Blog

Imagine this: Two people are conversing in what appears to be the same pattern issue in a conference room at your software company. One is talking about whether the staff has the right abilities to handle it. The other examines whether the answer really addresses the user’s issue. Similar room, the same issue, and entirely various 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.

The conventional solution has been to create a table with clear lines. The Design Manager handles persons, the Lead Designer handles art. Best, problem is fixed, right? Except that clear 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 style organism, the magic happens when you embrace the coincide 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 concentrates on the internal security, career advancement, team dynamics, and other factors. The Lead Designer concentrates 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 requires the collaboration of both jobs, but one must assume the lead role in maintaining that system sturdy.

Folks & Psychology: The Nervous System

Major caregiver: Design Manager
Supporting position: Direct Artist

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 caregiver here is the Design Manager. They are keeping track of the team’s emotional state, making sure feedback loops are healthier, and creating the environment for growth. They’re hosting job meetings, managing task, and making sure no single burns out.

However, a significant encouraging part is played by the Lead Designer. They provide 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 planning
• Performance evaluations and opinions management methods
• Providing learning options

Direct Custom supports by:

• Giving craft-specific evaluation of team member creation
• identifying opportunities for growth and style talent gaps
• Providing style mentorship and assistance
• indicating when staff people are prepared for more challenging problems.

The Muscular System: Design & 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 raising the bar for quality work, providing craft instruction, and ensuring that shipping work is done to the highest standards. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

However, a significant supporting role is played by the Design Manager. 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 usage and design standards
• Feedback on design work that meets the required standards
• Experience direction for the product
• Design choices and product-wide alignment
• 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:

• The product fulfills the user’s needs.
• 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
• Inter-functional team accountability
• 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 ).

It’s not about staying in your lane. 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 partnerships that create clear 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.

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

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

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. The new component standards have been defined. 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 specific 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. Great design leadership requires both parties to be concerned with the entire organism, even when they are not the primary caregiver.

This entails asking questions rather than making assumptions. ” 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 present in every choice.

When the Organism Gets Sick

This partnership can go wrong even with clear roles. Which failure modes are the most prevalent in my experience:

System Isolation

The Design Manager ignores craft development and only concentrates 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 around common 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? When? 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, both parties must 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 ill, taking a vacation, or overburdened, the other can support 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 scales, which is most important. You can use the same system thinking to new challenges as your team grows. 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 ).

The End result

The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. Multipliering impact is what is concerned with. Magic occurs when both roles realize they are tending to various aspects of the same healthy organism.

The mind and body work together. The team benefits from both strategic thinking and craftmanship. And most importantly, the work that is distributed to users benefits both sides.

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 will both become stronger.

Why Peer Groups Accelerate Success written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

Listen to the full episode: Overview In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Victoria Downing, president of Remodelers Advantage—the leading peer group and business improvement resource for remodeling company owners. With over three decades of experience, Victoria explains how peer groups, professional training, and a focus on both profit and […]

Why Peer Groups Accelerate Success written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

With the most recent special, Snoopy Presents: A Summer Musical, the Peanuts show’s fruitful streaming house on Apple TV + expands into previously unknown territory. The Peanuts gang travels to their favorite summer camp in the particular, which is a true music as the name suggests. [ ]…

The first article on Den of Geek was Peanuts: A Summer Musical Creators Get the Figures to Melodic Heights.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark boys spent decades yearning for reunification, an agonized yearning represented by the sadness, abandonment, and even death suffered by their direwolves, despite just being under the same roof for two episodes ( or a few pages in George R. R. Martin’s huge works ). Despite what revisionist social media complaints might have it now, the general response was euphoric when a few adult Stark siblings finally bonded in later seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences ‘ real-world dire wolves don’t need to wait that long.

Given the controversy over whether they are the exact same species of wolf that disappeared around the Pleistocene epoch, the company has updated the situation of their three dire wolves, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, just three months after Colossal broke the news online. Khaleesi was the younger pup, who was only howling for the first time around the start of this year, compared to Romulus and Remus’s birth in 2024. All three have nevertheless finally spoken up.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

The team is constantly reviewing and working together to ensure that we’re providing the best welfare for these guys, according to Paige McNickle, the coordinator of animal husbandry. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s integration with the other dire wolves in a clear-cut setting during a video interview.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each male wolf one at a time and worked closely with the larger Romulus to keep a distance by hiding beneath a pair of nearby logs with her smaller frame. Because Romulus and Remus are closer to being fully grown, neither can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to hide.

” She could come out and sniff his nose and play with him, and then go back in whenever she was like “wow,” said McNickle.” That helped her control the interaction.

The current plan allows Khaleesi to only interact with one male wolf at a time on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves appeared to be reunited briefly on the first day of what appear to be decidedly happy interactions. With the intention of eventually integrating all three into a literal wolf pack, Khaleesi will eventually be able to run with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The de-extinction advocate discussed the possibility of producing more dire wolves so they could create a full-sized wolf pack of seven to eight dire wolves when we previously spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm. He even sounded curious about naming one of those potential next-generation wolves Nymeria ( the name of the fictional direwolf queen who briefly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones ).

That development would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark family that says,” When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” which this ultimately upbeat video reminds us of.

The first post on Den of Geek was Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Finally One.

Request the majority of Paul Verhoeven’s fans, and they will tell you that their Hollywood careers were a disappointment. After a 15-year work that included classics like RoboCop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct, Verhoeven wrapped up his British film career with the amazing Hollow Man remake from The Invisible Man in 2000.

The second post from Paul Verhoeven’s book Hollow Man Predicted the Internet Manosphere was published on Den of Geek.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark children spent years long yearning to be reunited, an anguished yearning represented by their direwolves ‘ loneliness, abandonment, and even death despite only being together for two episodes ( or a small number of chapters in George R. R. Martin’s massive novels ). Despite what revisionist social media complaints might have it now, the common response was pleasant when a few adult Stark siblings eventually bonded in the afterwards seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences hasn’t had to wait so long to create the real-world, severe wolves.

Given the controversy over whether they are the exact same species of wolf that disappeared around the Pleistocene epoch, the company has updated the situation of their three severe wolves, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, only three weeks after Colossal broke the news online. Khaleesi was the younger pup, just howling for the first time toward the beginning of this time, compared to Romulus and Remus ‘ birth in 2024. All three have nevertheless eventually spoken up.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

The team is constantly reevaluating and working together to ensure that we’re providing the best security for these people, according to Paige McNickle, the coordinator of animal farming.” All of the techniques, feelings, and needs are being addressed. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s connectivity with the other grave wolves in a clear-cut setting during a video interview.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each man wolf one at a time and used her smaller framework to conceal herself beneath a pair of near logs while maintaining a distance with the larger Romulus. Because Romulus and Remus are closer to being fully grown, none can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to conceal.

” That helped her manage the interaction,” said McNickle,” so she could come out and sniff his head and sing with him, and then go up in whenever she was like “wow.”

The existing plan allows Khaleesi to interact with just one male wolf at once on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves briefly came together on the first day of what appear to be very happy interactions. With the intention of later integrating all three into a precise dog crate, Khaleesi will eventually be able to work with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The de-extinction advocate discussed the possibility of producing more grave wolves so they could create a full-sized bear pack of seven to eight severe wolves when we recently spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm. One of those possible next-generation wolves, Nymeria, was reportedly the name of the fictional wolf wife who quickly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones.

That growth would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark community that says,” When the snows collapse and the light winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the bottle lives,” which is true in this eventually happy video.

The first post on Den of Geek was Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Finally One.

Spoilers for winter 3 show 6 are included in this Star Trek: Odd New Worlds review. If it seems as though every Star Trek: Odd New Worlds year 3 season is almost instantly deemed the best of the time, that’s because it’s real. The next season of the show has really been nothing but bangers.

The Sehlat Who Ate Its Tail: Star Trek: Odd New Worlds Season 3 Episode 6 Review first appeared on Den of Geek.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark children spent decades pining for reunification, an anguished passion represented by the sadness, abandonment, and even death suffered by their direwolves despite just being under the same roof for two episodes ( or a few pages in George R. R. Martin’s large books ). In spite of what revisionist cultural media complaints might say today, the general response was pleasant when a few mature Stark siblings suddenly bonded in the afterwards seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences ‘ real-world severe wolf don’t need to wait that long.

Given the controversy over whether they are the exact same species of wolf that went extinct around the close of the Pleistocene epoch, the firm has now updated the public on the development of their three grave wolves: Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, only three months after Colossal broke the news on the internet and announced that they had saved the grave bear from extinction—or at least a variation of it. Khaleesi was the younger pup, only howling for the first time toward the beginning of this year, compared to Romulus and Remus ‘ birth in 2024. All three have since acted in a final moment.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

” All of the]the processes, thoughts, and needs are being addressed, and the team is constantly reevaluating and working together to make sure we’re providing the best welfare for these guys,” said Paige McNickle, the Colossal manager of animal husbandry. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s integration into a controlled environment with the other dire wolves while speaking on camera.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each male wolf one at a time and worked closely with the larger Romulus to keep a distance by hiding beneath a pair of nearby logs with her smaller frame. Because Romulus and Remus are approaching the end of their lives, neither can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to hide.

” That made her control the interaction,” said McNickle,” so she could come out and sniff his nose and play with him, and then go back in whenever she was like “wow.”

The current plan allows Khaleesi to only interact with one male wolf at a time on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves appeared to be reunited briefly on the first day of what appear to be decidedly happy interactions. With the intention of eventually integrating all three into a literal wolf pack, Khaleesi will eventually be able to run with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The proponent of de-extinction discussed the possibility of making more dire wolves when we spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm earlier in order to create a full-sized wolf pack of seven to eight dire wolves. He even sounded curious about naming one of those potential next-generation wolves Nymeria ( the name of the fictional direwolf queen who briefly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones ).

That development would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark family that says,” When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” which is true in this ultimately happy video.

The first post on Den of Geek was Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Finally One.

Bob Odenkirk refused to allow himself consider the project as the start of a possible action franchise when making the initial Nothing back in the pre-COVID nights of 2019. He viewed the job first and foremost as a creative bargain despite training for it for more than a year. Perhaps thus, he confides to […]

The second post Nothing 2: Bob Odenkirk and Connie Nielsen Tease Their Real-Life Holiday Misadventures appeared first on Den of Geek.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark children spent decades pining for reunification, an anguished passion represented by the sadness, abandonment, and even death suffered by their direwolves despite just being under the same roof for two episodes ( or a few pages in George R. R. Martin’s large books ). Despite what revisionist social media complaints might have it now, the common response was euphoric when a few adult Stark siblings eventually bonded in later seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences ‘ real-world severe wolves don’t need to wait that long.

Given the controversy over whether they qualify as the exact same species of wolf that went extinct around the close of the Pleistocene epoch, the firm has now updated the public on the development of their three grave wolf: Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi. Just three months after Colossal broke the news on the internet and announced that they had saved the grave bear from extinction—or at least a variation of it. Khaleesi was the younger pup, only howling for the first time toward the beginning of this year, compared to Romulus and Remus ‘ birth in 2024. All three have nevertheless finally spoken up.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

The team is constantly reevaluating and working together to ensure that we’re providing the best welfare for these guys, according to Paige McNickle, the coordinator of animal husbandry.” All of the processes, thoughts, and needs are being addressed. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s integration with the other evil wolves while speaking on camera.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each male wolf one at a time and used her smaller frame to conceal herself beneath a pair of nearby logs while maintaining a distance with the larger Romulus. Because Romulus and Remus are closer to being fully grown, neither can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to hide.

” She could come out and sniff his nose and play with him, and then go back in whenever she was like “wow,” said McNickle.” That helped her control the interaction.

The current plan allows Khaleesi to interact with just one male wolf at once on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves briefly came together on the first day of what appear to be decidedly happy interactions. With the intention of eventually integrating all three into a literal wolf pack, Khaleesi will eventually be able to run with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The proponent of de-extinction discussed the possibility of making more dire wolves when we spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm earlier in order to create a full-sized wolf pack of seven to eight dire wolves. He even sounded open to naming one of those potential next-generation wolves Nymeria ( the name of the fictional direwolf queen who briefly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones ).

That development would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark family that says,” When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” which this ultimately upbeat video reminds us of.

The first post on Den of Geek was Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Finally One.

Fantastic Fest is again! Since 2005, fans of the horror and music have traveled to Texas to watch the most recent releases in the latest horror, sci-fi, and just plain weird. Fantastic Fest’s 20th anniversary year sees it advance even further with a jam-packed event portfolio that includes more than a few stones. ]… ]

The announcement of the Fantastic Fest 2025 Full Line-Up! second appeared on Den of Geek.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark children spent decades pining for reunification, an anguished passion represented by the sadness, abandonment, and even death suffered by their direwolves despite just being under the same roof for two episodes ( or a few pages in George R. R. Martin’s large books ). Despite what revisionist social media complaints might have it now, the common response was pleasant when a few adult Stark siblings suddenly bonded in the afterwards seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences hasn’t had to wait so long to create the real-world, grave wolves.

Given the controversy over whether they are the exact same species of wolf that disappeared around the Pleistocene epoch, the company has updated the situation of their three severe wolves, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, only three weeks after Colossal broke the news online. Khaleesi was the younger dog, simply howling for the first time around the beginning of this time, compared to Romulus and Remus who were born in 2024. However, all three have suddenly spoken up immediately.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

The team is constantly reevaluating and working together to ensure that we’re providing the best security for these people, according to Paige McNickle, the coordinator of animal farming.” All of the techniques, feelings, and needs are being addressed. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s integration into a controlled environment with the other dire wolves while speaking on camera.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each male wolf one at a time and used her smaller frame to conceal herself beneath a pair of nearby logs while maintaining a distance with the larger Romulus. Because Romulus and Remus are closer to being fully grown, neither can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to hide.

” She could come out and sniff his nose and play with him, and then go back in whenever she was like “wow,” said McNickle.” That helped her control the interaction.

The current plan allows Khaleesi to only interact with one male wolf at a time on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves appeared to be reunited briefly on the first day of what appear to be decidedly happy interactions. With the intention of eventually integrating all three into a literal wolf pack, Khaleesi will eventually be able to run with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The proponent of de-extinction discussed the possibility of making more dire wolves when we spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm earlier in order to create a full-sized wolf pack of seven to eight dire wolves. He even sounded curious about naming one of those potential next-generation wolves Nymeria ( the name of the fictional direwolf queen who briefly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones ).

That development would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark family that says,” When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives.” This is true because of the ultimately wholesome video.

The first post on Den of Geek was Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Finally One.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. Despite just being […]…]…

On Den of Geek, the second article Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Suddenly One appeared.

The Stark children and the heart they pulled whenever they interacted with some dog direwolves were the majority of Game of Thrones ‘ work on HBO, much like the still untouched A Song of Ice and Fire guide set the TV show is based on. The Stark children spent decades yearning for reunification, an anguished passion represented by the sadness, abandonment, and even death suffered by their direwolves despite just being under the same roof for two episodes ( or a few pages in George R. R. Martin’s large books ). In spite of what revisionist social media complaints might say now, the general response was euphoric when a few mature Stark siblings finally bonded in the later seasons.

Thankfully, Colossal Biosciences ‘ real-world dire wolves don’t need to wait that long.

Given the controversy over whether they are the exact same species of wolf that disappeared around the Pleistocene epoch, the company has updated the situation of their three dire wolves, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, just three months after Colossal broke the news online. Khaleesi was the younger pup, only howling for the first time toward the beginning of this year, compared to Romulus and Remus ‘ birth in 2024. All three have nevertheless finally spoken up.

Khaleesi was first introduced to the older Romulus and Remus in an undisclosed nature preserve in the northern regions of North America after being carefully ( and adorably ) captured by Colossal.

” All of the]the processes, thoughts, and needs are being addressed, and the team is constantly reevaluating and working together to make sure we’re providing the best welfare for these guys,” said Paige McNickle, the Colossal manager of animal husbandry. McNickle explained Khaleesi’s integration into a controlled environment with the other dire wolves while speaking on camera.

As seen in the video, Khaleesi met with each male wolf one at a time and worked closely with the larger Romulus to keep a distance by hiding beneath a pair of nearby logs with her smaller frame. Because Romulus and Remus are approaching the end of their lives, neither can approach the younger female wolf from where she chooses to hide.

” She could come out and sniff his nose and play with him, and then go back in whenever she was like “wow,” said McNickle.” That helped her control the interaction.

The current plan allows Khaleesi to only interact with one male wolf at a time on alternating days for at least the next few months, despite the fact that all three wolves appeared to be reunited briefly on the first day of what appear to be decidedly happy interactions. With the intention of eventually integrating all three into a literal wolf pack, Khaleesi will eventually be able to run with both Romulus and Remus as her size increases.

The de-extinction advocate discussed the possibility of producing more dire wolves so they could create a full-sized wolf pack of seven to eight dire wolves when we previously spoke with Colossal CEO Ben Lamm. One of those potential next-generation wolves, Nymeria, was reportedly the name of the fictional direwolf queen who briefly belonged to Arya Stark in Game of Thrones.

That development would be welcomed by us. There is a saying in the Stark family that says,” When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives,” which this ultimately upbeat video reminds us of.

On Den of Geek, the second article Colossal’s Dire Wolf Pack Is Suddenly One appeared.

One of the most successful soft skills we have at our disposal is opinions, in whatever form it takes, and whatever it may be called. It helps us collaborate to improve our designs while developing our own abilities and perspectives.

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 comments can be a revolutionary force.

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

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. It generally shares many of the concepts with suggestions, but it also has some differences.

The material

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

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

Here is a reply 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. May 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I spent a while working on improving my feedback, conducting anonymous feedback reviews and sharing feedback with others. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Quite unexpected, my next round of criticism from one particular person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was a member of this other team who 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, because of the length in question, this kind of feedback is effective and can provide just 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”. The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just implement the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without explaining the why, the designer might assume that the change is one of consistency, but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

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

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

The tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. 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 know the project well, or do you just see it for the first time? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view do you consider when providing feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

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

We frequently concentrate on the negatives and attempt to list every possible improvement. 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, as an added bonus, prevent impostor syndrome.

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

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

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

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

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

• 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
• � � Overall— I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
• � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
• Button Style: Using the green accent in this context, which conveys that it is 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 behind using that?

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

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

Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. 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, improving eight of the subjects ‘ observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others ) and start there. Then the second, followed by the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

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

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

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

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

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

The query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much of a presentation’s depth would be on the other axis of specificity. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful when switching between iterations because it’s crucial to highlight the changes made.

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

Eliminating generic qualifiers from your questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool” is a simple trick. For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? is possible to appear specific, but the “good” qualifier can be found in 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 uncommon, but it can occur. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or perhaps just say,” At first glance, what do you think”? so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

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

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. Even experienced designers will appreciate the clarity and efficiency gained from concentrating solely on what is required, and those with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

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

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

There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, as mentioned earlier, a list of the questions must be included in order to help you guide the design critique. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

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

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

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

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

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

The review

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

Asynchronous feedback is particularly effective because of this shift, especially around these friction points:

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

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

One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
• Another option is to respond politely to acknowledge each comment, such as” Understood. Thank you”,” Good points— I’ll review”, or” Thanks. These will be included in the upcoming 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 option is to quickly summarize the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

The swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from a member of the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements —or of the discussions from earlier iterations. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. It can be annoying to have to repeat the same response repeatedly in swoop-by comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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