James Royal-Lawson
From time to time we bring you a repeat show. This is an episode from our extensive back catalogue resurfacing some of the ideas and thoughts from the past that we believe are still relevant, and well worth revisiting

Computer voice
UX podcast episode 297.

[Music]

James Royal-Lawson
Hi, and welcome to UX podcast, balancing business technology and people every other Friday from Stockholm, Sweden. I’m James Royal-Lawson.

Per Axbom
And I’m Per Axbom. And today we have Jonas Söderström. He’s been on the show and you know, all the numbers always as always James. What show number was he on?

James Royal-Lawson
32

Per Axbom
32

Per Axbom
that oh, that’s a long time ago!

James Royal-Lawson
Oh, it’s a serious long time ago. It’s it’s actually pretty much exactly four years ago. It was December 2012.

Per Axbom
Whoa, wow.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. Which is, which is a long time. I actually listened back at the episode before we talked to him this time. And we’re better podcasters now Per

Per Axbom
Yeah, our sound is a bit better than four years ago. So Jonas Söderström. He’s the author of stupid, bloody system. The English version isn’t quite out yet. I don’t believe

James Royal-Lawson
is he doing one?

Per Axbom
Yes. He’s doing what. Oh, so many people have asked him to do one. So he’s doing one.

James Royal-Lawson
I’ve I’ve been asking him for I mean, it’s to give some backstory. Jonas wrote the Swedish version of stupid, bloody system. Well, five years ago, I believe now. And it’s an absolutely fantastic book, giving stories and examples of how the stupid bloody systems that we have to use. Cause not just usability problems, but also physical stress and illness.

Per Axbom
Exactly like burnout. So and just people calling in sick because they can’t handle the systems. And he’s also written a book about web copy. And he’s writing a book about the Swedish blogosphere. So he he’s an old timer in the Swedish usability industry, or, or branch or, and I mean, he still calls himself an Information Architect, which I kind of respect. It’s also cool. He was also actually brought on to a governmental task force working with the usability and accessibility in the digital digital area, in 2012. So he’s, he’s well well respected in the field. And it’ll be really, really interesting talking to him today.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, I wonder, have things improved in the four years since we talked to him last?

Per Axbom
I seriously doubt it.

James Royal-Lawson
Let’s, let’s find out.

Per Axbom
So we’ve had our fair share of technical glitches. Just before this interview, it’s just been insane. It took us half an hour to set up which is just crazy. And both our kids called, James and my kids asking us about technical stuff at home. And for me, this is kind of symbolic for what we’re about to talk to us about is all these the complexity of it all. It’s all becoming so complex in the world. And at the same time, all this technology is so vulnerable. So what can we do about it? What’s the problem? What What should we be doing? Jonas?

Jonas Söderström
Huge question. Question.

Per Axbom
Yeah.

Jonas Söderström
Well, the first thing, I think, is that we have to be aware that we’re adding complexity at an unprecedented pace now. And we see it in the vulnerabilities. We see it in the attacks on on all kinds of networked items. There was a report the other day, that Sweden alone suffers like a 1000 attacks on vital systems each month. From from the

Per Axbom
Each month?

Jonas Söderström
Yeah, each month.

Per Axbom
Okay.

Jonas Söderström
From defence, one of the Defence agencies that monitors cyber attacks, and IT attacks. And I mean, that’s just the attacks and we we were certainly not under attack from some foreign power here.

James Royal-Lawson
Unless we class Netflix and my son watching Danger Mouse. Big attack on our bandwidth.

Jonas Söderström
Okay, yeah, but but the complexity of things makes it very, very vulnerable. And we were not really prepared for that. I think we have to rethink some of the strategies we have to rethink some of the things we take for granted about efficiency and productivity and so on. That’s, that’s one of my pet peeves right now. We don’t seem to get all that productivity out of the new digital environment, new digital ecosystems and all the new digital systems that we add that we should get, or that we assume that we should get, the productivity gains are flattening out actually.

James Royal-Lawson
Well, even it’s interest when you say that it’s even the, the way that we measure and we talk about the productivity gains, I think ignores the reality of many of these situations. Recently my, my wife got a new laptop, through work, because of course, it will be more productive for them to have new laptops, because their old laptops were on their knees, and were three years old. And there are so many windows updates, they just was losing so many hours, they’d worked out they calculated how many hours they were losing, because of the old laptops, but they don’t calculate how many hours they lose, and how much stress they caused by changing them and things aren’t syncing like they used to. You don’t know where all the settings are, because it’s three years and you change it last time. You You have to have help from your husband to instal things because the IT department doesn’t support certain things. And, and when you’re at home or working from somewhere else, it’s it’s complicated.

Jonas Söderström
It is and there’s probably a net gain in there anyway. But it’s smaller than we think is smaller than it should be. And so it’s I think that in many respects, regarding IT, we’re on sort of the curve of diminishing returns. We don’t follow the Moore’s law. Like, right, I’m in the sky, we’re we’re on another curve. And that’s the curve of diminishing returns, it’s flattening out. And that’s not strange, because that’s the thing. That’s the way almost everything behaves in the world. And it would be strange, if not digital, the digital domain, actually behaved in same way. I mean, it’s like antibiotics, you get at first he has a huge effect, he got a huge advantage from from using antibiotics, and then it’s flattens out. And if you use it too much, it’s It could even be dangerous.

Per Axbom
But it’s interesting, though, because I mean, that is one of the foremost arguments for implementing IT solutions is we are making it more efficient. And we are making people more productive. And in the end, we are not doing that. And sometimes you think of UX as the domain where people will take care of this and cater to people’s needs and understand the challenges. And it seems that we aren’t really doing that we’re actually making it worse in some cases, because we’re adding features and adding functionality and and expecting people to spend more time with our systems.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah. There is, I’ve thought a lot about this sort of a productivity paradox. And there have been people trying to explain it and try it or haven’t managed to explain it. But there are several interesting things here. We love to say that we simplify things with IT or with digital systems. That’s not actually true anymore. We did that we used to do that. I mean, when we started this whole revolution, like in the 1940s and the 1950s, when you replaced clerks and people working in the banks, where they were calculating compound interest by hand, and we replaced them with computers and machines.

James Royal-Lawson
We replaced the abacus.

Jonas Söderström
Exactly we replaced the abacus. We made enormous gains in productivity and efficiency. And we kept on getting good results for a number of years. But I would say that we’re now, in many cases, we’re now at the point where we don’t simplify anymore. We use IT we use digital systems to be able to do new things. We add things. And a lot of these things are good and useful and needed. But they’re also the case that we add things that are not really useful, not really needed, and that adds to complexity and doesn’t give them that return. And this is especially true in the workplace, which is my focus and the focus of my work. I mean, we talk about feature creep and we’ve always sort of thought of that as a feature of the engineer, of the nerd who innovates and finds out “Oh, we could add all these bells and whistles and we can add these functions too”.

What, what we have now I would argue is that we have feature it is that we have feature creep, from the organisations or within the organisations. We have different groups, different units in our organisation that will all demand their own digital system, their own digital device, their own thing. And that there we have sort of core at the core of the complexity because all these features all these devices, caters to the need of a small unit or a small group in the organisation, and but not to the the entire company, there. And so the usefulness for one small part of the company becomes a problem for the system as a whole and the organisation as a whole.

James Royal-Lawson
Isn’t one of the issues. I think as well about this, the the enterprise side of things I’ve been working with enterprise product now for the last three years. And I’ve been reflecting a fair bit on how, I’m there as a UX, a UX designer, and we’re working in Agile teams, and they’re developing, and they’ve got a backlog. And they’ve even got some kind of product roadmap, I guess that is driven by the product management, which is its turn is mainly driven by the sales and the requests and demands from customers.

So you get quite quickly and quickly into the into the sales and procurement side of things that what we’re doing is we’re developing to meet the needs of procurement to land deals. And when as you know, if you have it as a scale and UX is right at the the the end where we’re kind of talking about the actual end users, the the employees who are going to be using the system, were at complete opposite ends of this communication path, I guess, between “What do we need to do our jobs?” and “What do we want this organisation was in negotiation with sales and procurement?” And where’s product management? And where’s UX? And that’s a long distance to travel.

Jonas Söderström
Do you ever consider the interfaces of the internal users when you develop those systems? Is that an issue?

James Royal-Lawson
I mean, my focus when I’m delving I’m constantly wanted to know what the actual end users are doing and what to do field research and see what they are. And and what I find very challenging is getting time in sprints to develop the, the, the ideal, the virtual solution, which would match their needs are finding out what their actual needs are, you end up having to back down to something that fits into a sprint fit. Sometimes that fits into the next release, something that meets immediate needs as demanded by existing customers, the people who procure the systems rather than use them.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah. So that’s my, that’s my experience, too. You rarely get the time to develop really good interfaces or good systems for the internal users. For the end users. There’s so much focus on on the external side, or the the the external interfaces of things, and you leave the rest to, to your employees to struggle with and try to cope with

Per Axbom
Isn’t that the case? When that’s that’s what happened? Because that’s where I place I’m at right now in the project I’ve been working on for three years with now is that we’ve come to a place we’ve prioritised the user, like the end user of a system, but not the, of course, the staff working internally at the company. But there’s so much UX debt there. But you everyone’s talking about deliverables. And the problem with deliverables is they are something tangible. So I need something that I can see that you’ve done. But there’s so much UX debt, that we should actually go back and fix stuff. Yeah, so that people could work more efficiently. But if you do that, there’s no there’s nothing to show. No, there’s nothing to show people. What are you doing? We’re fixing that. But you’ve worked on that two years ago. But while you’re working with that now, so isn’t that the problem in essence

Jonas Söderström
That you’re not moving ahead.

Per Axbom
You’re not moving forward.

Per Axbom
It seems

Per Axbom
Yeah, in my eyes, I’m moving a lot forward because that means the system will be used maybe 5-10 years from now, if we now I’m seeing if we continue at this rate, just building new features and adding complexity, the system will be dead in two years.

James Royal-Lawson
I see a similar thing. You do the you do the kind of grand thinking with the kind of concept, the UX, how this would really work well, for the for the end user, and you present it, everyone thinks this is fantastic. And then they say, well, but we need to do something in this sprint. And then you kind of have to boil it down to something which is a, which is the minimum you could possibly do and and still acknowledge that maybe it’s possible for the user to do what they need to do. And and you get that reply, we can come back to this. And after we got some more feedbacks, more more information, we can come back to this. And we can we can redo it in a later sprint. And and I hate that because experience has told me there’s like your point out Per, that debt is gonna stay there until the product gets completely rebuilt from the ground up.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah, I actually think that we now in many cases were in the place, there we were, we should actively try to dismantle some systems. Sometimes when I want to work on a project, it’s I have this dream or when I’m awake, I think that I’m in a helicopter sort of hovering about the most complicated intersection of highways, like outside Los Angeles is something like where we have like this complete spaghetti mess. And the project manager is shouting in my ear, we’re going to make another highway go through all this. And it’s, it’s, it’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable, we’re coming to a place where our digital ecosystems are, won’t be sustainable. And we have to scale down, we have to dismantle, we have to try to get old systems out of the way, and not just piling up more and more and more on the environment that we that we present to our users, our end users and our internal users or our staff as well, I think

Per Axbom
Yeah.

Jonas Söderström
And that’s, that’s a challenge, because there is this hype now that sort of will be saved by more digtal. Digitalization will will save the day or will will make us more efficient.

Per Axbom
And how do you make a business case for dismantling systems?

Jonas Söderström
Well, actually, you could do that. Because if you just measure and the the efficiency of you would measure the efficient if you could state to your project that if we do these this to the backend, now, our staff will be 20% more efficient than it will be like no case at all. But we rarely measure, and we rarely try to find really the most efficient way.

James Royal-Lawson
I mean, it sounds it sounds obvious. It’s so simple. Dismantling and so on. But when you when you’re in a situation where I mean, you’ve you’ve got a product, you’ve maybe even got a legacy version of a product on one platform, you’ve got a you’ve got a new version of the product. Maybe that’s that’s web based. And then you’ve got existing customers, you’ve got all these existing organisations, and you’re there. And you’re saying, Look, we can see from a helicopter position that this will be so much more effective if we dismantle this and build this

Jonas Söderström
Bulldoze everything.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, you know, the colour is gonna drain out of people’s faces. Well, I know. We can’t afford it.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah.

Per Axbom
Well, you can’t afford Yeah, exactly. But you can’t afford to have it.

Jonas Söderström
It’s, it’s it’s a hell of a trap. No, I that is really a very, like, a huge challenge to to try to make sense of this tried to make make a more sustainable environment. But, and I don’t have the recipe for how to do it, but we have to start thinking about it. Really soon.

Per Axbom
And yeah, exactly. Just talking about it like this and realising oh my god, what are we doing? Because then you have to realise whose responsibility is it?

Jonas Söderström
Yeah.

Per Axbom
And I think it’s ours.

Jonas Söderström
It should be and yeah, I mean, we have we have of course, we have all kinds of different digital environments. One of the things I’ve been working with working with internets is like most internet projects, have this motto that we will replace all these systems and we will we have a special system for this and special system for that and special system for this and that and we will replace all of them. We’ll collect them in a new brand new intranet, right? Sounds good. Yes. But what happens is that when you then try to take all the small systems. You have a small system for procurement or small system for for other kinds of data, when you try to take them offline, when try to dismantle them. Technically, it’s often possible, it’s often perfectly technically possible to integrate or to have it in your new intranet or something that would replace it. But when you go to that person in the organisation who is responsible, or the group that is responsible for that system, they have invested their entire sort of identity in the organisation with that system. We are the ones who run the service portal, or anything.

Per Axbom
Right. And they’ve been at parties, people have been asking them, What do you work with? And that’s their answer. Yeah.

Jonas Söderström
So if you go to them, say, we’re going to close down your system, it’s a bit like going someone say, we want to kill your child. You’re okay with that? No, of course, not. Okay. So, so the organisation can often invent reasons for having these, I mean, all these islands, still keep them when Oh, we can’t take that we need this for that, for that. And that, as you end up, often, you end up with the new internet system. And we have the old, the old ones as well. Still there,

Per Axbom
Oh, my God.

Jonas Söderström
So it’s, and then you have probably have the old internet also online, because he can’t migrate everything over there. So the, the good intention of diminishing the number of systems and concentrating will run into or you end up with more systems than you had. At least not reaching that point of eliminating all the the old systems. So that’s what I call the feature creep within the organisation.

James Royal-Lawson
It’s an incredibly complex ecosystem. Now thinking about Andrea Resmini the other week. It’s a complex ecosystem of, of, of individuals, of systems and integrations.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah.

James Royal-Lawson
I almost say that it’s an impossibly complex for, for individuals to comprehend, it’s almost impossibly complex to to understand the the entire system and exactly like you say, Jonas here that we’ve got individuals behaving in human ways, this is my thing, and I’m used this and I like it, and I want you to change it, then we’ve got systems behaving in a systematic way. And wish I bought these together with lovely integrations, which another human probably has, has created or designed. incredibly complex.

Jonas Söderström
I mean, we did this. There was we had a check at one institution, actually just a library at one of the university hospitals in Sweden. And checking just one day in, there’s 110 employees at that library. And in just one day, they used a total number 117 different systems

James Royal-Lawson
117?

Jonas Söderström
117 During just one day,

Per Axbom
Oh my god,

Jonas Söderström
Which means that that’s not the complete list. So had we looked for two days, we would probably have seen like 130 systems used, have we stayed there for three days, it would have been 150 systems. So, of course, it’s just a couple of them four or five that are used everyday by almost everyone, or at least every other day. That’s core like systems, five, or four or six core systems. And then there are like 112, 113 systems that are used by say 10 or 15 people each day. But there’s 10 or 15 Different people each day. So you that’s the system that you come back to perhaps once a month or two times a year or something like that.

And that is the challenge for the individual because you constantly get in touch with the systems that are not very familiar to you need, that you only meet once or twice a year and you’re asking yourself, Well, How did I handle this system? What was the login here? What kind of format should I enter here and all these things that we are familiar with as you exercise that that’s the problem with with many systems when they’re not standardised and but the other hand the other thing is that when you have 117 systems and they are integrated with each other they are connect did not all 117, perhaps but many of them are integrated. And that’s I mean, that’s the driving force behind much of it development to integrate the systems. If you add the 118th system, how many possible connections do you end up with?

Per Axbom
Oo. I did this experiment, because when we were getting our second child, I was looking at how many communication points do you have between all the members of the family? And it increases exponentially, of course, essentially, whatever system you add,

Jonas Söderström
Exactly

Jonas Söderström
so you end up actually 6903 possible connections, then you have 118. And it of course, all the 118 systems will not be connected to each other. But let’s say we just have 10% of that amount, that’s 690 possible points of friction. 690 possible points where things could go wrong. And it’s like I say, it’s almost impossible for a human to to fathom to to to Yeah, to understand this.

James Royal-Lawson
Just testing, just testing if you’re gonna have an upgrade to one of those systems, the pour sole charged with the task of packaging that the upgrade and testing it’s going to be okay. I mean, it’s, it’s an endless number of combinations to test. So you’re never going to know really.

Jonas Söderström
And when you have 118 systems, each one of these system will be upgraded, somehow during one week, or some system will be upgraded during a random week. So you will have constant upgrades, you will have constant disturbances in the system. So that’s why we’re building the the, you know, the we have the what is called a Metcalfe’s law. You’re familiar with it. That’s that’s saying that the value of a network rises exponentially with the number of devices connected to the network. And the classic example is that when we have only one fax machine is worth less than we have two. Well Per and I can communicate. But it’s not really enough. We have a lot of fax machines or telephones, the value increases, and that there is some evil twin of Metcalfe’s law. And it’s that the more devices you have connected, the more vulnerable the network also is. And it’s especially true because the original Metcalfe’s law law talks about identical devices.

James Royal-Lawson
Yes, I was just gonna mention this.

Jonas Söderström
And now we have networks where you connect 1000s of different kinds of devices, like problems we had when running up to this here. So the vulnerabilities add up and the inefficiencies build up and the complexities build up in an unprecedented way. And unfortunately, I think that that a lot of people that make decisions, politicians, or leaders and companies, they don’t understand the exponential rise of the complexity, they see just we add, it should be simple, we add just one system. Yeah. And it should actually be simpler to add the 118th system. Because, like, if you’re a carpenter like that making your 118th chair would be much more easier than than making your first or second. But we’re on a different scale, and we’re on a different trajectory. So.

James Royal-Lawson
I’m gonna put it to you that the solution may be to this isn’t, when we talking about reducing complexity and pulling down systems and so on. But I suspect that that’s not going to happen, given the given how deeply embedded a lot of these systems are and the numbers of systems. So is the solution. Going back to the fax example. The reason why they said the fax machine works, is because not because you had two fax machines, but you had to fax machines following the same standards. And that works, so long as all the fax machines follow a compatible standards. So it’s really our way forward that we need to be developing and sticking rigidly to design standards.

Jonas Söderström
But that certainly would help. I mean, there is reason you would probably have 117 apps on our smartphones. And that’s not as big a challenge has been the last update on my smartphone makes me crazy. But to a certain extent, I mean, that’s an open universe so so people comply to standards and that’s a good thing because. If a new camera app is similar in interaction to my old camera app it will be easier for me to to make the transition to that one. So let’s make sense for a new competitor for new play to sort of make it reasonably similar to to interaction interaction wise, at least to to know that so we have quite a good, I think, general standard between the apps here. But

James Royal-Lawson
that’s kind of that’s conventions, isn’t it? That’s what we’re talking about now.

Jonas Söderström
It’s conventions, not formal standards. No, yeah.

James Royal-Lawson
So we’ve got a lot of established conventions that we many times adhere to, which is step of course away from being standard.

Jonas Söderström
It’s a good first step. In the workplace especially we don’t even see conventions, we see the wild wild, west of different interfaces, fixing people. And that’s a problem. If we could do that. Design wise, that would be a good thing. Certainly a way forward to at least reduce some of the problems. And we would have, we would like to have standards, of course, also for exchanging data. So but that’s even more complicated and more complex. But I would, I would argue that there are ways to simplify things. But what history tells us is that it’s only possible at times of extreme danger. It’s the thing that Steve Jobs did, coming back to Apple, and Apple being like two months from from bankruptcy. And what he did was to radically sort of erase, let’s skip all these products. Let’s take away all these products, let’s take away all these middle management and re-simplify the company.

Exactly the same thing was done in the UK, in Britain, in healthcare. A couple of years ago, there was this huge scandal in one of the trusts Staffordshire, I think, where they realised that according to the investigation, about 1000, people could have died unnecessarily, because of things like the way the organised healthcare, things like like, you had this this rule that if people came into the emergency room, they should be treated within like seven minutes. And if there weren’t enough people, too many people in the emergency room, they actually told the ambulances to drive around to come in later. So they could reach the target was extremely a management system based on targets. So these practices, sort of actually killed people. And the result of that was the health secretary in the US in the UK, with one cut of the knife sort of scrapped, you do not we cut away, I think a fourth of the numbers, the data that you have to register the targets that you have to to send into the government.

So we they tried to decrease the load of documentation and targets that had to be reached. But it’s and yet another example is the Scandinavian Airlines System, the SAS airline, which in the 1980s faced also, that kind of crisis, like months away from bankruptcy and the new boss that came in also scrapped. A lot of the administration scrapped a lot of systems actually saved the company. But it takes that urgency and takes being on the brink of disaster to to make people have the courage to transform thing as drastically as is needed. So so. But the I mean, we shouldn’t ask for a disaster to happen.

Per Axbom
I was just thinking so we should push companies more towards danger is kind of the solution and but maybe not push them towards it, but maybe help them realise that we’re already there. Yes, we’re already getting that sense of urgency.

Jonas Söderström
We were in that sense with with with the cyber attacks that we just spoke about, and like, I checked out one of the Swedish banks and their entire systems, their entire banking business has been down like every, at least once every month, the last five months. This is of course a broader challenge for UX-ers, but but it’s I think we’re we’re in a good position to to do make people aware of this. And we certainly have a lot of allies. I mean, a lot of engineers and developers also, I think, are realising this now.

Per Axbom
and more of us in UX need to realise it and take more responsibility. Be more aware that we perhaps should take away more than we add.

Jonas Söderström
Yeah.

James Royal-Lawson
Or stand firm. Don’t give in quite as often. I think it’s sometimes too easy for us to give in.

Per Axbom
Yeah. But also, it’s too easy for us to get excited about new things. And want to build new things. Yeah. as well.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. Yeah.

Per Axbom
So much food for thought. Thank you for joining us today. You’re not sure at this

Jonas Söderström
time. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me.

James Royal-Lawson
I sound really depressed down and and forlorn after that interview, in a way, is it that bad?

Per Axbom
Yeah, I was kind of Yeah. But I was kind of hitting myself to Jesus, what am I doing? What am I doing? Am I doing the right things and like, doubting everything. But of course, it’s I mean, it’s, it’s what we do, but it is hugely complex, what we’re working with. So it is, and we’re still doing the good stuff. I mean, we can’t say that we’re just doing bad stuff. That’s simple.

James Royal-Lawson
No, no, I mean, this, this, there’s a lot of bad stuff out there, as we’ve discussed, but you know, we do some excellent stuff as well. And, and yeah, bearing in mind that this is a very, very complex digital ecosystem we are working in. And we are, I suppose maybe we’re the most sensitive because we’re at the front of the pack on this one. We’re the one we’re the ones that are getting kind of, you know, hurt on the front line, or the users or ones are getting hurt on the front line. But we’re, we’re the ones who have the, the understanding, the empathy, I guess,

Per Axbom
Right. And also the ability to make something other do something about it.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah.

Per Axbom
So I mean, if we stick to our principles, we stick to design thinking. I mean, we will learn I mean, we are intent on learning enough about the user situation, then I think we’ll uncover all these things, and we’ll do better work.

James Royal-Lawson
No, it’s gonna be the group hub thing again, isn’t it. We’ll stay strong?

Per Axbom
But we’re all we’re also the ones who can who can visualise the complexity of it all.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah

Per Axbom
Who can visualise all these connections between the integrations and, and make sure that more people who have, are in leadership roles and management positions, understand these problems as well

James Royal-Lawson
Communicate. Well, and just visualise, but also, part of visualisation is communication. Yeah, we communicate some of the challenges here and the benefits, and focus on the benefits. This is this one thing that worries me with the whole, you know, saving, effectivisation, or saving money is when you start talking about reducing something, making something cost less, making something take less time, it pulls you down, as opposed to lifting you up. It’s kind of how can how can things improve? Do more of something, do things you know, better? And lift things up?

Per Axbom
Exactly. So let’s let’s just help people understand this dilemma and more people will be able to do something about it.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. Let’s hope so.

Per Axbom
Okay, visit UX podcast.com for the show notes if you can’t reach them from your podcast client. And if you’ve enjoyed UX Podcast now let a colleague or a friend know and encourage them to listen too

James Royal-Lawson
I wrote that for you Per. And I realised it reached them from your UX podcast client, didn’t you?

Per Axbom
Exactly. This is this was a new, I wasn’t

James Royal-Lawson
Do you want me to read it? So visit UX podcast.com for the show notes. If you can’t reach them from your podcast client, then… Na, It’s badly written, isn’t it?

Per Axbom
Well, you were trying to make a point there.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. The point was that you might not be able to, you might be able to see the show notes in the client you’re looking at, you might not be able to look at the client because you’re driving, but you can always get the stuff from the website. That’s kind of the point.

Per Axbom
Right? Remember to keep moving.

James Royal-Lawson
See you on the other side.

[Music]