similarity? What can we expect to be the case, given this? Does skill at Circling transfer to skill at conducting user interviews? How, precisely? What specific things do you expect we will observe?
So… we don’t have any evidence for any of these claims, in other words?
I don’t think I quite understand what you’re saying, here (perhaps due to a typo or two). What does the term ‘UX’ even mean, as you are using it? What does “designing mental intervention” have to do with UX?