 Then explore some principles for human-centered design and illustrate all the discussion with one of our devs, the Kleros Porte. I hope you enjoy it. Online ports are not an alternative to the justice system. They are the justice system. In 10 years, more cases will be settled online than offline. This tradition, made by his future sub-kind, envision the changes we start living in the culmination of the centralized ports. But what challenges this shift will bring and how we will be able to contribute to the change? Blockchain technology has an important role in the common transformations, in the power to approximate people and do some creation on legal processes. How centralized justice works? Crypto-economics incentivize jurors to decide honestly. Where blockchain guarantees a decentralized procedure, and smart contracts automatically enforce the ruling. Legal processes, traditionally bureaucratic, centralized and also transparent for the users, start being re-imagined through the eyes of legal design. Important research has been made to find how to innovate and bring more human-centered approach to legal processes. This is legal design lab. It is an interdisciplinary team based at Stanford Law School and Z School that makes important research trying to bring innovation to the world of law. It is led by Margaret Hegan and has been making important research, contributing to bring innovation and a more engaging contribution to the world of law. Legal design works on the intersection of design to make things people can't want to use, tech, technology to increase the effectiveness of people's actions and law to promote a fair and just society and to empower people. A few core principles emerged from the research being made by a legal design lab. Number one, make your user empowered and strategic. Your product needs to help you to solve any problem they are facing. Present information in as a journey through a process with these great steps, start points and end points. Give your user the overview of their new terrain, then let them zoom in for the tables. These simple principles or mindset applied to legal steps can be very helpful to contribute to a more human-centered and engaging solutions. But the whole of you ex-designers in this process is true at all case for end user. Approximating people and making them the solutions more engaging and human-centered. A key skill in this process is empathy. And as you can see on the image, the more you know about your user, the more data you gather about them, the more you understand and engage with your users, the higher their ability to really impact and positively impact their lives. For example, PT, I'm sorry for you, sympathy I feel for you, but empathy I feel with you, that's the mindset. How to practice empathy UX. Explore quantitative user research methods to dig into user behaviors, motivations and concerns. Explore open-ended questions like what comes to your mind when thinking about depth, what could be improved, incentivize users feedback and track key metrics, make use of empathy maps. As a user, I know how I say what I mean or what I say. Empathy mapping helps dig into what user says, thinks, doesn't feels. A good approach is to combine qualitative and quantitative user research to dive into user's behaviors, attitudes and motivations. Imagine, for example, a user says something like, I want to pass the interface. What's hiding behind that? He may be thinking, for example, this is really annoying. He refreshes the page several times. He's impatient. It takes too much to complete the transaction. Have I done something wrong? Did I lose my tokens? This generates a kind of anxiety and can be very bad for the user experience. Before moving through presents, the Claire Rousse case, I just want to show you one more thing. This is no one's Stephen P. Anderson's UX pyramid. At the base of the pyramid relies the test-related attributes. These are that functional. It works properly. Doesn't have any bugs. Is it reliable? Is it usable? And at the top, we find the experienced attributes. These are that convenient for the users. It is pleasurable for them. And most importantly, is it meaningful to them? Anderson explains that this process can be seen as a basic maturity continuum. Projects normally start as a functional solution to a problem and then evolve to a higher layer to a risky top, where it can have a more meaningful and more impactful way to achieve the to risk the users' sorrow. So a good point to start when thinking about a legal solution is to hit a frame of thinking. So how do we create a legal solution that is open, transparent, and decentralized, empowering people that normally don't have access to legal services to solve any kind of dispute? Over five billion people lack access to justice. Three to five percent of all my transactions end in a dispute. Give my money back. No, I did my job. And as you know, despite the technological evolution traditional ports haven't changed much in the last centuries. What if you had a place where everyone could work as a juror, a software engineer to help solve disputes related to software engineering, a games expert to help solve disputes related to games, and if they receive financial incentives for that? This is Kleros Court. Kleros Court allows jurors to join a court and work as a juror, choose a court that has the competency to arbitrate, and receive incentives for that. Jurors can join a court by taking P&K tokens to the court they select. They can see the cases that still demand voting, the cases in progress and closed, and also can track their voting performance, which is the percentage of times the jurors vote coherently, votes with the majority of jurors. But how does it work? Imagine Alice hires a vote for marketing services. Not to satisfy the results, she raises a dispute. They send the case to Kleros and receive the decision back. Both parties on the dispute. Alice and Bob need to pay arbitration fees in Gitter to open the dispute. I'll explain why, how the arbitration fees are used soon. On the other side, at Kleros Court, users need to take P&K to join a court. After taking P&K, they are eligible to be randomly selected for a case. Jurors can see all the cases on my cases page, which basically have an overview of the key information for the jurors before they zoom in for the details, the example tree. Then the jurors can see the key information of the case, for example, the court name, in this case, car insurance. The short description of the dispute, car insurance does not pay for the repair. The coherent rewards, which are the rewards the jurors will win by voting coherently, by voting with the majority of jurors. They vote in that line and also a city tails button. This city tails, clicking on city tails button, jurors are led to the case details page, which contains all the information they need to properly evaluate the case and cast a vote. In this case, jurors can see the title of the dispute, the short description, an evidence module, and a policy page. And it's important to note that if the juror drawn for a case on a peeling round, he'll also be able to see a dispute history module with all the justifications and votes from previous rounds. At the bottom, jurors can justify the votes and choose between one of the options. In this example, because at the bottom there are two options, in this case, Alice or Bob, but there are also other modules depending on the structure of the case with multiple choice and more than two options. So depending on the case, the dispute is same to Claire's, we have different modules to accommodate this kind of dispute. An important challenge we faced when designing our deck was how to display evidence. At the initial version, we used to display evidence like document icons that proved not to be the best approach as we evolved the deck and get more complex cases. So we needed a simple way to display evidence, something like informal conversation, something that anyone could understand. The solution we found was to display evidence like form messages. They are ordered simple and sequential. This way, the evidence also can dialogue with each other. Each piece of evidence can also have a context instead of only being just individuals separated parts of evidence. So to understand more how the incentive mechanism works I'll explain how is the solution. On the same example as we said, Alice and Bob get into a dispute. On Claire's court we have the jurors, you can see at the right, five jurors. Four of them at the top voted for Alice. Only the Nazi has voted for Bob. Being considered the winner, Alice receives her arbitration fees back. Being the loser, Bob's arbitration fees are redistributed among the coherent jurors. The jurors who have voted with the majority. At the jurors side the Nazi also loses his tokens. They are redistributed to the coherent jurors. So the combination of Ether and PNK a juror we by voting coherently voting with the majority is called at the end coherent rewards. This is a way we found to gamification to try to gamification to the system and make sure the user gets motivated to continue voting continue arbitrating cases and seems to be working quite well. The incentive mechanism is based on the shelving point and wisdom of the crowd and it helps to to get the users with the correct incentives to properly continue voting honestly and try to make a fair arbitration. To illustrate a bit more about this I'll show you a real user case. This is Mark, one of our more active jurors. As you can see he has voted arbitrated in 29 cases to that date using Claire's court. He had been making some money both in Ether and PNK by helping solve disputes in several courts especially one of our courts the blockchain court. As you can see in this example how the incentive mechanism works to incentivize users, incentivize jurors to continue voting to make a fair decision to the system and how this contributes to a more just dispute resolution system. Another challenge we faced was how to reach non-crypto users how to dialogue with them. As a legal tech we've been constantly talking to legal professionals and law specialists and also have our own fellowship program which brings insights from law professionals and we think that it was important to have a way to dialogue with them to display how the product works without having to pass to all the friction of the beginning to have a reverted approach to how to reach dialogue with non-crypto users instead of having them to pass through all the onboarding process of opening wallets, saving the private keys and so on we decided to revert that and create something that we can display for lawyers, attorneys, judge and also researchers so they can test the product they can see how it works and through the way and through the the generated interest in our solution if you are eager to get into crypto by submitting the DNA you really test it. So before finishing I want to bring to Chef some insights for our engaging solutions they are very simple insights quite obvious but for the reason they tend to be designing a debt or printing a product so as you may state that so basically be visual explore visual metaphors to communicate ideas invest in flexibility modularity and simplicity assume a beginner's mindset when using a debt communicate with end users language avoid in some technical terms make the debt accessible to anyone we need to make sure that anyone can use our product not only crypto users, not only experts also be transparent and enhance user awareness regarding all states of the transactions as well as costs and risks is quite important when designing a debt to make sure the user knows exactly where the transaction will lead how much costs and all the risks involved to conclude I would like to invite everyone to test Claire's Court is on mainnet at court.clairs.io and if you just want to take a look how it works the off-chain court is also on Claire's.io is on the court.clairs.io thank you