Hosted at Potato the focus of the talk was Security and Future Interfaces.
The speakers Adam Alton and Stu Cox from Potato spoke about their experiences of working with Google and creating secure digital products.
Firstly Adam and Stu set the scene by talking about Hacking, and how this as designers and developers we may not know how user will use the products we have designed and built. Using our products for something its not intended for. Wether this is White hat hacking or black hat hacking it’s important to understand where users may take your product.
As people within the industry it’s everyone’s responsibility to stop black hat hacking within our products with a moral obligation to keeps people data safe and to help build trust in our clients brands. With security starting at the ideas phase. Making sure that we cover what would happen if the product we built worked and then someone came along and used the service in a different way. E.g. Strava unknowingly showed the running routes that all american military bases. Not only that it can have a huge impact on the brands we work with, with an example being TalkTalk where 101,000 customs details were leaked. With the net result after fines and the loss in brand trust being a loss of £60m to TalkTalk. It was also found that out of the 101,000 customers that had their details leaked only 16,000 had their financial details hacked. Showing how a relatively small number of people can can their details stolen but the loss to the company can be massive.
Khalil Dimachkie came next from Smilepass talking about invisible interfaces. Talked out the technology their company are looking at with face recognition, saying he prefers this a security device over thumb prints saying thumb prints aren’t as succinct as people think they are. With the future being a combination of both face recognition as well as voice print biometrics. Saying how the industry is getting to the point where it can voice print one voice out of multiple voices in a room. Saying how Biometrics are helping users moving people away from something the user has to know and can forget to something you are, which requires less action from the user and eventually can be completely unobtrusive following the trend of how interfaces are gently falling away, with initially buttons, lights, switches moving to now where users have a blank glass slab to interact with. The next next step is to remove the glass slab.
Talking about users hacking face recognition he spoke how it will needs to detect scars, glasses, beard and aging and still recognising it is the same person. With the Intek camera he spoke how they stop hacking from masks or makeup as it can detect the blood that runs under the skin.
The biggest areas where he feels these types of interfaces will have an effect are within:
Finance – Interface will take time as it will be difficult to implement with the legacy systems in use.
Healthcare – Being able to checkin within the GP, reducing waiting times.
Transportation – Logistics companies. People moving through public transport, saving costs on staff and gates.
The final speaker from Liliana Kastilo from SYNK, came to talk about open source and how this can introduce risk within your code. She has found that with using open source most code used within projects today can be someone else’s. SYNK allows developers to review their code to see where vulnerabilities can be found within their pages.
Being hosted at Lloyds The UX crunch had 3 guest speakers tonight to talk through their experiences of working with IOT. Here we had Avril O’Neil Co-founder & creative director at Ding Products, Tim Dained UX & Service Designer, previously at Cambridge Consultants, and Priya Prakasha Founder of D4SC (Design for Social Change).
The first speaker Avril from Ding products talked about her company which have designed a doorbell that would allow the person at the door to be able to talk to the house owner, wherever they are in the world. Saying that they have met the gap in the market where people are time poor, and receiving more deliveries than ever.
Within the design process they started to produce lots of small physical props to allow them to see how people interact with their products, before moving into building working prototypes. After looking at their competitors they found the competition was very tech focused, so they wanted to corner the market where they can simplify the tech, creating the easiest of interfaces that people can relate to. One of the main problems they faced was making a coherent product in the box, but still suited the environment when in use.
One topic that was brought up was security, but Ding said that they have specifically marketed their product as not a security device, and will give instructions on how best to use the product when away from your house, for instance when the user is on holiday. It will be interesting to see in a couple of years how users view this product and if that means ding may have to change their thoughts on security
Talking after, Avril highlighted the areas that she thought are important when designing for IOT:
1. The importance of the physical interaction with the actual product.
2. The product must be necessary, so when the hype and excitement has has died down there is still a real need for the product.
3. To create an offline experience, making sure the product can still function when not connected, which can often go amiss with IOT.
The next speaker Tim Dained came to talk about his experience with IOT, within the medical sector. Tim began talking about the sector and how it’s an opportunity to create a more personal experience for patients and clinicians, but the complexities of healthcare system which is stuck in silos that don’t share info and knowledge between each other as well as being very hierarchical.
One of the main issues or questions his team asked themselves was how can they create connected systems where people can manage their disease and not the disease manage them. With IOT becoming the touch point but not the center of the products universe.
3 of the things he learnt whilst working within the healthcare system.
1. Getting healthcare stakeholder to design together.
Knowing how the product will scale once it is in the public domain.
2. Knowing what you want to do with the data.
Creating a user journey to map out where all the data layers start to interact with the product/user.
3. Taking device connectivity for granted.
The third and final speaker was Priya who came to talk to us about Design for social change.
Here she became very interested in the design of our streets and social management when she was involved in a cycle accident and took it upon herself to look at how she could start to change the streets for the better. One of the things she first noticed is that the design changes you make to people’s lives have to be done gradually referring how it is like training for a marathon, starting small and gradually increasing as the user learns and becomes more accustomed to the changes being made.
Week one opened with the 9 member sheepishly greeting each other and finding out about one another’s backgrounds, from Developers turned Designers, Marketing executives, and Graphic Designers all wanting to learn more about UX. The class size was a good number which allowed everyone to participate without feeling intimidated.
The first week run by Charlotte Gauthier the Lead UX Designer from The Guardian was focused around Human/User centred design. Starting by showing the various teams we would be working with throughout the course. Each team being split to give a wide range of backgrounds and experiences from the different participants. The first exercise was to decide a user-group that would benefit from a new email interface. A good range of ideas came forward, from a email interface focused on accessibility, to one focused on security which showed a good range of ideas within the groups.
Charlotte then focused the talk on what User research methods and processes were needed to validate the ideas. From Primary research, such as interviews, questionnaires and field studies, to Secondary research methods like benchmarking competitors and looking at previous studies. Then introducing us to tools like empathy maps, Persona cards and moving into NABC (Needs, Approach, Benefits, and Competition) that help make sense of the data gained.
Towards the end of the class we were separated back into our teams and given the brief for our course project, with the first week focusing on profiling our audience. With the ideas for the projects being a Healthcare app, a gardening tool, and ours a Trading skills app for the local community.
Week 2 – Ideation
Meeting with our teams again and exchanging notes on the week’s work, having found some useful information from interviews carried out during the week. With the Health care app being reminded of a old A-Z book that mums and dads would use to get quick medical knowledge. To understanding that an app that dealt with neighbours working together, would have to be careful to create respect within the app’s community, as to not create awkward relationships in the real world.
We were then greeted with our tutor for the next two weeks Hara Mihailidou who is currently Head of UX at Just Giving with a whole wealth of knowledge from experience at Microsoft and O2. Today we started to look at Ideation using a few techniques to develop the concept from week 1, ready to make a proposal that would be ready to pitch.
We were taught a number of great tools to use, that helped take the initial ideas and expand on them. The ones that sprung out to me included Journey maps, where you take a persona and map out the user’s day, helping to find where the situation would be useful for your users. With two others techniques that help take the idea and look at them in a completely different way, with ‘Creative Stimulus’ using ‘Revolution’ technique. Here you take the rules created from your original idea and reverse them to see if this leads to new ideas. Also another I particularly enjoyed was ‘Random links’ which allows you to stop getting bogged down within the project you may be working on. By bringing in a couple of random objects you would then discuss what they allow the user to do (anything is plausible), then taking these notes and relating each one back to the original idea.
Week 3 – User Experience, Sketching, and story boards
With the class being run again by Hara we all presented our final idea, giving a short explanation to how we got there. Within our team we had found that our initial idea was too broad to focus on within the time frame. Whilst also finding it would be very difficult to help mums and families because of the trust you need with the person may help with giving the kids a lift to school or babysitting. So we eventually settled on focusing on first time buyers and helping them with DIY tasks. It was good to see the other teams present and how their ideas had been developed into one pitch.
One learning from each of the groups pitch which seems obvious, was that we each forgot to give a quick story of the user and the specific problems they face, showing where our idea would help. With this in mind we moved into looking at our design goals, seeing the pyramid diagram from Stephen P Anderson who looked into the psychology behind design, moving your product from usable and reliable, to something pleasurable and meaningful, that will keep your users coming back time after time.
Hara then showing a great video from the master himself Don Norman. Looking at all the instances of designing fun into your products and what emotional cues the product should have to succeed, from Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective.
We then came to one of the most enjoyable parts (for me) which was sketching, and creating storyboards, learning some quick techniques on how to quickly draw people to help get across the story we want to portray.
Using the personas that we first created in week one the teams drew out the storyboard that would show how our idea would intertwine into the user’s day and help them with their tasks.
Week 4 – Journey mapping, Information architecture and Wireframing sketching
Jiri the Principal Interaction Designer currently at Intruit was our tutor for week 4, bringing with him his experience from working for the Telegraph, National Rail Enquiries, among others.
Now with a true validated idea, from using the knowledge we have learnt from our user interviews we moved on to learning how we could start to structure the information we had gained, by looking into the Taxonomy and Information Architecture or our products.
The first activity of the night was to map out our user’s Journey using the storyboards and personas we had created from previous weeks. Quickly noting down all the activities our users would go through from initial problem to using our application. A great activity that really allowed us to dig into the detail of every process of our product. Then mapping out subtasks under the initial notes, reiterating the original line of activities as we went along. This flowed nicely into creating our User Flows, discussing as teams how the users would move around the activities and subtasks, learning that further Journeys could be made when wanting to dig into the detail of further subtasks.
Armed with the User Journeys and Flows, along with the work from previous nights, we moved into sketching out our wireframes. First working as a real rough Low fidelity hand sketch to get the ideas on page, allowing us to easily discuss what should be included and changed.
Before leaving, Jiri gave us the homework to the create a high fidelity wireframe prototype using proto.io along with a couple of useful links from BBC Gel, iOS HIG that look at existing patterns and design system that users already have a mental model of.
Week 5 – Prototyping and Rapid Experiments
I turned up early to see our tutor for the night Jiri grabbing a bite to eat before our class. It was good to get a quick chat with him before class, as we got to talk about how the academy was going and what my views on the class, along with getting a quick bit of advice over what I should emphasise within my CV and portfolio. With my background he mentioned I should focus on selling my experience from working with British standards to meet Ergonomic needs with the products I had worked on previously. Along with that he talked about his experiences when doing a masters, saying he thoroughly enjoyed it, and would still do it, despite the pressures of having a young family.
Moving onto the class we took a quick look at the wireframes we had produced using proto.io. Giving guidance on what areas we should adapt, opening it up to the whole group to ask questions. This then led us into the week’s topic of Prototyping.
First looking at the Double diamond diagram created by the Design council. Methodology suggesting that the design process consists of the 4 phases Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver. With Jiri saying that prototyping can fit within every phases as you look to evaluate your designs. Learning how Prototypes have many different guises and can be used to understand the problem space you are about to move. Showing examples of Rapid experiments where you jot down your interface on a piece of paper to test with a potential user. A very quick and easy way to test an assumption you might have.
Jiri started to go into detail of the various test he had carried out giving us lots of examples of Low fidelity test like sketches and dry tests where the prototype can be a creative piece that wouldn’t include any functionality to a ‘Wizard of OZ/ concierge’ test where a model is produced that allows the user to think they are using a real product. Jiri gave an example of a text based prototype where his teams created a text messages service where they would re-write the received messages from users before forwarding them, allowing them to test an idea quickly and the user thinking that everything was running through a database.
Another test that Jiri recommended was the diary study, getting users to use a prototype for a period of time whilst keeping a diary of when they used the product. This allows you to understand how the user gets on with a product over a longer period of time. What Jiri found most interesting was once the diary test had finished, they allowed the users to continue using the product. Although Jiri no longer got the the diary, the analytics they got back were quite interesting.
We then moved to a quick practical where we drew out and used paper prototypes to test quick interactions with our projects, which was a great way to imagine the steps the user had to go through to achieve a certain objective. Leaving this week with a couple of noteworthy comments ‘A prototype is worth a 1000 words’ and you should make a prototype in the lowest fidelity possible to answer the question you have.
Week 6 – Inclusive & responsive design
Today we met our 4th Tutor Sophie Lepinoy who is currently teaching Lean User experience and has mentored start up businesses at Google Launchpad. She came to give us an overview of what we should focus on with Accessibility and Inclusivity when designing for our users.
Sophie showing some insightful videos of people who are visually impaired, and what tools they use. Showing us how to consider the page is structured so that the screen readers can run through the page in a flowing manner. The video led the talk into the meaning of Accessibility as trying to remove barriers that stop people from using the website, which could be anything from visual impairment to hearing, which could be a physical problem to an environment problem of where the user is viewing your site/app. Then showing the certain standards that our designs should fall under such as the Equality Act 2010 along with the guidelines and associations which are good to keep in mind WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative), W3C (World Wide Web Consortium).
The next topic which Accessibility falls under was Inclusivity that can range from Language, Age, Education, communities and many more of what your users might be. This led to looking at our designs from ‘Stress Cases’. Where a product may be used in the wrong way. An example was given of a user asking Siri “Siri, I don’t know what to do, I was just sexually assaulted”, with Siri replying “One can’t know everything, can one?”. Showing how not thinking of all the ways a user could interact with your product, no matter how bad can lead to making a traumatic devastating event, even worse for the user.
The first exercise of the night was looking at the wireframes we have already created, and seeing how they should be restructured to include what we had learnt from the day’s session. This led our team to not only look at how the page should be restricted but how users may become vulnerable whilst using our app. Making us look at what safeguards we might need to be put into our design in certain steps of the process, such as pop up warnings, as well as directing people to connect with users they may already know through Facebook.
After a small break we started to look at responsive design and grid systems, looking at the differences between Native, hybrid and Web, from how to to pick your break point to choosing a responsive grid that would suit your site, mentioning it should be looking at your content and how it is viewed at various viewpoint sizes before setting your breakpoints. Sophie finished by giving us some great resources to help decide a grid and setting a task to adapt our mobile apps to desktop.
Week 7 – Validating with usability testing
Sophie set out the agenda for the night. Looking into Usability testing methods and techniques. First making us aware of how prototypes can save millions in industry. Really highlighting the need to test your assumptions before pushing them into the real world. Whilst showing how building up knowledge in the area to gain empathy with the core users, as without this our designs are pretty much wishful thinking.
First we looked at the initial research we needed to gather to help validate our idea. Taking the brief that came from the client and beginning to understand:
–the users situation,
–and their desired outcome.
To help learn what users are doing now to solve their problems. Showing the quote below:
“This is exactly why we do user research: to find out what people are doing now to solve their problem, understanding what needs they have, and to understand how we can best help meet those needs. Then it’s time to work out what the project should be”
The talk moved into giving us some useful research methods and questions that we could use, whilst also showing a few examples from the book Just enough research by Erica Hall
“A healthy team is made up of people who have the attitude that it is better to learn something than be ‘right’”.
Erika Hall, Just enough research
Moving towards user interviews where Sophie showed short video from the book Sprint by Jake Knapp, that showed Michael Margolis conduct a user interview about a fitness tracker. Picking out some of the key areas to keep in mind when conducting an interview, such as:
–Making the user at ease, and being conscious of your own body language and how this could affect the user whilst being fresh and enthusiastic,
–Start the interview by spending 10 minutes talking to the user and finding out about them.
– Make sure you listening and don’t interrupt and be appreciative showing your listening
– Ask the users questions, or ask where their thoughts may have come from, eg a past app they may have used.
–Make sure the user fully understands you are testing the product and not them
–Give the user certain tasks to complete.
–And finally finish with a quick debrief.
We then broke away for 20 minutes where we started to use the tools we had learnt that night to conduct our own interviews. First we decided on the user goal and what we might want to learn from the interview. Then turning these into tasks the users needed to complete and non-leading questions that meet the goals we set out.
Within the group one person interviewed a user whilst the rest of the group participated in note taking. It was good to learn this in a non pressured environment, and I immediately picked up some useful learnings, after committing the cardinal sin of jumping straight into the task, forgetting to learn about the user first. What was interesting was being able to see the problem and writing down the note just by seeing the movement of the mouse and the body language of the user even before they spoke themselves about the issue. Showing how important user interviews can be.
This leads us into the final week with some great feedback to add to further users tests carried outside of the academy to build upon our designs.
Week 8 – Stakeholder management and UX portfolios
Onto the final week, which was a fairly relaxed evening with Sophie filling in at short notice with the topic for the night being Stakeholder Management and Portfolios. Showing us how important it is to know who they are, what they want, emphasising the need to take these people with you whilst doing the project. Giving us a few key ways to keep people on board with workshops like Hackathons, Design sprints, and storytelling. Which all help to change attitudes in terms of how UX might be thought of in other parts of the business, with a major example coming from the book Sprint by Jake Knapp and Game storming by Dave Gray.
The talk then moved into how best to set up a portfolio, and how to use the work we had done throughout the course, and build a case study that would allow us to show the processes we have gone through when designing.
One of the best parts being right at the end where Sophie spent her time to have a look through the work we had produced over the last few weeks, as well guiding us on our online portfolios, giving us an insight into what employers are looking for, as well as a few pointers of what we should change. I found this a great part of the night getting great feedback in a non pressured environment and being able to chat openly with Sophie on ideas of how to adapt my site to best show off my work.
As the night came to a close a few of the students finished off with a couple of drinks with both Naveed and Sophie joining us, where we could talk about the academy and share ideas and what groups and events to join to continue learning.
As someone who has been a front end developer, and product designer I really enjoyed the 8 weeks, which seemed to go in a flash. My highlights definitely being able to sit down with the tutors on a one to one basis from getting thoughts on masters degrees, to usability tests. I think it’s great if you’re new in UX or a beginner, in giving you the right structure to follow or just cementing what you may already have learnt whilst at work. Although what I would say is you get out of the course as much as you are willing to put using the nights sessions as a way to give a direction to the work you do outside of the academy.
A definite highlight is the tutors who have amazing backgrounds in UX who give a great insight to what they have learnt over their careers as well as Naveed who makes you feel at ease and is more than willing to answer any question you have, and always looking at ways to see how he can improve the academy in the future.
Lee Mallon the Technical lead from Rarely Impossible came to share his experience in working with Alexa voice, giving some useful insight into how using this technology can change the way we communicate.
One point raised was quite interesting, talking about how the younger generation adapts to technology first, but then turning this conception on its head looking at how the interaction could actually suit the older generation more due to under 25s having grown up researching and asking questions using the internet with a keypad, whereas the older generation 65+ have grown up talking to gain insight and knowledge, which i though was quite a nice turning the usual concept on its head. He pointed out how Alexa gives a transcript of everything that was asked during the past month or so, and mentioned how his nan suffers a bit from Dementia and this was shown up within the transcript, where she had asked the same question a number of times within a short period of time, which raises some useful thoughts about how this could be turned into something positive, that might be able to detect certain patterns in how the user uses the device detecting early onset of dementia or other illnesses.
It is interesting that Alexa constantly monitors what is being said waiting for awake words to be mentioned, but Lee mentioned how you soon forget and carry on with normal life. What was alarming is that every term that goes through Alexa is being monitored by a team of people who put a transcript together, although not noting location or name of the user.
This led to how Alexa can be used for offices such as being able to put together and presenting sales figures, and then presenting it to the team – which would save a few people within my team a few hours a week. Although companies must be scared that their data is being run through a direct competitor. They found some interesting things about the placement of Amazon Echo when testing it within a client’s office, such as Alexa found it hard to pick up voices in a noisy location which is fairly obvious, but most interesting was it struggled at the end of the day, finding the office workers voices and language hard to understand as the users become lazy and tired, wanting to get home. Lee found with his team that there is a real difference in the tone and quality of the users voice depending on how they feel.
Lee talked about the findings he found when taking it home, finding that he would first talk normally when asking Alexa a question, but soon started talking as if he was typing into a Google search box. Eg saying, “Hamilton Malaysia” instead of “Where did Hamilton finish at the Malaysian GP this weekend”. With his kids everything started fine until after a couple of week one of his kids went up to him and said “Dad get me a drink”. Lee found himself replying “I’m not Alexa!”. They then had to download a skill so that Alexa would only carry out requests once it had heard the word please.
Moving onto new technology of where voice could be used such as lifts and how this would affect the interface, eg allowing the user to know that they would have to speak, when there is no interface. Here the lift would have to talk to the user asking which floor the user would want to go to, which would be one of the first times that a computer would initiate contact with the user.
Billy Gregory @thebillygregory was very entertaining, but with a very important message. Talking about a tweet that he sent out over a year ago that he didn’t think much about at the time. This then caught on about, and he came over from Canada to talk through Some User experience eg SUX.
Billy Gregorys original tweet was:
“When UX doesn’t consider ALL users, shouldn’t it be known as ‘SOME User Experience’ or SUX?”
What was interesting was looking at the learning curve of various ages. Struggling to find a iOS app that his dad would understand using gesture based controls, and then looking at his daughters who were way more advanced than he was. Talking about how he is stuck in the middle, getting a little bit more out of touch with how you the younger generation interact with technology, and pointing out all the different people that we need to be designing for from WWE wrestlers to visually impaired to people finding it hard to move, and how inclusive shouldn’t have no boundaries.
A few things that are half-arsed online
What to focus on when building design requirements
Colour contrast and meaning
Focus and content order
Touch target size (recent read that the average size of the thumb print is 40x40px)
Describe how custom components work
I would very much recommend to go to a talk of Billy Gregory, as he was very entertaining and gives you something to think about.
Leonie Watson presenting the accessibility techniques for SVG. Very much aimed at the Developer, but did highlight some amazing things you could do to SVG imagery to bring these to life for visually impaired. Highlighting that within background imagery you can now be using a High Contrast Mode (HCM) detection script. What looked great about SVG + ARIA is that you can now start to explain graphs and animation within the SVG bringing them to life.
Within the question and answer phase, a lot was said about CMS’s that can’t achieve full accessibility and how sometimes the excuse is made that because they can’t be fully accessible that there was little point spend much time on this by client managers, but it was the thought from everyone in the room that making little changes along the way even if it is just explaining an image correctly can have a huge benefit.
In the QA at the end another thought was looking at the little icons that come as standard such as radio buttons, and how it does look cool to redesign these to match site branding, but how this can then also be becoming a barrier to accessibility. Another one brought up was how fancy date picker pop ups can be horrendous to use when only using a space bar or screen reader.
An interesting talk looking at the future of banking at how the industry thinks it will evolve. Some good speakers with a couple from agencies such as Athlon, but most interesting was the two speakers from Lloyds and Monzo. It was great to see these two gently spar throughout the evening, sharing comments about how the two companies operate. The two comments that stood out most, was how Monzo tested their products, trying to steer away from usability testing within a controlled environment in their office, preferring to go into people’s homes where users are more comfortable, knowing full well that Lloyds would have testing facilities set up in their offices. Another dig back from Lloyds was looking at these new start up banks as non-banks as at the time hadn’t acquired the right licenses to be called a bank.
The talk started with Lloyds, speaker Tiago Marques who went through the history of banking, and how it went from a trusted serves within the high street, to how bankers were awarded for risk during the 80s. Eventually these people moved up through the company, changing the culture of banking throughout the industry, resulting in the crash of 2008. Now the efforts are trying to move these companies back to more human organization, but as with any large organisation it will take time. He went on to speak about how human interaction within banking was still important, and mentioned with something important like life insurance or buying a house, people still want to be able to go and speak to someone who has knowledge of the area. Despite the user being able to go online and find the same service. Finally mentioning how there is still some way to go with online activity where 40% of customers haven’t registered online.
The head of UX at Monzo Hugo Cornejo came on and talked more about the process of design within their company, talking about how they don’t state what the company ethos is, and how the role of UX is the responsibility of everyone within the company. A main focus point on his talk was about Fitt’s law, and looking at what user expect from a design, and not deviating away from that mental model the user already expects from their product. As well as looking at ‘Poka yoke’ to prevent error by design e.g. placing constraints that forces the user to adjust their behaviour, such as error messaging within a form field, and looking at over complicated designs. The main focal area for them is making sure their users know what’s going on within their account at every point of the process.
The talk then moved onto Fintech and AI from the speaker Bence Csernak from Bencium, talking about predicting future events on past behaviours and how AI is already part of everyday life, and has been part of our lives for a while with such systems as auto correct with mobile phones and the old Microsoft office helper Clippy. Moving onto users he showed a video of how teenagers and early 20s are consuming media, and made quite a valid point about how they are used to distractions and how banking communities serve up a bland form for them to fill out. Making a point about how we can start to use AI to change branding and functionality to suit these users. Other useful snippets from him was within amazon and facebook how they are introducing slide buttons to stop users clicking buy by mistake, as well as how happy users are more open to new content, which is similar to a point made in the book ‘110 Things every Designer need to know about people by Susan Weinschenk’ that mentions how studies have found that users are open to new brands when shopping when happy, but if upset, or are in a bad mood supermarkets are better to offer up well known brands, as users search for that familiarity and comfort.
To the future, all presenters mentioned that it is quite an exciting time and what with new legislation, you may see 3rd party companies accessing users accounts and serving up the user interface for them, with the banks becoming almost a safe house for the users account. They mentioned how it will be important for these larger companies to get their product to market first and offering up API’s for smaller companies to hang off, similar to how Google works with such technology as their maps.