UI | UX | Usability

Physical, Digital, Commercial and Consumer Use Cases

Marshalls - Fitting Room User

"From discounts to discovery? Definitely not—possibly tomorrow. This phrase succinctly captures my experience with the fitting room issues I encountered. While the images from this situation could easily become a meme-worthy moment, I immediately lost faith in the establishment's overall quality. I even found myself scanning the area for broken plastic pieces and flimsy metal pins where I was standing and about to sit.

The system, which was ostensibly designed to offer convenience and encourage purchases, failed to function as intended. Instead, it became a physical barrier that misrouted my emotional investment, ultimately impacting my long-term perception of the brand.

I encounter scenarios like this almost daily. Even when I can't pause to document them, they linger in my mind, influencing my approach to marketing, as well as my thinking around functionality, design, usability, user interface, and human-computer interaction (HCI).

When examining the line between subjective and objective elements in User Experience (UX) and Usability, this instance is a prime example. The physical barriers and the emotional misrouting I experienced serve as key points for an objective analysis of both UX and usability."

UX Analysis Report: Fitting Room Labeling System Overview

This report examines a specific user experience scenario encountered in a clothing store fitting room. The space is equipped with three hangers labeled “Tomorrow,” “Possibly,” and “Definitely” — a subtle decision-support tool aimed at aiding customer judgment during the try-on process. However, the “Definitely” hanger has been torn off the wall, leaving behind only a broken plastic label. This analysis explores how such a detail, though seemingly minor, plays a significant role in shaping customer perception, usability, emotional resonance, and brand trust.

1. UX Foundations: The Role of Environmental Cues

1.1 Affordances and Signifiers

Intended Design: The labeled hangers serve as signifiers, guiding users to intuitively sort their try-on clothes. They also afford choice architecture, encouraging deliberation and increasing user agency in a playful, emotionally resonant way.
Broken Affordance: The missing “Definitely” hanger interrupts this flow. The user cannot easily signal or reflect on a strong purchase decision. In UX terms, the object has lost its affordance — it can no longer “do” what it signals.

1.2 Mental Models and Decision Support

The hanger system implicitly constructs a decision-making mental model:
1. Tomorrow → “Maybe not today”.
2. Possibly → “I’m still considering”.
3. Definitely → “This is the one”.
The absence of “Definitely” suggests a lack of closure or confidence in the decision-making process, potentially discouraging a purchase or creating emotional dissonance.

2. Heuristics and Usability Violations

2.1 Visibility of System Status

Broken or missing elements signal neglect. The current status of the system (fitting room experience) is not clearly communicated, violating the first of Nielsen’s heuristics.
This raises user questions:
- Is this store well-maintained?
- Is this hanger gone because people keep using it — or because no one cares?

2.2 Consistency and Standards

The “Tomorrow” and “Possibly” hangers remain, but “Definitely” is missing. This breaks the internal consistency of the system. Users cannot fully engage with the intended interaction.

2.3 Error Prevention and Recovery

There’s no visible explanation or path to recover the intent behind the missing element.
Even subconsciously, users may internalize this as: “Even the store doesn’t expect you to love anything here.”

3. Emotional Design and Psychological Ramifications

3.1 First Impressions and Trust

Broken installations signal poor maintenance, eroding trust in the brand. If something so central to a positive shopping decision (choosing “Definitely”) is broken, what else is being neglected?

3.2 Cognitive Dissonance

Encouraging users to rank their clothing choices creates a micro-narrative. The inability to complete the arc (ending with “Definitely”) disrupts the story and causes internal dissonance.

3.3 Affect and Mood

Emotional design theory (e.g., Norman’s “three levels”: visceral, behavioral, reflective) shows that environments that lack polish reduce pleasure, perceived quality, and intention to return.
Broken UX introduces friction where there should be delight — especially in a self-reflective, emotional activity like trying on clothes.

4. UX Research and Empirical Implications

4.1 Observational Research Opportunities

Ethnographic observation or video analysis could capture:
- How customers engage with the labels.
- Whether they notice the missing “Definitely” cue.
- Emotional reactions (visible confusion, hesitation, abandonment of try-ons).

4.2 Voice of the Customer (VOC) Insights

Verbatim quotes from feedback like “I didn’t feel sure about anything” or “I wasn’t wowed” may correlate with this kind of subtle breakdown.
Social listening could reveal unexpected fallout if a symbolic absence like this goes viral as a meme or photo.

4.3 A/B Testing for Reinstatement

Reinstalling or enhancing the “Definitely” hanger (e.g., with lighting, iconography, or a positive affirmation) could become a UX uplift opportunity.
User behavior metrics (time in fitting room, conversion rate, item return frequency) could track performance changes.

5. Service Design and Brand Experience Integration

5.1 Cross-Touchpoint Continuity

The hanger labels suggest the store is investing in a narrative-driven experience, positioning itself as a fashion guide, not just a vendor.
A broken piece introduces a discontinuity in that journey. It disrupts service coherence between:
- Marketing language (“From Discounts to Discovery”).
- In-store signage.
- Post-purchase experience.

5.2 Retail UX Pattern Library

A good pattern here would be a “Try-on Decision Station” — properly designed and maintained.
It may include: mirrors, emotional affirmation stickers, adjustable lighting, and symbolic tags (like these hangers).
Pattern decay — where old patterns remain without upkeep — damages both usability and brand identity.

6. Recommendations

6.1 Immediate UX Fixes

Reinstate the “Definitely” hanger promptly and ensure it’s well-secured.
Consider replacing all three with a durable, cohesive, modular signage design.

6.2 Holistic Store Experience Audit

Use this moment to audit all in-store decision-support UX patterns.
Evaluate signage, fixtures, ambient cues, and transitions between try-on and purchase.

6.3 Emotional UX Enrichment

Enhance the labels with small sensory or digital touches:
- RFID-triggered “love it” prompt on the mirror when clothes are hung on “Definitely”.
- A small display showing how many others “loved” that item recently.

Conclusion

This broken “Definitely” hanger is more than a simple missing piece — it represents a UX failure that cascades through usability, emotional engagement, decision-making, and brand trust. It demonstrates how invisible UX (the unnoticed patterns when working correctly) becomes highly visible in its absence.

Thoughtful, consistent, emotionally resonant UX — even in the smallest fixtures — builds confidence, delight, and loyalty. Its absence does the opposite. The solution is not just a physical repair but a renewed commitment to end-to-end, emotionally intelligent experience design.

Usability Analysis Report: Fitting Room Labeling System

Overview

This report evaluates the fitting room experience in a clothing store using a strictly usability-focused framework. In this scenario, the fitting room offers three labeled hangers — “Tomorrow,” “Possibly,” and “Definitely” — to assist in organizing tried-on clothes. The “Definitely” hanger is torn from the wall, leaving a broken label behind. The goal here is to assess the practical impact of this issue on task completion, efficiency, and system reliability, divorced from broader emotional or branding concerns central to UX.

1. Task Efficiency and Completion

1.1 Primary User Task

The core user task in the fitting room is:
“Try on clothing and organize keep/maybe/reject decisions efficiently.”

With the three hangers intact, this process can be completed with:

Low cognitive load (clear categories)
Quick sorting
Minimal physical effort

1.2 Usability Issue

The absence of the “Definitely” hanger:

Obstructs full task completion
The user cannot easily mark a “keep” decision.
Increases physical and mental friction
The user must either hold the item, place it awkwardly elsewhere, or mentally track their favorite(s) without the physical aid of a designated spot.

This breaks the principle of supporting the user’s task goals and interrupts the expected workflow in the space.

2. Learnability and Discoverability

2.1 Label Design

The three labels act as discovered affordances for the sorting task. They are simple and learnable:

One-word cues
Spatially positioned in a left-to-right, future-to-present metaphor

2.2 Break in Discoverability

With only “Tomorrow” and “Possibly” intact:

Users may misunderstand the system as incomplete or assume only two options were ever provided.
New users have no way to “learn” the missing category, and returning users experience learned inconsistency.

This decreases the learnability and predictability of the system — key usability qualities for first-time or infrequent users.

3. Error Prevention and System Feedback

3.1 Error Potential

In the absence of the “Definitely” hanger:

Users may misplace or miscategorize items they intended to keep.
The lack of visual feedback for a confident selection creates the potential for task errors, especially if multiple items are being tried on.

3.2 Recovery Options

There is no error recovery path built into the system. Users can’t compensate for the missing part without improvising — violating the usability guideline of helping users recognize, diagnose, and recover from problems.

4. Consistency and Standards

4.1 Internal Consistency

Usability depends on consistent expectations. In this case:

Two labeled hooks remain
One is broken, disrupting uniformity in both the visual and functional system

Users expect equal treatment across options — violating the usability heuristic of consistency and standards when one labeled option is unusable or looks broken.

5. Physical and Cognitive Ergonomics

5.1 Physical Design

Well-designed fitting rooms minimize unnecessary effort:

Hangers should be reachable, intuitive, and spaced logically.
Missing fixtures add manual burden, forcing users to improvise storage (e.g., stacking, balancing, or leaving clothes on the floor).

5.2 Mental Load

Without the “Definitely” option:

Users must mentally track or remember which item was the best.
This introduces unnecessary cognitive effort, which usability guidelines seek to minimize — especially during physically active tasks like changing clothes.

6. Satisfaction and Error Tolerance

6.1 Satisfaction

Usability is not just about function, but functional satisfaction. Users should:

Feel that the system supports them in making decisions
Experience minimal obstacles during task execution

The broken label reduces satisfaction by interrupting flow and lowering confidence in the system’s completeness.

6.2 Error Tolerance

A usable system should tolerate slight deviations or system degradation. In this case:

Low fault tolerance: one missing component renders the whole categorization system less usable
There is no built-in redundancy or backup method (e.g., a movable sorting card or shelf)

7. Recommendations for Usability Improvement

Problem: Usability Principle Violated Recommendation: “Definitely” hanger missing. Task efficiency, visibility, error prevention: Replace the hanger with a durable mount and reinforced label. Only partial system discoverable. Learnability, consistency: Include signage or iconography above all three hanger areas to reinforce concept. Increased task effort. Cognitive and physical ergonomics: Add visual indicators or mirror reminders as fallback system cues. No error recovery. Error handling: Provide a fourth neutral “Sort Here” spot or include magnetic clips as portable decision markers.

Conclusion

From a usability standpoint, the missing “Definitely” hanger significantly disrupts a user’s ability to efficiently and accurately complete a fitting room task: evaluating, sorting, and deciding on clothing. The broken element undermines the task model, increases error likelihood, and forces unnecessary workarounds — all hallmarks of diminished usability.

Fixing this is not just about aesthetics or brand alignment — it's about restoring a fully functional interaction system where physical objects support a seamless and low-effort user task loop.

Provider-Side Live Chat Technical and Design Language

My user request for Live Chat support with my web hosting provider involved a frustrating cascade of usability issues, poor AI escalation handling, UI bugs, and a misleading feature experience, along with visual technical and behavioral inconsistencies. The interaction highlights friction across three core UX categories: discoverability, control/feedback, and reliability.

Wix.com Live Chat Support: UX/UI/Usability Breakdown

1. Discoverability & User Control Issue:

The chatbot defaulted to AI responses, failing to register the user’s live chat request promptly.

UX Impact:

Violates Jakob Nielsen’s "User Control and Freedom" heuristic.
Reduces user autonomy, makes it harder to achieve task goals.
Adds cognitive load by requiring the user to repeatedly rephrase requests to reach a human.

UX Recommendations:

Implement a clearly visible "Chat with a Human" button at the beginning of the chat flow.
Add natural language triggers like “agent,” “support rep,” or “real person” that immediately escalate the request.

2. UI Behavior & Input Field Error Issue:

During live chat, the text input box was re-populating with the chatbot's greeting.

Usability & UI Impact:

Violates "Consistency and Standards" and "Error Prevention" heuristics.
Creates confusion and mistrust in the interface.
Makes users second-guess if they’re editing the right message or accidentally sending something unintended.

UI Recommendations:

Ensure message fields are cleared after message submission.
Treat automated greeting content as part of the transcript, not as default input values.

3. File Attachment Looping Issue:

Attached images were auto-attaching to every new message, even when manually deleted.

UX/UI Impact:

Severe violation of "Recognition Rather Than Recall" and "User Control".
Creates repetition fatigue, bloats conversation, increases bandwidth usage, and frustrates the user.
Perceived as a bug or glitch, reducing user trust in the platform.

Usability Fixes:

File attachments should only persist per message, not globally.
Add a "Clear Attachments" function and visual indicator of active attachments for each message.
Log image upload as part of the message thread rather than in a floating attachment buffer.

4. Feature Gap Revealed Too Late

Issue:

The reason for contacting support was about using a desired function with a feature that doesn’t support it.

UX Impact:

Violates "Match Between System and the Real World".
Highlights lack of affordance and discoverability in core product UI.
Wastes time, leads to user frustration, and degrades perceived support quality.

Recommendations:

Add feature limitations clearly in tooltips, error messages, or documentation within the builder interface.
Chatbot could proactively confirm feature limitations before opening a ticket.
Offer feature request submission link directly from support for unmet user needs.

Summary of Key UX Issues

Area Problem. Heuristic Violated Fix Summary, Chat Escalation AI ignores human request, User Control and Freedom, Add human escalation button & keyword triggers.

Input Bug: Message field auto-fills wrong text, Error Prevention, Clear field after each submit.

Attachment Loop Images persist in next message. Flexibility & Efficiency Clear per-message image logic.

Feature Limitation: Late discovery of unsupported use, Visibility of System Status, Add affordances and clear limits in UI.

UX Takeaways

Chat support UX must blend automation and escalation fluidly.
AI-first experiences must never override the user's intention to connect with a real person.
Glitches in form field behavior or media reuse can lead to perception of brokenness, even if technically functional.
Support UX isn't just about communication — it's part of the product experience lifecycle and often the last line of retention.

Wix Live Chat - UX vs. Usability Analysis

1. UX Lens: Emotional and Experiential Evaluation

Scenario:

The user interacts with Wix.com's support flow, beginning with the chatbot and progressing into live chat. During this interaction, technical and behavioral inconsistencies appear.

Focus: Holistic User Perception

Chatbot Gatekeeping: Perceived emotional barrier to resolution.
Field Repopulation: Perceived as an intrusive or untrustworthy design flaw.
Image Auto-Attachment: Triggers user frustration and hesitation in sharing content.
Feature Limitation Discovery: Causes disappointment, loss of trust in product consistency.

Emotional Journey:

Initial Hope → Confusion → Irritation → Resignation

UX Frameworks Used:

Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen)
Emotional Design Model (Norman): Visceral (design reaction), Behavioral (interaction flow), Reflective (brand trust).

UX Recommendations:

Empower users early by surfacing control (e.g., “Talk to Human” option).
Reinforce expectations with microcopy and progressive disclosure.
Align emotional affordances with transparent limitations.

2. Usability Lens: Task-Oriented Effectiveness

Scenario:

User attempts a simple workflow: initiate live chat, send files, and resolve a design feature issue.

Focus: Performance & Efficiency

AI Response Loop: Inhibits discoverability of key support options.
Text Field Bug: Slows typing; causes repeated deletions.
Attachment Repetition: Unintentional file sends reduce task clarity.
UI Control Variance: Confuses the user about basic functions like closing or minimizing panels.

Key Metrics Affected:

Task Completion Time: Increases.
Error Rate: Increases (duplicate messages, mistaken file sends).
User Retention/Return: Likely decreases.

Usability Frameworks Used:

ISO 9241-11: Effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction.
5E Model: Efficient, Effective, Engaging, Error-tolerant, Easy to Learn.

Usability Recommendations:

Use task-based testing to uncover user friction.
Refactor UI components to follow consistent iconography.
Add QA checkpoints for form and field behaviors.

3. UX vs. Usability Comparison Table

Category | UX Perspective | Usability Perspective

Scope | Emotional, holistic journey | Functional, task-based performance

Key Focus | Trust, satisfaction, brand impression | Task success, learnability, efficiency

Measurement | Journey maps, qualitative feedback | Task timing, error/success rates

Primary Pain | Emotional dissonance, misaligned expectations | Repetitive UI friction, broken workflows

Fix Strategy | Recenter user emotion and flow | Refactor for clarity, consistency, and speed

User Research and Persona Cards

As a User Experience (UX) Designer, leveraging archetypes in research and design is essential for gaining empathy, understanding user diversity, and optimizing solutions for a variety of needs. Personas are fictional yet research-based profiles that represent key user types. They help me design with specific needs, behaviors, and goals in mind. For solo UX/game projects, even if I didn’t conduct formal user research, I can create proto-personas based on my target audience, assumptions, or playtesters.

These persona descriptions were based on a Gothic style for a bit of a darker touch, though could have easily been designed toward High Fantasy, Cyberpunk, or Contemporary art styles as well. Really any style suitable for the study. It's important to remember that non-standard feedback from outside a target audience can often yield helpful data too! Style aside, these are structured across several age groups, and each persona will have details on age, physical/mental traits, interests, temperament, and descriptors.

Ages 5-15:

Child Dreamer (Handicap): A 10-year-old with a prosthetic leg. Loves collecting ravens' feathers and sketching dark castles by candlelight.
Wild Soul: A mischievous 8-year-old with untamed curly hair, who believes they’re a vampire in training and has an affinity for dramatic flair.
Mystical Artist: A 15-year-old who paints eerie landscapes of misty forests and moonlit ruins. Always wears black gloves.
Bookish Alchemist: A 12-year-old obsessed with potion-making and ancient texts. Carries a leather-bound notebook everywhere.
Melancholic Musician: A 14-year-old violin prodigy composing haunting tunes for imaginary ballrooms.

Ages 16-24:

Brooding Scholar (Handicap): A 19-year-old wheelchair user and aspiring philosopher, writing a thesis on the concept of Gothic tragedy.
Wild Romantic: A 20-year-old who passionately flirts with the dark and the bizarre, claiming they hear whispers in the wind.
Graveyard Poet: An 18-year-old who writes poems in cemeteries and talks about time’s decay.
Occult Enthusiast: A 21-year-old learning tarot, dabbling in sigils, and craving mystical discoveries.
Ethereal Performer: A 24-year-old operatic singer whose voice makes people shiver, often likened to an angel of the underworld.

Ages 25-37:

Reclusive Painter (Handicap): A 31-year-old painter with impaired vision. Their art conveys ethereal, shadowed scenes that leave viewers unsettled.
Untamed Wanderer: A 29-year-old nomad exploring abandoned castles across Europe, telling fabricated ghost stories to locals.
Cursed Heir: A 35-year-old claiming their family is haunted by misfortune, wearing antique lockets passed down through generations.
Byronic Scientist: A 37-year-old biologist experimenting with cutting-edge tech to bring myths to life.
Dark Historian: A 27-year-old fascinated with unsolved Gothic mysteries of the Victorian era.

Ages 38-52:

Silent Gardener (Handicap): A 42-year-old with partial hearing loss, tending to a garden of poisonous plants under moonlight.
Mystic Vagabond: A 45-year-old wanderer with no clear home, leaving cryptic messages in ancient ruins.
Cryptic Novelist: A 38-year-old who lives like a recluse, pouring their heart into Gothic novels inspired by urban legends.
Nightmare Architect: A 48-year-old designing surreal, gloomy buildings for modern cities.
Chimerical Librarian: A 52-year-old keeping obscure books in their personal labyrinthine library.

Quest 3 Head Mounted Display Hardware Modifications

From ever first hearing about VR growing up, to owning the Oculus Rift and META 3 headsets, I've gone from beaming optimist to VR enthusiast. I want the industry to grow, and for people to have the best introduction to the platform as possible. For all the technology upgrades from Quest 2 to Meta 3, the biggest challenge to new user adoption, when left unmodified, is built into the duration of life for the product. And was the biggest glaring long-term issue that became immediatly noticable during my very first impressions. This thing is uncomfortable.

My Meta Quest 3 build is working and done for now, and it looks and balances great, the two-part epoxy is flexible and strong, and the straps are snug and comfortable. This works well for me, but the next step is to dremel the left side USB-C slot back toward the earphone, so the cable has length to adust the headsize fully open for others.

Components:

3-d printed adapter for Vive Pro Audio Headstrap
Vive Pro Audio Headstrap
Modified BinbokVR hotswappable battery headstrap with 2x 8000mAh rechargable battery.
Meta Quest Touch Plus Controller Active Straps
KKCOBVR cooling faceplate
Thick padded and easy-clean light blocking face pad.

See Price

Contained no pricing information through suggested menu pathing. Display model was secured with an incredibly short anti-theft cable which made getting a feel for the device impossible.

Game Glitches and Boundary Breaking

Every piece of software or video game has bugs or glitches, and in a way, they help to support the understanding of "intended functionality". As a developer they are a part of the experience, and something to be sorted out in code or integrated development environment. As a gamer, sooner rather than later it seems, I'm able to find them. As long as I don't loose all my gear, can respawn above ground or in a new area, or have a recent save to reload, they are a blast. But probably not something intended to be considered a feature, not a bug.