Assumption! What you would do or what you think a group of people would do based on your sociologic experience is a quick, easy and cheap way of doing things - but will prove a problem in the long run. Those shortcuts might have worked doing homework in high school, but it will never apply to product design and UX research as it is simply not the real world... even if your assumptions are close!

It is a beautiful thing to see how much of psychology and sociology is tied into UX - something I must admit I was not very aware of before starting the course. As a naturally empathic person it is exciting to know there is a world where that meets with art, curiosity for people, and a general desire to understand people better.

Interesting to see how much planning into the totally unplanned activity that is live user testing - so much going on on the tester's side versus complete improvisation and flow by the test subject.

It would be cool to watch a critical error happen when the user is not aware of it happening, because the damage is not really done, but you can still get a sense of what would happen if the user went down that route in a real life scenario.

Interesting to think this works just as well with kids as it does with adults. I guess the key is to make your test subject as comfortable as possible, to make it feel like a playful, interesting activity and to let them know they are helping you by participating.

This part I feel would be challenging to remember - to not do the task for them, but rather encourage more action and thought on their part through open ended questions and small nudges instead of hints.

I guess here is where modern technology comes in handy. If you're doing this on a whiteboard maybe you can draw lines to connect ideas - definitely harder to do on a wall with post its - but you might end up smudging the ink or creating more work for yourself. Tools like FigJam seem like a beautiful way to still have that organized brainstorming feel while enjoying the perks of digital creation.

Interesting how in today's class exercise, after doing our 7 interviews, we kind of broke it down like this on FigJam without having read this article. Feels like an intuitive way of organizing a lot of different info you've got from several interviewees whose answers you have a feeling have a lot in common.

How much of this can be learned and how much of it is innate? I have found myself in the past not being great at leadership and the managing of others, but if it's a skill necessary to create a well rounded UX designer it would be interesting to see how much of it can be taught to someone.

I knew nothing about UX UI a few months ago, but from the prework we've done and what I know about myself I think this would be my preferred area (or at least, what I'd be inclined to be better at).

Another great lesson that sounds like it could be in 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' by Dale Carnegie.

101 insta-likeable trait in someone you're having a conversation with but so hard to master! Normally the interjection comes from a good place ('I've been through that too, let me relate to you so you know I know what you're talking about!') but much more level headed and mature to let the person speak and show them you relate by really listening.

This reminds me of a great lesson I was taught as a teenager doing martial arts that I never forgot - you can learn something from anyone and everyone.

This applied in my world at the time when referring to more senior martial artists always open to learning from other students and practitioners (regardless of their rank) but it's a very humbling trait to always be mindful of - you can speak to anyone of any age, background or walk of life and rest assured you will learn something new every time.