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 Charlotte Poos -

Impuls 06 La Divina Commedia – Ballett, Raum und typografische Wahrnehmung

Mein sechster Impuls für Design & Research 3 ist mein Besuch des Balletts La Divina Commedia in der Grazer Oper Graz, am 28.01.26. Seit ich denken kann, gehe ich regelmäßig ins Ballett. Umso besonderer war es für mich, hier eine Inszenierung zu erleben, die das klassische Format nicht nur erweitert, sondern grundlegend neu gedacht hat.

Die erste Hälfte des Balletts fand nicht im Opernsaal statt, sondern in den unterschiedlichen Räumen der Oper. Als Publikum bewegte man sich frei durch das Gebäude und konnte die einzelnen Tänzerinnen und Tänzer in performativen Situationen beobachten. Diese Erfahrung erinnerte mich stark an einen Museumsbesuch, bei dem man selbst entscheidet, wie lange man verweilt und aus welcher Perspektive man beobachtet. Dadurch entstand keine lineare Erzählung, sondern eine individuelle Abfolge von Eindrücken.

Besonders intensiv war die unmittelbare Nähe zu den Tänzerinnen und Tänzern. Teilweise stand man so nah, dass es sich anfühlte, als würde man gleich Teil der Performance werden. Durch die dichte Situation im Raum kam es vor, dass man die Körper fast berührte. Diese Nähe erzeugte eine starke körperliche Präsenz und machte Bewegung, Atmung und Anspannung deutlich spürbar. Gleichzeitig hatte man das Gefühl, dass die Performenden auf das Publikum reagierten. Durch Blicke, Richtungswechsel oder kleine Gesten entstand eine Form von Interaktion, die die Grenze zwischen Bühne und Zuschauerraum vollständig auflöste.

Diese räumliche Inszenierung hat mich besonders angesprochen, weil sie die Rolle des Publikums grundlegend verändert. Man ist nicht mehr passiv, sondern wird Teil der Situation. Wahrnehmung entsteht hier durch Bewegung, durch Nähe und durch das eigene Positionieren im Raum. Gestaltung funktioniert dabei nicht isoliert, sondern immer in Relation zum Körper der Betrachtenden.

Im zweiten Teil verlagerte sich das Geschehen in den Opernsaal. Nach der offenen und bewegten ersten Hälfte wirkte dieser Wechsel beinahe beruhigend. Umso eindrucksvoller war der reduzierte Einsatz von Bühnenmitteln. Besonders ein transparenter Vorhang ist mir nachhaltig im Gedächtnis geblieben. Hinter diesem Vorhang bewegten sich die Tänzerinnen, ihre Körper waren nur schemenhaft sichtbar. Die Bewegungen wirkten dadurch entrückt und poetisch, fast so, als würden sie sich zwischen Sichtbarkeit und Verschwinden bewegen.

In diesem Moment wurde mir auch ein sehr persönlicher Zugang bewusst, da ich die Inszenierung unmittelbar aus einer typografischen Perspektive wahrgenommen habe. Als Typografin musste ich beim Anblick der Tänzerinnen hinter dem transparenten Vorhang unweigerlich an Buchstaben denken. Die Körper, die nur fragmentarisch sichtbar waren, erinnerten mich an Zeichen, die sich dem vollständigen Erfassen entziehen und gerade dadurch eine besondere Spannung erzeugen.

Buchstaben können etwas sehr Tänzerisches und Akrobatisches haben. Besonders moderne Serifenschriften tragen Bewegung und Balance bereits in ihrer Form. Ich musste dabei konkret an die Schrift „Serif Babe“ der Schriftgestalterin Charlotte Rohde denken. Ihre stark ausgeprägten Serifen wirken beinahe wie Körper, die Position halten. Ähnlich wie im Ballett entstehen Spannung und Ausdruck genau in diesem Moment des Innehaltens. Die Serifen sind nicht bloß dekorative Elemente, sondern scheinen das Zeichen zu tragen und ihm Haltung zu geben.

Diese Assoziation hat meinen Blick darauf geschärft, dass Typografie nicht nur Information transportiert, sondern immer auch Wahrnehmung formt. Besonders dann, wenn sie sich an der Grenze von Lesbarkeit bewegt oder bewusst mit Transparenz, Unschärfe und zeitlicher Veränderung arbeitet. Wie die Tänzerinnen hinter dem Vorhang entfalten Buchstaben ihre Wirkung oft nicht durch vollständige Sichtbarkeit, sondern durch das, was angedeutet bleibt.

Der Gedanke, Typografie räumlich und installativ zu denken, hat mich seitdem stark beschäftigt. Eine Arbeit mit Schrift, Text und Licht, die sich ständig zwischen Sichtbarkeit und Verschwinden bewegt, erscheint mir als eine spannende gestalterische Möglichkeit. Dieses Wechselspiel könnte Wahrnehmung ähnlich herausfordern wie das Ballett selbst und den Fokus weg vom reinen Lesen hin zum Erleben verschieben.

Für meine Design und Research Arbeit war dieser Abend insgesamt ein wichtiger Impuls. La Divina Commedia hat mir deutlich gemacht, wie stark Gestaltung über Raum, Körper, Zeit und Nähe wirkt. Besonders die Verbindung von Bewegung, Reduktion und Wahrnehmung hat mir neue Perspektiven eröffnet, die sich sowohl auf räumliche als auch auf grafische Fragestellungen übertragen lassen.

Der Besuch des Balletts war für mich damit weit mehr als ein ästhetisches Erlebnis. Er hat meinen Blick dafür geschärft, wie wirkungsvoll Offenheit, Reduktion und körperliche Präsenz in der Gestaltung sein können. Diese Gedanken möchte ich in meiner weiteren Forschung bewusst weiterdenken und auf typografische sowie räumliche Konzepte übertragen.

Links:
https://oper-graz.buehnen-graz.com/produktion/la-divina-comedia/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6o2SkFaQTs

https://www.charlotterohde.de/typefaces?utm_source=ig&utm_medium=social&utm_content=link_in_bio&fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMjU2MjgxMDQwNTU4AAGnyihjna3g6MdrqXap37NHbLAvCKjwyR_MHE8eyMGGEyni8ctZEc8eCNTBOqw_aem_jy_ND6ImpzYCkDYGl0mS1w

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 leila.orynbayeva -

IMPULSE №8

This is my last blog post of the semester, and it feels like a good moment to pause, look back, and then look ahead. In my previous posts, I mostly focused on the challenges of shaping a full concept and understanding where my project could go. Now, instead of diving deeper into problems, I want to write about my next steps and how my thinking has started to shift.

In blog post number six, I wrote about the technical challenges I faced, especially around building and connecting digital and physical elements. During my final critique, Mr. Martin Kaltenbrunner gave me a piece of advice that really stayed with me. He encouraged me to step back and look at my project from above, instead of zooming in too early on one solution. He suggested focusing more on challenges in the physical world and thinking about how making them playful or digital could improve user engagement and traction. That comment helped me realize that I was sometimes too focused on making my concept work, instead of asking why people would enjoy using it in the first place.

Interestingly, around the same time, social media algorithms started doing their thing. I kept getting videos related to my topic, and instead of ignoring them, I leaned into it. I discovered beautiful examples of 3D-printed jewelry, and then I found a YouTube video showing a 3D ring with a small RFID chip embedded inside. After that, I came across several experiments and even failures involving NFC inside jewelry. Seeing both successful and unsuccessful attempts was incredibly valuable, because it made the process feel more realistic and approachable.

One example that really stuck with me was a blogger who turned her bus pass into a ring. It was such a simple idea, yet it perfectly showed how a boring everyday physical experience could be transformed into something playful and personal. That example made everything click. It was not just about technology, but about how design can shift the emotional experience of an action we do every day without thinking.

This also made me reflect on how digital solutions already help us transmit emotions across distance. Small things like animated text messages on Instagram or automatically generated video memories in the iOS gallery may seem simple, but they add emotional value. They make digital interactions feel warmer and more human. Seeing these examples helped me think beyond my original concept and reminded me that emotional design often lives in details.

Another important influence was a talk by Jared Friedman called How to Get and Evaluate Startup Ideas. Watching it helped me widen my perspective even more. It made me realize some mistakes I was close to making, especially trying to solve too many things at once or falling in love with a solution too early. The talk reminded me that strong ideas usually start with clear problems and grow through testing, feedback, and iteration.

Looking forward, my next steps are about exploration rather than final answers. I want to experiment more with physical objects, playful interactions, and emotional triggers. I want to test ideas quickly, observe how people react, and stay open to changing direction. This semester taught me that uncertainty is not a weakness in the process, but a necessary part of it.

I used ChatGPT to check the spelling and grammar of this text

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #8 – form follows fun(ction)?

I found a TED talk by Don Norman titled “The three ways that good design makes you happy“ which sparked my curiosity. Norman is famous for his work on emotional design and everyday things. This talk focuses on the importance of fun, beauty, and emotion in how we interact with technology. An interesting connection to some of the things I looked at through my previous blog posts
Norman explains that “pleasant things work better.” He argues that when we are happy or amused, our brains become more creative and better at solving problems. This idea is a perfect fit for my research into “Whimsical UX.” Usually, designers think of “fun” as a decoration or „add-on“ that we add at the end of a project. However, according to Norman, the emotional side of a product and/or interface is just as functional as the technical side. If an “unserious” interface makes a user smile or pause, it actually makes them more relaxed and capable of handling the interaction, even if it is not perfectly efficient.
This connects directly to the post-digital ideas I have been exploring through Florian Cramer’s work. A perfectly clean and “sterile” digital screen often feels cold and boring, which is a major cause of the digital fatigue I want to address. By adding personality or “whimsical” elements, we are not just making a toy, we are making a more human tool. It moves the focus away from the technology itself and puts it back on the quality of the human experience. As Andersen and Pold suggest in their work on interface criticism, we need to move away from interfaces that try to be “invisible” or “seamless.” A design that makes you laugh or look at a quirky detail is an interface that is “visible” and engaging. It forces you to be present in the moment.
Watching this talk helped me see that “whimsy or joy” and “intentional friction” are actually pretty closely related. Both are tools to break the habit of mindless swiping. Whether it is a physical knob that feels satisfying to turn or a digital menu that uses playful language, these elements create a moment of intention and connection. They turn a boring transaction into a meaningful interaction.

I think it could be fun to use Norman’s perspective to prove that “fun” is not a distraction from good design. In a world where everything is being forced into a screen for the sake of efficiency, and economical benefits, reintroducing joy is a radical and necessary act. My approach is to find a way to combine these themes: post-digital skepticism, the need for reflective friction, and the power of joy into a framework for a „post-screen” or „post-digital“ or „post-efficiency“ world. The idea is to design interfaces that do not just treat users like efficient machines, but like humans who value personality and play and experience.

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #7 – a paper!

Following up on my talk with Martin Kaltenbrunner, I have looked into the term “post-digital.” I wanted to understand what this means for my research on interfaces found a paper by Florian Cramer [1] which I feel is very helpful here. He describes that post-digital does not mean a time after computers. Instead, it means that in our current world digital and physical things are completely mixed together.
Many people are starting to feel tired of “perfect” digital systems. Cramer calls this a period of disenchantment. Today, digital technology is often seen as something sterile and clean. Because of this, some people choose older, „nostalgic“ tools like typewriters or vinyl records. They are not just being nostalgic, they are making a deliberate choice to reject certain aspects of electronic technology. They are questioning the idea that a screen is always an “upgrade” or “progress”. This fits with my observation that making everything a flat screen blindly and/by default can actually make the experience worse.
 A key idea in post-digital theory (according to Cramer) is that we should stop being fascinated by technology just because it is “new”. Since digital tools are everywhere now, they are no longer disruptive. This means we can look at them more critically. This connects to the “whimsical UX” angle I discussed I another post. If we stop trying to make everything super-efficient and high-tech, we can focus on other qualities of the interaction. We can start using digital and physical materials in more playful or unconventional ways.
In my research, I think it could be interesting to use this post-digital framework to move beyond just choosing between a screen or a physical button. The goal is a post-digital decision-making: using the technology most suitable to the job, rather than automatically “defaulting” to the latest innovative medium. This might mean using “intentional friction” to slow a user down and make them think, rather than making everything as fast as possible. This perspective aligns with Post-Digital Interface Criticism [2], which suggests that interfaces should be visible and reflective rather than “seamless” and invisible.
The next step is to find where exactly to start designing and changing. Maybe finding out if the feeling from physical installations can work in the digital world too. By using “unserious” frameworks, playful/emotional design I might find better ways to design everyday interfaces that feel more human and less sterile. Cramer’s idea of a “hacker attitude“ (taking systems apart and using them in ways that subvert their original intention) could also be a great starting point for this.

[1] https://lab404.com/142/cramer.pdf
[2] https://mediacommons.org/tne/pieces/manifesto-post-digital-interface-criticism

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #6 – a talk!

Following my recent discussions about the “screen-as-default” problem, I have also started exploring a different angle. While my previous focus was primarily on the physical tangibility of interfaces, a recent coaching session with Birgit Bachler led me to a new impulse centered on “whimsical UX.” Most modern design focuses on “frictionless” interaction, where every update to an app or system is intended to make things faster and more invisible. This focus on peak efficiency often leads to a loss of joy in digital tools. I am now looking into the concept of whimsical and “unserious” UX to challenge the idea that a UI should only be a tool for a specific task. Instead of only optimizing for speed, this approach considers how an interface can be designed for delight.

I am thinking about how interaction can be intentionally unconventional and how community-driven tools develop a specific “vibe” that standard tools do not center or even consider. Instead of focusing only on the comparison between pre-digital and digital states, I am considering a framework for a different design approach for example “intentional friction” that forces the user to slow down and engage with the process rather than clicking through it mindlessly.

A big part of this research topic is finding out when an approach like this is appropriate. Not every interface should be a playground and we have to keep in mind that efficiency remains necessary in many contexts. However, in some tools or products that contribute to digital fatigue, there is an opportunity to reintroduce personality. Many current design trends prioritize speed above all else, I want to explore alternative directions that prioritize the quality of the experience.
This shift expands my original problem statement. By looking at whimsy and joy, I am still addressing the issues of mindless interaction and digital fatigue, but I am moving beyond just hardware solutions. Whether the interface is a physical object or a screen, the objective in this angle of approach would be to move away from digitizing everything for purely economic reasons and sleek efficiency. I want to find ways to possibly make interaction feel more human/emotional/joyful. The steps to get there involve analyzing some frameworks and ideas that exist on this to see how they can offer better options for everyday interface design. And intersting first approach I found upon doing a quick research was a piece of work called „Interface Criticism: Aesthetics Beyond the Buttons“ by Christian Ulrik Andersen and Søren Bro Pold, where they discuss topics such as moving beyond usability and argue against treating interfaces as tools for efficiency, instead seeing them as complex, artistic, and cultural things.

https://www.academia.edu/78755388/Interface_Criticism_Aesthetics_Beyond_Buttons

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #5 – Final Crit

For my fifth impulse, I have chosen the feedback from my final Crit talk with Martin Kaltenbrunner, who had some interesting insights on the topics I am interested in. My starting point for the thesis is currently a growing frustration with the “screen-as-default” trend. We’ve reached a point where efficiency and friction-less design are the ultimate goals, often leading to mindless interaction and digital fatigue.
In our meeting, we discussed the “blind urge” to digitalize everything, often driven mainly by economic reasons rather than a fulfilling, well-suited user experience. Mr. Kaltenbrunner suggested a specific research process to help me narrow down my scope. Instead of just looking at the “now,” I could compare three states:

Pre-Digital: How did we solve this task physically? What did interfaces used to look like?

Absolute Digitalization: The current state (mostly touchscreens)

Post-Digital / Hybrid: A new solution that doesn’t just “go back” to the old ways but uses the best of both worlds and considers the use case and its requirements. (Not the screen as one-for-all solution)

The goal isn’t nostalgia, but rather finding a “Post-Digital” development that acknowledges the digital but brings back the haptic, tangible quality of the physical.
The main takeaway and my current challenge is that I really need to pin down a specific use case. While my interest in tangible interfaces is broad, we did come to the conclusion to avoid overdone examples like car interfaces and instead find a niche where the shift to screens has genuinely made the experience worse (maybe going back to educational topics and school environments). I’m looking for a situation where losing friction and diversity has led to a loss of focus, and where a hybrid, tangible solution would actually provide more value than just a clean digital one.
I’m now searching for a topic: something specific enough to test but broad enough to help me find more general design principles. The advice from my talk is to go out and explore. This has shifted my focus away from theory and back to the real world. My next step could be to pick a few potential use cases and compare them to how they worked before, how they are digitalized now, and what a post-digital version could look like to see which one has the most potential. Another thing I will of course look into is some literature research about post-digitalization itself. I think it will be really valuable to familiarize myself with theories and terminology like this and find out what the state of research is. I have done a quick research out of curiosity and found a few papers and researchers that sound interesting, such as Florian Cramer who writes about the „Post-digital“ and Löwgren & Stolterman’s Material theory.