UX IRL Ep. 43: UX Help Desk 4

Hello! Here are our show notes for episode 43 of UX IRL: UX Help Desk #4. We hit the highlights in this article, but get the full context by listening to the episode:

The UX Help Desk is back! We love doing help desk episodes and we’re back answering more questions. This week’s questions come from Reddit with topics including meeting culture, appropriate/ethical user research, and more! If you have questions you’d like answers to, reach out to us on LinkedIn or social media. We might feature your question in a future episode! Talk to us on the zeroheight Slack community! (bit.ly/zheroes-signup), comment below or reply on Twitter @uxinreallife or Instagram @ux.inreallife

Question 1

Our take

Mary Fran mentioned that 6–7 meetings daily for an individual contributor (IC) aren’t typical. She recommends talking to your manager to set expectations. Consider doing an audit of your meetings and/or a Kanban board to show the work you have on your plate compared to the number of meetings you’re in. Sometimes visual aides can help others understand the issue. Also, consider working with your manager to see what meetings you actually need to attend.

Michelle mentioned that this could be a side effect of being a new employee. The team could have waited a long time to hire you, and they’re ready to go. Not only that, they’re excited to have you on board and bring you in. Sometimes, we can forget that while a new hire has the skill set and talent, they still are unfamiliar with the product, teams, and processes for how things work.

So it’s a good idea to check in with your manager and discuss what expectations are. It might even help them remember that you’re new and need some time to ramp up on things.

If you’re comfortable, consider talking to a peer to see how they navigate the work culture. Sometimes they might feel the same way, but might not be saying anything about it. Or they might be able to give you tips and tricks on how things work at the company. For example, maybe you don’t have to do too much design work because the engineers don’t need much guidance.

Question 2

Our take

We assume that there’s someone filling in for your manager that can possibly help with this issue. This is definitely a tough position to be in.

Backtracking a little bit, Michelle recommends taking a Crucial Conversations approach in trying to learn more about what might be causing the issue. In this method, you’re sticking to the facts, such as, “We’ve had these mentoring sessions about following these guidelines, but I’m still seeing these inconsistencies.” Then you can ask, “What’s going on?” and it opens up an opportunity for discussion. It can help you understand the context and build empathy for the involved parties.

However, this sounds like it’s been going on for a while. If they’re not able to perform the job that’s required of them and it starts to affect the team and product, this is when tougher conversations might need to happen. Even if you’re not a manager, it’s not great knowing this. If you’re the manager, it’s not great having to bring this up, but it’s not fair to the rest of the team, especially if they’re having to pull the weight and do extra work.

Mary Fran reiterates it’s always good to start off by assuming the best intentions. You never know what’s going on with a person, what they’re thinking, or what might be the root cause. She suggests speaking with the person filling in and letting them know what’s going on. This issue isn’t on you to resolve, but vocalizing how this is impacting you and the team is helpful to your manager. Sometimes managers might not be aware of what’s going on if they don’t hear feedback from their team.

Question 3

Our take

This is one of the most interesting questions we’ve come across. And this is probably a question that will come up more frequently as companies push for accessibility. And while the intentions are good, there can definitely be incorrect ways of going about things. So it’s good that this is being brought up.

While we don’t have the full context of things, Mary Fran notes that the biggest red flag for this person seems to be having the observers in the room. Is it ethical? It might be legal, but ethical… hmm… we’ll dive into that.

Before we do, we wanted to mention with user research, the main goal is to make sure things are as natural as possible for the participant, and having that many people in the room observing isn’t natural. Rather than having people sit in the same room, consider recording the session or having them join on a Zoom call in another room, so they can observe from afar. You can still communicate with them via Slack to ensure their participation. Reducing their visibility this way lessens the test effect and is a great alternative when you don’t have a lab.

Mary Fran senses some discomfort with this, so she recommends having a discussion about this approach and bringing up your concerns—explaining why you’re concerned and possibly brainstorming alternatives to meet the intentions of the project.

Based on the information, it doesn’t sound like a usability test, but rather a demonstration to show the challenges of technology for people with varying disabilities. And with a large group of people in the room, it feels like this is a “show,” and the participants are being tokenized because of their disabilities.

If the intent is to build empathy, Michelle mentions there are other ways to go about this. Maybe it’s a discussion and forum where people can engage in conversation to build understanding. It’s much less awkward than having a dozen people listen in to a two-person conversation.

It’s also weird to then have participants go through a task that everyone is aware they’ll struggle with just to prove a point. For usability testing, it’s worth understanding that not all people with disabilities navigate the web, apps, devices, etc., the same way. So you still need to test with multiple people with that disability to get a richer understanding.

While it’s good to test with a range of disabilities, it’s worth noting that it does require special knowledge and preparation so participants have a good experience. And this can be difficult if you’re working with a wide range of accommodations all at once. If you’re looking to do usability testing with accessibility in mind, there are companies like Fable that specialize in this.

In terms of ethics, doing usability studies also means looking out for participant welfare. When Michelle was in grad school, for any usability test projects that involved people, she had to get the test reviewed and approved by the school’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). They review your test plan to ensure it’s ethical and not harmful to participants. Even though her usability tests were for benign app and website prototypes where participants wouldn’t be harmed, it was still an interesting thing to think about.

The IRB is geared more toward scientific studies — e.g., administering medication and what the side effects are, or if your tests could subject people to trauma or bring up traumatic events, etc. But this scenario does sound like it could pose a risk of harming participants.

While IRBs are at educational institutions, it does bring into question, “What is the equivalent in the corporate workplace?” Is the next best thing HR or legal? It’s a little selfish for the company, but they might want to see what the risks are for being sued if things aren’t Kosher.

We talk about a lot with this question, but overall one of the easiest things that can be done to help with awareness and understanding is sharing videos on YouTube. There are several videos on YouTube about talks and demonstrating how to navigate the web and apps with a disability and assistive technology. Something like that is inexpensive and can save everyone the trauma of participating in this type of project!

What questions do you have?

Let us know by commenting below, and maybe we’ll answer in a future episode!