Blog

In today’s data-driven environment, it’s becoming more and more possible for you to be asked to create a personal electronic expertise, whether it’s a common website, consumer portal, or indigenous application. However while there continues to be no lack of marketing buzz around personalization systems, we also have very few defined approaches for implementing personalized UX.

That’s where we begin. After completing tens of personalisation projects over the past few years, we gave ourselves a purpose: could you make a systematic personalization platform especially for UX practitioners? A human-centered personalization program can be established using the Personalization Pyramid, which covers files, classification, content delivery, and overall objectives. By using this strategy, you will be able to understand the core components of a modern, UX-driven personalization system ( or at the very least understand enough to get started ).

Getting Started

We’ll assume that you are already comfortable with the fundamentals of modern personalization for the purposes of this article. A nice guide can be found these: Website Personalization Planning. Although Graphic projects in this field can take a variety of forms, they frequently start from the same place.

Common scenarios for starting a personalisation task:

• Your business or client made a purchase to personalize their content management system ( CMS ), marketing automation platform ( MAP ), or other related technology.
• The CMO, CDO, or CIO has identified customisation as a target
• User data is unclear or disjointed.
• You are running some secluded targeting strategies or A/B tests
• On personalization method, partners disagree.
• Mandate of customer privacy rules ( e. g. GDPR ) requires revisiting existing user targeting practices

Regardless of where you begin, a powerful personalization system will require the same key building stones. These are the “levels” on the tower, which we have identified. Whether you are a UX artist, scholar, or planner, understanding the core components may help make your contribution effective.

From top to bottom, the rates include:

North Star: What larger geopolitical goal is driving the personalization system?
1. Objectives: What are the specific, tangible benefits of the system?
2. Touchpoints: Where will the personal service been provided?
3. Contexts and Campaigns: What personalization information does the person view?
4. What constitutes a distinct, suitable audience? User Parts
5. Actionable Data: What dependable and credible information is captured by our professional platform to generate personalization?
6. Natural Data: What wider set of data is conceivable ( now in our environment ) to allow you to optimize?

We’ll go through each of these amounts in turn. To make this more bearable, we created a deck of cards that accompany it to show specific instances from each stage. We’ve found them helpful in customisation pondering periods, and will include cases for you here.

Starting at the Top

The elements of the pyramids are as follows:

North Star

With your personalisation plan, whether large or small, you aim for a general north star. The North Star defines the (one ) overall mission of the personalization program. What do you hope to accomplish? North Stars cast a ghost. The darkness is bigger the sun, the sun, and so on. Example of North Starts may include:

Function: Personalized based on fundamental customer sources. Examples:” Raw” messages, basic search effects, system user settings and settings options, general flexibility, basic improvements
1. Feature: Self-contained customisation component. Examples:” Cooked” notifications, advanced optimizations ( geolocation ), basic dynamic messaging, customized modules, automations, recommenders
2. User knowledge: Personal consumer experiences across various user flows and interactions. Examples: Email campaigns, landing pages, advanced messaging ( i. e. C2C chat ) or conversational interfaces, larger user flows and content-intensive optimizations ( localization ).
3. Solution: Highly distinctive, personalized solution experiences. Example: Standalone, branded experience with personalization at their base, like the “algotorial” songs by Spotify quite as Discover Weekly.

Goals

Personalization can aid in accelerating designing with user intentions, as in any great UX design. Goals are the military and tangible metrics that may prove the entire program is effective. Start with your existing analytics and assessment system, as well as indicators you can benchmark against. In some cases, new targets may be suitable. The most important thing to keep in mind is that personalisation is never a desired outcome. It is a means to an end. Common targets include:

• Conversion
• Time spent on work
• Net promoter score ( NPS)
• Satisfaction of the customers

Touchpoints

Touchpoints are where the personalisation happens. This will be one of your biggest areas of responsibility as a UX artist. The connections available to you will depend on how your personalization and associated technology features are instrumented, and should be rooted in improving a person’s experience at a certain point in the trip. Touchpoints can be multi-device ( mobile, in-store, website ), as well as more specific ( web banner, web pop-up, etc. ). Voici some illustrations:

Channel-level touchpoints

• Email: Role
• Email opens at what time?
• In-store display ( JSON endpoint )
• Native app
• Search

Wireframe-level Touchpoints

• Web overlay
• Web alert bar
• Web banner
• Web content block
• Web home page

If you’re designing for web interfaces, for example, you will likely need to include personalized “zones” in your wireframes. Based on our next step, context, and campaigns, the content for these can be presented programmatically in touchpoints.

Contexts and Campaigns

Once you’ve identified some touchpoints, you can decide what kind of personalized content a user will receive. Many personalization tools will refer to these as” campaigns” ( so, for example, a campaign on a web banner for new visitors to the website ). These will be displayed to specific user segments programmatically, as defined by user data. At this stage, we find it helpful to consider two separate models: a context model and a content model. The context helps you consider the level of user engagement at the personalization moment, for instance, if they are just casually browsing information rather than engaging in a deep dive. Think of it in terms of information retrieval behaviors. The content model can then guide you in deciding what kind of personalization to use in the context ( for instance, an” Enrich” campaign that features related articles might be a good substitute for extant content ).

Personalization Context Model:

1. Browse
2. Skim
3. Nudge
4. Feast

Content model for personalization

1. Alert
2. Make Easier
3. Cross-Sell
4. Enrich

If you’d like to read more about each of these models, check out Colin’s Personalization Content Model and Jeff’s Personalization Context Model.

User Groups

User segments can be created prescriptively or adaptively, based on user research ( e. g. via rules and logic tied to set user behaviors or via A/B testing ). You will need to consider how to treat the logged-in visitor, the guest or returning visitor, for whom you may have a stateful cookie ( or another post-cookie identifier ), or the authenticated visitor at the least. Here are some examples from the personalization pyramid:

• Unknown
• Guest
• Authenticated
• Default
• Referred
• Role
• Cohort
• Unique ID

Actionable Data

Every organization with any digital presence has data. It’s important to inquire about how to use the data you can ethically collect on users, its inherent reliability and value, and what is the term for “data activation.” Fortunately, the tide is turning to first-party data: a recent study by Twilio estimates some 80 % of businesses are using at least some type of first-party data to personalize the customer experience.

First-party data has a number of benefits on the user experience front, including being relatively simple to collect, more likely to be accurate, and less susceptible to the” creep factor” of third-party data. So a key part of your UX strategy should be to determine what the best form of data collection is on your audiences. Voici some illustrations:

There is a progression of profiling when it comes to recognizing and making decisioning about different audiences and their signals. As user numbers increase in terms of time, confidence, and data volume, it varies more granularly.

While some combination of implicit / explicit data is generally a prerequisite for any implementation ( more commonly referred to as first party and third-party data ) ML efforts are typically not cost-effective directly out of the box. This is because optimization requires a strong data backbone and content repository. But these approaches should be considered as part of the larger roadmap and may indeed help accelerate the organization’s overall progress. At this point, you will typically work with important stakeholders and product owners to create a profiling model. The profiling model includes defining approach to configuring profiles, profile keys, profile cards and pattern cards. A multi-faceted method of profiling that is adaptable.

Pulling it Together

The cards serve as the foundation for an inventory of sorts ( we provide blanks for you to tailor your own ), a set of potential levers and motivations for the kind of personalization activities you aspire to deliver, but they are more valuable when grouped together.

In assembling a card “hand”, one can begin to trace the entire trajectory from leadership focus down through a strategic and tactical execution. It serves as the foundation for the workshops that both co-authors have conducted to build a program backlog, which would make a good article topic.

In the meantime, what is important to note is that each colored class of card is helpful to survey in understanding the range of choices potentially at your disposal, it is threading through and making concrete decisions about for whom this decisioning will be made: where, when, and how.

Lay Down Your Cards

Any effective personalization plan must take into account near, middle, and long-term objectives. Even with the leading CMS platforms like Sitecore and Adobe or the most exciting composable CMS DXP out there, there is simply no “easy button” wherein a personalization program can be stood up and immediately view meaningful results. Having said that, all personalization activities follow a common grammar, similar to how every sentence contains nouns and verbs. These cards attempt to map that territory.

Humility, a writer’s most important quality, has a great circle to it. What about sincerity, an business manager’s vital value? Or a surgeon’s? Or a teacher’s? They all have fantastic sounds. When humility is our guiding light, the course is usually available for fulfillment, development, relation, and commitment. We’re going to speak about why in this section.

That said, this is a guide for developers, and to that conclusion, I’d like to begin with a story—well, a voyage, actually. It’s a personal one, and I’m going to make myself prone as well. I call it:

The Absurd Pate of Justin: The Tale of Justin

When I was coming out of arts school, a long-haired, goateed novice, write was a known quantity to me, design on the web, however, was riddled with complexities to understand and learn, a problem to be solved. Although I had formal training in typography, layout, and creative design, what piqued my interest was how these traditional skills could be applied to a young online landscape. This theme may eventually form the rest of my job.

But I drained HTML and JavaScript novels into the wee hours of the morning and self-taught myself how to code during my freshman year rather than student and go into print like many of my companions. I wanted—nay, needed—to better understand the underlying relevance of what my design decisions may think when rendered in a website.

The so-called” Wild West” of website layout existed in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Manufacturers at the time were all figuring out how to use layout and visual connection to the online environment. What regulations were in place? How may we break them and also engage, entertain, and present information? How was my values, which include modesty, respect, and connection, coincide with that on a more general level? I was eager to find out.

Even though I’m referring to a different time, those are amazing factors between non-career relationships and the world of layout. What are your main passions, or ideals, that elevate medium? The main themes are the same, basically the same as what we previously discussed on the immediate parallels between what fulfills you, independent of the physical or digital realms.

First within tables, animated GIFs, Flash, then with Web Standards, divs, and CSS, there was personality, raw unbridled creativity, and unique means of presentment that often defied any semblance of a visible grid. Splash screens and “browser requirement” pages aplenty. Usability and accessibility were typically victims of such a creation, but such paramount facets of any digital design were largely (and, in hindsight, unfairly) disregarded at the expense of experimentation.

For instance, this iteration of my personal portfolio site (” the pseudoroom” ) from that time was experimental if not a little overt in terms of the visual presentation of the idea of a living sketchbook. Quite skeuomorphic. On this one, I worked with fellow artist and dear pal Marc Clancy, who is now a co-founder of the creative task organizing app Milanote, to outline and then play with various user interactions. Finally, I’d break it down and script it into a modern layout.

Along with pattern book pieces, the site even offered free downloads for Mac OS customizations: pc wallpapers that were successfully style experimentation, custom-designed typefaces, and desktop icons.

GUI Galaxy was a design, pixel art, and Mac-centric news portal that graphic designer friends and I developed from around the same time.

Design news portals were incredibly popular at the time, and they now accept Tweet-sized, small-format versions of relevant news from the categories I previously covered. If you took Twitter, curated it to a few categories, and wrapped it in a custom-branded experience, you’d have a design news portal from the late 90s / early 2000s.

We as designers had changed and developed a bandwidth-sensitive, award-winning, much more accessibility-conscious website. Still ripe with experimentation, yet more mindful of equitable engagement. Below are some content panes that show general news (tech, design ) and news centered on Mac. We also offered many of the custom downloads I cited before as present on my folio site but branded and themed to GUI Galaxy.

The presentation layer of the website’s backbone was made up of global design + illustration + news author collaboration. The backbone was a homegrown CMS. And the collaboration effort here, in addition to experimentation on a’ brand’ and content delivery, was hitting my core. We were creating a global audience by creating something bigger than just one of us.

Collaboration and connection transcend medium in their impact, immensely fulfilling me as a designer.

Now, why am I taking you on this trip through design memory lane? Two reasons.

First, there’s a reason for the nostalgia for that design era ( the” Wild West” era, as I put it ): the inherent exploration, personality, and creativity that dominated many design portals and personal portfolio websites. Ultra-finely detailed pixel art UI, custom illustration, bespoke vector graphics, all underpinned by a strong design community.

The web design industry has experienced stagnation in recent years. I suspect there’s a strong chance you’ve seen a site whose structure looks something like this: a hero image / banner with text overlaid, perhaps with a lovely rotating carousel of images ( laying the snark on heavy there ), a call to action, and three columns of sub-content directly beneath. Perhaps an icon library is used with selections that only vaguely relate to their respective content is used.

Design, as it’s applied to the digital landscape, is in dire need of thoughtful layout, typography, and visual engagement that goes hand-in-hand with all the modern considerations we now know are paramount: usability. accessibility. Load times and bandwidth- sensitive content delivery. A user-friendly presentation that is relevant wherever they are. We must be mindful of, and respectful toward, those concerns—but not at the expense of creativity of visual communication or via replicating cookie-cutter layouts.

Pixel Issues

Websites during this period were often designed and built on Macs whose OS and desktops looked something like this. Although Mac OS 7.5 is available, 8 and 9 are not very different.

How could any single icon, at any point, stand out and grab my attention? This fascinated me. In this example, the user’s desktop is tidy, but think of a more realistic example with icon pandemonium. How did it maintain cohesion among the group, for example, if an icon was a part of a larger system grouping ( fonts, extensions, control panels )?

These were 32 x 32 pixel creations, utilizing a 256-color palette, designed pixel-by-pixel as mini mosaics. This seemed to me to be the embodiment of digital visual communication under such absurd restrictions. And often, ridiculous restrictions can yield the purification of concept and theme.

So I started doing my homework and conducting my research. I was a student of this new medium, hungry to dissect, process, discover, and make it my own.

I wanted to see how I could push the boundaries of a 32×32 pixel grid with that 256-color palette, expanding upon the idea of exploration. Those ridiculous constraints forced a clarity of concept and presentation that I found incredibly appealing. I was thrown the digital gauntlet, and that challenge fueled my determination. And so, in my dorm room into the wee hours of the morning, I toiled away, bringing conceptual sketches into mini mosaic fruition.

These are some of my creations that I made using ResEdit, the only program I had at the time, to create icons. ResEdit was a clunky, built-in Mac OS utility not really made for exactly what we were using it for. Research is at the center of all of this work. Challenge. solving problems. Again, these core connection-based values are agnostic of medium.

There’s one more design portal I want to talk about, which also serves as the second reason for my story to bring this all together.

This is the Kaliber 1000, or K10k, abbreviated. K10k was founded in 1998 by Michael Schmidt and Toke Nygaard, and was the design news portal on the web during this period. It was the ideal setting for me, my friend, with its pixel art-filled presentation, meticulous attention to detail, and many of the site’s more well-known designers who were invited to be news authors. With respect where respect is due, GUI Galaxy’s concept was inspired by what these folks were doing.

For my part, the combination of my web design work and pixel art exploration began to get me some notoriety in the design scene. K10k eventually added me as one of their very select group of news writers to the website’s content.

Amongst my personal work and side projects —and now with this inclusion—in the design community, this put me on the map. Additionally, my design work has started to appear on other design news portals, as well as be published in various printed collections, in domestic and international magazines, and in various printed collections. With that degree of success while in my early twenties, something else happened:

I actually changed into a colossal asshole in about a year of school, not less. The press and the praise became what fulfilled me, and they went straight to my head. They inflated my ego. I actually felt somewhat superior to my fellow designers.

The casualties? My design stagnated. Its evolution, which is what I evolved, has stagnated.

I felt so supremely confident in my abilities that I effectively stopped researching and discovering. When my first instinct was to sketch concepts or iterate ideas in lead, I instead leaped right into Photoshop. I drew my inspiration from the smallest of sources ( and with blinders on ). My peers frequently vehemently disapproved of any criticism of my work. The most tragic loss: I had lost touch with my values.

My ego almost destroyed some of my friendships and blossoming professional relationships. I was toxic in talking about design and in collaboration. But thankfully, candor was a gift from those same friends. They called me out on my unhealthy behavior.

It was a gift I initially did not accept but which I, on the whole, was able to reflect on in depth. I was soon able to accept, and process, and course correct. Although the realization made me feel uneasy, the re-awakening was necessary. I let go of the “reward” of adulation and re-centered upon what stoked the fire for me in art school. Most importantly, I returned to my fundamental values.

Always Students

Following that temporary regression, I was able to advance in both my personal and professional design. And I could self-reflect as I got older to facilitate further growth and course correction as needed.

Let’s take the Large Hadron Collider as an example. The LHC was designed” to help answer some of the fundamental open questions in physics, which concern the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the interrelation between quantum mechanics and general relativity”. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Around fifteen years ago, in one of my earlier professional roles, I designed the interface for the application that generated the LHC’s particle collision diagrams. These diagrams are the depiction of what is actually happening inside the Collider during any given particle collision event and are frequently regarded as works of art by themselves.

Designing the interface for this application was a fascinating process for me, in that I worked with Fermilab physicists to understand what the application was trying to achieve, but also how the physicists themselves would be using it. In order to accomplish this, this role requires,

I cut my teeth on usability testing, working with the Fermilab team to iterate and improve the interface. To me, their language and the topics they discussed seemed to me to be foreign languages. And by making myself humble and working under the mindset that I was but a student, I made myself available to be a part of their world to generate that vital connection.

I also had my first ethnographic observational experience, where I observed how the physicists used the tool in their own environments, on their own terminals. For example, one takeaway was that due to the level of ambient light-driven contrast within the facility, the data columns ended up using white text on a dark gray background instead of black text-on-white. This made it easier for them to pore over a lot of data during the day and lessen their strain on their eyes. And Fermilab and CERN are government entities with rigorous accessibility standards, so my knowledge in that realm also grew. Another crucial form of connection was the barrier-free design.

So to those core drivers of my visual problem-solving soul and ultimate fulfillment: discovery, exposure to new media, observation, human connection, and evolution. I checked my ego before entering those values, which opened the door for those values.

An evergreen willingness to listen, learn, understand, grow, evolve, and connect yields our best work. I want to pay attention to the words “grow” and “evolve” in that statement in particular. If we are always students of our craft, we are also continually making ourselves available to evolve. Yes, we have completed years of design research. Or the focused lab sessions from a UX bootcamp. or the work portfolio with monograms. Or, ultimately, decades of a career behind us.

However, with all that being said, experience does not make one an “expert.”

As soon as we close our minds via an inner monologue of’ knowing it all’ or branding ourselves a” #thoughtleader” on social media, the designer we are is our final form. There will never be a designer like us.

I have a creative side. Alchemy is what I do. It is a puzzle. I prefer to let it be done through me rather than through me.

I have a creative side. Not all aspiring artists approve of this tag. Not everyone see themselves in this manner. Some innovative people incorporate technology into their work. That is their perception, and I regard it. Perhaps I also have a little bit of fear for them. However, my being and approach are unique.

It distracts one to apologize and qualify in progress. My head uses that to destroy me. I put it off for the moment. I may regret and be qualified at any time. After I’ve said what I originally said. which is sufficient.

Except when it is simple and flows like a beverage valley.

Sometimes it does. Maybe I have to make something right away. When I say something at that time, I’ve learned not to say it because people often don’t work hard enough to acknowledge that the idea is the best idea even when you know it’s the best idea.

Maybe I work and work and work until the thought strikes me. Maybe it arrives right away and I don’t remind people for three days. Sometimes I get so excited about an idea that just came along that I blurt it out and didn’t stop myself. like a child who discovered a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks. I occasionally manage to escape this. Yes, that is the best idea, but often others disagree. The majority of the time, they don’t, and I regret that passion has faded.

Joy should only be saved for the meet, when it matters. not the informal gathering that two different gatherings precede that appointment. Nothing understands why we hold these gatherings. We keep saying we’re getting rid of them, but we keep discovering new ways to get them. They occasionally yet excel. Sometimes they detract from the real function, though. Depending on what you do and where you do it, the ratio between when conferences are valuable and when they are a sad distraction vary. also who you are and what you do. I’ll go back and forth once more. I have a creative side. That is the style.

Often, a lot of hours of diligent and diligent work ends up with something that is barely useful. Often I have to accept that and move on to the next task.

Don’t inquire about the procedure. I have a creative side.

I have a creative side. My dreams are not in my power. And I have no power over my best tips.

I can chisel apart, surround myself with information or photos, and occasionally that works. Often going for a walk is what I can do. There is no connection between sizzling fuel and flowing pots, and I may be making dinner. I frequently know what to do when I awaken. The idea that may have saved me disappears almost as frequently as I become aware and a part of the world once more as a thoughtless wind of oblivion. For imagination, in my opinion, originates in that other world. The one that we enter in ambitions and, possibly, before and after suicide. I’m not a writer, so that’s up to writers to think about. I have a creative side. And it’s for philosophers to build massive forces in their imaginative world that they claim to be true. But that is yet another diversion. And one that is sad. Whether or not I am innovative or not, this may be on a much larger issue. But this is still a departure from what I said when I came around.

Often the outcome is mitigation. also suffering. Do you know the actor who is tortured by the cliché? Even when the artist ( this place that noun in quotes ) attempts to write a sweet drink jingle, a call in a worn-out comedy, or a budget request, it’s true.

Some individuals who detest being called artistic perhaps been closeted artists, but that’s between them and their gods. No offence here, that’s meant. Your facts is also true. But I should take care of me.

Artists are recognized as artists.

Disadvantages are aware of cons, just like queers are aware of queers, just like real rappers are aware of actual rappers are aware of cons. Designers are highly revered by people in the world. We respect, follow, and nearly deify the excellent ones. Of course, deifying any person is a dreadful error. We’ve been given a warning. We are more knowledgeable. We are aware that people are really people. They argue, they are depressed, they regret their most important choices, they are weak and thirsty, they can be cruel, and they can be as terrible as we can because they are clay, just like us. But. But. However, they produce this incredible issue. They give birth to something that may not occur before them and couldn’t exist without. They are the inspirations of thought. And I suppose I should add that they are the mother of technology because it’s just lying it. Bad mee backside! Okay, that’s all said and done. Continue.

Because we compare our personal small accomplishments to those of the great ones, artists denigrate them. Wonderful video! I‘m not Miyazaki, so I‘m not. That is glory right then. That is brilliance straight out of the Bible. This unsatisfied small factor I created? It essentially fell off the turnip truck’s up. And the carrots weren’t actually new.

Artists is aware that they are at best Some. That is what Mozart’s artists do, actually.

I have a creative side. In my hallucinations, my former artistic managers are the ones who judge me because I haven’t worked in advertising in 30 times. They are correct in doing so. When it really matters, my brain goes flat because I am too stupid and complacent. No medication is available to treat innovative function.

I have a creative side. Every project I create has a goal that makes Indiana Jones appear to be a retiree snoring in a deck head. The more I pursue creativity, the faster I can complete my work, and the longer I obsess over my ideas and whizz around in circles before I can complete that task.

I can move ten times more quickly than those who aren’t creative, those who have just been creative for a short while, and those who have only been creative for a short time in their careers. Only that I spend twice as long as they do putting the job of before I work ten times as quickly as they do. When I put my mind to it, I am so confident in my ability to do a great career. I am completely dependent on the excitement scramble of delay. I’m also so scared of jumping.

I am hardly a painter.

I have a creative side. hardly a musician. Though as a boy, I had a dream that I would one day become that. Some of us criticize our abilities and like our own selves because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism, but at least we aren’t in elections.

I have a creative side. Despite my belief in reason and science, my decisions are based on my own senses. And bear witness to what comes next, both the successes and the calamities.

I have a creative side. Every term I’ve said these may irritate another artists who have different viewpoints. Ask two artists a topic and find three opinions. No matter how we perhaps think about it, our debate, our passion for it, and our responsibility to our own truth, at least in my opinion, are the best indications that we are artists.

I have a creative side. I lament my lack of taste in the areas of human knowledge that I know quite small, that is to say about everything. And I put my taste before everything else in the things that are most important to me, or perhaps more precisely, to my obsessions. Without my addictions, I’d probably have to spend the majority of our time looking ourselves in the eye, which is something that almost none of us can do for very long. No seriously. Actually, no. Because so much in existence is intolerable if you really look at it.

I have a creative side. I think that when I am gone, some of the good parts of me will stay in the head of at least one additional person, just like a family does.

Working frees me from worrying about my job.

I have a creative side. I fear that my little product will disappear.

I have a creative side. I’m too busy making the next thing to devote too much time to it, especially since practically everything I create did achieve the level of success I conceive of.

I have a creative side. I think that method is the greatest mystery. I think so strongly that I am also foolish enough to post an essay I wrote into a small machine without having to go through or edit it. I swear I didn’t do this frequently. But I did it right away because I was even more frightened of forgetting what I was saying because I was afraid of you seeing through my sad movements toward the wonderful.

There. I believe I said it correctly.

In reading Joe Dolson’s recent piece on the intersection of AI and accessibility, I absolutely appreciated the skepticism that he has for AI in general as well as for the ways that many have been using it. In fact, I’m very skeptical of AI myself, despite my role at Microsoft as an accessibility innovation strategist who helps run the AI for Accessibility grant program. As with any tool, AI can be used in very constructive, inclusive, and accessible ways; and it can also be used in destructive, exclusive, and harmful ones. And there are a ton of uses somewhere in the mediocre middle as well.

I’d like you to consider this a “yes… and” piece to complement Joe’s post. I’m not trying to refute any of what he’s saying but rather provide some visibility to projects and opportunities where AI can make meaningful differences for people with disabilities. To be clear, I’m not saying that there aren’t real risks or pressing issues with AI that need to be addressed—there are, and we’ve needed to address them, like, yesterday—but I want to take a little time to talk about what’s possible in hopes that we’ll get there one day.

Alternative text

Joe’s piece spends a lot of time talking about computer-vision models generating alternative text. He highlights a ton of valid issues with the current state of things. And while computer-vision models continue to improve in the quality and richness of detail in their descriptions, their results aren’t great. As he rightly points out, the current state of image analysis is pretty poor—especially for certain image types—in large part because current AI systems examine images in isolation rather than within the contexts that they’re in (which is a consequence of having separate “foundation” models for text analysis and image analysis). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant (that should probably have descriptions) and those that are purely decorative (which might not need a description) either. Still, I still think there’s potential in this space.

As Joe mentions, human-in-the-loop authoring of alt text should absolutely be a thing. And if AI can pop in to offer a starting point for alt text—even if that starting point might be a prompt saying What is this BS? That’s not right at all… Let me try to offer a starting point—I think that’s a win.

Taking things a step further, if we can specifically train a model to analyze image usage in context, it could help us more quickly identify which images are likely to be decorative and which ones likely require a description. That will help reinforce which contexts call for image descriptions and it’ll improve authors’ efficiency toward making their pages more accessible.

While complex images—like graphs and charts—are challenging to describe in any sort of succinct way (even for humans), the image example shared in the GPT4 announcement points to an interesting opportunity as well. Let’s suppose that you came across a chart whose description was simply the title of the chart and the kind of visualization it was, such as: Pie chart comparing smartphone usage to feature phone usage among US households making under $30,000 a year. (That would be a pretty awful alt text for a chart since that would tend to leave many questions about the data unanswered, but then again, let’s suppose that that was the description that was in place.) If your browser knew that that image was a pie chart (because an onboard model concluded this), imagine a world where users could ask questions like these about the graphic:

• Do more people use smartphones or feature phones?
• How many more?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these buckets?
• How many is that?

Setting aside the realities of large language model (LLM) hallucinations—where a model just makes up plausible-sounding “facts”—for a moment, the opportunity to learn more about images and data in this way could be revolutionary for blind and low-vision folks as well as for people with various forms of color blindness, cognitive disabilities, and so on. It could also be useful in educational contexts to help people who can see these charts, as is, to understand the data in the charts.

Taking things a step further: What if you could ask your browser to simplify a complex chart? What if you could ask it to isolate a single line on a line graph? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you could ask it to swap colors for patterns? Given these tools’ chat-based interfaces and our existing ability to manipulate images in today’s AI tools, that seems like a possibility.

Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. For example, perhaps it could turn that pie chart (or better yet, a series of pie charts) into more accessible (and useful) formats, like spreadsheets. That would be amazing!

Matching algorithms

Safiya Umoja Noble absolutely hit the nail on the head when she titled her book Algorithms of Oppression. While her book was focused on the ways that search engines reinforce racism, I think that it’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to amplify conflict, bias, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A lot of this stems from a lack of diversity among the people who shape and build them. When these platforms are built with inclusively baked in, however, there’s real potential for algorithm development to help people with disabilities.

Take Mentra, for example. They are an employment network for neurodivergent people. They use an algorithm to match job seekers with potential employers based on over 75 data points. On the job-seeker side of things, it considers each candidate’s strengths, their necessary and preferred workplace accommodations, environmental sensitivities, and so on. On the employer side, it considers each work environment, communication factors related to each job, and the like. As a company run by neurodivergent folks, Mentra made the decision to flip the script when it came to typical employment sites. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in; reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

When more people with disabilities are involved in the creation of algorithms, that can reduce the chances that these algorithms will inflict harm on their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so important.

Imagine that a social media company’s recommendation engine was tuned to analyze who you’re following and if it was tuned to prioritize follow recommendations for people who talked about similar things but who were different in some key ways from your existing sphere of influence. For example, if you were to follow a bunch of nondisabled white male academics who talk about AI, it could suggest that you follow academics who are disabled or aren’t white or aren’t male who also talk about AI. If you took its recommendations, perhaps you’d get a more holistic and nuanced understanding of what’s happening in the AI field. These same systems should also use their understanding of biases about particular communities—including, for instance, the disability community—to make sure that they aren’t recommending any of their users follow accounts that perpetuate biases against (or, worse, spewing hate toward) those groups.

Other ways that AI can helps people with disabilities

If I weren’t trying to put this together between other tasks, I’m sure that I could go on and on, providing all kinds of examples of how AI could be used to help people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

• Voice preservation. You may have seen the VALL-E paper or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day announcement or you may be familiar with the voice-preservation offerings from Microsoft, Acapela, or others. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. This is, of course, the same tech that can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so it’s something that we need to approach responsibly, but the tech has truly transformative potential.
• Voice recognition. Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are actively recruiting people with Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they have plans to expand this to other conditions as the project progresses. This research will result in more inclusive data sets that will let more people with disabilities use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as well as control their computers and other devices more easily, using only their voice.
• Text transformation. The current generation of LLMs is quite capable of adjusting existing text content without injecting hallucinations. This is hugely empowering for people with cognitive disabilities who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions of text or even text that’s prepped for Bionic Reading.

The importance of diverse teams and data

We need to recognize that our differences matter. Our lived experiences are influenced by the intersections of the identities that we exist in. These lived experiences—with all their complexities (and joys and pain)—are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences need to be represented in the data that we use to train new models, and the folks who contribute that valuable information need to be compensated for sharing it with us. Inclusive data sets yield more robust models that foster more equitable outcomes.

Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you have content about disabilities that’s authored by people with a range of disabilities, and make sure that that’s well represented in the training data.

Want a model that doesn’t use ableist language? You may be able to use existing data sets to build a filter that can intercept and remediate ableist language before it reaches readers. That being said, when it comes to sensitivity reading, AI models won’t be replacing human copy editors anytime soon. 

Want a coding copilot that gives you accessible recommendations from the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.

I have no doubt that AI can and will harm people… today, tomorrow, and well into the future. But I also believe that we can acknowledge that and, with an eye towards accessibility (and, more broadly, inclusion), make thoughtful, considerate, and intentional changes in our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Many thanks to Kartik Sawhney for helping me with the development of this piece, Ashley Bischoff for her invaluable editorial assistance, and, of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

I offer a single bit of advice to friends and family when they become new parents: When you start to think that you’ve got everything figured out, everything will change. Just as you start to get the hang of feedings, diapers, and regular naps, it’s time for solid food, potty training, and overnight sleeping. When you figure those out, it’s time for preschool and rare naps. The cycle goes on and on.

The same applies for those of us working in design and development these days. Having worked on the web for almost three decades at this point, I’ve seen the regular wax and wane of ideas, techniques, and technologies. Each time that we as developers and designers get into a regular rhythm, some new idea or technology comes along to shake things up and remake our world.

How we got here

I built my first website in the mid-’90s. Design and development on the web back then was a free-for-all, with few established norms. For any layout aside from a single column, we used table elements, often with empty cells containing a single pixel spacer GIF to add empty space. We styled text with numerous font tags, nesting the tags every time we wanted to vary the font style. And we had only three or four typefaces to choose from: Arial, Courier, or Times New Roman. When Verdana and Georgia came out in 1996, we rejoiced because our options had nearly doubled. The only safe colors to choose from were the 216 “web safe” colors known to work across platforms. The few interactive elements (like contact forms, guest books, and counters) were mostly powered by CGI scripts (predominantly written in Perl at the time). Achieving any kind of unique look involved a pile of hacks all the way down. Interaction was often limited to specific pages in a site.

The birth of web standards

At the turn of the century, a new cycle started. Crufty code littered with table layouts and font tags waned, and a push for web standards waxed. Newer technologies like CSS got more widespread adoption by browsers makers, developers, and designers. This shift toward standards didn’t happen accidentally or overnight. It took active engagement between the W3C and browser vendors and heavy evangelism from folks like the Web Standards Project to build standards. A List Apart and books like Designing with Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman played key roles in teaching developers and designers why standards are important, how to implement them, and how to sell them to their organizations. And approaches like progressive enhancement introduced the idea that content should be available for all browsers—with additional enhancements available for more advanced browsers. Meanwhile, sites like the CSS Zen Garden showcased just how powerful and versatile CSS can be when combined with a solid semantic HTML structure.

Server-side languages like PHP, Java, and .NET overtook Perl as the predominant back-end processors, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the trash bin. With these better server-side tools came the first era of web applications, starting with content-management systems (particularly in the blogging space with tools like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress). In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened doors for asynchronous interaction between the front end and back end. Suddenly, pages could update their content without needing to reload. A crop of JavaScript frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and jQuery arose to help developers build more reliable client-side interaction across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like image replacement let crafty designers and developers display fonts of their choosing. And technologies like Flash made it possible to add animations, games, and even more interactivity.

These new technologies, standards, and techniques reinvigorated the industry in many ways. Web design flourished as designers and developers explored more diverse styles and layouts. But we still relied on tons of hacks. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes (such as rounded or angled corners) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks). Complicated layouts required all manner of nested floats or absolute positioning (or both). Flash and image replacement for custom fonts was a great start toward varying the typefaces from the big five, but both hacks introduced accessibility and performance problems. And JavaScript libraries made it easy for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, although at the cost of doubling or even quadrupling the download size of simple websites.

The web as software platform

The symbiosis between the front end and back end continued to improve, and that led to the current era of modern web applications. Between expanded server-side programming languages (which kept growing to include Ruby, Python, Go, and others) and newer front-end tools like React, Vue, and Angular, we could build fully capable software on the web. Alongside these tools came others, including collaborative version control, build automation, and shared package libraries. What was once primarily an environment for linked documents became a realm of infinite possibilities.

At the same time, mobile devices became more capable, and they gave us internet access in our pockets. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

This combination of capable mobile devices and powerful development tools contributed to the waxing of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and consume. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media offered connections on a global scale, with both the good and bad that that entails.

Want a much more extensive history of how we got here, with some other takes on ways that we can improve? Jeremy Keith wrote “Of Time and the Web.” Or check out the “Web Design History Timeline” at the Web Design Museum. Neal Agarwal also has a fun tour through “Internet Artifacts.”

Where we are now

In the last couple of years, it’s felt like we’ve begun to reach another major inflection point. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. There are many different ways to make a website, from the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators to content management systems of all flavors. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other tools of the IndieWeb can help with this, but they’re still relatively underimplemented and hard to use for the less nerdy. We can build amazing personal websites and add to them regularly, but without discovery and connection, it can sometimes feel like we may as well be shouting into the void.

Browser support for CSS, JavaScript, and other standards like web components has accelerated, especially through efforts like Interop. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. I often learn about a new feature and check its browser support only to find that its coverage is already above 80 percent. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often isn’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

Today, with a few commands and a couple of lines of code, we can prototype almost any idea. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. But the upfront cost that these frameworks may save in initial delivery eventually comes due as upgrading and maintaining them becomes a part of our technical debt.

If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks—which used to let us adopt new techniques sooner—have now become hindrances instead. These same frameworks often come with performance costs too, forcing users to wait for scripts to load before they can read or interact with pages. And when scripts fail (whether through poor code, network issues, or other environmental factors), there’s often no alternative, leaving users with blank or broken pages.

Where do we go from here?

Today’s hacks help to shape tomorrow’s standards. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks—for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we’re unwilling to admit that they’re hacks or we hesitate to replace them. So what can we do to create the future we want for the web?

Build for the long haul. Optimize for performance, for accessibility, and for the user. Weigh the costs of those developer-friendly tools. They may make your job a little easier today, but how do they affect everything else? What’s the cost to users? To future developers? To standards adoption? Sometimes the convenience may be worth it. Sometimes it’s just a hack that you’ve grown accustomed to. And sometimes it’s holding you back from even better options.

Start from standards. Standards continue to evolve over time, but browsers have done a remarkably good job of continuing to support older standards. The same isn’t always true of third-party frameworks. Sites built with even the hackiest of HTML from the ’90s still work just fine today. The same can’t always be said of sites built with frameworks even after just a couple years.

Design with care. Whether your craft is code, pixels, or processes, consider the impacts of each decision. The convenience of many a modern tool comes at the cost of not always understanding the underlying decisions that have led to its design and not always considering the impact that those decisions can have. Rather than rushing headlong to “move fast and break things,” use the time saved by modern tools to consider more carefully and design with deliberation.

Always be learning. If you’re always learning, you’re also growing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. You might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year, even if you were to focus solely on learning standards. (Remember XHTML?) But constant learning opens up new connections in your brain, and the hacks that you learn one day may help to inform different experiments another day.

Play, experiment, and be weird! This web that we’ve built is the ultimate experiment. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be courageous and try new things. Build a playground for ideas. Make goofy experiments in your own mad science lab. Start your own small business. There has never been a more empowering place to be creative, take risks, and explore what we’re capable of.

Share and amplify. As you experiment, play, and learn, share what’s worked for you. Write on your own website, post on whichever social media site you prefer, or shout it from a TikTok. Write something for A List Apart! But take the time to amplify others too: find new voices, learn from them, and share what they’ve taught you.

Go forth and make

As designers and developers for the web (and beyond), we’re responsible for building the future every day, whether that may take the shape of personal websites, social media tools used by billions, or anything in between. Let’s imbue our values into the things that we create, and let’s make the web a better place for everyone. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then share it, make it better, make it again, or make something new. Learn. Make. Share. Grow. Rinse and repeat. Every time you think that you’ve mastered the web, everything will change.

Picture this. You’ve joined a squad at your company that’s designing new product features with an emphasis on automation or AI. Or your company has just implemented a personalization engine. Either way, you’re designing with data. Now what? When it comes to designing for personalization, there are many cautionary tales, no overnight successes, and few guides for the perplexed. 

Between the fantasy of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong—like when we encounter “persofails” in the vein of a company repeatedly imploring everyday consumers to buy additional toilet seats—the personalization gap is real. It’s an especially confounding place to be a digital professional without a map, a compass, or a plan.

For those of you venturing into personalization, there’s no Lonely Planet and few tour guides because effective personalization is so specific to each organization’s talent, technology, and market position. 

But you can ensure that your team has packed its bags sensibly.

There’s a DIY formula to increase your chances for success. At minimum, you’ll defuse your boss’s irrational exuberance. Before the party you’ll need to effectively prepare.

We call it prepersonalization.

Behind the music

Consider Spotify’s DJ feature, which debuted this past year.

We’re used to seeing the polished final result of a personalization feature. Before the year-end award, the making-of backstory, or the behind-the-scenes victory lap, a personalized feature had to be conceived, budgeted, and prioritized. Before any personalization feature goes live in your product or service, it lives amid a backlog of worthy ideas for expressing customer experiences more dynamically.

So how do you know where to place your personalization bets? How do you design consistent interactions that won’t trip up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many budgeted programs to justify their ongoing investments, they first needed one or more workshops to convene key stakeholders and internal customers of the technology. Make yours count.

​From Big Tech to fledgling startups, we’ve seen the same evolution up close with our clients. In our experiences with working on small and large personalization efforts, a program’s ultimate track record—and its ability to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and organize its design and technology efforts—turns on how effectively these prepersonalization activities play out.

Time and again, we’ve seen effective workshops separate future success stories from unsuccessful efforts, saving countless time, resources, and collective well-being in the process.

A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a switch-flip moment in your tech stack. It’s best managed as a backlog that often evolves through three steps: 

1. customer experience optimization (CXO, also known as A/B testing or experimentation)
2. always-on automations (whether rules-based or machine-generated)
3. mature features or standalone product development (such as Spotify’s DJ experience)

This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. You won’t need these cards. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

Set your kitchen timer

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The surrounding assessment activities that we recommend including can (and often do) span weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our broader approach along with details on the essential first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

1. Kickstart: This sets the terms of engagement as you focus on the opportunity as well as the readiness and drive of your team and your leadership. .
2. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
3. Work your plan: This phase is all about creating a competitive environment for team participants to individually pitch their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its operating model.

Give yourself at least a day, split into two large time blocks, to power through a concentrated version of those first two phases.

Kickstart: Whet your appetite

We call the first lesson the “landscape of connected experience.” It explores the personalization possibilities in your organization. A connected experience, in our parlance, is any UX requiring the orchestration of multiple systems of record on the backend. This could be a content-management system combined with a marketing-automation platform. It could be a digital-asset manager combined with a customer-data platform.

Spark conversation by naming consumer examples and business-to-business examples of connected experience interactions that you admire, find familiar, or even dislike. This should cover a representative range of personalization patterns, including automated app-based interactions (such as onboarding sequences or wizards), notifications, and recommenders. We have a catalog of these in the cards. Here’s a list of 142 different interactions to jog your thinking.

This is all about setting the table. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? If you want a broader view, here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework.

Assess each example that you discuss for its complexity and the level of effort that you estimate that it would take for your team to deliver that feature (or something similar). In our cards, we divide connected experiences into five levels: functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to focus the conversation on the merits of ongoing investment as well as the gap between what you deliver today and what you want to deliver in the future.

Next, have your team plot each idea on the following 2×2 grid, which lays out the four enduring arguments for a personalized experience. This is critical because it emphasizes how personalization can not only help your external customers but also affect your own ways of working. It’s also a reminder (which is why we used the word argument earlier) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

Each team member should vote on where they see your product or service putting its emphasis. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. The intention here is to flesh out how different departments may view their own upsides to the effort, which can vary from one to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

The third and final kickstart activity is about naming your personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy compliance be too big of a challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? (We’re pretty sure that you do: it’s just a matter of recognizing the relative size of that need and its remedy.) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. Our Detractor card, for example, lists six stakeholder behaviors that hinder progress.

Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential barriers to your future progress. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. As studies have shown, personalization efforts face many common barriers.

At this point, you’ve hopefully discussed sample interactions, emphasized a key area of benefit, and flagged key gaps? Good—you’re ready to continue.

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s look at what you’ll need to bring your personalization recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are sweeping and powerful, and they present broad options for how your organization can conduct its activities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

What’s important here is to avoid treating the installed software like it were a dream kitchen from some fantasy remodeling project (as one of our client executives memorably put it). These software engines are more like test kitchens where your team can begin devising, tasting, and refining the snacks and meals that will become a part of your personalization program’s regularly evolving menu.

The ultimate menu of the prioritized backlog will come together over the course of the workshop. And creating “dishes” is the way that you’ll have individual team stakeholders construct personalized interactions that serve their needs or the needs of others.

The dishes will come from recipes, and those recipes have set ingredients.

Verify your ingredients

Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure—andyou’ll validate with the right stakeholders present—that you have all the ingredients on hand to cook up your desired interaction (or that you can work out what needs to be added to your pantry). These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together. 

This isn’t just about discovering requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team: 

1. compare findings toward a unified approach for developing features, not unlike when artists paint with the same palette; 
2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar; 
3. and develop parity across performance measurements and key performance indicators too. 

This helps you streamline your designs and your technical efforts while you deliver a shared palette of core motifs of your personalized or automated experience.

Compose your recipe

What ingredients are important to you? Think of a who-what-when-why construct: 

• Who are your key audience segments or groups?
• What kind of content will you give them, in what design elements, and under what circumstances?
• And for which business and user benefits?

We first developed these cards and card categories five years ago. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And we still encounter new possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

Here are three examples for a subscription-based reading app, which you can generally follow along with right to left in the cards in the accompanying photo below. 

1. Nurture personalization: When a guest or an unknown visitor interacts with  a product title, a banner or alert bar appears that makes it easier for them to encounter a related title they may want to read, saving them time.
2. Welcome automation: When there’s a newly registered user, an email is generated to call out the breadth of the content catalog and to make them a happier subscriber.
3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

A useful preworkshop activity may be to think through a first draft of what these cards might be for your organization, although we’ve also found that this process sometimes flows best through cocreating the recipes themselves. Start with a set of blank cards, and begin labeling and grouping them through the design process, eventually distilling them to a refined subset of highly useful candidate cards.

You can think of the later stages of the workshop as moving from recipes toward a cookbook in focus—like a more nuanced customer-journey mapping. Individual “cooks” will pitch their recipes to the team, using a common jobs-to-be-done format so that measurability and results are baked in, and from there, the resulting collection will be prioritized for finished design and delivery to production.

Better kitchens require better architecture

Simplifying a customer experience is a complicated effort for those who are inside delivering it. Beware anyone who says otherwise. With that being said,  “Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes.”

When personalization becomes a laugh line, it’s because a team is overfitting: they aren’t designing with their best data. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. Your AI’s output quality, for example, is indeed limited by your IA. Spotify’s poster-child prowess today was unfathomable before they acquired a seemingly modest metadata startup that now powers its underlying information architecture.

You can definitely stand the heat…

Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach will bring about the necessary focus and intention to succeed. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, hit the test kitchen to save time, preserve job satisfaction and security, and safely dispense with the fanciful ideas that originate upstairs of the doers in your organization. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

This workshop framework gives you a fighting shot at lasting success as well as sound beginnings. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. But if you use the same cookbook and shared recipes, you’ll have solid footing for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

While there are associated costs toward investing in this kind of technology and product design, your ability to size up and confront your unique situation and your digital capabilities is time well spent. Don’t squander it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated with movies. I loved the characters and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I wanted to be an actor. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on exciting adventures. I even dreamed up ideas for movies that my friends and I could make and star in. But they never went any further. I did, however, end up working in user experience (UX). Now, I realize that there’s an element of theater to UX—I hadn’t really considered it before, but user research is storytelling. And to get the most out of user research, you need to tell a good story where you bring stakeholders—the product team and decision makers—along and get them interested in learning more.

Think of your favorite movie. More than likely it follows a three-act structure that’s commonly seen in storytelling: the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. The first act shows what exists today, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the conflict, where the action is. Here, problems grow or get worse. And the third and final act is the resolution. This is where the issues are resolved and the characters learn and change. I believe that this structure is also a great way to think about user research, and I think that it can be especially helpful in explaining user research to others.

Use storytelling as a structure to do research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see research as being expendable. If budgets or timelines are tight, research tends to be one of the first things to go. Instead of investing in research, some product managers rely on designers or—worse—their own opinion to make the “right” choices for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get teams some of the way, but that approach can so easily miss out on solving users’ real problems. To remain user-centered, this is something we should avoid. User research elevates design. It keeps it on track, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay ahead of your competitors.

In the three-act structure, each act corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is critical to telling the whole story. Let’s look at the different acts and how they align with user research.

Act one: setup

The setup is all about understanding the background, and that’s where foundational research comes in. Foundational research (also called generative, discovery, or initial research) helps you understand users and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists today, the challenges users have, and how the challenges affect them—just like in the movies. To do foundational research, you can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies (or both!), which can help you start to identify problems as well as opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a huge investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum viable ethnography, which can be as simple as spending 15 minutes with a user and asking them one thing: “‘Walk me through your day yesterday.’ That’s it. Present that one request. Shut up and listen to them for 15 minutes. Do your damndest to keep yourself and your interests out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography.” According to Hall, “[This] will probably prove quite illuminating. In the highly unlikely case that you didn’t learn anything new or useful, carry on with enhanced confidence in your direction.”  

This makes total sense to me. And I love that this makes user research so accessible. You don’t need to prepare a lot of documentation; you can just recruit participants and do it! This can yield a wealth of information about your users, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their lives. That’s really what act one is all about: understanding where users are coming from. 

Jared Spool talks about the importance of foundational research and how it should form the bulk of your research. If you can draw from any additional user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can supplement what you’ve heard in the foundational studies or even point to areas that need further investigation. Together, all this data paints a clearer picture of the state of things and all its shortcomings. And that’s the beginning of a compelling story. It’s the point in the plot where you realize that the main characters—or the users in this case—are facing challenges that they need to overcome. Like in the movies, this is where you start to build empathy for the characters and root for them to succeed. And hopefully stakeholders are now doing the same. Their sympathy may be with their business, which could be losing money because users can’t complete certain tasks. Or maybe they do empathize with users’ struggles. Either way, act one is your initial hook to get the stakeholders interested and invested.

Once stakeholders begin to understand the value of foundational research, that can open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making process. And that can guide product teams toward being more user-centered. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. Storytelling is the key to this process, and knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to get stakeholders to really care about doing more research. 

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution (such as a design) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. Like act two in a movie, more issues will crop up along the way. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act. 

Usability tests should typically include around five participants according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify most of the problems: “As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.” 

There are parallels with storytelling here too; if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may get lost. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about the research. This can help convey the issues that need to be addressed while also highlighting the value of doing the research in the first place.

Researchers have run usability tests in person for decades, but you can also conduct usability tests remotely using tools like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You can think of in-person usability tests like going to a play and remote sessions as more like watching a movie. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. You also get real-time reactions—including surprise, agreement, disagreement, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors’ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If in-person usability testing is like watching a play—staged and controlled—then conducting usability testing in the field is like immersive theater where any two sessions might be very different from one another. You can take usability testing into the field by creating a replica of the space where users interact with the product and then conduct your research there. Or you can go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. As researchers, you have less control over how these sessions go, but this can sometimes help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests provide another level of detail that’s often missing from remote usability tests. 

That’s not to say that the “movies”—remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. And they open the doors to a much wider geographical pool of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working. 

The benefit of usability testing, whether remote or in person, is that you get to see real users interact with the designs in real time, and you can ask them questions to understand their thought processes and grasp of the solution. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. Act two is the heart of the story—where the excitement is—but there can be surprises too. This is equally true of usability tests. Often, participants will say unexpected things, which change the way that you look at things—and these twists in the story can move things in new directions. 

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. In fact, if the designs that you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a solid understanding of your users (foundational research), there’s not much to be gained by doing usability testing in the first place. That’s because you’re narrowing the focus of what you’re getting feedback on, without understanding the users’ needs. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. It’s only feedback on a particular design in the context of a usability test.  

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, while you might have set out to solve the right problem, you won’t know whether the thing that you’re building will actually solve that. This illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional research. 

In act two, stakeholders will—hopefully—get to watch the story unfold in the user sessions, which creates the conflict and tension in the current design by surfacing their highs and lows. And in turn, this can help motivate stakeholders to address the issues that come up.

Act three: resolution

While the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can propel stakeholders into action, the third part is about resolving the problems from the first two acts. While it’s important to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stick around for the final act. That means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the whole team to hear users’ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. And it lets the UX research and design teams clarify, suggest alternatives, or give more context behind their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is mostly told in voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. “The most effective presenters use the same techniques as great storytellers: By reminding people of the status quo and then revealing the path to a better way, they set up a conflict that needs to be resolved,” writes Duarte. “That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently.”

This type of structure aligns well with research results, and particularly results from usability tests. It provides evidence for “what is”—the problems that you’ve identified. And “what could be”—your recommendations on how to address them. And so on and so forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick mockups of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage gives stakeholders the next steps and hopefully the momentum to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. All the elements of a good story are there in the three-act structure of user research: 

• Act one: You meet the protagonists (the users) and the antagonists (the problems affecting users). This is the beginning of the plot. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. The output of these methods can include personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.

• Act two: Next, there’s character development. There’s conflict and tension as the protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.

• Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. In act three, researchers may use methods including presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures. 

The researcher has multiple roles: they’re the storyteller, the director, and the producer. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters (in the research). And the stakeholders are the audience. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users’ stories through research. By the end, the stakeholders should walk away with a purpose and an eagerness to resolve the product’s ills. 

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. Ultimately, user research is a win-win for everyone, and you just need to get stakeholders interested in how the story ends.

As a solution developer for too many years, I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen promising ideas go from being heroes in a few weeks to being useless within months.

Financial items, which is the industry in which I work, are no exception. It’s tempting to put as many features at the ceiling as possible and expect something sticks because people’s true, hard-earned money is on the line, user expectations are high, and crowded market. However, this strategy is a formula for disaster. Why? How’s why:

The fatalities of feature-first growth

It’s simple to get swept up in the enthusiasm of developing innovative features when you start developing a financial product from scratch or are migrating existing client journeys from papers or telephony channels to online bank or mobile apps. You might be thinking,” If I can only put one more thing that solves this particular person problem, they’ll appreciate me”! But what happens if you eventually encounter a roadblock as a result of your security team’s negligence? not like it? When a difficult-fought film fails to win over viewers or fails due to unanticipated difficulty?

The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) comes into play in this area. Even if Jason Fried doesn’t usually refer to this concept, his book Getting Real and his radio Rework frequently discuss it. An MVP is a product that offers only enough significance to your users to keep them interested, but not so much that it becomes difficult to keep up. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a brutal edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because” the Columbo Effect” makes it easy to fall for something when one always says” just one more thing …” to include.

The issue with most funding apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an experience created exclusively for the customer. This implies that the priority is to provide as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the requirements and desires of competing inside sections as opposed to a distinct value statement that is focused on what people in the real world actually want. These products may therefore quickly become a muddled mess of confusing, related, and finally unlovable client experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The significance of the foundation

What is a better strategy, then? How may we create products that are user-friendly, firm, and, most importantly, stick?

The concept of “bedrock” comes into play in this context. Rock is the main feature of your item that really matters to customers. The foundation of worth and relevance over time is built upon it.

The core must be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the retail banking industry, which is where I work. People only look at their existing accounts once every blue sky, but they do so every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their stability and pay their bill at least once a quarter.

The key is in identifying the main tasks that people want to complete and working relentlessly to render them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

How can you reach the foundation, though? By focusing on the” MVP” strategy, giving clarity the top priority, and working toward a distinct value proposition. This means avoiding pointless extras and putting your customers first, making the most of them.

It also requires some nerve, as your coworkers might not always agree on your eyesight right away. And dubiously, occasionally it can even suggest making it clear to customers that you won’t be coming to their house and making their breakfast. Sometimes you need to use the sporadic “opinionated user interface design” ( i .e. clunky workaround for edge cases ) to test a concept or to give yourself some more time to work on something more crucial.

Functional methods for creating stick-like economic items

What are the main learnings I’ve made from my own research and practice, then?

1. What issue are you attempting to resolve first, and why? Who is it for? Make sure your goal is unmistakable before beginning any work. Make certain it also aligns with the goals of your business.
2. Avoid putting too many features on the list at again; instead, focus on getting that right first. Choose one that actually adds price, and work from that.
3. When it comes to financial goods, clarity is often more important than difficulty. Eliminate unwanted details and concentrate on what matters most.
4. Accept constant iteration as Bedrock is a powerful process rather than a fixed destination. Continuously collect customer feedback, improve your product, and work toward that foundational position.
5. Stop, glance, and talk: You must test your product frequently in the field rather than just as part of the shipping process. Use it for yourself. Move the A/B testing. User opinions on Gear. Talk to those who use it, and change things up correctly.

The foundational dilemma

This is an intriguing conundrum: sacrificing some of the potential for short-term growth in favor of long-term stability. But the reward is worthwhile because products created with a concentrate on core will outlive and outperform their competitors and provide people with ongoing value over time.

How do you begin your quest for core, then? Take it slowly. Start by identifying the underlying factors that your customers actually care about. Concentrate on developing and improving a second, potent have that delivers real value. And most importantly, check constantly because, whatever you think, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker are all in the same boat! The best way to foretell the future is to build it, he said.

The Last of Sheila’s standing has improved in recent years, especially after a particular permeability director named it as a significant impact on the Benoit Blanc movies, but it still feels incredibly underappreciated. Sheila was on the one hand vintage in]…] and on the other hand a terrifyingly smart murder mystery and a brutal sarcasm of the Hollywood movie industry.

The first article in Den of Geek was Ian McShane Recalls The Last of Sheila, Stephen Sondheim, and Anthony Perkins ‘” Inside Jokes.”

Small-time American crime Mark Read achieved the kind of celebrity that might only exist in the ’90s before the release of the movie Chopper. Despite serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest, Read rose to the position of an unlikely bestselling author and interviewer, often willing to accept credit for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others he was not.

However, that 2000 crime drama, an original that brought writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and story Chopper to an international audience, as well as many others who later came up with the legend, completely strengthened his legend. That includes American Jai Courtney, who admits that he was unaware of Read until he received the Chopper DVD as a young child in the 1990s.

25 times after the movie’s release, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” It was definitely one of those items that rolled about on DVD and made you pass between your pals. It eventually made it means into his DVD player, as well as many others. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve actually found myself buying a DVD player and finding the Video on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the film before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool by Courtney now. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear in the In the Den movie set over, it is in advance of the transfer of Hazardous Animals, a terrible clever rhythm on the serial killer and fish video subgenre. In that movie, Courtney portrays a man named Tucker as one of the two animals who occasionally takes visitors out to swim with fish and eventually ends up feeding them to the sharp-toothed creatures.

According to Courtney, Tucker is a performer of this caliber. The ship deck serves as a kind of step for him because he is such a storyteller. He is a guy who may not take all visitors home, but regardless of how the trip turns out, he is having a good time. He adores it. He definitely sees himself as one with the shark, and I believe he is very excited about it. He is also passionate about his conservation and his fight against the shark.

Courtney acknowledges that watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s might have had a subliminal influence on this move.

Courtney says,” I think what you see Eric do with that position is very profound.” He transforms what might be thought of as a kind of two-dimensional villain into something very endearing. If you’ve ever seen an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, I’m sure you’ve got an idea of how incredible this is. Sincerely speaking, it about resembles an imitation. He’s like a top replicate, as Bana is.

Before Chopper made Bana a global celebrity, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the artist was generally known as a stand-up and picture graphic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And according to legend, the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series while incarcerated before telling Andrew Dominik to make Bana as the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, I’m certain he would make that claim. The real-life Read had a talent for accepting credit for crimes he probably had no business doing, as the movie Chopper demonstrates.

According to Courtney, “one of the interesting things about him being such a colorful character is that he laid claim to many more killings than he was ever ever charged with,” and some of that may have been partially made up. And I believe that has somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

However, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia, the appeal of Chopper was just the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller vibe.

Consider the two first scenes of that prison setting, in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and when his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure on the other end of the knife before playing the attacker.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment before a hyperviolent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. Just this dude who had so much light and shade, and I think that was such a dynamic performance. It’s really motivating.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was later followed by a similarly insane turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ), not long after Mel Gibson established a precedent for this type of Aussie genre mania in the acutely titled Mad Max ( 1979 ). Is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north, Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Chopper in 2001 for a reason.

Courtney says,” That’s a good quote,” and she laughs. He also mentions how many of those Australian performances by fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe influenced him when he was just starting out.

Courtney responds,” Russell’s a friend.” I started working with him ten years ago, but those people are a lot of fun. Hugh Jackman and Joel Edgerton are both close to my generation, and they are also a little closer to my generation. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a point where it was either starting to feel like I was on the verge of something.

The line also entices comparisons to Sean Byrne’s directed film, which is distinctly Australian, Dangerous Animals, which is heightened and genre-mad.

Courtney ponders whether or not people should compare their behavior to that of Dangerous Animals. It was a fascinating movie to make. I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make an educated guess as to how you want things to turn out, and Sean was a great partner. So when I read it, my instinct was to make this character more interesting and more colorful in order for it to work. Because I believe it’s just less interesting to me if he plays with this wash of evil intentions. However, Tucker sounded like someone you could be stuck next to on the bus, the bar owner, or the driver of your taxi that wouldn’t stop. He has a familiarity with him.

You can’t escape these guys, just like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently touring the United States.

The first article on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Dives into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

When Mario Kart World was first revealed in January along with the Nintendo Switch 2, gamers were understandably excited. After all, it had been more than a decade since a brand new game in the beloved series had hit consoles. And then in April, Nintendo revealed that Mario Kart World would retail for $80 if […]

The post Mario Kart World: Is It Worth That Price? appeared first on Den of Geek.

Before the film Chopper came along, small-time Australian criminal Mark Read achieved the type of celebrity that might only occur in the ‘90s. Despite serving time in the Australian prison system after being convicted for shooting a mate in the chest, Read became an unlikely bestselling author and interview subject, always happy to take credit on the page for crimes he was convicted of—as well as many more he was not.

Yet what fully cemented his legend was that 2000 movie, a crime film so innovative that it introduced writer-director Andrew Domink, star Eric Bana, and of course the man and myth that was Chopper to an international audience—as well as many more who came up afterward reared on the legend. That includes fellow Australian Jai Courtney, who admits that as a kid growing up in the ‘90s, he never even heard of Read until someone slipped him the Chopper DVD.

“God knows if I was even allowed to watch it,” Courtney laughs 25 years after the film’s release. “It was probably one of those things that kicked around on DVD and you passed between your mates.” Yet it found its way into his DVD player—and many more since. “If you meet someone and you’re talking about the films that are your favorite films, and someone hasn’t seen it, it’s a must… I’ve even been guilty of buying a DVD player and finding the DVD on eBay in order to screen it for people who haven’t seen the movie before.”

It became a touchstone for the future star of Suicide Squad and The Exception, and one which echoes in the work Courtney still does today. For example when he stops by our studio to appear on the In the Den video series above, it is ahead of the release of this summer’s bloody clever riff on the serial killer and shark movie subgenres, Dangerous Animals. In that film, Courtney plays a little bit of both predators as a guy named Tucker—someone who takes tourists out to swim with sharks, and sometimes ends up feeding them to the sharp-toothed beasties.

“Tucker is such a performer,” Courtney explains. “He’s such a storyteller that the boat deck even functions as a kind of stage for him.” He is a guy who may not bring all tourists home, but no matter how the excursion goes, he’s having a good time. “He loves it. I think he’s really passionate about it, passionate about his conservation and the crusade he’s on, he really sees himself as one with the shark.”

It’s also a turn that Courtney admits might have subconscious influences from watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s.

“I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound,” Courtney considers. “He turns what could maybe be interpreted as a sort of two-dimensional kind of villain type into something that’s incredibly lovable. I mean, I’m sure if you’ve ever seen any interview with Mark ‘Chopper’ Read himself, you understand just how insanely good this is. It’s almost like an impersonation, honestly. He’s like an excellent mimic, Bana is.”

In fact before Chopper made Bana an international star, paving the way for everything from Hulk and Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was known primarily as a standup and sketch comic on shows like Full Frontal in Australia. “He had a few great, very quotable characters,” Courtney says of his memories watching the show as a kid. And according to legend—aka Mark Read—the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series in prison before telling Andrew Dominik that he should cast this Bana kid as the movie version of himself.

“I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney says. “I’m sure he’d lay claim to that whether it was true or not.” As the movie Chopper shows, the real-life Read had a knack for taking credit for crimes he probably had nothing to do with as well.

“One of the interesting facts about him being such a colorful character is he laid claim to many more killings than he was certainly ever prosecuted for,” Courtney points out, “and there was a sort of perception to some of that, that it might have been completely made up. And I think that damaged his ego somewhat, which is interesting.”

But for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia, the appeal of Chopper was just the bravado of the performance, and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines. In spite of the film’s real-world roots, and the fact that even most of the first half of Chopper is filmed in Pentridge Prison, the Victorian correctional facility that Read spent decades in—his flashes of theatricality and violence feel like something out of a Hollywood crime thriller.

Consider two early sequences in that prison setting, one where Chopper stabs Keithy George (David Field) and, later, when his own supposed mate Jimmy Loughnan (Simon Lyndon) shivs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays first the attacker and then the victim as quasi-astonished and even sympathetic to the person on the other end of the knife.

“There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” Courtney recalls, “which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There’s an opportune moment, and then it’s a hyper violent beat and this kind of explosion [of violence]. But then he’s almost remorseful immediately after and he’s passing him a cigarette. There’s an empathy to it there. He was just this dude that had so much light and shade, and I find that just such a dynamic performance. It’s really inspiring.”

It was the performance that ended up taking Bana to Hollywood around the same time that a similarly deranged turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper (1992) led eventually to Gladiator—and not that long even after Mel Gibson set a template for this style of Aussie genre mania in the acutely titled Mad Max (1979). There’s a reason in his review for Chopper in 2001, Roger Ebert wondered “is everyone in Australia a few degrees off from true north?”

“That’s a good quote,” Courtney laughs. He also notes how many of those performances of fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe inspired him when he was starting out.

“Russell’s a friend,” says Courtney. “I got to work with him some years ago now, about 10 years ago, but those guys are a huge inspiration. Heath Ledger, of course, and Hugh Jackman, and a little closer to a contemporary of mine is Joel Edgerton. I was looking at all those guys who were cracking through at a time when it was either starting to become just like a distant dream in my eyes or something that felt like I was on the cusp of.”

The line also invites comparisons to the heightened and genre madness in the distinctly Australian Dangerous Animals, which is directed by the Tasmanian-born Sean Byrne.

“It’d be cool,” Courtney muses about folks making comparisons with Dangerous Animals. “It was an interesting film to make. I didn’t quite know what I was stepping into. You can’t predict really anything in these processes. All you can do is make a kind of educated guess at how you’d like things to turn out, and Sean was a great collaborator. So when I read it, my instinct was that I needed to go big with this character in order for it to work, and to give it that color. Because I think if he’s played with this wash of evil intention, it’s just less interesting to me. But Tucker felt like someone you could be stuck on the bus next to, the guy you sit down next to in the bar, the dude driving your taxi that won’t shut up. There’s a familiarity to him.”

Like sharks in the sea, you can’t escape these guys.

Dangerous Animals is now playing in the U.S.

The post Jai Courtney Dives into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema appeared first on Den of Geek.