Design

From 2015 to 2024: how real estate websites have evolved

From 2015 to 2024: how real estate websites have evolved

In 2015, I embarked on the journey of buying my first home. At that time, I wrote a blog post critiquing the UX of real estate websites through a, somewhat sarcastic, persona named ‘Kayla’ and listed out ‘her’ (my) user needs and how they weren’t being met. Discover how real estate websites have evolved from 2015 to 2024 through a personal lens. Spoiler alert – it still sucks, but it sucks a little less.

In this blog post, I evaluate how current real estate platforms address user needs such as viewing new properties, staying within budget, accessing accurate information, and managing inspection schedules. It suggests key improvements and practical recommendations for improving real estate website UX.

Ghost Buttons — Not as bad as we thought? 

Ghost Buttons — Not as bad as we thought? 

Are ghost buttons really as bad as they've been made out to be? Ghost buttons are often touted as low-affordance, and it’s true of many of the examples we see  — buttons with poor contrast placed over images making them difficult to use and confounds A/B tests. We say we are comparing ghost buttons and ‘normal’ buttons but we are really testing accessible vs inaccessible buttons, high vs low contrast designs, high affordance vs low affordance designs (and it’s not a surprise that ghost buttons lose). What happens when we test an accessible ghost button against an accessible solid button?

Press the pink button — Designing for colour blind users

Press the pink button — Designing for colour blind users

We use colour as a signifier for people, places and things all the time. Probably more than you realise. About 8% of Australian males and 0.4% of females are colour blind.  Like all people with ‘disabilities’, there are certain things colour blind people can’t do. Design can help make the world more accessible to ensure they can do everything those with ‘normal’ vision can. I explore ways to deign for colour blind users, which often improves the experience for everyone. 

Does the NPS tell us what users really mean?

We’ve trained users with the five or seven point Likert scale survey questions, where the middle point means “neither likely nor unlikely”. Yet on the NPS a 5 does not mean "neither" it means the users is a detractor. Does the NPS tell us what users really mean?

Design is as good (or as flawed) as the people who make it

Design is as good (or as flawed) as the people who make it

gave a talk at UX Australia 2016 in Melbourne (August 25–26) . No one sets out to intentionally design a system that is hard to use for — or worse, excludes or discriminates against —  some users. Designers are trying their best. You’re probably a good person, but a human nonetheless, therefore not perfect. Design can only be as good as the people who make it. Conversely, design is as flawed as the people who make it. 

Drunk Kayla & Uber UX

I had a few after-work drinks last Friday and caught an Uber home — this was always the plan, although I probably had one (or three) too many drinks on an empty stomach and was a little drunk (not part of the original intention). I lost my phone and this is a story of that UX.