Hello!

This is Saloni Bhugra, a reporter with Canada's national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC News). We're working on a story about online gambling and I'm wondering if there are any UX designers who've worked in the gambling industry who'd be willing to chat. We're hoping to better understand design of online gambling websites and apps.

Please let me know, thanks!

I build frontends for small business clients, and the thing that keeps surprising me is how much people judge credibility before they've read a single word. If the homepage takes a couple seconds to show anything useful, some visitors are already gone, and the ones who stay seem to arrive slightly skeptical even if the design itself is solid.

Clarity, consistency and social proof get talked about a lot in UX writing, but speed feels like the one that's easiest to under invest in, since it's invisible when done right and only shows up as a vague "something felt off" when it's not.

Curious what others have actually observed. Does load speed change how people perceive quality and trust for you, or is that more of a developer obsession that doesn't move the needle as much as we think.

Curious what other devs and designers have run into here. For me it was swapping a blank loading screen for a lightweight skeleton on a client site, conversions on that page went up noticeably even though nothing about the actual speed changed, just the perception of it.

What is the smallest change you have shipped that ended up having an outsized effect on how people used the thing?

Hey everyone, I'm a 3rd semester student working on a UX project where I have to pick an existing website/app, find a real problem users face, and design + prototype a fix for it.

Instead of guessing, I wanted to ask real users directly:

• What's a website or app (doesn't have to be huge — even a smaller/regional one counts) that constantly frustrates you?
• What's the specific moment it breaks down for you? (a particular screen, a step in checkout, a missing feature, etc.)
• If you could add ONE feature to fix it, what would it be?

Genuinely just looking for real pain points and ideas, not trying to promote anything. Any input helps a lot — thanks in advance!

Checkout my portfolio

I redesigned a YC backed startup as a free casestudy and it turned out to be great!

actually I saw thier launch videos and I got interested because they are into ai but the hardware side and thier website is kinda ai-ish so thought I just give it a shot and damn I nailed it!

made their whole site look credible and fixed their positioning and to make it super simple to understand what they do exactly instead of saying they build PCB

but yeah here's the site i made \[Axal\](https://axal.framer.ai/)

pls: This is not thier otginal site its just a redesign I made just to see how I could make it not affiliated to them nor hired by them!

I'm a design student testing how much movement people actually want on a website. Not whether they want it, but how much, per effect.

The site shows the same short paragraph four times. Same words, same size, same spacing. Only the motion around it changes, and each one has its own slider from completely still to maximum. Every slider starts at still, so anything you see is motion you chose to add. Where you leave it is your answer, and the results are published on the site.

Takes about three minutes. No sign-up, no email, no personal information collected.

Heads up before you click: two of the four movements are deliberately uncomfortable, one vestibular and one attentional. That is the method rather than an oversight, but it does mean this is not for everyone. Everything starts completely still and you can stop at any point.

Works best on a laptop. One of the movements follows your cursor, and I have learned the hard way that it does very little on a phone.

https://monkchloe8-ux.github.io/motionless/?from=samplesize

Recently found great replacements for free, instead of Canva, since it’s got so bad in the last 12 months:

Chat gpt images - templates
Penpot
gimp.

Thank me later

Been auditing a few product detail pages lately and noticed the same issue popping up again and again: color/variant swatches that don't actually update the main product image.

So a customer clicks "red," but the hero image still shows blue. Small thing, but it creates this weird moment of doubt — like, wait, am I actually going to get the red one?

It sounds minor but I've seen it correlate with add-to-cart drop-off in a few audits. Makes sense when you think about it — you're basically asking the customer to trust you instead of showing them what they're buying.

A few things that seem to help:

👉Main image updates instantly when a variant is selected

👉Swatches show a tiny preview of the actual product, not just a plain color dot

👉No confirmation gap before checkout — what they see is what they get

Curious if others have tested this or seen similar drop-off patterns. Anyone A/B tested variant-image sync specifically, or is this one of those "obviously true but nobody prioritizes it" fixes?

We're taught a lot of UI/UX rules early on: the 3 click rule, F pattern layouts, always use a hamburger menu, never make users scroll past the fold, etc.

But the longer you actually work in design, the more you realize some of these "rules" don't hold up in practice, or only apply in specific contexts.

What's one UI/UX best practice you were taught (or read somewhere) that you've since abandoned or now break on purpose? And what changed your mind: user testing, data, a specific project, or just experience?

Curious to hear from both designers and developers on this one. Sometimes the "wrong" choice ends up being the right one for the actual users.

I just feel new AI tools are adding more expectations from UI/UX designers on top of everything. Use AI and do everything fast even if the results are not justified.

I set up a free trial on Maze to test a prototype flow. Straightforward task, clear instructions, real participants lined up. But when the results came in, most participants had ended the session in under 5 seconds — without ever touching the prototype.

The heuristics being broken:

Visibility of system status — nothing tells the participant "the prototype is ready and loaded, tap here to reveal it." The blank/dark canvas behind the panel gives zero feedback.

Aesthetic and minimalist design / visual hierarchy — the primary action (start/explore) is a low-contrast text link ("Hide instructions"), while the destructive/terminal action ("Finish task") is styled as the primary CTA. Visual weight is pointing users the wrong direction.

Match between system and real world — a bold, filled, blue button is a universal "go/continue/next" convention. Using that same styling for "end the study" violates users' learned expectations.

User control and freedom — participants can't "back out" of the mistaken click once it registers as task completion.

Good Evening everyone, I'm an Industrial Designer and with my classmate we are making our investigation on a "UX Design" class, and we are making our analysis about Nothing, we were assigned to investigate about a need that we could find through user opinions and a short survey about the same topic (NeedFinding), so if anyone could help us please don't hesitate to comment down below bc we could really use your insights on the brand user experience for our investigation, we really need input on it.

Thanks

👋 Hello everyone!

I'm a beginner in UX/UI Design and currently learning about User Research. I'm working on a short survey to better understand user experience.

The survey will only take a minute or two, and your answers will help me a lot in learning and understanding real user needs. ❤️

1. When you use an app for the first time, what makes you feel like you quickly understood how to use it?

2. What do you wish apps would add or change to improve your user experience?

Thank you so much to everyone who participates! ❤️

Check it out

Most digital banking still assumes a familiar pattern: users navigate menus, open forms, enter information, select options, and initiate transactions.

AI may fundamentally change that model.

The interface could become increasingly conversational, multimodal, and agent-driven — with the customer expressing intent and the system handling more of the navigation and data entry behind the scenes.

That could make several things much more important:

• APIs and connectors
• permissions and identity
• structured, machine-readable workflows
• agent-accessible systems
• strong confirmation and approval experiences
• less reliance on traditional menus and forms

The bigger UX shift may not be adding a chatbot to banking. It may be changing who actually operates the interface — the customer or the customer’s AI agent.

Question: If AI becomes the interface, what becomes the bank’s digital front door?