Cookies are central to the modern digital user experience. They enable web analytics, which is foundational for personalisation. Cookies gather data that can help improve page performance. Cookies keep you logged in so that you don’t have to provide your credentials every single time you visit a particular site or app.

But they can also bring your web browsing experience to a jarring, screeching halt.

Enter, “The Cookie Banner”.

The cookie banner is a chore. It’s a toll both you never asked for. It’s an annoying younger cousin who insists on dancing in front of the TV as you try to watch something. It breaks your flow. It is the death of seamless user experience.

It is a legal framework that was designed to give us control and make us feel safe. The execution makes it feel like you are in a hostage situation.

The first-time user experience should not be bitter, especially because of something called “Cookies”.

Let’s design a better cookie experience.

Why do I want to redesign the cookie consent experience?

Motivation

Whilst searching for a gift for a friend, I had one of the worst “cookie days” of my life. It felt like every page I opened came attached with an unscalable cookie wall. At first, I tried to accept and reject the cookies consciously (the “reject all” button wasn’t there).

Then, I broke. I started accepting everything just to get to my webpages faster.

After this, I started noticing people struggling and getting annoyed with cookie consent everywhere: from the milk aisle in Tesco to the waiting area in Starbucks.

Goals

Android products give power to the user. The user chooses which cookies go in the “jar” and which don’t. This point within the user journey creates maximum disruption, friction, and cognitive load for the user. Apple doesn’t have this problem, but I can’t change Google’s policies.

My goal is to design a cookie consent experience that is pleasant, not disruptive, and supports compliance requirements.

Method: a practical evidence-driven approach

Present state: journey, emotion, and the interface

To improve an existing interaction or journey, we first need to understand the present state.

I began by collecting examples of cookie banners. For each example, I considered the same scenario: the user wants to learn something about the organisation and has come to their homepage.

With this context, I thought about how people may feel. An excited shopper clicks through to the Shien homepage, only to be greeted by the cookie wall. A photographer wanting to look at specs on Nikon’s website, only to be greeted by the cookie wall. You get the idea.

I am particularly focused on the layouts, interactions, and content. I also tracked the goods and bads of each example. Sometimes, if I can’t get rid of the bad aspects of an experience, I work on further enhancing the good parts of the experience.

Desk research

I had used observational research to identify and, to an extent, validate the pain-point. I turned to Reddit to establish whether this was even an issue. Reddit did not disappoint. Threads ranged from: “Do Germans hate cookie banners more...” to “Cookie banners suck...”.

The recurring issues

Content assault

The main page loads, and before it can before it can can be consumed, the cookie banner blocks everything. On e-commerce platforms, promotional offers popped up too, adding to the clutter.

The experience is worse on mobile, as the banner completely takes over the screen.

Positioning

Some content banners appear at the bottom of the page. They continue to let the users engage with the content. Visually, they are still not in sync with the rest of the page, but they don’t obstruct.

Lots of banners take centre stage. This really breaks the flow. You forget why you were on the page. Combined with the legal jargon-heavy copy and a multitude of options, I would describe them as coercive.

Buried actions

Placing the GDPR compliant “Reject All” button is not enough, as all the buttons tend to have the same weight.

The other aspect is where a user clicks on “manage preferences”. Pre-ticked boxes, convoluted toggle UIs, categories buried under jargon - the interfaces place too much pressure on the user. Everything is designed to make them accept, whilst making it look like they have the power to choose.

Jargon overload

The content is not friendly at any point. Not at the top level, and definitely not at the “manage preferences” level. The technical language creates asymmetry. The site understands what is being asked, but the user doesn’t understand (in most cases).

When people don’t understand what’s happening, they default to the easiest way out. In this case, it is an “Accept All” button.

Low-effort, high-impact interventions

Positioning and power

The cookie banner should never obstruct the main content, visually or in terms of usability. The user should be able to interact before choosing (not choosing = no tracking allowed). The banner across the bottom of the screen works best.

User-centric content writing and design

The copy, from the buttons to the longer passages, should clearly communicate to the user what the impact of an action will be. This will be supported by creating a neutral hierarchy (no action will be visually “louder”).

Copy should be honest

The copy alone has the power to create an environment of transparency and clarity for the user. However, the current writing style is heavily technical. Look at the difference between technical copy and user-centric copy below):

Current state (passive voice, zero clarity)

"We use cookies and similar technologies on our website to provide the service you request, and to aim to offer you the best website experience possible."

Note: Look at the Samsung screen for a scary copy example.

Desired state (active voice, honest and communication)

"We use cookies. Some are essential — the site won't work without them. Others track how you use the site to show you targeted ads."

Note: I asked Claude to take the first current state copy and rewrite it so that the user can understand what they are agreeing to.

Managing preferences should be stress-free

Content should create context, not confusion.

Jargon-heavy content creates a transparency problem. The conventional copy bakes deception into the structure, perhaps without meaning to.

Technical writing is not the problem. Forcing technical writing into a non-technical space is. “Enable enhanced website functionality and personalisation features” is an accurate description of what the Functional cookies do, for a developer or a BA. Not for Jim, who’s trying to bulk buy golf balls.

To conclude, here’s what the present copy looks like when managing preferences (this is a nice version) and also how I would write the copy.

Current state: by technical people, for technical people

Current state: human-centric copy

If you’d like to have a conversation about how user-centric copy can make tangible improvements to the user experience, you can book a call through this link:

https://calendly.com/sharmapulkitmukesh/30min or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk

At this point, they need a leaflet. An artefact that can be shared easily on WhatsApp or over email. Something that

• Is easy to read and consume.

• Clearly communicates what I teach.

• Explains the rates.

Version 1: The design vomit

I had a small concert coming up. It would be a good platform to start the marketing effort. I put together a two-pager and then generated a QR code that could be scanned to access the leaflet.

I took this to the concert. But I wasn’t happy. When someone opened it on their phone, I could see the amount of effort it took for them to read.

I was forcing them to think.

There was too much friction.

I am not a visual designer, and it showed. These were just notes that had been tidied up and made to look like a leaflet.

Version 2: Just a single page

There were two main bits of feedback from the concert about the leaflet.

• Too wordy. I could see the effort it was taking someone to read it on their phone. I could see them scrolling up and down.

• A lot of people asked about the rates. This had not been mentioned on the leaflet. I had identified it as a top requirement and proceeded to exclude it.

Note: economists base their models on humans being rational. Which rational being defines a requirement and then doesn’t implement or solve for it?

This version used context to communicate what I do. The title, logo, and the image of me and my drums let the reader know that this leaflet is about music lessons.

The body is all about the lessons and the rates.

But, once again, too much text. I still had people ask me how much I charge per lesson.

Though the right content was present, there was just too much information being shared.

I knew I needed to make another iteration, but I was stuck.

Version 3: External help

I fed my leaflets into ChatGPT. My prompt wasn’t great: “How do I improve these leaflets?”

This was one part of the response that really stood out to me as I started redesigning once more:

That’s how we consume something. The brain goes through all of these stages, and my job as the designer is to make each stage easy. I need the prospect’s brain to “slide” through these stages.

A few more prompts later, I had a clearer idea of how to improve the informational hierarchy and also reduce the cognitive load. The bot and I established that whitespace was an issue stemming from the copy. The text was too dense.

The new hierarchy makes scanning easier. The reduction in text density makes the reading experience more pleasant. The copy is better written. Fewer words, more focus on value communication.

Whitespace actually gives you the space to think. Packing too much into a limited space is not good: be it words on paper or clothes in a suitcase.

I will now be going live with this version. The copy still needs to be improved. I think bullet points will be much more effective in improving the reading experience in this case.

This journey is about making it effortless for someone to say “yes.”

It continues.

If you’d like to have a conversation using AI as a co-creation partner, you can book a call through this link:

https://calendly.com/sharmapulkitmukesh/30min or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk

There are many reasons for a recruitment agency to not advertise open roles on its website or platform. In this AI age, where a LinkedIn job posting can attract 100s of applications within hours of opening, quality control and just plain old “control” are tough tasks. AI is a tool that can help recruiters sift through volumes of applications. It is not the final solution.

For a successful recruitment agency, the quality of the candidates they place matters. They have to find one human who will successfully fit into another tribe of humans. No matter how detached we try to become from business, recruitment is tribal, human, and sensitive.

Breaking a pattern comes with risks.

Study the flow below (I have experienced it enough times to now write about it). There are multiple points of friction in the user journey that will make a potential candidate drop off and search elsewhere.

The two big drop-off points are:

• The job seeker’s inability to see roles

• Having to go off-platform to establish contact.

Simple fixes

Job seekers expect to see a “live roles” page. They expect to see who the recruitment consultant for a particular posting is. They expect proofs of trust and credibility. Without these key points of interaction, the agency is going against the norm, breaking the established mental model for a recruitment company and the recruitment experience.

The reasons for not implementing the standard pattern are understandable (as explored in the introduction). And yet, breaking away from the pattern creates disharmony for the job seeker. They are going through enough already.

There are simple fixes. It’s all about communication and expectation management. If you are in the recruitment business, here’s how this flow can be improved:

• Replace the “Live roles” page with a page called “Applying through <Agency Name>”. The page will explain the types of roles the agency hires for and the sectors it serves.

  • Ideally, support this page by either portraying the approach as a statement from the principal consultant or with a team photo. This helps build trust.

• Collect their details through a well-designed form.

  • Next, they are expecting some kind of exchange. This helps retain the pattern.
    Now they don’t have to search for a way to contact you. They don’t have to go off-platform.

  • You will have to get them to check the privacy policy and terms & conditions. As long as this is easy to do (just a tick in the box), this experience makes your service feel more legitimate. That’s just how we are wired.

• Send a confirmation email that lets them know that the agency will be in touch whenever there are suitable roles; ensure.

  • Or, if possible, establish a human touchpoint here.

You can step away from a standard design pattern. But, you must ensure that there’s an alternative in place that helps the user manage the “new experience”.

Caring for the customer

Job seekers need to feel that you will be taking care of them and advocating for them. And, just a few simple implementations can make them feel this. It makes them choose your agency over another.

The form design will be quite important. The data that an agency collects needs to be easily assessable. A generic form with 20,000 job titles and 40,000 industries won’t do. But that’s content for another case study!

If you’d like to have a conversation about successful software development as a non-technical stakeholder, you can book a call through this link: https://calendly.com/sharmapulkitmukesh/30min or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk

Thanks for reading Wireframecraft: journey of a creative! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This has been a recurring theme in my conversations with non-technical founders building a digital product. As with most things, it’s not a software problem but a people problem. The software world is human, no matter how “robotic” the odd software developer may seem. If there are two parties involved in creating something, there is bound to be a difference in perspective and understanding.

Thankfully, the problem is not too difficult to solve.

Let’s begin.

Bing! You have an idea.

Did you ever have to deal with a web of spreadsheets that gave you an idea for a digital solution? Have you had app ideas? Have you found a broken, disjointed process that you know can be turned into gold with the right software implementation? You have people suffer, you know there’s a market, and you have a solution in mind.

Well done to your solution-oriented, creatively driven self.

But your creativity is no good if it stays inside your mind. Or in your notebook. Or in a WhatsApp message to yourself.

You won’t learn if your software project actually solves problems for your target users till you can put it in front of them. That app is not going to create value for anyone if it’s not real.

So what do you do? You engage with someone who can code. A freelancer from Fiverr. A university-driven consultancy. A software development agency.

It’s go time.

“You tell us what you want. We’ll build it.”

You have found your development partner. They understand your idea. You talked with them for a full three hours. They said, “We’ve got it, we’ll get cracking”.

It’s an exciting time. Software development projects have the power to be revolutionary. They can change the way organisations operate for the better. They can help you find operational efficiency. They can help increase revenues and drive growth. I have seen this first-hand. And you are ready to see your own product create value for you and your potential clients.

But, revolutions can also go the other way.

I have seen riots kick off in boardrooms. I have seen a badly designed and implemented product create friction between previously collaborative groups. I have seen the technical and non-technical stakeholders enter a cold war that would rival the real one in intensity (thankfully, without the human cost). I have seen people give up.

Two months later, you get to see your product. It just doesn’t match your vision. You were sure that the development team had understood you. But this is not what you were going for. The changes are going to cost more. The money’s running out.

If you were building a building…

Would you let your construction partner/builder “build” without plans, architectural drawings, cost breakdowns, and all the other fixings?

No. I really hope not.

These documents won’t make complete sense to you. You are not a builder or a civil engineer. However, together these documents will help you see if your vision has been understood. You will know where the windows will be put. You will know where the doors will be. You will know where the lights will go. You need to know how much you are going to be paying and for what. You need to know when you can move in.

Construction only begins once you sign off.

The same thing applies to software (or any product development, digital or physical).

Artefacts that can help you find alignment

It is in your development partner’s best interest to make sure that they get your vision as you do. It saves hassle, tears, and relationships. You need four things:

• High-level overview of the functions (theme) and the features (epic)

• A detailed breakdown of the solution down to individual user stories

  • Depending on budgetary constraints, these could be accompanied by

    • User flows

    • Wireframes

    • Process flows

• Definition of done: how do you know that a certain feature is complete and will satisfy the stakeholders

  • Can include

    • Acceptance criteria (mandatory)

    • Validation rules

    • Edge cases

• A timeline and cost breakdown

Now, let’s dive into each artefact and the benefits it brings.

The high-level overview

Your discovery phase should yield a high-level overview of the solution that you envision.

Your development team and you will need to build a joint understanding of the requirements for the key user groups. What are their goals? What are they planning to accomplish? What steps will they take to achieve those goals?

For example:

• User: Customer (e-commerce platform)

  • Goal: Account management

  • Tasks: Create account, view account, edit account, and delete account

• User: Admin (e-commerce platform)

  • Goal: Customer management

  • Tasks: View all customers, view an individual account, add a new account and so on…

You are creating a model that establishes the relationship between the goals and how they will be accomplished. This could be in the form of a brainstorm or some kind of mapping exercise. My personal favourite is Jeff Patton’s User Story Map.

The detailed breakdown

Each one of the tasks breaks into multiple user stories, as discussed above. Now, your development partner should create a detailed description of each user story. If we continue with the “account management” functionality for the end user, they’d need to go into the details of what “create account” requires and what it accomplishes.

There are various ways of writing user stories. Here are two examples for the create account scenario:

• “As a user” style

  • As an online shopper,
    I want to create an account on the e-commerce platform,
    so that I can save my details, track orders, and shop more conveniently.

• Narrative style

  • The form asks the user to enter the following required fields:

    • First Name

    • Last Name

    • Email Address

    • Password

  • The form also includes the following optional fields:

    • Phone Number

  • The user reviews and must tick a checkbox to confirm they agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

  • The user then clicks the Create Account button.

  • If all fields are valid, the account is created, the user is automatically signed in, and they are taken to their Account Dashboard, where they can begin shopping.

  • If any field is invalid, the user is shown clear inline error messages and can correct the information before submitting again.

I prefer the narrative style; it leaves less to the imagination. But the “As a user style” can be backed up with strong acceptance criteria, and it’s faster. So, it really depends on your arrangement with the development partner.

Definition of done

Okay. You have defined the user story. You know what the user will accomplish. But what’s the test to prove this?

That’s where acceptance criteria come in. They are a testable set of conditions that must be satisfied by a user story to be considered done. Let me get straight to a light-weight example. We’ll continue using the “create account” scenario:

• Acceptance criteria1:

  • Form Fields & Requirements

    • The system must display the following required fields:

      • First Name

    • The system must display the following optional field:

      • A checkbox must be shown for the user to agree to Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy (required).

  • Validation Criteria

    • The system must not allow form submission if any required field is empty.

    • The email address must be validated for correct format (e.g., name@domain.com).

  • Submission success

    • When all fields are valid, and the user submits the form, the system must:

      • Create a new user account

  • Error handling

    • If any required field is missing, show an inline error message.

    • Errors must be written in clear, user-friendly language.

Timeline and cost

This one’s not too long.

Ideally, you need to get a breakdown of the cost by feature; just getting a total cost will not do. You are building a product, not buying a TV or a car.

You need to use the constraints to prioritise your features and establish a roadmap. The smaller the product, the faster it can be built. The more flexible your next stage can be. What’s immediately important stays, what’s not… moves to a future phase (you can use your user story map to visualise this).

For example, if you are building a SaaS product to help users with their taxes:

• You probably don’t need to spend money on “AI-powered games” before you have the basic functionality and flow sorted.

• You should spend money on strong authentication and security protocols, over “skeuomorphic file structure UI”

Constraints help you manage the trade-offs. Use this information to identify a product specification that can go live quickly and create value from day one.

In conclusion

The purpose of the artefacts is to establish a common platform for clear communication between you and your development partner. When a project invests in strong documentation upfront, it saves itself from heaps of misunderstandings later on.

By taking the time to map out your goals, articulate your user stories, and agree on the definition of done, you create a foundation that supports clarity, quality and momentum. Everyone involved in a product development project needs to speak the same language, see the same picture, and move towards the same outcome. The right artefacts ensure that everyone knows what success looks like before a single line of code is written. When that happens, you protect your budget, your relationships and your vision.

Creativity is the starting point. But structure and alignment will get you to the finishing line.

If you’d like to have a conversation about successful software development as a non-technical stakeholder, you can book a call through this link: https://calendly.com/sharmapulkitmukesh/30min or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk

#RedBull consistently pull off insane and seemingly impossible stunts. Landing a plane on a tiny helipad, on top of a skyscraper. Breaking the sound barrier by jumping from a height of 39 KILOMETRES. A motorcyclist performing a flip between two moving trucks. A pilot hanging by the side of his own plane, whilst 20,000 ft up in the air. Free-falling 220ft into an airbag.

The list is endless.

The latest in this series of adventures was Sandro Dias was skating down the side of a building. A 70m drop. Speeds of up to 120 kph on a skateboard. Almost 4Gs of force. And, a live audience.

Red Bull baffles me in every video with their sheer audacity. As do the mavericks who agree to take part in these mind-boggling stunts. I think the brief they get is “think of an activity that would kill a human, find a human who will do it and come out alive”.

It’s madness. Borderline lunacy. Pure insanity! And yet, stunt after stunt… they keep on succeeding.

Now, here’s the best part: I am about to tell you how.

Mavericks have methods

The traditional image of a daredevil is someone who makes a bold bet. Something that’s never been done. Then they just commit to making it happen.

• Annie Taylor, “I am going to roll down the Niagara Falls in a wooden barrel.”

• Evel Knievel, “I am going to jump over 14 buses on a motorcycle.”

• Alain Robert, “I'm going to climb a 508-meter-tall skyscraper, without safety gear.”

The same thing happens with Sandro and all the other Red Bullers. He sees a massive building that looks like a stake ramp and wonders, “I wish I could skate down it.” Red Bull comes along, and at the age of 50, Mr Dias skates down a building.

Crazy? Right?

But watch three or four of the Red Bull videos, and you’ll realise that talent, courage, and bravado are just the first step. Away from the main stage, these mavericks have methods. They have frameworks that allow them to dance with chaos on their own terms. Their audacity rests on rigorous systems that turn the impossible into reality.

For the rest of us, there are lessons to be learnt.

Let’s dive into it.

Takeaway 1: Isolate and master parts of the problem.

You can’t practice skating down a 70m ramp because it doesn’t exist. Same for many of the other stunts. These are things that have not been done before. And if they have, the new attempt is on such a large scale that the rules change drastically.

So, the first thing that the Red Bull team do is break the stunt down into individual components. They break their vision down and gain mastery over these smaller pieces. In Sandro’s case, the stunt broke down into: the speed that would come as a result of the 70m drop, the g-forces that Sandro would experience, maintaining balance whilst facing the speed and g-forces, and the dismount (the ramp wasn’t long enough to slow him down naturally.

For the g-forces, they put weighted vests on him as he went down large ramps. Practising the drops with the vest also helped him get a feel for the balancing game. To handle the speeds, he mounted his skateboard whilst being towed by a car at 85 mph. Finally, he’d practice his dismount by letting go of the car near his “landing pit”.

They trained each physical and psychological variable separately: speed, force, balance, and landing.

Complex problems cannot be solved in one go. They shouldn’t be. We need to deliberately separate the variables to gain control over complex systems. When Netflix was transitioning from DVD rentals to becoming a streaming platform, they spent a lot of time refining the recommendation algorithm (look up the Netflix Prize competition). The various elements had been tested individually: algorithmic trust, thumbnail psychology, and feedback. The interface only came after the behavioural logic had been validated.

Imagine if they had not isolated the algorithm and just launched headfirst. A boxing lover keeps on getting Mean Girls as a recommendation, and someone who loves classical literature keeps on getting recommendations for Japanese action movies.

Break your problem down. Isolate the components. Bite off what you can chew. Then keep biting. This is how you tackle real-world uncertainty.

Takeaway 2: Don’t simulate “optimal environments”, simulate reality

Sandro’s practice sessions were designed to make him feel the actual stunt. These were not cushy and comfortable lab settings. These were stress tests. The exercises helped him develop confidence beyond just intellect. Sandro’s mind and body knew what they would be feeling on the day.

Far too many times, we test our solutions under lab conditions and not under human conditions. The result is a successful test and a dissatisfied user. For example:

• A Figma prototype isn’t enough. What will you do when your APIs fail in the real world?

• You got great feedback from your product manager on the guide you wrote on taxation, but the readers actually find your tone to be very patronising, and are not interested in approaching your firm. What’s the point?

• The usability test scores were dazzling, and yet the customer support tickets keep on piling on and on and on. Where is the disconnect?

Emergency Services and the Armed Forces are known for the way they use simulations to practice for the real world. Dan Formosa, the legendary kitchen gadgets designer, uses the “left-handed oil test” to see how someone with a physical impairment might feel when they use a certain product. In the arts world, there are dress rehearsals with an invited audience. The performers don’t just get to experience the stage but also the presence of an audience.

The UK’s Government Digital System emphasises uncovering friction under realistic conditions. Before launching the GOV.UK Pay service, designers ran mock policy environments, usability sessions, and service walk-throughs with real civil servants — testing everything from accessibility to tone of voice. They simulated citizen experience under pressure, i.e. people paying taxes, fines, or fees, to find and remove friction.

Test for the human experience, and not the lab.

Takeaway 3: Synthesis needs trust.

No one had ever done a 70m drop on a quarter pipe. There was no precedent. Sandro had tested the individual elements. The Red Bull team had data and calculations.

But the bottom line is that there was no way to fully test the stunt.

There comes a time when the data runs out, and you have to go for it. The practice games stop, and the real match begins. And on a foundation of research and practice, you have to trust yourself.

On the day Sandro pushed off the ramp, he put his learning and experience into practice. He first jumped in at a lower height and quickly worked up to 70m. Learning, refining, and adapting with each attempt.

Pixar’s films go through years of isolated refinement (storyboarding, animation tests, voice acting, lighting, etc). Each discipline has its own metrics and standards. But the turning point always comes during what they call “the brain trust” reviews. The moment when the film is shown is rough but whole. It’s messy, incomplete, and emotional. The movie comes together through those conversations. The team’s collective intelligence works together to create a story that “breathes.”

Like Sandro, each of Pixar’s directors has to take the call and submit their creation to a brain trust. They know that the first version will suck. But if they don’t bring the whole movie together and present it for feedback, they’d never release any movie.

Stand-ups do open mics, test out their material in front of a real audience. That’s where they see if their jokes are coming together into a narrative. They get to see how their routine flows as a whole.

You have done the prep. Now, let go of it. Drop in like Sandro.

Launch, collect feedback, and iterate.

Takeaway 4: Build a system.

Sandro’s quarter pipe isn’t a one-off. Red Bull’s YouTube channel is actually full of such stunts. They have their own athlete performance centre. They have various stunt teams. Sometimes they are just sponsoring the athletes, and on other occasions, they are running the show. Whatever the situation way, they have built an environment for successful experimentation. They have combined the experience of numerous stunts into a framework that is now central to their ability to deliver the impossible.

Creativity and innovation aren’t a result of spontaneity. There’s no mad genius in a dark laboratory working continuously till the breakthrough is achieved. They are the results of a system. Red Bull, Amazon, Spotify, Apple, IDEO, Pixar, Tesla, SpaceX, and many other organisations around the world practice systemised innovation. In fact, they deliver so many successes that we stop treating them as innovators.

Let’s take a slightly different approach:

• Imagine an F1 pit stop team that just worked really fast, but without a system. I wonder how that pit stop would go?

• Imagine a surgery team that didn’t have a process for dealing with a mid-procedure cardiac arrest? Would the surgeon’s “brilliance” be enough?

• What if soldiers didn’t practice drills for cleaning their weapons under fire? Would they survive a gunfight?

In each situation, success is dependent on the quality of the system and its processes.

Build a system so that your learning can start to compound. Over time, a certain maturity develops, which makes experimentation and responsiveness part of the culture, not a one-off event.

In conclusion.

Turns out Red Bull gives you wings, and a framework for innovation that’s practical and human-centric. Here’s the recap:

• Break your problem down, and tackle the smaller units

• Test as close to reality as possible

• At some point, you will need to step away from the drawing board and into the market

• Learn from your successes and failures to build a “System of Readiness”

That’s all, folks!

If you’d like to have a conversation about systems and success, you can book a call through this link: https://calendly.com/sharmapulkitmukesh/30min or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk

Every modern website has a hero section. It is like the front page of a newspaper but, it has commercial impact on your business. It can get you leads, customers, and users. Or it can drive them away.

The purpose of the hero is create a strong first impression on the visitor. The product, service, industry, sector, audience… is all secondary. Here’s what makes a hero, a hero:

• Clear intentional communication: the visitor should be easily able to understand what the webpage is about.

• CTA (call-to-action): it invites the visitor to take a certain action. You choose the action. But, the hero section is the door to your entire website. You cannot present a door without a path to lead to.

Clear communication and a call-to-action is what we will assess the companies on. If you disagree with any of the assessments, feel free to drop a comment or write to me at pulkit@pulkit.co.uk .

Company: Tagomics

Clarity and intent (8/10): Tagomics, by the looks of it, is a med-technology company. They are using technology to improve disease understanding and diagnosis.

CTA (5/10): There’s a “Learn More” button. However, the copy could have been designed to continue communicating with the user. For example: “Ready to see how mutinomic profiling is transforming disease diagnosis? Learn more”. There is definitely space for a sub-heading.

Yes, you might have an ICP (ideal customer profile). But, you could also have customers who are a weak version of the ICP or an adjacent profile. Your ICP knows exactly what you do. But, those other profiles might need a bit more information. Your hero can either be a door that lets all those passing by see what’s inside, and make their own decision. Or it can be a door that is only opened by those who know what to expect inside. It’s your choice.

Company: 4d Medicine

Clarity (7/10): Another med-tech company. This time, we have a heading and a sub-heading. The heading is clear and the sub-heading continue build the vision. Though it does not deepen the narrative in any way. The visuals are clear and I don’t think there would be any issues on the accessibility front.

CTA (5/10): Clicking on the CTA, leads to the “Devices” section. Why not use the sub-heading to shift the conversation towards devices instead of continuing to build the macro view. It’s generic. But, the sub-heading should have been used to mention 4Degra© biomaterial…. which is evidently at the centre of their offering.

You do not leave a user journey to chance. When designing a website (or any other product) it is up to you to control how the user moves through and interacts with your product. The user only sees what you show them. Every word, every component, every element on a page must have a purpose.

Company: Salinity Solutions

Clarity (5/10): Salinity Solutions have developed a water treatment technology and the USP is energy efficiency. But, I have to read the sub-heading to come to this conclusion. A quick browse shows that technology has a very wide application, from vertical farming to pharmaceuticals. But, the highly technical headline would only be clearly understood by water scientists. The company seems to have written the headline for themselves.

I can’t say that the readability is great, the image is not helping. The overlay should be darker, to create a separation between the text and the image.

CTA (0/10): There’s no CTA. So far, this is the company that seems to be ready for customers. They have a technology with a mass application. But, they are not inviting any visitor to get in touch with them.

Simplicity goes a long way. Your hero is the start of a conversation. Who would you rather speak with? The person who seems to talking in a code that needs deciphering. Or the person who can clearly communicate their point.

Company: Native Antigen Company

Clarity (1/10): “The Native Antigen Company develops and manufactures premium quality antigens and antibodies as well as offering a range of services to the diagnostic and biopharmaceutical industries.” - no part of the hero communicates this.

The hero that you see has three “slides”. Each has a video playing in the background. They make it difficult to read the content. Add to this the rather quick transitions, which make it impossible to finish reading the sub-headings.

CTA (0/10): The three circular images have CTAs. But, they are below the fold and not prominent. My hypothesis is that this company is missing out on a substantial amount of customers just because of the design of their hero section.

If it “looks good” but, makes reading and comprehension difficult: it’s no good. Ditch it. DO NOT prioritise aesthetics over usability.

Company: Dexter

Clarity (5/10): Dexter is a big data analysis platform. The written content is clear. But, the readability is definitely compromised. The body text needs to be larger and needs a higher contrast. Compared to the NativeAntigen company, Dexter’s messaging is clear. They can now focus on the aesthetic elements.

CTA (0/10): By the looks of it, this too is an active platform. They have products ready to use. And, yet no calls to action. No invitation to book a free demo. No button to begin a free trial. A missed opportunity.

Company: Evophase

Clarity (0/10): This is genuinely exciting product. I don’t even work in manufacturing but, the potential excites me. But, the hero is a let down. The beautiful animation does not matter, if I visitor cannot figure out what the offering is.

CTA (0/10).

Feel free to visit the website yourself and validate my scores.

Intention. Direction. Outcome.

If there’s anything you create that will be seen by other people, it must be intentional. The who, what, when, why, and how are all in your control. If you are an entrepreneur or a business leader, there are a thousand things that are not in your control. The user experience that is delivered through your website and especially the hero section, is in your control. You control the narrative. Don’t give it up to chance.

Think about what you want your visitor to do and then design your copy accordingly. Any imagery or graphics should only elevate whatever it is that you are trying to communicate, and not clash with it. Craft a call-to-action that will drive the user to do what you wanted them to do.

If you’d like to take control of the user/customer experience for your product or service, book a free 30-minute consultation through this link.

Support this publication through “Buy me a coffee”!

Buy me a coffee!

BONUS: two strong heros (from Mobbin)

Use this referral link to get a 10% discount on Mobbin, the greatest library of digital products and user flows.

Origin’s copy is clear and the CTA communicates the core benefit. A perfect blanace between form and function.

This type of hero leads you to the CTA. Plain’s CTA invites you see the product in action. A free trial is a powerful thing. It build trust. But, if you offer it and don’t communicate it, there’s no benefit for anyone involved.

It was 4:33 AM. My daughter had kept me awake for most of the night. But, as I lay there with her finally asleep in the cot: my mind kept racing. I decide to read myself to sleep. My hand drifted out towards my table and brought back “The Copy Book” (Taschen). It’s a collection of essays on copywriting by some of the greatest copywriters to live. One of the contributors asks if copywriting is still relevant. So much for sleep. Now, my mind began flying. “Stop!” I said. It flew higher and faster. Will this technology, that I grew up dreaming about, take away the things that I love the most? Will it really be the end of creativity? My mind started a whispered chant:

In the world of AI, is copywriting a relevant skill? In the world of AI … … …

AI can do the research. It can write in the prescribed tone and the desired language. It understands business goals and outcomes. ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, Grok… these are all competent bots. You give the prompt. AI gives to copy.

But, competence is not enough. They cannot understand emotions. We barely understand our emotions, and our psychology. Though “humanness” is difficult to quantify or codify, we have an innate understanding of it. We experience heart-wrenching sorrow. We feel thrill, joy, and bliss. The same thing that can make us laugh, can also make us cry (and nobody knows why! I coudn’t resist the rhyme, it makes me fly high.). I think you get the point. We are easy, simple, complex, and complicated all in the same package.

An AI bot working on human solutions is as good as bringing a knife to a gunfight. An AI bot is an incredibly sophisticated LED light system (the smart kind). What’s happening inside a human brain is nothing short of a wildfire. It’s unpredictable. It’s fickle. It’s untamed.

Fight fire with fire. Appeal to humans, by being human. You can outsource a lot of work to AI, but “you cannot outsource soul” (quote: Jesse Itzler). Using words and language to capture attention, and sell your idea or point of view is a learnable process. A learnable process that can deliver magical results.

The chanting has stopped. It’s almost 7 AM. The sun’s showing signs of coming out. From my window, I can see stillness.

I need to catch up on my sleep.

It’s what we do. We design experiences. Day in. Day out.

Every time I see a “UX is dead becuase AI is here to do everything and take your job”: I experience a mix of nausea, anger, and tiredness. I express this rather complex emotion through a dry sighing laugh. Have we really just boiled down to being reactive, and short-sighted sensationalists.

A good designer works on a foundation of evidence, logic, and objectivity. So, over the next few paragraphs I am going to show you UX is not dead. It’s changing. It’s evolving, as it has always done. But, it is definitely not dead. I will also share some ideas on how experience design will change.

Previous deaths of UX

Nope. Not true. The term UX came about in the 1990s. UX is just the latest iteration of human-centered design. Here’s a rapid fire overview of the past 100ish years of experience design history.

Industrial revolution and human factors (1850s - 1900s)

What died: Craftmanship.

Why: Mass production become a thing.

A craftsman had relationship with his or her customers. A relationship that had a natural feedback loop. They could adjust their products and creations based on direct feedback from their customers.

Mass production changed this relationship drastically. No more feedback loops. To aid and improve mass production we started studying:

• How humans work and move

• How to design tools/processes are human capabilities (and limitations)

And, thus was born the discipline of “Human Factors Engineering”.

Post-War era and Ergonomics (1940s)

What died: Mass Production V0 - one size fits all

Why: We moved away from “adapt worker to tool” to “adapt tool to worker”

Basically, WW2 ramped the research into human performance. Millitary equipment releaved flaws in design. For example, the Royal Air Force studied pilot errors and came to the conclusion: "operator error” was actually “design error”. (Fitts & Jones "Psychological aspects of instrument display" (1947))

These findings fed back into the industrial word and we realised that comfort was good for productivity (Grandjean, E. "Fitting the Task to the Man" (1969))

Computer Age and HCI (1980s - 1990s)

What died: physical interfaces (sort of)

Why: Because we came with screens and GUIs!

New technologies come with their own rules of use. Software ran on computer screens. The mode of interaction had to be one that allowed you to work in sync with your device.

Filing cabinets got replaced by hard drives (once again, sort of). Letters got replaced by email. We were still doing all the same stuff… there was a just a new of doing it. “Point and click”, “drag and drop”, and “cut and paste” became a part of our vocabulary (and our lives).

Norman calls it UX (1990s)

Let’s avoid the “what died” segment here (long live Don!).

Don Norman’s work fused an element of human psychology into interface design. We expanded from looking at just interfaces to considering the holistic experiences of the users. The emotional impact of design was introduced. And most importantly, the boundary between physical and digital started to blur.

Cloud and web usability (2000s)

What died: Old software design practices (where everything was controlled)

Why: Devices started to come in all shapes, sizes, powers, and specifications. Software started to boom. The days of fixed screen resolutions, local machine installations, and known environments were coming to an end.

Everyone was getting a computer. Everyone was getting access to everything. But, having access did not (and does not) equal usability. Your product had to be designed for access and use by anyone. It had to be intuitive. It had to fast, clear, and consistent. You had to test your assumptions with users, and ship new features quickly… or lose business.

The waterfall world of software design and delivery did not support this. Agile started to flow.

Mobile and responsive design (2010s)

What died: Desktop-first design

Why: Because mobiles took off. They were smaller. They had internet access. And, they were everywhere. Users expected continuity.

The mode we were designing for changed. If a user was reading something on their desktop and then had to get on a bus, they expected to be able to continue their reading on the device in their pocket. Adaptability and responsiveness became crucial.

The UX phoenix rises again

We have Ai, automation, VR, AR, voice interfaces, IoT, blockchain, no-code development, and a whole host of disruptions coming. But, the products are still being designed by humans for humans. Experience design is not dead. It is now evolving to cater to the next wave of changes.

These are transformation opportunities. The products that we build will be different. There will be new tools. The ways of building a product will change.

But, the design principles remain constant. Our need to “get the thing done” as smoothly and simply as possible is not going anywhere.

Ai is meant to enhance our work. Robots are meant to help us work faster. The same is true for Ai and UX. These are tools. They are here to make our lives easier.

So stop worrying. Start learning and experimenting. If you don’t, the only thing that will be dying is your capacity and ability to enjoy this incredible time.

What to do next:

I’ll do my own research and experimentation and write more.

But, for now… follow Tony Moura on LinkedIn for an experienced perspective and guidance on how to incorporate Ai tools into your flow.

Follow Dr Nick Fine on LinkedIn for no-nonsense content on psychology, design, and research.

Subscribe to this publication. An audience makes an artist work harder.

Subscribe now