This week’s episode takes a deeper look at how we define good user experience—and argues it’s time we move beyond the narrow focus of usability. We explore how friction can sometimes enhance an experience, and why emotional design is essential if we want to create interfaces that stick in users’ minds.

We also review a new batch of AI-powered design tools and uncover where they currently fall short. Plus, we look at how AI can still be incredibly useful for user research—when used the right way.

Finally, we answer a question from our Agency Academy about giving feedback in a way that doesn't crush your colleagues, and Marcus closes out with one of his typically pun-tastic jokes.

We explored two sides of AI in this episode—one disappointing, one surprisingly powerful.

While on the road (and supposedly on holiday), Paul trialed four AI-powered tools that promise to design and code entire websites based on your prompts. The tools included:

• UXPilot
• V0
• Polymet
• Loveable

All four are generating excitement among many, but from a UX perspective, we found them underwhelming. Results were inconsistent at best—white text on white backgrounds, bland copy, missing CSS, and difficult-to-edit layouts. Even with carefully crafted prompts, they failed to deliver production-ready (or even prototype-ready) experiences.

If you’re curious, they’re cheap enough to try—but don’t expect them to replace designers or developers anytime soon.

On the flip side, we’ve found AI incredibly useful for online user research, especially when time or resources make traditional methods tough.

Paul used Perplexity to perform sentiment analysis across:

• Social media mentions
• Review sites like Trustpilot
• Online forums like MoneySavingExpert

He asked it to uncover what users liked, disliked, questioned, or hesitated over when it came to purchasing insurance. The results? Incredibly insightful—and backed up with linked sources to verify accuracy.

You can also ask it to find testimonials that support key selling points, making it great for conversion optimization.

If you're short on research time, tools like Perplexity offer a fast and surprisingly effective way to better understand your audience.

It all started in a casino. Well, sort of.

While walking through a bank of overly-themed slot machines in Vegas, Paul had a realization: if a UX designer created a slot machine, it would probably be terrible. We’d remove all the friction. Strip away the flashing lights. Replace the reels with a simple “Win or Lose” button. It would be technically better, but emotionally dead.

And that’s the problem.

Too often in UX, we treat usability as the holy grail. We remove friction, optimize flows, and tidy up interfaces. But we sometimes forget the _emotional layer_—the personality, surprise, or joy that makes a product memorable.

When we fixate only on usability, we risk creating something that is forgettable. Efficient, yes. Effective, perhaps. But emotionally flat. That’s not what builds brand loyalty. That’s not what users remember.

It’s like eating a plain rice cake. Technically food. But not something you'd write home about.

We need to learn from other industries. Slot machine designers understand user psychology on a visceral level. They’ve mastered the art of creating anticipation, excitement, even obsession. Not that we should copy their manipulative tactics—but we can learn from how they invoke emotion.

Same goes for print designers, who often embrace bold creative expression. Or the restaurant industry, where service, ambiance, and delight matter as much as the food.

It’s not just about delight for delight’s sake. Emotional state directly affects cognitive load. When someone is stressed, even the simplest interaction feels hard. When they’re relaxed or entertained, they glide through even complex tasks.

We need to design for these emotional states. A well-designed interface doesn’t just help users complete a task. It shapes how they feel about doing it.

Consider the Mailchimp example. Back in the day, their UI was full of little delightful moments—from their chimp mascot Freddy to playful animations. None of it was strictly necessary. But it made the product feel human, friendly, and approachable. And it mattered.

We should be testing and measuring more than just usability.

Some suggestions:

• Use semantic differential surveys. Give users a list of emotional adjectives and ask which ones best describe the experience.
• Monitor sentiment through social listening. Tools like Perplexity can help uncover how people feel about your product online.
• Track qualitative feedback. Those smiley-face buttons at airport security? They can work for digital experiences too.
• Use metrics beyond task completion. Net Promoter Score (NPS), emotion mapping, and post-task satisfaction ratings all provide deeper insights.

UX isn’t just about helping users complete a task quickly. It’s about how people feel while doing it—and how they remember that experience afterwards.

The best designs don’t just work. They resonate.

We found two fantastic reads this week that both hit close to home.

• The Path to Design Leadership by Hang Le (who led teams at Dropbox, among others) outlines what real design leadership looks like. It’s not just about managing people or reviewing work—it’s about shaping business strategy, improving design quality, and driving cultural change. A must-read if you're looking to lead through influence, not just seniority.
• Product Waste by Rich Mironov offers a powerful way to frame design’s business value. It argues that 50% of product effort results in waste—features nobody asked for, used, or needed. Reducing this waste (even slightly) creates opportunities to redirect resources toward real innovation. We also love how this supports our recommendation to run a Strategic User-Driven Project Assessment as a way of reducing risk and waste.

"How can I provide feedback on site improvements without offending the person who originally designed it—especially if they’re sitting in the room?" — Paul, from the Agency Academy

A common challenge—especially when you're trying to improve a product while preserving team morale.

Here’s how we approach it:

Start by acknowledging the difficulty of the situation. We’ve been on the receiving end of feedback ourselves, and it never feels great—even when it’s valid. So open by saying something like, “Look, I know giving feedback on work is tough, especially when the person who made it is right here—but I promise this isn’t about blame, it’s about improvement.”

Next, set the tone early: “Every website is a compromise.” Between budgets, legacy systems, stakeholders, and tight deadlines, no one gets to implement a perfect vision. Acknowledge that and it’ll help lower defense.

If someone gets defensive, listen. Then reflect their concern back: “Absolutely, tight deadlines would make that tough.” That empathy often disarms tension more than anything else.

We also make sure to start with praise. Highlight what’s working. That way, when the critique comes, it lands better.

And most importantly: keep the focus on the future. Instead of what went wrong, talk about what could be improved moving forward. Frame your feedback as collaborative enhancement.

And yes—if all else fails, a bit of humor (carefully deployed) can help lighten the mood. Just maybe don’t start with “Who built this shitshow?”

Why are mountains funny? Because they’re _hil_arious.

Thanks for joining us for another episode. If you’ve got a question you’d like us to tackle, or a joke to offer up, drop us an email at [email protected]. And if you’re not already in our Slack community or the Agency Academy, come say hello.

Until next time—don’t just design for usability. Design for memory.

Find The Latest Show Notes