Blog

Humility, a writer’s most important quality, has a great circle to it. What about sincerity, an business manager’s vital value? Or a doctor’s? Or a student’s? They all have fantastic sounds. When humility is our guiding light, the course is usually available for fulfillment, development, relation, and commitment. We’ll discuss why in this book.

That said, this is a guide for developers, and to that conclusion, I’d like to begin with a story—well, a voyage, actually. Along the way, I’m going to render myself a little vulnerable. I call it:

The Ludicrous Pate of Justin: A Tale of its Author

When I was coming out of arts school, a long-haired, goateed novice, write was a known quantity to me, design on the web, however, was riddled with complexities to understand and learn, a problem to be solved. Although I had formal training in typography, layout, and creative design, how could these fundamental skills be applied to a developing electric landscape was what piqued my interest. This style would eventually form the rest of my profession.

But I drained HTML and JavaScript novels into the wee hours of the morning and self-taught myself how to code during my freshman year rather than student and go into print like many of my companions. I wanted—nay, needed—to better understand the underlying relevance of what my design decisions may think when rendered in a website.

The so-called” Wild West” of website layout existed in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Manufacturers at the time were all figuring out how to use layout and visual connection to the online environment. What regulations were in place? How may we break them and also engage, entertain, and present information? How was my values, which include modesty, respect, and connection, coincide with that on a more general level? I was eager to find out.

Even though I’m referring to a different time, those are amazing factors between non-career relationships and the world of style. What are your main passions, or ideals, that elevate medium? The main themes are the same, basically the same as what we previously discussed on the primary parallels between what fulfills you, independent of the physical or digital realms.

First within tables, animated GIFs, Flash, then with Web Standards, divs, and CSS, there was personality, raw unbridled creativity, and unique means of presentment that often defied any semblance of a visible grid. Splash screens and “browser requirement” pages aplenty. Usability and accessibility were typically victims of such a creation, but such paramount facets of any digital design were largely (and, in hindsight, unfairly) disregarded at the expense of experimentation.

For instance, this iteration of my personal portfolio site (” the pseudoroom” ) from that time was experimental if not a little overt in terms of the visual presentation of the idea of a living sketchbook. Very skeuomorphic. On this one, we would first sketch and then pass a Photoshop file back and forth to trick things out and play with various user interactions. I co-founded the creative project organizing app Milanote and my dear friend, fellow designer Marc Clancy. Then, I’d break it down and code it into a digital layout.

Along with design folio pieces, the site also offered free downloads for Mac OS customizations: desktop wallpapers that were effectively design experimentation, custom-designed typefaces, and desktop icons.

GUI Galaxy was a design, pixel art, and Mac-centric news portal that graphic designer friends and I developed from around the same time.

Design news portals were incredibly popular at the time, and they now considered Tweet-sized, small-format snippets of relevant news from the categories I previously covered. If you took Twitter, curated it to a few categories, and wrapped it in a custom-branded experience, you’d have a design news portal from the late 90s / early 2000s.

We as designers had changed and developed a bandwidth-sensitive, award-winning, much more accessibility-conscious website. Still ripe with experimentation, yet more mindful of equitable engagement. Below are some content panes that show general news (tech, design ) and news centered on Mac. We also offered many of the custom downloads I cited before as present on my folio site but branded and themed to GUI Galaxy.

The presentation layer, which included global design, illustration, and news author collaboration, was the backbone of the website. And the collaboration effort here, in addition to experimentation on a’ brand’ and content delivery, was hitting my core. We were creating a global audience by creating something bigger than just one of us.

Collaboration and connection transcend medium in their impact, immensely fulfilling me as a designer.

Now, why am I taking you on this trip through design memory lane? Two reasons.

First of all, there’s a reason for the nostalgia for the” Wild West” era of design that so many personal portfolio and design portals sprang from the past. Ultra-finely detailed pixel art UI, custom illustration, bespoke vector graphics, all underpinned by a strong design community.

The web design industry has experienced a period of stagnation in recent years. I suspect there’s a strong chance you’ve seen a site whose structure looks something like this: a hero image / banner with text overlaid, perhaps with a lovely rotating carousel of images ( laying the snark on heavy there ), a call to action, and three columns of sub-content directly beneath. Perhaps there are selections that vaguely relate to their respective content in an icon library.

Design, as it’s applied to the digital landscape, is in dire need of thoughtful layout, typography, and visual engagement that goes hand-in-hand with all the modern considerations we now know are paramount: usability. accessibility. Load times and bandwidth- sensitive content delivery. A user-friendly presentation that is relevant wherever they are. We must be mindful of, and respectful toward, those concerns—but not at the expense of creativity of visual communication or via replicating cookie-cutter layouts.

Pixel Issues

Websites during this period were often designed and built on Macs whose OS and desktops looked something like this. Although Mac OS 7.5 is available, 8 and 9 are not very different.

How could any single icon, at any point, stand out and grab my attention? This fascinated me. In this example, the user’s desktop is tidy, but think of a more realistic example with icon pandemonium. Or, let’s say an icon was a part of a larger system grouping ( fonts, extensions, control panels ): how did it maintain cohesion within a group as well?

These were 32 x 32 pixel creations, utilizing a 256-color palette, designed pixel-by-pixel as mini mosaics. This seemed to me to be the embodiment of digital visual communication under such absurd restrictions. And often, ridiculous restrictions can yield the purification of concept and theme.

So I started doing my homework and conducting research. I was a student of this new medium, hungry to dissect, process, discover, and make it my own.

I wanted to see how I could push the boundaries of a 32×32 pixel grid with that 256-color palette, expanding upon the idea of exploration. Those ridiculous constraints forced a clarity of concept and presentation that I found incredibly appealing. I was thrust into the digital gauntlet because of it. And so, in my dorm room into the wee hours of the morning, I toiled away, bringing conceptual sketches into mini mosaic fruition.

These are some of my creations that I made using ResEdit, the only program I had at the time, to create icons. ResEdit was a clunky, built-in Mac OS utility not really made for exactly what we were using it for. Research is at the center of all of this endeavor. Challenge. Problem-solving Again, these core connection-based values are agnostic of medium.

There’s one more design portal I want to talk about, which also serves as the second reason for my story to bring this all together.

This is the Kaliber 1000, or K10k, abbreviated. K10k was founded in 1998 by Michael Schmidt and Toke Nygaard, and was the design news portal on the web during this period. It was the ideal setting for me, my friend, with its pixel art-filled presentation, meticulous attention to detail, and many of the site’s more well-known designers who were invited to be news authors. With respect where respect is due, GUI Galaxy’s concept was inspired by what these folks were doing.

For my part, the combination of my web design work and pixel art exploration began to get me some notoriety in the design scene. K10k eventually figured out that I was one of their very limited group of news writers who could contribute content to the website.

Amongst my personal work and side projects —and now with this inclusion—in the design community, this put me on the map. My design work has also begun to appear on other design news portals, as well as in publications abroad and domestically as well as in various printed collections. With that degree of success while in my early twenties, something else happened:

I really changed into a colossal asshole in just about a year of school, not less. The press and the praise became what fulfilled me, and they went straight to my head. They inflated my ego. I actually felt somewhat superior to my fellow designers.

The victims? My design stagnated. Its evolution, which is what I evolved, has stagnated.

I felt so supremely confident in my abilities that I effectively stopped researching and discovering. When I used to lead sketch concepts or iterations as my first instinctive step, I instead leaped right into Photoshop. I drew my inspiration from the smallest of sources ( and with blinders on ). Any criticism of my work from my fellow students was frequently vehemently dissented. The most tragic loss: I had lost touch with my values.

Some of my friendships and blossoming professional relationships almost ended up being destroyed by my ego. I was toxic in talking about design and in collaboration. But thankfully, those same friends gave me a priceless gift: candor. They called me out on my unhealthy behavior.

It’s true, I initially didn’t accept it, but after much reflection, I was able to accept it. I was soon able to accept, and process, and course correct. Although the re-awakening was necessary, the realization let me down. I let go of the “reward” of adulation and re-centered upon what stoked the fire for me in art school. Most importantly, I returned to my fundamental values.

Always Students

Following that temporary regression, I was able to advance in both my personal and professional design. And I could self-reflect as I got older to facilitate further growth and course correction as needed.

Let’s take the Large Hadron Collider as an example. The LHC was designed” to help answer some of the fundamental open questions in physics, which concern the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the interrelation between quantum mechanics and general relativity”. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Around fifteen years ago, in one of my earlier professional roles, I designed the interface for the application that generated the LHC’s particle collision diagrams. These diagrams are often regarded as works of art by themselves because they depict what is actually happening inside the Collider during any given particle collision event.

Designing the interface for this application was a fascinating process for me, in that I worked with Fermilab physicists to understand what the application was trying to achieve, but also how the physicists themselves would be using it. In order to accomplish this, this role requires,

I cut my teeth on usability testing, working with the Fermilab team to iterate and improve the interface. To me, their language and the topics they discussed seemed to me to be foreign languages. And by making myself humble and working under the mindset that I was but a student, I made myself available to be a part of their world to generate that vital connection.

I also had my first ethnographic observational experience, which involved visiting the Fermilab location and observing how the physicists used the tool in their own environments, on their own terminals. For example, one takeaway was that due to the level of ambient light-driven contrast within the facility, the data columns ended up using white text on a dark gray background instead of black text-on-white. They could read through a lot of data at once and relieve their strain in the process. And Fermilab and CERN are government entities with rigorous accessibility standards, so my knowledge in that realm also grew. Another crucial form of communication was the barrier-free design.

So to those core drivers of my visual problem-solving soul and ultimate fulfillment: discovery, exposure to new media, observation, human connection, and evolution. Before I entered those values, I checked my ego before entering the door.

An evergreen willingness to listen, learn, understand, grow, evolve, and connect yields our best work. I want to pay attention to the phrases “grow” and “evolve” in particular. If we are always students of our craft, we are also continually making ourselves available to evolve. Yes, we have years of practical design experience under our belt. Or the focused lab sessions from a UX bootcamp. Or the monogrammed portfolio of our work. Or, ultimately, decades of a career behind us.

However, with all that being said, “experience” does not equate to “expert.”

As soon as we close our minds via an inner monologue of’ knowing it all’ or branding ourselves a” #thoughtleader” on social media, the designer we are is our final form. The creator who we can be will never be there.

I am a innovative. What I do is alchemy. It is a puzzle. I do not so little do it, since let it be done through me.

I am a innovative. Not all creative individuals like this brand. No all see themselves this method. Some creative individuals see research in what they do. That is their reality, and I regard it. Sometimes I even envy them, a minor. But my operation is different—my becoming is unique.

Apologizing and qualifying in progress is a diversion. That’s what my head does to destroy me. I set it aside for today. I may come back later to forgive and count. After I’ve said what I came to say. Which is challenging enough.

Except when it is simple and flows like a river of wines.

Sometimes it does come that method. Maybe what I need to make comes in an instant. I have learned not to say it at that time, because if you admit that sometimes the plan only comes and it is the best idea and you know it is the best idea, they think you don’t work hard enough.

Maybe I work and work and work until the plan comes. Often it comes suddenly and I don’t tell people for three times. Often I’m so excited by the idea that came immediately that I blurt it out, can’t support myself. Like a child who found a medal in his Cracker Jacks. Maybe I get away with this. Maybe another persons agree: yes, that is the best idea. Most days they don’t and I regret having given way to joy.

Joy is best saved for the conference where it will make a difference. Certainly the everyday get-together that accompanies that gathering by two different meetings. Anyone knows why we have all these discussions. We keep saying we’re doing away with them, but then only finding different ways to have them. Sometimes they are also excellent. But other days they are a distraction from the actual labor. The percentages between when conferences are important, and when they are a sad distraction, vary, depending on what you do and where you do it. And who you are and how you do it. Suddenly I digress. I am a artistic. That is the topic.

Often many hours of hard and persistent work produce something that is rarely serviceable. Often I have to accept that and move on to the next task.

Don’t ask about approach. I am a innovative.

I am a innovative. I don’t command my goals. And I don’t command my best thoughts.

I can nail aside, surround myself with information or photos, and maybe that works. I can go for a walk, and occasionally that works. I may be making breakfast and there’s a Eureka having nothing to do with sizzling oil and flowing pots. Generally I know what to do the moment I wake up. And then, nearly as often, as I become aware and part of the world once, the idea that may have saved me turns to vanishing sand in a senseless storm of nothingness. For imagination, I believe, comes from that other world. The one we enter in aspirations, and possibly, before conception and after death. But that ’s for authors to know, and I am hardly a writer. I am a artistic. And it ’s for theologians to mass armies about in their artistic globe that they insist is true. But that is another diversion. And a miserable one. Even on a much more important issue than whether I am a inventive or not. But nevertheless a diversion from what I came here to say.

Often the process is mitigation. And horror. You know the cliché about the abused designer? It’s true, even when the artist ( and let’s put that noun in quotes ) is trying to write a soft drink jingle, a call in a tired show, a budget demand.

Some people who hate being called artistic may be closeted artists, but that ’s between them and their angels. No offence meant. Your wisdom is correct, too. But mine is for me.

Creatives understand artists.

Creatives identify creatives like faggots recognize queers, like true rappers recognize true performers, like cons know cons. Creatives feel enormous regard for creatives. We love, respect, emulate, and almost deify the excellent ones. To revere any man is, of course, a horrible mistake. We have been warned. We know much. We know people are really people. They dispute, they are depressed, they regret their most critical decisions, they are weak and thirsty, they can be cruel, they can be just as terrible as we can, if, like us, they are clay. But. But. But they make this wonderful issue. They beginning something that did not exist before them, and could not occur without them. They are the mother of tips. And I suppose, since it ’s merely lying there, I have to put that they are the mother of invention. Ba ho bum! Okay, that ’s done. Continue.

Creatives disparage our personal small successes, because we compare them to those of the wonderful people. Wonderful video! Also, I’m no Miyazaki. Now THAT is brilliance. That is glory directly from the mind of God. This half-starved small item that I made? It more or less fell off the back of the pumpkin vehicle. And the carrots weren’t yet fresh.

Creatives knows that, at best, they are Salieri. Yet the creatives who are He feel that.

I am a innovative. I have n’t worked in advertising in 30 years, but in my hallucinations, it ’s my previous artistic managers who judge me. And they are appropriate to do so. I am very lazy, overly simplistic, and when it actually counts, my mind goes blank. There is no supplement for artistic function.

I am a innovative. Every date I make is an experience that makes Indiana Jones look like a retiree snoring in a balcony seat. The longer I remain a artistic, the faster I am when I do my job and the longer I brood and move in circles and gaze blankly before I do that job.

I am also 10 times faster than people who are not artistic, or people who have just been imaginative a short while, or people who have just been properly imaginative a short while. It’s merely that, before I work 10 times as fast as they do, I spend twice as long as they do putting the work out. I am that confident in my ability to do a great task when I put my mind to it. I am that attached to the excitement rush of delay. I am also that scared of the climb.

I am not an actor.

I am a innovative. No an actor. Though I dreamed, as a child, of eventually being that. Some of us disparage our products and like ourselves because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism—but at least we aren’t in elections.

I am a innovative. Though I believe in reason and science, I decide by intelligence and desire. And sit with what follows—the disasters as well as the achievements.

I am a artistic. Every term I’ve said these did offend another artists, who see things differently. Ask two artists a problem, get three ideas. Our debate, our enthusiasm about it, and our responsibility to our own reality are, at least to me, the facts that we are artists, no matter how we may think about it.

I am a innovative. I lament my lack of taste in the places about which I know very little, which is to suggest virtually all areas of human knowledge. And I trust my preference above all other items in the regions closest to my soul, or perhaps, more precisely, to my passions. Without my passions, I would probably have to spend my time looking career in the eye, and virtually none of us can do that for longer. No actually. No truly. Because many in existence, if you really look at it, is intolerable.

I am a artistic. I believe, as a family believes, that when I am gone, some little good part of me will take on in the head of at least one other people.

Working saves me from worrying about job.

I am a artistic. I live in horror of my little present immediately going ahead.

I am a artistic. I am very active making the next thing to spend too much time seriously considering that almost nothing I make does come anywhere near the glory I awkwardly aspire to.

I am a innovative. I believe in the greatest mystery of operation. I believe in it so many, I am even foolish enough to submit an article I dictated into a small appliance and did n’t take time to evaluate or update. I won’t would this generally, I promise. But I did it just now, that, as frightened as I might be of your seeing through my sad movements toward the wonderful, I was even more frightened of forgetting what I came to say.

There. I think I’ve said it.

I’d like you to consider this a “yes … and ” piece to complement Joe’s post. I’m not trying to reject any of what he’s saying but instead provide some awareness to projects and possibilities where AI can generate substantial differences for 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—but I want to take a little time to talk about what’s probable in hopes that we’ll find it one day.

Other words

Joe’s part spends a lot of time talking about computer-vision types generating other words. He highlights a ton of true issues with the current state of things. And while computer-vision concepts continue to improve in the quality and complexity of information in their information, their effects aren’t wonderful. As he rightly points out, the current state of image analysis is pretty poor—especially for certain image types—in large part because current AI systems examine images in isolation rather than within the contexts that they’re in ( which is a consequence of having separate “foundation ” models for text analysis and image analysis ). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant ( that should probably have descriptions ) and those that are purely decorative ( which might not need a description ) either. However, I still think there’s possible in this area.

As Joe mentions, human-in-the-loop publishing of alt word should definitely be a factor. And if AI is pop in to offer a starting point for ctrl text—even if that starting point might be a quick saying What is this BS? That’s not right at all … Let me try to offer a starting point— I think that ’s a win.

Taking things a step further, if we can specifically station a model to evaluate image usage in context, it may assist us more quickly identify which images are likely to be elegant and which ones possibly require a description. That will help reinforce which contexts call for image descriptions and it’ll improve authors ’ efficiency toward making their pages more accessible.

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 suppose that you came across a chart whose description was simply the title of the chart and the kind of visualization it was, such as: Pie chart comparing smartphone usage to feature phone usage among US households making under$ 30,000 a year. ( That would be a pretty awful alt text for a chart since that would tend to leave many questions about the data unanswered, but then again, let’s suppose that that was the description that was in place. ) If your browser knew that that image was a pie chart ( because an onboard model concluded this ), imagine a world where users could ask questions like these about the graphic:

• Do more people use smartphones or feature phones?
• How many more?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these buckets?
• How many is that?

Setting aside the realities of large language model ( LLM) hallucinations—where a model just makes up plausible-sounding “facts ”—for a moment, the opportunity to learn more about images and data in this way could be revolutionary for blind and low-vision folks as well as for people with various forms of color blindness, cognitive disabilities, and so on. 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.

Taking things a step further: What if you could ask your browser to simplify a complex chart? What if you could ask it to isolate a single line on 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 swap colors for patterns? Given these tools ’ chat-based interfaces and our existing ability to manipulate images in today’s AI tools, that seems like a possibility.

Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. For example, perhaps it could turn that pie chart ( or better yet, a series of pie charts ) into more accessible ( and useful ) formats, like spreadsheets. That would be amazing!

Matching algorithms

Safiya Umoja Noble absolutely hit the nail on the head when she titled her book Algorithms of Oppression. While her book was focused on the ways that search engines reinforce racism, I think that it ’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to amplify conflict, bias, 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 lot of this stems from a lack of diversity among the people who shape and build them. When these platforms are built with inclusively baked in, however, there’s real potential for algorithm development to help people with disabilities.

Take Mentra, for example. They are an employment network for neurodivergent people. They use an algorithm to match job seekers with potential employers based on over 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 considers each work environment, communication factors related to each job, and the like. As a company run by neurodivergent folks, Mentra made the decision to flip the script when it came to typical employment sites. 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 the creation of algorithms, that can reduce the chances that these algorithms will inflict harm on their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so important.

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 example, if you were to follow a bunch of nondisabled white male academics who talk about AI, it could suggest that you follow academics who are disabled or aren’t white or aren’t male who also talk about AI. If you took its recommendations, perhaps you’d get a more holistic and nuanced understanding of 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 helps people with disabilities

If I weren’t trying to put this together between other tasks, I’m sure that I could go on and on, providing all kinds of examples of how AI could be used to help 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 have seen the VALL-E paper or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day announcement or you may be familiar with the voice-preservation offerings from Microsoft, Acapela, or others. 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. This is, of course, the same tech that can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so it ’s something that we need to approach responsibly, but the tech has truly transformative potential.
• 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 recruiting people with Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they have plans to expand this to other conditions as the project progresses. This research will result in more inclusive data sets that will let more people with disabilities use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as well as control their computers and other devices more easily, using only their voice.
• Text transformation. The current generation of LLMs is quite capable of adjusting existing text content without injecting hallucinations. This is hugely empowering for people with cognitive disabilities who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions of text or even text that ’s prepped for Bionic Reading.

The importance of diverse teams and data

We need to recognize that our differences matter. Our lived experiences are influenced by the intersections of the identities that we exist in. 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 need to be represented in the data that we use to train new models, and the folks who contribute that valuable information need to be compensated for sharing it with us. Inclusive data sets yield more robust models that foster more equitable outcomes.

Want a model that does n’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you have content about disabilities that ’s authored by people with a range of disabilities, and make sure that that ’s well represented in the training data.

Want a model that does n’t use ableist language? You may be able to use existing data sets to build a filter that can intercept and remediate ableist language before it reaches readers. That being said, when it comes to sensitivity reading, AI models won’t be replacing human copy editors anytime soon.

Want a coding copilot that gives you accessible recommendations from the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.

I have no doubt that AI can and will harm people … today, tomorrow, and well into the future. But I also believe that we can acknowledge that and, with an eye towards accessibility ( and, more broadly, inclusion ), make thoughtful, considerate, and intentional changes in 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 helping me with the development of this piece, Ashley Bischoff for her invaluable editorial assistance, and, of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

The same applies for those of us working in design and development these times. 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. Each day that we as developers and designers get into a regular rhythm, some innovative idea or technology comes down to shake things up and copy our 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 beginning of website standards

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 languages like PHP, Java, and. NET overtook Perl as the predominant back-end processors, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the trash bin. With these better server-side tools came the first era of web applications, starting with content-management systems ( particularly in the blogging space with tools like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress ). In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened doors for asynchronous interaction between the front end and back end. Suddenly, pages could update their content without needing to reload. A crop of JavaScript frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and jQuery arose to help developers build more reliable client-side interaction across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like image replacement let crafty designers and developers display fonts of their choosing. And technologies like Flash made it possible to add animations, games, and even more interactivity.

These new technologies, standards, and techniques reinvigorated the industry in many ways. Web design flourished as designers and developers explored more diverse styles and layouts. But we still relied on tons of hacks. 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 ). Complicated layouts required all manner of nested floats or absolute positioning ( or both ). Flash and image replacement for custom fonts was a great start toward varying the typefaces from the big five, but both hacks introduced accessibility and performance problems. And JavaScript libraries made it easy for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, although at the cost of doubling or even quadrupling the download size of simple websites.

The web as software platform

The symbiosis between the front end and back end continued to improve, and that led to 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. Alongside these tools came others, including collaborative version control, build automation, and shared package libraries. What was once primarily an environment for linked documents became a realm of infinite possibilities.

At the same time, mobile devices became more capable, and they gave us internet access in our pockets. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

This combination of capable mobile devices and powerful development tools contributed to the waxing of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and consume. 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 offered connections on a global scale, with both the good and bad that that entails.

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

Where we are now

In the last couple of years, it ’s felt like we’ve begun to reach another major inflection point. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. There are many different ways to make a website, from the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators to content management systems of all flavors. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other tools of the IndieWeb can help with this, but they’re still relatively underimplemented and hard to use for the less nerdy. 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.

Browser support for CSS, JavaScript, and other standards like web components has accelerated, especially through efforts like Interop. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. I often learn about a new feature and check its browser support only to find that its coverage is already above 80 percent. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often is n’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

Today, with a few commands and a couple of lines of code, we can prototype almost any idea. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. But the upfront cost that these frameworks may save in initial delivery eventually comes due as upgrading and maintaining them becomes a part 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 used to let us adopt new techniques sooner—have now become hindrances instead. 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 through poor code, network issues, or other environmental factors ), there’s often no alternative, leaving users with blank or broken pages.

Where do we go from here?

Today’s hacks help to shape tomorrow’s standards. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks —for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we’re unwilling to admit that they’re hacks or we hesitate 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 of those developer-friendly tools. They may make your job a little easier today, but how do they affect everything else? What’s the cost to users? To future developers? To standards adoption? Sometimes the convenience may be worth it. Sometimes it ’s just a hack that you ’ve grown accustomed to. And sometimes it ’s holding you back from even better options.

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

Design with care. Whether your craft is code, pixels, or processes, consider the impacts of each decision. 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. Rather than rushing headlong to “move fast and break things, ” use the time saved by modern tools to consider more carefully and design with deliberation.

Always be learning. If you’re always learning, you’re also growing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. You might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year, even if you were to focus solely on learning standards. ( Remember XHTML? ) But constant learning opens up new connections in your brain, and the hacks that you learn one day may help to inform different experiments another day.

Play, experiment, and be weird! This web that we’ve built is the ultimate experiment. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be courageous and try new things. Build a playground for ideas. Make goofy experiments in your own mad science lab. Start your own small business. There has never been a more empowering place to be creative, take risks, and explore what we’re capable of.

Share and amplify. As you experiment, play, and learn, share what’s 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.

Go forth and make

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 imbue our values into the things that we create, and let’s make the web a better place for everyone. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then share it, make it better, make it again, or make something new. Learn. Make. Share. Grow. Rinse and repeat. Every time you think that you ’ve mastered the web, everything will change.

Between the dream of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong—like when we encounter “persofails ” in the spirit of a company regularly imploring everyday users to buy additional potty seats—the personalization difference is real. It’s an particularly confusing place to be a modern competent without a chart, a map, or a plan.

For those of you venturing into customisation, there’s no Lonely Planet and some tour guides because powerful personalization is so specific to each organization’s talent, technology, and market place.

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

There’s a DIY method to increase your chances for achievement. At least, you’ll relieve your boss’s irrational joy. Before the gathering you’ll needed to successfully plan.

We call it prepersonalization.

Behind the audio

Acquire Spotify’s DJ element, which debuted this past year.

We’re used to seeing the polished final outcome of a personalization function. Before the year-end prize, the making-of story, or the behind-the-scenes success shoulder, a personalized have had to be conceived, budgeted, and valued. 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 know where to place your personalization bets? How do you design consistent interactions that won’t trip up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many budgeted programs to justify their ongoing investments, they first needed one or more workshops to convene key stakeholders and internal customers of the technology. Make yours count.

​ From Big Tech to fledgling startups, we’ve seen the same evolution up close with our clients. In our experiences with working on small and large personalization efforts, a program’s ultimate track record—and its ability to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and organize its design and technology efforts—turns on how effectively these prepersonalization activities play out.

Time and again, we’ve seen effective workshops separate future success stories from unsuccessful efforts, saving countless time, resources, and collective well-being in the process.

A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a switch-flip moment in your tech stack. 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. You won’t need these cards. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

Set your kitchen timer

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The surrounding assessment activities that we recommend including can ( and often do ) span weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our broader approach along with details on the essential first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

1. Kickstart: This sets the terms of engagement as you focus on the opportunity as well as the readiness and drive of your team and your leadership. .
2. 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.
3. Work your plan: This phase is all about creating a competitive environment for team participants to individually pitch their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its 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: Whet your appetite

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

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

This is all about setting the table. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? If you want a broader view, here ’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework.

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 ). In our cards, we divide connected experiences into five levels: functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to focus the conversation on the merits of ongoing investment as well as the gap between what you deliver today 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 critical because it emphasizes how personalization can not only help your external customers but also affect your own ways of working. 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 vote on where they see your product or service putting its emphasis. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. The intention here is to flesh out how different departments may view their own upsides to the effort, which can vary from one 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 naming your personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy compliance be too big of a challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? ( We’re pretty sure that you do: it ’s just a matter of recognizing the relative size of that need and its remedy. ) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. Our Detractor card, for example, lists six stakeholder behaviors that hinder progress.

Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential barriers to your future progress. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. As studies have shown, personalization efforts face many common barriers.

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

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s look at what you’ll need to bring your personalization recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are sweeping and powerful, and they present broad options for how your organization can conduct its activities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

What’s important here is to avoid treating the installed software like it were a dream kitchen from some fantasy remodeling project ( as one of our client executives memorably put it ). 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.

The ultimate menu of the prioritized backlog will come together over the course of the workshop. 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 come from recipes, and those recipes have set ingredients.

Verify your ingredients

Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure—andyou’ll validate with the right stakeholders present—that you have all the ingredients on hand to cook up your desired interaction ( or that you can work out what needs to be added to your pantry ). 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.

This is n’t just about discovering requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team:

1. compare findings toward a unified approach for developing features, not unlike when artists paint with the same palette;
2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar;
3. and develop parity across performance measurements and key performance indicators too.

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.

Compose your recipe

What ingredients are important to you? Think of a who-what-when-why construct:

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

We first developed these cards and card categories five years ago. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And we still encounter new possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

Here are three examples for a subscription-based reading app, which you can generally follow along with right to left in the cards in the accompanying photo below.

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: When there’s a newly registered user, an email is generated to call out the breadth of the content catalog and to make them a happier subscriber.
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.

A useful preworkshop activity may be to think through a first draft of what these cards might be for your organization, although we’ve also found that this process sometimes flows best through cocreating the recipes themselves. 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.

You can think of the later stages of the workshop as moving from recipes toward a cookbook in focus—like 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.

Better kitchens require better architecture

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

When personalization becomes a laugh line, it ’s because a team is overfitting: they aren’t designing with their best data. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. Your AI’s output quality, for example, is indeed limited 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 definitely stand the heat …

Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach will bring about the necessary focus and intention to succeed. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, hit the test kitchen to save time, preserve job satisfaction and security, and safely dispense with the fanciful ideas that originate upstairs of the doers in your organization. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

This workshop framework gives you a fighting shot at lasting success as well as sound beginnings. Wiring up your information layer is n’t an overnight affair. But if you use the same cookbook and shared recipes, you’ll have solid footing for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

While there are associated costs toward investing in this kind of technology and product design, your ability to size up and confront your unique situation and your digital capabilities is time well spent. Don’t squander it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Ever since I was a child, I’ve been fascinated with shows. I loved the figures and the excitement—but most of all the reports. I wanted to be an actor. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on exciting activities. I also dreamed up suggestions for videos that my friends and I could render and sun in. But they never went any farther. I did, however, end up working in user experience ( UX). Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I had n’t actually considered it before, but consumer research is story. And to get the most out of consumer research, you need to show a good account where you bring stakeholders—the solution team and choice makers—along and getting them interested in learning more.

Think of your favourite film. More than likely it follows a three-act framework that ’s frequently seen in story: the layout, the fight, and the quality. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to know the figures and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the turmoil, where the action is. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. And the third and final work is the solution. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. I believe that this architecture is also a great way to think about customer study, and I think that it can be particularly helpful in explaining person exploration to others.

Use story as a framework to complete research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see studies as being dispensable. If finances or timelines are strong, analysis tends to be one of the first points to go. Instead of investing in research, some product managers rely on designers or—worse—their own opinion to make the “right ” choices for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get clubs some of the way, but that approach is so quickly miss out on solving people ’ real problems. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User studies puts style. It keeps it on record, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your goods and reacting to them can help you stay 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 look at the different functions and how they align with consumer analysis.

Act one: layout

The layout is all about understanding the history, and that ’s where fundamental research comes in. Basic research ( also called conceptual, discovery, or original research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists now, the obstacles people have, and how the problems affect them—just like in the videos. To do basic research, you may conduct cultural inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which can help you start to identify issues as well as options. It does n’t need to be a great investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum practical anthropology, which can be as easy as spending 15 minutes with a customer and asking them one point: “‘Walk me through your day yesterday. ’ That’s it. Present that one request. Shut up and listen to them for 15 minutes. Do your damndest to keep yourself and your interests out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography. ” According to Hall,“[ This ] will probably prove quite illuminating. In the highly unlikely case that you did n’t learn anything new or useful, carry on with enhanced confidence in your direction. ”

This makes total sense to me. And I love that this makes user research so accessible. You don’t need to prepare a lot of documentation; you can just recruit participants and do it! This can yield a wealth of information about your users, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their lives. That’s really what act one is all about: understanding where users are coming from.

Jared Spool talks about the importance of foundational research and how it should form the bulk of your research. If you can draw from any additional user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can supplement what you ’ve heard in the foundational studies or even point to areas that need further investigation. Together, all this data paints a clearer picture of the state of things and all its shortcomings. And that ’s the beginning of a compelling story. It’s the point in the plot where you realize that the main characters—or the users in this case—are facing challenges that they need to overcome. Like in the movies, this is where you start to build empathy for the characters and root for them to succeed. And hopefully stakeholders are now doing the same. Their sympathy may be with their business, which could be losing money because users can’t complete certain tasks. Or maybe they do empathize with users ’ struggles. Either way, act one is your initial hook to get the stakeholders interested and invested.

Once stakeholders begin to understand the value of foundational research, that can open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making process. And that can guide product teams toward being more user-centered. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. Storytelling is the key to this process, and knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to get stakeholders to really care about doing more research.

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution ( such as a design ) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that ’s tripping users up. Like act two in a movie, more issues will crop up along the way. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act.

Usability tests should typically include around five participants according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify most of the problems: “As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not 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. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about 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.

Researchers have run usability tests in person for decades, but you can also conduct usability tests remotely using tools like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You can think of in-person usability tests like going to a play and remote sessions as more like watching a movie. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. You also get real-time reactions—including surprise, agreement, disagreement, 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 in-person usability testing is like watching a play—staged and controlled—then conducting usability testing in the field is like immersive theater where any two sessions might 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 go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that would n’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. As researchers, you have less control over how these sessions go, but this can sometimes 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. In-person usability tests provide another level of detail that ’s often missing from remote usability tests.

That’s not to say that the “movies ”—remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. And they open the doors to a much wider geographical pool 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.

The benefit of usability testing, whether remote or in person, is that you get to see real users interact with the designs in real time, and you can ask them questions to understand their thought processes and grasp of the solution. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking 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 the heart of the story—where the excitement is—but there can be surprises too. This is equally true of usability tests. Often, participants will say unexpected things, which change the way that you look at things —and these twists in the story can move things in new directions.

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. 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 the focus of what you’re getting feedback on, without understanding the users ‘ needs. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. It’s only feedback on a particular design in the context of a usability test.

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 illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional 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 help motivate stakeholders to address the issues that come up.

Act three: resolution

While the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can propel stakeholders into action, the third part is about resolving the problems from the first two acts. 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 means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the whole team to hear users ’ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. And it lets the UX research and design teams clarify, suggest alternatives, or give more context behind their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is mostly told in 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 give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. “The most effective presenters use the same techniques as great storytellers: By reminding people of the status quo and then revealing the path to a better way, they set up a conflict that needs to be resolved, ” writes 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 evidence for “what is ”—the problems that you ’ve identified. And “what could be”—your recommendations on how to address them. And so on and so 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 mockups of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the end of the session when you ’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. 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 gives stakeholders the next steps and hopefully the momentum to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. All the elements of a good story are there in the three-act structure of user research:

Act one: You meet the protagonists ( the users ) and the antagonists ( the problems affecting users ). This is the beginning of the plot. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. The output of these methods can include personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.

• Act two: Next, there’s character development. There’s conflict and tension as the protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.

Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. In act three, researchers may use methods including presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures.

The researcher has multiple roles: they’re the storyteller, the director, and the producer. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters ( in the research ). And the stakeholders are the audience. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users ’ stories through research. By the end, the stakeholders should walk away with a purpose and an eagerness to resolve the product’s ills.

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. Ultimately, user research is a win-win for everyone, and you just need to get stakeholders interested in how the story ends.

Warning: contains trailers for The Handmaid’s Tale time six season five “Janine”. Of course New Bethlehem was a rest. The Sons of Jacob have a good thing going in Gilead: unchallenged power, pleasure and lips – who’s going to give all that up in the name of global relationships? In season five, Lawrence learned the truth. The [ …]

The article The Handmaid’s Tale Season 6 Episode 5 Review: Janine appeared first on Den of Geek.

Andor is ultimately returning for its next and last year on Disney+. When we last saw Cassian ( Diego Luna ), he had just started to help Luthen Rael ( Stellan Skarsgård ) and the burgeoning rebellion, more so out of necessity and survival than a real desire to make change. But as we rate through the next several years of Cassian’s career, we’ll see him get the dedicated rebel we see in Rogue One.

While we’re really excited to see the show profit, Star Wars just announced the entire season launch plan for time 2, and it ’s a little different than what you might expect. Here’s what you need to know about when and where to see Andor year 2.

When Will Season 2 of Andor Get Available to Watch on Disney+?

Generally, new episodes of Star Wars series may launch 1-3 episodes for the launch and then one episode regular after that. Season 1 of Andor released the first three episodes at after, and then one instance weekly for the rest of the year. But with time 2, Andor is trying something unique. Three new shows did cut every month starting April 22. Each set of three shows may indicate a time of Cassian’s existence leading up to the activities of Rogue One.

The transfer routine is as follows:

Episodes 1-3 will be available to view on Tuesday April 22 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 4-6 will be available to see on Tuesday April 29 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 7-9 will be available to see on Tuesday May 6 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 10-12 will be available to view on Tuesday May 13 at 6 p. m. PT / 9 p. m. ET

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Star Wars ( @starwars )

Andor Season 1 Review

There’s a significant that happens over the course of Andor’s second season. Here’s everything you need to consider before watching year 2.

Morlana One

In 5 BBY, Cassian Andor is looking for his missing girl on the planet Morlana One. During an encounter with a pair of soldiers, he accidentally kills one and deaths the other to cover his tracks. He flees the planet and tries to hide out on Ferrix, asking his adoptive mother Maarva ( Fiona Shaw ), and his friends Bix ( Adria Arjona ) and Brasso ( Joplin Sibtain ) to help cover for him if anyone comes asking.

Morlana One’s safety power Pre-Mor examines, but the Chief Inspector wants to cover up the event so that they don’t increase any colors with the Empire. Syril Karn ( Kyle Soller ), a deputy inspector, becomes obsessed with solving the case despite his supervisor’s wishes. He tracks Cassian’s fleet to Ferrix and puts out a warrant for his arrest. When Karn and other commanders arrive to assault him, Cassian is able to leave with the help of Luthen Rael, who convinces Cassian to meet his rebel system.

The Aldhani Revolt

After fleeing Ferrix, Luthen takes Cassian to the world Aldhani where a smaller group is planning to take funds from an Imperial offer hub on the planet. Despite some trust in the party and a few fatalities, the attack is ultimately successful. Vel ( Faye Marsay ) and Cassian are the only survivors, and Cassian flees with his cut after it ’s all over. He stops by Ferrix to try and persuade Maarva to leave with him, but she insists on staying and resisting the increasing Roman activity.

Escaping Narkina 5

Leaving Maarva and his career on Ferrix behind, for then, Cassian hide out on the tropical world Niamos. He’s living a very comfortable lifestyle until he unknowingly gets caught up in a class running from Stormtroopers and is unfairly arrested. Cassian is sentenced to six times on Narkina 5, a prison work station that we eventually discover is building elements for the Death Star.

Cassian and the other prisoners quickly discover that the Empire is extending words and forcing people to stay and work yet after they’ve served their time. Not wanting to perish in this prison, they work jointly to break out.

Riot on Ferrix

Cassian and Bix’s contact with Luthen unintentionally draws the attention of ISB agent Dedra Meero ( Denise Gough ) and her division. She is eager to take down the insurgent body known as Axis, and believes that Cassian is the key. Roman officers kidnap and rape Bix to try and discover his place. When that does n’t labor, they use Maarva’s suicide as a lure to try and take him out. Luthen, Vel, and Cinta ( Varada Sethu ) also hope to use the funeral as cover to assassinate Cassian so that he can’t give up Luthen’s identity.  

At the death, a saving of Maarva’s next words encourages the people to stand up to the Empire and struggle again. Heeding her words, the citizens of Ferrix fight back and a mob breaks out in the roads. Cassian is able to apply the conflict to completely Bix, urging Brasso to take her there safe off globe. He therefore approaches Luthen, telling him that he can shoot him if he wants, or he can get him into his activity. Luthen replies with a smile and Cassian actually joins the slide.

The article Andor Season 2 Release Schedule and Season 1 Recap appeared second on Den of Geek.

Sean Connery quit the role of James Bond in 1967 during the production of You Only Life Half. Burned out by the pace of production ( five videos in five years ), his dramatic rise to stardom in the line and the unlimited media scrutiny that came with it—not to mention Connery’s increasing conviction that he was n’t [ …]

The article James Bond: How George Lazenby’s Bluffing and a Aggressive Screen Test Changed the Franchise’s Future appeared second on Den of Geek.

Andor is ultimately returning for its next and last year on Disney+. When we last saw Cassian ( Diego Luna ), he had just started to help Luthen Rael ( Stellan Skarsgård ) and the burgeoning rebellion, more so out of necessity and survival than a real desire to make change. But as we rate through the next several years of Cassian’s career, we’ll see him get the dedicated rebel we see in Rogue One.

While we’re really excited to see the show profit, Star Wars just announced the entire season launch plan for time 2, and it ’s a little different than what you might expect. Here’s what you need to know about when and where to see Andor year 2.

When Will Season 2 of Andor Get Available to Watch on Disney+?

Generally, new episodes of Star Wars series may launch 1-3 episodes for the launch and then one episode regular after that. Season 1 of Andor released the first three episodes at after, and then one instance weekly for the rest of the year. But with time 2, Andor is trying everything different. Three new shows did cut every month starting April 22. Each set of three shows may indicate a time of Cassian’s existence leading up to the activities of Rogue One.

The transfer routine is as follows:

Episodes 1-3 will be available to view on Tuesday April 22 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 4-6 will be available to see on Tuesday April 29 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 7-9 will be available to see on Tuesday May 6 at 6 p. m. PT/ 9 p. m. ET

Episodes 10-12 will be available to see on Tuesday May 13 at 6 p. m. PT / 9 p. m. ET

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Star Wars ( @starwars )

Andor Season 1 Review

There’s a significant that happens over the course of Andor’s second season. Here’s everything you need to consider before watching year 2.

Morlana One

In 5 BBY, Cassian Andor is looking for his missing girl on the planet Morlana One. During an encounter with a pair of soldiers, he accidentally kills one and deaths the other to cover his tracks. He flees the planet and tries to hide out on Ferrix, asking his adoptive mother Maarva ( Fiona Shaw ), and his friends Bix ( Adria Arjona ) and Brasso ( Joplin Sibtain ) to help cover for him if anyone comes asking.

Morlana One’s safety power Pre-Mor examines, but the Chief Inspector wants to cover up the event so that they don’t increase any colors with the Empire. Syril Karn ( Kyle Soller ), a deputy inspector, becomes obsessed with solving the case despite his supervisor’s wishes. He tracks Cassian’s fleet to Ferrix and puts out a warrant for his arrest. When Karn and other officials arrive to assault him, Cassian is able to leave with the help of Luthen Rael, who convinces Cassian to meet his rebel system.

The Aldhani Revolt

After fleeing Ferrix, Luthen takes Cassian to the world Aldhani where a smaller group is planning to take funds from an Imperial offer hub on the planet. Despite some mistrust in the group and a few casualties, the heist is ultimately successful. Vel ( Faye Marsay ) and Cassian are the only survivors, and Cassian flees with his cut after it ’s all over. He stops by Ferrix to try and convince Maarva to escape with him, but she insists on staying and resisting the increasing Imperial occupation.

Escaping Narkina 5

Leaving Maarva and his life on Ferrix behind, for now, Cassian hides out on the tropical planet Niamos. He’s living a fairly comfy life until he accidentally gets caught up in a group running from Stormtroopers and is unjustly arrested. Cassian is sentenced to six years on Narkina 5, a prison labor camp that we later discover is building parts for the Death Star.

Cassian and the other prisoners soon discover that the Empire is extending sentences and forcing people to stay and work even after they’ve served their time. Not wanting to die in this prison, they work together to break out.

Riot on Ferrix

Cassian and Bix’s contact with Luthen unintentionally draws the attention of ISB agent Dedra Meero ( Denise Gough ) and her division. She is eager to take down the rebel cell known as Axis, and believes that Cassian is the key. Imperial officers kidnap and torture Bix to try and find his location. When that does n’t work, they use Maarva’s death as a lure to try and pull him out. Luthen, Vel, and Cinta ( Varada Sethu ) also hope to use the funeral as cover to assassinate Cassian so that he can’t give up Luthen’s identity.  

At the funeral, a recording of Maarva’s last words encourages the people to stand up to the Empire and fight back. Heeding her words, the people of Ferrix fight back and a riot breaks out in the streets. Cassian is able to use the chaos to free Bix, urging Brasso to take her somewhere safe off world. He then approaches Luthen, telling him that he can kill him if he wants, or he can take him into his operation. Luthen replies with a smile and Cassian officially joins the fold.

The post Andor Season 2 Release Schedule and Season 1 Recap appeared first on Den of Geek.

We agree: the computer-generated heads could be a great fit for personas—but not for the purpose you might think. Ironically, the website highlights the core issue of this very common design method: the person( a ) does not exist. Like the photographs, identities are artificially made. Data is taken out of natural environment and recombined into an isolated preview that ’s detached from reality.

But strangely enough, manufacturers use personalities to encourage their style for the real world.

Personas: A action up

Most manufacturers have created, used, or come across personalities at least once in their job. In their article “Personas- A Plain Introduction, ” the Interaction Design Foundation defines profile as “fictional characters, which you create based upon your study in order to reflect the unique user types that might use your service, product, site, or brand. ” In their most complete expression, personas typically consist of a name, profile picture, quotes, demographics, goals, needs, behavior in relation to a certain service/product, emotions, and motivations ( for example, see Creative Companion’s Persona Core Poster ). The purpose of personas, as stated by design agency Designit, is “to make the research relatable, [and ] easy to communicate, digest, reference, and apply to product and service development. ”

The decontextualization of identities

Personas are common because they make “dry ” research information more realistic, more people. However, this process constrains the researcher’s information research in such a way that the investigated people are removed from their unique circumstances. As a result, personalities don’t present key factors that make you realize their decision-making process or allow you to connect to people ’ thoughts and behavior; they lack reports. You understand what the image did, but you don’t have the qualifications to know why. You end up with images of people that are really less people.

This “decontextualization ” we see in personas happens in four ways, which we’ll explain below.

Identities assume people are dynamic

Although many companies still try to box in their employees and customers with outdated personality tests ( referring to you, Myers-Briggs ), here ’s a painfully obvious truth: people are not a fixed set of features. You act, think, and feel different according to the situations you experience. You appear distinct to different persons; you may act helpful to some, hard to others. And you change your mind all the time about choices you ’ve taken.

Modern therapists agree that while individuals usually behave according to certain habits, it ’s actually a combination of history and culture that determines how individuals act and take decisions. The context—the atmosphere, the effect of other people, your feelings, the whole story that led up to a situation—determines the kind of person you are in each particular time.

In their effort to reduce reality, personalities do not consider this variability into account; they present a person as a predetermined set of features. Like character tests, personas seize people away from real life. Even worse, individuals are reduced to a brand and categorized as “that type of person ” with no indicates to practice their inherent flexibility. This practice reinforces stereotypes, lowers diversity, and does n’t reflect reality.

Personas focus on individuals, not the environment

In the real world, you’re designing for a context, not for an individual. Each person lives in a family, a community, an ecosystem, where there are environmental, political, and social factors you need to consider. A design is never meant for a single user. Rather, you design for one or more particular contexts in which many people might use that product. Personas, however, show the user alone rather than describe how the user relates to the environment.

Would you always make the same decision over and over again? Maybe you’re a committed vegan but still decide to buy some meat when your relatives are coming over. As they depend on different situations and variables, your decisions—and behavior, opinions, and statements —are not absolute but highly contextual. The persona that “represents ” you would n’t take into account this dependency, because it does n’t specify the premises of your decisions. It does n’t provide a justification of why you act the way you do. Personas enact the well-known bias called fundamental attribution error: explaining others ’ behavior too much by their personality and too little by the situation.

As mentioned by the Interaction Design Foundation, personas are usually placed in a scenario that ’s a “specific context with a problem they want to or have to solve”—does that mean context actually is considered? Unfortunately, what often happens is that you take a fictional character and based on that fiction determine how this character might deal with a certain situation. This is made worse by the fact that you have n’t even fully investigated and understood the current context of the people your persona seeks to represent; so how could you possibly understand how they would act in new situations?

Personas are meaningless averages

As mentioned in Shlomo Goltz’s introductory article on Smashing Magazine, “a persona is depicted as a specific person but is not a real individual; rather, it is synthesized from observations of many people. ” A well-known critique to this aspect of personas is that the average person does not exist, as per the famous example of the USA Air Force designing planes based on the average of 140 of their pilots ’ physical dimensions and not a single pilot actually fitting within that average seat.

The same limitation applies to mental aspects of people. Have you ever heard a famous person say, “They took what I said out of context! They used my words, but I did n’t mean it like that. ” The celebrity’s statement was reported literally, but the reporter failed to explain the context around the statement and did n’t describe the non-verbal expressions. As a result, the intended meaning was lost. You do the same when you create personas: you collect somebody’s statement ( or goal, or need, or emotion ), of which the meaning can only be understood if you provide its own specific context, yet report it as an isolated finding.

But personas go a step further, extracting a decontextualized finding and joining it with another decontextualized finding from somebody else. The resulting set of findings often does not make sense: it ’s unclear, or even contrasting, because it lacks the underlying reasons on why and how that finding has arisen. It lacks meaning. And the persona does n’t give you the full background of the person( s ) to uncover this meaning: you would need to dive into the raw data for each single persona item to find it. What, then, is the usefulness of the persona?

The relatability of personas is deceiving

To a certain extent, designers realize that a persona is a lifeless average. To overcome this, designers invent and add “relatable ” details to personas to make them resemble real individuals. Nothing captures the absurdity of this better than a sentence by the Interaction Design Foundation: “Add a few fictional personal details to make the persona a realistic character. ” In other words, you add non-realism in an attempt to create more realism. You deliberately obscure the fact that “John Doe” is an abstract representation of research findings; but would n’t it be much more responsible to emphasize that John is only an abstraction? If something is artificial, let’s present it as such.

It’s the finishing touch of a persona’s decontextualization: after having assumed that people’s personalities are fixed, dismissed the importance of their environment, and hidden meaning by joining isolated, non-generalizable findings, designers invent new context to create ( their own ) meaning. In doing so, as with everything they create, they introduce a host of biases. As phrased by Designit, as designers we can “contextualize [the persona ] based on our reality and experience. We create connections that are familiar to us. ” This practice reinforces stereotypes, does n’t reflect real-world diversity, and gets further away from people’s actual reality with every detail added.

To do good design research, we should report the reality “as-is ” and make it relatable for our audience, so everyone can use their own empathy and develop their own interpretation and emotional response.

Dynamic Selves: The alternative to personas

If we should n’t use personas, what should we do instead?

Designit has proposed using Mindsets instead of personas. Each Mindset is a “spectrum of attitudes and emotional responses that different people have within the same context or life experience. ” It challenges designers to not get fixated on a single user’s way of being. Unfortunately, while being a step in the right direction, this proposal does n’t take into account that people are part of an environment that determines their personality, their behavior, and, yes, their mindset. Therefore, Mindsets are also not absolute but change in regard to the situation. The question remains, what determines a certain Mindset?

Another alternative comes from Margaret P. , author of the article “Kill Your Personas, ” who has argued for replacing personas with persona spectrums that consist of a range of user abilities. For example, a visual impairment could be permanent ( blindness ), temporary ( recovery from eye surgery ), or situational (screen glare ). Persona spectrums are highly useful for more inclusive and context-based design, as they’re based on the understanding that the context is the pattern, not the personality. Their limitation, however, is that they have a very functional take on users that misses the relatability of a real person taken from within a spectrum.

In developing an alternative to personas, we aim to transform the standard design process to be context-based. Contexts are generalizable and have patterns that we can identify, just like we tried to do previously with people. So how do we identify these patterns? How do we ensure truly context-based design?

Understand real individuals in multiple contexts

Nothing is more relatable and inspiring than reality. Therefore, we have to understand real individuals in their multi-faceted contexts, and use this understanding to fuel our design. We refer to this approach as Dynamic Selves.

Let’s take a look at what the approach looks like, based on an example of how one of us applied it in a recent project that researched habits of Italians around energy consumption. We drafted a design research plan aimed at investigating people’s attitudes toward energy consumption and sustainable behavior, with a focus on smart thermostats.

1. Choose the right sample

When we argue against personas, we’re often challenged with quotes such as “ Where are you going to find a single person that encapsulates all the information from one of these advanced personas[? ] ” The answer is simple: you don’t have to. You don’t need to have information about many people for your insights to be deep and meaningful.

In qualitative research, validity does not derive from quantity but from accurate sampling. You select the people that best represent the “population ” you’re designing for. If this sample is chosen well, and you have understood the sampled people in sufficient depth, you’re able to infer how the rest of the population thinks and behaves. There’s no need to study seven Susans and five Yuriys; one of each will do.

Similarly, you don’t need to understand Susan in fifteen different contexts. Once you ’ve seen her in a couple of diverse situations, you ’ve understood the scheme of Susan’s response to different contexts. Not Susan as an atomic being but Susan in relation to the surrounding environment: how she might act, feel, and think in different situations.

Given that each person is representative of a part of the total population you’re researching, it becomes clear why each should be represented as an individual, as each already is an abstraction of a larger group of individuals in similar contexts. You don’t want abstractions of abstractions! These selected people need to be understood and shown in their full expression, remaining in their microcosmos—and if you want to identify patterns you can focus on identifying patterns in contexts.

Yet the question remains: how do you select a representative sample? First of all, you have to consider what’s the target audience of the product or service you are designing: it might be useful to look at the company ’s goals and strategy, the current customer base, and/or a possible future target audience.

In our example project, we were designing an application for those who own a smart thermostat. In the future, everyone could have a smart thermostat in their house. Right now, though, only early adopters own one. To build a significant sample, we needed to understand the reason why these early adopters became such. We therefore recruited by asking people why they had a smart thermostat and how they got it. There were those who had chosen to buy it, those who had been influenced by others to buy it, and those who had found it in their house. So we selected representatives of these three situations, from different age groups and geographical locations, with an equal balance of tech savvy and non-tech savvy participants.

2. Conduct your research

After having chosen and recruited your sample, conduct your research using ethnographic methodologies. This will make your qualitative data rich with anecdotes and examples. In our example project, given COVID-19 restrictions, we converted an in-house ethnographic research effort into remote family interviews, conducted from home and accompanied by diary studies.

To gain an in-depth understanding of attitudes and decision-making trade-offs, the research focus was not limited to the interviewee alone but deliberately included the whole family. Each interviewee would tell a story that would then become much more lively and precise with the corrections or additional details coming from wives, husbands, children, or sometimes even pets. We also focused on the relationships with other meaningful people ( such as colleagues or distant family ) and all the behaviors that resulted from those relationships. This wide research focus allowed us to shape a vivid mental image of dynamic situations with multiple actors.

It’s essential that the scope of the research remains broad enough to be able to include all possible actors. Therefore, it normally works best to define broad research areas with macro questions. Interviews are best set up in a semi-structured way, where follow-up questions will dive into topics mentioned spontaneously by the interviewee. This open-minded “plan to be surprised ” will yield the most insightful findings. When we asked one of our participants how his family regulated the house temperature, he replied, “My wife has not installed the thermostat’s app—she uses WhatsApp instead. If she wants to turn on the heater and she is not home, she will text me. I am her thermostat. ”

3. Analysis: Create the Dynamic Selves

During the research analysis, you start representing each individual with multiple Dynamic Selves, each “Self” representing one of the contexts you have investigated. The core of each Dynamic Self is a quote, which comes supported by a photo and a few relevant demographics that illustrate the wider context. The research findings themselves will show which demographics are relevant to show. In our case, as our research focused on families and their lifestyle to understand their needs for thermal regulation, the important demographics were family type, number and nature of houses owned, economic status, and technological maturity. ( We also included the individual’s name and age, but they’re optional—we included them to ease the stakeholders ’ transition from personas and be able to connect multiple actions and contexts to the same person ).

To capture exact quotes, interviews need to be video-recorded and notes need to be taken verbatim as much as possible. This is essential to the truthfulness of the several Selves of each participant. In the case of real-life ethnographic research, photos of the context and anonymized actors are essential to build realistic Selves. Ideally, these photos should come directly from field research, but an evocative and representative image will work, too, as long as it ’s realistic and depicts meaningful actions that you associate with your participants. For example, one of our interviewees told us about his mountain home where he used to spend every weekend with his family. Therefore, we portrayed him hiking with his little daughter.

At the end of the research analysis, we displayed all of the Selves ’ “cards ” on a single canvas, categorized by activities. Each card displayed a situation, represented by a quote and a unique photo. All participants had multiple cards about themselves.

4. Identify design opportunities

Once you have collected all main quotes from the interview transcripts and diaries, and laid them all down as Self cards, you will see patterns emerge. These patterns will highlight the opportunity areas for new product creation, new functionalities, and new services—for new design.

In our example project, there was a particularly interesting insight around the concept of humidity. We realized that people don’t know what humidity is and why it is important to monitor it for health: an environment that ’s too dry or too wet can cause respiratory problems or worsen existing ones. This highlighted a big opportunity for our client to educate users on this concept and become a health advisor.

Benefits of Dynamic Selves

When you use the Dynamic Selves approach in your research, you start to notice unique social relations, peculiar situations real people face and the actions that follow, and that people are surrounded by changing environments. In our thermostat project, we have come to know one of the participants, Davide, as a boyfriend, dog-lover, and tech enthusiast.

Davide is an individual we might have once reduced to a persona called “tech enthusiast. ” But we can have tech enthusiasts who have families or are single, who are rich or poor. Their motivations and priorities when deciding to purchase a new thermostat can be opposite according to these different frames.

Once you have understood Davide in multiple situations, and for each situation have understood in sufficient depth the underlying reasons for his behavior, you’re able to generalize how he would act in another situation. You can use your understanding of him to infer what he would think and do in the contexts ( or scenarios ) that you design for.

The Dynamic Selves approach aims to dismiss the conflicted dual purpose of personas—to summarize and empathize at the same time—by separating your research summary from the people you’re seeking to empathize with. This is important because our empathy for people is affected by scale: the bigger the group, the harder it is to feel empathy for others. We feel the strongest empathy for individuals we can personally relate to.

If you take a real person as inspiration for your design, you no longer need to create an artificial character. No more inventing details to make the character more “realistic, ” no more unnecessary additional bias. It’s simply how this person is in real life. In fact, in our experience, personas quickly become nothing more than a name in our priority guides and prototype screens, as we all know that these characters don’t really exist.

Another powerful benefit of the Dynamic Selves approach is that it raises the stakes of your work: if you mess up your design, someone real, a person you and the team know and have met, is going to feel the consequences. It might stop you from taking shortcuts and will remind you to conduct daily checks on your designs.

And finally, real people in their specific contexts are a better basis for anecdotal storytelling and therefore are more effective in persuasion. Documentation of real research is essential in achieving this result. It adds weight and urgency behind your design arguments: “ When I met Alessandra, the conditions of her workplace struck me. Noise, bad ergonomics, lack of light, you name it. If we go for this functionality, I’m afraid we’re going to add complexity to her life. ”

Conclusion

Designit mentioned in their article on Mindsets that “design thinking tools offer a shortcut to deal with reality’s complexities, but this process of simplification can sometimes flatten out people’s lives into a few general characteristics. ” Unfortunately, personas have been culprits in a crime of oversimplification. They are unsuited to represent the complex nature of our users ’ decision-making processes and don’t account for the fact that humans are immersed in contexts.

Design needs simplification but not generalization. You have to look at the research elements that stand out: the sentences that captured your attention, the images that struck you, the sounds that linger. Portray those, use them to describe the person in their multiple contexts. Both insights and people come with a context; they cannot be cut from that context because it would remove meaning.

It’s high time for design to move away from fiction, and embrace reality—in its messy, surprising, and unquantifiable beauty—as our guide and inspiration.

But what on earth is a passionate stress?

Envision a person determined to do it all. She has two wonderful children whom she, along with her father who is also working mildly, is homeschooling during a crisis. She has a demanding customer fill at work—all of whom she loves. She gets up early to get some movement in ( or often catch up on work ), does dinner prep as the kids are eating breakfast, and gets to work while positioning herself near “fourth grade ” to listen in as she juggles 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 has too much on her disk and needs self-care. But no, she does n’t have time for that. In reality, she starts to feel like she’s dropping balloons. No accomplishing enough. There’s not enough of her to be here and it; she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all day, every time. She starts to fear herself. And as those thoughts creep in more and more, her domestic tale becomes more and more important.

Instantly she KNOWS what she needs to do! She really DO MORE.

This is a challenging and dangerous period. Hear why? Because once she does n’t finish that novel purpose, that narrative will get worse. Immediately she’s failing. She is n’t doing much. SHE is not enough. She may fail, she might refuse her home… thus she’ll get more she really do. She does n’t sleeping as much, walk as much, all in the work to do more. Caught in this period of trying to prove herself to herself, not reaching any purpose. Not feeling “enough. ”

But, yeah, that ’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It does n’t happen overnight in some magnificent sign but rather carefully builds over weeks and months. My burning out procedure looks like speeding up, not a man losing focus. I rate up and up and up… and therefore I simply quit.

I am the one who had

It’s interesting the things that shape us. Through the camera of youth, I viewed the worries, problems, and sacrifices of someone who had to make it all work without having much. I was happy that my mom was so competent and my dad friendly; I never went without and also got an extra here or there.

Growing up, I did not think pity when my family paid with food passports; in reality, I’d have probably taken on any debate on the topic, orally eviscerating anyone who dared to criticize the disabled person trying to make sure all our needs were met with so little. As a child, I watched the way the worry of not making those begins meet impacted people I love. As the non-disabled people in my home, I would take on many of the real things because I was “the one who could ” make our lives a much easier. I learned first to relate fears or confusion with putting more of myself into it— I am the one who does. I learned first that when something frightens me, I may double down and work harder to make it better. I may possess the problem. When people have seen this in me as an child, I’ve been told I seem courageous, but make no mistake, I’m no. If I seem courageous, it ’s because this behavior was forged from other people’s concerns.

And here I am, more than 30 times afterwards still feeling the urge to aimlessly force myself forward when faced with overwhelming things ahead of me, assuming that I am the one who is and consequently does. I find myself driven to prove that I may make things happen if I work longer hours, take on more duty, and do more.

I do not see people who struggle financially as problems, because I have seen how powerful that tide is be—it takes you along the way. I really get that I have been privileged to be able to prevent many of the problems that were current in my children. That said, I am also “the a who can” who feels she does, but if I were faced with not having much to make ends meet for my own home, I do see myself as having failed. Though I am supported and educated, most of this is due to great riches. I will, but, permit myself the pride of saying I have been cautious with my options to have encouraged that chance. My personality stems from the idea that I am “the a who can” but so feel bound to do the most. I can choose to halt, and with some pretty precise warm water splashed in my mouth, I’ve made the choice to previously. But that choosing to quit is never my go-to; I move forward, driven by a dread that is so a part of me that I hardly notice it ’s there until I’m feeling utterly worn away.

So why all the past? You see, stress is a volatile thing. I have heard and read a bunch about stress over the years. Stress is true. Particularly today, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s challenging, and the postponing, the evasion, the shutting down impacts so many wonderful professionals. There are significant articles that relate to what I imagine must get the majority of people out there, but not me. That’s hardly what my stress looks like.

The harmful darkness of passionate 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 anyone trying to rise to difficulties, never people stuck in their anxiety. Some well-meaning companies have safeguards in place to protect their clubs from stress. But in cases like this, those alarms are not always tripped, and then when the expected prevent comes, some members of the organization feel surprised and disappointed. And maybe even actually betrayed.

Parents—more but mother, mathematically speaking—are praised as being so on bottom of it all when they can work, get involved in the after-school activities, exercise self-care in the form of diet and exercise, and also meet friends for coffee or wine. During COVID many of us have binged countless streaming episodes showing how it ’s so hard for the female protagonist, 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 is, countless people are hiding their tears or are doom-scrolling to escape. 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 love 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.

That said, women are still more often at risk of burnout than their male counterparts, especially in these COVID stressed times. 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 often feel the need to do even more because they don’t have that extra pressure at home. 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.

And there are prices beyond happiness too. 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. ”

This relationship between work stress and health, from what I have read, is more dangerous for women than it is for their non-female counterparts.

But what if your burnout is n’t like that either?

That might not be you either. 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 stress what burnout looks like, just learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I sometimes ask friends if I am concerned about them.

Are you happy? 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 empowered to say no? 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 pressure to say yes to not disappoint the people around them.

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

Are you making excuses? 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 really be crunch time, a single goal, and/or a skill set you need to learn. That happens—life happens. BUT if this does n’t stop, be honest with yourself. 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 truly temporary and you do need to just push through, then it has an exit route with a
defined end.

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

So now what?

What I just described is a different path to burnout, but it ’s still burnout. There are well-established approaches to working through burnout:

• Get enough sleep.
• Eat healthy.
• Work out.
• Get outside.
• Take a break.
• Overall, practice self-care.

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. The narrative is that if I’m already failing, why would I take care of myself when I’m dropping all those other balls? People need me, right?

If you’re deep in the cycle, your inner voice might be pretty awful by now. 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.

To help remind myself of the airline attendant message about putting the mask on yourself first, I have come up with a few things that I do when I start feeling myself going into a zealous burnout.

Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

OK, I am a “food-focused ” individual so cooking for someone is always my go-to. 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. Most of us work in a digital world, so cooking can fill all of your senses and force you to be in the moment with all the ways you perceive the world. 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 love cooking Indian food, as the smells are warm, the bread needs just enough kneading to keep my hands busy, and the process takes real attention for me because it ’s not what I was brought up making. And in the end, we all win!

Vent like a foul-mouthed fool

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. That said, sometimes you just gotta let it all out—even the ugly. 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 what’s needed, turn to a trusted friend and allow yourself some pure verbal diarrhea, saying all the things that are bothering you. 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 I admire the most about my husband ( though often after the fact ) is his ability to break things down to their 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. It also, of course, has meant that I needed to remove my head from that rectal cavity. So, again, usually those moments are appreciated in hindsight.

Pick up a book!

There are many books out there that aren’t so much self-help as they are people just like you sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance. Maybe you’ll find something that speaks to you. Titles that have stood out to me include:

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

Or, another tactic I love to employ is to read or listen to a book that has NOTHING to do with my work-life balance. 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
• Superlife by Darin Olien
• A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived by Adam Rutherford
• Gaia’s Garden by Toby Hemenway

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. For the record, I do not have a particularly large food garden, nor do I own livestock of any kind… yet. I just find the topic interesting, and it has nothing to do with any aspect of my life that needs anything from me.

Forgive yourself

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 tired and sad and worried. It’s OK to not do it all. It’s scary to be imperfect, but you cannot be brave if nothing were scary.

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. We are more powerful than the fears that drive us.

This is hard. It is hard 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 still be successful in life.

I recently read that we are all writing our eulogy in how we live. Knowing that your professional accomplishments won’t be mentioned in that speech, what will yours say? 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 are in control of our surroundings, only how we respond 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. They are things that work for me most of the time. Maybe they’ll work for you.

Does this sound familiar?

If this sounds familiar, it ’s not just you. Don’t let your negative self-talk tell you that you “even burn out wrong. ” It’s not wrong. 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 unfold before us might never look like that story in our head—that idea of “perfect” or “done ” we’re looking for, but that ’s OK. Really, when we stop and look around, usually the only eyes that judge us are in the mirror.

Do you remember that Winnie the Pooh sketch that had Pooh eat so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks could n’t fit through the door? Well, I already associate a lot with Rabbit, so it came as no surprise when he abruptly 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.

At the end of the day we are resourceful and know that we are able to push ourselves if we need to—even when we are tired to our core or have a big butt of fluff ‘n ’ stuff 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 will need to redefine success to allow space for being uncomfortably human, but that does n’t really sound so bad either.

So, wherever you are right now, please breathe. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Forgive and take care.