by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #8: A really good book!

One of the perspectives I’ve enjoyed the most came from a book: Conversational UX Design: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Natural Conversation Framework by Robert J. Moore and colleagues. It’s not a “hot take” on AI; it’s a methodical breakdown of how real human conversations actually work—and what it means to design interfaces that respect those patterns.

The book introduces the Natural Conversation Framework (NCF), which includes an interaction model of expandable sequences, a content format, a pattern language with around 100 generic UX patterns, and a navigation method based on six basic user actions. The core idea is that conversation is not just “free text”; it has a structure—openings, repairs, confirmations, closings—and good conversational interfaces need to explicitly design for those moves rather than hoping the model will improvise.

What really clicked for me is how this maps to multimodal, AI‑augmented tools. The book emphasises that conversational UX is not just about voice or chat; it explicitly talks about multi‑modal, multi‑session, multi‑channel interactions where people are reading screens, tapping buttons, and speaking at the same time. Voice, chat, and interface design are framed as complementary, not mutually exclusive—exactly the stance I’m taking with my hybrid prototypes that combine conversation and GUI controls.​​

For my thesis, this book is an important reminder that:

  • A conversational design tool still needs clear turn‑taking and repair mechanisms (e.g., “Did you mean increase by 4 px or 40 px?”) instead of silently guessing.
  • Multimodal systems should treat voice, text, and touch as different ways of performing the same underlying conversational moves—proposing, clarifying, correcting, confirming—rather than as separate feature sets.
  • Pattern languages matter: just like GUI design has reusable patterns, conversational and multimodal UX needs named, reusable patterns for things like disambiguation, mixed‑initiative, and context carry‑over.

In other words, Conversational UX Design quietly argues for exactly the kind of interaction thinking my thesis depends on: don’t bolt chat onto an existing interface and hope for the best. Treat conversation as a first‑class interaction mode, design its structure, and then let other modalities—clicks, drags, sliders—plug into that structure in a coherent way.

Relevant Book: https://www.amazon.com/Conversational-Design-Practitioners-Conversation-Framework/dp/1450363024

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #7: Multimodal UI in 2025

A recent agency blog on multimodal UI in 2025 described today’s AI platforms as “multimodal by default,” combining text, voice, and image understanding into unified systems and pushing interfaces to feel “less like technology and more like conversation.” Beyond the marketing gloss, three trends they highlighted feel particularly relevant for UX in design tools:​

  1. Contextual intelligence – Systems that don’t just parse what you say, but also where, when, and on which device you’re saying it.​
  2. Personalized interaction models – Interfaces that adapt to individual communication preferences over time.​
  3. Cross‑device continuity – Seamless shifts between voice, visual, and traditional interfaces across an ecosystem.​

Reading this through a UX lens, I noticed how often our current tools still behave like “one‑size‑fits‑all” interaction models. Everyone gets the same chat box, the same inspector pane, the same shortcuts—regardless of whether they are a keyboard‑driven power user, a visual thinker, or someone who prefers narrating changes out loud. The blog’s emphasis on personalised interaction models suggests a different future: tools that learn how you like to instruct them and quietly shape the interface around that.​

For my thesis, that raises an exciting (and slightly scary) possibility: what if the “right” interaction model for conversational design tools isn’t a single static pattern, but an adaptive one? One designer might lean heavily on chat for structure, then fine‑tune with the mouse. Another might prefer starting with manual layout and only using text prompts for repetitive tweaks. An adaptive system could track those preferences and surface the right modality at the right time, instead of forcing everyone through the same chat‑first funnel.​​

The catch, of course, is that adaptivity can easily slide into opacity. UX has to ensure that as tools personalise interaction models, they remain legible and predictable. Otherwise, you end up with an interface that feels like a moving target—powerful, but hard to trust. Balancing that tension is exactly the kind of design problem I want to explore: how to make multimodal, adaptive interfaces feel both personalised and stable enough for serious work.

Relevant link: https://gofightwin.co/blogs/voice-vision-context-designing-for-multimodal-ui-in-2025

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #6 : The “Prompt Tax”

One of the most honest takes I’ve seen on AI in design tools wasn’t a formal article—it was a LinkedIn reflection from a UX researcher experimenting with Figma Make. They described how AI‑generated prototypes could turn research share‑outs into live, interactive workshops instead of static decks, shrinking the gap between insight and design iteration. But in the same breath, they admitted it often took “hours of iterative, granular prompting” to get ideas to come to life.​

That phrase—hours of iterative, granular prompting—hit me harder than any polished product announcement. It captures a hidden UX cost I’ve started calling the prompt tax: the cognitive and emotional overhead of trying to wrangle a conversational or generative system into doing what you mean, not just what you say. On paper, the system is “natural language” and “intuitive.” In practice, you spend a lot of time reverse‑engineering how to talk to it.​

From a UX perspective, this is a familiar pattern. We’ve seen it with early voice assistants (“sorry, I didn’t catch that”) and with chatbots that require oddly specific phrasing. The twist here is that the stakes are higher: we’re talking about tools for expert work, where precision, repeatability, and explainability matter. When a researcher says they see the potential but also feel the grind of prompting, that’s a clear signal that the interaction model needs more than just good language models.​

For my thesis, this post validates a core hunch: conversational interfaces in design tools can’t stand alone. They need supporting structures that reduce the prompt tax—like surfacing relevant controls at the right moment, remembering personal vocabulary, or letting users “draw” corrections instead of re‑prompting. The goal isn’t fewer prompts; it’s fewer frustrating prompts.

Relevant link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-santer-7b7055127_config2025-make-uxresearch-activity-7356748034061316099-wUNW

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #5: Stop Treating Modes as Features

I recently revisited a piece on multimodal UX that describes how everyday experiences are drifting from “screen + tap” toward rich blends of voice, touch, vision, and motion—think smart homes, in‑car systems, and AR environments. The article defines multimodal UX not just as “more ways to interact,” but as designing a single, cohesive experience that feels intuitive no matter which mode the user leans on in that moment.​

What struck me is how often we still design modes like separate features: “We added voice,” “we added gesture,” “we added chat.” The article’s examples—smart home voice + wall panels, automotive dashboards mixing touch and voice—show that users don’t think that way. They just reach for whatever feels fastest, safest, or most natural. If the system treats each mode as a silo, the user ends up doing the coordination work: remembering which mode does what, where, and when.​

For UX, the real design problem isn’t “how do we support more input types?” It’s “how do we choreograph them so users don’t have to think about the choreography at all?” That maps directly onto my thesis questions about conversational design tools. When a designer switches from typing “make this bigger” to dragging a handle, that’s also multimodal UX—just in a professional tool context. The challenge is to make that transition feel like one continuous action, not a context switch that breaks flow.

If multimodal UX in consumer products is about blending voice, touch, and vision into one mental model, then multimodal UX in design tools should be about blending conversation and direct manipulation into one sense of control.

Relevant link: https://www.ux-bulletin.com/multimodal-ux-design/

by arinze.onyebuchi -

Research Matrix

Thesis Topic:
Motion as Communication: Using Micro-Interactions to Help Drivers Understand Automation Mode Changes

Aims ObjectivesMethodsOutcomesOutputs
Understand how drivers currently get confused about automation modes and handovers. Clarify the problem space of mode confusion and existing HMI strategies for communicating mode and takeover.Targeted literature review on mode confusion, takeover studies, and automation HMI guidelines.Clear picture of where current interfaces fail (e.g., unclear state, weak anticipation, bad timing of alerts).Short problem framing section with diagrams of current HMI patterns and failure modes.
Find out what existing research already says about effective feedback and motion in high‑load, time‑critical interfaces. Collect and organize evidence on which feedback types and motion patterns improve comprehension and reaction time.Systematic search, screening, and evidence mapping across automotive, aviation, medical, and UI/motion research. Evidence maps showing which strategies (static, motion, multimodal) work, where, and how strongly they’re supported.Evidence tables and visual maps you can include in the thesis (and reuse in slides).
Translate that evidence into concrete motion patterns and parameters for automation mode changes. Define a compact motion framework for entering automation, exiting automation, and escalating takeover requests.Research‑through‑design: sketching, storyboard flows, prototyping micro‑interactions (e.g., in Figma) guided by the evidence. A small, coherent set of motion patterns with rationale tied back to specific studies and theories.Motion specs (timing, easing, behavior) plus prototype screens showing mode transitions and alerts.
Turn those patterns into reusable motion tokens and a design guide that teams could plug into a design system. Define motion tokens (durations, easing curves, escalation patterns) and describe how to use them in an automotive HMI.Synthesis + systems thinking: abstracting patterns into tokens, writing guidelines, and mapping them into a component library structure.A motion “layer” that can sit inside a design system for vehicle HMIs (or similar products).Motion token set, usage guidelines, and an example component library (e.g., Figma pages or documented components).
Reflect on how this changes the way we think about motion in safety‑critical interaction design. Position motion as a functional communication tool (not just delight) and highlight gaps for future empirical work.Critical discussion that connects your framework back to theory (cognitive load, attention, mode confusion) and identifies missing research. Clear articulation of what we know, what we can recommend with confidence, and what still needs live testing.Discussion + conclusion chapters that wrap up the framework, its limits, and next steps (including ideas for future simulator studies).
by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #4: Lunch with Prof. Baumann (with some good Kebap!)

This impulse is a bit different from the others because it is not a book or a talk, but a lunch meeting with Prof. Konrad Baumann that helped me put much sharper edges around my thesis idea. The conversation was essentially my first “real” check-in with someone I would like to supervise my thesis, and it forced me to articulate my motivations and what I actually want to achieve with “effective ethical design” and digital footprints. Instead of staying in my own head, I had to explain why this topic matters to me and where I see it sitting inside UX practice and the wider industry. That alone made this meeting feel like an important impulse.

We started by reconnecting threads from a previous class discussion, where we had talked about our interests in the UX field and the kinds of industry problems we care about. For me, those questions brought back the same themes: ethical design, dark patterns, privacy, and how users are often left in the dark about their data trails. This lunch was like a continuation of that exercise, but one-on-one and more honest. Saying my thesis topic out loud and contextualising it in front of someone with experience in this area made my intentions feel more “real”, and it also exposed where my thinking was still a bit vague or too broad.

I really liked how he brought up concrete cases and pointed me toward resources, including earlier advice I had heard about noyb (Neuerungen bei Datenschutzfällen), a privacy organisation that regularly takes companies to court over data protection violations. These cases are basically “real-life stories” of where digital products and services crossed lines in how they handled user data. That was a helpful reminder that my thesis is not just theoretical; it sits in a landscape where regulators, NGOs, and companies are already fighting over what is acceptable, from tracking to dark patterns to consent models.​

Afterwards, Prof. Baumann shared an interesting ORF article that discusses current tensions and developments around privacy and digital rights in Austria and Europe. Even without quoting it directly, the article makes it clear how much is at stake: from weak enforcement to high-profile cases against platforms and tech companies, it shows that “privacy by design” is not just a slogan but something that either happens in concrete interfaces or does not. For my thesis, this is a useful anchor, because it links my academic work to a living context of laws being tested, companies being challenged, and users being affected.​

What I take from this impulse is both emotional and structural. Emotionally, it reassures me that I am not chasing a “nice sounding topic” but something that sits at the intersection of UX, law, and real harms users are experiencing. Structurally, it pushes me to frame my thesis more clearly around a few core questions: How can interaction design make digital footprints visible and manageable in everyday interfaces? How can ethical constraints and legal requirements be translated into practical patterns instead of abstract guidelines? And how can designers avoid repeating the kinds of behaviours that end up in complaints, lawsuits, or investigative articles about privacy abuses?​

For my next steps, this meeting gives me three concrete moves. First, to keep mapping real cases (like those collected by noyb and highlighted in media coverage) as examples of what “unethical design” looks like in practice, and why better interaction patterns are needed. Second, to use those cases as boundary markers when I prototype: if a pattern smells like something that has already led to a complaint or enforcement, it is a red flag. Third, to stay in close conversation with Prof. Baumann as a supervisor, so that my thesis stays grounded in both design practice and the evolving legal and ethical landscape.​

Link to the ORF article Prof. Baumann shared (in German), which anchors this impulse in current debates about privacy and data protection:
https://orf.at/stories/3410746/​

For broader context on enforcement and complaints concerning privacy violations in Europe, especially involving companies like Clearview AI, this overview from Reuters and noyb helps show how data misuse is being challenged at a legal level:
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/clearview-ai-faces-criminal-complaint-austria-suspected-privacy-violations​
https://noyb.eu/en/criminal-complaint-against-facial-recognition-company-clearview-ai​

Finally, this Austrian consumer-focused article on dark patterns and manipulative web design provides a very concrete list of deceptive practices and explains how new regulations like the Digital Services Act aim to limit them, which connects directly back to my thesis interest in ethical interfaces and user autonomy:
https://www.konsumentenfragen.at/konsumentenfragen/Kommunikation_und_Medien/Kommunikation_und_Medien_1/Vorsicht-vor-Dark-Patterns-im-Internet.html​

Disclaimer: This blog post was developed with AI assistance (Perplexity) to help with structuring and phrasing my reflections.

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #3: Interesting read from the chapter “The Need for Ethics in Design” from The Ethical Design Handbook and how we can effectively implement ethics in our work

I started reading “The Ethical Design Handbook” by Trine Falbe, Martin Michael Frederiksen, and Kim Andersen (it was one of the very first resources I discovered and noted down in the initial gathering process that led to the choice of my thesis topic) and now, I treat it as an ongoing, dip-in resource rather than a straight-through textbook. It is framed as a practical guide for leaving dark patterns behind and making ethical design part of everyday digital product work, not just a side note. For my thesis on helping people manage their digital footprints, this book feels like a toolkit I can slowly mine: I can pick the chapters that match my current questions, use them, and then come back later when a new angle opens up.​

Right now, I’m really chewing alot on the second chapter “The Need for Ethics in Design”, because it sets up why ethical design has to be more than simple legal compliance. The authors walk through consequences of unethical design and show how dark patterns, aggressive tracking, and manipulative interfaces damage trust and harm users. They also introduce ethical principles like non-instrumentalism, self-determination, responsibility, and fairness, and connect them to familiar frameworks such as Privacy by Design. Reading this as a preparatory part of my future thesis work, is really helping me sharpen the language to better describe what bothers me about many current products and services: which currently treat people purely as data sources or conversion targets, this very action breaks those core principles and undermines users’ ability to effectively understand and shape their digital footprints.​

What feels especially useful is how concrete the book tries to be. It is not just “be nice to users” as an abstract value statement; it tries to build an actual working framework, including tools like the Ethical Design Scorecard and “ethical blueprints” for real design processes. The scorecard is meant to assess how a product performs on different ethical dimensions, with weighted criteria. For my thesis, this sparks a very practical idea: I could adapt or extend such a scorecard specifically around footprint-related questions like what data is collected, how transparent the flows are, how easy it is to revoke or change consent, and whether users can see or manage their historical data in meaningful ways.​

This chapter also acknowledges that change has to happen inside teams and businesses, not just in individual designers’ heads. Later parts of the book (which I plan to read next) focus on “creating positive change” and “the business of ethical design”, arguing that ethical practices can be aligned with sustainable business models instead of being framed as a cost. That connects well with my thesis constraint of balancing business needs with user autonomy: if I can borrow some of the arguments and models from these chapters, I can show how ethical digital footprint management is not just “good for users” but also part of a long-term, trust-based product strategy.​

As an ongoing read, I see myself using this book in two ways. First, as a language and framework source: the principles and scorecard approach help me structure the “ethical requirements” part of my thesis more clearly. Second, as a bridge to practice: the blueprints and case-studies can inform how I generally approach projects/work in my career to more genuinely support user agency instead of nudging people into over-sharing and not giving them effective ways to manage what has been overshared. ​

Here is the official site for The Ethical Design Handbook, which includes the table of contents, the ethical design scorecard, and downloadable blueprints that expand on the tools discussed in the book:
https://ethicaldesignhandbook.com​

Smashing Magazine’s book page gives a good high-level overview of the book’s goals, including how it aims to help teams replace dark patterns with honest patterns while still supporting business KPIs:
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/printed-books/ethical-design-handbook/​

Finally, this Smashing Magazine article announcing the handbook’s release explains why the book was written and emphasizes the need for practical, long-lasting solutions to move companies away from manipulative design and towards sustainable, ethical digital footprints:
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2020/03/ethical-design-handbook-release/​

Disclaimer: This blog post was developed with AI assistance (Perplexity) to help with structuring and phrasing my reflections.

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #2: Reflecting on the panel discussion Privacy design, dark patterns, and speculative data futures – What if we designed for better data futures on purpose?

The panel at CPDP 2022 on “Privacy design, dark patterns, and speculative data futures” brings together researchers, regulators, and designers to talk about how current interfaces manipulate people, and how speculative design and foresight could help us imagine and build better data futures. This panel was moderated by Cristiana Santos (University of Utrecht, Netherlands) and had speakers like Régis Chatellier, Stefano Leucci, Dusan Pavlovic, Arianna Rossi and Cennydd Bowles.

The core things discussed on this panel is very close to my thesis: on one side, dark patterns and privacy-invasive mechanisms quietly exploit users; on the other side, there is a growing push for transparency-enhancing technologies and privacy-by-design approaches that could give people more control over their digital footprints.​​

One of the clear threads in the discussion is that dark patterns are not accidents; they result from deliberate choices, business pressures, and a lack of ethical guardrails in the design process. Panelists talk about building description schemas and datasets to systematically identify and classify deceptive patterns in interfaces, especially around privacy choices and access to personal data. For my thesis, this reinforces the idea that “ethical design” cannot stay abstract. If I want to help people manage their digital footprints, I need to treat dark patterns and their opposites as concrete, nameable design patterns and counter-patterns that can be recognised, tested, and avoided.​​

Another important topic is how law, design, and foresight can work together. Several speakers stress that legal tools and enforcement alone are too slow and reactive to address fast-moving interface manipulation. They argue that designers and product managers hold a lot of power over whether an interface is deceptive or respectful, and that speculative methods can be used to anticipate future harms and design for better outcomes before those harms become normal. This fits directly with my research interest in “effective” ethical design: effectiveness here means not just compliance, but the ability of interfaces to prevent foreseeable harm to users’ data and autonomy.​​

Speculative design appears in the panel as a practical method, not just an art-school exercise. One example the discussion connects to is the use of speculative enactments and design fiction to help designers explore tensions between business goals and privacy rights. By staging hypothetical interfaces and futures, designers can see how certain patterns might feel manipulative or disloyal before they are deployed at scale. For my thesis, this suggests a concrete technique: using speculative prototypes to make digital footprints and their consequences visible, then inviting users or stakeholders to react to these “what if” scenarios.​

The panel also raises a warning: speculative design can become trendy and superficial if it is done without a clear purpose or connection to actual decision-making. For ethical design, this means that speculative scenarios should feed into real processes like data protection impact assessments, design reviews, or pattern libraries, instead of staying as cool concept visuals. This is a useful constraint for my own work: any speculative interface I use in my thesis should be clearly tied to decisions about what data is collected, how consent is handled, and how users see and control their footprints.​​

For my research, this impulse does three things. First, it nudges me to explicitly frame dark patterns as “disloyal” design choices that work against users’ interests, especially in how their data is captured and used. Second, it shows that privacy-by-design and speculative design can be combined: speculative futures can help define the guardrails and desirable directions for ethical interaction patterns around digital footprints. Third, it highlights that designers and product teams must be at the center of this work, not just lawyers and regulators, which strengthens my argument that interaction design is a key lever for meaningful digital autonomy.​​

Some accompanying links:

Here is a link to the full panel video, which serves as the core resource for this impulse and gives the complete discussion on privacy design, dark patterns, and data futures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbP_SjtGdkk​

This conference program entry and description provide context on how the panel fits into a broader event on privacy and data protection, including its goals and questions around law, design, and foresight:
https://researchportal.vub.be/files/97144098/2022.05.22_CPDP2022.pdf​

Finally, this related article on “Rationalizing Dark Patterns” explores how designers themselves rationalize or reproduce dark patterns in privacy UX, and proposes speculative enactments as a tool for more critical, privacy-aware design practice, which aligns well with the panel’s themes and my thesis:
http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/4117/972​

Disclaimer: This blog post was developed with AI assistance (Perplexity) to help with structuring and phrasing my reflections.

by arinze.onyebuchi -

IMPULSE #1: Reflecting on the book “Designing Interactions” – What responsibility really hides behind an interface?

I got a week with Bill Moggridge’s “Designing Interactions”(huge thanks to Prof. Baumann) and it felt like sitting in a long, honest conversation with the people who built the interfaces we now use everyday. The interviews and case stories walk through the shift from early graphical interfaces and the mouse, all the way to mobile devices, games, and speculative futures, and you start to see how every design decision quietly teaches users how to think about technology. For my thesis on ethical design and digital footprints, this book is a reminder that interaction design is never neutral; it always shapes what users notice, what they ignore, and how aware they are of the traces they leave behind. Some chapters really highlight the ​importance of how design shapes how humans leave digital footprints and it really opened further curiosities.

The early GUI stories around the mouse and the desktop metaphor are a good reminder of how much power metaphors have. Designers were not only drawing icons; they were defining how people imagine “working” inside a computer, using windows, folders, and simple interactions. Translating this to my thesis, I realize current privacy banners, “activity” views, and history logs are also metaphors that teach people what a digital footprint is. If the interface hides most of the trail or wraps it in vague language, users will assume there is not much going on. That is already a design decision, not an accident.​

The chapter “From the Desk to the Palm” is where the digital footprint issue becomes impossible to ignore. These chapters walk through how interactions left the desk and moved into pockets, hands, and everyday routines. Once devices became mobile and always connected, data stopped being something people “entered” and became something that is constantly generated in the background. For my work, this underlines a key ethical challenge: people are not always consciously “using” a product when their data is being collected. Ethical interaction design must therefore find ways to surface what is happening in the background without overwhelming people.​

Then “Adopting Technology” stories highlight the negotiation between what is technically possible and what is acceptable or understandable for users. Designers keep running into constraints and tradeoffs, and those constraints end up shaping the final product. I see a clear parallel here with privacy-by-design: if ethical constraints and data-minimization rules are built into the process early, they can shape the interaction in the same way as technical limits. This helps me think of ethics not as an add-on checklist, but as part of the design brief.​

Also, the “People and Prototypes” chapter gives me a practical hook. He describes a process grounded in talking to people, building quick prototypes, and iterating under constraints. For my thesis, I can borrow this structure and explicitly define “ethical constraints” around data collection, consent, and transparency, then test them through prototypes. Instead of just saying “this design is ethical,” I can show how those constraints influenced specific interaction choices.​

There is also value in the more future-focused material. The speculative and “alternative nows” work shows designers imagining other ways technology could fit into society, not all of them comfortable. This inspires me to think about what a future interface would look like if it treated digital footprints as something to be clearly seen and managed, rather than hidden. For example, could a product visualize data trails in real time, or let users rehearse different “data futures” depending on the choices they make?​

For my thesis, this impulse leads to three concrete moves: first, to treat metaphors and mental models as central when designing how people understand their digital traces. Second, to adopt a “people, prototypes, constraints” process that includes ethical and privacy constraints from the start. Third, to use speculative scenarios to question today’s defaults and imagine interfaces that actively help people manage their footprints instead of quietly expanding them.

​
Some relevant accompanying links:

Here is a link to the publisher’s page for “Designing Interactions”, which gives a clear overview of the structure, chapters, and focus of the book:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/655668/designing-interactions-by-bill-moggridge/9780262134743​

For another perspective, this review summarises the key themes and interviews in the book and helps me cross-check which parts are most relevant to interaction design practice and my thesis:
https://www.pdma.org/page/review_designing_int​

Lastly, this introduction to interaction design offers a concise explanation of how interaction design shapes user behavior and expectations, which supports my argument that design decisions influence how people understand their digital footprints:
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/interaction-design-brief-intro​


Disclaimer: This blog post was developed with AI assistance (Perplexity) to help structuring and phrasing my reflections.

by arinze.onyebuchi -

A Review of the Thesis: Influence and Ethical Impact of Design of Technology on User Behavior

Author: Veronika Langner
Title: Influence and ethical impact of design of technology on user behavior
Year: 2023
University: Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt
Course of Study: User Experience Design
Link to Thesis: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-haw/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/4046/file/I001659320Thesis.pdf

This thesis digs into how things like button color, shape, or placement in apps actually push people’s decisions, often without us even realizing it. Veronika covers nudging, persuasive tech, and all those design tricks, but she’s always asking, “Is this ethical?” She doesn’t just talk about theory. She runs a pretty solid user study with over 100 people to see which designs actually change user choices. That mix of research and practice made this stand out for me.

Presentation quality
Everything is laid out clearly. The graphics actually help explain things, and there is no clutter. The flow is sensible and it never feels lost or repetitive. You can tell care went into making sure it is easy to navigate.

Degree of innovation & independence
What I really like is her focus on the subtle stuff, how tiny UI tweaks can majorly affect behavior. She did not lean on old templates but set up her own experiments and followed them through confidently. Most studies ignore how much control users actually have over what they share or do, but she doesn’t. I do wish there was more about people outside “typical users,” especially those who might care more about tracking or privacy.

Organization and structure
No surprises here. It is logical and clear, each section building on the last. It goes from theory and research straight into the actual user study and then loops back to why these findings matter for designers.

Communication
The writing is straightforward, not clogged up with jargon. She makes complex ideas easy to get, like she is talking with you and not just writing for academics.

Scope
She goes deep enough on every topic layer without straying too far. There could be more about how these ideas play out with stricter privacy laws or in different countries, but for what she sets out to do, she delivers.

Accuracy and attention to detail
Her charts, stats, and references are solid. There is a careful approach to both the experiment and the write-up. You can trust what is there.

Literature
She brings in the big names in design and behavioral science alongside new studies. It is not just a list. The sources work with her points instead of standing alone.

Personal reflection
What really pulled me in was how this connects to my own thesis, which is about how we help users actually manage their digital footprints better. It is so easy to forget the power design has in quietly guiding what data people share and whether they feel in control or not. Reading this reminded me of the importance of designing for agency, showing people where their data goes, making privacy choices obvious and accessible, and resisting those sneaky nudges that favor the company over the user. For my own research, this thesis is a reminder to keep checking every screen and every pathway I design and keep asking, “Does this help people actually manage and understand their digital trail, or am I adding to the confusion?”

Disclaimer:
This review was shaped with AI (Perplexity) to help me capture my thoughts and structure them clearly.