UX Workshops
- ⚡#1 - Problem Prioritization: Lightning Decision Jam
- 🗃️#2 - Reorganizing the hierarchy with Card Sorting: New global Menu
- ✏️#3 - Defining UX Writing Guidelines
⚡#1 - Problem Prioritization: Lightning Decision Jam
Context
After being commented about usability problems in the company, I had the idea of organizing a workshop for this subject. The focus was to discover the main problems of the moment, to quickly generate ideas and to put them in place according to their impact-effort.
To have a complete view, we selected people from different backgrounds to avoid a biased approach. There were 5 people in total: UX Designer (Me), CEO, CTO, Back-end Developer and Business Developer/Marketing.
We used the method called Lightning Decision Jam, which consists of 4 steps to make quick and effective decisions. Below is a summary of the steps that were worked on:
1) Discovery (Boat dynamic)
This short exercise was used to highlight some positive points that were implemented before. But mainly to list all the problems that are preventing us from achieving the goal of improving UX. Each of the participants had votes to distribute on the most relevant problems. The ones with the most votes would be taken to the next step.
2) Ideation
Then each of the problems was turned into an open-ended question (how might we...) and ideas were generated from each question for the 4 main problems. The voting system was also applied to select the best ideas.
3) Prioritization
Based on the most voted ideas, and with the help of Figma, each participant classified the ideas on an effort-impact scale. Reaching the result of 4 ideas in the square to implement quickly and 3 ideas to implement later (in project form).
4) Implementation
To have better control and organization, we created a list with the steps to be taken and deadlines for each issue prioritized. For security/privacy reasons, some information was removed/blurred. Yet, this does not affect the understanding of the method used.
Next Steps
🗃️#2 - Reorganizing the hierarchy with Card Sorting: New global Menu
Context
Over the years, the company maintained the same structure chosen for the global menu, adding new modules in the categories that seemed “as close as possible”.
However, during the software expansion, several modules were added without deep reflection, causing cognitive/visual overload, in addition to not having a classification logic.
To solve this problem, the idea was to develop a card sorting exercise to obtain feedback from the company's customers and thus reorganize the modules according to the users' needs.
1) Methodology
The Figjam platform was chosen for its practicality and because users were already familiar with other tests previously performed on it. The type of card sorting used was semi-structured, meaning that some reminders were provided about the old categories, but users could modify them or add new ones if they felt it necessary.
Previously, there were 20 modules in the company divided into 3 categories. The image below shows how the template was organized before being sent to customers:
After creating the template, invitations were sent to different profiles of all client companies. Users had to drag and group the modules within the categories, and then choose which name would be most ideal for each category.
2) Data analysis
The goal was to get around 15 users to participate. That was the result achieved.
To analyze the data obtained, two strategies were used to obtain concrete results: Standardization Grid and Similarity Matrix. These approaches allowed us to identify patterns and groups according to the organization of each new category, which fit into the old ones and which needed a new one. Both tables can be viewed below:
Finally, a qualitative analysis was carried out regarding the names/labels of each group, identifying which formed patterns and which were the most appropriate according to our clients.
3) Implementation
After a meeting with the team members, some final details were adjusted and a prototype was generated to visualize what the final result would look like with all the proposed modifications.
Following the decision made, the modification was added to the development backlog and implemented in the new version of the software.
Next Steps
✏️#3 - Defining UX Writing Guidelines
Context
The absence of clear writing guidelines was affecting both the external communication and user experience. As we observed how inconsistency weakened brand identity and caused confusion, we brought key stakeholders together for a collaborative workshop.
Motivation: To align all company communication with its values, mission, and audience by defining a consistent voice and appropriate tones for each context.
The goal was to create a clear, cohesive, and effective language grounded in the company's mission and values. When analyzing company texts (in English and French), we found:
• Grammatical inconsistencies
• Abrupt tone shifts
• Misalignment with the brand's identity
1) Workshop Structure
The voice-definition activity sparked valuable conversations about how people perceive the brand and how they want it to be perceived. Each voice attribute was selected based on the company's scientific and collaborative values.
The goal was to establish a constant voice with adaptable tones that fit different contexts. This shared foundation helped align team perspectives and reinforce the brand identity.
Participants inluded: Marketing team, communication stakeholders, and strategic company representatives.
Main steps:
• Ice breaker activity.
• Introduction to voice vs. tone.
• Explanation of the four voice dimensions:
- Funny ↔ Serious
- Casual ↔ Formal
- Irreverent ↔ Respectful
- Enthusiastic ↔ Objective
• Definition of voice and tones.
To define our brand voice, we established four core personality traits: informative, factual, empathetic, and trustworthy. This positioning places our voice slightly more serious than funny, more casual than formal, clearly more respectful than irreverent, and more factual than enthusiastic.
We also clarified the distinction between voice and tone. Voice is who we are, our core identity. Tone is how we express that identity. While the voice remains constant, the tone shifts depending on the communication channel and audience.
2) Defined Tones
Each communication channel was evaluated using the four voice dimensions, allowing us to adapt the tone without compromising consistency. This ensures the brand sounds cohesive while adjusting naturally to the purpose of each platform.
For example, LinkedIn leans more enthusiastic to support marketing initiatives, while the software interface demands a serious and formal tone due to the critical nature of lab data.
3) Practical cases in the Software
This phase brought theory into practice, showing how poor copy directly affects user trust and clarity. Together, we created simple rules that guide writing without overcomplicating it. Real product examples were used to test and refine the principles collaboratively.
Scenario 1: Descriptions
Problems found:
• Content redundancy
• Repetition of titles.
• Lack of useful information.
• Tone misaligned with the product’s purpose
Rules created:
1) Keep it simple, be informative. Give hints/tips.
2) Keep it formal (avoid too much enthusiasm).
3) Do not repeat the title in the descriptions always as possible. Go to the point.
4) Try to put 40-70 characters maximum per line.
Scenario 2: Success Messages
Problems found:
• Visual inconsistency
• Negative terms in positive messages
• Lack of clarity on what was completed.
Rules created:
1) Avoid negative words.
2) Keep as short as possible (try 5 words maximum).
3) Always use green toast when there is no complementary action needed.
4) Always inform what was succesful.
Scenario 3: Error Messages
Problems found:
• Vague or no explanation about the error.
• No guidance for the user.
• Inappropriate humor or tone.
Rules created:
1) Explain how to solve the problem.
2) Explain the problem after showing how to solve it (only if there is enough space).
3) Do not use enthusiasm and funny words in error messages.
4) Identify that the message is an error.
4) Deliverables and Implementation
The main outcome of the workshop was the creation of a set of detailed guidelines for communicating in different contexts, such as screen descriptions, success messages, and error messages. These guidelines were designed to help the team maintain a consistent and purposeful voice throughout the product.
In addition to the guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive audit of the software’s interface. Every module was reviewed, from login to inventory and experiment management. For each screen, we identified messaging issues and proposed concrete improvements in both English and French.
This analysis included screenshots and clear documentation of what needed to change, forming a practical and intuitive handoff for the development team. The format made it easy to follow and implement, reducing friction during the transition phase.
After a quick round of validation with the marketing team to confirm alignment with the brand’s tone, the proposed updates were implemented in the product. This helped bring clarity, consistency, and a more unified communication style across the entire platform.