Will Leidheiser

What I mean when I say writing in fresh sand... (and what not to do.) When we're designing for new technologies, the most dangerous design decisions aren't the ones that fail usability. They can be the ones that pass. An example I've been grappling with this week. CRUD (create, read, update, delete) is a popular framework in security for describing what a tool can do. It works great for databases (its origin, as I learned). "Create" means insert a row. "Delete" means remove a row. Security folks love it because the blast radius is scoped and quickly understood. This week, I found CRUD applied to MCP servers, the tools that AI agents use to interact with external services. Something felt off. I thought about what it meant for email. An agent with "create" permission is sending (or is it drafting?) a message to a real person, on your behalf. "Read" for email means it has access to your private conversations. "Delete" = possibly destroying evidence? And what does "create" or "delete" permission for web search even mean? Slap the same CRUD labels on these MCP toolsets, and a security admin looking at a capability matrix thinks they're comparable, when really they're not. This interface was perfectly "usable". Familiar labels, clean layout, easy to configure. No one in security would complain. They might even call it out as a plus. But by reusing CRUD, we're masking the one thing we're trying to communicate: the actual risks. AI agent risks are fundamentally different from a database tool. New technology calls for new frameworks. The next CRUD hasn't been written yet. And that's a design problem. #aidesign #aisecurity #productdesign #designleadership #agents #mcp #uxdesign #agenticai

9

3 Comments

A lot of UX researchers aren’t sure what should actually go into their reports. Too often, findings get reduced to a single vague p-value. The problem? That doesn’t really tell the full story. If we want our work to be trusted and actionable, there are at least three things we should always report: p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Each one answers a different question. P-value: Is it real or just chance? The p-value is about statistical significance. It tells you how likely it is that your results could have happened by accident if there was no real effect. It’s useful, but by itself it’s limited, it won’t tell you how important the effect is in practice. Effect Size: How big is the difference? Effect size puts the result into context. Was the change large enough to matter for the user experience? A checkout redesign might show a “significant” improvement, but if it only saves half a second, is that really meaningful? Reporting effect size makes sure you’re talking about impact, not just numbers. Confidence Interval: How precise is our estimate? A confidence interval shows the range of values the true effect probably falls into. A narrow range means your estimate is precise, while a wide one means more uncertainty. This helps stakeholders see not just what you found, but also how much confidence they should place in it. When you combine these three, you give a complete picture: the p-value says whether the effect is credible, the effect size says how much it matters, and the confidence interval shows how reliable your estimate is. Together, they turn a UX report from a loose claim into a story stakeholders can actually use to make decisions.

127

17 Comments

https://lnkd.in/gMPyfkQK Just read a great article from Nielsen Norman Group that was a solid reminder of why UX decisions matter more than we think. One of the biggest takeaways for me: more information doesn’t equal better usability. When we overload users with tips, hints, and explanations, we often end up doing the opposite of helping we increase cognitive load and slow people down. Good UX isn’t about teaching users how to use a product. It’s about designing interfaces that don’t need teaching. This article reinforced something I’ve been learning throughout my UX journey: clarity beats cleverness, simplicity beats over-explaining, and the best designs feel almost invisible. Highly recommend the read if you’re working on product design, UX, or even content strategy. Sometimes the most impactful improvements come from removing, not adding. #UXDesign #UserExperience #DesignThinking #Usability #ProductDesign

4

This is said perfectly! Why does this insight matter to each stakeholder? And then the next step: Actionable Insights. This means there needs to be a clear and distinct action item attached to each insight. Take the guesswork out of it for your stakeholders and let them walk away from your research with a deliberate path forward on what it means to them and how they can use this information. Digest & Suggest™️ 😼

8

Confused by all the overlapping roles in your org? You're not alone. Too often, we throw around titles like program manager, process manager, control manager, and change lead - but don’t pause to ask: what’s each one really responsible for? What questions should they be answering? And where do their lanes start (and end, nothing is set in stone here)? Over the last few years, I’ve worked across product, UX, and strategy teams in enterprise environments, collaborating with everyone from project leads to risk managers. And I kept seeing the same problem: people mistaking different roles for the same job, or worse, expecting one role to solve for all. To help cut through the noise, I created a simple table that breaks down seven key roles, what they focus on, and the core questions they’re hired to solve: 1. Continuous Improvement: “How can we get better, faster, and more efficient?” 2. Process Management: “Is this process delivering what it should, and how do we optimize it?” 3. Project Management: “How do we deliver this specific goal, on time and within scope?” 4. Program Management: “How do we coordinate across projects to deliver strategic value?” 5. Change Management: “How do we ensure people adopt and succeed with what’s new?” 6. Control Management: “Are we staying within our defined risk thresholds and controls?” 7. Risk Management: “What could go wrong, and how do we mitigate it before it does?” Whether you're hiring, onboarding, or trying to improve collaboration across functions, this reference can help clarify who does what, and how to avoid duplication, confusion, or dropped balls. 👉 Check it out and let me know: What role do you play? And which one do people often confuse yours with? #Leadership #BusinessOperations #ProjectManagement #UXStrategy #RiskManagement #CrossFunctional #ProcessImprovement #EnterpriseExecution #ChangeManagement #ProductOps

30

3 Comments

Good news for UX Research hiring: the recent Section 174 R&D tax code just changed the math. For the past two years, companies had to amortize R&D expenses over 5 years - a policy shift that quietly punished experimentation and slowed down early-stage research hiring. Even core UX investments like usability studies and field research got more expensive on paper, especially at the startup and growth stage. That just changed. With the recent tax policy reversal, U.S. companies can once again fully expense R&D in the year it’s incurred. That includes much of what UX researchers and design strategists do to inform new product development. What this means: - Research = financially smarter again - The “why now” for hiring UXRs just got stronger - Teams that paused discovery work have a chance to restart it with better financial backing We already know research saves money, reduces waste, and improves product-market fit. Now it’s aligned with tax incentives again. If you’re leading product, finance, or research, and have been under pressure to cut “nonessential” work, this is the moment to rebuild your insights capacity. If you’re looking for UXR work get after it. Focus on startups in series A,B,C funding rounds. Nobody hires like the newly funded + tax incentive! Work and learn with me - Consulting: www.HXRlabs.com Courses: https://lnkd.in/gaNDBRTc Scholarships: https://lnkd.in/gv73kWfW

816

38 Comments

"Qualitative UX is a scientific discipline, and we should treat it with the respect and standards it deserves." - Mohsen Rafiei, Ph.D. I regularly admit to my teams that I am newbie qualitative researcher. I only started conducting qualitative studies 6 years ago and have heavily relied on my colleagues to train, guide, and check my work. Qualitative is a scientific discipline with theory, rigor, and guidelines that deserves its own standing. 👏

5

1 Comment

Personas and journey maps aren't just deliverables — they're empathy-building tools that connect people across an organization. I joined Theresa Washburn on the Here's Why It Matters podcast to talk about how to evolve these tools from static artifacts into dynamic, future-facing frameworks for alignment and change. We covered healthcare UX, stakeholder mapping in complex problem spaces, and the "bridge-building" metaphor I use to connect current realities with future possibilities. 🎧 Give it a listen: https://lnkd.in/gB6rExaF #UXStrategy #UXResearch #JourneyMapping #ServiceDesign

28