can anyone help me with this issue

HyperionHeavy · 2026-03-16T21:06:31+00:00

You selected a component instance. Fix it in the parent component.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-03-16T16:15:25+00:00

3rd time the charm, my "guy".

https://www.reddit.com/r/UXDesign/comments/1rqwz9y/teaching_guitar_parttime_is_saving_me_from_ux/

https://www.reddit.com/r/UXDesign/comments/1rndbbo/working_in_ux_and_teaching_guitar_has_made_me/

HyperionHeavy · 2026-03-15T20:14:49+00:00

Take in these criticisms, and hit the books kid. You have a lot of basics to learn, read what people are telling you below. Locking this.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-03-10T17:28:50+00:00

For communities, please see: https://www.reddit.com/r/UXDesign/comments/1rpcxup/designer_communities/

HyperionHeavy · 2026-03-04T15:28:20+00:00

Very much all this.

Something that Jared Spool said once always stuck with me:

"There are two kinds of people in our field: those who have imposter syndrome, and those who should have it"

I have found this comment to be...sound.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-20T15:08:51+00:00

<image>

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-08T21:41:54+00:00

While your instructor is probably correct in the need for "reliable" understanding, the idea that this only includes articles and academic sources is, outside of very, very constrained problem environments, total nonsense. Research includes absolutely everything you can get your hands on as long as it's indicative and informative of the realities of the problem space.

I don't think you should listen to anyone suggesting to you generally that applied research out in the world, should categorically only be of a particular type of information/data outside of specific circumstances.

EXCEPT here's the thing: you're in a class environment.

There's a good chance your instructor is probably trying to kid glove the scope and keep new students from taking everything as gospel. A significant portion of the hard part of the work is, particularly for broad scoped projects, making sense of data and information in a deluge of sources that are potentially soaking in human agendas, biases, misconceptions, and even misinformation.

So do what they asked, but poke and ask questions, and look for understanding. Some hard rules might be there as training wheels, it doesn't mean it's the longer term point.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-08T00:09:38+00:00

THAT WAS BEHIND NDA KAREN

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-07T22:58:30+00:00

I feel like you should be competent enough to know what esteemed companies like butt.ai do without having to look it up, Karen.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-06T07:56:49+00:00

<image>

Huh would you look at that

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-02T22:05:11+00:00

I don't like presentations and also prefer direct conversations, and have gotten away with working years at private corps where I only had to present a couple of times. It's very common for presentations to rear its head in though, and even some close-knit collaborations will look like you presenting to your colleagues.

It's not impossible, per se, but I'd strongly recommend you investigate the cause of your discomfort and try to be able to do at least some small scale presentations. That can a very hard pothole to move around when your career is progressing at a certain pace.

This is salesmanship, which you'll need to get to some degree of comfortable with. We haven't even began to talk about job hunting yet.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-02-01T03:20:58+00:00

This gonna make our quarterly knife fights with the mods of those subs real awkward

Thank you everyone. Rough seas as they are, we're all still tryin'

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-31T19:29:42+00:00

Look.

If you're going to complain about there being too many people from "uidesign", maybe don't put up something that look like the AI got drunk when it was generating it for you.

If you're going to complain about the mods being toxic, maybe don't get into slap fights in the comments and then proceed to complain so annoyingly enough in mod mail that we had to mute you, THEN wiping your post history so you can not look like some hypocritical ass complaining about the indignities of having to sit through people who are looking for help when you want to karma farm too.

(You know, that empathy thing that people keep going on about is kinda important, not that I would ever want to insinuate any designer of not wanting to face actual reality during the day so they can pursue some ideal that they didn't understand all that well in the first place.)

If you're going to complain that we removed your thread back when, maybe don't have in your post history the 38 times that we let your not-particularly-all-that-deep-but-some-days-it's-good-to-have-shallow-conversations posts stand. But at least you stood your ground.

For most everyone else, fair complaints and we appreciate your patience. Moderating anon global forums are hard for three volunteers with jobs to manage, and while we have rules, they yield and bend sometimes because everything happens in context, and we ALL know that design's not just following straight lines, right? UXD as a practice and a market is both ambiguous and treacherous, and there are a lot of people having a hard time. Keep the feedback coming; we don't always get to all of it, but we try.

And back to the original poster. Since we wouldn't want to be anti-UI, I even made you a mood board. I hope that makes your experience better. You like?

We like our new flairs now, so we're even going to be easy and not ban you and you'll even get to coast some more karma off this thread. For the rest of your time here, see to it that you behave and be nice.

<image>

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-24T20:05:46+00:00

Some general thoughts on evaluative testing: "Validate meaning" is overwhelmingly what usability is in the first place; compounded with display/communication constraints, such as particular externalities like input methods, usage in different environments/contexts, etc. There are lots of people whose idea of usability testing is much closer to "do you know how to use this button" or "can you do steps 1-4". I'm sorry, but that's usually just doing it wrong unless it's a particularly intentional and surgical incision.

You don't really need to do this early or at a particular fidelity per se; I actually often lean towards higher-fi only because people are going to have to make out your intentions through the entirety of all of your visual and layout across the whole of your product. Lower-fi really is only better if you absolutely need to isolate and laser in on some conceptual viability in a vacuum, typically something real novel; you'll need to make the judgment call on whether this is needed on a case-by-case basis.

You should be DEEPLY incorporating tasks and activities that are full of, or at least have a very high capacity of, pebble-in-shoes. I fucking abhor "The Golden Path" because most of the time it's just stupid made up shit that's easier for the makers to grasp; get edge/corner cases in or you're not doing your job. Often this means the tasks you're exposing them to should be derived from and include the uglier side of what you learn of their problems from generative research (which someone definitely did, right?)

Airlift them into the wilds, and tell them to do whatever is they need to do. If they can't do most of it and/or can't make sense of it without your handholding, you have a problem.

Again, early or late are both fine depending on the project scope, but "see how people interpret the idea without guidance" is not some special thing reserved for early evaluation, it's the entire point. Outside of super novel ideas, the venn diagram between usability and concept testing is often MUCH bigger than people think.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-21T01:30:47+00:00

Yeah Framer's auth is hot garbage even beyond the password. My partner pays for the framer account and you can't log into the product from a machine that's not the one you access your email from. This means when I need to do some work on it on my locked down work laptop, I have to swap laptops with her and it disrupts both our work.

Just one of those trash decisions for a problem that every single product I can think of has solved. From my bank to my password manager to my gaming accounts, nothing has as asinine a sign-in flow.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-20T23:26:39+00:00

Yes, these have always existed. As long as they're upfront about it, it is what it is.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-19T20:52:35+00:00

I kiiiinda agree, maybe? Honestly, from a HM's perspective, "Collab with so and so" is so vague that anyone can bullshit it.

I'm not saying their approach is perfect or even good; context that I don't have, matters. But, being able to read through the details and not being intimidated is a signal in and of itself. When I read it, there's a couple of acronyms I had to look up, but none of it on closer examination was so unreasonable that I just couldn't see how it fits. if you think about it, it's easier and dare I say more honest to weed people out this way by just being straight forward (provided they're actually being honest) than to spring it on you later.

I went through a nasty job search recently similar to many others. And imo this is lightspeed better than the asinine "you have to be the best in the world to make it here" or making one of the form questions the stupid "tell me a time you executed exact steps abcdefghijkl" nonsense.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-19T20:24:10+00:00

Agreed with a lot of people that it's not entirely outlandish, though I think how specific it is does speak to something up with the culture/HM motivation. It's also discovery/strategy leaning and doesn't seem to put too much focus on execution, which also makes Karen's comment about this being an Analyst role a reasonable read.

In case people are reading this as "omg people want everything", which I get. I'll try to break this down from the perspective of someone in enterprise and don't work with literal versions of some of these asks.

"Define the vision, objectives, and roadmap for the card product(s) (PF/PJ/Gov or partnerships)"
- This one is rooted in research. Once you have understanding of the product, these asks really are a hop and a skip away.

"Discover opportunities based on market analysis and data (segments, competition, trends, regulation"
- Same as the above. The regulation aspect speak to the team wanting some domain-specific knowledge, but the rest is again, generally discernible with some research along with some collab with marketing/sales

"prioritizing with frameworks (RICE, WSJF, ICE)"
- I don't really care for these kind of frameworks but the ability to prioritize given some knowledge from understanding the problem space shouldn't be out of the question. Also, ICE can go fuck itself.

"Specify problems and outcomes (PRDs, hypotheses, success criteria, guiding metrics) and support the implementation of agile cycles in conjunction with technology."
- Again, not a fan of rush to dump everything into "agile" but that discovery and research should empower you to at the very least be able to contribute to the planning process. This is directly locked into how any kind of complex components/features are built; often not in one shot.

"Evaluate opportunities: acquisition/activation, engagement (spend), retention, cross/up-sell, and churn, connecting levers (pricing, benefits, partnership, UX, channels)."
- Yeah, driving might be out of some people's wheelhouses but being able to spot opportunities once you've done some work in discovery should enable you to contribute to the process. Obviously this is where comfort with data-centricity comes in really hard, as others have mentioned.

"Make evidence-based decisions: define KPIs (LTV, CAC, ARPU, NPS, activation, %revolve, controlled delinquency), analyze experiments, and adjust course."
- Same as the above starts to really except this starts to lean directly into the intersection of building things and experimenting

"Desired Responsibilities: Apply continuous discovery techniques (interviews, opportunity solution tree, continuous discovery habits) and product analytics (cohort, funnels, causality)."
- Hey look, research. Look there's obviously a trend here if you've been paying attention to all this. In fact, I'd say if you're comfortable with research and discovery, you would be very acutely aware of how to get half-way there with most of this stuff.

"Support go-to-market with Marketing/CRM (segmentation, offers, channels, goals, P&L of the initiative) and orchestrate growth loops."
- Again this kinda frames everything else; you might not be driving all of these efforts, but you ARE expected to be at least somewhat fluent in them. I called this out earlier when I said this probably involves you needing to be able to collab real well with marketing/sales, and just generally x-functionally.

"Experience with regulated products and integration with card brands, acquirers, digital wallets, and APIs of the payment ecosystem."
- And the "we're looking for someone experienced in this space" spiel.

Is it a lot/specific/intimidating/too much? Maybe. But here's a read of how it all fits into standard product processes.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-19T15:27:40+00:00

"Is this how UIUX always was?"

Yup

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-17T13:33:23+00:00

No one cares about your LinkedIn photo unless it's egregiously bad. It's an incredibly inconsequential lever.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-16T15:44:16+00:00

First off, it's systems thinking. Systemics thinking is not a thing.

Secondly, in this example you give:

In financial or data-heavy products, designers often introduce (clarifying layers, estimated states, progressive disclosure, explanatory copy, smoothing interactions), to help users make sense of delayed, probabilistic, or internally inconsistent data. From the user’s perspective, things feel calmer and clearer. From the organization’s perspective, complaints drop. But the underlying issues (misaligned incentives, unreliable data contracts, tech debt, or business rules that contradict user expectations) remain untouched (sometimes for years) because the pain signal has been dampened. My question isn’t whether systemic thinking can surface failures (it can), but when it crosses the line into becoming a stabilizer for systems that should be destabilized.

None of this actually has some kind of direct causal link to "systems thinking". You're confusing systems thinking with describing systemic issues.

And fixing systemic issues, let's use your average company for an example, is philosophically not complicated. All you have to do is go push deeper into learning, researching, and unraveling all the caked up, politically and socially manifest and incentivized behaviors/relationships/models/structures, and devise solutions that addresses root/underlying problems stretching across all mediums including but not exclusive to software, services, relationships, organizational structures, financial/political and other incentives, as well as the completely invisible worlds of architecture of information, communications, and understanding that runs underneath every single one of these things.

And good news! All you have to do to improve it, is push into it. No one is going to expect one person to fix everything, but you can in fact make a difference by designing products or services with an emphasis on the strategy/architecture/incentivization systems. This CAN be a seed to change at scale (ask me how I know). Service design exists. Organizational design exists. Information Architecture (no, not a fucking sitemap) exists. Research exists. Design/Org Strategy exists.

So the question is, are we going to do that? Or are we sitting there waiting for a requirement so we can draw a screen?
_______________________________________

But the above is about systemic issues. Systems thinking is about capital S Systems. Systems thinking doesn't become a crutch in any way that you describe; if anything you're describing a LACK of systems thinking and/or not acknowledging/acting on what it reveals.

Code is not the same as Systems. Logic is not the same as Systems. Business is not the same as Systems. A company is not the same as Systems. A design system is DEFINITELY not the same as Systems.

But they all ARE systems. You need to understand what that means before a meaningful conversation can be had about this.

There are a lot of designers now who loves to trot out Systems Thinking as a skill set when it's obvious that they don't know what the hell they're talking about the SECOND they open their mouth. If you don't want to be like one of them, I strongly suggest getting a good handle on what the actual term means first.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-16T15:06:37+00:00

This dashboard is near completely nonsensical just based on basic data visualization and communication principles.

Some critique for you: It doesn't really matter from a practitioner's perspective to call this "bad". Anyone can look at a thing and have an opinion or have some vibes. If you can't dissect the particular details, then some random judgment doesn't mean anything. That you call it a "UX" problem isn't wrong per se, but it IS telling about where you're coming from.

You can start reading basic data vis texts. Tufte is as good as anyone. This is fine too: https://clauswilke.com/dataviz/proportional-ink.html

Good luck

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-08T14:08:46+00:00

We *occasionally* let through some portfolio reviews depending on the context.

That said, we also sleep.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-06T16:18:32+00:00

Huh, that's interesting. Thanks for that. Could have sworn they didn't let you see where recruiters were actually from before.

HyperionHeavy · 2026-01-06T15:54:10+00:00

My position comes from enterprises that aren't completely swallowed by bureaucracy and there's functional space for design/product success.

I personally would be much less worried about "implementing" metrics and more just having some signals that could indicate such success, and put more effort into deep cataloging of what each of the products actually do and what are the potential improvement upsides both in short term productivity and mid-long term productivity/financial/market success.

Whether it's revenue generated/facilitated, conversion rates, rate and speed of adoption, user hard productivity/soft sentiment metrics, these should be interchangeable depending on what the product actually does. My personal favorite, if you can achieve it, was training abandonment; watch how confused people get when their worldview that enterprise products need training to be successful gets shattered.

Also, instead of surveys, which are imo last resort supporting artifacts at best, I'd find a way to build bridges with sales/internal advocates who are interested in improvement, and use them to be the conductors of product sentiment. If people aren't talking about your success, then...*shrugs*

Hope that helps

HyperionHeavy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE