by seymur.mammadov -

IMPULSE #2: A Night of Techno Losing Yourself And Finding Your Way Experience

The night I saw Charlotte de Witte at Signal Festival was pure overload. Heavy bass, dense crowd, strobing lights, smoke, multiple bars and stages, lockers, queues, a constant flow of people in every direction. As an experience it was amazing, I am a designer and one thing I love to do and always do is to see how I can optimize the whole event and how I can apply it to my thesis because I am also a workaholic.

Observations: Immersion Versus Orientation

One of my strongest observations was how different immersion and orientation felt. Immersion was perfect. When I was in front of the main stage, I did not need any interface. The sound and visuals were enough. Orientation was a different story. Moving away from the stage meant guessing, especially if you got drunk a bit. Where is the nearest bar that is not overcrowded. Which corridor leads to the toilets. How do I get back to my locker without opening the venue map again and again. The more time passed, the more people were intoxicated, and the weaker everyone’s internal navigation became.

At some point I lost my friends in the crowd and we had the usual routine: messages that did not go through, vague descriptions like “I am near the left bar” that are useless in a dark hall, and the classic feeling of spending twenty minutes trying to reconnect. When you are sober this is still slightly annoying. Once you are drunk, it becomes hard work.

Understanding: How AR And IoT Could Be A Soft Safety Net

This is where I started to imagine an IoT based guidance system with AR as the interface. Where IoT beacons or other positioning technology could be distributed across the venue. Every bar, locker zone, toilet block and entrance could have its own tiny digital footprint. If visitors opt in, AR glasses could use this network to understand three basic things in real time: where they are, where their friends are, and where key services are located.

In practice, that could look very simple. An AR arrow could hover in my view and gently lead me to my locker, even if I barely remember which area I used. A small indicator could show me which direction my friends are in and roughly how far and also notify in case my friends need help as sometimes you can face safety issues other people approaching and annoying. If I want a drink, the system could show the nearest bar plus tell where I can go to smoke. If there is an emergency or I need to leave quickly, the AR layer could highlight the closest safe exit instead of forcing me to rely on my memory in a confused state.

Main Concept: Festivals As Prototypes For Smart Guidance

The main concept that came out of Signal Festival for me is the idea of a soft, ambient guidance system built on AR and IoT. The festival does not need more screens. It needs invisible structure that supports people at the right moment. A network of small, low power devices in the space can give the system awareness of positions and states. Which will elevate user experience nd AR then becomes a thin, context aware layer on top of that awareness. It answers very simple questions: where am I, where is what I need, and how do I get back.

This is closely related to my retail research. A music festival is like an extreme version of a shopping mall. Both are large, noisy, crowded environments where people try to reach specific goals while managing limited energy and attention. If a guidance system can help a drunk visitor find the right bar, locker or friend in a dark venue, it can certainly help a tired shopper find the right aisle or click and collect point in a busy store.

Links
Event page for Signal Festival Weekend 2 at Pyramide
Signal Festival – PYRAMIDE TAKEOVER WE2 (O-Klub) O-Klub

Techno event listing with headliners and description
Signal Festival Pyramide WE2 – Event Overview technomusicworld.com

Local article about Signal Festival in the glass pyramid
Signal Festival in der Pyramide Vösendorf – Heute.at

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

by seymur.mammadov -

IMPULSE #1 Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien: Analog Space, Digital Ideas

Visiting the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien felt almost the opposite of my thesis topic. It’s a very “analog” space: heavy architecture, old masters, quiet rooms, and almost no visible technology. Apart from the optional audio guide device, there are no screens, no projections, no interactive installations. You move from room to room, read the small wall texts and simply look.

That contrast is exactly what made the visit so valuable for me as an interaction design student. I wasn’t impressed by high-tech features. I was impressed by how much potential there is for technology to quietly support the experience without taking attention away from the art itself. The museum became a kind of mental sandbox where I could imagine how AR and IoT might be implemented in a very delicate context: history, culture, and learning.

Observations: A Classical Museum with a Small Digital Layer

My main observation was how traditional the user journey still is. You enter, pick a wing, and mostly navigate by room numbers, map and intuition. The only digital touchpoint I used was the handheld audio guide. Even that already shows the basics of what I work with in my thesis: an extra information layer on top of the physical space. You enter a painting number, press play, and suddenly you get context, story and meaning instead of just title, date and artist.

But the interaction is linear and passive. You always get the same story, no matter who you are, how much you already know, or what caught your eye. There is no way for the system to “notice” that you are fascinated by one detail and want to go deeper, or that you are in a hurry and only want a short summary. It made me see very clearly where today’s museum tech stops and where AR and IoT could start.

Understanding: Technology Should Support the Artwork, Not Compete with It

Standing in front of paintings, I tried to imagine AR in the room. The danger is obvious: if we fill the space with too many digital elements, the painting becomes a background for the interface. That’s exactly what I do not want, and it connects strongly to my thesis: technology must serve the human and the content, not distract from it.

So my understanding is that any AR or IoT system in a museum like this would have to be extremely calm, subtle and respectful. The artwork stays the main actor. AR is just a transparent layer that appears only when the visitor asks for it. IoT devices like small beacons near the frame could be completely invisible, only there to let the system know where you are and what you’re looking at. The goal is not to “modernise” the museum for its own sake, but to deepen the connection between visitor and artwork.

Main Concept: A Future AR & IoT Guidance Layer for Museums

The main concept that came out of this visit is to treat the museum as a potential case study for the same principles I explore in smart retail: guided navigation, contextual information, and personalised journeys, all powered by AR and IoT.

I imagined wearing AR glasses instead of holding an audio guide. When I look at a painting for more than a few seconds, a small icon could appear next to it in my field of view. If I confirm, the system overlays very minimal hints: a highlight around a specific detail, a short caption, or the option to see a brief animation explaining the story behind the scene. If I want more, I can dig deeper maybe see a reconstruction of how the painting originally looked, or how it was restored. If I don’t, nothing changes; I just keep looking with my own eyes.

The same system could also redesign the wayfinding experience. Instead of a fixed predefined tour, AR could show me a route that matches my interests and time: “Show me five highlights from the Renaissance in 45 minutes,” or “Guide me only to works that relate to mythology.” IoT sensors in rooms could provide live information about crowding, so the path avoids the most packed galleries and keeps the experience more relaxed.

What mattered most for me in this museum visit was not what technology was already installed, but the mental exercise of placing my thesis ideas into this setting. It helped me see that the principles I am developing for AR and IoT could have wider use case from the intended one and give a perspective for a retail subtle guidance, context-aware information, and respect for the physical environment also make sense in a cultural space.

Links

Official museum site
Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien – Official Website KHM.at

Visitor overview and highlights in English
Kunsthistorisches Museum – Overview & Highlights (visitingvienna.com) Visiting Vienna

Background and history of the building
Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien – Wikipedia

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

by fiona.bartl -

IMPULSE #2 — Museum CoSA Graz

(Museum Visit – High-Fidelity / Interactive Learning)

If the Schlossberg Museum and Graz Museum showed me how visible framing can still communicate, then the CoSA (Center of Science Activities) showed me something completely different:
What happens when the frame doesn’t just present the content, but replaces it?

CoSA is not a museum in any traditional sense. It’s more like a playground disguised as an exhibition. A high-fidelity, immersive environment designed for kids, teens, and curious adults who want to touch, play, try, fail, experiment. Everything is screaming interaction. Lights, buttons, projections, puzzles, sounds, even the architecture itself feels like part of the performance. And somehow, in the middle of all this spectacle, I found myself thinking about my thesis again. Especially the question of whether art needs a frame to communicate or whether, in spaces like CoSA, the frame becomes so thick that the content becomes secondary.

The Superpower of High-Fidelity Framing

Everything is polished, exaggerated, designed for engagement. There’s no moment of “Is this intentional?” it obviously is. Even the walls communicate. Even the floor feels curated. In some rooms, you’re invited to look at a dead cat and a movie plays in front of it. In others, you’re challenged to be the doctor to an ill man or child, build a car yourself, drive with your very own car, force, sound, perspective. It’s all very game-like. And because it’s game-like, it also shifts how people behave. At Schlossberg Museum, people slowed down, read text, observed.
At CoSA, people jump in. There’s no hesitation, because the space gives permission. It guides you. It demands participation. And that’s exactly where it becomes relevant for my research:

High-fidelity framing dictates behaviour.

When people know the rules, they relax. When people know they are supposed to interact, they interact. When people know the space will guide them, they let go. This is almost the opposite of my everyday installations, where uncertainty is the whole point.

The Contrast: What My Research Isn’t About (but Helps Clarify)

One thing I noticed at CoSa: nothing here could ever be mistaken for an everyday installation. The framing is too strong, too theatrical. There’s no ambiguity. The frame is not just present  it’s hyper-present. And that helps me understand my thesis by contrast. If I want to explore how art communicates without a frame – then CoSA shows me the extremity of what happens with a frame. Here the meaning comes from the design, not from the object. The space tells you what to do, how to behave, and how to interpret what you see.

My photos of accidental compositions function in the opposite way. They rely on your curiosity, your willingness to look, your active interpretation. CoSA relies on instructions. So a strange question formed in my head:

Can art without a frame only function if people are trained by spaces like CoSA to trust their instincts or does it make them too dependent on explanation?

I don’t know the answer yet.
But I love that this place forces me to ask the question.

How Children React vs. Adults

Children don’t need frames the way adults do. Kids immediately start touching, playing, pushing, exploring. They don’t care what things “mean,” only what they “do.” They don’t ask for permission they assume everything is meant to be interacted with. Adults, however, hesitate. They wait for someone else to engage first. They need the frame to feel safe. This ties directly back to my earlier experiments with staging reactions to the celery stalk. Maybe adults look for social proof because they learned it in high-fidelity contexts like CoSA, museums, galleries, spaces that tell them what is allowed. Kids, meanwhile, operate naturally in low-fidelity environments. They accept randomness without fear. Maybe art without a frame communicates more easily with children than with adults. Maybe adults have to unlearn framing before they can perceive openly again.

What CoSA Taught Me About My MA Question

My thesis question still feels fresh, shifting, not quite ready. But this visit helped me refine something important:

For art to communicate without a frame, the viewer must bring their own interpretive tools. High-fidelity spaces, like CoSA, give you the tools but they also take away the freedom.

CoSA is wonderful. It’s smart, engaging, well-designed. But it also shows what happens when context becomes so strong that the content becomes inseparable from it. If everyday installations are the whisper, CoSA is the megaphone. And somewhere between whisper and megaphone lies the answer to my thesis.

Links

https://www.museum-joanneum.at/cosa-graz/unser-programm/ausstellungen/event/flip-im-cosa
https://www.museum-joanneum.at/cosa-graz/unser-programm/ausstellungen/event/der-schein-truegt
https://www.museum-joanneum.at/cosa-graz

AI Disclaimer

This blog post was written with the assistance of AI.

by fiona.bartl -

IMPULSE #1 Schlossberg Museum / Graz Museum (Museum Visit)

When I walked into the Schlossberg Museum, I wasn’t expecting anything. It´s just a part of a course. I assumed it would be a classic museum visit: walking through rooms, reading plaques, observing objects arranged in rehearsed formations. But the longer I stayed, the more I realized that this museum, in its own quiet way, is a fascinating study of how staged environments communicate and how they sometimes don’t.
My master thesis still circles around the question:
“What does it take for art to communicate without a frame?”
And oddly enough, this museum (a highly framed environment) helped me understand the opposite: What happens when the frame is visibly present, and how that visible framing sometimes works, sometimes fails, and sometimes becomes the entire message.

Staged Installations Without Pretending Not to Be Staged
What I realized was how intentionally “set up” everything looked. The Schlossberg Museum uses low-fidelity installations, meaning the staging is visible, almost transparent. You’re never tricked into believing that you entered an immersive world. You know that things are placed here for you.
And yet, people interact with these low-fidelity setups in surprisingly attentive ways.
Why?
Because the museum doesn’t try to hide its own construction. There’s a kind of honesty in that. It reminded me of my celery experiments, the difference between placing something deliberately yet pretending it’s accidental versus owning the arrangement. The Schlossberg Museum doesn’t pretend. The frame is obvious. The stage is visible. And weirdly enough, that visibility communicates.

How People Behave Around Framed Meaning
One of the most interesting things during my visit wasn’t the exhibition itself but the people inside it. I observed how visitors (including my friends being visitors as well) behaved:
• They slowed down near installations that had lighting around them.
• They spent more time near objects that had a certain spatial importance (center of the room, elevated platform, glass vitrtrine).
• They trusted anything behind a glass box more than anything placed openly.
• And they ignored objects that lacked a clear contextual cue, even when those objects were historically interesting.

So what does that say about meaning?
People read context faster than they read content.
They decide something is important before they understand why it is important.
This fits perfectly into my MA question.
Maybe art communicates without a frame only when people are trained to trust their own perception more than the environment around them. But museums do the opposite, they reinforce the frame as the reliable source of truth.

Low-Fidelity ≠ Low Communication
What stayed with me most were the humble, almost simple arrangements. Placed with intention, but without spectacle.
It reminded me of my everyday installations, accidental compositions I find on the street, a banana peel on a pizza carton, a toy scooter locked among adult bikes. Those moments also communicate something, despite lacking a label, despite lacking institutional permission.
At the Graz Museum, the objects have permission, yet they feel almost as unassuming as the found installations I’ve been documenting.
This made me wonder:
• Does an object need a high-fidelity frame to speak clearly?
• Or is a minimal frame enough, as long as viewers trust the context?
• And crucially: what happens when you take away the frame entirely?
The museum helped me see that “communicating without a frame” isn’t just about removing borders, it’s about cultivating perception.


Links
https://www.grazmuseum.at/graz-museum-schlossberg/
https://www.grazmuseum.at/ausstellung/demokratie-heast/
https://www.grazmuseum.at

AI Disclaimer
This blog post was polished with the assistance of AI.

by linaprima -

LS Impulse #4 TED Talk – A brief history of rhyme

For this impulse, I watched  the TED talk A Brief History of Rhyme by Baba Brinkman — a rap artist known for creating concept albums based on unexpected themes such as The Canterbury Tales or Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. His approach blends performance, historical research, and linguistic analysis, making the talk an unusual mix between literature lecture, hip-hop seminar and even a small comedy show, he then proceeded to explain his unusual approach:

Brinkman began by explaining the evolution of rhyme from its simplest forms, for example the classic “car, far, star” or “house”, “mouse” type of end rhym towards more complex structures like as mosaic and multi-syllable rhymes. What I actually found fascinating was how he connected contemporary rap techniques to much older literary traditions. He did a lot of research and pointed out that The Canterbury Tales already experimented with rhythmic and rhymed structures, and that 17th-century works like Hudibras used extended multisyllabic rhymes that would later influence comedic verse. Even Don Juan from 1819 contains rhyme patterns that, according to Brinkman, resemble what we today associate with classic hip-hop rhyme schemes: “Oh ye lords of ladies intellectual; / Inform us truly, have they not henpeck’d you all.”

One of his key points was that multisyllabic rhyme traditionally appeared in humorous contexts. Historically, these rhyme patterns were used to create irony or satire rather than emotional depth. The only exception Brinkman found was a moment in Lord of the Rings where such rhyme structures appear in a serious, almost solemn tone which is a rare example where polysyllabic rhyme escapes its comic roots. He argued that modern rap has pushed this evolution further, showing that complex rhyme structures can carry serious emotional meaning. Tracks like “I Ain’t No Joke” by Rakim demonstrate that rappers use rhyme not only for performance but for vulnerability and identity but they  often feel the need to defend the genre against accusations of “not being serious.”

Brinkman also contrasted rap with contemporary poetry. While poets have mainly or often moved away from rhyme in favour of expression or free verse, hip-hop has kept rhyme alive by constantly reinventing its structure. According to Brinkman, rap is one of the last art forms where formal rhyme is still being innovated. The talk concluded with Brinkman performing a freestyle using increasingly complex multisyllabic rhymes based on the phrase “broken glass,” which made the linguistic theory suddenly very concrete and audible.

Ok but what does this have to do with communication design?

This talk sparked a new line of thinking for me: how does rhyme function visually? If rhyme in language is based on repetition, rhythm, and pattern recognition, could similar mechanisms exist in visual communication? And if so, how complex can these visual “rhymes” become before they lose recognisability? Brinkman’s distinction between simple end rhymes and mosaic/multisyllabic rhymes made me wonder whether design also has equivalents from clean, obvious visual parallels to more layered, subtle echoes in form, colour, structures or spatial rhythm.

For communication design, this raises questions about how humans perceive repetition, pattern, and variation and how these can influence emotional response or memorability. The talk made me realise that rhyme is fundamentally a cognitive tool that guides attention, builds expectation, and creates satisfaction when the pattern resolves. This is therefore extremely relevant for visual research.

Relevance for my potential Master’s thesis

I have already been thinking about researching how rhyme structures influence the recognition of visuals and this talk strengthened that idea. Brinkman’s historical framing showed that rhymes communicate not only through sound, but through structure. This makes it even more interesting to explore whether “visual rhymes” could work in a similar way:
– Are simple repetitions (the visual equivalent of “car–far–star”) more memorable?
– Can complex, multi-layered visual parallels function like multisyllabic rhymes?
– Could this influence how people engage with activist or feminist visual communication?

For a Master’s topic that connects design, maybe activism, and perception, exploring rhyme as a cross-modal phenomenon  from sound to image  could be an interesting direction and I feel like it could be fun researching this topic.

Links

Ted Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4F83aHAXU

Baba Brinkmann https://bababrinkman.com/

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 tarek.marzouki -

IMPULSE #2: Design Patterns for AI Interfaces

With more tools adopting AI — generative text, code assistants, smart search, content creation — there’s a rush to “add AI” to every product. Without good UI/UX, many of these additions end up confusing or frustrating users. The patterns from this talk offer a more sustainable, user-centric approach to AI integration. As a UI UX designer working with a product team trying to explore AI features, these insights help avoid common pitfalls during research and practice.

The traditional chatbot (a blank text box, open prompt) is often insufficient; it places too much burden on the user to guess what to ask for, how to phrase it, what input format works. Instead, AI UIs should provide structure — templates, guided inputs, preset actions — that shape user intent and make the AI’s capabilities and limitations clear.

Structured Input & Output UX

  • Input UX: Rather than free-form prompts, designers can use structured templates, presets, or guided flows so users don’t need to “guess” how to phrase their request. This improves usability and broadens the accessibility of AI tools to non-expert users.
  • Output UX: AI responses — often long, verbose, or ambiguous — should be presented in a digestible way. Use of rich formatting (e.g. collapsible reasoning traces, style lenses, ranking, color-coding) helps users find value quickly.

Why These Patterns Matter and What They Solve

Lowering friction and cognitive load: Many people don’t know how to “talk to AI.” Structured inputs/templates reduce the intimidation and guesswork.

Making AI more reliable and trustworthy: By clarifying what AI can (and can’t) do, and giving users control (via refinements, options, transparency), designers can avoid “hallucinations,” miscommunication, and user frustration.

Delivering value quickly and predictably: Well-designed AI interfaces help users get useful results with minimal effort — increasing adoption and satisfaction.

Supporting diverse user types: Not everyone is a “power user.” Good patterns make AI accessible to novices while still serving experienced users.

First results from AI often need tuning. Good AI interfaces let users refine — through follow-up prompts, filter buttons, adjustment sliders (e.g. “temperature” or style), or iterative flows — to get closer to what they need. This is more powerful than expecting a single perfect answer.

Rather than isolating AI in a separate “assistant” screen, embed AI features where they feel natural: side-panels, overlays, inline suggestions, context-aware widgets — wherever they support the user’s task flow. This makes AI feel like a seamless extension, not a tacked-on add-on.

Design Patterns For AI Interfaces — Smashing Magazine

Design Patterns for AI Interfaces by Vitaly Friedman

by tarek.marzouki -

IMPULSE #1: Creating an effective & beautiful data visualisation from scratch

It is amazing to me personally that this talk was almost entirely about introducing one
of the most underrated coding language in data viz, D3.js, which is a lang that should
be a staple in every team that wants to create bespoke charts and design beautiful yet
functional dashboards from scratch and proudly enough my master’s thesis main topic
is about a SaaS that has a dashboard that will be created entirely by the unpopular D3.js.

I was and will be involved in designing all the components needed for the dashboard and also in the appropriate research to find out how to develop those components on a web app level which is was done later by a fellow full stack developer.

What is the talk about

  • The talk shows how to build a unique, effective — and “beautiful” — data visualization from nothing but a blank browser window, using D3.js.
  • The goal isn’t simply to produce a standard chart, but to think creatively and intentionally — using “out-of-the-box thinking” and code — combining design sense with technical implementation.

Nadieh’s background: she trained in astronomy, worked in data science, but found her passion in data visualization. Over time she developed a distinct style of data-driven “data art” rather than generic graphs.

Data → Story → Visual

A recurring theme: good visualizations start with a story — or a question — not just with data. You ask: what insight or narrative do you want to reveal? That shapes how you approach the data and what kind of visual you will build.

Nadieh emphasizes that often the best question emerges after a bit of data exploration — so the “question” evolves.

Before designing, you have to understand what the data actually contains: its type (quantitative, categorical, etc.), structure, quirks, what’s important — and who will be reading the visualization. This affects choices like chart type, level of detail, labels, readability.

Not all charts fit all data: pick a visual representation that expresses clearly what you want to communicate — trends, distributions, comparisons, relationships, etc. Sometimes that means abandoning “standard” charts in favor of more creative or custom visuals.

Because people are visual, design elements matter. But they must serve the data, not overshadow it. Use color thoughtfully (e.g., for differentiation, accessibility), maintain consistent palettes, use spacing, hierarchy, alignments to make it easy to read.

Nadieh’s own work often uses vibrant palettes and custom design touches — she argues that if you’re building by hand (e.g., using D3 + SVG), you can push beyond default library charts to create something truly expressive yet still accurate.

Why This Talk Stands Out

This talk offers something beyond standard data-viz best-practices or template-driven dashboards: it’s about treating data visualisation as a creative process, a blend of design, storytelling, and coding.

Seeing the creation from an empty browser to a full chart helps demystify the building process — it shows that you don’t need heavy software or prebuilt templates to produce something expressive and meaningful. You just need data, a clear purpose, and willingness to think visually + code.. This talk is inspiring to me on many levels because my research is based on creating meaningful data visualizations rather than just “reports” or “dashboards”

https://slideslive.com/39043157/creating-an-effective-beautiful-data-visualisation-from-scratch?ref=folder-188701

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/data-visualization/6-tips-for-creating-effective-data-visualizations

https://pixelpioneers.co/blog/designing-data-visualisations-an-interview-with-nadieh-bremer?utm_source=chatgpt.com

by jakob.schnurrer -

First literature Research – Impulse #4

The last three blogposts where all about my intentions and the reasons for picking open source as the topic of my masters thesis, this one is about first steps, I took in researching about open source and how this influenced the next steps, I want to make.

During the “Proseminar Master Thesis” course, we were tasked, to gather some sources we could use for our thesis in the future. Two books and an article. Skimming through those texts really changed my view on open source. Especially the impact of UX work on open source projects interested me.

1. Working in Public

Reading Working in Public felt like having someone open a curtain. I always knew open source was built by volunteers, but the book made me understand just how much work, coordination, and emotional labor goes into maintaining a project. I was especially struck by the part that explained how most projects start small and private, and how everything changes once people begin to use them.
The sections on hidden costs and funding were honestly eye opening. Until now, I never really questioned how open-source creators manage to keep projects alive despite having almost no resources. This book made me more aware of why people burn out, why documentation suffers, and why newcomers have such a hard time finding their place.

2. Producing Open Source Software

Where Working in Public explained what is going on, Producing Open Source Software finally gave me how. This book was far more structured, and honestly much easier to navigate. For the first time, I read concrete advice on where design can fit into an OSS workflow, especially the points about improving documentation, lowering the “activation energy,” and funding dedicated UX roles.
The most influential part for me was the idea that newcomers should write beginner tutorials. That simple thought made me reflect on my own homelabbing struggles: of course the docs feel hard, because they’re written by experts.
This shifted my thinking from “What UX problem should I research?” to “Maybe the onboarding experience of designers in OSS is the problem.”

3. Untold Stories

The third text, Untold Stories, finally backed many of my assumptions with research. UX professionals do help OSS projects. Their contributions are valuable. And still, hardly any of them participate.
The paper helped me understand why: the culture, the tools, the developer-first mindset.
What surprised me most was how differently UX people write issue reports: more factual, more user-centered, more structured. It made me think that maybe designers don’t need to force themselves into OSS spaces—they just need to show the value of this way of communicating.
It also strengthened my idea that UX needs its own “space” within OSS—something that current platforms don’t provide.

Accompanying Links

Link to the book “Working in Public” (sadly no free download): https://press.stripe.com/working-in-public

Link to the book “Producing Open Source Software”, which is free to download: https://www.producingoss.com

Link to the article “Untold Stories”: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706599.3720063

Ai was used to formulate this blogpost (ChatGPT)

by florian.prasse -

Impulse #4: The Role of Playtesting in Game Development

Understanding Users before Building a Game

Game development today involves more than programming and visual design. The process has expanded to prioritize player experience, usability, and comfort. As a result, user research and structured game testing have become established parts of development rather than optional additions. Developers collect information about potential players’ expectations, preferred interaction styles, and prior gaming experience. These findings help define the core direction of the project, informing mechanics, interface design, and accessibility considerations.

The Role of Continuous Playtesting

Playtesting follows throughout production. During testing, participants play the game while developers evaluate how easy it is to understand controls, complete objectives, and maintain engagement. Feedback may take the form of performance metrics, interviews, or surveys. Insights gathered from testing lead to adjustments in difficulty, interface structure, pacing, and overall design. By repeating this cycle of testing and refinement, developers aim to reduce friction and improve player satisfaction prior to release.

VR as a Special Design Challenge

Virtual reality development highlights the importance of this approach. In VR environments, issues such as motion sickness, spatial confusion, and physical fatigue can occur if design choices are not aligned with human perception and comfort. Prototypes are therefore tested early, often using basic shapes or limited interaction, to observe how players move, react, and navigate. These observations allow developers to refine interactions before expanding the experience. The overall purpose of these processes is to ensure that the final product functions as intended when experienced by diverse players. Testing with real users helps identify challenges that may not be visible to designers or engineers working closely with the system.

Source: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/how-to-understand-user-needs-in-virtual-reality?srsltid=AfmBOopOKeH_8sjLighvBVX2mjNCNtP7S0dj0D1mwOKBO1bDZp9lVcOC

UX Quality in Video Games

As I learned more about UX design and testing, I began to view video games very differently. Instead of only enjoying them as a player, I now pay close attention to how mechanics are introduced, how controls feel, and how smoothly the experience guides me from one action to the next. I’ve noticed how a well-designed game teaches its systems without overwhelming the player, while a poorly designed one creates confusion or frustration through unclear feedback or awkward navigation. My own play experiences have become a source of learning — I can sense when a game’s UX supports my immersion, and equally when it breaks it. Understanding the development behind these decisions has made me appreciate how much careful thought goes into balancing challenge, flow, and usability. Games have essentially become case studies, helping me recognize what makes an interaction feel right, and inspiring ideas for how those same UX principles can be applied in design work beyond gaming.

Source: https://uxplanet.org/how-video-games-can-develop-your-ux-design-skills-e209368330ac