UCD practitioner since '95 | UserInterviews Active UX Leader to Follow | Adjunct Professor and Educator | Ph.D. Candidate | TEDx & Conference Speaker | Podcaster | Author | Opinions are my own
More goodness from Dr. Nick.
Figma pulled their AI functionality because - *drumroll* - it was prematurely released without adequate testing. The rush to market prematurely with AI tech is no surprise, it's industry standard behaviour, but the lack of testing prior to release is unforgivable. ** Whatever pressures you have to GTM, testing does not take the time that typically Market Research takes - THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT DO IT ** Think about it: you and your team have just worked hard to get a release ready. You're on time and on budget. You skip a week of testing and release. Bad things happen because you're releasing on hope, not knowledge. If you waited a few days or a week, to do some pre-release testing, you'd learn these things in advance. YES - it might move the delivery to the right but it is better to have a good release slightly later than a big surprise prematurely. If you don't believe me, carry on and experience rollback anxiety. It's not fun, you really don't want to go there. Now, here's the moneyshot: If you're releasing something and learning big, deal-breaking things after you've released, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING RESEARCH AS PART OF BUSINESS AS USUAL ACTIVITY!! Always better to learn small and regularly than big and infrequently. Always. If you want to go faster, to be better, to have less stress, factor in research as part of your regularly weekly/sprintly activity. Not optional - constant. You will learn everything you need to know, and a lot more....and then you'll realise how crazy it has been to not have done it this way to date. No more post-release surprises. No more fingers crossed, white knuckle releases. No more 'gulp' moments with senior leadership. Just insight, better decisions and much more predictability. Challenge: give me a good reason why you wouldn't do this...
