Be nice. Or else.
Product Designer @ hyperion.co Joined over 3 years ago
They can, I've had my title edited once because mine was too long and complicated.
This looks great, works great (at least based on the little time I spent with it) and thank you for making it a free tool anyone can use.
Good luck with that approach, would you let me know how it goes? I used to be a freelancer too, I know the pains, and I never had any luck with agencies.
I'm no expert on the matter but I'll try to share what I know and maybe help point you in the right direction.
First of all, when doing user research (which is what you're doing), there is no fixed methodology, and it is really up to you and your team to figure out the basics such as:
It may seem like common sense but it makes a big difference to have everyone agree on a clear goal and the optimal methods to achieve it. In your case.
It looks like you were running usability testing (which is a quantitative method, i.e. something dealing with numbers: can users achieve the actions we want them to achieve: 81% could, 19% couldn't, the experience is solid), trying to learn if your UX is solid, and ran into problems that should have been addressed at the quantitative stage (i.e. the stage where you try and learn about the needs of your users, what problems they have and what sort of solution would make sense to them). It sounds like they had concerns about inviting their friends and this should have been identified long before making any prototypes.
As far as the fidelity of the prototype is concerned, that is again something you need to determine based on what the goal is. If you are going to test for usability, you don't need high fidelity, it could be a bunch of rectangles and text made in Balsamiq or XD, but it has to have all the functionality, because the minute a user clicks on a button that doesn't work, their flow is interrupted and the info they give you becomes infinitely less valuable. I second Frederick's point though, I prefer to go as high fidelity as time allows to have as realistic an experience for the user.
If you'd like to learn more about research, I recommend: https://www.linkedin.com/learning/paths/advance-your-skills-as-a-user-experience-researcher or, though not as good: Erica Hall's Just Enough Research
If you'd like to learn more about figuring out design: Mike Monteiro is your man.
I hope this helps.
In case you don't know this already, I'll share it since it's a lesson I learned the hard way: visually, this looks great, as everyone pointed out, but I've never seen someone land a client because of the hover effects on their site. My 2c is to stop worrying about the looks of the site for the foreseeable future (it already looks great) and focus on getting better clients, expanding your network, improving the quality of your work, focusing your services (you seem to be a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none at the moment).
Clients care a lot more about who recommended you and who you worked with in the past, then about how much sense what you are saying makes and how good your actual work is, and only last about how good your portfolio site is.
That is a fair argument, I was referring to the main design software, and didn’t consider the great tools we got to complement that.
It doesn’t change the fact that our primary tools still suck, but you are right we can do a lot more now in terms of prototyping or handover and we have easy access to resources.
Golden era? The two most popular tools at the moment are a 25 year old image editor (Photoshop) and a buggy illustration tool (Sketch). None of the other tools coming to the market do anything radically different, and if you think I'm wrong here, please name a few ways in which any of the new tools (including Sketch) completely change the way we design, make our lives easier and our work faster, improve the quality of our work or significantly raise the bar for what is possible.
I think the problem is not just with design software, but with any goods or services. People from different parts of the world have different buying power and goods made in different parts of the world will have different prices. So if a Ukrainian developer asks for $2 for their app, that is going to seem cheap for someone in the US where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr but not that cheap for someone in Russia where the minimum wage is $108/month. This applies to everything - iPhones, which are made by an American company cost $700 in the US, which is a big investment but only little over half the minimum wage for Americans, whereas for someone in Romania (which is where I'm originally from) the cost would be 2x the minimum wage ($382/month) so for a lot of people it's regarded as an unthinkable purchase.
This says nothing about individual differences in income and priorities (two people with the same income in the same city could get different value from a new colour scheme for their software and thus only be willing to pay different prices).
Personally, if I was using Sketch, I'd 1. rethink my choice because a third party group of devs managed to do what Bohemian said was unfeasible and not even worth considering for years, and 2. be happy to pay the $8 to have the option of a dark interface.
Others might not. If you want to do some research and figure out whether people would pay for your product or not, you'll have to segment your market better than lumping everyone into one big category called 'designers'
This is damn impressive, well done guys. You managed to do what the Bohemian team said could not be done without access to the source code or the level of control they have.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.