A transcript of Episode 235 of UX Podcast. James Royal-Lawson, Per Axbom, and David Swallow talk about internet anxiety and the things that trigger it and what we can do to reduce it.
This transcript has been machine generated and checked by a human.
Transcript
James Royal-Lawson
A shout out to all our transcript volunteers. You do a great job. We’ve provided transcripts now with every new show since last summer. So if you want to help us too, then just email hej@uxpodcast.com. That’s “h e y” or “h e j”. Thanks.
Computer voice
UX podcast episode 235.
[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 193 countries from Ecuador to Australia.
James Royal-Lawson
And I have a little spreadsheet where I keep track of those countries, of course. And Ecuador, that’s the first time we’ve mentioned Ecuador.
Per Axbom
Oh, wow.
James Royal-Lawson
And it’s been a number of years since we mentioned Australia, despite the fact it’s been one of our most biggest groups of listeners.
Per Axbom
So yes, you can tell, James is the organised one. And David Swallow, is a Senior Accessibility Engineer for The Paciello Group.
James Royal-Lawson
Previous to that, for 10 years, he was an Academic Researcher in Human Computer Interaction at the University of York, which is where I studied, back in the day.
Per Axbom
And recently, David has been exploring how we can avoid or reduce anxiety and panic triggers on the web in order to improve accessibility for people with anxiety and panic disorders.
James Royal-Lawson
So, anxiety on the web, is what David joins us to talk about today.
[Music]
James Royal-Lawson
David, start off by telling us a little bit about what got you interested in this topic of internet anxiety.
David Swallow
Well, it’s something that I had never really considered before in the field of Web Accessibility.
So we tend to sort of focus on largely sort of accessibility for blind people and people with visual problems. And yeah, I’ve never really, really thought about it until I saw a presentation by some researchers at www.gov.uk you know, the UK government’s digital presence. And they included people with anxiety and panic disorders in their user testing. They were trying to avoid like dark patterns and any kind of anxiety inducing interactions and things in government websites. And so kind of inspired by this, I thought I’d investigate it further, really, and see if I could pull together any kind of guidance on the subject, really.
Per Axbom
So are there any typical situations that trigger anxiety on the web?
David Swallow
Yes. Well, seemingly there’s many. I started off fairly, not very scientifically, I asked on Twitter. What kind of features of websites and apps make you feel anxious or stressed? I got loads of suggestions from this, you know, from the user interface components through to the actual content. I mean, Brexit and Donald Trump were some of the things that were mentioned in terms of content, but on user interface things, people were saying, location request notifications, password inputs that don’t allow you to copy the text or paste in text. Just very specific little irritations throughout websites. The tweet kind of got plenty of responses there and maybe sort of realised now that there is something here. I then tried to speak to people who have anxiety in a bit more detail. That was quite difficult finding people to speak to.
James Royal-Lawson
In what way was it difficult? Was it difficult to find them or difficult because they felt reluctant to talk about it?
David Swallow
Well that’s it, yeah. I think any kind of, you know, anxiety or panic sorts of, or just mental health in general, it’s quite a sensitive subject. And I think people were just a bit reluctant to talk about it. I mean one person said that they didn’t want their friends or colleagues to find out about their anxiety. Some were willing to discuss it but couldn’t really articulate what triggered their feelings. Like one person said that they found banking website stressful, but it wasn’t clear, you know? Was it the design? Was it the colour scheme? Was it was it you know, just the nature of banking in general?
James Royal-Lawson
Was it the lack of money?
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly, exactly. It was, it was quite hard, you know, finding people who could talk about it. I went to approach some mental health charities who weren’t very interested in helping. And so I turned to various anxiety discussion forums and message boards on the web, and that was a really great source and people there were really helpful. And that put me in touch with other people and it sort of snowballed from there. So yeah, so I eventually found some people to speak to about it and ask them, you know, what aspects of UI and UX design contributes to feelings of of anxiety? And, yeah, from this, there was a number of clear themes that emerged from talking to people. One of them was urgency. Anything that provokes the sense of urgency or scarcity was a commonly cited source of anxiety.
James Royal-Lawson
So this will be the example of when they say there’s like only three seats left at this price.
David Swallow
Exactly, yeah. The persuasive notifications, as they call them. One of the named main culprits for this is booking.com. And if you’ve ever used these, it’s not just booking.com but and they seem to crop up a lot. If you ever use these sites, there’s all sorts of nudges for you to “Book now!” you know, “Hurry now, there isnt’s any so many rooms left!” , “You can cancel later!”, “Free cancellation!”, all sorts of kind of anxiety inducing messages that you know, “Hurry, are you going to miss out on this!”. That’s probably the sort of most common thing we see. And then related to that are things like countdown timers, any kind of time limited transactions. So, often you see this when you’re booking tickets, and like Ticketmaster would be another culprit for this kind of behaviour. You’ll go to book some tickets and it’ll say, “You’ve got like, three minutes!”, I think it’s three minutes thirty was the example I used to complete the transaction, otherwise, receipts will be reallocated. And that really, really ramps up the pressure to complete the transaction. And it can also sneakily kind of forced people into just going with the default options, which might be you know, the premium tickets or the next day delivery, that sort of thing, you know. Just because people are hurrying trying to complete the track of their transaction in time. So it’s just, it’s instilling anxiety and panic as a sales tactic.
Per Axbom
But this is the thing isn’t it? Because, I mean, if you back up maybe, I don’t know, five years, people were being taught that this is good UX, you create the sense of urgency because that optimises conversion, and so people are making money by building sites like, the way you’re describing that you build them. So is there bad UX and good UX then?
David Swallow
I think so. As I’ve looked into this, I think it’s a bit of a balancing act. I mean, initially, I was saying an all sort of guidance out there as sort of saying, stop these things, take away these time limits from you know, remove this pressure. But, I think there are situations when it might be okay. And in fact, the UK’s Competitions and Markets Authority have looked into this. Particulary in terms of booking websites, there was a big investigation into this. And they ruled that these practices were misleading and aggressive and unacceptable and things like that. And so they focused on six websites to begin with, like, you know, Expedia and booking.com, I can’t remember all of them. And they are required now by law to not, you know, not create this pressure. But reading the principles closely, it describes how these persuasive notifications are permissible under certain conditions. And it says that,”statements about popularity and availability must be clear, must disclose the assumptions, limitations and qualifications that are relevant to the segment and must be substantiated by the hotel booking websites data”. So, this has got me thinking really is little anxiety, okay, or you know, acceptable under these certain conditions? If it’s based on actual data, if it’s actually giving users a service? If it’s helpful to know that there is only one room left. Is that arguably a good thing?
Oh, you see, now, that’s fascinating, because that is actually a good thing to know. There really is. That’s the same as going into supermarket and seeing this, like, you know, one item left to the shelf. Okay. You don’t know how many they’ve got in the storeroom. But, I mean, it’s a very obvious visual things. “Oh, God, I got the last one!”.
Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
But but it requires trust. And that requires trust and understanding, I guess. That the data is true. And the data presented to you is presented in a way which is true. And you understand how will that data is presented to you.
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly. That’s it. And they we’re also required for things like saying, “Hurry, six people are looking at this now!”. And they have, they can’t just say “now”. They’ve got to say what time period that spanes. So, you know “in the last 24 hours”, for example, so it might not be that people are gonna do this right now. So it’s just about substantiating it with with data and being honest about what you’re showing. And if it is providing a service, if it is helpful to know, then it is arguably okay. So that’s why I think it’s difficult. You can’t just say “No, stop doing this completely!”. I think it is a bit of a kind of balancing act of weighing it up.
Per Axbom
This makes me think of MailChimp because everybody was raving about how MailChimp was so funny in its tonality as it was speaking to users. And some users actually found it offensive and distressing and in the end, MailChimp actually added In a setting where they allowed people to turn it off. And in this case, I’m wondering if that isn’t a solution because it does sound like even in these cases where you have reason to add that information, some people will still be stressed. That they could actually be allowed to switch that off if they don’t want to see it.
David Swallow
Yeah, some people have suggested why don’t we introduce some kind of.. a bit like, you know there’s a media query for “Prefers reduced motion”, like a setting you can pick to cut out all the kind of animated effects that cause problems people with with motion sickness.
James Royal-Lawson
We have dark mode now as well and light mode.
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly. And someone suggested, could we have “Prefers reduced anxiety” as some kind of setting, or “Prefers reduced tension”, something like that. Which sounds like a really appealing idea. I just don’t know. I think the problem with this there’s so many triggers for anxiety that trying to do some kind of general thing that could apply to what would be difficult to do. And different triggers affect people in different ways. And I think it would be hard to implement something like that. But yeah, on a setting on a site by site basis is something you could disable.
James Royal-Lawson
It’s definitely an interesting idea, but it makes me start to think of how, where would you stop? Because another option then could be “Prefers plain English”, and another one could be “Prefers less complicated concepts”.
David Swallow
Mmh, mmh.
James Royal-Lawson
I mean, there’s plenty of different ways that you could then have toggles that, say your preferences according to how it makes you feel or how you judge your abilities to be or how you expect abilities, you’re required abilities for a particular service or website.
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly. All these things are in the Accessibility Guidelines. Yeah, but when you turn it into a, from a guideline recommendation into, a user setting that you have to adhere to. I think would be hard to implement really. You do see on a site by site basis, because I mentioned booking.com. There’s loads of browser extensions that have come out for stripping out all these persuasive notifications from booking. There’s like “Shut up, booking.com” and “No stress, booking.com” something like that. And yeah, that just cuts out those components, and one of them actually rewrites certain phrases in a more calming way. To present a calmer experience. That’s very targeted, very specific to booking.com. So I don’t think there’s anything you can do generally.
Per Axbom
That’s really interesting, though, because it shows how much booking.com really owns that space. So it’s not people don’t abandon the site because they think it’s being unethical. They actually tried to rewrite the site itself, which is what the sort of the open structure of the web allows you to do. But it doesn’t solve the underlying problem, of course, because a lot of people won’t understand how to instal plugins, for example.
David Swallow
No, true. And it’s always going to be combated by the kind of business decisions behind all these, you know, these techniques obviously work for companies. That, they would not be doing them. So, trying to persuade them to move away from them will always be difficult, I think.
Per Axbom
It comes down to the reason that the companies are doing it right? Because now you’re saying “the reason they’re doing it’s because it makes the money”. Whereas in those guidelines that you read to us, “the reason they should be doing it is because it helps people”. When that becomes a conflict, that’s when you have a problem. And it comes down to “are you respectful of the people visiting your site, and are you listening to their needs?”
David Swallow
Yes, exactly. Yeah. And I think, I mean, there was a study that showed the effect of these dark patterns. In the short term, sure, they’re effective, and can increase conversions. But long term, it reduces trust in that brand. It depends whether they’re thinking long term and what these dark patterns are sort of saying about them, in the short term.
Per Axbom
Because tht’s the thing, it always boils down to, isn’t it? It always comes down to short term and long term and people tend to argue that well, companies to survive in the long term and be sustainable, they have to act in an ethical way and they have to be good. But it actually does seem like a lot of companies can keep acting unethically and nothing, no harm will come to them. They will just make more and more money and be able to just pay off whatever mistakes they make. If you think about GDPR, and that because you have enough money, then you will actually just be able to pay it off.
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly. There was a investigation by… who was it ? The Norwegian Consumer Council and just called “Deceived by design”, and they looked into the privacy intrusive default settings, by Facebook and Google and Microsoft. And they were very hard hitting, they were saying “No, these were unethical”, “This was misleading, exploitative”. But, nothing really has changed as a result of this.
James Royal-Lawson
So far, we would be focusing largely on the deliberate creation of anxiety, through dark patterns and on examples like booking.com. But what about the situations where we accidentally create anxiety? Because that happens an awful lot as well, I guess?
David Swallow
Through designs, are you thinking?
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. I mean, just an example: When you ask the question you started talking about at the beginning of the show. I was thinking, of course, what makes me anxious when I’m using websites. And the first thing that popped in mind for me was that moment after you’ve booked something or that moment after you’ve bought something. And I have made the comparison with like Gmail where there you can unsend an email for like four seconds after you’ve sent it. Because it’s almost always that little window of time where you realise “Oh, dammit, I didn’t write this. Oh, I should have… Oh, did I actually put the right idea? A lot of time we don’t have that “Undo” when it comes to like, you know, booking flights or buying a new washing machine.
David Swallow
I know exactly whay you mean. Another theme that came out of this was powerless-ness. And this is where people, this common example here was in things like Facebook, where sort of critical actions like “deactivating your account” were hidden in deep dark corners of the website, people can’t find them.They had to, people have to search on Google to find the deactivation page for Facebook. They make it very hard to get to, which made them feel powerless you know, they didn’t have that autonomy to close their own account.
So this was another common theme that came up in it. But, again, this is a tricky one to resolve really, because there is one argument where you could say, “Okay, well, let’s remove any friction that gets in the way of users, you know, make it very clear for them and make it very easy for them to get to the de-activation page or the contact page, whatever it is”. That’s one argument and there’s certainly, lots of guidance and guidelines to support that.
But it also might be a case of applying friction as well. A bit like what you’re saying with the “Undo” option on Gmail. Sometimes it might be a case of putting little steps in place, little hurdles of such, which ultimately benefit the user, building up from the undo button on Gmail. There was something I found on banking websites, and in particular Monzo, which is a UK online bank. And they prototyped a thing for people with bipolar disorder.
And they did some research and found that people with bipolar disorder sometimes make unnecessary frivolous purchases late at night, during manic episodes, and then the next morning, sort of confronted with what they’ve done and that can trigger further depression. To try and avert this they built in a method of delaying transactions until the following morning. You see, if you enable this setting they will tell you the next morning “You spent however much last night”, “Would you like to review these purchases?” and then you can authorise it the following day.
This is something that’s really kind of snowballed in the last year and lots of other banks are doing it now particularly in terms of gambling, and gambling websites, gambling transactions, putting these blocks in place that just increases the friction. It adds extra hurdles to cross. Some of them require you to speak to a telephone operator, you know, to release the block or whatever. So it’s just sort of building that friction in to help the people. So, positive friction, I guess you could call it. So, yeah. Is this another balancing act, really? How easy to make it? Or do you put these hurdles in place to sort of reassure anxious users?
James Royal-Lawson
And at the same time, not putting hurdles in place that could actually increase anxiety or stress because then they don’t realise what’s happening.
David Swallow
Exactly, right.
James Royal-Lawson
You know, if transactions may be delayed to the morning, then you might wonder why hasn’t the transaction gone through? So you have to understand the process and learn that in order to be reassured and not feel as anxious.
David Swallow
Yeah. So it’s it’s another balancing act really, it’s a difficult call. You can’t just say, “Okay, make everything easy and friction free”. Then maybe, genuine use cases for building in friction.
James Royal-Lawson
So the question is then, I mean, can we find that balance?
David Swallow
Yeah, well, I don’t know. I don’t know what the best solution is. I don’t think in this case that kind of hectoring guidelines are necessarily the answer. If you sort of look at Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, which are all very un-ambiguous, they’re meant to be, objective means of testing accessibility in content. And there are parts of work that relate to anxiety and panic disorders. It’s not mentioned specifically but parts of it do benefit like that, you know, removing time limits or allowing people to extend time limits that’s a guideline.
But I’m not sure guidelines are necessarily the answer here, because as I say, it’s not always clear cut, “don’t do this” or “do do this”. So I don’t know the answer, but I feel like we need something that’s a bit more like things to consider more like a kind of decision tool. “Bear these things in mind, this could cause this could cause that”. So allow people to make an informed decision about these issues. What form that should take, I’m not entirely sure, really, I’m not sure what is helpful.
Per Axbom
But a process where in you actually make sure that you talk to people who are vulnerable, put people at risk people with different types of mental disorders, than you actually involve them in the creation process.
David Swallow
Sure, yeah. I mean, all of these things come back to that, don’t they? Does it benefit the user, you know? So yeah, so having a user centred design would certainly be the way of tackling that. But yeah, there is a lot of ambiguity as I’ve come to learn over the last year or so.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, I guess we’re back to that thing where, how how you perceive your user to be, isn’t perhaps all the time how your users actually are?
David Swallow
Yes, yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
So be more inclusive. By having more contact with more types of users. You become more exposed to the the different situations they find themselves in and the different ways they perceive your products and services.
David Swallow
Yeah, exactly. I think I will always benefit any kind of approach like this. Just, yeah, make it user centred, focused on users, test things with users. And you know, have an idea of what the impact is going to make.
Per Axbom
Exactly. Thank you. Great words to end on. Thanks for joining us, David.
James Royal-Lawson
Thanks, David.
David Swallow
Thank you.
Per Axbom
So I have this question about whether there is good and bad UX. And of course, that’s something I have a lot of opinions about. But the key, I think, in the end, of course, is that there is just UX. And whether or not it’s good or bad, that it’s down to people, and people’s intent and people’s risk management and assessment and really the outcome whether you have good or bad intent, the outcome may be good or bad. So you have to manage the outcomes and you have to figure out who is getting hurt. And that is sort of what David’s been doing is trying to find out who could potentially get hurt by the things we are building and he’s found this area of anxiety where people are being triggered by different interface elements, and they’re being triggered… he had the four different topics that, I think you said we basically only covered two of them.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, we covered, it was urgency and powerlessness. Yeah. And there’s two more: was unpredictability and sensationalism. He mentioned sensationalism as content in the beginning of the interview and unpredictability, that theme. Examples of that would be the opt in checkboxes where it’s got like double negative. So take this if you do not want to sign up for this newsletter.
Per Axbom
Exactly. And so it all becomes complex, because then you realise, for some people, this will work well. And we talked about in the interview that yes, this makes money for the company, and a lot of people won’t have any trouble with it. But then you have this group of people that will have a lot of trouble with it, and it may actually hurt them. And it may even impair their ability to lead normal lives. And so in the end, it comes down to about that balance of “How okay am I with hurting a small number of people to benefit myself and others”. That is a hard balance for a company if you’re not even aware that it’s happening.
James Royal-Lawson
Well, I think just reflecting on if we go back to like the example we used with booking.com, and the scarcity principle that we talked about there. Me and you Per, we’ve been in loads of creative workshops, conferences and otherwise during the years, and there are many exercises where you’ve got a team up and you’ve got to come up with, like a product or an idea or something as part of an idea or workshop exercise. And, we really love coming up with solutions as UXers, you know, thinking we’ve understood the problem or we’ve got some research and we can really come up with an answer.
And that thing about when you’re booking a hotel room, you can see how the research shows. Well, when I’m booking a hotel room, what would be useful to me? Well, it’d be useful to know how many hotel rooms are left so I can decide to book this now or later. Yeah, fair enough, that sounds reasonable. So then you introduce the data which says: “Yeah, there are five rooms left” and so on. So the actual communication of that data in itself is potentially helpful.
Per Axbom
But then somebody comes along and says that well, we could coerce people even more if we actually told them “Hurry up! There’s only five rooms left!”.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah.
Per Axbom
And so then you’re using language to actually make the urgency feel even more pressing.
James Royal-Lawson
Yes. So you’ve taken original, like insight, something in which people found out would be useful, and then you’ve manipulated it, you’ve contorted it to be something more persuasive and more harmful. But something has struck me as an interesting aspect of this is connected to what David said about the the recommendation in the UK about how you, if you do use things like scarcity, then you need to be honest and you have to say what time span is talking about and so on. That we’ve got a collective responsibility here because if you’re the one website that’s that’s really given the useful data you’re producing honest, open, correct live scarcity data, then it’s still going to make people anxious. Because we’ve created on mass an expectation of anxiety. You’re expecting to be in a certain way because booking.com does it a certain way. So if you don’t, if you do it a different way, it will still have the effect of the more like bad UX even you’re doing good UX.
Per Axbom
So you’re saying essentially the unethical companies that have been misusing this, they have actually made it so that people really interpret all these patterns as being of urgency as being something that they have to react to in a certain way so their bodies emotionally react to the fact that there is only four or five rooms left in a negative way, even though it was a positive intent.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, so even if you do the good UX there, we’ve conditioned people (I’m theorising now a bit) that we’ve potentially conditioned people to have anxious responses in certain situations even though they’re not. I suppose another example, there will be, we suffer from anxiety and so on all the time in all different aspects, not just on the web.
For me, one thing that makes me anxious is going to a new lunch restaurant when we’re working and going for lunch. And if I don’t know, the first time you go there, you don’t know the rules of the game. You don’t know where you… are you supposed to queue there? Do you know what’s the menu? What do people normally order? How do they order it? Do I wait here for the food? Do I go to my table? All these like rules that everyone else seems to understand and know, because they go there all the time. But this is my first time at the restaurant. And I don’t know them. So I feel excluded. I get anxious because I feel I should know the rules of this lunch place.
Per Axbom
Of course, yeah, that’s that’s an excellent example. There are so many situations where we come into and we are new, and we feel anxious because other people seem to know what they’re doing. And for me, this sort of circles back to what the research that David said he was doing around, how do I find out what is causing people to feel anxiety? How do I figure that out? And there’s a lot of ethics even in that research, because you have to realise that anxiety is a word that we throw around quite easily. So it’s sort of there’s a general anxiety feeling. But there’s also of course, a mental health disorder or mental health issue here that’s at play, and people may not even be aware of why they are feeling anxiety, maybe totally unrelated to the situation, but it triggers something that relates to something else. And so they’re obviously there has to be some sort of professionalism involved in helping to interpret what is happening.
James Royal-Lawson
I think this, I understand why David doesn’t think there’s… well he doesn’t ever really kind of propper answer to all this because it is a balance. And it is complex. I think the advice of including more varied types of users in your research is effectively timeless advice. It’s, excellent, including people who are potentially anxious or get panic attacks and so on, is a great way of doing it because we do have that, that pull from organisations to convert, to get people to do things. And understanding the cost of getting them to do things isn’t always transparent. It’s a hidden cost in many transactions. We get to do this now, but we make them suffer later.
Per Axbom
Yes.
James Royal-Lawson
Or maybe even during. So doing research, including people of various types in your research will help you uncover that hidden cost sooner.
Per Axbom
Exactly. I’ll help you articulate to the user’s “What is going on?”. Because I love that actually, David also made the point about friction, that you add friction to boost awareness of what is happening so that people can make better choices, which relates to consent. Because for me, it always comes back to consent. Am I approving of what you’re doing to me? To approve, I need to be aware. So I need to be educated. And we really need to allow things to take time, which is something we’re really bad at as well.
James Royal-Lawson
I think, of course, you want everyone to go in and read the blog posts that David did around these things. So you get a bit more about the sensationalism side of things as well to do with content. Because studies another aspect that we haven’t really dive deeply into today, but it’s good to read about.
Per Axbom
So, thank you for spending your time with us. Links and notes from the episode of course, found on UXpodcast.com if you can’t find them in your pod playing tool of choice.
James Royal-Lawson
You can also join us for a UX podcast “Fika”, which is where we online have a little chat and gathering. And you can maybe tell us what you’ve done to reduce anxiety in the products you work on. You can find the times and days for our Fikas on the website.
Per Axbom
And remember, you can contribute to funding the show by visiting UXpodcast comm slash support.
James Royal-Lawson
And before we finish off, recommended listening. I’m gonna suggest Episode 85, which is actually a show from six years ago now, where we talk about the psychology of persuasion with Bart Schutz.
Per Axbom
Oh, Bart, I remember that. I guess that’s a pretty crazy episode.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, but also I think we.. it’s one of those ones where I remember learning a lot about the psychology to do with persuasion from that chat with Bart and it started a lot of thoughts for me, that have carried on over a number of years, very useful interview.
Per Axbom
Remember to keep moving.
James Royal-Lawson
See on the other side.
[Music]
James Royal-Lawson
So, Per. A lovely load of tortoises crashed into a train-load of terrapins.
Per Axbom
Okay.
James Royal-Lawson
It was a “turtle” disaster.
Per Axbom
[Laughing] Okay.
James Royal-Lawson
The joke of that all: “turtle disaster!”. You’ve got a Yorkshire accent I think you understand it. It’s a total. It’s a “turtle” disaster. It’s a total disaster. So, probably would have worked better with two Yorkshiremen doing it.
This is a transcript of a conversation between James Royal-Lawson, Per Axbom, and David Swallow recorded in April 2020 and published as Episode 235 of UX Podcast.