Other similar profiles
Explore more posts
-
Eric Shumake
Most UX portfolios look the same. Healthcare UX portfolios need to be different. When you're interviewing for healthcare roles, hiring managers aren't just looking for clean interfaces and user flows. They're looking for evidence you understand regulatory constraints, patient safety implications, and clinical workflows. That's a skills gap most UX designers don't know they have. Here's what changes the equation: building something real in healthcare, not just redesigning what already exists. When you can show a working healthcare app you've built, researched, and tested, you're demonstrating capability that goes beyond mockups. That's what this course is designed to do. Over three weeks, you'll build a functional AI-powered healthcare app using no-code tools. You'll learn HIPAA compliance, accessibility standards, and ethical research practices specific to healthcare. Most importantly, you'll finish with portfolio work that shows you can navigate the unique constraints of this field. The course runs on Saturdays with a 2-4 hour weekly commitment. You'll work with a cohort of other professionals making the same transition, which means you're building your network while you're building your skills. If you've been stuck between wanting to specialize in healthcare UX and not knowing how to break in, this gives you a concrete path forward. Next cohorts start October 25 and November 22. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gaNDBRTc Scholarship info: https://lnkd.in/gyM3Shqi Book a chat: HXRlabs.com
-
April Yang
Most UX portfolios present findings. They walk through processes and answer the question: “What are the key findings?” But hiring managers—the PMs, design directors, and VPs who ultimately decide whether you get the role or the seat at the table—need the answer to a different question entirely: “Why does this matter to me?” This framework bridges that gap. Often, professional user researchers wear their logical hats, stick to the confidence intervals and the carefully hedged insights. They think the impact will show between the lines, that readers will connect the dots on their own. No. They won’t. Your audience is busy, distracted, and evaluating you against other candidates who might be less skilled but better at telling their story. Surface the impact explicitly. Don’t rely on others to dig for it. Most of us were trained—extensively—to describe our work with methodological precision. We learned the exact definitions of usability studies. We can fluently distinguish generative from evaluative research. We carry a full mental map of behavioral versus attitudinal data. That training matters. But after a decade of UX research being in the spotlight, the environment has changed. Research is no longer novel. Insights alone no longer guarantee recognition. In many organizations, research is expected—but influence is not automatic. At this stage, researchers shouldn’t just need to speak the language of methods—we need to speak the language of influence. The weak version: “I conducted a usability test on the checkout flow.” The strong version: “The product team was under pressure to improve quarterly revenue. Our hypothesis was that the checkout flow was a leaky bucket, but we lacked clarity on where and why customers were abandoning.” See the difference? On paper, both statements describe the same work. But they tell very different stories about your role in it. Read more here 👉 https://lnkd.in/ggAeG4hf
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content