User Experience

𝟔𝟔% 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧. What does that tell us? Trust isn’t just a feature - it’s the foundation of AI’s future. When breaches happen, the cost isn’t measured in fines or headlines alone - it’s measured in lost trust. I recently spoke with a healthcare executive who shared a haunting story: after a data breach, patients stopped using their app - not because they didn’t need the service, but because they no longer felt safe. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 - 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝. Consider the October 2023 incident at 23andMe: unauthorized access exposed the genetic and personal information of 6.9 million users. Imagine seeing your most private data compromised. At Deloitte, we’ve helped organizations turn privacy challenges into opportunities by embedding trust into their AI strategies. For example, we recently partnered with a global financial institution to design a privacy-by-design framework that not only met regulatory requirements but also restored customer confidence. The result? A 15% increase in customer engagement within six months. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭? ✔️ 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Privacy isn’t just about compliance. It’s about empowering customers to own their data. When people feel in control, they trust more. ✔️ 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲: AI can do more than process data, it can safeguard it. Predictive privacy models can spot risks before they become problems, demonstrating your commitment to trust and innovation. ✔️ 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: Collaborate with peers, regulators, and even competitors to set new privacy standards. Customers notice when you lead the charge for their protection. ✔️ 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲: Techniques like differential privacy ensure sensitive data remains safe while enabling innovation. Your customers shouldn’t have to trade their privacy for progress. Trust is fragile, but it’s also resilient when leaders take responsibility. AI without trust isn’t just limited - it’s destined to fail. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 👇 #AI #DataPrivacy #Leadership #CustomerTrust #Ethics

🌎 Designing Cross-Cultural And Multi-Lingual UX. Guidelines on how to stress test our designs, how to define a localization strategy and how to deal with currencies, dates, word order, pluralization, colors and gender pronouns. ⦿ Translation: “We adapt our message to resonate in other markets”. ⦿ Localization: “We adapt user experience to local expectations”. ⦿ Internationalization: “We adapt our codebase to work in other markets”. ✅ English-language users make up about 26% of users. ✅ Top written languages: Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese. ✅ Most users prefer content in their native language(s). ✅ French texts are on average 20% longer than English ones. ✅ Japanese texts are on average 30–60% shorter. 🚫 Flags aren’t languages: avoid them for language selection. 🚫 Language direction ≠ design direction (“F” vs. Zig-Zag pattern). 🚫 Not everybody has first/middle names: “Full name” is better. ✅ Always reserve at least 30% room for longer translations. ✅ Stress test your UI for translation with pseudolocalization. ✅ Plan for line wrap, truncation, very short and very long labels. ✅ Adjust numbers, dates, times, formats, units, addresses. ✅ Adjust currency, spelling, input masks, placeholders. ✅ Always conduct UX research with local users. When localizing an interface, we need to work beyond translation. We need to be respectful of cultural differences. E.g. in Arabic we would often need to increase the spacing between lines. For Chinese market, we need to increase the density of information. German sites require a vast amount of detail to communicate that a topic is well-thought-out. Stress test your design. Avoid assumptions. Work with local content designers. Spend time in the country to better understand the market. Have local help on the ground. And test repeatedly with local users as an ongoing part of the design process. You’ll be surprised by some findings, but you’ll also learn to adapt and scale to be effective — whatever market is going to come up next. Useful resources: UX Design Across Different Cultures, by Jenny Shen https://lnkd.in/eNiyVqiH UX Localization Handbook, by Phrase https://lnkd.in/eKN7usSA A Complete Guide To UX Localization, by Michal Kessel Shitrit ��️ https://lnkd.in/eaQJt-bU Designing Multi-Lingual UX, by yours truly https://lnkd.in/eR3GnwXQ Flags Are Not Languages, by James Offer https://lnkd.in/eaySNFGa IBM Globalization Checklists https://lnkd.in/ewNzysqv Books: ⦿ Cross-Cultural Design (https://lnkd.in/e8KswErf) by Senongo Akpem ⦿ The Culture Map (https://lnkd.in/edfyMqhN) by Erin Meyer ⦿ UX Writing & Microcopy (https://lnkd.in/e_ZFu374) by Kinneret Yifrah

As CTO, I’ve seen firsthand the increasing complexity that our software development teams face. They’re stretched thin—juggling everything from security vulnerabilities to cloud configuration, leaving little time for the creative parts of the job, like writing code. This trend isn’t surprising. The industry’s focus has been on maximizing productivity with less, but productivity, especially for developers, is notoriously difficult to measure. At Atlassian, we’ve taken a different approach. We’ve shifted our focus to what makes our developers happy—or “developer joy” as I like to call it. Not the fleeting happiness from perks, but the deep fulfillment from creating something valuable. We’re betting big that increasing developer joy will naturally improve productivity. That’s why we embarked on this research. In partnership with DX, we surveyed over 2,100 developers and managers to get a fresh understanding of the developer experience. Improving developer experience is a challenge we all share. While this snapshot may not perfectly reflect your team’s situation, it should offer some valuable insights. For Atlassian, this research has revealed new information that my team and I are working to implement. We’re committed to unlocking every team’s potential, starting with our own. May this report inspire you to do the same! https://lnkd.in/gtYzMFks

Last week, I described four design patterns for AI agentic workflows that I believe will drive significant progress: Reflection, Tool use, Planning and Multi-agent collaboration. Instead of having an LLM generate its final output directly, an agentic workflow prompts the LLM multiple times, giving it opportunities to build step by step to higher-quality output. Here, I'd like to discuss Reflection. It's relatively quick to implement, and I've seen it lead to surprising performance gains. You may have had the experience of prompting ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini, receiving unsatisfactory output, delivering critical feedback to help the LLM improve its response, and then getting a better response. What if you automate the step of delivering critical feedback, so the model automatically criticizes its own output and improves its response? This is the crux of Reflection. Take the task of asking an LLM to write code. We can prompt it to generate the desired code directly to carry out some task X. Then, we can prompt it to reflect on its own output, perhaps as follows: Here’s code intended for task X: [previously generated code] Check the code carefully for correctness, style, and efficiency, and give constructive criticism for how to improve it. Sometimes this causes the LLM to spot problems and come up with constructive suggestions. Next, we can prompt the LLM with context including (i) the previously generated code and (ii) the constructive feedback, and ask it to use the feedback to rewrite the code. This can lead to a better response. Repeating the criticism/rewrite process might yield further improvements. This self-reflection process allows the LLM to spot gaps and improve its output on a variety of tasks including producing code, writing text, and answering questions. And we can go beyond self-reflection by giving the LLM tools that help evaluate its output; for example, running its code through a few unit tests to check whether it generates correct results on test cases or searching the web to double-check text output. Then it can reflect on any errors it found and come up with ideas for improvement. Further, we can implement Reflection using a multi-agent framework. I've found it convenient to create two agents, one prompted to generate good outputs and the other prompted to give constructive criticism of the first agent's output. The resulting discussion between the two agents leads to improved responses. Reflection is a relatively basic type of agentic workflow, but I've been delighted by how much it improved my applications’ results. If you’re interested in learning more about reflection, I recommend: - Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback, by Madaan et al. (2023) - Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning, by Shinn et al. (2023) - CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing, by Gou et al. (2024) [Original text: https://lnkd.in/g4bTuWtU ]

I can’t stop thinking about this. If you invest in your people from day 1, they’ll invest their talents in your company tenfold. It sounds obvious, but I’ve seen firsthand how often this gets missed. I joined companies and startups with zero training: - no documentation - unclear processes - no real onboarding I was expected to figure it out as I went, and honestly, it was brutal 😭 So here’s what *actually* sets people up for success: —— 1️⃣ What does a new hire need to know but feels awkward asking? Think back to your first 30 days. ↳ How do things actually work here? ↳ Where do I go for answers? ↳ What mistakes should I avoid early on? If the answers live only in someone’s head, that’s the gap. ✅ Document anything you explain more than once. —— 2️⃣ Where are people guessing instead of being guided? When training doesn’t exist, people improvise. ↳ Clicking the wrong thing ↳ Following outdated steps ↳ Copying work that isn’t quite right That’s how errors and rework happen. Tools like Tango make this easy by turning workflows into step-by-step guides. ✅ Record one common task this week and turn it into a reusable guide. —— 3️⃣ What tribal knowledge needs to be documented? You know it’s a systems problem when there are: ↳ Constant pings ↳ Repeating the same answers ↳ Little time for deep work ✅ Have your strongest team member document one core process they own. —— 4️⃣ Are you onboarding people or overwhelming them? More information doesn’t mean better onboarding. People need: ↳ Clear priorities ↳ Time to practice ↳ Space to build confidence ✅ Use a simple 30-60-90 day framework for all new hires —— 5️⃣ Are expectations clear or just assumed? When expectations are vague: ↳ People second-guess themselves ↳ Feedback comes too late ↳ Performance feels personal instead of fixable ✅ Check in early and often and schedule 20-minute check-ins with your manager or onboarding buddy in the first 8 weeks. —— When you give people the right tools, training, and support, you get: → Faster onboarding → More consistent processes → Fewer mistakes and support tickets → Happier, more confident employees 💙 You can’t expect people to thrive without setting them up properly. Set people up to win and they will 🫶 Do you agree? #TangoPartner

Developer happiness is no soft metric; it has a direct impact on productivity and retention. Yet, many enterprises focus purely on output numbers, missing the deeper causes of disengagement. Unhappy developers can be around 31% less productive and are twice as likely to leave, with replacement costs running between £30K–£50K+. Despite this, few organisations routinely measure or prioritise developer happiness alongside established metrics like DORA and CORE 4. Here’s a practical approach that’s working for us: 🎯 Measure happiness alongside Core 4 & DORA using DX snapshot surveys, focus groups, and regular 1:1 conversations. This blends data with genuine sentiment. ⚙️ Prioritise fixes that matter most: reduce toil through automation, provide modern tooling, clarify career paths, and recognise genuine contributions. 🔄 Build a continuous feedback loop by identifying pain points, fixing what counts, measuring outcomes, and then adapting. ⚠️ Pushing for more output without supporting well-being often backfires, reducing overall efficiency. Our low attrition and strong culture at Tesco Bengaluru as reported in this article (https://lnkd.in/eED7uRkS) shows that investing in developer happiness delivers real, lasting value. It’s not about perks; it means giving developers autonomy, mastery, purpose, and psychological safety. As we develop our developer experience strategies globally, focusing on happiness as a leading indicator rather than an afterthought makes a real difference. Supporting our teams this way helps success come naturally. Well done to everyone contributing to this journey across Tesco Technology and beyond! Looking forward to continuing to learn and improve together. 🎉👏 #dx #tescotechnology #leadership #SoftwareEngineering #Technology #devex

How the Humble American Diner Became the Stage for Brand Storytelling.... When we think of a diner, we think nostalgia. Neon lights, checkered floors, milkshakes, and the smell of fries drifting through the air. But today, brands aren’t just serving nostalgia, they’re serving story, theatre, and tangible brand experiences that make people stop, engage, and remember. Take Tesla’s Cybertruck “Tesla Diner & Drive-In.” It’s not just about the Superchargers. It’s about a retro-futuristic diner and drive-in theatre that transforms a functional stop into a multi-sensory moment. The diner becomes the stage where Tesla’s narrative, 'innovation meets Americana' comes alive. It’s tactile, it’s playful, and it’s a perfect example of a brand turning necessity into experience. Luxury and lifestyle brands are doing the same. CHANEL, SKIMS, and Jellycat have used pop-up diners to reinforce their brand DNA while giving consumers a physical, sensory connection. Think soft tactile displays, curated menus, neon signs echoing campaign aesthetics, and social moments built into every corner. The diner becomes a theatrical playground: consumers don’t just buy a product, they inhabit it. They sip, they snap, they share. So why does this work so well? It taps into the experience economy and Gen-Z’s appetite for moments that feel real, tangible, and shareable. A diner is both familiar and fantastical, it’s something people already know how to navigate, yet it can be transformed into a brand’s universe. Retro cues spark nostalgia, playful design encourages interaction, and the combination of taste, touch, and sight delivers multi-sensory engagement that static campaigns can’t match. They also offer collaboration potential; menus, merch, even limited-edition treats become vehicles for storytelling and co-creation. Social content writes itself: photo-booths, milkshake moments, and a drool inducing aesthetic, all make for irresistible feed fodder. And because diners are inherently communal, they naturally create micro-communities around the brand experience. For me, the power of the pop-up diner is that it’s more than just activation, it’s a physical manifesto of a brand’s values and aesthetics, inviting consumers to live the story, not just consume it. It’s theatre, tactility, and sensory engagement all rolled into one. Brands today aren’t just launching products, they’re designing worlds. So, are you still marketing products, or are you serving experiences with a side of storytelling? ________________ *Hi, I am Tim Nash. I help global brands build connected campaigns that resonate across every touchpoint. 🚀 #BrandExperience #ExperientialMarketing #RetailInnovation #GenZTrends #StorytellingInRetail #CulturalStrategy #BrandActivations #ExperienceEconomy Pictures courtesy of Glossier, Inc. / Skims / Chanel / Tesla / Benefit Cosmetics

Stop pasting interview transcripts into ChatGPT and asking for a summary. You’re not getting insights—you’re getting blabla. Here’s how to actually extract signal from qualitative data with AI. A lot of product teams are experimenting with AI for user research. But most are doing it wrong. They dump all their interviews into ChatGPT and ask: “Summarize these for me.” And what do they get back? Walls of text. Generic fluff. A lot of words that say… nothing. This is the classic trap of horizontal analysis: → “Read all 60 survey responses and give me 3 takeaways.” → Sounds smart. Looks clean. → But it washes out the nuance. Here’s a better way: Go vertical. Use AI for vertical analysis, not horizontal. What does that mean? Instead of compressing across all your data… Zoom into each individual response—deeper than you usually could afford to. One by one. Yes, really. Here’s a tactical playbook: Take each interview transcript or survey response, and feed it into AI with a structured template. Example: “Analyze this response using the following dimensions: • Sentiment (1–5) • Pain level (1–5) • Excitement about solution (1–5) • Provide 3 direct quotes that justify each score.” Now repeat for each data point. You’ll end up with a stack of structured insights you can actually compare. And best of all—those quotes let you go straight back to the raw user voice when needed. AI becomes your assistant, not your editor. The real value of AI in discovery isn’t in writing summaries. It’s in enabling depth at scale. With this vertical approach, you get: ✅ Faster analysis ✅ Clearer signals ✅ Richer context ✅ Traceable quotes back to the user You’re not guessing. You’re pattern matching across structured, consistent reads. ⸻ Are you still using AI for summaries? Try this vertical method on your next batch of interviews—and tell me how it goes. 👇 Drop your favorite prompt so we can learn from each othr.

Over the last year, I’ve seen many people fall into the same trap: They launch an AI-powered agent (chatbot, assistant, support tool, etc.)… But only track surface-level KPIs — like response time or number of users. That’s not enough. To create AI systems that actually deliver value, we need 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻-𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 that reflect: • User trust • Task success • Business impact • Experience quality    This infographic highlights 15 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 dimensions to consider: ↳ 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 — Are your AI answers actually useful and correct? ↳ 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Can the agent complete full workflows, not just answer trivia? ↳ 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — Response speed still matters, especially in production. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 — How often are users returning or interacting meaningfully? ↳ 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Did the user achieve their goal? This is your north star. ↳ 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 — Irrelevant or wrong responses? That’s friction. ↳ 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Longer isn’t always better — it depends on the goal. ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Are users coming back 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 the first experience? ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — Especially critical at scale. Budget-wise agents win. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵 — Can the agent handle follow-ups and multi-turn dialogue? ↳ 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Feedback from actual users is gold. ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 — Can your AI 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 to earlier inputs? ↳ 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 — Can it handle volume 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 degrading performance? ↳ 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 — This is key for RAG-based agents. ↳ 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 — Is your AI learning and improving over time? If you're building or managing AI agents — bookmark this. Whether it's a support bot, GenAI assistant, or a multi-agent system — these are the metrics that will shape real-world success. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀? Let’s make this list even stronger — drop your thoughts 👇

Building software today doesn’t look the same as 2 years ago ! Some teams write every line by hand. Some build alongside AI. Others ship products without touching code at all. What changed isn’t technology - it’s how fast ideas move from thought to product. This visual breaks down the three modern ways of building 👇 𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁) This is full-control engineering. You design architectures, write logic, manage infrastructure, and integrate complex systems. It’s best when you need performance, deep customization, scalable backends, and production-grade applications - but it demands strong technical skills and longer build cycles. 𝗩𝗶𝗯𝗲-𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗔𝗜-𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁) Here, developers work with AI copilots to move faster. You still write code, but tools help generate snippets, suggest fixes, speed up debugging, and accelerate prototyping. It’s ideal for rapid iteration and smarter development workflows while keeping technical control. 𝗡𝗼-𝗖𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗩𝗶𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 & 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀) This is building with blocks instead of syntax. Drag-and-drop tools handle logic, integrations, and workflows so non-engineers can ship MVPs, automate processes, and launch apps quickly. It trades deep customization for speed and accessibility. The real takeaway: These aren’t competing approaches, they’re complementary. Traditional coding powers complex platforms. Vibe-coding accelerates developers. No-code empowers builders. The best teams mix all three, choosing the right approach based on speed, scale, and complexity - not ideology. Build with what fits the problem. That’s how modern products ship.