Blog

The mobile-first design approach is excellent because it concentrates on what the customer truly needs, is well-practiced, and has become a standard design practice for years. But developing your CSS mobile-first should also be fantastic, too…right?

Well, not necessarily. Classic mobile-first CSS development is based on the principle of overwriting style declarations: you begin your CSS with default style declarations, and overwrite and/or add new styles as you add breakpoints with min-width media queries for larger viewports (for a good overview see “What is Mobile First CSS and Why Does It Rock?”). But all those exceptions create complexity and inefficiency, which in turn can lead to an increased testing effort and a code base that’s harder to maintain. Admit it—how many of us willingly want that?

Mobile-first CSS may yet be the best option for your own projects, but you need to first determine how acceptable it is in light of the physical design and user interactions you’re working on. To help you get started, here’s how I go about tackling the elements you need to watch for, and I’ll discuss some alternative remedies if mobile-first doesn’t seem to fit your job.

benefits of mobile-first technology

Some of the benefits of mobile-first CSS growth, and why it has been the de facto growth practice for so long, make a lot of sense:

Development pyramid. A good development hierarchy is one thing you definitely get from mobile-first; you just concentrate on the cellular view and start developing.

tested and verified. It’s a tried and tested technique that’s worked for years for a cause: it solves a problem actually also.

emphasizes the portable viewpoint. The smart watch is the simplest and perhaps the most crucial because it covers all of the crucial user journeys and frequently accounts for more user visits ( depending on the project ) in terms of both simple and crucial aspects.

Inhibits desktop-centric growth. It can be tempting to first focus on the desktop perspective because desktop computers are used for growth. No one wants to spend their time retrofitting a desktop-centric website to function on mobile devices, but thinking about wireless right away keeps us from getting stuck later on!

Drawbacks of mobile-first

Model declarations can be set at lower breakpoints and finally overwritten at higher breakpoints:

more complicated stuff. The farther up the target order you go, the more unnecessary script you inherit from lower thresholds.

higher CSS sensitivity A group name declaration’s default style has then a higher specificity that has been returned to the browser’s default value. This can be a pain on big projects when you want to preserve the CSS candidates as simple as possible.

Takes more regression analysis. All higher thresholds must be regression tested if changes to CSS at a lower see ( such as adding a new style ) are to be made.

The browser can’t prioritize CSS downloads. At wider breakpoints, classic mobile-first min-width media queries don’t leverage the browser’s capability to download CSS files in priority order.

Property price issue overrules its own.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with overwriting principles, CSS was designed to do just that. Even so, inheriting wrong values may be laborious and ineffective. When you have to replace styles to restore them to their defaults, which may cause issues after, especially if you are using a combination of bespoke CSS and power classes, it can also lead to more fashion precision. We won’t be able to use a power school for a design that has been restore with a higher precision.

With this in mind, I’m developing CSS with a focus on the default values much more these days. Since there’s no specific order, and no chains of specific values to keep track of, this frees me to develop breakpoints simultaneously. I concentrate on finding common styles and isolating the specific exceptions in closed media query ranges (that is, any range with a max-width set). 

As you can view each target as a blank slate, this technique opens up some opportunities. If a product’s layout appears to be based on Flexbox at all thresholds, that is acceptable and can be coded in the definition style sheet. But if it looks like Grid would be much better for large windows and Flexbox for portable, these can both be done entirely freely when the CSS is put into finished media keyword ranges. Additionally, developing simultaneously requires you to have a thorough understanding of any given component in all breakpoints right away. This can help identify issues with the design more quickly in the development process. We don’t want to get stuck down a rabbit hole building a complex component for mobile, and then get the designs for desktop and find they are equally complex and incompatible with the HTML we created for the mobile view!

I encourage you to try this method, even though it won’t work for everyone. There are plenty of tools available to support concurrent development, including Responsively App, Blisk, and many others.

Having said that, I don’t feel the order itself is particularly relevant. If you like to work on one device at a time, are comfortable with focusing on the mobile view, and have a good understanding of the requirements for other breakpoints, then you should definitely stick to the classic development order. The key is to find common styles and exceptions so that you can include them in the appropriate stylesheet, which is a manual tree-shaking procedure! Personally, I find this a little easier when working on a component across breakpoints, but that’s by no means a requirement.

Closed media query ranges are used in real life.

We overwrite the styles in the classic mobile-first CSS, but we can prevent this by using media query ranges. To illustrate the difference ( I’m using SCSS for brevity ), let’s assume there are three visual designs:

• smaller than 768
• from 768 to less than 1024
• 1024 and anything larger

Take a simple example where a block-level element has a default padding of “20px,” which is overwritten at tablet to be “40px” and set back to “20px” on desktop.

.my-block { padding: 20px; @media (min-width: 768px) { padding: 40px; } @media (min-width: 1024px) { padding: 20px; }}

.my-block { padding: 20px; @media (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023.98px) { padding: 40px; }}

The subtle difference is that the mobile-first example sets the default padding to “20px” and then overwrites it at each breakpoint, setting it three times in total. In contrast, the second example sets the default padding to “20px” and only overrides it at the relevant breakpoint where it isn’t the default value (in this instance, tablet is the exception).

The goal is to: 

• Only set styles when needed. 
• Not set them with the expectation of overwriting them later on, again and again. 

To this end, closed media query ranges are our best friend. If we need to make a change to any given view, we make it in the CSS media query range that applies to the specific breakpoint. We’ll be much less likely to introduce unwanted alterations, and our regression testing only needs to focus on the breakpoint we have actually edited. 

Taking the above example, if we find that .my-block spacing on desktop is already accounted for by the margin at that breakpoint, and since we want to remove the padding altogether, we could do this by setting the mobile padding in a closed media query range.

.my-block {  @media (max-width: 767.98px) {    padding: 20px;  }  @media (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023.98px) {    padding: 40px;  }}

The browser default padding for our block is “0,” so instead of adding a desktop media query and using unset or “0” for the padding value (which we would need with mobile-first), we can wrap the mobile padding in a closed media query (since it is now also an exception) so it won’t get picked up at wider breakpoints. At the desktop breakpoint, we won’t need to set any padding style, as we want the browser default value.

Bundling versus separating the CSS

Back in the day, keeping the number of requests to a minimum was very important because the browser's concurrent requests limit (typically around six ) was high. In consequence, using image sprites and CSS bundling was the norm, with all the CSS being downloaded as a single stylesheet with the highest priority.

With HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 now on the scene, the number of requests is no longer the big deal it used to be. This enables us to use a media query to break CSS into multiple files. The obvious benefit of this is that the browser can now request the CSS it currently requires with a higher priority than the CSS it doesn't. This is more performant and can reduce the overall time page rendering is blocked.

What version of HTTP do you use?

Go to your website and open your browser's dev tools to find out which version of HTTP you're using. Next, select the Network tab and make sure the Protocol column is visible. If "h2" is included in the protocol list, that indicates that HTTP/2 is being used.

Note: To check the Protocol column in your browser's dev tools, right-click any column header ( such as Name ), go to the Network tab, reload your page, and then check the Protocol column.

Also, if your website is still using HTTP/1... WHY?! What are you waiting for? The HTTP/2 user support is excellent.

splitting the CSS

Separating the CSS into individual files is a worthwhile task. Linking the separate CSS files using the relevant media attribute allows the browser to identify which files are needed immediately (because they’re render-blocking) and which can be deferred. Based on this, it allocates each file an appropriate priority.

In the following example of a website visited on a mobile breakpoint, we can see the mobile and default CSS are loaded with" Highest" priority, as they are currently needed to render the page. The last three CSS files ( print, tablet, and desktop ) are still being downloaded in case they're needed later, but with" Lowest" priority.

Before rendering can begin, the browser will need to download and parse the CSS file when using bundled CSS.

While, as noted, with the CSS separated into different files linked and marked up with the relevant media attribute, the browser can prioritize the files it currently needs. Using closed media query ranges allows the browser to do this at all widths, as opposed to classic mobile-first min-width queries, where the desktop browser would have to download all the CSS with Highest priority. We can’t assume that desktop users always have a fast connection. For instance, in many rural areas, internet connection speeds are still slow. 

Depending on project requirements, the media queries and the number of separate CSS files will vary from project to project, but the example below might look similar.

Depending on the project’s deployment strategy, a change to one file (mobile.css, for example) would only require the QA team to regression test on devices in that specific media query range. Compare that to the prospect of deploying the single bundled site.css file, an approach that would normally trigger a full regression test.

Moving on

The adoption of mobile-first CSS was a significant milestone in web development because it allowed front-end developers to concentrate on mobile web applications rather than creating websites for desktop use and attempting to retrofit them to work on other devices.

I don't think anyone wants to return to that development model again, but it's important we don't lose sight of the issue it highlighted: that things can easily get convoluted and less efficient if we prioritize one particular device—any device—over others. For this reason, it seems like the natural next step to concentrate on the CSS in its own right, always mindful of what is the default setting and what constitutes an exception. I've started to notice subtle simplifications in both the CSS of my own and that of other developers, and that testing and maintenance work is also a little more effective and streamlined.

In general, simplifying CSS rule creation whenever we can is ultimately a cleaner approach than going around in circles of overrides. However, the project must fit the methodology you choose. Mobile-first may turn out to be the best option for the situation at hand or not, but first you need to fully comprehend the trade-offs you're entering.

In tomorrow’s data-driven environment, it’s becoming more and more common for a UX expert to be asked to create a personal digital experience, whether it’s a common website, user portal, or local application. However while there continues to be no lack of marketing buzz around personalization systems, we also have very few defined approaches for implementing personalized UX.

That’s where we come in. After completing tens of personalisation projects over the past few years, we gave ourselves a purpose: could you make a systematic personalization platform especially for UX practitioners? The Personalization Pyramid is a designer-centric framework for establishing human-centered personalization initiatives that cover information, classification, content delivery, and overall objectives. By using this strategy, you will be able to understand the core elements of a modern, UX-driven personalization system ( or at the very least know enough to get started ).

Getting Started

We’ll assume that you are already comfortable with the fundamentals of modern personalization for the purposes of this article. A nice guide can be found these: Website Personalization Planning. Although Graphic projects in this field can take a variety of forms, they frequently start from the same place.

Common scenarios for starting a personalisation task:

• Your business or client made a purchase to support personalization of a content management system ( CMS ), marketing automation platform ( MAP ), or other related technology.
• The CMO, CDO, or CIO has identified personalisation as a target
• User data is unclear or disjointed.
• You are running some secluded targeting strategies or A/B tests
• On the personalisation approach, parties of contention
• Mandate of customer privacy rules ( e. g. GDPR ) requires revisiting existing user targeting practices

Regardless of where you begin, a powerful personalization system will require the same key building stones. These are the “levels” on the tower, as we’ve made them. Whether you are a UX artist, scholar, or planner, understanding the core components may help make your contribution effective.

From top to bottom, the rates include:

North Star: What larger corporate goal is the personalisation initiative pursuing?
1. Objectives: What are the specific, tangible benefits of the system?
2. Touchpoints: Where will you get customized service?
3. Contexts and Campaigns: What personalization information does the person view?
4. What constitutes a distinct, suitable audience? User Parts
5. Actionable information: What dependable and credible information is captured by our professional platform to generate personalization?
6. What wider set of data is conceivable ( now in our environment ) to allow you to optimize?

We’ll go through each of these amounts in change. To make this more bearable, we created a deck of cards that accompany it to show specific examples from each stage. We’ve found them helpful in customisation pondering periods, and will include cases for you here.

Starting at the Top

The elements of the pyramids are as follows:

North Star

What overall goal do you have with your personalization system ( big or small ) is a northern star. The North Star defines the (one ) overall mission of the personalization program. What are your goals, exactly? North Stars cast a ghost. The darkness is bigger the sun the bigger the sun. Example of North Starts may include:

Function: Optimize based on fundamental consumer inputs. Examples:” Raw” messages, basic search effects, system user settings and settings options, general flexibility, basic improvements
1. Self-contained customisation component is a feature. Examples:” Cooked” notifications, advanced optimizations ( geolocation ), basic dynamic messaging, customized modules, automations, recommenders
2. Experience: Individualized customer experiences across a variety of interactions and customer flows. Examples: Email campaigns, landing pages, advanced messaging ( i. e. C2C chat ) or conversational interfaces, larger user flows and content-intensive optimizations ( localization ).
3. Solution: Highly distinctive, personalized solution experiences. Example: Standalone, branded encounters with personalization at their base, like the “algotorial” songs by Spotify quite as Discover Weekly.

Goals

Personalization can aid in developing with client intentions, just like it is with any great UX design. Goals are the military and quantifiable metrics that may prove the entire program is effective. Start with your existing analytics and measurement system, as well as metrics that you can benchmark against. In some cases, new targets may be suitable. The most important thing to keep in mind is that personalisation is certainly a desired outcome. Common targets include:

• Conversion
• Time spent on work
• Net promoter score ( NPS)
• Satisfaction of the customers

Touchpoints

Touchpoints are where the personalisation happens. This will be one of your biggest areas of responsibility as a UX artist. The connections available to you will depend on how your personalization and associated technology features are instrumented, and should be rooted in improving a person’s experience at a certain point in the trip. Touchpoints can be multi-device ( mobile, in-store, website ), as well as more specific ( web banner, web pop-up, etc. ). Several examples are given below:

Channel-level Points

• Email: Role
• Email: When is the email open?
• In-store display ( JSON endpoint )
• Native app
• Search

Wireframe-level Touchpoints

• Web overlay
• Web alert bar
• Web banner
• Web content block
• menu on the web

If you’re designing for web interfaces, for example, you will likely need to include personalized “zones” in your wireframes. Based on our next step, context, and campaigns, the content for these can be presented programmatically in touchpoints.

Contexts and Campaigns

Once you’ve identified some touchpoints, you can decide what kind of personalized content a user will receive. Many personalization tools will refer to these as” campaigns” ( so, for example, a campaign on a web banner for new visitors to the website ). These will be displayed programmatically to specific user segments, as defined by user data. At this stage, we find it helpful to consider two separate models: a context model and a content model. The context helps you consider the level of user engagement at the personalization moment, for instance, if they are just casually browsing information rather than engaging in a deep dive. Think of it in terms of information retrieval behaviors. The content model can then guide you in deciding what kind of personalization to use in the context ( for instance, an” Enrich” campaign that features related articles might be a good substitute for extant content ).

Personalization Context Model:

1. Browse
2. Skim
3. Nudge
4. Feast

Personalization Content Model

1. Alert
2. Make Easier
3. Cross-Sell
4. Enrich

If you’d like to read more about each of these models, check out Colin’s Personalization Content Model and Jeff’s Personalization Context Model.

User Groups

User segments can be created prescriptively or adaptively, based on user research ( e. g. via rules and logic tied to set user behaviors or via A/B testing ). You will need to think about how to treat the unidentified or first-time visitor, the guest or returning visitor for whom you may have a stateful cookie ( or an equivalent post-cookie identifier ), or the logged-in visitor who is authenticated. Here are some examples from the personalization pyramid:

• Unknown
• Guest
• Authenticated
• Default
• Referred
• Role
• Cohort
• Unique ID

Actionable information

Every organization with any digital presence has data. It’s important to inquire about how to use the data you can ethically collect on users, its inherent reliability and value, and what is the term for “data activation.” Fortunately, the tide is turning to first-party data: a recent study by Twilio estimates some 80 % of businesses are using at least some type of first-party data to personalize the customer experience.

First-party data has a number of benefits for the user experience, including being relatively simple to collect, more likely to be accurate, and less susceptible to the” creep factor” of third-party data. So a key part of your UX strategy should be to determine what the best form of data collection is on your audiences. Several examples are given below:

There is a progression of profiling when it comes to recognizing and making decisioning about different audiences and their signals. As user data volume and time and confidence increase, it varies more granularly to more precise constructs about ever-smaller cohorts of users.

While some combination of implicit / explicit data is generally a prerequisite for any implementation ( more commonly referred to as first party and third-party data ) ML efforts are typically not cost-effective directly out of the box. This is because optimization requires a strong data backbone and content repository. But these approaches should be considered as part of the larger roadmap and may indeed help accelerate the organization’s overall progress. At this point, you will typically work with key stakeholders and product owners to create a profiling model. The profiling model includes defining approach to configuring profiles, profile keys, profile cards and pattern cards. a scalable, multi-faceted approach to profiling.

Pulling it Together

The cards serve as a starting point for an inventory of sorts ( we offer blanks for you to customize your own ), a set of potential levers and motivations for the personalization activities you aspire to deliver, but they are more valuable when grouped together.

In assembling a card “hand”, one can begin to trace the entire trajectory from leadership focus down through a strategic and tactical execution. It is also at the heart of the way that both co-authors have organized workshops to build a backlog of programs, which would make a good subject for a separate article.

In the meantime, what is important to note is that each colored class of card is helpful to survey in understanding the range of choices potentially at your disposal, it is threading through and making concrete decisions about for whom this decisioning will be made: where, when, and how.

Lay Down Your Cards

Any effective personalization strategy must take into account near, middle, and long-term objectives. Even with the leading CMS platforms like Sitecore and Adobe or the most exciting composable CMS DXP out there, there is simply no “easy button” wherein a personalization program can be stood up and immediately view meaningful results. Having said that, every personalization activity has a common grammar, just like every sentence has nouns and verbs. These cards attempt to map that territory.

Humility, a writer’s most important quality, has a great circle to it. What about sincerity, an business manager’s important value? Or a surgeon’s? Or a teacher’s? They all have excellent sounding voices. When humility is our guiding light, the course is usually available for fulfillment, development, relation, and commitment. We’re going to discuss why in this section.

That said, this is a guide for developers, and to that conclusion, I’d like to begin with a story—well, a voyage, actually. It’s a private one, and I’m going to make myself a little prone along the way. I call it:

The Ludicrous Pate of Justin: A Tale

When I was coming out of arts school, a long-haired, goateed novice, write was a known quantity to me, design on the web, however, was riddled with complexities to understand and learn, a problem to be solved. Although I had formal training in typography, layout, and creative design, what most intrigued me was how these traditional skills could be applied to a young online landscape. This theme may eventually form the rest of my job.

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

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

Those are amazing factors between non-career relationships and the world of design, even though I’m referring to a different era. What are your main passions, or ideals, that elevate medium? The main themes remain the same, much like the primary parallels between what fulfills you, who is independent of the physical or digital worlds.

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

For instance, this iteration of my personal portfolio site (” the pseudoroom” ) from that time was experimental if not a little overt with regard to how the idea of a living sketchbook was conveyed visually. Quite skeuomorphic. On this one, I worked with fellow artist and dear pal Marc Clancy, who is now a co-founder of the creative task organizing app Milanote, to outline and then play with various user interactions. Finally, I’d break it down and script it into a modern layout.

Along with pattern book pieces, the site even offered free downloads for Mac OS customizations: pc wallpapers that were successfully style experimentation, custom-designed typefaces, and desktop icons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, there’s a reason for the nostalgia for that design era ( the” Wild West” era, as I put it ): the inherent exploration, personality, and creativity that dominated many design portals and personal portfolio websites. Ultra-finely detailed pixel art UI, custom illustration, bespoke vector graphics, all underpinned by a strong design community.

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

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

Pixel Issues

Websites during this period were often designed and built on Macs whose OS and desktops looked something like this. Although this is Mac OS 7.5, 8 and 9 aren’t all that different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaliber 1000 is short for K10k. K10k was founded in 1998 by Michael Schmidt and Toke Nygaard, and was the design news portal on the web during this period. It was the place to be, my friend, with its pixel art-fueled presentation, ultra-focused care given to every aspect of every detail, and many of the more influential designers of the time who were invited to be news authors on the site. With respect where respect is due, GUI Galaxy’s concept was inspired by what these folks were doing.

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

Amongst my personal work and side projects —and now with this inclusion—in the design community, this put me on the map. Additionally, my design work has started to appear on other design news portals, as well as be published in various printed collections, in domestic and international magazines, and in various printed collections. With that degree of success while in my early twenties, something else happened:

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

The victims? My design stagnated. My evolution has stagnated, as is my evolution.

I felt so supremely confident in my abilities that I effectively stopped researching and discovering. When I used to lead myself to iterate through concepts or sketches, I leaped right into Photoshop. I drew my inspiration from the smallest of sources ( and with blinders on ). My peers frequently vehemently disapproved of any criticism of my work. The most tragic loss: I had lost touch with my values.

My ego almost destroyed some of my friendships and blossoming professional relationships. I was toxic in talking about design and in collaboration. But thankfully, candor was a gift from those same friends. They called me out on my unhealthy behavior.

Although it was something I initially rejected, I eventually had a chance to reflect on it in depth. I was soon able to accept, and process, and course correct. Although the realization made me feel uneasy, the re-awakening was necessary. I let go of the “reward” of adulation and re-centered upon what stoked the fire for me in art school. Most importantly, I regained my fundamental values.

Always Students

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

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

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

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

I cut my teeth on usability testing, working with the Fermilab team to iterate and improve the interface. To me, how they spoke and what they talked about was like an alien tongue. And by making myself humble and working under the mindset that I was but a student, I made myself available to be a part of their world to generate that vital connection.

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

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

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

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

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

I am imaginative. What I do involves science. It’s a puzzle. I don’t perform it as much as I let it be done by me.

I have a creative side. No all creative people approve of this brand. No everyone sees themselves in this way. Some innovative people practice technology in their work. That is their perception, and I regard it. Perhaps I also have a little bit of fear for them. However, my being and approach are unique.

It distracts you to apologize and qualify in progress. That’s what my head does to destroy me. I put it off for the moment. I may forgive and be qualified at any time. After I’ve said what I originally said. which is sufficient.

Except when it is simple and flows like a beverage valley.

Sometimes it does. Maybe what I need to make arrives right away. I’ve learned to avoid saying it right away because people think you don’t work hard enough when you know it’s the best idea when you’re on the go and you know it’s the best idea.

Sometimes I just keep working until the thought strikes me. It occasionally arrives right away, but I don’t remind people for three weeks. Maybe I get so excited about something that just happened that I blurt it out and didn’t stop myself. like a child who discovered a medal in one of his Cracker Jacks. Often I get away with this. Yes, that is the best plan, but sometimes another people disagree. The majority of the time, they don’t, and I regret that passion has faded.

Joy should only be saved for the meet, when it matters. Certainly the informal get-together that comes before that meeting with two more discussions. Nothing understands why we hold these gatherings. We keep saying we’re going to get rid of them, but we just keep trying to find different ways to get them. They occasionally yet are good. But occasionally they are a hindrance to the actual labor. Depending on what you do and where you do it, the ratio between when conferences are valuable and when they are a sad distraction vary. And who you are and how you go about doing it. Suddenly, I digress. I am imaginative. That is the topic.

Sometimes, despite many hours of diligent effort, someone is hardly useful. Maybe I have to accept that and move on to the next task.

Don’t inquire about the procedure. I am imaginative.

I have a creative side. I have no control over my desires. And I have no power over my best tips.

I may hammer away and often find it useful to surround myself with images or information. I can go for a move, which occasionally works. There is no connection between sizzling fuel and flowing pots, and I may be making dinner. I frequently have a sense of direction when I awaken. The idea that may have saved me disappears almost as frequently as I become aware and a part of the world once more as a thoughtless wind of oblivion. For imagination, in my opinion, comes from that other planet. The one that we enter in ambitions and, possibly, before and after death. I’m not a writer, so that’s up to writers to think about. I am imaginative. Theologians are encouraged to build massive armies in their artistic world, which they insist is true. That is yet another diversion, though. And one that is miserable. Possibly on a much bigger issue than whether or not I am creative. But that’s also a step backwards from what I’m trying to say.

Often the result is evasion. also suffering. Do you know the designer who is tortured by the cliché? Even when the artist attempts to create a soft drink song, a callback in a worn-out sitcom, or a budget request, that noun is real.

Some individuals who detest the idea of being called artistic perhaps been closeted artists, but that’s between them and their gods. No offence intended. Your wisdom is also true. But I should take care of me.

Creatives understand artists.

Disadvantages are aware of cons, just like queers are aware of queers, just like real rappers are aware of actual rappers. People have a lot of regard for designers. We respect, follow, and almost deify the excellent ones. Of course, it is horrible to revere any person. We have been given warning. We are more knowledgeable. We are aware that people are really people. They argue, they are depressed, they regret their most critical decisions, they are weak and hungry, they can be violent, and they can be as ridiculous as we can if, like us, they are clay. But. But. However, they produce this incredible issue. They give birth to something that may not exist before them and couldn’t occur without. They are the inspirations of thought. And I suppose I should add that they are the mother of technology because it’s just lying it. Bad mee bum! Okay, that’s all done. Continue.

Because we compare our personal small accomplishments to those of the great ones, artists denigrate them. Wonderful graphics I‘m not Miyazaki, though. That is glory right now. That is glory straight out of the Bible. This unsatisfied small thing I created? It essentially fell off the back of the pumpkin truck. And the carrots weren’t actually new.

Artists is aware that they are at best Some. That is what Mozart’s artists do, also.

I have a creative side. In my hallucinations, my previous artistic managers are the ones who judge me because I haven’t worked in advertising in 30 times. They are correct in doing so. When it really counts, my brain goes flat because I am too lazy and simplistic. No medication is available to treat artistic function.

I have a creative side. Every experience I create has the potential to make Indiana Jones look older while snoring in a deck head. The more I pursue my creative endeavors, the faster I progress in my work, and the more I slog through loops and gaze blankly before beginning that task.

I can move ten times more quickly than those who aren’t creative, those who have just been creative for a short while, and those who have just had a short time of creative work. Only that I spend twice as long as they do putting the job away before I work ten times as quickly as they do. When I put my mind to it, I am so confident in my ability to do a wonderful career. I have an addiction to the delay hurry. I also have a fear of the climb.

I am hardly a painter.

I have a creative side. hardly a musician. Though as a child, I had a dream that I would one day become that. Some of us criticize our abilities and fear our own selves because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism, but at least we don’t practice elections.

I have a creative side. Despite my belief in reason and science, I make decisions based on my own senses and instincts. and survive in the aftermath of both the triumphs and disasters.

I have a creative side. Another artists, who see things differently, will find every syllable I’ve said irritate me. Ask two artists a topic and find three opinions. No matter how we does think about it, our debate, our passion for it, and our responsibility to our own truth, at least in my opinion, are the best indications that we are creative.

I have a creative side. I lament my lack of taste in the areas of human knowledge that I know quite little, that is to say about everything. And I put my flavor before everything else in the things that are most important to me, or perhaps more precisely, to my passions. Without my passions, I had probably have to spend time staring living in the eye, which almost none of us can do for very long. No seriously. Actually, no. Because a lot of career is intolerable if you really look at it.

I have a creative side. I think that when I’m gone, some of the good parts of me will stay in the head of at least one additional person, just like a family does.

Working frees me from worrying about my job.

I have a creative side. I fear that my little product will disappear.

I have a creative side. I spend way too much time making the next thing, given that almost nothing I create did achieve the level of brilliance I conceive of.

I have a creative side. I think there is the greatest secret in the process. I think I have to think it so strongly that I actually made the foolish decision to publish an essay I wrote without having to go through or edit. I swear I didn’t accomplish this frequently. But I did it right away because I was even more scared of forgetting what I was saying because I was as worried as I might be of you seeing through my sad gestures toward the gorgeous.

There. I believe I’ve said it.

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

Other words

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

As Joe points out, human-in-the-loop publishing of ctrl text should definitely be a factor. And if AI can intervene and provide a starting point for alt text, even if the swift reads,” What is this BS?” That’s not correct at all … Let me try to offer a starting point— I think that’s a gain.

If we can specifically station a design to examine image usage in context, this may help us more quickly determine which images are likely to be elegant and which ones are likely to be descriptive. That will clarify which situations require image descriptions, and it will increase authors ‘ effectiveness in making their sites more visible.

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

• Are there more smartphone users than have phones?
• How many more?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these containers?
• What number is that?

For a moment, the chance to learn more about images and data in this way may be innovative for people with low vision and blindness as well as for those with various forms of color blindness, mental disabilities, and other issues. It could also be helpful in education settings to help people who can see these figures, as is, to understand the data in the figures.

What if you could request your website to make a complicated chart simpler? What if you asked it to separate a single line from a collection curve? What if you could request your website to transform the colors of the various lines to work better for variety of colour blindness you have? What if you demanded that it switch colors in favor of patterns? That seems like a possibility given the chat-based interfaces and our current ability to manipulate images in modern AI tools.

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

Matching algorithms

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

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

More people with disabilities can be used to create algorithms, which can lessen the likelihood that they will harm their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so crucial.

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

Other ways that AI can assist people with disabilities

I’m sure I could go on and on about using AI to assist people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round if I weren’t trying to put this together in between other tasks. In no particular order:

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

The importance of diverse teams and data

We must acknowledge that our differences matter. The intersections of the identities we exist in have an impact on our lived experiences. These lived experiences—with all their complexities ( and joys and pain ) —are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences must be reflected in the data we use to develop new models, and those who provide that valuable information must be compensated for doing so. Stronger models can be created using inclusive data sets, which lead to more equitable outcomes.

Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that the training data includes information about disabilities written by people with a range of disabilities.

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

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

I have no doubts about how dangerous AI will be for people today, tomorrow, and for the rest of the world. However, I also think that we can acknowledge this and make thoughtful, thoughtful, and intentional changes in our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

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

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

How we got below

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

website requirements were born.

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

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

These new methods, requirements, and systems greatly boosted the sector’s growth. Web style flourished as creators and designers explored more different styles and designs. However, we also depend on numerous hacks. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes ( such as rounded or angled corners ) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks ). All kinds of nested floats or absolute positioning ( or both ) were necessary for complicated layouts. Display and photo substitute for specialty styles was a great start toward varying the designs from the big five, but both tricks introduced convenience and efficiency issues. And JavaScript libraries made it simple for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, even at the expense of double, even quadrupling, the download size of basic websites.

The web as software platform

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

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

The development of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and use resulted from this combination of potent mobile devices and potent development tools. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media provided connections on a global scale, with both the positive and negative effects.

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

Where we are now

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

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

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

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

Where do we go from here?

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

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

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

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

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

Play, experiment, and be weird! This website we created is the most incredible experiment. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be brave and try something new. Build a playground for ideas. In your own bizarre science lab, conduct absurd experiments. Start your own small business. There has never been a place where we have more room to be creative, take risks, and discover our potential.

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

Go ahead and create.

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

The personalization space is real, between the dream of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong ( like when we encounter “persofails” in the spirit of a company that regularly asks regular people to buy more toilet seats ). It’s an particularly confusing place to be a modern professional without a map, a map, or a strategy.

Because successful personalization is so dependent on each group’s skill, technology, and market position, there are no Lonely Planet and some tour guides for those of you who want to personalize.

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

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

It’s known as prepersonalization.

Behind the audio

Take into account Spotify’s DJ feature, which was introduced last month.

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

So how do you decide where to position your customisation wagers? How do you design regular interactions that hasn’t journey up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve discovered that several budgeted programs foremost needed one or more workshops to join key stakeholders and domestic customers of the technology to justify their continuing investments. Make it count.

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

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

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

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

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

Set the timer for your kitchen.

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The evaluation activities that we suggest including can ( and frequently do ) last for weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our more general approach as well as information on the crucial first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

Kickstart: This specifies the terms of engagement as you concentrate on the potential, the readiness and drive of your team, and your leadership.
1. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
2. Work your plan: This stage essentially entails creating a competitive environment in which team members can individually present their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its operating model.

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

Kickstart: Apt your appetite

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

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

It’s all about setting the tone. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? Here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework for a broader perspective.

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

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

Each team member should decide where their focus should be placed for your product or service. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. Here, the goal is to demonstrate how various departments may view their own advantages over the effort, which can be different from one department to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

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

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

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

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s take a look at what you’ll need to create personalization recipes. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. They give you a variety of options for how your organization can conduct its activities because of their broad and potent capabilities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

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

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

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

Verify your ingredients

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

This doesn’t just involve identifying requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team:

1. compare findings to a common method for developing features, similar to how artists paint with the same color palette,
2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar,
3. and establish parity among performance indicators and key performance indicators as well.

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

Create a recipe.

What ingredients are important to you? Consider the construct of a who-what-when-why

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

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

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

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

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

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

Architecture must be improved to produce better kitchens.

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

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

You can withstand the heat without a doubt.

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

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

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

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

Think of your favourite film. It more than likely follows a three-act narrative construction: the installation, the turmoil, and the resolution. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to understand the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. The fight begins in Act 2, which introduces the issue. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. The solution comes in the third and final action. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. This structure, in my opinion, is also a fantastic way to think about customer research, and I think it can be particularly useful for explaining consumer research to others.

Use story as a framework for conducting analysis

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see studies as being dispensable. Research is typically one of the first things to go when finances or deadlines are tight. Instead of investing in study, some goods professionals rely on manufacturers or—worse—their personal judgment to make the “right” options for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get groups a little bit out of the way, but that approach is therefore easily miss out on resolving people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. Design is enhanced by consumer study. It keeps it on record, pointing to problems and opportunities. You can keep back of your competition by being aware of the problems with your goods and fixing them.

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

Act one: layout

The rig consists entirely in comprehending the history, and that’s where fundamental research comes in. Basic research ( also called relational, discovery, or preliminary research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. Like in the movies, you’re learning about the problems users face, what options are available, and how they are affected by them. To do basic research, you may conduct situational inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both challenges and options. It doesn’t need to be a great investment in time or money.

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

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

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

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can help product team become more user-centric. This gains everyone—users, the goods, and partners. It’s similar to winning an Oscar for a film; it frequently results in a favorable reception and success for your item. And this can be an opportunity for participants to repeat this process with different products. Knowing how to show a good story is the only way to convince partners to worry about doing more research, and story is the key to this method.

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

Act two: issue

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in operate one. This typically involves conducting lateral study, such as accessibility tests, where you evaluate a potential solution ( such as a design ) to see if it addresses the problems you identified. The issues may include unfulfilled needs or problems with a circulation or procedure that’s tripping users away. More problems will come up in the process, much like in the second action of a film. It’s here that you learn more about the figures as they grow and develop through this action.

Usability tests should generally consist of five participants, according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify the majority of the issues:” 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 second user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings regularly but hardly learning much new.”

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

Usability tests have been conducted in person for decades, but you can also do them remotely using software 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 might consider in-person usability tests like watching a movie as opposed to remote testing like attending a play. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Usability research in person is a much more valuable learning experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. Additionally, you get real-time reactions, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act three: resolution

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

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

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. The most effective presenters” set up a conflict that needs to be resolved” using the same methods as great storytellers, Duarte writes. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

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

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

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

Act one: You meet the protagonists ( the users ) and the antagonists ( the problems affecting users ). The plot begins here. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. These techniques can produce personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards as output.

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

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

The researcher performs a number of tasks: they are the producer, the director, and the storyteller. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters ( in the research ). And the audience are the stakeholders. 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 parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to address the product’s flaws.

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. In the end, user research is beneficial to everyone, and all parties must be interested in the conclusion.

Television viewers have long had a fascination with prison, from Porridge to Prison Break. The effects are generally worse when bars reduce the options for action. A prisoner solid is better than a captive audience, which is one thing. We love to watch how characters behave when their freedom has been taken from them, how they ]… ]

The first article on Den of Geek was The Best Prison-Set Television Series Ranked.

From Porridge to Prison Break, Television people have long had a fascination with prison. The effects are generally worse when bars reduce the options for action. A prisoner solid is better than a captive audience, which is one thing. We adore to see how characters act when their freedom is being taken away from them, how they interact, how they plot avoid, and how they must find the strength to carry on. And we love to know how we’d live under those same circumstances, hoping never to have to turn that abstract notion or vicarious enjoyment into reality.

So, ten of the best prison style examples are presented in ascending order of merit, with our choice for best dog as the result. Feel free to say our options in the feedback, but before you react to clearly please consider this:” We’re never in here with you. You’re in below, along with us,”!

10. Breaking the Captivity

If Prison Break had been a one-and-done restricted set it would have secured a higher positioning on this record. As it stands, each season of the show more tarnished its reputation until it was less popular than the last period of a particular show about dragons may one day get to its fans.

There are few initial conditions of any present that are as powerful, habitual and simply plain enjoyment as Prison Break‘s. The main conceit is a preposterous one: Michael Scofield ( Wentworth Miller ) tattoos the schematics of the prison he helped design and then gets himself incarcerated there to help his wrongly convicted brother Lincoln ( Dominic Purcell ) escape Death Row before being put to death, but it’s delivered with such adrenalin-spiking, fast-paced panache that you simply won’t care. Prison Break also gives us one of TV’s greatest villains, the vile, despicable, and slimy, yet utterly captivating, Theodore’ T-Bag ‘ Bagwell ( Robert Knepper ), a character you’ll both love to hate, and hate to love.

Although William Fichtner’s portrayal of pill-popping, morally questionable FBI agent Alexander Mahone in year two is a delightful addition, and period three’s Panama-based tomfoolery aren’t without their charm, things quickly start to unravel after that frantic second season. Season four, however, marks the time when the movie’s rear broke beneath the weight of its extremely convoluted and absurd story, and season five, the restoration period, represents the nadir of not only the show itself, but quite possibly the entire concept of entertainment itself.

Prison Break must stop any more awful prison from leaving.

9. Worthington

Wentworth is a reimagining of, and quasi-prequel to, the Australian soap-opera Prisoner ( renamed Prisoner Cell Block H in the UK to differentiate it from Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner, which can also be found this on list ) that ran from 1979 – 1986.

The main characters are all present and accurate, with the exception of the villainous prison guard Joan” the Freak” Ferguson ( Pamela Rabe ), her compatriots Lizzie Birdsworth ( Celia Ireland ), and newcomer and top-dog-to-be Bea Smith ( Danielle Cormack ), and her compatriots Lizzie Birdsworth ( Nicole de Silva ), but gone are the small budgets and low production values that caused security gates and cell walls to squat as though they The Wentworth jail of the late 2010s is soft and present, and the actions is dark and violent. Although Wondworth probably clings more to the voice of Oz than Orange is the New Black, it is most likely the closest thing of all to the UK’s Bad Women ( which just so sadly missed out on being on this list ).

Whether you prefer Wentworth or its father certainly comes down to personal preference, and quite possibly years.

8. Prisoner Cell Block H

We have to give the Old School on the (cell ) block a leg up in Prisoner Cell Block H because it is to Wentworth what Classic Doctor Who is to NuWho. Well, the pieces were so small and dirty that a battle between two individuals may appear to show up on the Richter scale. Yes, the early 1980s ‘ haircuts were crimes in and of themselves. Yes, the continuous, serialised nature of the genre prevented the show’s writers from exploring themes in any great depth.

The show has a raw, claustrophobic charm to it, and this is only possible thanks to its dark, threadbare appearance, which gives the lives of the women in Wentworth Prison an air of grit and hollow desperation that the show’s successor could never hope to imitate. The characters, particularly top dogs Bea Smith ( Val Lehman ), Myra Desmond ( Ann Phelan ) and Rita Connors ( Glenda Liscott ), had more time to cement themselves in viewer’s hearts, and thus more power to break those hearts once their stories came to an end.

Prisoner Cell Block H also has a stronger edge in bad guys. Pamela Rabe’s interpretation of the murderously corrupt prison guard Joan ‘ The Freak ‘ Ferguson in Wentworth was deliciously monstrous, but there will only ever be one ‘ Freak’, and that’s the original and best, Maggie Kilpatrick, who carried menace around with her as easily as some people carry mints.

Has there ever been a more achingly fitting or hauntingly beautiful closing theme than” On the Inside”? &nbsp,

7. The Prisoner

There are no bars or guards in the enigmatic village where Patrick McGoohan’s intelligence agent finds himself &#8211, and there are no turrets lining the island’s shores &#8211, but it’s clear that this place is a penal colony.

Patrick McGoohan is the eponymous prisoner, or Number 6 as he’s more commonly – and indeed exclusively – known. We never learn his real name, nor do we ever learn who or why has taken him. We don’t even know who on the island is a prisoner, and who is a part of the conspiracy. We are only aware that the island’s inhabitants, led by those who are designated Number 2, will use every trick in the book to obtain information from Number 6.

Those brave or foolhardy enough to tr escape from the island are pursued by a giant, bouncing, see-through ball known as Rover, that swiftly engulfs and retrieves them. If all of this starts to sound a little mind-numbing, that’s largely because it is. The Prisoner is a head-scratching mind-bender. The audience is never one-hundred percent certain what the hell is going on, which only serves to amplify the paranoia and unease that follow Number 6 around like a giant, bouncing, see-through ball, which is occasionally clever, imaginative, inventive, and absurd.

It doesn’t get more 1960s than this.

6. Escape at Dannemora

The true story of the 2015 break-out by lifers Richard Matt and David Sweat, who were both portrayed by Benicio del Toro and Paul Dano, is revealed in Escape at Dannemora. To achieve their audacious aims, they co-opt the assistance of Tilly Mitchell ( played by Severance stalwart Patricia Arquette – a series that’s also directed by Ben Stiller ) &#8211, the prison worker in charge of the tailor shop &#8211, through means of sex, seduction and flattery. Sweat handles the majority of the labor: the tunneling and the cutting. Matt is the Machiavellian plan-maker, a man who can control other people with ease, but, tragically, not himself.

Tilly appears to be a vulnerable, downtrodden, and unhappy housewife whose only crime was to seek affection and attention from the wrong people at first, especially if you have no knowledge of the real-life escape. But as the narrative unfolds it becomes clear that Tilly is possibly a dastardlier human being than either of her two incarcerated co-conspirators combined.

We are unconcerned about the character of the two men we have been supporting in their fight for freedom because of a flashback sequence in the series ‘ final scene. Their index crimes are brutal and violent, unspeakably so, but whereas their criminality is born of an opportunistic impulsivity, Tilly’s crimes – most of which, beyond the obvious, aren’t crimes in the legal sense – demonstrate a sustained commitment to cruel and callous manipulation, in furtherance of her own selfish and destructive appetites. She earns money from her husband and son. It’s only panic– or perhaps the faint vestiges of a conscience – that saves her from going on the run with Matt and Sweat, an outcome that doubtless would’ve seen her dead instead of in a prison cell.

A tragedy that will haunt audiences for the long run after the end credits have finished, Escape at Dannemora is a well-paced story with skillful acting from Stiller and flawless acting from the cast, especially Arquette.

5. Orange is the New Black.

Orange is the New Black is based on the best-selling autobiographical book by former drug mule Piper Kerman, in which she recounts her time in prison, and the questionable life choices that led her there – especially her exciting yet destructive relationship with charismatic cartel worker Alex Vause ( Laura Prepon ), the woman largely responsible for Piper getting caught. And of course, passions and sparks fly when Alex and Alex end up sharing the same cell block.

Taylor Schilling plays Piper ( surname changed to Chapman for the show ) with a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears intensity, channelling an awkward innocence that occasionally borders on arrogance. Piper doesn’t believe she should be in jail. Not with these’ others’, these criminals, who clearly deserve their fate. However, as she gradually adjusts to life in prison, makes connections, and accepts her fellow prisoners, her fear of her fish-out-of-water scenario gradually diminishes as she gradually adjusts and grows in understanding. She discovers, as we do, that most of the women in Litchfield Prison are as much victims as perpetrators: women who have been failed by familial and societal support systems in ways that most of us would struggle to fathom. &nbsp, &nbsp,

For the first season this is Piper’s story, but as the series expands, so too does its focus and scope. It gradually deviates from its ostensibly comedic premise and allows for deeper themes and darker subtext to enter the narrative without losing its heart or humor. Each of the large and compelling ensemble gets a proper chance to shine (especially Suzanne ‘ Crazy Eyes ‘ Warren, arguably Uzo Aduba’s breakout role ), as the writers drill ever deeper into their fates, hopes, dreams, pasts, and miseries. By the end of the series, we have experienced at least one tragic character death that is as heartbreaking, mind-numbing, and game-changing as Lem’s departure from The Shield, and we have experienced the agonies and triumphs of the majority of them.

4. Black Bird

Welsh actor Taran Egerton is being touted as the next Bruce Willis, largely due to his turn in last year’s airport-based action thriller Carry On. Egerton is not a one-trick pony, though. A strong and versatile set of acting chops sit behind the muscles and bravura, which is plain to see in his acclaimed performances in biopics such as Eddie the Eagle and Rocketman. And in Apple TV’s limited series Black Bird, which is based on a true story, those talents are undoubtedly on display in a breathtaking manner.

Egerton plays Jimmy Keene, a drug-runner with a surfeit of charm, a winsome grin, and a semi-functional moral compass. FBI agent Lauren McCauley ( Sepideh Moafi, who most recently graced our screens as Mia in the excellent sci-fi series Scavengers Reign ) approaches him with a deal: go “undercover” in a maximum security prison to get close to and successfully elicit a confession from suspected serial killer Larry Hall, and we’ll commute your sentence. It’s Jimmy’s love for his ailing father, ( retired cop” Big Jim” Keene, played by Ray Liotta, in his final TV role ), who may not last another year much less ten, that propels him into action.

What comes next is a thrilling, edge-of-the-seat thriller that incorporates elements of Mindhunter. For every prison riot or potentially fatal dilemma Jimmy has to face there’s hours of talking between Jimmy and Larry, each moment of it imbued with tension and horror. You’ll be blown away by Paul Walter Hauser’s unsettlingly creepy and nuanced performance as Larry Hall if you’ve only ever seen him as Stingray in Cobra Kai on Netflix. If you’ve only ever seen Taran Egerton in Carry On, you’ll quickly realise why this talented actor is so much more than an action star.

3. The Night Of

Nasir” Naz” Khan, a Pakistani American student who is forced to make bad decisions, bad luck, and prejudice from the post-9/11 era, is played by Riz Ahmed in The Night of.

After stealing his father’s cab to attend a college party, he meets the troubled and beautiful Andrea ( Sofia Black-D’Elia ), who climbs in his cab as it’s idling. After hitting it off, the two end up hosting a two-person party at her place, complete with rock n’ roll, drugs, and sex. The next morning Naz wakes to find that Andrea has been stabbed to death. Even he isn’t sure if he‘s innocent, and all the evidence points to his guilt.

A more fortuitous instance of happenstance connects Naz with John Stone ( John Turturro ), a scruffy yet dogged attorney – think Columbo meets Monk meets My Cousin Vinny– who represents the best shot Naz has of escaping the humanity-eroding violence of prison and the corrosive clutches of jailhouse top-dog Freddy Knight ( a powerful and sinister turn by the late Kenneth Michael Williams ). &nbsp,

The role of John Stone was originally written for James Gandolfini, then offered to Robert de Niro in the wake of Gandolfini’s tragic death. However, Turturro ( currently on our screens in Apple’s peerless workplace mindbender, Severance ) absolutely does the role his own, to the point where it’s difficult to imagine anyone else – aforementioned Hollywood heavyweights included – doing a better job. However, It’s Riz Ahmed who steals the show with a performance that’s infused with earnestness and humanity and deservedly won him the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series.

2. Time

Few writers can navigate the murky waters of the human soul with as much wit, aplomb, and verisimilitude as Jimmy McGovern, who in Time pits his considerable writing power against the complex and inhumanities of the British penal system.

Series one focuses on the intersecting fates of a newly arrived inmate and a long-serving prison guard at a particularly bleak men’s prison. Former teacher Mark Cobden was imprisoned for killing a man while intoxicated. He tries to keep his head down and do his ‘ time’ quietly, but the other inmates sense his vulnerability and target him. Soon after being entangled in the drug-smuggling ring, he is forced to choose between his own survival and his moral ideals. Prison guard Eric McNally ( Stephen Graham ) faces a near-identical dilemma to Mark’s, though it’s not Eric’s survival, but his freshly incarcerated son’s, that hangs in the balance. Like the best of McGovern’s work, the first season’s conclusion is both unexpected and inevitable, depressing and optimistic, and full of both tears and sighs of hope.

Season two &#8211, co-written with Helen Black &#8211, follows the fortunes of three new inmates as they adjust to life in a women’s prison. It’s no less powerful and moving, more heartbreaking in the social obscurity it chronicles, but ended with a more upbeat denouement. Jodie Whittaker, Tamara Lawrance and Bella Ramsey give arguably the performances of their careers across these three episodes as their characters learn hard lessons about motherhood, poverty, addiction, acceptance, retribution, and redemption. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

1. Oz

Oz isn’t just the best prison series of all time. It’s been made that it’s one of the best dramatic series of all time. It’s certainly one of the most important and seminal, helping to kickstart the second golden age of television, after which TV would start to supplant cinema as the preferred prestige medium of the masses. HBO was at the forefront of this revolution, offering a funding model that freed creatives from the pressures of network interference and advertising, allowing them to put the story first and take more risks.

Oz tells the story of life in” Emerald City”, ad experimental wing in the Oswald State Penitentiary, a place where there’s a perpetual battle between the forces of rehabilitation and restorative justice on one hand, and vote-winning retribution and punishment on the other. It’s a conflict between two ideologies, but ultimately it’s a conflict for the souls of the prisoners. The show is bleak, brutal, and gripping. He’s almost like a cellmate, and death isn’t just a reality on the wing.

Before Oz arrived in 1997 there had never been a show quite like it. It’s a sprawling, Shakesperian tragedy painted in blood and despair over the gloomy underbelly of the waning American dream. Even today, in a televisual landscape that’s packed with death, darkness and destruction, it still packs a powerful and uncompromising punch. the head. To the gut. To the heart.

Oz is a gem of the genre, albeit one that shines very darkly indeed.

The first article on Den of Geek was The Best Prison-Set Television Series Ranked.

The discussion surrounding Assassin’s Creed Shadows was heated prior to its release last month. To put it mildly. Over factual errors that were discovered in the show’s preview content and marketing materials, many fans reacted electronically and infuriated. For example, it’s debated among historians whether the historical figure of Yasuke, who is depicted as]… ]

The article Assassin’s Creed Shadows Is Record Traditional Accuracy Is Underrated appeared initially on Den of Geek.

Television viewers have long had a fascination with prison, from Porridge to Prison Break. With pubs reducing the options for actions, the consequences are often amplified. A prisoner solid is better than a captive audience, which is one thing. We love to see how figures behave when their liberty has been taken from them, how they manage, how they plot exit, how they find the strength to carry on. And we love to know how we’d live under those same circumstances, hoping never to have to turn that abstract notion or vicarious enjoyment into reality.

Ten of the best prison-themed films are listed in ascending order of merit, with our choice as the best dog being the result. Feel free to say our options in the feedback, but before you react to clearly please consider this:” We’re never in here with you. You’re below, and you’re with us.

10. Prison Split

If Prison Break had been a one-and-done restricted set it would have secured a higher positioning on this record. As it stands, each subsequent season of the show further damaged its reputation until it was less popular in its fans ‘ minds than the last season of a particular show about creatures may one day be to its viewers.

There are few initial conditions of any present that are as powerful, habitual and simply plain enjoyment as Prison Break‘s. The main conceit is a preposterous one, with Michael Scofield ( Wentworth Miller ) infusing the schematics of the prison he helped design and then assisting his brother Lincoln ( Dominic Purcell )’s release from Death Row before being hanged, but it’s delivered with such adrenalin-spiking, fast-paced panache that you won’t care. Prison Break also gives us one of TV’s greatest villains, the vile, despicable, and slimy, yet utterly captivating, Theodore’ T-Bag ‘ Bagwell ( Robert Knepper ), a character you’ll both love to hate, and hate to love.

Things immediately fall apart after that hectic first year, though the introduction of William Fichtner as pill-popping, socially affected FBI agent Alexander Mahone in season two is a pleasant one, and season three’s Panama-based hijinks aren’t without their charm. But, Season four marks the time when the movie’s rear broke due to its extremely convoluted and absurd narrative, and Season Five, the renaissance season, represents the lowest point of both the show and, in some cases, the entire concept of entertainment itself.

Prison Break needs to take a permanent split from breaking out of any more crap prison.

9. Howard

Wentworth is a reimagining of, and quasi-prequel to, the Australian soap-opera Prisoner ( renamed Prisoner Cell Block H in the UK to differentiate it from Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner, which can also be found this on list ) that ran from 1979 – 1986.

The main characters are all present and accurate, with the exception of the villainous prison guard Joan” the Freak” Ferguson ( Pamela Rabe ), her compatriots Lizzie Birdsworth ( Celia Ireland ), and protagonist and top-dog-to-be Bea Smith ( Danielle Cormack ), but gone are the small budgets and low production values that caused security gates and cell walls to squat as though they were made of cardboard, which they most likely were. The Wentworth jail of the late 2010s is soft and present, and the actions is dark and violent. Although Wondworth probably has a voice that is more reminiscent of Oz than Orange is the New Black, it is most likely the UK’s Terrible Women ( which just so sadly didn’t make this list ) closest to that which is closest.

Whether you prefer Wentworth or its father certainly comes down to personal preference, and quite possibly years.

8. H1 mobile stop for prisoners

Prisoner Cell Block H is to Wentworth what Classic Doctor Who is to NuWho, and we’ve got to give the edge here to the old kid on the (cell ) block. Well, the sets were so subdued and disorganized that a battle between two prisoners might have appeared on a Richter scale. Well, the hairstyles of the first 1980s were acts in and of themselves. Well, the constant, serialised character of the music prevented the movie’s writers from exploring themes in any great degree.

The show has a raw, claustrophobic charm that the show’s successor couldn’t hope to emulate, especially given its dark, threadbare appearance, which gives the lives of the women who live in Wentworth Prison an air of grit and hollow desperation. The characters, particularly top dogs Bea Smith ( Val Lehman ), Myra Desmond ( Ann Phelan ) and Rita Connors ( Glenda Liscott ), had more time to cement themselves in viewer’s hearts, and thus more power to break those hearts once their stories came to an end.

Prisoner Cell Block H also has a stronger grip on villainy. Pamela Rabe’s interpretation of the murderously corrupt prison guard Joan ‘ The Freak ‘ Ferguson in Wentworth was deliciously monstrous, but there will only ever be one ‘ Freak’, and that’s the original and best, Maggie Kilpatrick, who carried menace around with her as easily as some people carry mints.

On a closing note: has there ever been a more hauntingly beautiful or achingly apt closing theme than” On the Inside”? &nbsp,

7. The Prisoner

There are no bars or guards in the mysterious village in which Patrick McGoohan’s intelligence agent wakes to find himself &#8211, no turrets lining the shore of the island on which the village sits &#8211, but there’s no mistaking what this place is: a penal colony.

Patrick McGoohan is the eponymous prisoner, or Number 6 as he’s more commonly – and indeed exclusively – known. We never learn his real name, nor do we ever learn who or why has taken him. We don’t even know who on the island is a prisoner, and who is a part of the conspiracy. We are only aware that the island’s inhabitants, led by those who are designated Number 2, will use every trick in the book to obtain information from Number 6.

Those brave or foolhardy enough to tr escape from the island are pursued by a giant, bouncing, see-through ball known as Rover, that swiftly engulfs and retrieves them. If this is all starting to sound a bit mental, then that’s very much because it is. The Prisoner is a mind-bending film. At turns clever, imaginative, inventive and absurd, the audience is never actually one-hundred per cent certain what the hell is going on, which only serves to amplify the mood of paranoia and unease that follows Number 6 around like a… well, like a giant, bouncing, see-through ball.

This is the only 1960s film that can be compared.

6. Escape at Dannemora

The true story of Richard Matt and David Sweat’s 2015 break-out from Clinton Correctional Facility in New York State is portrayed by Paul Dano and Benicio del Toro in the film Escape at Dannemora. To achieve their audacious aims, they co-opt the assistance of Tilly Mitchell ( played by Severance stalwart Patricia Arquette – a series that’s also directed by Ben Stiller ) &#8211, the prison worker in charge of the tailor shop &#8211, through means of sex, seduction and flattery. The cutting and tunneling are the main tasks that sweat does. Matt is the Machiavellian plan-maker, a man who can control other people with ease, but, tragically, not himself.

At first, and especially if you have no knowledge of the real-life escape, Tilly seems like a vulnerable, downtrodden, and unhappy housewife whose only crime was to seek affection and attention from the wrong people. However, as the story progresses, it becomes clear that Tilly may be a more reckless person than either of her two incarcerated co-conspirators combined.

A flashback sequence late in the series leaves us in no doubt as to the natures of the two men we have been cheering on in their bid for liberty. Although their criminality is the product of an opportunistic impulsivity, Tilly’s crimes, the majority of which aren’t crimes in the legal sense, demonstrate a persistent commitment to cruel and callous manipulation in order to advance her own selfish and destructive appetites. She makes living ciphers of her son and husbands. It’s only panic– or perhaps the faint vestiges of a conscience – that saves her from going on the run with Matt and Sweat, an outcome that doubtless would’ve seen her dead instead of in a prison cell.

A tragedy that will haunt audiences for the long after the end credits have rolled, Escape at Dannemora is a well-paced tale, skillfully directed by Stiller and flawlessly performed by the cast, especially Arquette.

5. Orange is considered to be the New Black.

Orange is the New Black is based on the best-selling autobiographical book by former drug mule Piper Kerman, in which she recounts her time in prison, and the questionable life choices that led her there – especially her exciting yet destructive relationship with charismatic cartel worker Alex Vause ( Laura Prepon ), the woman largely responsible for Piper getting caught. And, of course, when Alex ends up sharing the same cell block sparks, and passions, fly.

With a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears intensity and awkward innocence that occasionally borders on arrogance, Taylor Schilling portrays Piper ( surname changed to Chapman for the show ). Piper doesn’t feel that she belongs in prison. Not with these “others,” these criminals, who blatantly deserve their fate. But as she adjusts to life in prison, makes connections and gets to know ( and be accepted by ) her fellow inmates, the fear of her fish-out-of-water scenario gradually gives way to empathy and understanding. She discovers, as we do, that most of the women in Litchfield Prison are as much victims as perpetrators: women who have been failed by familial and societal support systems in ways that most of us would struggle to fathom. &nbsp, &nbsp,

For the first season this is Piper’s story, but as the series expands, so too does its focus and scope. It gradually deviates from its ostensibly comedic premise and allows greater issues and darker tones to permeate the narrative without losing its heart or humor. Each of the large and compelling ensemble gets a proper chance to shine (especially Suzanne ‘ Crazy Eyes ‘ Warren, arguably Uzo Aduba’s breakout role ), as the writers drill ever deeper into their fates, hopes, dreams, pasts, and miseries. By the time the series ends we’ve felt the agonies and victories of most of them and experienced at least one tragic character death that’s as sad, numbing and game-changing as Lem’s exit from The Shield.

4. Black Bird

Welsh actor Taran Egerton is praised as the next Bruce Willis largely because of his role in Carry On, an action thriller based in the airport, last year. But Egerton is no one-trick pony. A strong and versatile set of acting chops sit behind the muscles and bravura, which is plain to see in his acclaimed performances in biopics such as Eddie the Eagle and Rocketman. And in Apple TV’s limited series Black Bird, which is based on a true story, those talents are undoubtedly on display in a breathtaking manner.

Egerton plays Jimmy Keene, a drug-runner with a surfeit of charm, a winsome grin, and a semi-functional moral compass. FBI agent Lauren McCauley ( Sepideh Moafi, who most recently graced our screens as Mia in the excellent sci-fi series Scavengers Reign ) approaches him with a deal: go “undercover” in a maximum security prison to get close to and successfully elicit a confession from suspected serial killer Larry Hall, and we’ll commute your sentence. It’s Jimmy’s love for his ailing father, ( retired cop” Big Jim” Keene, played by Ray Liotta, in his final TV role ), who may not last another year much less ten, that propels him into action.

What follows is an exciting, edge-of-the-seat thriller that incorporates elements of Mindhunter into the mix. There are hours of conversation between Jimmy and Larry, each one of which is filled with tension and horror. For every prison riot or potentially fatal dilemma Jimmy must face, If you’ve only ever seen Paul Walter Hauser as Stingray in Netflix’s Cobra Kai, you’ll be blown away by his unsettlingly creepy and nuanced performance as Larry Hall. You’ll soon realize why this talented actor is so much more than just an action star if you’ve only ever seen Taran Egerton in Carry On.

3. The Night Of

In The Night of, Riz Ahmed portrays Nasir” Naz” Khan, a Pakistani American student who is forced to make bad decisions, bad luck, and prejudice from the post-9/11 era.

After stealing his father’s cab to attend a college party, he meets the troubled and beautiful Andrea ( Sofia Black-D’Elia ), who climbs in his cab as it’s idling. The pair exchanged blows, and the result is a two-person party at her place with sex, drugs, and rock n roll. The next morning Naz wakes to find that Andrea has been stabbed to death. All signs point to his guilt, and even he isn’t sure if he‘s innocent.

Naz and John Stone ( John Turturro ), a scruffy yet determined attorney ( think Columbo meets Monk meets My Cousin Vinny ), who are the best chance Naz has of escaping the corrosive clutches of jailhouse top-dog Freddy Knight ( a powerful and sinister turn by the late Kenneth Michael Williams ) in a more fortuitous instance of coincidence. &nbsp,

In the wake of Gandolfini’s tragic passing, Robert de Niro was given the role of John Stone after it was originally written for James Gandolfini. But Turturro ( currently on our screens in Apple’s peerless workplace mindbender, Severance ) absolutely makes the role his own, to the point where it’s hard to imagine anyone else – aforementioned Hollywood heavyweights included – doing a better job. However, It’s Riz Ahmed who steals the show with a performance that’s infused with earnestness and humanity and deservedly won him the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series.

2. Time

Few writers can navigate the murky waters of the human soul with as much wit, aplomb, and verisimilitude as Jimmy McGovern, who in Time pits his considerable writing power against the complexity and inhumanities of the British penal system.

Series one focuses on the intersecting fates of a newly arrived inmate and a long-serving prison guard at a particularly bleak men’s prison. Mark Cobden ( Sean Bean ), a former teacher, is jailed for vehicular manslaughter &#8211, killing a man whilst drunk. He tries to keep his head down and pass his “time” quietly, but the other prisoners notice his vulnerability and take aim at him. Before long he finds himself inveigled into the prison’s drug-smuggling ring, and he’s forced to make a choice between his survival and his moral principles. Eric McNally ( Stephen Graham ), a prison guard, has a nearly identical dilemma to Mark’s, even though it’s not Eric’s survival but his recently incarcerated son’s that hangs in the balance. The conclusion to the first season is at once surprising and inevitable, depressing and hopeful, eliciting sighs of despair alongside tears of hope, like the best of McGovern’s work.

Season two &#8211, co-written with Helen Black &#8211, follows the fortunes of three new inmates as they adjust to life in a women’s prison. It’s more harrowing in the social obscurity it chronicles, but it ends with a more upbeat denouement, making it no less powerful and moving. Jodie Whittaker, Tamara Lawrance and Bella Ramsey give arguably the performances of their careers across these three episodes as their characters learn hard lessons about motherhood, poverty, addiction, acceptance, retribution, and redemption. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

1. Oz

The best prison drama of all time is not just Oz. There’s an argument to be made that it’s one of the best dramatic series of all time. It is undoubtedly one of the most significant and significant, which helped to ignite the second golden age of television, when it would become the preferred prestige medium of the masses. HBO was at the forefront of this revolution, providing a funding model that removed creatives from the burdens of advertising and network interference, allowing them to put the story first, and to take more risks.

Oz tells the story of life in” Emerald City”, ad experimental wing in the Oswald State Penitentiary, a place where there’s a perpetual battle between the forces of rehabilitation and restorative justice on one hand, and vote-winning retribution and punishment on the other. It’s a battle between two ideologies, but ultimately it’s a battle for the souls of the prisoners. The show is bleak, brutal, and gripping. He’s almost like a cellmate, and death isn’t just a reality on the wing.

Before Oz arrived in 1997 there had never been a show quite like it. It’s a sprawling, Shakesperian tragedy painted in blood and despair over the dark underbelly of the dying American dream. It still packs a powerful and unwavering punch even today in a televised landscape full of destruction, death, and darkness. To the head. To the gut. To the heart.

Oz is a gem of the genre, albeit one that shines very darkly indeed.

The first episode of Den of Geek‘s The Best Prison-Set TV Series Ranked was a result of this post.