Blog

  • Opportunities for AI in Accessibility

    Opportunities for AI in Accessibility

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

    I’d like you to consider this a “yes … and” piece to complement Joe’s post. I’m no trying to reject any of what he’s saying, but rather to give some context to initiatives and opportunities where AI may produce real, positive impacts on people with disabilities. I want to take some time to talk about what’s possible in hope that we’ll get there one day. I’m no saying that there aren’t real challenges or pressing problems with AI that need to be addressed; there are.

    Other words

    Joe’s article spends a lot of time addressing computer-vision types ‘ ability to create alternative words. He raises a lot of valid points about the state of the world 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 ( should probably have descriptions ) and those that are purely decorative ( couldn’t possibly need a description ) either. However, I still think there’s possible in this area.

    As Joe points out, human-in-the-loop editing 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 win.

    If we can specifically teach a design to consider image usage in context, it might be able to help us more swiftly distinguish between images that are likely to be beautiful and those that are more descriptive. That will 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 would frequently leave many unanswered questions about the data, but let’s just assume that that was the description in place. ) If your website knew that that picture was a pie graph ( because an ship model concluded this ), imagine a world where people could ask questions like these about the creative:

    • Are there more smartphone users than have phones?
    • How many more are there?
    • Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these pots?
    • That number, how some?

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

    What if you could ask your browser to make a complicated chart simpler? What if you demanded that the line graph be isolated into just one line? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you asked it to switch colors in favor of patterns? That seems like a possibility given the chat-based interfaces and our current ability to manipulate images in today’s 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’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to foster conflict, prejudice, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A large portion of this is attributable to the lack of diversity in those who create and shape them. There is still a lot of potential for algorithm development when these platforms are built with inclusive features in mind.

    Take Mentra, for example. They serve as a network of employment for people who are neurodivers. 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 the typical employment websites because it was run by neurodivergent people. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in, reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

    More people with disabilities can be used to create algorithms, which can lessen the likelihood that they will harm their communities. Diverse teams are crucial because of this.

    Imagine that a social media company’s recommendation engine was tuned to analyze who you’re following and if it was tuned to prioritize follow recommendations for people who talked about similar things but who were different in some key ways from your existing sphere of influence. For instance, if you follow a group of white men who are not white or aren’t white and who also discuss AI, it might be wise to follow those who are also disabled or who are not white. If you followed its advice, you might be able to understand what is happening in the AI field more fully and nuancedly. 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

    If I weren’t attempting to combine this with other tasks, I’m sure I could go on and on, giving various examples of how AI could be used to assist people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

      preservation of voice You may be aware of the voice-prescribing options from Microsoft, Acapela, or others, or you may have seen the announcement for VALL-E or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS ( Lou Gehrig’s disease ) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. This technology can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so it’s something we need to approach responsibly, but the technology has truly transformative potential.
    • voice recognition Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are actively 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

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

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

    Want a model that uses ableist language without using it? 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 coding copilot who can provide you with useful recommendations after the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.


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


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

  • The Wax and the Wane of the Web

    The Wax and the Wane of the Web

    When you begin to believe you have everything figured out, everything will change. This is a one piece of advice I can give to friends and family when they become innovative families. Simply as you start to get the hang of injections, diapers, and ordinary sleep, it’s time for solid foods, potty training, and nighttime sleep. When those are determined, school and occasional sleeps are in order. The cycle goes on and on.

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

    How we got below

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

    The development of online standards

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

    Server-side 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. Websites now no longer needed to reload their pages ‘ content. 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 image replacement enable skilled designers and developers to use fonts of their choosing. And technologies like Flash made it possible to add animations, games, and even more interactivity.

    The industry was reenergized by these new tools, standards, and methods in many ways. Web design flourished as designers and developers explored more diverse styles and layouts. However, we still relied 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 were required for complicated layouts ( or both ). Flash and image replacement for custom fonts was a great start toward varying the typefaces from the big five, but both hacks introduced accessibility and performance problems. And JavaScript libraries made it 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 balance between the front end and the back end continued to improve, leading to the development of the current web application era. 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.

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

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

    Where we are now

    It seems like we’ve reached yet another significant turning point in the last 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.

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

    We can now prototype almost any idea with just a few commands and a few lines of code. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. However, the upfront cost these frameworks may save in initial delivery eventually comes down as the maintenance and upgrading they become a part of our technical debt.

    If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks, which 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 refuse to take their place. 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 holds true for third-party frameworks, though. Sites built with even the hackiest of HTML from the’ 90s still work just fine today. The same can’t be said about websites created with frameworks even after a few years.

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

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

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

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

    Make a move and make it happen.

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

  • To Ignite a Personalization Practice, Run this Prepersonalization Workshop

    To Ignite a Personalization Practice, Run this Prepersonalization Workshop

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

    The personalization gap is real, between the dream of getting it right and the worry of it going wrong ( like when we encounter “persofails” similar to a company’s repeated pleas for more toilet seats from regular people ). 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 song

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

    We’re used to seeing the polished final outcome of a personalization have. 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.

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

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

    Effective workshops consistently separate successful future endeavors from unsuccessful ones, saving countless hours of time, resources, and overall well-being.

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

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

    This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. 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 include can last for a number of weeks ( and frequently do ). 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 your engagement as you concentrate on both your team’s and your team’s readiness and drive.
    1. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
    2. Work your plan: This stage consists of making it possible for team members to individually pitch their own pilots that each include a proof-of-concept project, business case, and operating model.

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

    Kickstart: Apt your appetite

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

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

    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 broad 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 ways of working as well as your external customers. It’s also a reminder ( which is why we used the word argument earlier ) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

    Each team member should decide where they would like to place your company’s emphasis on your product or service. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. Here, the goal is to 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 data and privacy protection be a significant challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? ( We’re pretty sure you do; it’s just a matter of acknowledging the magnitude of that need and finding a solution. ) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. For instance, our Detractor card lists six intractable behaviors 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? You’re all set to go on, good.

    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?

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

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

    The dishes will be made using recipes that have predetermined ingredients.

    Verify your ingredients

    Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure you have everything ready to cook up your desired interaction ( or figure out what needs to be added to your pantry ) and that you validate with the right stakeholders present. These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together.

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

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

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

    • Who are your key audience segments or groups?
    • What kind of content will you offer them, what design elements, and under what circumstances?
    • 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 to a newly registered user to highlight the breadth of the content catalog and convert them to happy subscribers.
    3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

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

    The 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.

    Better architecture is necessary for 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’t stand the heat, in fact…

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

    This organizational framework gives you a fighting chance at long-term success as well as solid ground. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. However, 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.

  • User Research Is Storytelling

    User Research Is Storytelling

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

    Think of your favorite film. It more than likely follows a three-act construction that’s frequently seen in movies: the layout, the conflict, and the resolution. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two sets the scene for the fight and introduces the activity. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. The solution is the third and final work. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. This construction, in my opinion, is also a fantastic way to think about consumer research, and it might be particularly useful for introducing user 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 inconsequential. 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 lead some groups, but that approach can so easily miss the chance to solve people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User study improves pattern. It keeps it on record, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the problems with your goods and taking action can help you be ahead of your competition.

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

    Act one: layout

    The setup consists entirely in comprehending the history, and that’s where basic research comes in. Basic research ( also called conceptual, discovery, or original research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. Like in the movies, you’re learning about the problems users face, what options are available, and how they are affected by them. To do basic research, you may conduct cultural inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both challenges and opportunities. 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. Locked up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to keep yourself and your pursuits out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. Hall predicts that “[This ] will likely 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 don’t need to make a lot of paperwork; you can only attract people and do it! 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. That’s exactly what work one is all about: understanding where people are coming from.

    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 maybe partners are now doing the same. Their business may lose money because users can’t finish specific tasks, which may be their love. Or probably they do connect with people ‘ problems. In either case, action one serves as your main strategy for piqueing interest and investment from the participants.

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

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

    Act two: issue

    Act two is all about digging deeper into the issues that you identified in action 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. Additional problems will arise in the course of action two 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 interpret in-person usability tests as a form of theater watching as opposed to remote testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Much more in-depth research is conducted on user 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 remote usability tests frequently lack.

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

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

    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 narrow down the subject matter of your feedback 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 just feedback on a particular design.

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

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

    Act three: resolution

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

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

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

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

    You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be as visual as quick sketches of a potential solution to a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the session is over when you’ve concluded everything by summarizing the key points and offering suggestions for a solution. 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 for a good story:

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

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

  • From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    I’ve lost count of the times I’ve watched promising thoughts go from zero to warrior in a few days before failing to deliver within weeks as a product developer for very long.

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

    The perils of feature-first growth

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

    The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) is applied to this. Even if Jason Fried doesn’t usually refer to this concept, his book Getting Real and his audio Rework frequently discuss it. An MVP is a product that offers only enough significance to your users to keep them interested, but not so much that it becomes difficult to keep up. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a brutal edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because” the Columbo Effect” makes it easy to fall for something when one always says” just one more thing …” to include.

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

    The significance of the foundation

    What’s a better course of action then? How can we create items that are reliable, user-friendly, and most importantly, stick?

    The concept of “bedrock” comes into play in this context. Rock is the main feature of your solution that really matters to customers. It serves as the foundation for the fundamental building block that creates benefit and maintains relevance over time.

    The rock must be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the retail banking industry, which is where I work. People only look at their existing account once every blue sky, but they do so every day. They purchase a credit card every year or two, but they at least once a month examine their stability and pay their bills.

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

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

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

    Functional methods for creating stick-like financial goods

    What are the main learnings I’ve made from my own research and expertise?

    1. What trouble are you trying to solve first and foremost with a distinct “why”? Whom? Make sure your goal is unmistakable before beginning any work. Make certain it also complies with the goals of your business.
    2. Avoid the temptation to put too many functions at once by focusing on one, key feature and focusing on getting that right before moving on to something else. Choose one that actually adds value, and work from there.
    3. When it comes to financial products, simplicity is often over complexity. Eliminate unnecessary details and concentrate on what matters most.
    4. Accept continuous iteration: Bedrock is not a fixed destination; it is a dynamic process. Continuously collect user feedback, make improvements to your product, and move toward that foundation.
    5. Stop, look, and listen: You don’t just have to test your product during the delivery process; you must also test it repeatedly in the field. Use it for yourself. Run the A/B tests. User feedback on Gatter. Talk to users and make adjustments accordingly.

    The bedrock paradox

    This is an intriguing paradox: sacrificing some of the potential for short-term growth in favor of long-term stability. But the payoff is worthwhile because products built with a focus on bedrock will outlive and outperform their rivals over time and provide users with long-term value.

    How do you begin your quest for bedrock, then? Take it one step at a time. Start by identifying the essential components that your users actually care about. Focus on developing and improving a single, potent feature that delivers real value. And most importantly, make an obsessive effort because, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker ( whew! The best way to foretell the future is to create it, he said.

  • An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    Picture this: Two people are having what appears to be the same talk about the same style issue in a conference room at your technical company. One is talking about whether the staff has the proper skills to handle it. The other is examining whether the solution really addresses the user’s issue. Similar room, the same issue, and entirely different perspectives.

    This is the lovely, sometimes messy fact of having both a Design Manager and a Guide Designer on the same group. And you’re asking the right question if you’re wondering how to make this job without creating confusion, coincide, or the feared” to some cooks” situation.

    Fresh lines on an organizational chart have always been the standard solution. The Design Manager handles persons, the Lead Designer handles art. Problem is fixed, isn’t it? Except that fresh nonprofit charts are fantasy. In fact, both roles care greatly about crew health, style quality, and shipping great work.

    When you start thinking of your style organization as a pattern organism, the magic happens when you embrace the collide rather than fighting it.

    A Healthy Design Team’s Biology

    Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both flanks of this formula: think of your design team as a living organism. The design manager has a focus on the internal safety, career advancement, team dynamics, and other aspects. The Lead Designer is more focused on the body ( the handiwork, the design standards, the hands-on projects that are delivered to users ).

    But just like mind and body aren’t totally separate systems, but, also, do these tasks overlap in significant ways. Without working in harmony with one another, you didn’t have a good man. The technique is to recognize those overlaps and how to manage them gently.

    When we look at how good team really function, three critical devices emerge. Each role must be combined, but one has to assume the lead role in keeping that structure sturdy.

    The Nervous System: Persons & Psychology

    Major caretaker: Design Manager
    Supporting position: Guide Custom

    Signs, comments, emotional health are all important components of the nervous program. When this technique is good, information flows easily, people feel safe to take risks, and the staff may react quickly to new problems.

    The main caretaker here is the Design Manager. They are keeping track of the team’s emotional signal, making sure feedback rings are good, and creating the conditions for people to develop. They’re hosting job meetings, managing task, and making sure no single burns out.

    However, the Lead Designer has a vital enabling position. They’re offering visual feedback on build development requirements, identifying stagnant design skills, and assisting with the design manager’s potential growth opportunities.

    Design Manager tends to:

    • discussions about careers and career development
    • emotional stability and dynamics of the group
    • Job management and resource allocation
    • Performance evaluations and opinions management methods
    • Providing opportunities for learning

    Direct Custom supports by:

    • Giving craft-specific evaluation of team member growth
    • identifying opportunities for growth and style talent gaps
    • Providing style mentorship and assistance
    • indicating when a crew is prepared for more challenging tasks.

    The Muscular System: Design, Design, and Execution

    Major caregiver: Lead Designer
    Supporting position: Design Manager

    The skeletal structure focuses on developing strength, coordination, and talent development. When this technique is healthy, the team can do complicated design work with precision, maintain regular quality, and adjust their craft to fresh challenges.

    The Lead Designer is the main caregiver at this place. They are establishing design standards, offering craft instruction, and making sure that shipping work meets the required standards. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

    However, the Design Manager has a significant supporting role. They’re making sure the team has the resources and support they need to perform their best work, such as proper nutrition and time for an athlete recovering.

    Lead Designer tends to:

    • Definition of system requirements and design standards
    • Feedback on design work that meets the required standards
    • Experience direction for the product
    • Design choices and product-wide alignment are important.
    • advancement of craft and innovation

    Design Manager supports by:

    • ensuring that all members of the team are aware of and adopt design standards
    • Confirming that the right direction is being used is being done
    • Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
    • facilitating design alignment among all teams
    • Providing resources and removing obstacles to outstanding craft work

    The Circulatory System: Strategy &amp, Flow

    Shared caretakers: Lead Designer and Design Manager, respectively.

    The circulatory system is about how decisions, energy, and information flow through the team. When this system is healthy, strategic direction is clear, priorities are aligned, and the team can respond quickly to new opportunities or challenges.

    True partnership occurs in this area. Although both roles are responsible for maintaining the circulation, they both have unique perspectives to offer.

    Lead Designer contributes:

    • User requirements are satisfied with the finished product
    • overall experience and product quality
    • Strategic design initiatives
    • User needs based on research for each initiative

    Contributes the design manager:

    • Communication to team and stakeholders
    • Stakeholder management and alignment
    • Team accountability across all levels
    • Strategic business initiatives

    Both parties work together on:

    • Co-creation of strategy and leadership
    • Team goals and prioritization approach
    • organizational structure decisions
    • Success frameworks and measures

    Keeping the Organism Healthy

    Understanding that all three systems must work together is the key to making this partnership sing. A team with excellent craftmanship but poor psychological protection will eventually burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team that has both but poor strategic planning will work hard on the wrong things.

    Be Specific About the System You’re Defending.

    When you’re in a meeting about a design problem, it helps to acknowledge which system you’re primarily focused on. Everyone has context for their input.” I’m thinking about this from a team capacity perspective” ( nervous system ) or” I’m looking at this through the lens of user needs” ( muscular system ).

    This is not about staying in your path. It’s about being transparent as to which lens you’re using, so the other person knows how to best add their perspective.

    Create Positive Feedback Loops

    The partnerships that I’ve seen have the most effective feedback loops between the systems:

    Nervous system signals to muscular system:” The team is struggling with confidence in their design skills” → Lead Designer provides more craft coaching and clearer standards.

    The nervous system receives the message” The team’s craft skills are progressing more quickly than their project complexity.”

    We’re seeing patterns in team health and craft development that suggest we need to adjust our strategic priorities, both systems say to the circulatory system.

    Handle Handoffs Gracefully

    When something switches from one system to another, this partnership’s most crucial moments occur. This might occur when a design standard ( muscular system ) needs to be implemented across the team ( nervous system ) or when a tactical initiative ( circulatory system ) requires specific craft execution ( muscular system ).

    Make these transitions explicit. I’ve defined the new component requirements. Can you give me some ideas on how to get the team up to speed? or” We’ve agreed on this strategic direction. From here, I’ll concentrate on the particular user experience approach.

    Stay curious and avoid being territorial.

    The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Even when they are not the primary caretaker, great design leadership requires both people to be as concerned with the entire organism.

    Rather than making assumptions, one must ask questions. ” What do you think about the team’s craft development in this area”? or” How do you think this is affecting team morale and workload”? keeps both viewpoints at the forefront of every choice.

    When the Organism Gets Sick

    Even with clear roles, this partnership can go wrong. Which failure modes are the most prevalent in my experience:

    System Isolation

    The Design Manager ignores craft development and concentrates solely on the nervous system. The Lead Designer ignores team dynamics and concentrates solely on the muscular system. Both people retreat to their comfort zones and stop collaborating.

    The signs: Team members receive conflicting messages, work conditions suffer, and morale declines.

    Reconnect with other people’s goals in the treatment. What are you both trying to achieve? It’s typically excellent design work that arrives on time from a capable team. Discover how both systems accomplish that goal.

    Poor Circulation

    There is no clear strategic direction, shifting priorities, or accepting responsibility for keeping information flowing.

    The signs: Team members are unsure of their priorities, work is duplicated or dropped, and deadlines are missed.

    The treatment: Explicitly assign responsibility for circulation. Who is communicating with whom? How frequently? What’s the feedback loop?

    Autoimmune Response

    One person feels threatened by the expertise of the other. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Design Manager is allegedly misunderstanding the craft, according to the Lead Designer.

    The symptoms: defensive behavior, territorial disputes, middle-class teammates, etc.

    The treatment: Remember that you’re both caretakers of the same organism. The entire team suffers when one system fails. The team thrives when both systems are strong.

    The Payoff

    Yes, there is more communication required with this model. Yes, it requires that both parties be able to assume full responsibility for team health. But the payoff is worth it: better decisions, stronger teams, and design work that’s both excellent and sustainable.

    When both roles are well-balanced and functioning well together, you get the best of both worlds: strong people leadership and deep craft knowledge. When one person is overly sick, on vacation, or overworked, the other can help keep the team’s health. When a decision requires both the people perspective and the craft perspective, you’ve got both right there in the room.

    The framework has a balance, which is crucial. You can apply the same system thinking to fresh challenges as your team expands. Need to launch a design system? Both the muscular system ( standards and implementation ), the nervous system (team adoption and change management ), and both have a tendency to circulate ( communication and stakeholder alignment ).

    Bottom Line

    The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. It’s about multiplying impact. Magic occurs when both roles are aware that they are tending to various components of the same healthy organism.

    The mind and body work together. The team benefits from both strategic thinking and craftmanship. And most importantly, users benefit from both perspectives when they receive the work.

    So the next time you’re in that meeting room, wondering why two people are talking about the same problem from different angles, remember: you’re watching shared leadership in action. And if it’s functioning well, your design team’s mind and body are both strengthening.

  • 20 Years of Fantastic Fest’s Best Movies and Premieres

    20 Years of Fantastic Fest’s Best Movies and Premieres

    Fantastic Fest has now reached its 20th anniversary and is the undisputed house of style cinema in North America. Viewers and producers alike know that if they want an first look at the best ( or at least funniest ) in fresh horror and science fiction, they have to travel to Austin. [ Fantastic Fest didn’t establish that reputation ]…

    The article 20 Years of Fantastic Fest’s Best Shows and Premieres appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Fantastic Fest has become the undisputed house of type film in North America as it approaches its 20th anniversary. Viewers and producers alike know that if they want an first look at the best ( or at least funniest ) in fresh horror and science fiction, they have to travel to Austin.

    That popularity wasn’t created immediately at Fantastic Fest. Otherwise the event has built a lengthy track record of showing great shows, and on a number of times hosting the North American or U. S. launch of famous films. Let’s take a moment to reflect on the best movie to be premiered at each year of the event in order to observe the festival&#8217, s 20th birthday. In most cases, these cinema had their Northern American debut, even if they showed up at Cannes or a unique global festival first. In some cases, the films made it to the Toronto International Film Festival a little earlier, but Fantastic Fest was the first to show the movie in the U.S. And in all cases, the movie is just absolutely magnificent.

    Maléfique, 2005

    Those looking at this list might assume that Fantastic Fest had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for its inaugural season, which is why the French horror flick Maléfique takes the top spot for 2005. Maléfique, however, deserves more than just passing praise and praise. A surreal bit of Clive Barker-esque horror, Maléfique follows white collar criminal Carrere ( Gérald Laroche ) as he joins with three other inmates to learn a secret magical ritual that will earn him his freedom. Writers Franck Magnier and Alexandre Charlot work well with the protagonists ‘ well-observed oddities to create a film that is both moving and upsetting.

    2006 &#8211, The Host

    The Host‘s U.S. premiere was screened four days before the New York Film Festival ( but a few weeks after TIFF), which is shocking. Even more than his previous features, Barking Dogs Never Bite and Memories of Murder, The Host captures Korean director Bong Joon Ho&#8216, s singular style. A giant monster ( Go Ah-sung ) emerges from the Han River and captures a teenage girl in The Host, something you’d find in any kaiju movie. But Director Bong turns his attention to the complicated dynamics of the girl&#8217, s family, leaving room for stand-out performances by Song Kang-ho and Bae Doona.

    cnx. cmd. cnx ( playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″ ) is the function of the player. render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    There Will Be Blood, from 2007 &#8211,

    As impressive as it is that Fantastic Fest had the U. S. premiere of The Host, the fest pulled a real coup when it got to debut the Paul Thomas Anderson masterpiece, There Will Be Blood. Anderson’s loose adaptation of the book Oil! by Upton Sinclair represented a giant leap in the director &#8217, s skill and aims. There Will Be Blood is without a doubt one of the best movies of the twenty-first century thanks to an incredible score by Radiohead&#8217, s Jonny Greenwood. In a towering performance, Daniel Day-Lewis plays Danielle Plainview, an oil prospector who becomes a magnate after striking it rich. He disagrees with twin brothers Paul and Eli Sunday ( Paul Dano ), both of whom are passionate and duplicitous revival preachers. Through Plainview and Eli, Anderson takes an incisive look at American mythologies around capitalism, God, and so-called manifest destiny. And it &#8217 is brought to life by some of PTA&#8217’s most daring filmmaking.

    2008 &#8211, Sauna

    Fantastic Fest is about independent and foreign genre films at its core, so it &#8217 ;s appropriate that it followed a pair of big name premieres with a great film from abroad. Such is the case with Sauna, the Finnish horror film from director Antti-Jussi Annila and writer Iiro Küttner, which made its U. S. premiere at Fantastic Fest. As brothers and Knut and Eerik ( Tommi Eronen and Ville Virtanen ) search for a magical sauna to purge themselves of their sins on the battlefield, the film Sauna, which is set at the end of the Russo-Swedish War in 1595, is rich in atmosphere and dread.

    2009 &#8211, Antichrist

    Someone looking at this list might conclude that, despite how cool these movies are, they don’t quite have the kind of outsider work one might expect from Fantastic Fest. For its fifth anniversary, the festival gave fans a film both prestigious and extremely aggressive. On the surface, Antichrist seems like a quiet drama set in a family drama like that found at Sundance or SXSW, where the couple ( Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, billed as &#8220, He&#8221, and &#8220, She&#8221 ) deal with their child’s passing. Because it comes from Danish provocateur Lars von Trier, Antichrist is most assuredly not a standard indie drama. Antichrist is somehow very moving despite all of its nihilism, retaining an emotional truth beneath its cruel imagery.

    2010 &#8211, Let Me In

    Before he remade the Swedish smash hit Let the Right One In for American audiences, Matt Reeves had the unenviable task of bringing emo-noir to Gotham City in The Batman and before he got biblical in the Planet of the Apes franchise. Reeves more than succeeded with Let Me In, a movie that translated the original&#8217, s themes so well for English speakers that it stands on its own next to the Swedish film. In the 1980s Los Alamos, Reeves is portrayed as a lonely 12-year-old who eventually makes friends with a child/immortal vampire ( Chloe Grace Moretz ). Between the remake&#8217, s keen sense of time and place, and outstanding performances from the leads and character actor greats such as Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas, Let Me In has charms all its own.

    2011 &#8211, You &#8217, re Next

    On one hand, one might argue that a straightforward slasher movie does n&#8217, t deserve to stand next to titanic films like There Will Be Blood and The Host. On the other hand, You ’re Next is a remarkably well-made slasher that embodies everything the genre has to offer. Working with a cast that includes Mumblecore mainstays such as Ti West and Joe Swanberg, writer Simon Barrett and director Adam Wingard play with genre tropes to build up and subvert audience expectations. By the time all the secrets are revealed, actress Sharni Vinson has one of the greatest final females in history, making You &#8217, re Next a incredibly satisfying genre exercise.

    2012 &#8211, Holy Motors

    Few films at Fantastic Fest reach the utter utter absurdity of Holy Motors, a film from French director Leos Carax, but many of them are strange. Star Denis Lavant gives a virtuosic performance as several characters who might in fact be the same person, all created in response to encounters that a rich man has throughout the course of his day. Although it’s impossible to explain the plot of Holy Motors, the film’s pure cinematic playfulness satisfies even non-artistically-fascinated viewers.

    2013 &#8211, Ninja: Shadow of a Tear

    In a better world, Scott Adkins would become a household name. Between his genuine charisma and mastery of onscreen action, Adkins follows in the footsteps of Bruce Lee and Arnold Schwarzenegger as action stars who are also proper movie stars. No movie demonstrates Adkins &#8217 star power more than Ninja: Shadow of a Tear, which was directed by Isaac Florentine. The sequel to 2009 &#8217, s Ninja, Shadow of a Tear is filled with both melodrama and incredible fight sequences. Adkins portrays Casey Bowman, an expat who seeks retribution after his wife’s murder, with ease.

    2014 &#8211, John Wick

    It’s easy to forget the details of the original John Wick, which was directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, given the scheming world of assassins and bravado filmmaking that led to the franchise’s calling card. Yes, the first movie does have multiple assassins—played by ringers such as Willem Dafoe and Adrianne Palicki. And yes, we do make our first appearance at the Continental, a notorious assassins and underworld figures that are a part of the, ahem, Continental Winston ( Ian McShane ) and Charon ( Lance Reddick ). But there&#8217, s a purity of plot to the original film, in which Keanu Reeves &#8216, infamous killer shoots and punches his way to a Russian mobster and his son to get revenge for the latter killing his dog. John Wick laid the emotional foundation for the rest of the sprawling world and its droll operatic style, though it may be in the purest form.

    2015 &#8211, Green Room

    As these past few entries indicate, Fantastic Fest was a good time for action fans in the middle of 2010. But rarely have the action entries been as grim and immediate as Jeremy Saulnier&#8217, s Green Room. In an act of financial desperation, Anton Yelchin and Alia Shawkat, who are actors in the movie, agree to play a Nazi club in the woods of Oregon ( they didn’t realize it was full-on skinheads until they get to the actual green room ), do so. After witnessing a murder, the band must battle their way through an army of white supremacists, led by Patrick Stewart at his most menacing. The film’s domestic relevance has only increased since its U.S. premiere, and its domestic relevance has only increased.

    2016 &#8211, Split

    One of Fantastic Fest’s main draws is its Secret Screenings, which don’t let viewers know until the movie is over until they finish watching the film. Rarely has a film captured the ethos of the screenings better than Split, which made its world premiere at Fantastic Fest, complete with M. Night Shyamalan in attendance. Fans came in with little knowledge of Split, a performance by James McAvoy that was heartbreakingly good. His multiple personalities forced him to give up a trio of girls ( including Anya Taylor-Joy ) for his powerful new persona. They especially didn&#8217, t know about the shocking twist that Bruce Willis would show up at the end as David Dunn, making Split a surprise sequel to Unbreakable! Unfortunately, that somehow didn’t leak all over social media before the movie’s theatrical debut three months later.

    2017 &#8211, Tigers Are Not Afraid

    Tigers Are Not Afraid is one of the best films ever to debut at Fantastic Fest, despite not being the biggest one. Written and directed by Issa López, who went onto make True Detective: Night Country, Tigers Are Not Afraid is one of the more effective instances of using horror to comment on social traumas. The movie centers on a group of orphans orphans who are victims of violence between warring drug cartels in an unnamed Mexican city. After her mother goes missing and she joins the group, Estrella ( Paola Lara ) begins seeing apparitions in the form of her lost parent, which drives the children further into the gangs &#8217, orbit. Tigers Are Not Afraid illustrates how monsters can provide a respite from a reality that is more frightful than anyone could imagine, just like the early works of Fantastic Fest favorite Guillermo del Toro.

    2018 &#8211, Suspiria

    Some object to the idea of making the eccentric Italian film Suspiria a remake. How could anyone improve on Dario Argento&#8216, s colorful and nonsensical tale about witches operating a dance school? By moving so far in the opposite direction of Argento, Luca Guadagnino found a way, making his Suspiria an echo of the 1977 original. In place of the original&#8217, s frustratingly threadbare plot, Guadagnino and screenwriter David Kajganich overburden their take with incident, making a movie just as confusing as Argento&#8217, s. In place of the technicolors of the original, Guadagnino uses brutalist grays to give the film its own distinctive look. This Suspiria stands on its own when you add in Dakota Johnson who is well-adjusted in the lead and Tilda Swinton playing three different characters.

    2019 &#8211, Tammy and the T-Rex ( Full Restoration )

    The restorations that the festival premieres are just as significant as the new movies that make their debut at Fantastic Fest. Such is the case with the inexplicable Tammy and the T-Rex, which director Stewart Raffill originally shot as an R-rated horror comedy but had to change into a family film to cash in on Jurassic Park-mania when it hit theaters in 1994. Fantastic Fest released the fully restored version of Tammy and the T-Rex in 2019, finally allowing viewers to fully appreciate the romance between Paul Walker and his girlfriend Denise Richards after his brain was implanted into the Tyrannosaurus Rex’s body. *

    * ( It was also nice to highlight this oddity given that Parasite, the best film of this year, had already performed at several international festivals before FF. )

    2020 &#8211, The Stylist

    COVID-19 altered the way that Fantastic Fest operated, just like everything else in the world. Instead of an in-person event, Fantastic Fest 2020 happened virtually and, as a result, far fewer films participated. However, that left room for some undiscovered indie gems, such as the enchanting horror film The Stylist. Directed by Jill Gevargizian, who co-wrote the script with Eric Havens and Eric Stolze, The Stylist stars Najarra Townsend as Claire as a stylist who kills and scalps her victims. The Stylist is exactly the kind of movie that a festival should be known for being both moving and upsetting.

    2021 &#8211, The Black Phone

    Things hadn’t yet reached their full potential in 2021, but you wouldn’t be able to tell by looking at Fantastic Fest’s 2021 lineup. Even under a restructured format, Fantastic Fest hosted the world premiere of several great movies, none more so than Scott Derrickson&#8217, s adaptation of the Joe Hill story, The Black Phone. By introducing &#8217, 70s nostalgia and genuinely compelling characters, none more so than Ethan Hawke as the mysterious killer known as the Grabber, Robertson and co-writer C. Robert Cargill expand Hill&#8217, s story.

    2022 &#8211, Werewolf By Night

    On the one hand, choosing a Disney film ( or TV special ) as Fantastic Fest’s best premiere is absurd. On the other, Werewolf By Night is very good, and very much of interest to attendees. Michael Giacchino’s adaptation of &#8217, a 1970s Marvel Comics film, is his directorial debut, done in the style of a classic Universal and Hammer horror. Gael García Bernal and Laura Donnelly shine as good hearted wolfman Jack Terrier and monster hunter Elsa Bloodstone, respectively. Harriet Sansom Harris, the real star of the show, steals and desecrates every scene as a wicked mistress of ceremonies, is the real star.

    2023 &#8211, Saw X

    In more ways than one way, saw X was a true surprise. Firstly it was the last of four Secret Screenings at the 2023 festival, marking the movie&#8217, s North American premiere. One of the best entries in the franchise, Saw X is shockingly good, not just a step up from the subpar Jigsaw and Spiral: From the Book of Saw. Director Kevin Greutert pulls off the feat by embracing Saw&#8217, s best qualities: a twisty timeline, Tobin Bell&#8217, s performance as compelling central character John Kramer, and plenty of gross out traps. Saw X recovers Kramer’s moral rage, making for a nasty but satisfying movie. It is set sometime between the events of Saw and Saw II.

    2024 &#8211, V/H/S/ Beyond

    It’s fitting that the best entry in the anthology series will make its debut in Austin since the V/H/S/ series has always been a fixture at Fantastic Fest. Beyond sticks to the same formula as other movies in the franchise, filled with short films by various directors, all presented as a series of video tapes discovered by some unlucky soul. Beyondd is a standout in both the V/H/S/ series and Fantastic Fest history, despite having a more sci-fi bent than its predecessors.

    Fantastic Fest 2025 runs from September 18th-25 in Austin, Texas

    The first post 20 Years of Fantastic Fest&#8217, s Best Movies and Premieres appeared on Den of Geek.

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

    The material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The atmosphere

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

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

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

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

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

    Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There could be many reasons for this, including the fact that occasionally certain words may cause specific reactions, that non-native speakers may not be able to comprehend all thenuances of some sentences, that our brains may be different, and that we may perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity is a requirement. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

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

    Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. A positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean giving in to criticism; it just means that you give it in a respectful and constructive manner, whether it be in the form of criticism or criticism. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

    We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. When I shared a comment with someone I knew,” How does this sound,”” How can I do it better,” or even” How would you have written it,” I discovered that the two versions had different meanings.

    The format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    ” Any opinion”? is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for suggestions. It’s vague and empty ended, and it doesn’t give any indication of what we’re looking for. Getting good opinions starts sooner than we might hope: it starts with the demand.

    It might seem contradictory to start the process of receiving feedback with a problem, but that makes sense if we realize that getting feedback can be thought of as a form of pattern study. In the same way that we wouldn’t perform any studies without the correct questions to get the insight that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to build strong issues.

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

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

    The issue

    Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Just saying” Any opinion”?,” What do you think”?, or” I’d like to get your mind” at the end of a presentation—whether it’s in person, over videos, or through a written post—is likely to get a variety of different opinions or, even worse, get everyone to follow the direction of the first person who speaks up. And then… we get frustrated because vague questions like those can turn a high-level flows review into people instead commenting on the borders of buttons. Which might be a hearty topic, so it might be hard at that point to redirect the team to the subject that you had wanted to focus on.

    But how do we get into this situation? It’s a mix of factors. One is that we don’t usually consider asking as a part of the feedback process. Another is how natural it is to just leave the question implied, expecting the others to be on the same page. Another is that in nonprofessional discussions, there’s often no need to be that precise. In short, we tend to underestimate the importance of the questions, so we don’t work on improving them.

    The act of asking good questions guides and focuses the critique. It’s also a form of consent: it makes it clear that you’re open to comments and what kind of comments you’d like to get. It puts people in the right mental state, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to give feedback.

    There isn’t a single best way to ask for feedback. It just needs to be specific, and specificity can take many shapes. A model for design critique that I’ve found particularly useful in my coaching is the one of stage versus depth.

    Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our case, the design process. In progressing from user research to the final design, the kind of feedback evolves. But within a single step, one might still review whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a proper translation of the amassed feedback into updated designs as the project has evolved. A starting point for potential questions could derive from the layers of user experience. What do you want to know: Project objectives? User needs? Functionality? Content? Interaction design? Information architecture? UI design? Navigation design? Visual design? Branding?

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

    • Functionality: Is automating account creation desirable?
    • Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
    • Information architecture: We have two competing bits of information on this page. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
    • UI design: What are your thoughts on the error counter at the top of the page that makes sure that you see the next error, even if the error is out of the viewport?
    • Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Are there any suggestions to address this?
    • Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

    The other axis of specificity is about how deep you’d like to go on what’s being presented. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially useful from one iteration to the next where it’s important to highlight the parts that have changed.

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

    A simple trick is to remove generic qualifiers from your questions like “good”, “well”, “nice”, “bad”, “okay”, and” cool”. For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? might look specific, but you can spot the “good” qualifier, and convert it to an even better question:” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is”?

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

    Sometimes the project is particularly expansive, and some areas may have already been explored in detail. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. It’s not something that I’d recommend in general, but I’ve found it useful to avoid falling again into rabbit holes of the sort that might lead to further refinement but aren’t what’s most important right now.

    Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will welcome the clarity and efficiency that comes from focusing only on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

    The iteration

    Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Yet a lot of design tools with inline commenting tend to show changes as a single fluid stream in the same file, and those types of design tools make conversations disappear once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and compel designs to always show the latest version—unless these would-be helpful features were to be manually turned off. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That’s probably not the best way to approach design critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive here: that could work for some teams.

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

    Using iteration posts has many advantages:

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

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

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

    1. The goal
    2. The design
    3. The list of changes
    4. The issues

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

    This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. So having posts that repeat information is actually very effective toward making sure that everyone is on the same page.

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

    It can also be useful to label the artifacts with clear titles because that can make it easier to refer to them. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not too different from organizing a good live presentation.

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

    And finally, as noted earlier, it’s essential that you include a list of the questions to drive the design critique in the direction you want. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

    Not all iterations are the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then later, the iterations start settling on a solution and refining it until the design process reaches its end and the feature ships.

    I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft—just a concept to get a conversation going—or it could be a cumulative list of each feature that was added over the course of each iteration until the full picture is done.

    Over time, I also started using specific labels for incremental iterations: i1, i2, i3, and so on. This might look like a minor labelling tip, but it can help in multiple ways:

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

    To mark when a design is complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits still in need of attention and in turn more iterations needed, the wording release candidate (RC ) could be used to describe it:” with i8, we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC”.

    The review

    What usually happens during a design critique is an open discussion, with a back and forth between people that can be very productive. This approach is particularly effective during live, synchronous feedback. But when we work asynchronously, it’s more effective to use a different approach: we can shift to a user-research mindset. Written feedback from teammates, stakeholders, or others can be treated as if it were the result of user interviews and surveys, and we can analyze it accordingly.

    This shift has some major benefits that make asynchronous feedback particularly effective, especially around these friction points:

    1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
    2. It reduces the frustration from swoop-by comments.
    3. It lessens our personal stake.

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

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

    The second friction point is the swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from someone outside the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements —or of the previous iterations ‘ discussions. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments often trigger the simple thought” We’ve already discussed this …”, and it can be frustrating to have to repeat the same reply over and over.

    Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. If, however, replying to a previously litigated point might be useful, a short reply with a link to the previous discussion for extra details is usually enough. Remember, alignment comes from repetition, so it’s okay to repeat things sometimes!

    Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: they might point out something that still isn’t clear, and they also have the potential to stand in for the point of view of a user who’s seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

    The third friction point is the personal stake we could have with the design, which could make us feel defensive if the review were to feel more like a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego ( because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there ). And ultimately, treating everything in aggregated form allows us to better prioritize our work.

    Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You have to analyze it and make a decision that you can justify, but sometimes “no” is the right answer.

    As the designer leading the project, you’re in charge of that decision. Ultimately, everyone has their specialty, and as the designer, you’re the one who has the most knowledge and the most context to make the right decision. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

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

  • Designing for the Unexpected

    Designing for the Unexpected

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

    Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

    When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I set about making a layout that I would eventually drop content into a 960px cloth. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect precision using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute placement.

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

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

    A new way to style

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

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

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

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

    Media answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Intrinsic layouts

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

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

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

    —Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

    Intrinsic layouts can also make use of a mix of fixed and flexible units, letting the content choose how much space it occupies.

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

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

    Another 2010 moment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? This kind of design must take place in the browser, which is something I’m very fond of.

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

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

    Content should come first

    Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unanticipated or unexpected, we must take into account changes in content, such as in our earlier Subgrid card illustration, which allowed the cards to make adjustments to both their own and sibling elements.

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

    Instead of the dated markup tricks below,

    First line of text with different styling...

    —we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

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

    Directional variables must be set in the Sass version.

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

    These variables can be used as values—

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

    —or as real estate.

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

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

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

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

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

    Fluid and fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    First, the circumstances

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

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

    Choice is so crucial because of this. One size never fits all, so we need to design for multiple scenarios to create equal experiences for all our users.

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

    Responsible design

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

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

    Chris Ashton

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

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

    Image alt text

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

      

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

    …

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

    So how can we put users in control?

    The media queries are returning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Expect the unexpected

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

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

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

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

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