[briefcomment]

This looks like it could have promise.

I like the presentation. The analysis seems shallow though. It feels like your thought process is, "I have some free time, let's open up this app and see what I enjoy or think is clever, or critique some places for improvement".

I think I would enjoy it if you presented a wholly new alternative UI, instead of small changes here and there. Obviously, you would only post the new UIs that are compelling, instead of trying to fit a new UI into existing apps by default.

[danbenoni]

Thanks for the comment. Very interesting points too! Indeed, we do go through a real-life use case, highlight the + and - and attach psy / UX / data insights along the way. Some companies actually reach out after the case studies to confirm the findings and hypothesis (some even confirmed winning variants or experiments in progress). It's an interesting exercise, although not meant to be an exact science as we don't have access to all the data those companies have. We have to rely on parallel research and deep-dive user interviews. Our goal is mainly to get people from different disciplines (engineering, design, marketing, sales, etc) to focus on what matters most but is often overlooked: the real-life experience of the customer. Cheers and thanks again for your comment BC!

[briefcomment]

I would emphasize whenever an analysis has been validated or commented on by the company itself. That elevates the veracity of your analysis from an "amateur blog" level to a "legitimate source for UI examples/successes" level. I think it makes sense to prioritize collecting feedback from those companies as well. Could make or break user engagement.

[danbenoni]

Very good point. If you look at the Superhuman case study, their CEO went through the slides before the release and accepted to have "their stamp" in there. Other companies don't want that information public though, that's the only problem :-/.