Blog

  • Opportunities for AI in Accessibility

    Opportunities for AI in Accessibility

    I thoroughly enjoyed reading Joe Dolson’s most recent article on the crossroads of AI and mobility because of how skeptical he is of AI in general and how many people have been using it. In fact, I’m very skeptical of AI myself, despite my role at Microsoft as an accessibility technology strategist who helps manage the AI for Accessibility award program. AI can be used in quite creative, inclusive, and accessible ways, as well as in harmful, exclusive, and harmful ways, like with any tool. Additionally, there are a lot of uses in the subpar midsection.

    I’d like you to consider this a “yes … and” piece to complement Joe’s post. Instead of refuting everything he’s saying, I’m pointing out some areas where AI may produce real, positive impacts on people with disabilities. To be clear, I’m not saying that there aren’t real challenges or pressing problems with AI that need to be addressed; there are, and we’ve needed to address them, like, yesterday; instead, I want to take a moment to talk about what’s possible so that we can get it one day.

    Other words

    Joe’s article spends a lot of time addressing computer-vision types ‘ ability to create other words. He raises a number of legitimate points about the state of affairs right now. And while computer-vision concepts continue to improve in the quality and complexity of information in their information, their benefits aren’t wonderful. He argues to be accurate that the state of image research is currently very poor, especially for some image types, in large part due to the absence of contextual contexts in which to look at images ( as a result of having separate “foundation” models for words analysis and image analysis ). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant ( should probably have descriptions ) and those that are purely decorative ( couldn’t possibly need a description ) either. However, I still think there’s possible in this area.

    As Joe points out, far text editing via human-in-the-loop should be a given. And if AI can intervene and provide a starting point for alt text, even if the rapid reads,” What is this BS?” That’s not correct at all … Let me try to offer a starting point— I think that’s a win.

    If we can specifically teach a design to consider image usage in context, it might be able to help us more swiftly distinguish between images that are likely to be beautiful and those that are more descriptive. That will help clarify which situations require image descriptions, and it will increase authors ‘ effectiveness in making their sites more visible.

    While complex images—like graphs and charts—are challenging to describe in any sort of succinct way ( even for humans ), the image example shared in the GPT4 announcement points to an interesting opportunity as well. Let’s say you came across a map that merely stated the chart’s name and the type of representation it was:” Pie chart comparing smartphone use to have phone usage in US households making under$ 30, 000 annually.” ( That would be a pretty bad alt text for a chart because it would frequently leave many unanswered questions about the data, but let’s just assume that that was the description in place. ) If your website knew that that picture was a pie graph ( because an ship model concluded this ), imagine a world where people could ask questions like these about the creative:

    • Perform more people use have apps or smartphones?
    • How many more?
    • Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these containers?
    • What number is that?

    For a moment, the chance to learn more about graphics and data in this way could be innovative for people who are blind and low vision as well as for those with various types of color blindness, cognitive impairments, and other issues. Putting aside the challenges of large language model ( LLM) hallucinations. It could also be useful in educational contexts to help people who can see these charts, as is, to understand the data in the charts.

    What if you could ask your browser to make a complicated chart simpler? What if you asked it to separate a single line from a line graph? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you could ask it to switch colors for patterns? That seems like a possibility given the chat-based interfaces and our current ability to manipulate images in the AI tools of today.

    Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. Perhaps it could convert that pie chart (or, better yet, a series of pie charts ) into more usable ( and useful ) formats, like spreadsheets, for instance. That would be incredible!

    Matching algorithms

    When Safiya Umoja Noble chose to call her book Algorithms of Oppression, she hit the nail on the head. Although her book focused on how search engines can foster racism, I believe it’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to foster conflict, prejudice, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A large portion of this is a result of a lack of diversity in the people who design and construct them. There is still a lot of potential for algorithm development when these platforms are built with inclusive features in mind.

    Take Mentra, for example. They serve as a network of people with disabilities. They employ an algorithm to match job seekers with potential employers based on more than 75 data points. On the job-seeker side of things, it considers each candidate’s strengths, their necessary and preferred workplace accommodations, environmental sensitivities, and so on. On the employer side, it takes into account each work environment, communication issues relating to each job, and other factors. Mentra made the decision to change the script when it came to typical employment websites because it was run by neurodivergent people. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in, reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

    When more people with disabilities are involved in developing algorithms, this can lower the likelihood that these algorithms will harm their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so crucial.

    Imagine that a social media company’s recommendation engine was tuned to analyze who you’re following and if it was tuned to prioritize follow recommendations for people who talked about similar things but who were different in some key ways from your existing sphere of influence. For instance, if you follow a group of white men who are not white or aren’t white and who also discuss AI, it might be wise to follow those who are also disabled or who are not white. If you followed its recommendations, you might learn more about what’s happening in the AI field. These same systems should also use their understanding of biases about particular communities—including, for instance, the disability community—to make sure that they aren’t recommending any of their users follow accounts that perpetuate biases against (or, worse, spewing hate toward ) those groups.

    Other ways that AI can assist people with disabilities

    I’m sure I could go on and on about using AI to assist people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

      Voice preservation You may be aware of the voice-prescribing options from Microsoft, Acapela, or others, or you may have seen the announcement for VALL-E or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS ( Lou Gehrig’s disease ) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. We need to approach this tech responsibly because it has the potential to have a truly transformative impact, which is why it can also be used to create audio deepfakes.
    • voice recognition Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are actively seeking out people who have Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they intend to expand this list as the project develops. More people with disabilities will be able to use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as a result of this research, which will lead to more inclusive data sets that enable them to use their computers and other devices more effectively and with just their voices.
    • Text transformation. The most recent generation of LLMs is quite capable of changing existing text without giving off hallucinations. This is incredibly empowering for those who have cognitive disabilities and who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions, or even text that has been prepared for Bionic Reading.

    The importance of diverse teams and data

    Our differences must be acknowledged as important. The intersections of the identities we exist in have an impact on our lived experiences. These lived experiences—with all their complexities ( and joys and pain ) —are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences must be reflected in the data we use to develop new models, and those who provide that valuable information must be compensated for doing so. Inclusive data sets produce stronger models that promote more justifiable outcomes.

    Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you include information about disabilities that is written by people who have a range of disabilities and that is well represented in the training data.

    Want a non-binary language model? You may be able to use existing data sets to build a filter that can intercept and remediate ableist language before it reaches readers. Despite this, AI models won’t soon replace human copy editors when it comes to sensitivity reading.

    Want a copilot for coding that provides recommendations that are accessible after the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.


    I have no doubt that AI has the potential to harm people today, tomorrow, and long into the future. However, I also think we should acknowledge this and make thoughtful, thoughtful, and intentional changes to our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.


    Many thanks to Kartik Sawhney for supporting the development of this article, Ashley Bischoff for providing me with invaluable editorial support, and, of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

  • The Wax and the Wane of the Web

    The Wax and the Wane of the Web

    When you begin to believe you have everything figured out, everyone does change, in my opinion. Simply as you start to get the hang of injections, diapers, and ordinary sleep, it’s time for solid foods, potty training, and nighttime sleep. When those are determined, school and occasional sleeps are in order. The cycle goes on and on.

    The same holds true for those of us who are currently employed in design and development. Having worked on the web for about three years at this point, I’ve seen the typical wax and wane of concepts, strategies, and systems. Every day we as developers and designers re-enter the familiar pattern, a brand-new systems or idea emerges to shake things up and completely alter the world.

    How we got below

    I built my first website in the mid-’90s. Design and development on the web back then was a free-for-all, with few established norms. For any layout aside from a single column, we used table elements, often with empty cells containing a single pixel spacer GIF to add empty space. We styled text with numerous font tags, nesting the tags every time we wanted to vary the font style. And we had only three or four typefaces to choose from: Arial, Courier, or Times New Roman. When Verdana and Georgia came out in 1996, we rejoiced because our options had nearly doubled. The only safe colors to choose from were the 216 “web safe” colors known to work across platforms. The few interactive elements (like contact forms, guest books, and counters) were mostly powered by CGI scripts (predominantly written in Perl at the time). Achieving any kind of unique look involved a pile of hacks all the way down. Interaction was often limited to specific pages in a site.

    the development of online requirements

    At the turn of the century, a new cycle started. Crufty code littered with table layouts and font tags waned, and a push for web standards waxed. Newer technologies like CSS got more widespread adoption by browsers makers, developers, and designers. This shift toward standards didn’t happen accidentally or overnight. It took active engagement between the W3C and browser vendors and heavy evangelism from folks like the Web Standards Project to build standards. A List Apart and books like Designing with Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman played key roles in teaching developers and designers why standards are important, how to implement them, and how to sell them to their organizations. And approaches like progressive enhancement introduced the idea that content should be available for all browsers—with additional enhancements available for more advanced browsers. Meanwhile, sites like the CSS Zen Garden showcased just how powerful and versatile CSS can be when combined with a solid semantic HTML structure.

    Server-side language like PHP, Java, and.NET took Perl as the primary back-end computers, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the garbage bin. With these improved server-side software, the first period of internet programs started with content-management techniques (especially those used in blogs like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress ) In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened gates for sequential interaction between the front end and back close. Pages was now revise their content without having to reload it. A grain of Script frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and ruby arose to aid developers develop more credible client-side conversation across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like photo alternative enable skilled manufacturers and developers to use fonts of their choosing. And technology like Flash made it possible to include movies, sports, and even more engagement.

    These new methods, requirements, and solutions greatly boosted the sector’s growth. Web style flourished as creators and designers explored more different styles and designs. However, we also relied heavily on tricks. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes ( such as rounded or angled corners ) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks ). All kinds of nested floats or absolute positioning ( or both ) were necessary for complicated layouts. Display and photo substitute for specialty styles was a great start toward varying the designs from the big five, but both tricks introduced convenience and efficiency issues. Additionally, JavaScript libraries made it simple to add a dash of interaction to pages without having to spend the money to double or even quadruple the download size for basic websites.

    The web as software platform

    The interplay between the front end and the back end continued to grow, which led to the development of the current era of modern web applications. Between expanded server-side programming languages ( which kept growing to include Ruby, Python, Go, and others ) and newer front-end tools like React, Vue, and Angular, we could build fully capable software on the web. Along with these tools, there were additional options, such as shared package libraries, build automation, and collaborative version control. What was once primarily an environment for linked documents became a realm of infinite possibilities.

    Mobile devices increased in their capabilities as well, and they gave us access to the internet while we were traveling. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

    This fusion of potent mobile devices and potent development tools contributed to the growth of social media and other centralized tools for people to use and interact with. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media provided connections on a global scale, with both positive and negative outcomes.

    Want a much more extensive history of how we got here, with some other takes on ways that we can improve? ” Of Time and the Web” was written by Jeremy Keith. Or check out the” Web Design History Timeline” at the Web Design Museum. Additionally, Neal Agarwal takes a fascinating tour of” Internet Artifacts.”

    Where we are now

    It seems like we’ve reached yet another significant turning point in recent years. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. From the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators and content management systems of all kinds, there are many different ways to create websites. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other IndieWeb tools can be useful in this regard, but they’re still largely underdeveloped and difficult to use for the less geeky. We can build amazing personal websites and add to them regularly, but without discovery and connection, it can sometimes feel like we may as well be shouting into the void.

    Especially with efforts like Interop, browser support for CSS, JavaScript, and other standards like web components has increased. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. When I first learn about a new feature, I frequently discover that its coverage is already over 80 % when I check the browser support. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often isn’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

    We can now prototype almost any idea with just a few commands and a few lines of code. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. However, as the initial cost of these frameworks may be saved in the beginning, it eventually becomes due as their upkeep and maintenance becomes a component of our technical debt.

    If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks, which previously made it easier to adopt new techniques sooner, have since evolved into obstacles. These same frameworks often come with performance costs too, forcing users to wait for scripts to load before they can read or interact with pages. And when scripts fail ( whether due to poor code, network issues, or other environmental factors ), there is frequently no other option, leaving users with blank or broken pages.

    Where do we go from here?

    Hacks of today help to shape standards for the future. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks —for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we refuse to acknowledge that they are hacks or when we choose not to replace them. So what can we do to create the future we want for the web?

    Build for the long haul. Optimize for performance, for accessibility, and for the user. weigh the costs associated with those user-friendly tools. They may make your job a little easier today, but how do they affect everything else? What is the cost to the users? To future developers? To adoption of standards? Sometimes the convenience may be worth it. Sometimes it’s just a hack that you’ve gotten used to. And sometimes it’s holding you back from even better options.

    Start with standards. Standards continue to evolve over time, but browsers have done a remarkably good job of continuing to support older standards. The same isn’t always the case with third-party frameworks. Sites built with even the hackiest of HTML from the’ 90s still work just fine today. Even after a few years, the same can’t be said about websites created with frameworks.

    Design with care. Consider the effects of each choice, whether it is your craft, which is code, pixels, or processes. The convenience of many a modern tool comes at the cost of not always understanding the underlying decisions that have led to its design and not always considering the impact that those decisions can have. Use the time saved by modern tools to consider more carefully and design with consideration rather than rush to “move fast and break things”

    Always be learning. If you’re constantly learning, you’re also developing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. Even if you were to concentrate solely on learning standards, you might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year. ( Remember XHTML? ) However, ongoing learning opens up new connections in your brain, and the techniques you learn in one day may be used to guide different experiments in the future.

    Play, experiment, and be weird! The ultimate experiment is this web that we’ve created. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be brave and make new friends. Build a playground for ideas. In your own bizarre science lab, perform bizarre experiments. Start your own small business. There has never been a place where we have more room to be creative, take risks, and discover our potential.

    Share and amplify. As you play, experiment, and learn, share what has worked for you. Write on your own website, post on whichever social media site you prefer, or shout it from a TikTok. Write something for A List Apart! But take the time to amplify others too: find new voices, learn from them, and share what they’ve taught you.

    Make a move and make it happen.

    As designers and developers for the web ( and beyond ), we’re responsible for building the future every day, whether that may take the shape of personal websites, social media tools used by billions, or anything in between. Let’s give everything we produce a positive vibe by infusing our values into everything we do. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then distribute it, improve it, re-use it, or create something new with it. Learn. Make. Share. Grow. Rinse and repeat. Everything will change whenever you believe you have the ability to use the internet.

  • To Ignite a Personalization Practice, Run this Prepersonalization Workshop

    To Ignite a Personalization Practice, Run this Prepersonalization Workshop

    This is in the photo. You’ve joined a club at your business that’s designing innovative product features with an focus on technology or AI. Or perhaps your business really implemented a customisation website. Either way, you’re designing with information. What then? When it comes to designing for personalization, there are many warning stories, no immediately achievement, and some guidelines for the baffled.

    The personalization space is true, between the dream of getting it right and the worry of it going wrong ( like when we encounter “persofails” similar to a company’s constant plea to regular people to purchase additional bathroom seats ). It’s an particularly confusing place to be a modern professional without a map, a map, or a strategy.

    There are no Lonely Planet and some tour guides for those of you who want to personalize because successful personalization depends so much on each group’s talent, technology, and market position.

    But you can ensure that your group has packed its carriers rationally.

    There’s a DIY method to increase your chances for victory. You’ll at least at least disarm your boss ‘ irrational exuberance. Before the group you’ll need to properly plan.

    It’s known as prepersonalization.

    Behind the audio

    Take into account the DJ have on Spotify, which was introduced last month.

    We’re used to seeing the polished final outcome of a personalization function. A personal have had to be developed, budgeted, and given priority before the year-end prize, the making-of-backstory, or the behind-the-scenes success chest. Before any customisation have goes live in your product or service, it lives amid a delay of valuable ideas for expressing consumer experiences more automatically.

    So how do you decide where to position your personalisation wagers? How do you design regular interactions that didn’t journey up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many well-known budgeted programs to support their continued investments, they initially required one or more workshops to join vital technologies users and stakeholders. Make it matter.

    We’ve witnessed the same evolution up near with our clients, from big tech to budding companies. In our experience with working on small and large personalization work, a program’s best monitor record—and its capacity to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and manage its design and engineering efforts—turns on how successfully these prepersonalization activities play out.

    Effective workshops consistently save time, money, and overall well-being by separating successful future endeavors from unsuccessful ones.

    A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a tech stack switch-flip. It’s best managed as a backlog that often evolves through three steps:

    1. customer experience optimization ( CXO, also known as A/B testing or experimentation )
    2. always-on automations ( whether rules-based or machine-generated )
    3. mature features or standalone product development ( such as Spotify’s DJ experience )?

    This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. These cards won’t be necessary for you. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

    Set the timer for your kitchen.

    How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The activities we suggest including during the assessment can ( and frequently do ) last for weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here are a summary of our broad approach and information on the most crucial first-day activities.

    The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

      Kickstart: This specifies the terms of your engagement as you concentrate on both your team’s and your team’s readiness and drive.
    1. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
    2. Work your plan: This stage consists of making it possible for team members to individually pitch their own pilots that each include a proof-of-concept project, business case, and operating model.

    Give yourself at least a day, split into two large time blocks, to power through a concentrated version of those first two phases.

    Kickstart: Apt your appetite

    We call the first lesson the “landscape of connected experience“. It looks at the possibilities for personalization at your company. A connected experience, in our parlance, is any UX requiring the orchestration of multiple systems of record on the backend. A marketing-automation platform and a content-management system could be used together. It could be a digital-asset manager combined with a customer-data platform.

    Give examples of connected experience interactions that you admire, find familiar, or even dislike, as examples of consumer and business-to-business examples. This should cover a representative range of personalization patterns, including automated app-based interactions ( such as onboarding sequences or wizards ), notifications, and recommenders. These cards contain a catalog, which we have. Here’s a list of 142 different interactions to jog your thinking.

    The table must be set up for this. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? Here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework for a broader perspective.

    Assess each example that you discuss for its complexity and the level of effort that you estimate that it would take for your team to deliver that feature ( or something similar ). We categorize connected experiences in our cards according to their functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to draw attention to the benefits of ongoing investment as well as the difference between what you deliver right now and what you want to deliver in the future.

    Next, have your team plot each idea on the following 2×2 grid, which lays out the four enduring arguments for a personalized experience. This is crucial because it emphasizes how personalization can affect your own ways of working as well as your external customers. It’s also a reminder ( which is why we used the word argument earlier ) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

    Each team member should decide where they would like to place your company’s emphasis on your product or service. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. Here, the goal is to show how various departments may view their own benefits from the effort, which can vary from one department to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

    The third and final Kickstart activity is about filling in the personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy protection be a significant challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? ( We’re pretty sure you do; it’s just a matter of acknowledging the magnitude of that need and finding a solution. ) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. For instance, our Detractor card lists six intractable stakeholder attitudes that prevent progress.

    Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential obstacles to your advancement in the future. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. According to research, personalization initiatives face a number of common obstacles.

    At this point, you’ve hopefully discussed sample interactions, emphasized a key area of benefit, and flagged key gaps? Good, you’re ready to go on.

    Hit that test kitchen

    What will you need next to bring your personalized recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are broad and potent, and they give you a variety of ways to organize your company. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

    The key here is to avoid treating the installed software ( as one of our client executives humorously put it ) like some sort of dream kitchen. These software engines are more like test kitchens where your team can begin devising, tasting, and refining the snacks and meals that will become a part of your personalization program’s regularly evolving menu.

    Over the course of the workshop, the final menu of the prioritized backlog will be created. And creating “dishes” is the way that you’ll have individual team stakeholders construct personalized interactions that serve their needs or the needs of others.

    The dishes will be made from recipes, which have predetermined ingredients.

    Verify your ingredients

    You’ll ensure that you have everything you need to create your desired interaction ( or that you can determine what needs to be added to your pantry like a good product manager ) and that you have validated with the right stakeholders present. These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together.

    Not just discovering requirements, it is. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team:

    1. compare findings to a unified approach for developing features, similar to how artists paint with the same color palette,
    2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar,
    3. and establish parity between all important performance indicators and performance metrics.

    This helps you streamline your designs and your technical efforts while you deliver a shared palette of core motifs of your personalized or automated experience.

    Create your recipe.

    What ingredients are important to you? Consider the construct “what-what-when-why”

    • Who are your key audience segments or groups?
    • What kind of content will you provide for them, what design elements, and under what circumstances?
    • And for which business and user benefits?

    Five years ago, we created these cards and card categories. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And there are still fresh possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

    In the cards in the accompanying photo below, you can typically follow along with right to left in three examples of subscription-based reading apps.

    1. Nurture personalization: When a guest or an unknown visitor interacts with a product title, a banner or alert bar appears that makes it easier for them to encounter a related title they may want to read, saving them time.
    2. Welcome automation: An email is sent to a newly registered user to highlight the breadth of the content catalog and convert them to happy subscribers.
    3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

    We’ve also found that cocreating the recipes themselves can sometimes be the most effective way to start brainstorming about what these cards might be for your organization. Start with a set of blank cards, and begin labeling and grouping them through the design process, eventually distilling them to a refined subset of highly useful candidate cards.

    The workshop’s later stages could be characterized as shifting from focusing on a cookbook to a more nuanced customer-journey mapping. Individual” cooks” will pitch their recipes to the team, using a common jobs-to-be-done format so that measurability and results are baked in, and from there, the resulting collection will be prioritized for finished design and delivery to production.

    Architecture must be improved to produce better kitchens.

    Simplifying a customer experience is a complicated effort for those who are inside delivering it. Beware of anyone who contradicts your advice. With that being said,” Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes“.

    When a team overfits: they aren’t designing with their best data, personalization turns into a laughing line. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. For instance, your AI’s output quality is in fact impacted by your IA. Spotify’s poster-child prowess today was unfathomable before they acquired a seemingly modest metadata startup that now powers its underlying information architecture.

    You can’t stand the heat, unquestionably…

    Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach can achieve the necessary concentration and intention. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, head to the test kitchen to save time, preserve job security, and avoid imagining the creative concepts that come from your organization’s masters. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

    This organizational framework gives you a fighting chance at long-term success as well as solid ground. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. However, if you use the same cookbook and the same recipe combination, you’ll have solid ground for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

    Although there are associated costs associated with purchasing this kind of technology and product design, your time well spent is on sizing up and confronting your unique situation and digital skills. Don’t squander it. The pudding is the proof, as they say.

  • User Research Is Storytelling

    User Research Is Storytelling

    I’ve been fascinated by shows since I was a child. I loved the heroes and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I aspired to be an artist. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on fascinating experiences. Yet my friends and I had movie ideas to make and sun in. But they never went any farther. However, I did end up in the user experience ( UX) field. Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I hadn’t actually considered it before, but consumer research is story. And to get the most out of customer studies, you must tell a compelling story that involves stakeholders, including the product team and decision-makers, and piques their interest in learning more.

    Think of your favorite film. It more than likely follows a three-act narrative construction: the installation, the turmoil, and the resolution. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two sets the scene for the fight and introduces the action. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. The solution is the third and final work. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. This structure, in my opinion, is also a fantastic way to think about consumer research, and it might be particularly useful for explaining user research to others.

    Use story as a framework when conducting analysis.

    It’s sad to say, but many have come to view studies as being inconsequential. Research is frequently one of the first things to go when expenses or deadlines are tight. Instead of investing in study, some goods professionals rely on manufacturers or—worse—their personal judgment to make the “right” options for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may lead some groups, but that approach can so easily miss the chance to solve people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. Design is enhanced by customer research. It keeps it on record, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the problems with your goods and taking action can help you be ahead of your competition.

    In the three-act structure, each action corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is important to telling the whole story. Let’s take a look at the various functions and how they relate to customer research.

    Act one: layout

    Fundamental analysis comes in handy because the setup is all about comprehending the background. Basic research ( also called conceptual, discovery, or original research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. Like in the movies, you’re learning about the problems users face, what options are available, and how they are affected by them. To do basic research, you may conduct cultural inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both problems and opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a great investment in time or money.

    Erika Hall discusses the most effective anthropology, which can be as straightforward as spending 15 hours with a customer and asking them to” Walk me through your morning yesterday.” That’s it. Provide that one ask. Locked up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to keep yourself and your pursuits out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. Hall predicts that “[This ] will definitely prove quite fascinating. In the very unlikely event that you didn’t learn anything new or helpful, carry on with increased confidence in your way”.

    I think this makes sense. And I love that this makes consumer studies so visible. You can only attract participants and do it! You don’t need to make a lot of documentation. This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. Understanding where people are coming from is what action one is really all about.

    Maybe Spool talks about the importance of basic research and how it may type the bulk of your research. If you can supplement what you’ve heard in the basic studies by using any more user data that you can obtain, such as surveys or analytics, to make recommendations that may need to be investigated further, you might as well use those that can be drawn from those that you can obtain. Together, all this information creates a clearer picture of the state of things and all its inadequacies. And that’s the start of a gripping tale. It’s the place in the story where you realize that the principal characters—or the people in this case—are facing issues that they need to conquer. This is where you begin to develop compassion for the characters and support their success, much like in films. And finally participants are now doing the same. Their business may lose money because users can’t finish particular tasks, which may be their love. Or probably they do connect with customers ‘ problems. In either case, work one serves as your main strategy for piqueing interest and investment from the participants.

    When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can influence product team ‘ focus on improving. This rewards everyone—users, the goods, and partners. It’s similar to winning an Oscar for a film; it frequently results in a favorable reception and success for your item. And this can be an opportunity for participants to repeat this process with different products. The secret to this method is storytelling, and knowing how to tell a compelling story is the only way to entice participants to do more research.

    This brings us to work two, where you incrementally examine a design or idea to see whether it addresses the problems.

    Act two: fight

    Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in operate one. In order to evaluate a potential solution ( such as a design ), you typically conduct vertical research, such as usability tests, to see if it addresses the problems you identified. The issues may include unfulfilled needs or problems with a circulation or procedure that’s tripping users off. More issues may come up in the process, much like in action two of a movie. It’s here that you learn more about the figures as they grow and develop through this action.

    According to Jakob Nielsen, five users should be normally in usability tests, which means that this number of users can generally identify the majority of the issues:” You learn less and less as you add more and more users because you will keep seeing the same things over and over again… After the second user, you are wasting your time by constantly observing the same findings but no learning much new.”

    There are parallels with storytelling here too, if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may get lost. With fewer participants, each user’s struggles will be more easily recalled and shared with other parties when discussing the research. This can help convey the issues that need to be addressed while also highlighting the value of doing the research in the first place.

    Usability tests have been conducted in person for tens of thousands of years, but remote testing can also be done using software like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing tools. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You might interpret in-person usability tests as a form of theater watching as opposed to remote testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Usability research in person is a much more valuable learning experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. Additionally, you get real-time reactions, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

    If conducting usability testing in the field is like watching a play that is staged and controlled, where any two sessions may be very different from one another. You can take usability testing into the field by creating a replica of the space where users interact with the product and then conduct your research there. Or you can meet users at their location to conduct your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. You have less control over how these sessions end as researchers, but this can occasionally help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. Usability tests in person offer a level of detail that is frequently absent from remote testing.

    That’s not to say that the “movies” —remote sessions—aren’t a good option. A wider audience can be reached through remote sessions. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. Additionally, they make the doors accessible to a much wider range of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working.

    You can ask real users questions to understand their thoughts and understanding of the solution as a result of usability testing, whether it is done remotely or in person. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Additionally, you can test your own hypotheses and determine whether your reasoning is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. Act two is where the excitement is at the heart of the narrative, but there are also potential surprises. This is equally true of usability tests. Sometimes, participants will say unexpected things that alter the way you look at them, which can lead to unexpected turns in the story.

    Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. Usability testing is frequently the only method of research that some stakeholders believe they ever need, and it’s too frequently the case. In fact, if the designs that you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a solid understanding of your users ( foundational research ), there’s not much to be gained by doing usability testing in the first place. That’s because you’re narrowing down the area of focus on without considering the needs of the users. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. In the context of a usability test, it’s just feedback on a particular design.

    On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, while you might have set out to solve the right problem, you won’t know whether the thing that you’re building will actually solve that. This demonstrates the value of conducting both directional and foundational research.

    In act two, stakeholders will—hopefully—get to watch the story unfold in the user sessions, which creates the conflict and tension in the current design by surfacing their highs and lows. And in turn, this can encourage stakeholders to take action on the issues that arise.

    Act three: resolution

    The third act is about resolving the issues raised by the first two acts, whereas the first two are about comprehending the context and the tensions that can compel action. While it’s important to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stick around for the final act. That includes all members of the product team, including developers, UX experts, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other interested parties. It allows the whole team to hear users ‘ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. Additionally, it enables the UX design and research teams to clarify, suggest alternatives, or provide more context for their choices. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

    This act is primarily told through voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They provide the stakeholders with their suggestions and direction for developing this vision.

    Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. The most effective presenters employ the same methods as great storytellers: they create a conflict that needs to be settled by reminding people of the status quo and then revealing a better way, according to Duarte. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

    This type of structure aligns well with research results, and particularly results from usability tests. It provides proof for “what is “—the issues you’ve identified. And “what could be “—your recommendations on how to address them. And so forth and forth.

    You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick sketches of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the session is over when you’ve concluded by bridging the gaps and offering suggestions for improvement. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage provides stakeholders with the next steps, and hopefully, the motivation to take those steps as well!

    While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. The three-act structure of user research contains all the components of a good story:

      Act one: You meet the protagonists ( the users ) and the antagonists ( the problems affecting users ). The plot begins here. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. These techniques can produce personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards as output.
      Act two: Next, there’s character development. The protagonists face problems and difficulties, which they must overcome, and there is conflict and tension. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. Usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices can be included in the output of these.
      Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. Researchers may use techniques like storytelling, presentation decks, and digital media in act three. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures.

    The researcher plays a variety of roles, including producer, director, and storyteller. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters ( in the research ). And the audience is one of the stakeholders. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users ‘ stories through research. In the end, the parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to fix the product’s flaws.

    So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. User research is ultimately a win-win situation for everyone, and all you need to do is pique stakeholders ‘ interest in how the story ends.

  • From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    I’ve lost count of the times when promising ideas go from being useless in a few days to being useless after working as a solution designer for too long to explain.

    Financial goods, which is the industry in which I work, are no exception. It’s tempting to put as many features at the ceiling as possible and hope someone sticks because people’s true, hard-earned money is on the line, user expectations are high, and a crammed market. However, this strategy is a formula for disaster. Why, please:

    The drawbacks of feature-first creation

    It’s simple to get swept up in the enthusiasm of developing innovative features when you start developing a financial product from scratch or are migrating existing client journeys from papers or telephony channels to online bank or mobile apps. They may believe,” If I may only add one more thing that solves this particular person problem, they’ll enjoy me”! But what happens if you eventually encounter a roadblock as a result of your security team’s negligence? not like it? When a battle-tested film isn’t as well-known as you anticipated or when it fails due to unforeseen difficulty?

    The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) comes into play in this context. Even though Jason Fried doesn’t usually refer to it that way, his podcast Rework and his book Getting Real frequently address this concept. An MVP is a product that offers only sufficient value to your users to keep them interested, but not so much that it becomes difficult to keep up. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a ruthless edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because it is easy to fall for” the Columbo Effect” when there is always” just one more thing …” to add.

    The issue with most fund apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an experience created purely for the customer. This implies that the priority should be given to delivering as many features and functionalities as possible in order to satisfy the requirements and wishes of competing internal departments as opposed to crafting a compelling value statement that is focused on what people in the real world actually want. As a result, these products can very quickly became a mixed bag of misleading, related, and finally unhappy customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

    The significance of the foundation

    What’s a better course of action then? How may we create products that are user-friendly, firm, and, most importantly, stick?

    The concept of “bedrock” comes into play in this context. The main component of your item that really matters to people is Bedrock. It’s the fundamental building block that creates benefit and maintains relevance over time.

    The rock has got to be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the world of retail bank, which is where I work. People only look at their existing account once every blue sky, but they do so daily. They purchase a credit card every year or two, but they at least once a month assess their stability and pay their bills.

    The key is in identifying the main tasks that individuals want to complete and therefore relentlessly striving to make them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

    How can you reach the foundation, though? By focusing on the” MVP” strategy, giving clarity the top priority, and working toward a distinct value proposition. This means avoiding pointless extras and putting your customers first, making the most of them.

    It also requires some nerve, as your coworkers might not always agree on your eyesight right away. And in some cases, it might even mean making it clear to consumers that you won’t be coming over to their home to prepare their meal. Sometimes you may need to use the sporadic “opinionated user interface design” ( i .e. clunky workaround for edge cases ) to test a concept or to give yourself some room to work on something more crucial stuff.

    Realistic methods for creating financially successful products

    What are the main learnings I’ve made from my own research and practice, then?

    1. What trouble are you trying to solve first, and make a distinct “why”? Who is it for? Make sure your goal is unmistakable before beginning any work. Make certain it also aligns with the goals of your business.
    2. Avoid putting too many features on the list at after; instead, focus on getting that right first. Choose one that actually adds price, and work from that.
    3. When it comes to financial goods, clarity is often over difficulty. Eliminate unwanted details and concentrate on what matters most.
    4. Accept constant iteration as Bedrock is a powerful process rather than a set destination. Continuously collect customer feedback, make product improvements, and advance in that direction.
    5. Stop, glance, and talk: You must test your product frequently in the field rather than just as part of the shipping process. Use it for yourself. Work A/B tests. User opinions on Gear. Speak to users and make adjustments accordingly.

    The “bedrock dilemma”

    This is an intriguing conundrum: sacrificing some of the potential for short-term progress in favor of long-term stability. But the reward is worthwhile because products created with a concentrate on core will outlive and outperform their competitors and provide people with ongoing value over time.

    How do you begin your quest for rock, then? Consider it gradually. Start by identifying the underlying factors that your customers actually care about. Focus on developing and improving a second, potent function that delivers real value. And most importantly, make an obsessive effort because, whatever you think, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker, you can’t deny it! The best way to foretell the future is to make it, he said.

  • Stranger Things: The First Shadow Teases Season 5 Secrets

    Stranger Things: The First Shadow Teases Season 5 Secrets

    A famous character of the stage once remarked there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. It’s a truism which holds for our world, as well as that of Hawkins, Indiana. Sure, Lucas, Dustin, Eleven, and the rest of the gang might have faced the Demogorgon in the […]

    The post Stranger Things: The First Shadow Teases Season 5 Secrets appeared first on Den of Geek.

    This article contains full spoilers for every Final Destination movie, INCLUDING Bloodlines.

    For more than a decade, we thought we’d finally made it. It’s been 14 years since the last Final Destination film, the last time Death started killing off those who escaped its plan in exceedingly gruesome fashion. We thought we were free to go to theaters in safety once more. But as the mortician William Bludworth, played by the late great Tony Todd, has taught us, there’s no escaping Death.

    The franchise is back with one of its best entries: Final Destination Bloodlines, written and directed by newcomers to the franchise Zach Lipovsky and Adam Stein. Bloodlines has a shinier look and a different approach, focusing on a family instead a group of random teens. But it follows the well-established principles of a Final Destination movie, especially in its incredible kills.

    In celebration of Bloodlines bringing Final Destination back to screens, we’re ranking all of Death’s achievements across the franchise. Because Final Destination movies are ultimately about good, gory fun, we’re ranking them from the most boring to the most enjoyably incredible.

    Like Death itself, we do have a few rules here. We aren’t counting any deaths in the premonitions that open each movie, nor the mass casualties that occur in the actual events, which means that you won’t see the infamous pile-up from Final Destination 2 or the incredible tower sequence that opens Bloodlines. Also we’re focusing on Death’s kills, so kills done by human beings don’t count. Even with those restrictions, Final Destination gives us plenty of memorable kills, as Death always makes a show of getting even.

    40. Alex Browning’s Off-Screen Demise (Final Destination 2)

    Is it a mark of respect that the first movie’s protagonist Alex Browning (Devon Sawa) doesn’t die on screen? Or is it the ultimate insult that we learn via newspaper clipping in Final Destination 2 that he was knocked in the head with a brick? Interpretations may vary, but no one can disagree that Alex’s death deserves the bottom spot.

    39. Dennis Lapman Gets a Wrenching Headache (Final Destination 5)

    Played by comedy great David Koechner, paper plant boss Dennis Lapman of Final Destination 5 has one of the gnarliest premonition deaths. Dangling off a collapsing bridge, Dennis almost pulls himself back up when he’s doused with hot tar, burning alive as he lets go and drops to the water. That incredible end makes his actual expiration all the worse, as he goes out when a loose wrench on a shop floor gets hurled into his head, no real setup involved.

    38. Wendy Cristensen, Julie Cristensen, and Kevin Fischer Crash Off-Screen (Final Destination 3)

    With the exception of the original Final Destination, the protagonists end their films thinking they’ve beaten Death only to realize that the Grim Reaper has one more trick up his sleeve, and the movies end with shocking cuts. The worst of them comes in Final Destination 3, one of the weaker entries overall, in which Wendy Cristensen (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), her sister Julie (Amanda Crew), and pal Kevin Fischer (Ryan Merriman) all perish in a train crash.

    Technically we see them meet their end in impressive carnage, but that all happens in a premonition, which this list rules out. So we have to go with the death that happens onscreen—well, on soundtrack, as the movie cuts to black with the sound of the crash.

    37. Janet Cunningham, Lori Milligan, Nick O’Bannon Death By X-Ray Truck (The Final Destination)

    Easily the worst of the series, the fourth entry The Final Destination also ends with a sudden attack on the protagonists. In this case, Nick O’Bannon (Bobby Campo), his love interest Lori Milligan (Shantel VanSanten), and her friend Janet Cunningham (Haley Webb) meet in a coffee shop to celebrate life, only for a truck to crash into the building. It’s a lot like the third movie’s ending, but at least this movie gives us neat x-rays to look at and imagine what horrible things happened to our heroes.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    36. George Lanter and the Very Quiet Ambulance (The Final Destination)

    Played by the great Mykelti Williamson, George Lantner is the only character who acts like a human being in The Final Destination. So it’s a bit lame that the movie kills him off with a gag when he steps onto the road and gets flattened by an oncoming ambulance. He mentions “deja vu” right before it happens because his end is a callback to a similar one from the first film, which will be talked about shortly. It’s an unimaginative death and a mean joke at the expense of a likable character, which lands it toward the bottom of the list.

    35. Nadia Monroy Makes Nick’s Dream a Reality (The Final Destination)

    For the most part, this list is ignoring both the premonitions and the mass casualties that occur after a premonition. The one exception comes with Nadia Monroy (Stephanie Honoré) of The Final Destination, who dies in the immediate aftermath of a premonition. After Nick has a vision of a massive Nascar wreck, he panics, which gets a group of people kicked out of the race just as the accident begins. As the survivors try to make sense of what happened, a tire flies out of the stadium and through Nadia’s head, replicating her death from the vision.

    34. Perry Malinowski Salutes the Flag (Final Destination 3)

    Final Destination loves its out-of-nowhere surprise kills. A character thinks they’re safe, they make some ironic statement and, bam, they’re immediately dead. Usually, these kills aren’t nearly as funny or clever as the movies think they are, especially compared to the elaborate sequences that have become the franchise’s calling card. One of the worst comes when Perry Malinowski (Maggie Ma) gets unceremoniously offed when a loose horse breaks of a flagpole that goes through her chest, a forgettable death for a forgettable character. Horse looks cool though.

    33. Darlene Campbell Stays at the Cabin (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Although not as meta as, say, a Scream movie, the characters in Final Destination: Bloodlines know how Final Destination movies work. To the filmamkers’ credit, the knowledge adds tension to the movie, underscoring how knowledge doesn’t give them power to evade Death. Nowhere is that more clear than at the climax of Bloodlines when Darlene Campbell (Rya Kihlstedt)—a mother who has estranged herself from her children—decides to hide in her own mother’s bunker, thereby stalling Death’s hit list and saving her children. Noble though the sentiment may be, Darlene’s proclamation of love for her children distracts her, and she gets smashed by a falling pole, rendering her heroism moot.

    32. Carter Horton Finally Sees the Sign (Final Destination)

    Played by Kerr Smith, Carter Horton is the onscreen antagonist of the first film, an annoying preppie who bullies Alex and the others and somehow gets to survive. So while we don’t actually see Carter get killed before the screen cuts to closing credits, his demise does rank above those from the third and fourth movies just because we wanted to see this guy get it for so long.

    31. Samantha Lane Has Her Eye on a Stone (The Final Destination)

    The overwhelming majority of Final Destination victims are obnoxious, good-looking teens who mostly deserve to die. Wife and mother Samantha Lane (Krista Lane) certainly isn’t a saint but she doesn’t irritate us like every other jerk in The Final Destination. So we’re a bit annoyed that she gets such a cruel death when a lawn mower kicks up a rock that flies through her eyes while her young kids watch in horror. The kill does get a few extra points, however, for all of the playfulness before it actually happens, as Death sets up a few options to off Sarah before finally picking the rock.

    30. Ian McKinley Splits the Fair (Final Destination 3)

    The franchise has never done great with its human antagonists, the regular guys who get tired of all the dying and take things into their own hands by killing the other characters. Ian McKinley (Kris Lemche) stands out a little bit more than the others. Instead of showing all the things that could off him, the camera simply follows Ian through a crowd while he rants about his immortality. That’s a bit dull, but it pays off when a firework shoots by him, apparently sparing him, only for the explosion to knock over a cherry picker that splits him in half. That extra beat is enough to make his sudden surprise kill a bit more satisfying.

    29. Stefani and Charlie Reyes in a Logjam (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Although a bit glossier and a bit kinder with its characters, Final Destination Bloodlines follows the beats of most entries in the franchise. In fact, its final moment, in which protagonists Stefani (Kaitlyn Santa Juana) and Charlie Reyes (Teo Briones) realize that they did not, in fact, stop Death and are about to die, feels like a callback to the infamous log premonition in Final Destination 2. However, Bloodlines ups the stakes with a lucky penny leading to a train derailment. The amazing shot of Stefani and Charlie goes bigger than any of the other movies’ shock ending, undone some by the cheap effects when two logs from the train car come loose and flatten our heroes.

    28. Sam Lawton and Emma Bell Die in a Callback (Final Destination 5)

    Final Destination 5 has the best ending of the series, in which protagonists Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and Emma Bell (Molly Harper) survive the ordeal and board a plane to celebrate. It’s only then that we realize that the movie has taken place in 2000 and that they’re boarding Flight 180, the one that explodes at the start of the first movie. Thus we have to watch as the characters who have gone through so much die, but we also get to see the original disaster that started it all. Emily splatters when she gets sucked out of the plane and sliced by the wing, but Sam’s death isn’t that spectacular outside of the fact that he burns up in the same manner as Alex did in his vision.

    27. Tod Waggner Hung Out to Dry (Final Destination)

    The first “real” death of the series, Tod Waggner’s (Chad E. Donella) end feels like a first draft to the spectacular kills to come. When water leaks from a toilet, Todd slips into the tub and gets a laundry cord wrapped around his neck. Todd’s desperate attempts to stand up and save himself, frustrated by the slick tub floor, give the death a level of pathos rarely seen in the series, but outside of that, it’s a fairly rote kill for the overall franchise.

    26. Iris Campbell Gets to the Point (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Bloodlines gives Tony Todd a glorious final scene as Bloodworth, but it’s the elderly Iris Campbell (Gabrielle Rose) who tells her granddaughter Stefani the rules of Death’s design. Throughout the exposition dump, the camera points to various classic setups, but Iris catches them all. So when Death does finally take her, using a flying fire extinguisher to send a weathervane point through her face, it’s because Iris wants to show Stefani how Death operates. That intentionality makes Iris’ end stand out, even if it isn’t the most elaborate on this list.

    25. Rory Peters Goes Fencing (Final Destination 2)

    Final Destination 2 has the best premonition in the series, an incredible accident and pile-up filled with ghastly incidents. Toward the climax of the movie, that road destruction gets sort of recreated when a series of events launched by a car crash suddenly kill off other characters. It’s mostly fun, and wide shots let us see Death’s composition, but it’s hard to get too excited when stoner Rory Peters (Jonathan Cherry) gets split into thirds by flying fencing.

    24. Clear Rivers and Eugene Dix Go Up in Flames (Final Destination 2)

    It was a nice reveal to show Clear Rivers (Ali Larter) had survived even the post-credit carnage of the first Final Destination to provide information to the victims of the second film. But that surprise was completely undercut by the film then killing Clear in a sudden hospital explosion, taking teacher Eugene (T.C. Carson), one of the more compelling characters in the movie, out along with her. Multi-victim kills always feel like a bit of a cheat, but at least this one had a nice build-up.

    23. Carter Daniels’ Hate Crime Backfires (The Final Destination)

    The Final Destination‘s unlikable cast goes to the extreme when white supremacist Carter (Justin Welborn) singles out George Latner as the cause of his wife’s demise. So it’s especially satisfying when Carter, in the midst of burning a cross on George’s lawn, gets dragged behind his truck and burned alive. Carter may not get the most creative of kills, but rarely do we see such an awful person get their full and just reward like that.

    22. Isaac Palmer Meets the Buddha (Final Destination 5)

    Unlike most entries, Final Destination 5 limited its nastiness to one character, and even then, actor P. J. Byrne knows how to find light notes in his depiction of smarmy exec Isaac Palmer. Byrne sleezes it up as Isaac steals a spa coupon from recently-deceased co-worker, leers at spa workers, and then condescend to the worker who performs upon him. From then on, it’s a classic Final Destination sequence, as a fallen candle ignites spilled oil to send Isaac pin-first onto the ground, crawling away until he inadvertently pulls a Buddha statue on his head, his karma fully earned.

    21. Kat Jennings and the Jaws of Death (Final Destination 2)

    Nervous wreck Kat Jennings (Keegan Connor Tracy) gets one of the better sudden deaths in the series, largely because Death puts all the pieces in place for a symphony of chaos and then sets it off suddenly. Kat initially survives the car crash, avoiding the pointy pipe that ran through her back window and continues to stick out behind her head. When firefighters use the jaws of life to pry open her car door, however, the impact is enough to set off the airbags, slamming Kat’s head into the spike and setting off more carnage.

    20. Lewis Romero Loses Weight in the Gym (Final Destination 3)

    A lot of the kills on this list are preceded by a character declaring their immortality, but few do it with as much apblomb as Final Destination 3‘s aggro jock Lewis Romero (Texas Battle). Like many Lewis responds to Death’s machinations by asserting his own free will… loudly. At the end, he does it while pumping iron in the gym, and his protestations shake the walls, knocking free swords used as part of his team’s decor. The swords cut the bands of his machine as they fall, freeing the weights to smash his head. Given that it was his actions that made the swords drop, Lewis did kind of control his own fate.

    19. Nora Carpenter and the Creepy Hook Hand (Final Destination 2)

    Of all the kills on this list, the death of nervous mom Nora Carpenter (Lynda Boyd) seems the easiest to avoid. Well, at first anyway, when she rushes into an elevator and gets her hair caught on a hook, part of the prosthetic limbs that a creepy guy holds in a box. If Nora just settled down for a moment, or if the creepy guy would put as much effort into untangling her as he does smelling her hair, then she probably could have wrestled free before the elevator decapitated her. All that aside, it’s a pretty amazing and gory kill, one that has enough shock value to overcome any logistical leaps.

    18. Erin Ulmer Gets Nailed in the Head (Final Destination 3)

    The Final Destination movies are big on dying, but not so big on suffering, which is a good thing. We don’t want to think of these people as human beings, because that would ruin the fun of watching them go out. Erin Ulmer’s (Alexz Johnson) end in Final Destination 3 veers a bit too much toward suffering, as the camera holds on her as she moans in her last moments. Up until that point, though, the scene has fun with misdirection, making us think that we’re about to see Ian McKinley get crushed by boards until Erin gets knocked into a nail gun, which perforates the back of her head.

    17. Jonathan Groves Takes a Bath (The Final Destination)

    On one hand, Jonathan Groves (Jackson Walker) feels like he was added to The Final Destination late in production because the producers found out the movie’s running a bit too short. Groves does show up in the opening crash scene, but we lose track of him and assume he’s dead until Nick sees him on the news. But we can forgive the shoehorning for the purely absurd way that Groves goes out, with an overfilled bathtub from the hospital floor above crashing down onto his bed.

    16. Nathan Sears and Flight 180’s Landing (Final Destination 5)

    In addition to its fantastic kills Final Destination 5 also has the most well-rounded characters in the series, characters like junior executive Nathan Sears (Arlen Escarpeta). Nathan is fundamentally a nice guy but he gets caught up in a dispute with an older union leader, a dispute that ends when the leader accidentally dies during a fight. Thinking that was Death coming for him, Nathan comes to the leader’s wake to pay respects, secure in the belief that Death has skipped him. That assumption adds some pathos to the moment with gear from Flight 180 falls from the sky and crushes him, taking both good people and bad people.

    15. Frankie Cheeks Trapped in the Drive Thru (Final Destination 3)

    Frankie Cheeks (Sam Easton) is one of the most unlikable characters in the franchise (which is saying something) and we don’t even know that he’s dead until after it happens. So why does it rank relatively high on this list? Because of the way it’s set up, looking very much like protagonists Wendy and Kevin are going to get killed in an unbelievable but well-orchestrated drive-through accident. While our heroes escape in time, a collision still occurs, sending a huge engine fan into the back of Frankie’s head. At first it seems like the duo passed their death onto an innocent bystander until we see a bloody necklace in the shape of a naked lady, and we all breathe a sigh of relief that Frankie Cheeks walks the Earth no more.

    14. Tim Carpenter Gets Squished By Glass (Final Destination 2)

    Tim Carpenter may be the weirdest character in the entire series. The script says he’s 15, and actor James Kirk sometimes plays him as a teen and sometimes as an eight-year-old, which ends up feeling like he’s the MadTV character Stuart. That childlike nature leads to Tim’s end when, like a dumb kid, he just decides to chase after some pigeons because… they were there? The pigeons take flight, knocking a giant pane of glass off of a crane and sending the glass on top of Tim, smooshing the little weirdo.

    The biggest problem with The Final Destination is its reliance on CG blood, a scourge of 2000s horror. Still, sometimes the kills are so outrageous that we can forgive the poor effects. Such is the case when mechanic Andy Kewzer (Andrew Fiscella) gets blown into a chain link fence. It looks silly when his body collapses into goopy chunks, but the setup is satisfying, as is the sight of him getting blasted out of his garage into the instrument of his doom.

    12. Terry Chaney Hit By a Silent Bus (Final Destination)

    For the first viewers of Final Destination, Terry Chaney (Amanda Detmer) had the standout death. Freaked out by Alex’s talk of Death coming for them all, Terry tells her friends to drop dead, steps into the street and gets splattered by a bus. It’s a funny moment, as long as you don’t think about it for a second (none of her friends have peripheral vision? The bus driver doesn’t see the gesticulating lady backing into the street?), and it got cheers in the theater. Over time, however, the sudden shock death has become a series trope, dulling the impact (pun intended) of Terry’s end.

    11. Howard Campbell Gets a Trim (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Patriarch Howard Campbell (Alex Zahara) gets the first classic-style death in Bloodlines, and what a glorious one it is. Occurring after the film has clearly laid out Death’s rules and process, the filmmakers luxuriate in the setup, taking time to highlight all of the things that could kill someone in Campbell’s well-appointed suburban backyard: a rake under a ripping trampoline, a shard of glass in an iced drink, a hose about to explode. After several minutes of anticipation, all of those things come together to set-off something we never saw coming, an electric self-propelled lawnmower, which runs over the face of the prone Howard.

    10. Billy Hitchcock Loses His Cool, Also His Head (Final Destination)

    Iconic as it may be, Terry’s isn’t the best sudden shock death in the first Final Destination movie. That honor belongs to New York Rangers superfan Billy Hitchcock (Seann William Scott), who also dies without much obvious setup from Death. Billy goes after he and Alex confront the ever-jerky Carter, who decides to defy Death by parking on train tracks. Carter survives, but Billy can’t take it and starts having an angry meltdown, a meltdown cut short when the train kicks up a piece of shrapnel and sends it flying through Billy’s neck.

    9. Valerie Lewton Learns About Kitchen Safety (Final Destination)

    Tod may be the first death in the Final Destination series, but Valerie Lewton (Kristen Cloke) gets the first great death of the franchise. Still shaken up over the explosion of Flight 180, teacher Mrs. Lewton spills some alcohol on the ground while making dinner. When her cooking goes awry, the alcohol ignites, setting her house ablaze. But it’s not the fire that kills her. Rather she dies when she accidentally pulls a knife down from the counter, which embeds itself in her chest.

    8. Evan Lewis Slips on Spaghetti (Final Destination 2)

    Sometimes Death orchestrates events in such an improbable manner that we can almost see a physical hand onscreen, manipulating events. Sometimes dumb people do dumb things and pay for it. It’s the latter event that brings down lottery-winning bro Evan Lewis (David Paetkau) in Final Destination 2, who just tosses a pot of spaghetti out the window. That decision proves disastrous when Death’s meddling leads to a fire in Evan’s apartment. Evan climbs out to make an escape, but he slips on his own spaghetti, which leaves him vulnerable to the falling ladder that pierces his eye.

    7. Brian Gibbons BBQ Bomb (Final Destination 2)

    Although it’s a sudden kill with little setup, the death of Brian Gibbons (Noel Fisher) ranks so high because of how funny it is. At the end of the movie, survivors Kimberly Corman (A.J. Cook) and Thomas Burke (Michael Landes) join the Gibbons family at a BBQ where they all let off a bit of steam. No sooner does Brian joke about his and his father’s near-death experience than the grill he’s using explodes, sending his severed arm flying through the air. The arm lands on his mother’s plate, a darkly funny beat that makes it one step better than the average out-of-nowhere kills in the series.

    6. Erik and Bobby Campbell Bond in the Hospital (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Erik Campbell (Richard Harmon) is truly a unique character in the Final Destination franchise. First of all, he seems to survive his own elaborate death, a hilarious incident in a tattoo parlor (featured heavily in teasers). Secondly he and his brother Bobby (Owen Patrick Joyner) actually like each other, which makes their end so poignant.

    Off of Bludworth’s information, Erik decides to send the highly allergic Bobby into anaphylaxis so he can revive him, thus satisfying Death. But Erik gets too cute with his plan, and his action accidentally turns on and revs up an MRI machine in the room where the brothers are working. The intensified magnification first pulls in and crushes Erik, with his piercings in front and a wheelchair in back, and then snags a coil from a vending machine, sending it through Bobby’s head.

    5. Olivia Castle’s Laser-Guided Fall (Final Destination 5)

    Okay, technically Olivia Castle (Jacqueline MacInnes Wood) dies when she falls out of a window. But that’s not the part that sticks out in our mind. Instead we remember everything before that moment when Olivia gets laser eye surgery. As if torn from the worst thoughts of anyone about to get the surgery, we watch as Death shorts out the laser while the tech is out of the room and starts burning out Kimberly’s eye. No sooner does she escape than she slips on her beloved teddy bear and falls through the window, a somehow merciful end to the suffering.

    3. Ashley Freund & Ashlyn Halperin’s Tanning Session Gone Wrong (Final Destination 3)

    As this list shows, great Final Destination deaths fall into one of three categories: memorably mean, patently absurd, or impeccably designed. Ashley Fruend (Chelan Simmons) and Ashlyn Halperin (Crystal Lowe) are the prime examples of the first category. A pair of stock mean mall girls, Ashley and Ashlyn go to their favorite tanning spa, giant-size sodas in hand. Death ups the condensation on the drinks, which creates enough water to short out the beds, which turns up the heat, while a fallen shelf keeps them trapped inside. The sight of them burning alive is nasty enough, but the real kicker is the match cut at the end, which replaces two tanning beds with two coffins.

    3. Julia Campbell Takes Out the Trash (Final Destination Bloodlines)

    Final Destination movies love a good fake-out and Bloodlines has the best one yet. Armed with knowledge from Iris, Stefani walks down a suburban street with a skeptical Erik, Death’s next probable victim. As the two walk, Stefani points out all of the things that could kill him: leaves from a blower, a soccer ball kicked by kids, a trash compactor. But to Erik’s mocking glee, nothing happens. Nothing, that is, until Erik’s sister Julia (Anna Lore) goes for a run. In the background. And out of focus, all of those things come together to knock Julia into a roadside dumpster, which is then emptied into the garbage truck where Julia is compacted while Stefani watches.

    2. Hunt Wynorski’s Guts in a Pool Pump (The Final Destination)

    The best patently absurd kill in the entire franchise occurs to obnoxious bro Hunt Wynorski (Nick Zano). After getting into an altercation with a little kid at a public pool, Hunt sits down to catch some rays when he hears his lucky coin fall into the water. Hunt dives in after it, just as Death starts messing with the equipment, causing the pump to malfunction and raise the pressure. The pump traps Hunt at the bottom and he gestures wildly for help, but no one sees him. Instead of drowning, Hunt gets his guts sucked out through his butt, a kill so wonderful that we don’t even care about the CGI viscera that caps off the scene.

    1. Candace Hooper Doesn’t Stick the Landing (Final Destination 5)

    Easily the most glorious and well-composed kill of the entire franchise occurs early in Final Destination 5, when a standard routine for gymnast Candice Hooper (Ellen Wroe) goes horribly wrong. Director Steven Quale takes the time to show viewers the tools and space in which Death works, highlighting dripping water, a shaking girder, spilled dust, and other elements, before bringing them together as Candice goes through her flips. As a result, we understand every step in the system of catastrophes that leads to a ghastly end, with Candice’s crumpled body shuttering on the gym floor.

    The post Final Destination Kills Ranked from the Short and Sweet to Spectacularly Brutal appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • That’s Not My Burnout

    That’s Not My Burnout

    Do you like to read about people who are dying as they experience exhaustion and are unable to connect to me? Do you feel like your feelings are invisible to the earth because you’re experiencing burnout different? Our main comes through more when stress starts to press down on us. Beautiful, quiet souls get softer and dissipate into that remote and distracted fatigue we’ve all read about. But some of us, those with fires constantly burning on the sides of our key, getting hotter. I have hearth in my brain. When I face fatigue I twice over, triple down, burning hotter and hotter to try to best the issue. I don’t fade; I am ensnared in a passionate stress.

    But what on earth is a zealous stress?

    Envision a person determined to do it all. She is homeschooling two wonderful children while simultaneously working remotely with her husband. She has a demanding customer fill at work—all of whom she loves. She wakes up early to get some movement in ( or frequently catch up on work ), prepares dinner while the kids are having breakfast, and works while positioning herself near the end of her “fourth grade” to watch as she balances clients, tasks, and budgets. Sound like a bit? Yet with a supportive group both at home and at work, it is.

    Sounds like this person needs self-care because she has too much on her disk. But no, she doesn’t have occasion for that. She begins to feel as though she’s dropping pellets. No accomplishing much. There’s not enough of her to be here and that, she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all day, every day. She begins to question herself. And as those thoughts creep in more and more, her domestic tale becomes more and more important.

    She KNOWS what she needs to complete right away! She really Would MORE.

    This is a difficult and dangerous period. Know the reasons? Because when she doesn’t end that new purpose, that storyline will get worse. She instantly starts failing. She isn’t doing much. SHE is not enough. She’ll discover more she may do because she might neglect, or perhaps her home. She doesn’t nap as much, proceed because much, all in the attempts to do more. Trying to prove herself to herself, but always succeeding in any endeavor. Not feeling “enough”.

    But, yeah, that’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It doesn’t develop over in some grand gesture, but it does rather develop gradually over the course of several weeks and months. My burning out procedure looks like speeding up, not a man losing focus. I move up and up and up, and therefore I simply quit.

    I am the one who had

    It’s amusing the things that shape us. Through the camera of my youth, I witnessed the battles, sacrifices, and fears of a person who had to make it all work without having much. I was happy that my mom was so competent and my dad sympathetic, I never went without and also got an extra here or there.

    When my mother gave me food stamps as a child, I didn’t think shame; rather, I would have good started any debates about the subject, orally eviscerating anyone who dared to criticize the handicapped girl who was attempting to ensure all of our needs were met with so little. As a child, I watched the way the worry of not making those ends meet impacted persons I love. As the non-disabled people in my home, I did take on many of the real things because I was” the one who was” make our lives a little easier. I soon realized that putting more of myself into it was linked to fears or doubt; I am the one who does. I learned first that when something frightens me, I can double down and work harder to make it better. I am in charge of the problem. When individuals have seen this in me as an adult, I’ve been told I seem courageous, but make no mistake, I’m not. If I seem courageous, it’s because this behavior was forged from another person’s fears.

    And here I am, surrounded by enormous tasks ahead of me, assuming that I am the one who is and therefore should, more than 30 years later, also feeling the urge to aimlessly drive myself forward. I find myself driven to prove that I can make things happen if I work longer hours, take on more responsibility, and do more.

    Because I have seen how strong a financially challenged person can be, I do not see people who struggle financially as failures because they are pulled along the way. I truly get that I have been privileged to be able to avoid many of the challenges that were present in my youth. That said, I am still” the one who can” who feels she should, so if I were faced with not having enough to make ends meet for my own family, I would see myself as having failed. Despite my best efforts and education, the majority of this is due to chance. I will, however, allow myself the arrogance of saying I have been careful with my choices to have encouraged that luck. My sense of identity comes from the notion that I am” the one who can” and feel compelled to accomplish the most. I can choose to stop, and with some quite literal cold water splashed in my face, I’ve made the choice to before. But that choosing to stop is not my go-to, I move forward, driven by a fear that is so a part of me that I barely notice it’s there until I’m feeling utterly worn away.

    So why all the history? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I’ve read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is real. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s challenging, and so many amazing professionals are affected by the avoidance, the shutting down, and the procrastination. There are important articles that relate to what I imagine must be the majority of people out there, but not me. That’s not how I look at burnout.

    The dangerous invisibility of zealous burnout

    A lot of work environments see the extra hours, extra effort, and overall focused commitment as an asset ( and sometimes that’s all it is ). They see someone attempting to overcome obstacles, not a person who is ensnared in fear. Many well-meaning organizations have safeguards in place to protect their teams from burnout. However, in situations like this, those alarms don’t always go off, and some organization members are surprised and depressed when the inevitable stop occurs. And sometimes maybe even betrayed.

    Parents—more so mothers, statistically speaking—are praised as being so on top of it all when they can work, be involved in the after-school activities, practice self-care in the form of diet and exercise, and still meet friends for coffee or wine. Many of us have watched endless streaming episodes of COVID to see how challenging the female protagonist is, but she is strong and funny, and can do it. It’s a “very special episode” when she breaks down, cries in the bathroom, woefully admits she needs help, and just stops for a bit. Truth be told, countless people are avoiding tears or doomscrolling to flee. We know that the media is a lie to amuse us, but often the perception that it’s what we should strive for has penetrated much of society.

    Women and burnout

    I cherish men. And though I don’t love every man ( heads up, I don’t love every woman or nonbinary person either ), I think there is a beautiful spectrum of individuals who represent that particular binary gender.

    Despite this, especially in these COVID stressed out times, women are still more likely than their male counterparts to be burnout vulnerable. Mothers in the workplace feel the pressure to do all the “mom” things while giving 110 %. Mothers not in the workplace feel they need to do more to” justify” their lack of traditional employment. Women who are not mothers frequently feel the need to work even more at home because of the pressure. It’s vicious and systemic and so a part of our culture that we’re often not even aware of the enormity of the pressures we put on ourselves and each other.

    Beyond happiness, there are costs. Harvard Health Publishing released a study a decade ago that “uncovered strong links between women’s job stress and cardiovascular disease”. The CDC noted,” Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, killing 299, 578 women in 2017—or about 1 in every 5 female deaths”.

    According to what I’ve read, this connection between work stress and health is more dangerous for women than it is for their non-female counterparts.

    But what if your burnout isn’t like that either?

    You might not be the same as that. After all, each of us is so different and how we respond to stressors is too. It’s part of what makes us human. Don’t put too much emphasis on how burnout looks; instead, learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I sometimes ask friends if I am concerned about them.

    Are you content? This simple question should be the first thing you ask yourself. Chances are, even if you’re burning out doing all the things you love, as you approach burnout you’ll just stop taking as much joy from it all.

    Do you feel like you have the authority to refuse? I have observed in myself and others that when someone is burning out, they no longer feel they can say no to things. Even those who don’t” speed up” feel pressured to say yes to not let the people around them be disappointed.

    What are three things you’ve done for yourself? Another observance is that we all tend to stop doing things for ourselves. anything from avoiding conversations with friends to skipping showers and eating poorly. These can be red flags.

    Are you using justifications? Many of us try to disregard feelings of burnout. Over and over I have heard,” It’s just crunch time”,” As soon as I do this one thing, it will all be better”, and” Well I should be able to handle this, so I’ll figure it out”. And it might actually be crunch time, a single objective, and/or a set of skills you need to master. That happens—life happens. BE CRUD if this doesn’t stop. If you’ve worked more 50-hour weeks since January than not, maybe it’s not crunch time—maybe it’s a bad situation that you’re burning out from.

    Do you have a plan to stop feeling this way? If something is only temporary and you have to push through, it has an exit route and a reward system.
    defined end.

    Take the time to listen to yourself like you would a friend. Be honest, allow yourself to be uncomfortable, and break the thought cycles that prevent you from healing.

    So now what?

    Although what I just described is a different path to burnout, it is still burnout. There are well-established approaches to working through burnout:

    • Get enough sleep.
    • Eat healthy.
    • Work out.
    • Leave the house.
    • Take a break.
    • Practice self-care in general.

    Those are hard for me because they feel like more tasks. If I’m in the burnout cycle, doing any of the above for me feels like a waste. Why would I take care of myself when I’m dropping all those other balls, according to the narrative? People need me, right?

    Your inner voice might be pretty bad by now if you’re deeply in the cycle. If you need to, tell yourself you need to take care of the person your people depend on. If your roles are pushing you toward burnout, use them to help make healing easier by justifying the time spent working on you.

    I have come up with a few things that I do when I start to feel like I’m going into a zealous burnout to help me remember the airline attendant advice to put the mask on yourself first.

    Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

    Okay, since I’m a “food-focused” person, I’ve always been a fan. There are countless tales in my home of someone walking into the kitchen and turning right around and walking out when they noticed I was” chopping angrily”. But it’s more than that, and you should give it a try. Seriously. It’s the perfect go-to if you don’t feel worthy of taking time for yourself—do it for someone else. Because the majority of us work in a digital world, cooking can pique your interest and make you feel present in the moment in all your ways. It can break you out of your head and help you gain a better perspective. In my house, I’ve been known to pick a place on the map and cook food that comes from wherever that is ( thank you, Pinterest ). I enjoy making Indian food because the smells are warm, the bread needs just enough kneading to keep my hands engaged, and the process requires real attention for me because it’s not what I was raised making. And in the end, we all win!

    Vent like a sniveling jerk.

    Be careful with this one!

    I have been making an effort to practice more gratitude over the past few years, and I recognize the true benefits of that. Having said that, sometimes you just need to let it all out, even the ugly ones. Hell, I’m a big fan of not sugarcoating our lives, and that sometimes means that to get past the big pile of poop, you’re gonna wanna complain about it a bit.

    When that is required, approach a trusted friend and express your concerns verbally. You need to trust this friend not to judge, to see your pain, and, most importantly, to tell you to remove your cranium from your own rectal cavity. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he manages to simplify things down to the simplest. ” We’re spending our lives together, of course you’re going to disappoint me from time to time, so get over it” has been his way of speaking his dedication, love, and acceptance of me—and I could not be more grateful. Of course, it also required that I take my head out of that rectal cavity. So, again, usually those moments are appreciated in hindsight.

    Pick up a book!

    There are many books out there that are more like you sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance than they are self-help. Maybe you’ll find something that speaks to you. Among the titles that have stood out to me are:

    • Thrive by Arianna Huffington
    • Tools of Titans by Tim Ferriss
    • Girl, Stop Apologizing by Rachel Hollis
    • Dare to Lead by Brené Brown

    Or, if I love to read or listen to a book that doesn’t have anything to do with my work-life balance, I can use another tactic. I’ve read the following books and found they helped balance me out because my mind was pondering their interesting topics instead of running in circles:

    • The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart
    • Darin Olien’s Superlife
    • A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived by Adam Rutherford
    • Toby Hemenway’s Gaia’s Garden is available.

    If you’re not into reading, pick up a topic on YouTube or choose a podcast to subscribe to. I’ve watched countless permaculture and gardening topics in addition to how to raise chickens and ducks. I don’t currently own any livestock of any kind, nor do I have a particularly large food garden. I just find the topic interesting, and it has nothing to do with any aspect of my life that needs anything from me.

    Give yourself a break.

    You are never going to be perfect—hell, it would be boring if you were. It’s OK to be broken and flawed. It’s human to be depressed, anxious, and sad. It’s OK to not do it all. Although being imperfect is terrifying, you cannot be brave without being fearful.

    This last one is the most important: allow yourself permission to NOT do it all. You never promised to be everything to everyone at all times. Our fears determine our strength, not ours.

    This is hard. It’s challenging for me. It’s what’s driven me to write this—that it’s OK to stop. It’s OK that your unhealthy habit that might even benefit those around you needs to end. You can continue to succeed in life.

    I recently read that we are all writing our eulogy in how we live. What will your professional accomplishments say, knowing that yours won’t be mentioned in that speech? What do you want it to say?

    Look, I get that none of these ideas will “fix it”, and that’s not their purpose. None of us has complete control over our surroundings, but only how we react to them. These suggestions are to help stop the spiral effect so that you are empowered to address the underlying issues and choose your response. Most of the time, I find these to be effective. Maybe they’ll work for you.

    Does this sound familiar?

    If something resounds familiar to you, it’s not just you. Don’t let your negative self-talk tell you that you “even burn out wrong”. It is not improper. Even if rooted in fear like my own drivers, I believe that this need to do more comes from a place of love, determination, motivation, and other wonderful attributes that make you the amazing person you are. We’re going to be OK, ya know. The lives that come before us might never have the same meaning as the one we’re striving for, which is acceptable because the only way to judge is in the mirror when we stop and look around.

    Do you remember that Winnie the Pooh sketch that had Pooh eat so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? Well, I already have a strong connection to Rabbit, so it was surprising when he unexpectedly declared that this was unacceptable. But do you recall what happened next? He put a shelf across poor Pooh’s ankles and decorations on his back, and made the best of the big butt in his kitchen.

    We are resourceful and aware that we can push ourselves when we are needed, even when we are exhausted to the core or have a ton of clutter in our room. None of us has to be afraid, as we can manage any obstacle put in front of us. And maybe that means we need to redefine success in order to make room for comfort for being uncomfortable human, but that doesn’t really sound that bad either.

    So, wherever you are right now, please breathe. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Give thanks and be considerate.

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    One of the most powerful smooth abilities we have at our disposal is the ability to work together to improve our designs while developing our own abilities and perspectives, regardless of how it is used or what it might be called.

    Feedback is also one of the most underestimated equipment, and generally by assuming that we’re now great at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Bad feedback can lead to conflict in projects, lower confidence, and long-term, undermine trust and teamwork. Quality comments can be a revolutionary force.

    Practicing our knowledge is absolutely a good way to enhance, but the learning gets yet faster when it’s paired with a good base that programs and focuses the exercise. What are some fundamental components of providing effective opinions? And how can input be adjusted for isolated and distributed function settings?

    On the web, we may find a long history of sequential comments: code was written and discussed on mailing lists since the beginning of open source. Currently, engineers engage on pull calls, developers post in their favourite design tools, project managers and sprint masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

    Design analysis is often the label used for a type of input that’s provided to make our job better, jointly. So it generally adheres to many of the concepts with suggestions, but it also has some differences.

    The material

    The content of the feedback is the basis of every effective criticism, so where do we need to begin? There are many designs that you can use to form your content. The one that I personally like best—because it’s obvious and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

    This calculation, which is typically used to provide feedback to users, even fits really well in a design critique because it finally addresses one of the main issues that we address: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some comments about some pattern function that spans several screens, like an onboard movement: there are some pages shown, a stream blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You notice things that needs to be improved. If you keep the three components of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental unit that can help you become more precise and effective.

    A comment that appears to be acceptable at first glance could be included in some feedback, as it only appears to partially fulfill the requirements. But does it?

    Not confident about the keys ‘ patterns and hierarchy—it feels off. Does you alter them?

    Observation for style feedback doesn’t really mean pointing out which part of the software your input refers to, but it also refers to offering a viewpoint that’s as specific as possible. Do you offer the user’s viewpoint? Your expert perspective? A business perspective? The perspective of the project manager A first-time user’s perspective?

    I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them.

    Impact is about the why. Just pointing out a UI element might sometimes be enough if the issue may be obvious, but more often than not, you should add an explanation of what you’re pointing out.

    I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow.

    The question approach is meant to provide open guidance by eliciting the critical thinking in the designer receiving the feedback. Notably, in Lara’s equation she provides a second approach: request, which instead provides guidance toward a specific solution. While that’s a viable option for general feedback, in my experience, going back to the question approach typically leads to the best solutions because designers are generally more at ease with having an open space to experiment with.

    The difference between the two can be exemplified with, for the question approach:

    I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Would it make sense to unify them?

    Or, for the request approach:

    I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same pair of forward and back buttons.

    At this point in some situations, it might be useful to integrate with an extra why: why you consider the given suggestion to be better.

    I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.

    Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I did rounds of anonymous feedback and I reviewed feedback with other people a while back when I was putting a lot of effort into improving my feedback. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Quite unexpected, my next round of criticism from one particular person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was one person in this other team who now preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

    One comment that I heard come up a few times is that this kind of feedback is quite long, and it doesn’t seem very efficient. No, but also yes. Let’s explore both sides.

    No, this kind of feedback is effective because the length is a byproduct of clarity, and giving this kind of feedback can provide precisely enough information for a sound fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just,” Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons”. Since the designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, they might just implement the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without explaining the why, the designer might assume that the change is one of consistency, but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

    Yes, this style of feedback is not always efficient because the points in some comments don’t always need to be exhaustive, sometimes because certain changes may be obvious (” The font used doesn’t follow our guidelines” ) and sometimes because the team may have a lot of internal knowledge such that some of the whys may be implied.

    Therefore, the equation above is intended to serve as a mnemonic to reflect and enhance the practice rather than a strict template for feedback. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

    The atmosphere

    Well-grounded content is the foundation of feedback, but that’s not really enough. The soft skills of the person who’s providing the critique can multiply the likelihood that the feedback will be well received and understood. It has been demonstrated that only positive feedback can lead to lasting change in people, and tone alone can determine whether content is rejected or welcomed.

    Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the necessary soft skills in a formula that resembles the one for content: the receptivity equation.

    Respectful feedback comes across as grounded, solid, and constructive. It’s the kind of feedback that, whether it’s positive or negative, is perceived as useful and fair.

    Timing refers to the moment when the feedback occurs. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. When a new feature’s entire high-level information architecture is about to go live, it might still be relevant if the questioning raises a significant blocker that no one saw, but those concerns are much more likely to have to wait for a later revision. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Iteration later? Polishing work in progress? Each of these needs varies. The right timing will make it more likely that your feedback will be well received.

    Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. Before writing, it’s important to make sure the person we’re writing will actually benefit them and improve the overall project. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Although it’s possible, and that’s okay, it’s hoped not to be the case. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? What can I do to encourage constructive behavior?

    Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There could be many reasons for this: some words might cause particular reactions, some non-native speakers might not understand all the nuances of some sentences, and other times our brains might be different and we might perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity must be taken into account. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

    A few years back, I was asking for some feedback on how I give feedback. I was given some sound advice, but I also got a surprise comment. They pointed out that when I wrote” Oh, ]… ]”, I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intention at all! I felt really bad, and I just realized that I provided feedback to them for months, and every time I might have made them feel stupid. I was horrified … but also thankful. I quickly changed my spelling mistake by adding “oh” to my list of replaced words (your choice between aText, TextExpander, or others ) so that when I typed “oh,” it was immediately deleted.

    Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. It’s important to keep in mind that having a positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean passing judgment on the feedback; rather, it simply means that even when you give difficult, or difficult feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

    We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. The best, most insightful moments for me came when I shared a comment and asked a trusted person how it sounds, how can I do it better, or even” How would you have written it”? I discovered that by seeing the two versions side by side, I’ve learned a lot.

    The format

    Asynchronous feedback also has a significant inherent benefit: we can devote more time to making sure that the suggestions ‘ clarity of communication and actionability fulfill two main objectives.

    Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course important, but let’s try to think about some things that might be worthwhile to take into account.

    In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. This includes specifically describing where you’re coming from: do you know the project well, or do you just see it for the first time? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view are you addressing when offering feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

    Even if you’re giving feedback to a team that already has some project information, providing context is helpful. And context is absolutely essential when giving cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be indirectly related to my work, and if I had no knowledge about how the project arrived at that point, I would say so, highlighting my take as external.

    We frequently concentrate on the negatives and attempt to list every improvement that could be made. That’s of course important, but it’s just as important—if not more—to focus on the positives, especially if you saw progress from the previous iteration. Although this may seem superfluous, it’s important to keep in mind that design is a field with hundreds of possible solutions to each problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. Positive feedback can also help, as an added bonus, prevent impostor syndrome.

    There’s one powerful approach that combines both context and a focus on the positives: frame how the design is better than the status quo ( compared to a previous iteration, competitors, or benchmarks ) and why, and then on that foundation, you can add what could be improved. There is a significant difference between a critique of a design that is already in good shape and one that isn’t quite there yet.

    Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s” This button isn’t well aligned” versus” You haven’t aligned this button well”. Just before sending, review your writing to make changes to this.

    In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. You might want to break up the feedback into sections or even between several comments for longer pieces. Of course, adding screenshots or signifying markers of the specific part of the interface you’re referring to can also be especially useful.

    One approach that I’ve personally used effectively in some contexts is to enhance the bullet points with four markers using emojis. A red square indicates that it is something I consider blocking, a yellow diamond indicates that it should be changed, and a green circle indicates that it is fully confirmed. I also use a blue spiral � � for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. However, I’d only use this strategy on teams where I’ve already established a high level of trust because the impact could be quite demoralizing if I had to deliver a lot of red squares, and I’d change how I’d communicate that a little.

    Let’s see how this would work by reusing the example that we used earlier as the first bullet point in this list:

    • 🔶 Navigation—I anticipate that one of these two buttons will go forward and the other will go back when I see them. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
    • � � Overall— I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
    • � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
    • Button Style: Using the green accent in this context gives the impression that it’s a positive action because green is typically seen as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
    • Tiles—It seems to me that the tiles should use the Subtitle 2 style rather than the Subtitle 1 style given the number of items on the page and the overall page hierarchy. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
    • � � Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the purpose of using that?

    What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? These are generally difficult to use because they conceal discussions and are harder to follow, but in the right setting, they can be very effective. Just make sure that each of the comments is separate so that it’s easier to match each discussion to a single task, similar to the idea of splitting mentioned above.

    One final note: say the obvious. Sometimes we might feel that something is clearly right or wrong, and we don’t say it. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it, that’s fine. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

    Another benefit of asynchronous feedback is that written feedback automatically monitors decisions. Especially in large projects,” Why did we do this”? There’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time, which could be a question that arises from time to time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved.

    Content, tone, and format. Although each of these subjects offers a useful model, focusing on improving eight of the subjects ‘ focus points, including observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability, is a lot of work to complete at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others ) and start there. Then the second, followed by the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

    Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    ” Any feedback?” is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for opinions. It’s obscure and unreliable, and it doesn’t give a clear picture of what we’re looking for. Getting good opinions starts sooner than we might hope: it starts with the demand.

    Starting the process of receiving feedback with a question may seem counterintuitive, but it makes sense if we consider that receiving input can be considered a form of design research. In the same way that we wouldn’t perform any studies without the correct questions to get the insight that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to build strong issues.

    Design criticism is never a one-time procedure. Sure, any great comments process continues until the project is finished, but this is especially true for layout because architecture work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each stage requires its unique set of questions.

    And suddenly, as with any great research, we need to examine what we got up, get to the base of its perspectives, and take action. Problem, generation, and analysis. This look at each of those.

    The query

    Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Any comments,” What do you think,” or” I’d love to hear your opinion” at the conclusion of a presentation are likely to generate a lot of divergent ideas, or worse, to make people follow the lead of the first speaker. And next… we get frustrated because vague issues like those can change a high-level moves review into folks rather commenting on the borders of buttons. Which theme may be important, so it might be difficult to get the team to pay attention to it.

    But how do we get into this scenario? A number of elements are involved. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to leave the question open and assume that everyone else will agree. Another is that in nonprofessional debate, there’s usually no need to be that exact. In summary, we tend to undervalue the value of the issues, and we don’t make any improvements to them.

    The work of asking good questions guidelines and focuses the criticism. It also serves as a form of acceptance, outlining your willingness to make comments and the types of comments you want to receive. It puts people in the right emotional position, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to provide feedback.

    There isn’t a second best method to request feedback. It simply needs to be certain, and sensitivity can take several shapes. The one of stage over level is a design for design criticism that I’ve found to be particularly helpful in my coaching.

    Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our event, the design process. The kind of feedback changes as the customer research moves forward to the final design. But within a single stage, one might also examine whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a suitable language of the amassed input into updated designs as the job has evolved. The layers of user experience could serve as a starting point for potential questions. What do you want to know: Project objectives? user requirements? Functionality? the content Interaction design? Information architecture UI design? navigation planning Visual design? Branding?

    Here’re a few example questions that are precise and to the point that refer to different layers:

    • Functionality: Is it desirable to automate account creation?
    • Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
    • Information architecture: This page contains two competing pieces of information. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
    • User interface design: What do you think about the error counter at the top of the page, which makes sure you see the next error even if it is outside the viewport?
    • Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this?
    • Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

    The other axis of specificity is determined by how far you’d like to go with the information being presented. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful when switching between iterations because it’s crucial to highlight the changes made.

    There are other things that we can consider when we want to achieve more specific—and more effective—questions.

    Eliminating generic qualifiers from your questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool” is a simple trick. For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? is it possible to look specific, but you can spot the “good” qualifier and make the question” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is” look like?

    Sometimes we actually do want broad feedback. That’s uncommon, but it can occur. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or perhaps you should just say,” At first glance, what do you think”? so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

    Sometimes the project is particularly broad, and some areas may have already been thoroughly explored. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. Although it’s not something I’d recommend in general, I’ve found it helpful in avoiding getting back into rabbit holes like those that could lead to even more refinement if what’s important right now isn’t.

    Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined criticism will now be able to provide more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will appreciate the clarity and effectiveness gained from concentrating solely on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

    The iteration

    Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of them only display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. These types of design tools cause conversations to end after they are resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and require designers to always display the most recent version unless these would-be useful features were manually disabled. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That approach to design critiques is probably not the best approach, but some teams might benefit from it even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive.

    The asynchronous design-critique approach that I find most effective is to create explicit checkpoints for discussion. For this, I’m going to use the term iteration post. It refers to a write-up or presentation of the design iteration followed by a discussion thread of some kind. This can be used on any platform that can accommodate this structure. By the way, when I refer to a “write-up or presentation“, I’m including video recordings or other media too: as long as it’s asynchronous, it works.

    There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

    • It creates a rhythm in the design work so that the designer can review feedback from each iteration and prepare for the next.
    • It makes decisions accessible for upcoming review, and conversed conversations are also always available.
    • It creates a record of how the design changed over time.
    • Depending on the tool, it might also make it simpler to collect and act on feedback.

    These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. And from there, other feedback techniques ( such as live critique, pair designing, or inline comments ) can emerge.

    I don’t think there’s a standard format for iteration posts. However, there are a few high-level components that make sense to include as a baseline:

    1. The goal
    2. The layout
    3. The list of changes
    4. The querys

    Each project is likely to have a goal, and hopefully it’s something that’s already been summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, such as the client brief, the product manager’s outline, or the project owner’s request. Therefore, I would repeat this in every iteration post, literally copy and pasting it. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. The most recent iteration post will have everything I need if I want to know about the most recent design.

    This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. Therefore, repeating information in posts is actually very effective at ensuring that everyone is on the same page.

    The design is then the actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other kind of design work that’s been done. It’s any design object, to put it briefly. For the final stages of work, I prefer the term blueprint to emphasize that I’ll be showing full flows instead of individual screens to make it easier to understand the bigger picture.

    It might also be helpful to have clear names on the artifacts so that it is easier to refer to them. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not much different from creating a strong live presentation.

    For an efficient discussion, you should also include a bullet list of the changes from the previous iteration to let people focus on what’s new, which can be especially useful for larger pieces of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, could become a challenge.

    Finally, as mentioned earlier, it’s crucial that you include a list of the questions to help you guide the design critique in the desired direction. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

    Not every iteration is the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then, later, the iterations begin coming to a decision and improving it until the design process is complete and the feature is ready.

    I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be just a concept to start a conversation, or it might be a cumulative list of all the features that have been added gradually over the course of each iteration until the full picture is achieved.

    Over time, I also started using specific labels for incremental iterations: i1, i2, i3, and so on. Although this may seem like a minor labeling tip, it can be useful in many ways:

    • Unique—It’s a clear unique marker. Everyone knows where to go to review things, and it’s simple to say” This was discussed in i4″ with each project.
    • Unassuming—It works like versions ( such as v1, v2, and v3 ) but in contrast, versions create the impression of something that’s big, exhaustive, and complete. Attempts must be exploratory, incomplete, or partial.
    • Future proof—It resolves the “final” naming problem that you can run into with versions. No more files with the title “final final complete no-really-its-done” Within each project, the largest number always represents the latest iteration.

    The wording release candidate (RC ) could be used to indicate when a design is finished enough to be worked on, even if there are some areas that still need improvement and, in turn, require more iterations, such as” with i8 we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC” to indicate when it is finished.

    The review

    A back-and-forth between two people that can be very productive typically occurs during a design critique. This approach is particularly effective during live, synchronous feedback. However, using a different approach when we work asynchronously is more effective: adopting a user-research mindset. Written feedback from teammates, stakeholders, or others can be treated as if it were the result of user interviews and surveys, and we can analyze it accordingly.

    Asynchronous feedback is particularly effective around these friction points because of this shift’s significant benefits:

    1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
    2. It lessens the annoyance of snoop-by comments.
    3. It lessens our personal stake.

    The first friction point is having to feel pressured to respond to each and every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s just a few of them, it’s simple, and there isn’t much of a problem with it. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. If the respondent is a stakeholder or a person directly involved in the project, this might be especially true. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. Responding to all comments at times can be effective, but when we consider a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t need to respond to every comment, and there are alternatives in asynchronous spaces:

      One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
    • Another option is to respond politely to acknowledge each comment, such as” Understood. Thank you”,” Good points— I’ll review”, or” Thanks. In the upcoming iteration, I’ll include these. In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of” Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon”!
    • Another option is to provide a quick summary of the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

    The swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from a member of the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements —or of the discussions from earlier iterations. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments frequently prompt the simple thought,” We’ve already discussed this,” and it can be frustrating to have to keep coming back and forth.

    Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. However, a brief response with a link to the previous discussion for additional information is typically sufficient if responding to a previously litigated point might be helpful. Remember, alignment comes from repetition, so it’s okay to repeat things sometimes!

    Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: first, they might point out something that isn’t clear, and second, they might have the power to fit in with a user’s perspective when they are seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

    The personal stake we might have in relation to the design could be the third friction point, which might cause us to feel defensive if the review turned out to be more of a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego ( because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there ). In the end, putting everything in aggregate form helps us to prioritize our work more.

    Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You must examine it and come up with a rationale for your choice, but sometimes “no” is the best choice.

    As the designer leading the project, you’re in charge of that decision. In the end, everyone has their area of specialization, and the designer has the most background and knowledge to make the best choice. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

    Thanks to Mike Shelton and Brie Anne Demkiw for their contributions to the initial draft of this article.

  • Designing for the Unexpected

    Designing for the Unexpected

    Although I’m not certain when I first heard this statement, it has stuck with me over the centuries. How do you generate solutions for scenarios you can’t think? Or create products that function on products that have not yet been created?

    Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

    When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I started by making a design for a 960px canvas that I would later add willing to. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect reliability using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute placement.

    All of this was altered by Ethan Marcotte’s speak at An Event Apart and the subsequent article in A Checklist Off in 2010. I was sold on responsive pattern as soon as I heard about it, but I was even terrified. The pixel-perfect models full of special figures that I had formerly prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

    My first encounter with flexible design didn’t help my fear. My second project was to get an active fixed-width website and make it reactive. I quickly realized that you didn’t just put responsiveness at the end of a job. To make smooth design, you need to prepare throughout the style stage.

    A new way to style

    Making information accessible to all devices a priority when designing responsive or liquid websites has always been the goal. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved with local CSS and power groups:

    .column-span-6 { width: 49%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}.column-span-4 { width: 32%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}.column-span-3 { width: 24%; float: left; margin-right: 0.5%; margin-left: 0.5%;}

    Therefore with Sass but that I could use @includes to re-use repeated blocks of code and transition to more semantic html:

    .logo { @include colSpan(6);}.search { @include colSpan(3);}.social-share { @include colSpan(3);}

    Media answers

    The next ingredient for flexible design is press queries. Without them, regardless of whether the information was still readable, may shrink to fit the available storage.

    Media answers prevented this by allowing us to add breakpoints where the design could adapt. Like most people, I started out with three breakpoints: one for desktop, one for tablets, and one for mobile. Over the years, I added more and more for phablets, wide screens, and so on. 

    For years, I happily worked this way and improved both my design and front-end skills in the process. The only problem I encountered was making changes to content, since with our Sass grid system in place, there was no way for the site owners to add content without amending the markup—something a small business owner might struggle with. This is because each row in the grid was defined using a div as a container. Adding content meant creating new row markup, which requires a level of HTML knowledge.

    String premium was a mainstay of early flexible design, present in all the frequently used systems like Bootstrap and Skeleton.

    1 of 7
    2 of 7
    3 of 7
    4 of 7
    5 of 7
    6 of 7
    7 of 7

    Another difficulty arose as I moved from a design firm building websites for tiny- to medium-sized companies, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a collection of related sites. In those positions, I began to work more frequently with washable parts.

    Our rely on multimedia queries resulted in parts that were tied to frequent screen sizes. If the goal of part libraries is modify, then this is a real problem because you can just use these components if the devices you’re designing for correspond to the viewport sizes used in the pattern library—in the process never really hitting that “devices that don’t already occur” goal.

    Then there’s the problem of space. Media answers allow components to adapt based on the viewport size, but what if I put a component into a sidebar, like in the figure below?

    Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

    Container queries have long been touted as an improvement upon media queries, but at the time of writing are unsupported in most browsers. Although there are JavaScript workarounds, they can lead to dependability and compatibility issues. The basic theory underlying container queries is that elements should change based on the size of their parent container and not the viewport width, as seen in the following illustrations.

    One of the biggest arguments in favor of container queries is that they help us create components or design patterns that are truly reusable because they can be picked up and placed anywhere in a layout. This is an important step in moving toward a form of component-based design that works at any size on any device.

    In other words, responsive layouts are to be replaced by responsive components.

    Container queries will help us move from designing pages that respond to the browser or device size to designing components that can be placed in a sidebar or in the main content, and respond accordingly.

    My issue is that layout is still used to determine when a design needs to adapt. This approach will always be restrictive, as we will still need pre-defined breakpoints. For this reason, my main question with container queries is, How would we decide when to change the CSS used by a component?

    The best place to make that choice is probably not a component library that is disconnected from context and real content.

    As the diagrams below illustrate, we can use container queries to create designs for specific container widths, but what if I want to change the design based on the image size or ratio?

    In this example, the dimensions of the container are not what should dictate the design, rather, the image is.

    Without having strong cross-browser support for them, it’s difficult to say for certain whether container queries will be a success story. Responsive component libraries would definitely evolve how we design and would improve the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. However, we might need to modify these elements in order to fit our content.

    CSS is changing

    Whilst the container query debate rumbles on, there have been numerous advances in CSS that change the way we think about design. The days of fixed-width elements measured in pixels and floated div elements used to cobble layouts together are long gone, consigned to history along with table layouts. Flexbox and CSS Grid have revolutionized layouts for the web. We can now create elements that wrap onto new rows when they run out of space, not when the device changes.

    .wrapper { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, 450px); gap: 10px;}

    The repeat() function paired with auto-fit or auto-fill allows us to specify how much space each column should use while leaving it up to the browser to decide when to spill the columns onto a new line. Similar things can be achieved with Flexbox, as elements can wrap over multiple rows and “flex” to fill available space. 

    .wrapper { display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; justify-content: space-between;}.child { flex-basis: 32%; margin-bottom: 20px;}

    You don’t need to wrap elements in container rows, which is the biggest benefit of all of this. Without rows, content isn’t tied to page markup in quite the same way, allowing for removals or additions of content without additional development.

    This is a big step forward when it comes to creating designs that allow for evolving content, but the real game changer for flexible designs is CSS Subgrid.

    Remember the days of crafting perfectly aligned interfaces, only for the customer to add an unbelievably long header almost as soon as they’re given CMS access, like the illustration below?

    Subgrid allows elements to respond to adjustments in their own content and in the content of sibling elements, helping us create designs more resilient to change.

    .wrapper { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(150px, 1fr)); grid-template-rows: auto 1fr auto; gap: 10px;}.sub-grid { display: grid; grid-row: span 3; grid-template-rows: subgrid; /* sets rows to parent grid */}

    CSS Grid allows us to separate layout and content, thereby enabling flexible designs. Meanwhile, Subgrid allows us to create designs that can adapt in order to suit morphing content. Subgrid is only supported by Firefox at the time of writing, but the above code can be implemented behind an @supports feature query.

    Intrinsic layouts

    I’d be remiss not to mention intrinsic layouts, a term used by Jen Simmons to describe a mix of contemporary and traditional CSS features used to create layouts that respond to available space.

    Responsive layouts have flexible columns using percentages. Intrinsic layouts, on the other hand, use the fr unit to create flexible columns that won’t ever shrink so much that they render the content illegible.

    frunits is a statement that says,” I want you to distribute the extra space in this way, but never make it smaller than the content that is inside.”

    —Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

    Additionally, intrinsic layouts can mix and match both fixed and flexible units, letting the content choose how much space is taken up.

    What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Without having the same breakpoints or the same amount of content as in the previous implementation, components and patterns can be lifted and reused.

    We can now create designs that adapt to the space they have, the content within them, and the content around them. We can create responsive components using an intrinsic approach without relying on container queries.

    Another 2010 moment?

    This intrinsic approach should in my view be every bit as groundbreaking as responsive web design was ten years ago. It’s another “everything changed” moment for me.

    But it doesn’t seem to be moving quite as fast, I haven’t yet had that same career-changing moment I had with responsive design, despite the widely shared and brilliant talk that brought it to my attention.

    One possible explanation for that might be that I now work for a sizable company, which is significantly different from the role I held as a design agency in 2010: In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. Nowadays, projects use existing tools and frameworks and are often improvements to existing websites with an existing codebase.

    Another possibility is that right now I feel more prepared for change. In 2010 I was new to design in general, the shift was frightening and required a lot of learning. Additionally, an intrinsic approach isn’t exactly all-new; it’s about applying existing skills and CSS knowledge in a unique way.

    You can’t framework your way out of a content problem

    Another reason for the slightly slower adoption of intrinsic design could be the lack of quick-fix framework solutions available to kick-start the change.

    Ten years ago, responsive grid systems were everywhere. With a framework like Bootstrap or Skeleton, you had a responsive design template at your fingertips.

    Because having a selection of units is a hindrance when creating layout templates, intrinsic design and frameworks do not work together quite as well. The beauty of intrinsic design is combining different units and experimenting with techniques to get the best for your content.

    And then there are design tools. We probably all used Photoshop templates for desktop, tablet, and mobile devices to drop designs into and show how the site would appear throughout our careers at some point.

    How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? Personally, I’m a big fan of this kind of design in the browser.

    The debate about “whether designers should code” is another that has rumbled on for years. When designing a digital product, we should, at the very least, design for a best- and worst-case scenario when it comes to content. It’s not ideal to do this in a graphics-based software package. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Does it continue to function? Is the design too reliant on the current content?

    Personally, I look forward to the day intrinsic design is the standard for design, when a design component can be truly flexible and adapt to both its space and content with no reliance on device or container dimensions.

    First, the content

    Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unanticipated or unexpected, we must take into account changes in content, like in our earlier Subgrid card illustration, which allowed the cards to modify both their own content and that of their sibling components.

    Thankfully, there’s more to CSS than layout, and plenty of properties and values can help us put content first. Subgrid and pseudo-elements like ::first-line and ::first-letter help to separate design from markup so we can create designs that allow for changes.

    Instead of the dated markup tricks below,

    First line of text with different styling...

    —we can target content based on where it appears.

    .element::first-line { font-size: 1.4em;}.element::first-letter { color: red;}

    Much bigger additions to CSS include logical properties, which change the way we construct designs using logical dimensions (start and end) instead of physical ones (left and right), something CSS Grid also does with functions like min(), max(), and clamp().

    This flexibility allows for directional changes according to content, a common requirement when we need to present content in multiple languages. In the past, this was often achieved with Sass mixins but was often limited to switching from left-to-right to right-to-left orientation.

    Directional variables must be set in the Sass version.

    $direction: rtl;$opposite-direction: ltr;$start-direction: right;$end-direction: left;

    These variables can be used as values—

    body { direction: $direction; text-align: $start-direction;}

    —or as properties.

    margin-#{$end-direction}: 10px;padding-#{$start-direction}: 10px;

    However, now we have native logical properties, removing the reliance on both Sass ( or a similar tool ) and pre-planning that necessitated using variables throughout a codebase. These properties also start to break apart the tight coupling between a design and strict physical dimensions, creating more flexibility for changes in language and in direction.

    margin-block-end: 10px;padding-block-start: 10px;

    There are also native start and end values for properties like text-align, which means we can replace text-align: right with text-align: start.

    Like the earlier examples, these properties help to build out designs that aren’t constrained to one language, the design will reflect the content’s needs.

    Fluid and fixed

    We briefly covered the power of combining fixed widths with fluid widths with intrinsic layouts. The min() and max() functions are a similar concept, allowing you to specify a fixed value with a flexible alternative. 

    For min() this means setting a fluid minimum value and a maximum fixed value.

    .element { width: min(50%, 300px);}

    The element in the figure above will be 50 % of its container as long as the element’s width doesn’t exceed 300px.

    For max() we can set a flexible max value and a minimum fixed value.

    .element { width: max(50%, 300px);}

    Now the element will be 50 % of its container as long as the element’s width is at least 300px. This means we can set limits but allow content to react to the available space.

    The clamp() function builds on this by allowing us to set a preferred value with a third parameter. Now we can allow the element to shrink or grow if it needs to without getting to a point where it becomes unusable.

    .element { width: clamp(300px, 50%, 600px);}

    This time, the element’s width will be 50 % of its container’s preferred value, with no exceptions for 300px and 600px.

    With these techniques, we have a content-first approach to responsive design. We can separate content from markup, meaning the changes users make will not affect the design. By making plans for unanticipated changes in language or direction, we can begin to future-proof designs. And we can increase flexibility by setting desired dimensions alongside flexible alternatives, allowing for more or less content to be displayed correctly.

    First, the situation

    Thanks to what we’ve discussed so far, we can cover device flexibility by changing our approach, designing around content and space instead of catering to devices. But what about that last bit of Jeffrey Zeldman’s quote,”… situations you haven’t imagined”?

    It’s a lot different to design for someone using a mobile phone and walking through a crowded street in glaring sunshine than it is for someone using a desktop computer. Situations and environments are hard to plan for or predict because they change as people react to their own unique challenges and tasks.

    This is why making a decision is so crucial. One size never fits all, so we need to design for multiple scenarios to create equal experiences for all our users.

    Thankfully, there is a lot we can do to provide choice.

    Responsible design

    ” There are parts of the world where mobile data is prohibitively expensive, and where there is little or no broadband infrastructure”.

    I Used the Web for a Day on a 50 MB Budget

    Chris Ashton

    One of the biggest assumptions we make is that people interacting with our designs have a good wifi connection and a wide screen monitor. However, our users may be commuters using smaller mobile devices that may experience disconnects in connectivity in the real world. There is nothing more frustrating than a web page that won’t load, but there are ways we can help users use less data or deal with sporadic connectivity.

    The srcset attribute allows the browser to decide which image to serve. This means we can create smaller ‘cropped’ images to display on mobile devices in turn using less bandwidth and less data.

    Image alt text

    The preload attribute can also help us to think about how and when media is downloaded. It can be used to tell a browser about any critical assets that need to be downloaded with high priority, improving perceived performance and the user experience. 

      

    There’s also native lazy loading, which indicates assets that should only be downloaded when they are needed.

    …

    With srcset, preload, and lazy loading, we can start to tailor a user’s experience based on the situation they find themselves in. What none of this does, however, is allow the user themselves to decide what they want downloaded, as the decision is usually the browser’s to make. 

    So how can we put users in control?

    The return of media inquiries

    Media answers have always been about much more than device sizes. They allow content to adapt to different situations, with screen size being just one of them.

    We’ve long been able to check for media types like print and speech and features such as hover, resolution, and color. These checks allow us to provide options that suit more than one scenario, it’s less about one-size-fits-all and more about serving adaptable content.

    The Level 5 spec for Media Queries is still being developed at this writing. It introduces some really exciting queries that in the future will help us design for multiple other unexpected situations.

    For instance, there is a light-level feature that enables you to alter a user’s style when they are in the sun or the darkness. Paired with custom properties, these features allow us to quickly create designs or themes for specific environments.

    @media (light-level: normal) { --background-color: #fff; --text-color: #0b0c0c; }@media (light-level: dim) { --background-color: #efd226; --text-color: #0b0c0c;}

    Another key feature of the Level 5 spec is personalization. Instead of creating designs that are the same for everyone, users can choose what works for them. This is achieved by using features like prefers-reduced-data, prefers-color-scheme, and prefers-reduced-motion, the latter two of which already enjoy broad browser support. These features tap into preferences set via the operating system or browser so people don’t have to spend time making each site they visit more usable. 

    Media answers like this go beyond choices made by a browser to grant more control to the user.

    Expect the unexpected

    In the end, we should always anticipate that things will change. Devices in particular change faster than we can keep up, with foldable screens already on the market.

    We can design for content, but we can’t do it for this constantly changing landscape. By putting content first and allowing that content to adapt to whatever space surrounds it, we can create more robust, flexible designs that increase the longevity of our products.

    A lot of the CSS discussed here is about moving away from layouts and putting content at the heart of design. There is a lot more we can do to adopt a more intrinsic approach, from responsive components to fixed and fluid units. Even better, we can test these techniques during the design phase by designing in-browser and watching how our designs adapt in real-time.

    When it comes to unexpected circumstances, we need to make sure our goods are accessible whenever and wherever needed. We can move closer to achieving this by involving users in our design decisions, by creating choice via browsers, and by giving control to our users with user-preference-based media queries.

    Good design for the unexpected should allow for change, provide choice, and give control to those we serve: our users themselves.