Blog

Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated with movies. I loved the characters and the excitement—but most of all the stories. 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 adventures. I even dreamed up ideas for movies that my friends and I could make and star in. But they never went any further. I did, however, end up working in user experience (UX). Now, I realize that there’s an element of theater to UX—I hadn’t really considered it before, but user research is storytelling. And to get the most out of user research, you need to tell a good story where you bring stakeholders—the product team and decision makers—along and get them interested in learning more.

Think of your favorite movie. More than likely it follows a three-act structure that’s commonly seen in storytelling: the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. The first act shows what exists today, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the conflict, where the action is. Here, problems grow or get worse. And the third and final act is the resolution. This is where the issues are resolved and the characters learn and change. I believe that this structure is also a great way to think about user research, and I think that it can be especially helpful in explaining user research to others.

Use storytelling as a structure to do research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see research as being expendable. If budgets or timelines are tight, research tends to be one of the first things 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 teams some of the way, but that approach can so easily miss out on solving users’ real problems. To remain user-centered, this is something we should avoid. User research elevates design. It keeps it on track, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay ahead of your competitors.

In the three-act structure, each act corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is critical to telling the whole story. Let’s look at the different acts and how they align with user research.

Act one: setup

The setup is all about understanding the background, and that’s where foundational research comes in. Foundational research (also called generative, discovery, or initial research) helps you understand users and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists today, the challenges users have, and how the challenges affect them—just like in the movies. To do foundational research, you can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies (or both!), which can help you start to identify problems as well as opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a huge investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum viable ethnography, which can be as simple as spending 15 minutes with a user and asking them one thing: “‘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 didn’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 wouldn’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.

Learn more at Duct Tape Marketing in John Jantsch’s book SEO Isn’t Lifeless: The New Rules of Search in 2025.

Marketing is no longer relevant. Just About to Grow Up. What to do instead of using outdated SEO strategies is why the smartest entrepreneurs do it. The Myth of “SEO Is Deceased” Old SEO vs. New SEO: What’s Really Changed Keyword Rankings Visibility &, Intent AI Content at Scale Human-Led Strategy Link Building Brand […]?

Who Should You Hire to Promote Your Small Business? written by John Jantsch, more information can be found at Duct Tape Marketing.

Warning: contains clues for the upcoming shows “lux” and” the well” from Doctor Who. Doctor Who spooked followers to think naming a star after your partner is a bad idea as the first season of the show kicked off its new year. A new TARDIS dynamic was created as Ncuti Gatwa’s Fifteenth [ ] ] by” The Robot Revolution.”

The initial interview with Ncuti Gatwa and Varada Sethu from Doctor Who’s” Lux,”” The Well,” and” The Doctor’s Biggest Concern” was published on Den of Geek.

This article contains spoilers for the Hotel Reverie show of Black Mirror. &#8221,

You know what I mean, Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it, you know what I mean?

Sorry about that; perhaps an example from &#8220, Hotel Reverie &#8221, may help. Issa Rae plays Brandy Friday, a current movie star who assumes the role of the female lead in the remake of her all-time favorite hotel Reverie classic in season 7. Like many other Black Mirror figures, Brandy is guilty of No Reading The Instructions and is unaware that remaking the movie means online stepping in and persuasively playing her part to the finish.

Hotel Reverie isn’t just about systems, it’s. Redream is basically what initiates events, and the episode, which was directed by Haolu Wang and was written by Charlie Brooker, can address difficult issues involving digital personhood, copyright laws, and adore itself. However, the story wouldn’t be able to observe those issues in the first place without that technology as a starting point. Issa Rae was drawn to the position because of the relationship between sci-fi criticism and the human state.

I can recall being extremely excited to receive a Black Mirror text and yet being chosen for it, and then being completely immersed in each of its various levels. Rae tells Den of Geek and other sources at a roundtable trip that I was going to say yes anyhow, but I was unquestionably in that situation, &#8221.

Rae, a long-time Black Mirror lover, was well aware that Brandy’s method for entering Hotel Reverie was incredibly well-known. A little device that is placed on a person’s temple to interact with a virtual reality interface has been seen before and is still relevant throughout the show’s canon. It first popped up in season 3&#8217, s &#8220, San Junipero, &#8221, then made appearances in season 4&#8217, s &#8220, USS Callister, &#8221, and season 5&#8217, s &#8220, Striking Vipers &#8221, ( where it was referred to as an &#8220, Experiencer Disk&#8221 ,). A variation of it also turns up in winter 7&#8217, s &#8220, Eulogy. The system has never had an official name up until now, and it was manufactured by TCKR Systems.

&#8220, Charlie]Brooker ] calls it a &#8216, Nubbin, &#8217, but Awkwafina&#8217, s character calls it a &#8216, Mesmerizer. &#8217, I don&#8217, t know if that &#8217, s the vernacular variation of it, &#8221, Rae says. &#8220, I didn&#8217, t have the &#8216, real&#8217, type on display. I’m supposed to reveal this, but I had a smaller, false type with double-sided audio. So I was really excited to hold a true one more just. &#8221,

The real-life Nubbin that Rae recently captured was certainly the one used to picture this season 7 metaadvertisment.

@nubbin #blackmirror unique audio &#8211, BlackMirror issa jones taking a quick trip to another fact

Visitors may experience the system, which is unquestionably called a Nubbin with a company trademark and everything, as well as the same ad campaign and associated Netflix-hosted activation. On this one, Charlie Brooker seems to have got his way. Sorry, Awkwafina&#8217, s figure!

The use of the doohickey we now know as a Nubbin was first used in San Junipero and has an additional touch of polarization. Hotel Reverie is ultimately a touching like story where two women make a connection between themselves and space, much like that timeless show of the show. As Brandy Friday’s tackle is revealed to be 3049 Junipero Drive, the story actually comes to an end with a San Junipero feast egg. &#8221,

Charlie claimed that this is the first season he has written for this season and that is #8220. I really hope that people can look at San Junpiero and San Junpiero separately and also enjoy them as supports to one another, Rae says.

Netflix currently has all six bouts of Black Mirror year 7.

The second article on Den of Geek was How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon.

Warning: The Handmaid’s Tale period six show three,” Promotion,” contains clues. Congratulate sky, the final months arrive in the same way Oprah handing out presents. Look under your tickets, Mora, Luke, and Rita. YOU receive a tale, and YOU receive a story. Everyone has a story! Not just a tale, but some virtuous dialogue in Moira’s situation as well.

The second publish The Handmaid’s Tale Season 6 Episode 4 Review: Promotion was published on Den of Geek.

The Black Mirror show 8220, Hotel Reverie, has clues in this article. &#8221,

You know what I mean when I say that Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it.

Sorry about that; perhaps an illustration from Hotel Reverie&#8221 would help. Issa Rae plays Brandy Friday, a current movie star who assumes the role of the female lead in the remake of her all-time favored hotel Reverie classic in season 7. Like many other Black Mirror figures, Brandy is guilty of No Reading The Instructions and is unaware that remaking the movie means online stepping in and persuasively playing her part to the finish.

Hotel Reverie isn’t just about systems, it’s. Redream’s program is only what triggers events, and Charlie Brooker’s and Haolu Wang’s film explores nuanced issues of modern personhood, copyright law, and enjoy itself. However, the account wouldn’t be able to begin to explore those issues without that technology as a starting point. Issa Rae was drawn to the position because of the relationship between sci-fi criticism and the human state.

I can recall being extremely excited to receive a Black Mirror text and yet being chosen for it, and then being completely immersed in each of its various levels. I was going to say well in any case, but I was absolutely in then, Rae tells Den of Geek and additional stores at a roundtable trip.

Rae, a long-time Black Mirror lover, was well aware that Brandy’s method for entering Hotel Reverie was incredibly well-known. A little device that is placed on a person’s temple to interact with a virtual reality interface has been seen before and is still relevant throughout the show’s canon. It first popped up in season 3&#8217, s &#8220, San Junipero, &#8221, then made appearances in season 4&#8217, s &#8220, USS Callister, &#8221, and season 5&#8217, s &#8220, Striking Vipers &#8221, ( where it was referred to as an &#8220, Experiencer Disk&#8221 ,). A variation of it also turns up in winter 7&#8217, s &#8220, Eulogy. The system has never had an established name up until now, and it was manufactured by TCKR Systems.

&#8220, Charlie]Brooker ] calls it a &#8216, Nubbin, &#8217, but Awkwafina&#8217, s character calls it a &#8216, Mesmerizer. &#8217, I don&#8217, t know if that &#8217, s the vernacular variation of it, &#8221, Rae says. &#8220, I didn&#8217, t have the &#8216, real&#8217, type on display. I’m supposed to reveal this, but I had a smaller, false type with double-sided audio. So I was really excited to keep a true one more just. &#8221,

The real, real, and 8221 Nubbin that Rae recently obtained was certainly the one used to picture this season 7 meta commercial.

@nubbin #blackmirror unique audio &#8211, BlackMirror issa jones taking a quick trip to another fact

A Netflix-hosted stimulation that accompanied that similar ad campaign gave visitors the opportunity to use the machine that is unquestionably called a Nubbin with a brand-mark and all. On this one, Charlie Brooker seems to have found a way to win. Sorry, Awkwafina&#8217, s figure!

The use of the doohickey, which is now known as a Nubbin, has an additional level of frequency below. Hotel Reverie is ultimately a touching like story where two women make a connection between themselves and space, much like that timeless show of the show. The story also comes to an end with a San Junipero easter egg as it turns out that Brandy Friday’s address is 3049 Junipero Drive, which is revealed as &#8220. &#8221,

Charlie claimed that this is the first season he has written for this season and that is #8220. [San Junpiero] has a lot of work to do, but I really hope people can look at them differently but also enjoy them as complements to one another, Rae says.

Netflix is currently streaming all six of the seventh year of Black Mirror.

The second article on Den of Geek was How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon.

Sam Wilson had everything you could ask for from the Sentinel of Liberty when he first appeared on display in Captain America: Brave New World in February of last year. He had the weapon, which Steve Rogers gave him in Avengers: Endgame, along with the star-spangled coat and unmatched hand-to-hand battle skills. However, there is one factor […]

The second post from Den of Geek: Captain America 4 Writer Explains the Essential Difference Between Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson first appeared.

The event 8220, Hotel Reverie, in this article contains clues. &#8221,

You know what I mean when I say that Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it.

*gets down * Sorry about that; perhaps an example from &#8220, Hotel Reverie &#8221, can help. Issa Rae plays Brandy Friday, a current movie star who assumes the role of the female lead in the remake of her all-time favourite black-and-white classic. In this season 7, Issa Rae portrays her in the role of the female lead. Brandy is guilty of no reading The Instructions, like many other Black Mirror figures, and she is unaware that remaking the movie, which requires her to online adapt and play her part eloquently enough to get to the end, is a bad thing.

Hotel Reverie isn’t just about systems, it’s. Redream is basically what initiates events, and Charlie Brooker and Haolu Wang’s film, which explores nuanced issues of electric personhood, copyright law, and love itself. However, the story wouldn’t be able to observe those issues in the first place without that technology as a starting point. Issa Rae was drawn to the position because of the relationship between sci-fi criticism and the human state.

I can recall being extremely excited to receive a Black Mirror text and also being considered for it, and then being completely immersed in each of the amounts of it. Rae tells Den of Geek and other sources at a roundtable trip that I was going to say yes anyhow, but I was unquestionably in that situation, &#8221.

Rae, a long-time Black Mirror lover, was well aware that Brandy’s method of entering Hotel Reverie looked pretty well known. A little device that is placed on a person’s temple to interact with a virtual reality interface has been seen before and is still relevant throughout the show’s canon. It first popped up in season 3&#8217, s &#8220, San Junipero, &#8221, then made appearances in season 4&#8217, s &#8220, USS Callister, &#8221, and season 5&#8217, s &#8220, Striking Vipers &#8221, ( where it was referred to as an &#8220, Experiencer Disk&#8221 ,). A variation of it also turns up in winter 7&#8217, s &#8220, Eulogy. The system has never had an official title up until now, and it was reportedly manufactured by TCKR Systems.

&#8220, Charlie]Brooker ] calls it a &#8216, Nubbin, &#8217, but Awkwafina&#8217, s character calls it a &#8216, Mesmerizer. &#8217, I don&#8217, t know if that &#8217, s the vernacular variation of it, &#8221, Rae says. &#8220, I didn&#8217, t have the &#8216, real&#8217, edition on display. I’m supposed to disclose this, but I don’t know if I’m supposed to, but I had a smaller, fraudulent version with double-sided tape. So I was really excited to schedule another one soon. &#8221,

The real, real, and 8221 Nubbin that Rae recently held was truly the one that was used to picture this season 7 meta commercial.

#nubbin #blackmirror unique audio &#8211, BlackMirror issa jones taking a quick trip to another fact

A Netflix-hosted stimulation that accompanied that similar ad campaign gave visitors the opportunity to use the machine that is unquestionably called a Nubbin with a brand-mark and all. On this one, Charlie Brooker seems to have got his way. Sorry, Awkwafina&#8217, s figure!

The use of the doohickey, which is now known as a Nubbin, has an additional level of frequency around. Hotel Reverie is ultimately a touching like story where two women make a connection between themselves and space, much like that timeless event of the show. The story also comes to an end with a San Junipero easter egg as it turns out that Brandy Friday’s address is 3049 Junipero Drive, which is revealed as &#8220. &#8221,

Charlie claimed that this is the first season he has written for this season and that is #8220. San Junpiero has a lot of work to load, so I really hope people can look at them both differently but also enjoy them as suits to one another, Rae says.

Netflix is currently streaming all six of the seventh year of Black Mirror.

The first article on Den of Geek: How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon was first published.

The Black Mirror season” Hotel Reverie” has clues in this article. You know what I mean when I say that Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it. Sorry about that, but an illustration from” Hotel Reverie” might be able to explain it better. Issa Rae portrays Brandy Friday in this time 7 episode as a modern-day]…

The second article on Den of Geek was How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon.

This article contains spoilers for the Hotel Reverie season of Black Mirror. &#8221,

You know what I mean when I say that Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it.

Sorry about that; perhaps an illustration from Hotel Reverie&#8221 would help. Issa Rae plays Brandy Friday, a current movie star who assumes the role of the female lead in the remake of her all-time favourite black-and-white classic. In this season 7, Issa Rae portrays her in the role of the female lead. Brandy is guilty of no reading The Instructions, like many other Black Mirror figures, and she is unaware that remaking the movie, which requires her to online adapt and play her part eloquently enough to get to the end, is a bad thing.

Hotel Reverie isn’t just about systems, it’s. Redream is basically what initiates events, and Charlie Brooker and Haolu Wang’s film, which explores nuanced issues of electric personhood, copyright law, and love itself. However, the account wouldn’t be able to begin to explore those issues without that technology as a starting point. Issa Rae’s attraction to the part was fueled by the relationship between sci-fi criticism and the human condition.

I can recall being extremely excited to receive a Black Mirror text and also being considered for it, and then being completely immersed in each of the amounts of it. Rae tells Den of Geek and other sources at a roundtable trip that I was going to say yes anyhow, but I was unquestionably in that situation.

Rae, a long-time Black Mirror lover, was well aware of Brandy’s trademarked technology that made its entrance to Hotel Reverie. A little device that is placed on a person’s temple to interact with a virtual reality interface has been seen before and is still relevant throughout the show’s canon. It first popped up in season 3&#8217, s &#8220, San Junipero, &#8221, then made appearances in season 4&#8217, s &#8220, USS Callister, &#8221, and season 5&#8217, s &#8220, Striking Vipers &#8221, ( where it was referred to as an &#8220, Experiencer Disk&#8221 ,). A variation of it also turns up in winter 7&#8217, s &#8220, Eulogy. The system has never had an established name up until now, and it was manufactured by TCKR Systems.

&#8220, Charlie]Brooker ] calls it a &#8216, Nubbin, &#8217, but Awkwafina&#8217, s character calls it a &#8216, Mesmerizer. &#8217, I don&#8217, t know if that &#8217, s the vernacular variation of it, &#8221, Rae says. &#8220, I didn&#8217, t have the &#8216, real&#8217, type on display. I’m supposed to reveal this, but I had a false, smaller type with double-sided audio. So I was really excited to schedule another one soon. &#8221,

The real, real, and 8221 Nubbin that Rae recently held was certainly the one that was used to film this season 7 meta commercial.

@nubbin #blackmirror unique noise &#8211, BlackMirror issa jones taking a quick trip to another fact

Visitors may experience the unit, which is unquestionably called a Nubbin with a company trademark and everything, as well as the same ad campaign and associated Netflix-hosted activation. On this one, Charlie Brooker seems to have found a way to win. Sorry, Awkwafina&#8217, s figure!

The use of the doohickey, which is now known as a Nubbin, has an additional level of frequency below. Hotel Reverie is ultimately a touching like story involving two women who form distance relationships with time and space, much like that timeless traditional event. The story also comes to an end with a San Junipero easter egg as it turns out that Brandy Friday’s address is 3049 Junipero Drive, which is revealed as &#8220. &#8221,

Charlie claimed this was his first season of this year and that it was titled &#8220. San Junpiero has a lot of work to load, so I really hope people can look at them both differently but also enjoy them as suits to one another, Rae says.

Netflix is currently streaming all six of Season 7 of Black Mirror.

The second article on Den of Geek was How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon.

Jango Fett’s ship is the best access for fans of the Star Wars prequels, according to LEGO, accessible May 1st. It is amazing that Jango Fett’s Slave I, which was featured in Attack of the Clones, only has appeared four times in LEGO kind, and three of those types are microfluidics. 75409 Jango Fett’s ]…]

The first article on Den of Geek: Jango Fett Gets the LEGO Ultimate Collector Series Treatment appeared second.

The show 8220, Hotel Reverie, in this article contains clues. &#8221,

You know what I mean, Black Mirror is about systems, but it isn’t about it, you know what I mean?

Sorry about that; perhaps an illustration from Hotel Reverie&#8221 would help. Issa Rae stars as Brandy Friday, a current movie star who assumes the role of the male lead in the copy of her all-time popular black-and-white traditional film Hotel Reverie in this season 7 installment. Like many other Black Mirror figures, Brandy is guilty of not reading The Instructions and is unaware that remaking the movie means technologically stepping into the original version where she must sing her part eloquently enough to get to the end.

Hotel Reverie isn’t just about systems, it’s. Redream is basically what initiates events, and the episode, which was directed by Haolu Wang and was written by Charlie Brooker, can address difficult issues involving electric personhood, copyright laws, and adore itself. However, the story wouldn’t be able to observe those issues in the first place without that technology as a starting point. Issa Rae was drawn to the position because of the relationship between sci-fi criticism and the human state.

I can recall being extremely excited to receive a Black Mirror text and yet being chosen for it, and then being completely immersed in each of its various levels. Rae tells Den of Geek and other sources at a roundtable trip that I was going to say yes anyhow, but I was unquestionably in that situation.

Rae, a long-time Black Mirror lover, was well aware that Brandy’s method for entering Hotel Reverie was incredibly well-known. A little device that is placed on a person’s temple to interact with a virtual reality interface has been seen before and is still relevant throughout the show’s canon. It first popped up in season 3&#8217, s &#8220, San Junipero, &#8221, then made appearances in season 4&#8217, s &#8220, USS Callister, &#8221, and season 5&#8217, s &#8220, Striking Vipers &#8221, ( where it was referred to as an &#8220, Experiencer Disk&#8221 ,). A variation of it also turns up in winter 7&#8217, s &#8220, Eulogy. The system has never had an official title up until now, and it was reportedly manufactured by TCKR Systems.

&#8220, Charlie]Brooker ] calls it a &#8216, Nubbin, &#8217, but Awkwafina&#8217, s character calls it a &#8216, Mesmerizer. &#8217, I don&#8217, t know if that &#8217, s the vernacular version of it, &#8221, Rae says. &#8220, I didn&#8217, t have the &#8216, real&#8217, edition on display. I’m supposed to disclose this, but I don’t know if I’m supposed to, but I had a smaller, false version with double-sided tape. So I was very excited to keep a true one more just. &#8221,

The real, real, and 8221 Nubbin that Rae recently obtained was certainly the one used to picture this season 7 meta commercial.

@nubbin #blackmirror authentic audio &#8211, BlackMirror issa wright taking a fast trip to another real #nubbin #blackmirror

Visitors may experience the unit, which is unquestionably called a Nubbin with a company trademark and everything, as well as the same ad campaign and associated Netflix-hosted activation. On this one, Charlie Brooker seems to have got his way. Sorry, Awkwafina&#8217, s figure!

The use of the doohickey, which is now known as a Nubbin, has an additional level of frequency around. Hotel Reverie is ultimately a touching like story where two women make a connection between themselves and space, much like that timeless show of the show. As Brandy Friday’s tackle is revealed to be 3049 Junipero Drive, the story actually comes to an end with a San Junipero spring egg. &#8221,

Charlie claimed that this is the first season he has written for this season and that is #8220. San Junpiero has a lot of work to load, so I really hope people can look at them both differently but also enjoy them as suits to one another, Rae says.

Netflix currently has all six bouts of Black Mirror year 7.

The first article on Den of Geek: How Hotel Reverie Expands Upon the Black Mirror Canon was first published.

This Person Does Not Exist is a website that generates human faces with a machine learning algorithm. It takes real portraits and recombines them into fake human faces. We recently scrolled past a LinkedIn post stating that this website could be useful “if you are developing a persona and looking for a photo.” 

We agree: the computer-generated faces could be a great match for personas—but not for the reason you might think. Ironically, the website highlights the core issue of this very common design method: the person(a) does not exist. Like the pictures, personas are artificially made. Information is taken out of natural context and recombined into an isolated snapshot that’s detached from reality. 

But strangely enough, designers use personas to inspire their design for the real world. 

Personas: A step back

Most designers have created, used, or come across personas at least once in their career. In their article “Personas – A Simple Introduction,” the Interaction Design Foundation defines personas as “fictional characters, which you create based upon your research in order to represent the different 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 personas

Personas are popular because they make “dry” research data more relatable, more human. However, this method constrains the researcher’s data analysis in such a way that the investigated users are removed from their unique contexts. As a result, personas don’t portray key factors that make you understand their decision-making process or allow you to relate to users’ thoughts and behavior; they lack stories. You understand what the persona did, but you don’t have the background to understand why. You end up with representations of users that are actually less human.

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

Personas assume people are static 

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 differently according to the situations you experience. You appear different to different people; you might act friendly to some, rough to others. And you change your mind all the time about decisions you’ve taken. 

Modern psychologists agree that while people generally behave according to certain patterns, it’s actually a combination of background and environment that determines how people act and take decisions. The context—the environment, the influence of other people, your mood, the entire history that led up to a situation—determines the kind of person you are in each specific moment. 

In their attempt to simplify reality, personas do not take this variability into account; they present a user as a fixed set of features. Like personality tests, personas snatch people away from real life. Even worse, people are reduced to a label and categorized as “that kind of person” with no means to exercise their innate flexibility. This practice reinforces stereotypes, lowers diversity, and doesn’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 wouldn’t take into account this dependency, because it doesn’t specify the premises of your decisions. It doesn’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 haven’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 didn’t mean it like that.” The celebrity’s statement was reported literally, but the reporter failed to explain the context around the statement and didn’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 doesn’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 wouldn’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, doesn’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 shouldn’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 doesn’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 zealous stress?

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

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

She instantly KNOWS what she must do! She may DO MORE.

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

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

I am the one who was

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

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

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

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

Why the long history, then? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I’ve read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is real. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s difficult, and the avoidance, shutting down, and procrastination have an impact on so many amazing professionals. There are important articles that relate to what I imagine must be the majority of people out there, but not me. Not at the time of my burnout, though.

The dangerous invisibility of zealous burnout

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

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

Women and burnout

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

Despite this, women are still more likely than their male counterparts to burn out, especially in these COVID stressful 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 frequently feel the need to work even more because they aren’t under that much 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 costs that go beyond happiness. Harvard Health Publishing released a study a decade ago that “uncovered strong links between women’s job stress and cardiovascular disease”. The CDC noted,” Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, killing 299, 578 women in 2017—or about 1 in every 5 female deaths”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you using justifications? Many of us try to disregard feelings of burnout. Over and over I have heard,” It’s just crunch time”,” As soon as I do this one thing, it will all be better”, and” Well I should be able to handle this, so I’ll figure it out”. And it might actually be crunch time, a single objective, and/or a set of skills you need to master. That happens—life happens. Be open to yourself if this continues to happen. 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 has an exit route with a pause button if it is truly temporary and you do need to simply push through, it does.
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.
• Go outside.
• Take a break.
• Practice self-care in general.

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

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

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

Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

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

Vent like a sniveling jerk.

Be careful with this one!

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

When that is required, turn to a trusted friend and give yourself some pure verbal diarrhea by expressing all your concerns. You need to trust this friend not to judge, to see your pain, and, most importantly, to tell you to remove your cranium from your own rectal cavity. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he can simplify things down to the simplest of terms, even though sometimes after the fact. ” We’re spending our lives together, of course you’re going to disappoint me from time to time, so get over it” has been his way of speaking his dedication, love, and acceptance of me—and I could not be more grateful. Of course, it required that I 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 are more like you sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance than they are self-help. Maybe you’ll find something that speaks to you. Among the titles that have stood out to me are:

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

Or, another method I enjoy using is to read or listen to a book that is 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
• Darin Olien’s Superlife
• A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived by Adam Rutherford
• Toby Hemenway’s Gaia’s Garden is available.

If you’re not into reading, pick up a topic on YouTube or choose a podcast to subscribe to. I’ve watched countless permaculture and gardening topics in addition to how to raise chickens and ducks. For the record, I don’t currently have a particularly large food garden or raise any kind of livestock. I just find the topic interesting, and it has nothing to do with any aspect of my life that needs anything from me.

Give yourself a break.

You are never going to be perfect—hell, it would be boring if you were. It’s OK to be broken and flawed. Being tired, depressed, and worried is human nature. It’s OK to not do it all. You can’t be brave without being imperfect, which is scary, but you can’t be brave without being imperfect.

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

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

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

Look, I get that none of these ideas will “fix it”, and that’s not their purpose. Only how we react to the things around us is what we control. 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 the things that largely work for me. Maybe they’ll work for you.

Does this sound familiar?

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

Do you remember that Winnie the Pooh sketch that had Pooh eat so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? It came as no surprise when Rabbit abruptly declared that this was unacceptable because I already associate a lot with him. 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 aware that we can push ourselves if necessary, even when we are exhausted or have a ton of 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 make room for comfortable human space, but that doesn’t really sound that bad either.

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

One of the most successful soft knowledge we have at our disposal is the ability to work together to improve our patterns while developing our own abilities and opinions, in whatever form it takes, and whatever it may be called.

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

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

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

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

The material

The material of the feedback serves as the foundation for every effective criticism, so we need to start there. There are many versions that you can use to design your information. The one that I personally like best—because it’s obvious and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

This formula is typically used to provide feedback to people, but it also fits really well in a design criticism because it finally addresses one of the main inquiries that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some comments about some pattern function that spans several screens, like an onboard movement: there are some pages shown, a stream blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You notice something that needs to be improved. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

Here is a comment that could be included in some feedback, and it might appear reasonable at first glance because it appears to merely fit the equation. But does it?

Not sure about the buttons ‘ styles and hierarchy—it feels off. Can they be altered?

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

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back.

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

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

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

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The atmosphere

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

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

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

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

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That entails checking whether what we have in mind will actually help the person and improve the overall project before writing. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Although it’s possible, and that’s okay, it’s hoped not to be the case. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I be more helpful?

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

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

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

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

The format

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s” This button isn’t well aligned” versus” You haven’t aligned this button well”. This can be changed in your writing very quickly by reviewing it just before sending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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