In brief

The talk is not about artifacts but about designing the interfaces of investigation tools: "design" means engineering, not decoration. Theory — Hick's law, 7±2, Gestalt; practice — incident logs and a checklist for the vendor. Not a sales pitch: Zero eDiscovery is named but not shown. Little tie to investigation: there are two on-topic examples, the rest is a UX primer.

Key points

Tools, artifacts, technologies

Nothing was said: no laws, no articles, no agencies, no methodologies. The speaker says: investigation, audit, incident, forensics, working in agencies. There is a single frame — the user and the vendor: it is the user who formulates the requirements; an objection from the audience — the developer will adapt only to a client "with tens of millions a year in support fees". Collaborativeness: different settings among colleagues break communication.

Questions from the audience

The speaker's position

Design is engineering, aesthetics are secondary; overload is the disease of products built with no school of design, and the one who has to cure it is the user-customer: know the principles, demand, do not put up with it. He argues with Drozd gently: he grants that the remark is right, but insists on uniformity of UX. The tone is a lecture, with no selling.

Quotes