This is a good point. Although some user experiences are not trying to present an argument (like filling out a document), even the way we design these contribute to the reputation or purpose of the company, even if that's just making the user say "that wasn't as hard as I thought it was going to be."

This statement ties in well with the design process for applications. There is a lot of planning that goes on before even thinking about how to code a program. Yet, UX designers are "dependent on the audience" as their design approach is molded by their discussions with the people they're designing for.

1. 4x bottom line nowadays: profit, environment, people, and ???.
2. Small changes in design result in a big impact.
3. The way things are designed can make their argument more convincing, even if what they are arguing for is outlandish.
4. Designers, through strategic thinking, can find a way to a better world.
5. When designers design for the extreme, it benefits all. (a) Examples of small changes like these can benefit many people, For example the colorblind traffic light changes in canada would not only save those with the disability but those who get in car accidents due to a color blinded individual.
6. Designers should focus more on doing good than on making good designs.
7. Profit only firms may win short term, but sustainable first firms gain long term reliance, loyalty, and savings.
8. “Over the next 10 to 15 years, technology has the capacity to virtually eliminate barriers faced by people with disabilities in the workplace” (24:57)
9. Sustainable design must entwine with strategic thinking: especially at the early stages. (a) One company focused on defining their success solely off profit will lead to companies chasing efficiency and aesthetics. (b) Another company designing for accessibility and sustainability, may not be profitable in the start as much as the other company, but in the long term, generally speaking the will be more successful than those other companies who now have to catch up and focus on accessibility and sustainability.
10. There is a fear of a divide of people, those with technology and those without. This is called the digital divide.

I feel that Apple's reminders app could make better use of this principle. Most of my reminders look the same, no matter when and how important they are. Having a reminder summary with the most critical reminders at the top would be helpful.

I would like to learn how this principle is used to make a website user-friendly for the visually impaired. No doubt the text and buttons need to be bigger to improve the user experience.

I wonder how Hick's law could be used to simplify the menu on a restaurant website and help customers order faster. I always am so indecisive when I go out to eat.

His comments made me think that why you're designing a product is just as important as selling a product to the customer.

The use of time limits can also create further tension, especially if you have to restart your progress after the limit has been reached. Once I had to fill out a document that would sign out after around 10 minutes of inactivity. Since I didn't know if my progress would be saved, I was kind of worried when I unexpectedly had to step away from the computer for a period of time.

The concept is simple, but it's true that you focus your attention on the biggest items on the screen. This is likely why the button to unsubscribe from email advertisements is so small. This inconvenience is likely great enough to discourage many from unsubscribing.

This principle reminds me of when we talked about how stores organize their merchandise to influence what people buy. They don't force you to buy something, but the layout of the store causes you to do so anyway. Similarly, giving users the option to do something may be more effective than telling them to do it.

I am interested in learning what these principles are. What is the difference between good and bad user design?

We don't have to pay for any of the reading resources, correct?

Hello!