A transcript of Episode 257 of UX Podcast. James Royal-Lawson and Per Axbom are joined by Ben Kraal to discuss Ben’s newsletter “1992” and the usefulness of revisiting research papers with a modern day perspective.
This transcript has been machine generated and checked by a human.
Transcript
Computer voice
UX podcast episode 257.
[Music]
Per Axbom
You’re listening to UX podcast coming to you from Stockholm, Sweden,
James Royal-Lawson
Helping the UX community explore ideas and share knowledge since 2011.
Per Axbom
We are your hosts Per Axbom
James Royal-Lawson
And James Royal-Lawson.
Per Axbom
With listeners in 198 countries and territories in the world from Zimbabwe to Bangladesh.
James Royal-Lawson
Ben Kraal is the director of user experience at Symplicit in Brisbane, Australia. He’s the author of several interesting academic papers, for example, the role of electronic records in disability support, and a new model for airport passenger segmentation.
Per Axbom
You might say that Ben is a person who enjoys looking at any problem with a variety of different lenses and perspectives. He’s also a person who is stuck in the year 1992. Literally.
James Royal-Lawson
I mean, there’s all these kind of websites. The bit I read at the beginning of there Per, it made me sound like in The Simpsons when it said: “you may know him from such movies as…”, and then you it was kind of like “he’s stuck in the year 1992”. So we’re building up almost like a big film blockbuster. But anyway, that…
Per Axbom
I love it.
James Royal-Lawson
…the reason we’re talking to Ben today is because he’s the writer of a newsletter that takes a look at research papers and examines them to draw fresh conclusions from a UX and design perspective.
Per Axbom
And all those research papers are always from the same year. And that year is you guessed it, 1992.
James Royal-Lawson
You see it is just like a movie.
[Music]
1992 is actually a great year, I was in my first year at York University, I was listening to Nirvana and, you know, Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine and The Wedding Present, which is my favourite band, they were releasing a seven inch single every month for the entire year. 20,000 Limited Edition. So 1992, as a lot of I know, it has a lot of good stuff in it. But Ben, you’ve got a newsletter, that’s called 1992. And I guess it’s not about my first year at university.
Ben Kraal
It could be but this one’s not. That’d be a good newsletter, though. Because I think a good newsletter is very narrowly focused. And so that’s why my newsletter, which is about the history of UX is called 1992. Because the history of UX is too big. And years ago, I did my PhD, and I had this weird experience, after doing that of trying to find something that I knew I had written about in my thesis. And every reference on the page that I wanted, was from 1992. And that was…
James Royal-Lawson
Which year did you do your PhD?
Ben Kraal
Started in the very early 2001 and finished in late 2004. So sort of four years. And it was about like, weird intersection of HCI like academic UX, and the engineering aspects of speech recognition, signals processing and things like that, and literary and sociology. And that’s why I have a bunch of references in this from 1992. Because Bruno Latour, the French sociologist of science, wrote a bunch of stuff around that era. And I was drawing on that theory to explain how people talk to computers. But so anyway, all the references on this page are from 1992. And so that stuck in my head, it’s like, Is there something about 1992? Or is it just a meaningless coincidence?
And no, last year, everyone was starting newsletters. And I was like, if I was going to start a newsletter, what would it be about? And so I remember this 1992 thing, and I remembered my team, where I work are forever getting bored with me saying to them, you should read this amazing book from the late 80s or early 90s. It addresses this exact problem we’re having with clients. And they’re like, Alright, what if I could do what if I did this, like history of UX, but kept it so narrowly focused? That it was, like achievable, that it didn’t run away from me that it would have an end? Or that it would mean that they couldn’t become this Hydra headed beast. So it’s like all things like it’s a little strategy for newsletter, how do you know what your newsletters about? It’s only about things that are from 1992 that in some way are tangentially related to user experience. Is it from 1993? It might be interesting, but it’s not in the newsletter.
Per Axbom
And it really does work. Because a couple of weeks ago, James sent me the link to one of your newsletters, and he said, Have you read this from Ben Kraal he only does 1992. I was like, of course, that intrigues me, of course, that I want to read the paper. I want to read the article. And I went in and I read, it was the one about Lotus Notes. And it’s like, this is wonderful. And it’s why is it so appealing? Why, why? Why is that so appealing to us? reading about something that happened? How long ago is it?
Ben Kraal
29 years ago.
Per Axbom
Oh shit, Jesus.
Ben Kraal
I did. I did think about that, just before we started recording. So I already had done the math. I think it’s appealing. There’s someone who’s whose real blog that I’ve read, he does newsletters too now. Venkatesh Rao has a fantastic blog called Ribbonfarm. And he had this generations of management post that he had written. And he’s like every period disease, change generational changes in management, and the military thought leads business thought in management. So wherever the military is at now, (this is his argument), that is one generation ahead of where the where current best practice or cutting edge business management is.
And 29 years is like a generation. So I think the way that maybe UX designers think about their practice, lags what was happening in the cutting edge academic literature by about a generation, because if I was writing about stuff from 1992, in my thesis in the early 2000s, then I would have started teaching that to undergraduates in like the early 2010s, like just before just after that. So now those people are five to 10 year out practitioners of UX. And that’s the most current theory that they learned. And they’ve taken that with them from their tertiary study. So it’s like, okay, maybe this is why this is what’s happening.
And then, like, the secret of the newsletter is I say, it’s about you know 1992 newsletter about UX in 2020/2021. It’s actually about like business, and about the weird choices that businesses make about technology that UX practitioners get asked to fix. And so that’s why the Lotus Notes paper is so interesting, because you read my summary of it. And if you if you want to it’s a beautiful paper, you can read the Wanda Orlikowski paper Learning from Notes, she is talking about digital transformation. And if you work in UX, it’s possible you work in an organisation that’s doing digital transformation, or if you’re a consultant, you’re probably helping organisations that say they’re doing that. And all the things she is talking about, in this 1992 paper, like when it was weird for these people she’s talking to to have computers on their desk all the time. It is still the stuff that’s happening now.
And so, to a degree one reason I wrote this one is like I’m so annoyed that we haven’t managed to get further past what Wanda Orlikowski was talking about in 1992, with digital transformation, understanding what it means to buy a big software suite and dump into an organisation and have this belief that it just sorts everything out. And actually, you haven’t understood the work people do. You haven’t understood how they imagine what the software does. You haven’t put any effort into lining those things up. And then you wonder why it’s failing. And she kind of addresses some of that in this, like 12 page, academic paper.
James Royal-Lawson
And other aspects of just that paper or the other your write up of it is the insights that it gives you, and reflections about the methods and benefits of research. I mean, you point out the number of quotes that she has in the paper from the time before Lotus Notes. So they’re rolling out Lotus Notes in this organisation, and she interviews people before they’ve started the rollout.
Ben Kraal
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
And asks them what they think about this thing that’s going to be dumped on them as you said.
Ben Kraal
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
And they’re hilarious. The ones you’ve included.
Ben Kraal
They’re hilarious the ones. One of them is, what did she say? “these remarks made by a few individuals a few weeks before notes was to be installed on their computers. ‘All I know is the firm bought it, but I don’t know why.’ ‘It has something to do with communications.’ ‘I’ve heard that it’s a hard copy of email. But I’m not clear about what it is exactly.’ ‘It’s putting word processing power into spreadsheets.’ ‘It’s a network. I don’t know how the network works. Where does all this information go? After I switch off my machine?'” And this is the best one, this is my favourite, and she leaves it to last. “It’s a database housed somewhere in the centre of the universe.”
James Royal-Lawson
I think it’s fantastic.
Ben Kraal
And this is 1992.
Yeah, it’s 1992 and they’re talking about the cloud.
Per Axbom
Exactly.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, exactly talking about the cloud without realising it. But then there’s the whole insight into human understanding of technological shift. And when you make that jump, and so rewarding to see kind of like that aspect of research how it can show itself off in these papers.
Ben Kraal
But I really like that there’s 11 quotes in that section, I didn’t read, I read a lot of them, I didn’t read all of them. It’s a weird choice as an academic or as a researcher in UX to just stack that many quotes.
Per Axbom
Right.
Ben Kraal
Like, if we were doing a report at work, we might do two or three, to illustrate a point. Sometimes, on a journey map, you might put one quote, per, like step that you’re trying to go, this is what someone said about this is the illustrative quote about that step. And she’s like, nope, 11. And it’s just like that piling on of it, it just go, Okay, I get it. And then it keeps going, you’re like, oh, and then that it’s a database in the centre of the universe as like this little kicker, because it’s a choice she made to put that one last in that list. And it’s like, right, people really have no idea what this is. And like, she’s a management researcher, she’s not in UX or anything like that. So you imagine her playing this back to the leadership of this global consulting firm that she’s in? I’d like, what would they think about this, because I’ve done that when I was an academic played this sort of thing back to management, and then also played this sort of thing back to clients now. And it’s really powerful, but they also have to be ready for it. They also have to actually be receptive that this counts as input.
Per Axbom
That’s something we’ve talked about a lot about, actually, when students ask us, “how do I convince people to understand what the problem is”, it is actually quotes, quotes are so great, but even if you can then play back recordings of interviews, that is absolutely fantastic. And having video of people clicking in the wrong place. That is what actually gets people to understand there’s something wrong going on here with our product, which they weren’t aware of before.
Ben Kraal
Yeah.
Per Axbom
But the kicker here, of course, is I agree with the frustration, there’s so much frustration and realising that we had the same problems back then we have the same problems today. And as you mentioned, in several of your newsletters, the papers actually don’t give you the answer to what you should be doing and how you correct it, they identify the problem, usually, but you do some work in actually trying to figure out So what does this mean for today? So what is it that we’re learning really?
Ben Kraal
Yeah, and I do that, because I think the paper is interesting, I think, you know, academic papers are interesting of themselves. But I spent four years learning how to read them, and then another 10 years, as a practising academic using them as input to my own research, but also teaching undergraduates and graduate students how to read them. So they could use them to make choices. Because they’re an academic paper or a book chapter or something like that is a really specific kind of, it’s a specific genre, and it works in a particular way. And its job is not to give you the answer as a practitioner. One of the other things that I’m trying to do is show you how to do that yourself. It’s like here is a paper. It seems to be about this, but it’s actually about this.
Let me show you how I make that connection. So that next time if you as a practitioner, come across something in the academic literature, you can go “oh this paper says It is about this one thing. I found it because I have this question, maybe this paper is going to help me think about this other thing”, like the Lotus Notes paper, this paper, the 1992 paper, she doesn’t quite get into this, there’s a follow up from 1994, I think, that she really digs into this idea that she calls, I keep saying she: Wanda Orlikowski, she called in the ’94 paper, technological frames. And it’s an application of this idea of frames that she uses to unpack how people have different points of view about what technology does. And that as a concept, if you have that as a concept that you can think about as a practitioner, then you can do interesting things with it. So it gives you more vocabulary for having more sophisticated ideas.
And that’s why academic papers are interesting, because someone else has done the hard work of inventing the new concept, all you have to do is go, “I understand that concept”, and go and use it to explain the next thing to clients. And when I do that, and when my team do that, clients think that we’re really, really smart. And it’s like, No, we just stole someone’s idea that they had 15 years ago, and used it to explain why your customers don’t know where the button is on this app. Like that’s sort of what it’s for. And so I forget what I said, Oh, this, this paper is actually about digital transformation. Because when organisations like an organisation will buy, you know, a large customer relationship management suite from a place that has their own fancy building somewhere in North America. The technical leadership of that organisation will go brush their hands, problem solved, we now have a world class CRM.
And then it falls down to a level in the organisation where they have to go, “well what is this? And what are we supposed to do with it? And why did we spend $20 million on this? And how does it work? And how do we change what we do now? And should we change what we do now?” Then we as UX consultants, the company I work for is more sort of like design strategists, rather than, like, you know, fix the website, UX consultants. We get to a point with those clients where they are frustrated with us because we can’t solve their problem for them immediately, but ultimately frustrated with themselves, because how did they get six months into a project, realise they need some consulting help, and still can’t solve their problem?
So I need a way to tell, in this case that sort of client, the story about well, how did you get here? And how do you get out of this problem. And that’s like, right, you’re here because this choice was made. And the way you get out of this is you stop, and you think a bit harder about the work you’re internally doing and the work your customers do, how that gets lined up. And then you look at what this suite you bought can do. And you use it to fill over some of initially those pain points. And then you can start thinking about what new interesting things you can do. But you can’t change the world without first understanding where you’re coming from. And so that’s, I think, all wrapped up in this paper. Sorry, James.
James Royal-Lawson
No, I was just reflecting again, about how we’ve joked over the years about how kind of like nothing is new, you know, especially when you’re from a certain generation of UXer, then, you know, there have been iterations of the same kind of things, things pop up quite regularly. They just get not necessarily rebranded but they get reinvented a little bit. So it’s interesting with 1992 again, that it’s from a time where it predates cloud, as you mentioned earlier, it predates internet as we know it. In around that time, as I remember, I think it was the year after the first time I opened up a browser and started looking at stuff from the university kind of lab, so maybe two years later, and mobiles as well were still in kind of like suitcase era of mobiles. Yeah. But like you’ve pointed out that the underlying essence of our understanding of humans and our interaction with technology, that’s that’s still very, very relevant. Very, very similar. It just needs to be reframed.
Ben Kraal
Yeah. And the way that we do work like what office work looks like still looks the same. Go to, you know, in the before times, you went to a place you sat at a desk, you made something you gave it to someone else, they made something else from that and at some point, you know, the world was different or widgets were produced. Or insurance policies were sold. And we’re still I think we’re still building technology for the way that world worked. And especially like business technology. So we’re still building business technology with the idea that people work by themselves. And their work forms the input or output to someone else’s work. And that relationship is clear and unambiguous and has a direction. And most of the time these days, a lot of people’s work is collaborative. It doesn’t have a beginning and an end, you don’t finish your thing and give it to someone else. And then on top of that, you have to do the work of explaining why what you did is work.
James Royal-Lawson
The justification side of things.
Ben Kraal
Yeah, yeah. And, like, that’s another 1992 paper, taking articulation work seriously. But the concept to go back to your like, we reinvent things, the concept of articulation work comes from the American anthropologists of work, Glaser, and Strauss, who came up with that concept in the late ’60s to explain what nurses were doing at shift handover. So [Liam Bannon and and Kjeld Schmidt], appropriated articulation work in 1992, to explain how technology workers were working. But that’s a concept from, 55 years ago. And it’s still not worked out properly today, because every time you update a JIRA ticket, or write down how you change the design system in someone’s Confluence instance, that’s articulation work. And that’s still to go back to like the Lotus Notes paper.
When you buy JIRA, or when you buy Confluence, not to pick on those, but those are only just understanding how that kind of work happens. And they’re not quite up to what the pattern of that work really looks like when you do it. And so that’s why, JIRA is supposed to be the place you go to find out what work you need to do next. But any organisation that runs JIRA, if you start new, for the first couple of months, you’re forever having meetings with people about “your JIRA tickets aren’t right, and we need you to do them this way”. And then, if you’re filling out your tickets or responding to them, you will also then have to have conversations with people about “what does this mean? And I thought we resolved that. And isn’t this over here?” Because there still needs to be articulation work around the articulation work. All of this, like UX inside big enterprises is so often about, how the work happens, rather than, do you know where to click the button, which is what customer facing UX is about, “we moved the button here, and we made $100 billion for the company”, like maybe you did, but internally, “we moved the button here, and this one weird internal piece of paperwork got processed half a second quicker”, is a different story to tell.
Per Axbom
And this is what I’m taking away from your newsletters is that I’m realising more and more, this focus that we have as UX professionals. The problem often is that I mean, I speak to students and they ask me “So what UX books should I be reading?” and they forget, I tell them “You should not be reading UX books probably. You should be reading books about other things, because that is what helps you understand human beings and how the world works”. Whereas when we apply the same tools, always we always look at, we get tunnel vision, we look at this specific problem, and we solve it we make it more efficient within that small frameset and completely disregard how it affects everything around it the environment, and other things break down, and you may not even realise that you caused that because you made something successful within this small tiny area.
Ben Kraal
Yeah. There’s a famous book addressed to industrial designers and it starts “there are professions more damaging to the world than industrial design, but only a few”.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
Ben Kraal
And Mike Monteiro quotes that, and then he goes on to talk about UX designers and visual designers. About how the choices they end up having to make impact on people’s lives in unanticipated ways. So there’s a lot of that, in what I’m trying to think about, with, like, going back to these papers from 1992. And in some ways, I’m sad, I picked 1992. Because there are other great years to talk about. But there’s good things in 1992 as well.
James Royal-Lawson
Like any good series, it always has the second season, the third season. I don’t think you’re completely 100% locked into 1992.
Ben Kraal
Sometimes I sneak in, like “there’s also this other paper that’s about this that you should also read”. That’s not 1992. So I’m hedging my bets already.
Per Axbom
So what paper’s next?
James Royal-Lawson
At time of recording I think you’ve done about eight.
Ben Kraal
Oh, God, embarrassingly not even eight, I think six.
James Royal-Lawson
No, there’s Eight, eight in the archive.
Ben Kraal
Oh, there you go. There’s one that’s not a paper that I can’t figure out how to write. But this is a good place to talk about it. Do you know the Gartner hype cycle?
Per Axbom
Yes.
Ben Kraal
Like a hockey stick graph. That comes from a weird management information systems magazine article from 1992. And he kind of just hand waved his way around it. And he’s like, “maybe this would be a way to think about”, but it’s not about Gartner hype cycle is this all encompassing thing about technology. And I think it’s only on a podcast. It’s not written down forever. I think this is addressed in like an MIS magazine. And he’s talking about enterprise systems and like large scale databases, and it’s 1992. So a lot of this stuff is probably still running on, like mini computers that have their own climate controlled room. And he’s like, “here’s how I think about this” and all the stuff on his hockey stick chart. Like weird old fashioned mainframe operating systems about where should you position your company, IT strategy about when you’re going to move to this next cool operating system you’ve probably heard about. And then Gartner has taken that and done weird things with it. So that’s one thing, you know people talk about Design Thinking is for solving wicked problems?
Per Axbom
Yeah.
Ben Kraal
So there’s a paper called ‘Wicked Problems in Design Thinking’ by Richard Buchanan, which is from 1992. And wicked problems, dates to 1976. And Richard Buchanan, is a theorist of design. And people keep talking about this to him as an academic in 1992. He’s like, “what would that mean?” So I think that’s the next one. But that is, I’ve read that paper, I must have read that paper 20 times. Every time I read it, I get something else out of it. Every time I read it, I get more convinced it’s not actually about how design thinking is for solving wicked problems. I think it’s about (spoilers for the next issue of the newsletter), how trying to explain what design thinking is, is a wicked problem.
Like it’s a problem that has no stopping rule. And the more you understand it, the more you realise your previous understanding was wrong. And so that’s a bit meta, because that’s just what I said the paper is about, and it keeps changing my understanding of this. And I’ve met Richard Buchanan, at an academic conference pre drinks thing. And all he wanted to do was talk about the band that was playing jazz at this drinks thing. And I couldn’t ask him about the paper because by then the paper was already 18 years old or whatever. But he is not a designer. He is a rhetorician. His PhD is quite literally, in ancient Greek philosophy and about how argumentation works. And so I was like, “oh, there’s like, deep magic in how this paper is structured”.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
It’s another layer.
Ben Kraal
Yeah. And so my problem is, like, you know, eight issues or whatever, to read the paper. Think about it. Try and summarise it in, I always set a goal of 1000 words. I always end up blowing way past 1000 words, and then say what I think it means today. And so they end up being two thousand, two and a half thousand words, and how am I going to talk about this? And then we’ve just been busy at work, and I haven’t had a chance to sit down and read old academic literature at the moment, but that is probably the next one. Because now I’ve promised it here. I have to do it. It’s good to make commitments for things.
James Royal-Lawson
It is. Well, I’m really looking forward to that one. I’m really looking forward to more papers from ’92. I’m looking forward to a second series.
Ben Kraal
I have a big long list, but that’s the first one that I can think of.
Per Axbom
Fantastic. I’ve never met anyone who’s made me more interested in reading academic papers now. So thank you for that.
Ben Kraal
We’ll suck you into a PhD at some point Per.
James Royal-Lawson
Oh yeah. Thanks very much Ben.
Per Axbom
Thank you.
Ben Kraal
Great, thank you for having me.
[Music]
Per Axbom
I have to say I feel almost jealous of Ben for actually deciding on this niche. Because he talks about it as, it sounds so easy when he says, you just have to choose that niche. And it’s easier to work with from that, and people become more interested in it because it is a niche. But at the same time, I would feel so afraid of it. So I feel like it’s really brave, I feel so afraid because it would be so constrained. And in the end, he actually does say “I’m sad I picked 1992 in one way”, but then he came up with all these papers, and you realise what whatever thing you pick, there will be a never ending supply of ideas to pick from.
James Royal-Lawson
I almost want to start a parallel pod Per called 1992. Where we just talk about 1992. I mean, this is what 360? Let’s think about it now. 366 days, or how many days are there in a leap year? Anyway, there’s there’s a lot of days in that year to go through. So you could pick one day per episode.
Per Axbom
Yeah. You just need backing.
James Royal-Lawson
Exactly. Do it weekends. But I think it’s really inspiring, really interesting that whole thing of recycling or looking back at old ideas, I guess you could say, old research and using that artefact, to generate new reflections, new understanding in modern terms. That’s a wonderful thought exercise.
Per Axbom
But also that everything modern, comes from old ideas, all ideas are old, really, it’s just putting them together in new ways. You just need to search for those old ideas. And I think it’s really scary. The thought of forgetting the idea. So what he’s doing is also really important in in helping us reach back and understanding that the ideas have been around for a long while and there’s so much to pull from, to learn
James Royal-Lawson
Yes, that whole thing, where they were onto something, but perhaps the time they were in didn’t allow them to develop that thought fully because it was too early to have the thought.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
So by revisiting them now and looking at them again and putting them in, a framing them from a modern perspective, you can maybe pick up those ideas and actually develop them which is the whole way in which research and science and this kind of stuff works, isn’t it? I mean, we talked with Genevieve Bell about some of the ideas that modern technology we use now is 60 years old or more. It completely ties in with that.
Per Axbom
And I just love this concept of actually, having this paper help me think about this other thing I’m working on. Because quite often I’m sitting and banging my head against the wall, just trying to figure something out. But if I just step outside of that moment, read something completely different. And see if I can apply that concept or idea to what I’m working on right now. I usually find something, it’s just it doesn’t seem related. But it almost always is related. I can always take some piece of thinking from that other idea and apply it to where I am right now.
James Royal-Lawson
It’s kind of like fresh eyes but inverted so keeping the same eyes but you’re looking at something else. It’s a new pair of eyes looking at the same thing.
Per Axbom
Exactly.
James Royal-Lawson
But I do find the whole 28/29 year cycle thing really, really interesting too. If we map out the timeline that Ben was working on here: he in his work for his PhD in 2004, he referenced papers in 1992. He then went on to teach some of the ideas and concepts that he’d worked on in 2010 to students who then graduate and start working towards the end of that decade. So the ideas or research that was surfaced in 1992 is starting to enter the workplace at the back end of the teens of this century.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
So that’s a hell of a long, that’s a 28/29 year cycle at least to get these research ideas out into something, into the workplace.
Per Axbom
Yeah, it really provides a bird’s eye view of thinking around how long things actually do take? Because often we are so frustrated when working with technology. We’re wondering, “why is it this taking so long?” I read this thing that happened. I mean, we’ve known we’ve known this for so long. But the thing is, enough people have to know about it for it to actually pick up speed and become something.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, stealing old ideas and using it to explain new situations. So recommended listening this time. I mentioned then in the outro, one of the episodes, but I think there’s two that are really relevant to this, and two reasonably recent ones, Episode 248, which was Evolving organisations with Ola Berg.
Per Axbom
Oh, yeah, that’s a really good one.
James Royal-Lawson
And given that we’ve talked so much about Lotus notes and enterprise UX and internal systems, and I think some of the organisational ideas that Ola had in episode would be really useful. And the second one I’ve already mentioned was Genevieve Bell, and Episode 249, Digital anthropology.
Per Axbom
That’s one after the other, 248 and 249.
James Royal-Lawson
Exactly. And with that, we really do go into this whole kind of like recycling ideas or stuff we’re using now is from like decades and decades ago. So both really interesting episodes. If you haven’t already listened to them, listen to them now.
Per Axbom
Thank you for spending your time with us links to notes and a full transcript for this episode can be found on uxpodcast.com if you can’t find them in your pod playing tool of choice.
James Royal-Lawson
And remember, you can contribute to funding the show by visiting uxpodcast.com/support or email us and volunteer to help.
Per Axbom
Remember to keep moving.
James Royal-Lawson
See you on the other side.
[Music]
The Invisible Man goes to the doctor.
Per Axbom
The Invisible Man goes to the doctor.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, and the doctor says “I can’t see you right now”.
Per Axbom
Okay.
James Royal-Lawson
You don’t get it do you? Do you not get it?
The Invisible Man goes to the doctor?
Per Axbom
I did get it.
James Royal-Lawson
Oh, you did get it.
Per Axbom
It’s awful.
James Royal-Lawson
Well it is awful, but I laughed.
This is a transcript of a conversation between James Royal-Lawson, Per Axbom and Ben Kraal recorded in January 2021 and published as episode 257 of UX Podcast.