Roushan Kumar

I started my design journey in 2017 with Avantika University, where I earned my master's degree in communication design, learning UX design. Since then, I've been working in the field. I began in 2019, and I joined a couple of internships to gain experience. I then worked with AML RightSource, where my role was to conduct usability testing, troubleshoot UX issues, and provide solutions related to them.

So for this case, there was one onboarding page with multiple fields. When I did the user research, I found out that those fields were not really necessary, and not all users fill out all the fields. In fact, some users complain that these fields are very long and the form is too big. Nobody felt comfortable with all the fields at the end. I found out that nobody felt all the fields were necessary. We decided to remove some of the unnecessary fields. Apart from this, we also introduced a setting for each user. They can go to the settings and hide some of those fields for their user. Users will no longer have to suffer with so many fields. Apart from that, I realized that when users make a mistake while filling the form, the platform didn't used to display where the user had committed a mistake. The field was also kind of messy because when we started typing something, the field name disappeared. The field name was written inside the field box. So, yes, I provided some solutions. First, I did research to reduce the form size and the number of fields, so the form size could be reduced. Then I introduced a way to prevent errors from happening. I started using asterisk marks next to the fields that were compulsory because some users completed the form without knowing which fields should be filled completely. And at the end, they made mistakes because they were not aware that certain fields were supposed to be filled. The asterisk marks were either in gray or not completely available, so I introduced this feature. And the other thing is that even if a user made a mistake, it used to show at the top like an alert. Yes, you made some mistakes, but it didn't tell me exactly where. So I introduced a feature where if a user makes a mistake, the UI should scroll to that particular area where the user committed the mistake, and that thing should be highlighted entirely so the user knows where they made a mistake.

Yes, this is a real-life question. It doesn't always happen as I talked about in the situation of a field in my last question. So what happened there, it was a kind of technique, not a technical constraint. In our organization, they said they can't they don't have a front-end developer right now. So they said please reduce some of the work that a front-end developer needs. We may have them later, but for now, let's reduce those kinds of work. So, basically, what I did, I reduced the work without changing the field style, but I suggested at least aligning those all fields so that it looks better. Apart from that, they also disagreed with having the setting option because they said it required a lot of work. Absolutely. And they agreed on having a page to scroll at that particular place where they made a mistake. And they also couldn't agree on the field of having a placeholder that scrolls to the top of that field section when someone starts writing. They agreed to it. So I redesigned. I actually removed some of the elements from there, and I mentioned all this stuff in the acceptance criteria so that it doesn't make the developers more confused.

Yes. It always happens. Like, we have to present our UI, UX ideas to our stakeholders, maybe the program manager or the developers. And, what happens here is that we shouldn't be presenting our entire core stuff, but rather, we should design the all screens or the problem statement or the findings of our UI UX concept in a meaningful way so that they can understand. Like, suppose it's a program manager, then they don't need to understand all the details of every pixel and the reason behind taking the color theory, deciding the typography, and the resulting design. What the program manager may need to know is what value it will bring to the company and how much time it might take to conduct it. We can also show the research behind these things, why we want to do them, and we can show it upfront. If we make such changes or design something like this, it will have this much benefit with proper research. And let's say if we're presenting the same concept to a developer, then we shouldn't provide the research and all the details. They just need to see the elements in place, everything, such as the size of fonts or the spacing between them on the layout, and all those things.

Those videos were created with that interface.

Yeah, it always happens. We have conflicts regarding our feedback from different stakeholders. So, I take them very positively. I note them down and analyze what the feedback is and come up with my solution or the thought process for which feedback we should move on or if we can have a new ID over there.

It happens, validating, kind of the design idea. It might not be always suitable for the business requirement. It might go above the timeline. It might go above the budget. So as far as my experience, I consult with the product manager or the program manager regarding my idea and my designs. And I ask them, with which design we should continue because in that situation, I usually create 2 to 3 options. That means I should be always prepared with those options so that we can move forward with at least one idea because not all ideas are worth taking forward.

Yes. How do you ensure your designs are accessible to all users? The best way to do some sorts of testing and, of course, it also needs some sorts of experience. But above all, what I believe, first, we should ensure that if there is any product, it can be accessible to all. But if we can define our users, who are our main target users, and on top of it, we can build it so it's accessible to some other users also. And we can test with it, and we can do mind mapping or brainstorming for the different constraints or how different users might be using it, might be feeling about that product. We can map it out. We can draw all the scenarios for different users, or at the end, we can do testing with those kinds of users. But before, we will have to define who comes under all users so that we can test with those kinds of personas.

If you are given a product which is a kind of feature-rich and ensures minimal cognitive load. So what I'll be doing is defining the features, what are the things we have, and we'll be doing brainstorming with those features, how we can display or make it easily accessible to the user. And I will make sure it should not be cluttered with too many information, too many images, or too many icons, or using something different. If we use something different at this given scenario, it will make our user confused. Since it is a feature-rich product, it will already have so many elements for the user. Once I'll be done with the brainstorming of those features, I'll be doing testing on a paper mostly, or I'll conduct a user interview regarding those features, and I will ask them what they understand from those listed features. I will try to know their perspective. So once I'll be completely sure that these are the features we are going to introduce in the app, I will create a low-fidelity prototype, maybe it's not exactly a low-fidelity prototype. It should be just sketches on the paper, and I'll be reaching some random targeted users to test those things if it makes sense to them. And by doing this, I am 100% sure it will be a minimal cognitive load on the user and ensure all the features it has.

Yes, I have done 1AB testing. I don't recall exactly, but I believe it was related to search because what happens when we have something on the means, or on our platform, we had a search field which wasn't working the way it should work. And I did some user testing on it. Then I came up with two solutions. But I wasn't sure which one was good, so I did the A/B testing. Either I should go with the first solution or the second solution. So, actually, it's been a while. I don't remember exactly what I did there.

Yes, this is a kind of good approach for doing any design revision. Actually, I have not had a chance to do such a thing, but I believe if I'm working on some things and I get analytics regarding some feedback on a product. So how I will design, I will kind of revise my designs. Let's say if it's, let's take the previous example, only if it is the onboarding form. And from the analytics perspective, I realize our users are not filling in some particular fields or users are not uploading any documents. So I will be kind of redesigning or revising their design to reduce the cognitive load, and it will make the onboarding more minimalistic also.