A transcript of Episode 260 of UX Podcast. A Linkshow. James Royal-Lawson and Per Axbom discuss articles about information architecture and following the principles that our brains expect from physical experiences, plus smart questions to ask in job interviews.
This transcript has been machine generated and checked by Lara Portmann.
Transcript
James Royal-Lawson
This podcast is funded by me, James, and Per together with contributions and help we get from you, our listeners. You can contribute, too: Any amount you’d like, however often you’d like, or by donating your time. Just go to uxpodcast.com/support.
Computer voice
UX Podcast, Episode 260.
[Music]
James Royal-Lawson
Hello, everybody. Welcome to UX Podcast coming to you from Stockholm, Sweden. We are your hosts, James Royal-Lawson
Per Axbom
and Per Axbom.
James Royal-Lawson
And we’re balancing business, technology, people and society, with listeners in 199 countries and territories in the world, from Martinique to Sint Maarten, which actually isn’t that far. Because they’re both in the Caribbean.
Per Axbom
But how far is it?
James Royal-Lawson
Just under 500 kilometers.
Per Axbom
Oh, you knew I was gonna ask.
James Royal-Lawson
Yep. If you took a helicopter.
Per Axbom
Okay.
James Royal-Lawson
Which I suspect you’d have to because it’s two islands, one of them’s Dutch, but those territory– one of them is a French territory.
Per Axbom
Huh?
James Royal-Lawson
The UX Podcast geography show.
Per Axbom
And today, we have a link show. And I’m really looking forward to these. Because it’s kind of unpredictable. We do it all in one take. We have two articles lined up for you. We’ve chosen one each. And we will be delving into those about a quarter of an hour each and we don’t know what will happen. So first one out is Websites are not living rooms and other lessons for information architecture by Sarah Barrett. She’s a principal research and IA manager at Microsoft in Seattle, Washington and a really smart person I had the pleasure of meeting at World IA Day in Switzerland a couple of years ago. She’s @documentalope on Twitter.
James Royal-Lawson
I didn’t know you’d actually met her. The second article is Things I wish UX candidates would ask me during interviews by Nati Asher. She’s the product design lead at Buildots in Tel Aviv, Israel. She’s @ashernatali on Twitter, but it doesn’t look like she’s active there anymore.
Per Axbom
Right. “Websites are not living rooms and other lessons for information architecture”. So this article by Sarah, I loved the intro because it made me think so much just by that opening, so I’m actually gonna read it out. “Wherever you are, please take a moment and think if you can remember where your grandparents kept their telephone. Close your eyes if you need to. Where was your high school locker? Where is your can opener in your house right now? Now, where is your most recent copy of your resume on your laptop?”
And I think that’s such a good example. And instantly, it made me think of all the times people call me up, and they have a computer problem. And they asked me to help them of course. And usually I can, but I can’t without seeing the interface in front of me, it’s so hard for me to guide someone on a computer without actually seeing it. So this is the general point that Sarah is making that we think in this spatial way as human beings. And the way most interfaces are built up, we’re actually not helped as much the way– we’re not helped in the way that would help us the most as human beings in thinking about the spatial issues that would help us remember how to navigate and how to find things and how to remember where things are.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, I love the intro para as well, you know, straightaway you’ve gone– I’ve gone wandering off thinking about to my grandparents’ house back in the– probably the 70s.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
And where that phone– I know exactly where that phone was and probably even what color it was and where it was placed. So that– the way we have physical objects and their special memory of them. Or in the case of the locker. I actually can’t tell you exactly which one was my locker, you know, at the end of my school years, but I know the route to it. Because it was a very regular route, it was something I did several times a day so I can see myself walking to that spot.
Per Axbom
Right, exactly.
James Royal-Lawson
It’s a regular route and– or maybe in the case of the can opener, I don’t use a can opener very often anymore, but I know where it is exactly. Probably because of a regular awareness of its presence inn the drawer where it is. I use other things in that drawer. So even though I don’t use the can opener itself, I’m constantly reminded of its presence. It’s got a fixed home, it’s visible to me. So these, these are all interesting aspects. And you compare that then to the CV side of things, that file on, in my case, Dropbox rather than on the laptop itself. You don’t, you don’t have that same way of visiting it or of being reminded about it or it reminding you of its presence.
Per Axbom
Exactly. And the only way I learned to deal with it as I’ve gained more experience and am growing older is that I have a naming convention, which allows me to find it by a search.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah.
Per Axbom
And then Sarah goes on to to explain there’s a regular fallacy here, because we know that we can easily navigate physical spaces. And then it’s so appealing and enticing to actually use something that looks like a physical space as the user interface, which many of us will know as skeuomorphism, where we actually mimic what something looks like in real life to end-use it in the digital space. And this goes back and forth in fashion, she mentions. Someone declared it as dead, I think five years ago, and then you see it creep back. And she has the example of Microsoft Bob. And I wasn’t familiar with Microsoft, Bob at all, actually.
James Royal-Lawson
Me neither, actually.
Per Axbom
And when I read on Wikipedia, actually they only had it for one year, Microsoft had that for one year. It was a way of of using– really replacing the desktop interface with something looking like a room. So–
James Royal-Lawson
–when was it from? Was it from the 90s, or later?
Per Axbom
Yeah, 94 to 95 is when they had it.
James Royal-Lawson
I see, I didn’t have Windows back then.
Per Axbom
Yeah, that makes sense.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah.
Per Axbom
Oh, yeah, I probably didn’t either. I maybe still had my Atari. Wow.
James Royal-Lawson
I was still on RISC OS.
Per Axbom
So they thought that would make sense to people. And I realized when I saw that that I actually I think I tried even mimicking something like that myself. There was a trend at some point where you actually changed the wallpaper of your desktop. And you could place out the icons on different places on that picture, of course. So whatever you chose, like a bookcase, you could put the desktop icons in a bookcase, which made it look pretty cool. It looked cool, but it really didn’t make sense.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. And she mentions about kind of a radio app, if you made it look like a radio, everyone would be kind of lost. But when she wrote that I went “uuuh”. I got a little bit nostalgic and excited, because it made me think of back in the days when everyone had Winamp. At least Windows people. You had Winamp and you could set skins for Winamp. And you know, you’d have like a radio-looking skin for your Winamp. Winamp was an mp3 music player on Windows.
Per Axbom
Yeah, exactly. Well, the thing is with this stuff, I mean it’s not immersive enough. So you have to make shortcuts. And she has the example where there’s two doors in that space that don’t make sense at all. And just me looking at that picture, so the letter writer, I guess that’s sort of the word processor, is on the coffee table by the sofa. And that’s probably not where I would sit writing a letter. So you have to make all these connections that probably aren’t true to you perhaps. Anyway, it didn’t work. It obviously didn’t work. They killed it after a year. She calls it laughable. It’s kind of cute. And I can see where these things– they pop up again and again. Because people think of gamification, they want it to be fun. But in the end, fun probably isn’t what we’re after when we’re after actually finding our files.
James Royal-Lawson
That is probably the core of it.
Per Axbom
I’m actually thinking now of when we’re thinking of spaces how sometimes when we’re having dinner, my wife will look up from a plate and look at me and ask well, do you notice anything different in this room? And I have to look around and see, well, are the curtains changed? Is there a new plant near the window like it’s–
James Royal-Lawson
She got a haircut! It’s like that.
Per Axbom
It could be something like that as well. But I now think in physical space that usually is quite difficult actually to keep track of. But when you move in the space, that’s what makes it different. Because if you knock into something, because you usually move in that space, of course, you’re going to notice something.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, but she gives the example of Google Docs in the article. This is where interacting with a Google document, it’s– they surface different options wherever you’re viewing it from, on the desktop or on mobile.
Per Axbom
Right, yes.
James Royal-Lawson
And that’s really interesting. And it ties in with what we’ve talked about over the years with how you shouldn’t hide stuff on mobile. You know, when you do the– with responsive, we started to kind of, like, narrow viewports. And then we just bunged everything in hamburger menus and you know, didn’t suddenly worry about what actually was useful and required to complete certain tasks. And that seems to be a bit that kind of classic mistake that they’ve done there. But for me, it made me think about how we’ve forgotten the fact that we have an object, that the document is an object in our head. And that object then is something we interact with. And we have expectations about our interactions with that object. So whether you’re doing that through a mobile interface, or a desktop interface, it’s the same object.
Per Axbom
Exactly.
James Royal-Lawson
And that to me is a key point here that we forget, you know, it’s not just an interface to work with documents, the thing that you’re presenting is that CV and that CV is an object, we have expectations with what we do with that object.
Per Axbom
I need to be able to manipulate it in the same ways, wherever I am.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. Our expectations of manipulating– or its presence, how it is where it is, I mean that is all connected to that object.
Per Axbom
Yeah, exactly. And she ends the article with some tips on how to make our digital experiences more mappable, according to our existing skills. Four things, and she’s actually going to be adding this to a series of articles, so each of these will become its own article.
James Royal-Lawson
That’s so interesting that you– I didn’t actually notice that when I was reading it, and I actually wrote in my notes that the list is really interesting, but feels like it could go a bit deeper and expand on it, it’d be good to have a series of posts about it. It actually is. Well, that’s really good. I’m pleased now.
Per Axbom
That’s perfect.
James Royal-Lawson
So what is the list?
Per Axbom
So the first one out, number one, is understand your scale. And this is about the difference between– and she gives the example of a tabletop experience, where you do something perhaps on your desk on your physical desk, and that’s different from a landscape scale experience, where you’re perhaps playing an outdoor game, soccer or something. And digital experiences also come in both scales.
James Royal-Lawson
So this is like zooming in and zooming out. Are you kind of like working on a small space or are you kind of looking at something huge.
Per Axbom
That’s a really good point. Because, I mean, when I started out describing how people call me, and they need help with some computer problem, and I need to help them, that actually made me think when you said zoom in and zoom out that made me think I need a way to describe the bird’s eye view of where they want– they need to enter and then I need a way to describe the stairs to go where they want to go, and then I need a way of describing the details of the button they need to click.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, you have to navigate both those landscapes.
Per Axbom
Yes, exactly. And number two: leverage the principles of naive geography. A person doesn’t have to have taken a physics class to instantly calculate where a thrown ball will go based on force and angle. And similarly, people don’t have to be geographers to make complex and accurate assumptions about space. So if the experience then is a landscape, this wide bird’s eye view, you can assume that your users will make sense of space using a few principles. So you always need to be thinking about where you are, where their head is at and what they’re– how they’re thinking about space, how they’re moving.
James Royal-Lawson
So this is geography at your scale. So this connects to the first point.
Per Axbom
Exactly. You want to go with number three?
James Royal-Lawson
Not really. (Laughter) Wayfinding. I’d say what it is: Wayfinding. (Laughter)
Per Axbom
And so not all real world experience can be mapped. It sounds so simple, so all we have to do now is make the interface into a map and everything will be solved. That’s, of course, not something that’s easily done. But I’m thinking of– so you’re moving around in a building, and you get lost, but you need to have the same types of signposts to find your way out. They can’t be of different types. So that’s actually closing in on what the fourth point is, about standardizing the way things look, so that people can easily find it. So yeah, she has the example of supermarkets–
James Royal-Lawson
All right, but I was thinking about number three with the wayfinding, that’s the kind of mapping thing isn’t it? Where you explore, maybe even superficially explore a space to get your bearings, to get kind of like a feel of what’s there and what’s where, where things are and available and so on.
Per Axbom
Yeah, I remember early on Jared Spool talking about so if people wake up in your website, how did they know where they are? I was gonna say after a drunken night, but I don’t know if that was a good example.
James Royal-Lawson
No, the pubs are shut in so many countries, so maybe it doesn’t work anyway.
Per Axbom
Yes, that’s true. But we’ll find out more when she writes more about each of these. Now we’re actually making some assumptions about what she means. But the fourth one is actually the one I take the most from: use standard elements intentionally. So it’s so important to be standardized in the way that you move– that you place things, so that it’s the same across. I mean, that is the Google Doc example. That also made me think of the real world example when you travel a lot, and you go to different countries, because in Sweden, if you go to another person’s house, you will almost certainly know where the cutlery is. The top drawer. And you always, always know where the bin is, and you know, there’s no washing machine in the kitchen. But in other countries, that’s not true. And so you notice that things are standardized differently based on perhaps even regions in countries, but in Sweden, it’s really clear how standardized things are. And it makes it so much easier, of course, to move around and feel comfortable and safe in a new space.
James Royal-Lawson
And yeah, and this makes me think, again, of Jared Spool.
Per Axbom
Oh really?
James Royal-Lawson
Now he’s gonna love us. Well and what he’s talked about with current knowledge. So we’ve discussed before about consistency. Yeah. And this comes into consistency. And his argument there is, well, it’s not consistency, itself, that’s the thing. It’s appreciating current knowledge. And what you’re talking about there with the top drawer being cutlery or the bin being under the sink in Sweden, that being consistent is only one aspect of it, it’s useful when the current knowledge of the people that are gonna use it is that bins are under the sinks.
Per Axbom
Yes, exactly. Right.
James Royal-Lawson
There’s nothing intui– I mean, if you need to teach people bins are under sinks, then that’s not the current knowledge, it’s a different thing. Here it’s kind of appreciating what they know, and what they expect, understanding their mental model or even their expectations of an object as part of it.
Per Axbom
And we could probably talk for hours about going to a hotel and understanding the shower, because you see people post on Twitter about that all the time. How do I even navigate the hot water and turning on the faucet and stuff like that.
James Royal-Lawson
Yep.
So–
Hotels and pubs. We’re mentioning all the things that are top of people’s minds.
Per Axbom
Exactly. So excellent stuff. And I’m really looking forward to her future articles where she goes deeper into those things. Because I mean, it opens so much inside me. And it really made me think about how can I design an interface that I can talk about more easily, even on a podcast. Describe to people so that they understand how to go somewhere, and I don’t have to see it in front of me to be able to describe it to someone.
James Royal-Lawson
Ooh, challenge.
Per Axbom
I did actually have a note here about– because a large point of this is that people can close their eyes and imagine things and imagine space. There are people because I mean, both you and I we talked a lot about accessibility, there are people who actually can’t see stuff when they close their eyes, they can’t imagine it the same way. So there is a scale to that. It’s called aphantasia, if someone wants to look that up. So you tell tell a person to imagine a red apple when they close their eyes and they literally can’t. So that’s actually something that people suffer from or something that is different for a lot of people.
James Royal-Lawson
Hm. Add a link to that.
Per Axbom
Article number two, let’s move on.
[Music]
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, the second article now is “Things I wish UX candidates would ask me during interviews”. Now, one interesting aspect here is of course, neither me or you have had a job interview for a long time.
Per Axbom
That was the first thing I wrote.
James Royal-Lawson
When was your last job interview?
Per Axbom
I think 15 or 16 years ago? Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
16 years ago! I think mine was actually nine years ago.
Per Axbom
Okay.
James Royal-Lawson
Job interview, that is. You know, with a little start next to that. Consultant interviews are a different thing. To a degree, they overlap a lot. But Nati, she wrote this article on the back of recent recruitment efforts she was carrying out at Buildots, where she’s working. And at the very beginning, she briefly lays out her process of selecting candidates and and how she goes about the interviewing and a bit of structure of the interview. But then comes the question: Do you have any questions for me? So she poses this question to the interviewee. Now, the interviewee which is, you know, it’s our protagonist in this story, is suddenly facing the real big challenge of their story arc. It means what does our hero, the interviewee, do? It’s a really tough question that one. Do you have any questions for me?
I mean, I think, even though it’s been a long time since me and you, Per, have had job interviews, it is one of those questions you get. And I mean, it’s not, it’s not one of those– because sometimes you can accidentally take it as a rounding up thing. So: “Well, right, is there anything else you want to ask me?” And it’s, it’s not– it’s so much more than that. And what she says, well she’s got some advice, but she points out that it’s not just the closing of the interview, it’s an important part of the interview. And she says that she learns a lot more about a candidate from the answer she gets to that, yeah. I’ll quote here: “I usually learn more about a candidate, their maturity and expectations, from the questions to me, more than anything else. A candidate that doesn’t ask me anything, or ask shallow expected questions is usually a turnoff. Please, please, please—challenge me.”
Per Axbom
Yeah. And it’s such a good point, especially, I’m thinking now, when designers are being interviewed, because a good designer asks questions. It’s part of the skill set, it’s part of trying to gauge the situation you’re in and understanding what’s going to happen.
James Royal-Lawson
Exactly.
Per Axbom
So shows that you can ask those questions. It’s actually sort of a test.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, because I mean, you know, working with user experience or design, then you’ve got to understand your problem space and understand the person on the other side. And understanding the needs of the person doing the interview is an important part of it, and lifting the right questions.
Per Axbom
But I totally get that people are nervous, and they want the job. And I’m so– I mean, I haven’t asked the types of questions that are in this article. I wish I’d read this article before I went to an interview. So I think that’s an excellent reason why we’re featuring it. It is really, really good.
James Royal-Lawson
It is. And it’s connecting back to the first article when it opened up with making you think back to the grandma’s– the grandparents’ telephone and so on and school lockers. This was a similar kind of thing for me, it made me think back to interviews and say, oh yeah, you know, what did I prepare? It’s that kind of like special question to add at the end. Because that’s the kind of thing you did, you tried to think up something, but it’s difficult to come up with good questions in advance, because, you know, an interview is a fluid situation.
And, you know, just like when we’re interviewing people, you may have lots of things that you thought about asking, but you can’t just kind of like throw them in, depending on what’s been said already, sometimes it could come across really weird, like asking almost the same thing, again, as you had already talked about. So you know, then you have to pull another question out of your bag. So suddenly, you have to prepare several questions, to be able to kind of maintain the interview, or to be able to deal with that at the end of it. But Nati, she helps us by splitting things up into boring questions and smarter questions.
Per Axbom
Yes, right.
James Royal-Lawson
So she first lists a lot of questions where she’s like, these are standard stuff, this is not going to get you anywhere. And all these questions are basically related to the practical side of things. It’s like, you know, organizational structure, it is about the leadership, it’s maybe even contract stuff, you know, how many days off do you get, what’s the kind of salary, all that kind of thing. Working environment. And she says, usually, these questions are answered at any of the early or later stages. And if not, you probably have the opportunity to ask them at the proposal stage. So she’s saying, basically, don’t waste this one-on-one interview or this kind of like specific interview with the boring questions. They’re not gonna, as she says, turn her on. She wants to be challenged, and they’re not going to challenge her.
Per Axbom
So what are the smarter questions?
James Royal-Lawson
Exactly, this takes us into the smarter questions. So what she points out here, before I go onto the questions, as she points out, you should be interviewing me, at least as much as I’m interviewing you. And that made me note down because I think that’s a good point to think about. It has to be a balance. Yeah. Because you don’t want the interview to be 100% of them interviewing you, and the same thing the other way around, you don’t want it to just be a presentation of your company, because then you’re learning nothing about the candidate. So the perfect interview is a good balance between both interviewing each other effectively, the representation from the organization and the individual who wants the job. That needs to be evenly spread out.
I’m thinking you could even take it one step further. I saw a post on LinkedIn last week, I think, where a manager was actually asking candidates to check references on them. So they weren’t just checking them on the candidate but it was both ways. So–
That’s nice.
Per Axbom
I really liked that approach. And I’m– and I have to mention, though, that, I mean, not all managers, not all hiring managers will be this open.
James Royal-Lawson
No.
Per Axbom
I think this will be different. So again, with the UX, it’s, this is one situation where we’re describing– where this is a fantastic hiring manager. That wants you to make them think and sweat. But that won’t always be the case.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, absolutely. You probably do have to be careful, maybe, with, again, the understanding and the feel for the type of question or the way you can phrase a question to the person interviewing you, if it’s gonna work or not. But to be honest, I mean, I think they should be challenged, they are interviewing you, so–
Per Axbom
I agree. I totally agree.
James Royal-Lawson
I mean, if you’re not, you’re not– you’re trying to get a job, Per, so, I mean, protecting their feelings or whatever is only maybe something to consider, not the most significant thing to consider here. But anyway, one of the questions. I’ll give a couple of examples. One of them was: What are the biggest challenges the team faces at the moment? What are the team’s strengths and weaknesses? A second one here: What are the expectations and achievements I should aim over the first 90 days? What would make you think “I’m so happy that we hired James”? Which, I love that question, actually, because it kind of allows – as Nati herself writes in the article – it allows you to put yourself in this frame of mind where you’ve already employed the person you’re talking to.
Per Axbom
Exactly.
James Royal-Lawson
Move beyond the interview, move beyond kind of like, okay, they’ve worked 90 days now, this is what I expect them to have done and this is what will make me happy. So you’ve done a wonderful job of pivoting this interview to the next stage in, you know, your career with this organization.
Per Axbom
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
Wonderful.
Per Axbom
I love that. And this one, actually, I thought similarly about the question to pose: What current problems would you solve right away? Because that actually– it opens up opportunities for things to take on, if you get the job, so it actually also places you in a frame set where you are the person solving those problems that they want to solve as soon as possible.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. And I actually have my own question, as well, that I kind of thought of when I was looking through them. I reckon you’ll like this one, Per: Have there been any decisions that your team has had to deal with that have raised ethical concerns? And how did you manage them?
Per Axbom
I have in my notes here, ethics questions, I want to add those. That’s perfect. James.
James Royal-Lawson
Because it felt to me like this was a, you know, especially when we’ve talked so much about, you know, encouraging people almost to quit organizations, if they know their own ethical thoughts and groundings don’t match the organization, then here’s a point, here’s a way that you can open up to see whether an organization matches your values from the interview stage. Ask them if they’ve been in an awkward situation or ethical situation that’s been challenging for them, and what did they do. You get the chance to hear their process– well, to understand if they allow this kind of openness and feel comfortable with discussing certain things and whether you’re gonna be able to be part of that, or feel comfortably part of them.
Per Axbom
And I think that’s, I mean, that’s why these questions are so important, and why this article is so important. It forces you to think about where you want to be, what are your visions, what do you want to accomplish? And if that is a good fit. We too seldom think about how the position we’re applying for is a good fit for us, not just now, but down the line a few years.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. And that comes– That brings us nicely to the killer question, as she puts it: Do you have any doubts or concerns regarding my fit to this position that I can address before we end? And I love this question. I mean, it opens the door to instant feedback. And as she says in the article, it gives you the chance to respond as well, as needed. So here, I’m kind of toward the end of the interview, I’m saying, look, you know, is there anything that makes you doubt whether I’m going to get this job? And if you get a “No, there’s nothing at all”, then you’re pretty much “Okay, maybe I’m gonna get this”. And then if they bring something up, then you can– you could take it a little bit further in the last few minutes of the interview, and hopefully address the issue, and keep on in there.
Per Axbom
And exactly, and whatever the response is, you get the sense of– a sense of the impression you’ve made in the interview, which is really, really good.
James Royal-Lawson
And even if you don’t get the job, you’ve now gathered feedback. So you’ve used the end of the interview to assess, to do some research, to gather feedback for yourself so you can iterate and do better next time. So one thing I love about this is that it actually makes me want to have an interview. Not necessarily because I want a job, but it wants me to have an interview so I can test these things and test this stuff and get some feedback. It’s quite inspiring in that sense.
Per Axbom
That’s a really good point. Awesome stuff.
So we have some recommended listening for you, as always, based on these articles, and the first one we have to recommend is Episode 254 “Sorting Out This Mess” with Abby Covert and Andrew Hinton. And Andrew Hinton is actually mentioned in Sarah’s article.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, he’s an information architect as well and has written a very useful book, which she mentions in the article.
Per Axbom
And that’s from a conversation we had with them in 2015.
James Royal-Lawson
And the second, yeah, the second one we’re gonna recommend, which is also related to information architecture, is Episode 169, “Reintroduction to information architecture” with Donna Spencer, which was back in 2017, Per. Two old ones.
Per Axbom
Yes.
James Royal-Lawson
And Donna has also written a good book about information architecture, which currently is available for free, because Donna’s publisher has basically just stopped publishing it. So she hasn’t worked out exactly how she’s going to make it available and make it for purchase again. So at the moment, while she’s working it out, you can download her book as a PDF for free.
Per Axbom
Excellent. And if you can spare a little bit of your time, then join our little community of volunteers. We’re always looking for help with transcripts and publishing. Remember to keep moving.
James Royal-Lawson
See you on the other side.
[Music]
Per Axbom
So James, did you know I used to work in a shoe recycling shop?
James Royal-Lawson
No Per, I didn’t know you used to work in a shoe recycling shop.
Per Axbom
Yeah, it was sole destroying.
This is a transcript of a conversation between James Royal-Lawson and Per Axbom recorded in April 2021 and published as episode 260 of UX Podcast.