Blog

  • From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    From Beta to Bedrock: Build Products that Stick.

    As a product builder over too many years to mention, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen promising ideas go from zero to hero in a few weeks, only to fizzle out within months.

    Financial products, which is the field I work in, are no exception. With people’s real hard-earned money on the line, user expectations running high, and a crowded market, it’s tempting to throw as many features at the wall as possible and hope something sticks. But this approach is a recipe for disaster. Here’s why:

    The pitfalls of feature-first development

    When you start building a financial product from the ground up, or are migrating existing customer journeys from paper or telephony channels onto online banking or mobile apps, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of creating new features. You might think, “If I can just add one more thing that solves this particular user problem, they’ll love me!” But what happens when you inevitably hit a roadblock because the narcs (your security team!) don’t like it? When a hard-fought feature isn’t as popular as you thought, or it breaks due to unforeseen complexity?

    This is where the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) comes in. Jason Fried’s book Getting Real and his podcast Rework often touch on this idea, even if he doesn’t always call it that. An MVP is a product that provides just enough value to your users to keep them engaged, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming or difficult to maintain. It sounds like an easy concept but it requires a razor sharp eye, a ruthless edge and having the courage to stick by your opinion because it is easy to be seduced by “the Columbo Effect”… when there’s always “just one more thing…” that someone wants to add.

    The problem with most finance apps, however, is that they often become a reflection of the internal politics of the business rather than an experience solely designed around the customer. This means that the focus is on delivering as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and desires of competing internal departments, rather than providing a clear value proposition that is focused on what the people out there in the real world want. As a result, these products can very easily bloat to become a mixed bag of confusing, unrelated and ultimately unlovable customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

    The importance of bedrock

    So what’s a better approach? How can we build products that are stable, user-friendly, and—most importantly—stick?

    That’s where the concept of “bedrock” comes in. Bedrock is the core element of your product that truly matters to users. It’s the fundamental building block that provides value and stays relevant over time.

    In the world of retail banking, which is where I work, the bedrock has got to be in and around the regular servicing journeys. People open their current account once in a blue moon but they look at it every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their balance and pay their bill at least once a month.

    Identifying the core tasks that people want to do and then relentlessly striving to make them easy to do, dependable, and trustworthy is where the gravy’s at.

    But how do you get to bedrock? By focusing on the “MVP” approach, prioritizing simplicity, and iterating towards a clear value proposition. This means cutting out unnecessary features and focusing on delivering real value to your users.

    It also means having some guts, because your colleagues might not always instantly share your vision to start with. And controversially, sometimes it can even mean making it clear to customers that you’re not going to come to their house and make their dinner. The occasional “opinionated user interface design” (i.e. clunky workaround for edge cases) might sometimes be what you need to use to test a concept or buy you space to work on something more important.

    Practical strategies for building financial products that stick

    So what are the key strategies I’ve learned from my own experience and research?

    1. Start with a clear “why”: What problem are you trying to solve? For whom? Make sure your mission is crystal clear before building anything. Make sure it aligns with your company’s objectives, too.
    2. Focus on a single, core feature and obsess on getting that right before moving on to something else: Resist the temptation to add too many features at once. Instead, choose one that delivers real value and iterate from there.
    3. Prioritize simplicity over complexity: Less is often more when it comes to financial products. Cut out unnecessary bells and whistles and keep the focus on what matters most.
    4. Embrace continuous iteration: Bedrock isn’t a fixed destination—it’s a dynamic process. Continuously gather user feedback, refine your product, and iterate towards that bedrock state.
    5. Stop, look and listen: Don’t just test your product as part of your delivery process—test it repeatedly in the field. Use it yourself. Run A/B tests. Gather user feedback. Talk to people who use it, and refine accordingly.

    The bedrock paradox

    There’s an interesting paradox at play here: building towards bedrock means sacrificing some short-term growth potential in favour of long-term stability. But the payoff is worth it—products built with a focus on bedrock will outlast and outperform their competitors, and deliver sustained value to users over time.

    So, how do you start your journey towards bedrock? Take it one step at a time. Start by identifying those core elements that truly matter to your users. Focus on building and refining a single, powerful feature that delivers real value. And above all, test obsessively—for, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker (whomever you believe!!), “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

  • An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    An Holistic Framework for Shared Design Leadership

    Picture this: You’re in a meeting room at your tech company, and two people are having what looks like the same conversation about the same design problem. One is talking about whether the team has the right skills to tackle it. The other is diving deep into whether the solution actually solves the user’s problem. Same room, same problem, completely different lenses.

    This is the beautiful, sometimes messy reality of having both a Design Manager and a Lead Designer on the same team. And if you’re wondering how to make this work without creating confusion, overlap, or the dreaded “too many cooks” scenario, you’re asking the right question.

    The traditional answer has been to draw clean lines on an org chart. The Design Manager handles people, the Lead Designer handles craft. Problem solved, right? Except clean org charts are fantasy. In reality, both roles care deeply about team health, design quality, and shipping great work. 

    The magic happens when you embrace the overlap instead of fighting it—when you start thinking of your design org as a design organism.

    The Anatomy of a Healthy Design Team

    Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this equation: think of your design team as a living organism. The Design Manager tends to the mind (the psychological safety, the career growth, the team dynamics). The Lead Designer tends to the body (the craft skills, the design standards, the hands-on work that ships to users).

    But just like mind and body aren’t completely separate systems, so, too, do these roles overlap in important ways. You can’t have a healthy person without both working in harmony. The trick is knowing where those overlaps are and how to navigate them gracefully.

    When we look at how healthy teams actually function, three critical systems emerge. Each requires both roles to work together, but with one taking primary responsibility for keeping that system strong.

    The Nervous System: People & Psychology

    Primary caretaker: Design Manager
    Supporting role: Lead Designer

    The nervous system is all about signals, feedback, and psychological safety. When this system is healthy, information flows freely, people feel safe to take risks, and the team can adapt quickly to new challenges.

    The Design Manager is the primary caretaker here. They’re monitoring the team’s psychological pulse, ensuring feedback loops are healthy, and creating the conditions for people to grow. They’re hosting career conversations, managing workload, and making sure no one burns out.

    But the Lead Designer plays a crucial supporting role. They’re providing sensory input about craft development needs, spotting when someone’s design skills are stagnating, and helping identify growth opportunities that the Design Manager might miss.

    Design Manager tends to:

    • Career conversations and growth planning
    • Team psychological safety and dynamics
    • Workload management and resource allocation
    • Performance reviews and feedback systems
    • Creating learning opportunities

    Lead Designer supports by:

    • Providing craft-specific feedback on team member development
    • Identifying design skill gaps and growth opportunities
    • Offering design mentorship and guidance
    • Signaling when team members are ready for more complex challenges

    The Muscular System: Craft & Execution

    Primary caretaker: Lead Designer
    Supporting role: Design Manager

    The muscular system is about strength, coordination, and skill development. When this system is healthy, the team can execute complex design work with precision, maintain consistent quality, and adapt their craft to new challenges.

    The Lead Designer is the primary caretaker here. They’re setting design standards, providing craft coaching, and ensuring that shipping work meets the quality bar. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

    But the Design Manager plays a crucial supporting role. They’re ensuring the team has the resources and support to do their best craft work, like proper nutrition and recovery time for an athlete.

    Lead Designer tends to:

    • Definition of design standards and system usage
    • Feedback on what design work meets the standard
    • Experience direction for the product
    • Design decisions and product-wide alignment
    • Innovation and craft advancement

    Design Manager supports by:

    • Ensuring design standards are understood and adopted across the team
    • Confirming experience direction is being followed
    • Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
    • Facilitating design alignment across teams
    • Providing resources and removing obstacles to great craft work

    The Circulatory System: Strategy & Flow

    Shared caretakers: Both Design Manager and Lead Designer

    The circulatory system is about how information, decisions, and energy 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.

    This is where true partnership happens. Both roles are responsible for keeping the circulation strong, but they’re bringing different perspectives to the table.

    Lead Designer contributes:

    • User needs are met by the product
    • Overall product quality and experience
    • Strategic design initiatives
    • Research-based user needs for each initiative

    Design Manager contributes:

    • Communication to team and stakeholders
    • Stakeholder management and alignment
    • Cross-functional team accountability
    • Strategic business initiatives

    Both collaborate on:

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

    Keeping the Organism Healthy

    The key to making this partnership sing is understanding that all three systems need to work together. A team with great craft skills but poor psychological safety will burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team with both but poor strategic circulation will work hard on the wrong things.

    Be Explicit About Which System You’re Tending

    When you’re in a meeting about a design problem, it helps to acknowledge which system you’re primarily focused on. “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) gives everyone context for your input.

    This isn’t 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 Healthy Feedback Loops

    The most successful partnerships I’ve seen establish 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.

    Muscular system signals to nervous system: “The team’s craft skills are advancing faster than their project complexity” → Design Manager finds more challenging growth opportunities.

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

    Handle Handoffs Gracefully

    The most critical moments in this partnership are when something moves from one system to another. This might be when a design standard (muscular system) needs to be rolled out across the team (nervous system), or when a strategic initiative (circulatory system) needs specific craft execution (muscular system).

    Make these transitions explicit. “I’ve defined the new component standards. Can you help me think through how to get the team up to speed?” or “We’ve agreed on this strategic direction. I’m going to focus on the specific user experience approach from here.”

    Stay Curious, Not 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 people to care about the whole organism, even when they’re not the primary caretaker.

    This means asking questions rather than making assumptions. “What do you think about the team’s craft development in this area?” or “How do you see this impacting team morale and workload?” keeps both perspectives active in every decision.

    When the Organism Gets Sick

    Even with clear roles, this partnership can go sideways. Here are the most common failure modes I’ve seen:

    System Isolation

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

    The symptoms: Team members get mixed messages, work quality suffers, morale drops.

    The treatment: Reconnect around shared outcomes. What are you both trying to achieve? Usually it’s great design work that ships on time from a healthy team. Figure out how both systems serve that goal.

    Poor Circulation

    Strategic direction is unclear, priorities keep shifting, and neither role is taking responsibility for keeping information flowing.

    The symptoms: Team members are confused about priorities, work gets duplicated or dropped, deadlines are missed.

    The treatment: Explicitly assign responsibility for circulation. Who’s communicating what to whom? How often? What’s the feedback loop?

    Autoimmune Response

    One person feels threatened by the other’s expertise. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Lead Designer thinks the Design Manager doesn’t understand craft.

    The symptoms: Defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members caught in the middle.

    The treatment: Remember that you’re both caretakers of the same organism. When one system fails, the whole team suffers. When both systems are healthy, the team thrives.

    The Payoff

    Yes, this model requires more communication. Yes, it requires both people to be secure enough to share 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 healthy and working well together, you get the best of both worlds: deep craft expertise and strong people leadership. When one person is out sick, on vacation, or overwhelmed, the other can help maintain 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.

    Most importantly, the framework scales. As your team grows, you can apply the same system thinking to new challenges. Need to launch a design system? Lead Designer tends to the muscular system (standards and implementation), Design Manager tends to the nervous system (team adoption and change management), and both tend to circulation (communication and stakeholder alignment).

    The Bottom Line

    The relationship between a Design Manager and Lead Designer isn’t about dividing territories. It’s about multiplying impact. When both roles understand they’re tending to different aspects of the same healthy organism, magic happens.

    The mind and body work together. The team gets both the strategic thinking and the craft excellence they need. And most importantly, the work that ships to users benefits from both perspectives.

    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 working well, both the mind and body of your design team are getting stronger.

  • Building Resilience at Any Age with Lynn Smith

    Building Resilience at Any Age with Lynn Smith

    Building Resilience at Any Age with Lynn Smith written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Listen to the full episode:   Overview On this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Lynn Smith—nationally recognized TV news anchor, keynote speaker, media consultant, and founder of Rylan Media. Lynn shares the inspiration and story behind her new children’s book, “Just Keep Going,” a beautifully illustrated fable that offers a […]

    Building Resilience at Any Age with Lynn Smith written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

    Listen to the full episode:

     

    Overview

    On this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Lynn Smith—nationally recognized TV news anchor, keynote speaker, media consultant, and founder of Rylan Media. Lynn shares the inspiration and story behind her new children’s book, “Just Keep Going,” a beautifully illustrated fable that offers a blueprint for building resilience and courage in both kids and adults. Drawing from her own career pivots, setbacks, and reinventions, Lynn discusses why perseverance, emotional honesty, and self-awareness are the real keys to success—on the page, in business, and in life.

    About the Guest

    Lynn Smith is a media consultant, renowned TV anchor, speaker, and founder of Rylan Media. She’s helped thousands of professionals find their voices on camera and in the boardroom. As the author of “Just Keep Going,” Lynn brings her expertise in communication and resilience to a new generation, offering practical lessons for overcoming fear and embracing growth.

    Actionable Insights

    • The central message—“just keep going”—was inspired by three words that helped Lynn persevere through a dark period in her life; that same mantra now helps children and business leaders alike.
    • Choosing a mouse as the main character adds an underdog, relatable spirit—animal stories are less intimidating for kids and help lessons land.
    • The book’s lessons on resilience, reframing adversity, and emotional honesty are as relevant for adults and entrepreneurs as they are for children.
    • Illustration is a powerful storytelling partner; trusting expert collaborators (like illustrator Lauren Gallegos) can amplify your message.
    • Teaching kids practical techniques—deep breathing, asking for help, shaking off setbacks—makes emotional skills actionable and memorable.
    • Self-awareness is critical for resilience; most adult communication challenges are rooted in childhood fears or experiences.
    • Parents and teachers can model perseverance by sharing their own setbacks and how they move through them.
    • The book includes an educator and parent guide with prompts, definitions, and a “worry journal” to help kids—and families—process big feelings.

    Great Moments (with Timestamps)

    • 00:37 – Why a Mouse?
      Lynn shares why the main character’s journey needed the relatability of an underdog.
    • 02:40 – The Origin of “Just Keep Going”
      How a friend’s text became a life-changing mantra—and the heart of the book.
    • 03:41 – Is This Just for Kids?
      Why the book’s message is vital for entrepreneurs, parents, and anyone facing adversity.
    • 05:18 – On Writing Short and Deep
      The challenge of distilling big lessons into a few, powerful words and pages.
    • 06:42 – Illustration as Storytelling
      How trusting the right creative partner can turn words into emotional magic.
    • 08:23 – Making Complex Lessons Simple
      Turning resilience, courage, and reframing adversity into actions any child can take.
    • 10:37 – Autobiographical Lessons
      How Lynn’s own pivots and failures shaped the book’s core message.
    • 12:37 – Self-Awareness and Root Causes
      Why most adult fears and communication struggles trace back to formative childhood moments.
    • 13:43 – Modeling Perseverance as a Parent
      The importance of letting kids see you fail, try again, and share your process.
    • 16:20 – Tools and Guides for Families
      The book’s educator/parent guide and the power of a “worry journal.”
    • 19:07 – Lynn’s Own “Just Keep Going” Moment
      From live TV slip-ups to business setbacks, how perseverance drives every reinvention.

    Insights

    “Just keep going” isn’t about guaranteeing success—it’s about embracing the process, moving through fear, and seeing what’s possible on the other side.

    “Children’s books distill complex lessons into simple actions—breathing, asking for help, shaking it off—so kids (and parents) can practice resilience together.”

    “Self-awareness and emotional honesty are the roots of real, lasting growth at any age.”

    “Modeling perseverance—letting kids see you face setbacks and keep trying—is one of the greatest gifts a parent or leader can give.”

    “Every reinvention, every pivot, and every setback is a chance to just keep going—and to get stronger along the way.”

     

     

    John Jantsch (00:01.228)

    Hello and welcome to another episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. This is John Jantsch and my guest today is Lynn Smith. She is a nationally recognized television news anchor, keynote speaker, media consultant and founder of Rylan Media. She’s helped thousands of professionals find and use their voices on camera, in the boardroom and beyond. And we’re going to talk about her new book, Just Keep Going, which draws on her own journey through career pivots, setbacks, reinventions.

    to offer a blueprint for resilience, mindset, and forward momentum in working life. So welcome to the show.

    Lynn Smith (00:36.092)

    John, thanks for having me.

    John Jantsch (00:37.966)

    All right, so first I have to ask what inspired you to use a small mouse to tell the story of resilience?

    Lynn Smith (00:46.12)

    Originally, actually, it was a child. And this book went through so many different iterations and rejections. And it’s actually perfectly named Just Keep Going because throughout the process of writing it, I could have just said, you know what? This is really hard. I think I’m just going to quit. And maybe this isn’t for me. And I just kept going. And so instead of saying this stinks and everyone hates it, I made tweaks to it. And one of it was

    John Jantsch (00:58.21)

    Good.

    Lynn Smith (01:15.72)

    turning the character into a mouse and I chose a mouse because I feel that they have in story time this like underdog feel to it. It’s like the little one that you just wanna kind of root for and then along the way mouse encounters friends from a deer to a bear to an owl and Lauren who did the illustrations just knocked it out of the park with beautiful ways of bringing this to a magical and whimsical life.

    And so I wanted these characters to be the most relatable for children, right? They’re the least intimidated by animals. And so messages tend to land easier when they come from animals. And so I think it was a great transformation for us to make with the manuscript.

    John Jantsch (02:04.226)

    I’m thinking mice in my youth, was you had Tom and Jerry and you had Mighty Mouse and you know, so they they they’ve got a long history of course Mickey Mouse, how can we forget? So a long history of being in children’s or at least in in cartoons. So you you mentioned of course the book struggle that you had just keep going. But how’d you land on that as really the central message for I’m sure that became as

    Lynn Smith (02:09.48)

    Sure. Exactly. All the Disney characters.

    Of course.

    Lynn Smith (02:23.176)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (02:34.09)

    an afterthought in the struggle you had with the book, but you went into it with that central message. How and why did you land on that?

    Lynn Smith (02:40.772)

    It came from the three words that were sent to me when I was in a really dark place in my life. It was in my early thirties and I had a friend from college that just texted me those three words. Just keep going. It wasn’t you’re going to be okay. It wasn’t things are going to work out, which is our go-to when people are having a hard time and you’re like, no, I’m not going to be okay. Things are not going to work out. But the three words of just keep going was exactly what I needed to hear. And so I did.

    And then I continued to have great times and not so great times, just like we all do in life. And that phrase got me through a lot. And so I wanted to bring that concept to young minds because it’s certainly what I do when I’m working with executives. I show them how to overcome their fears so that they can just keep going. And I thought, well, why am I doing this with 47 year olds or 57 year olds or 60, 70, what?

    Why am I not doing this with seven-year-olds so that we don’t have to get into the boardroom and be so paralyzed by those fears that we have?

    John Jantsch (03:41.848)

    Yeah. I mean, the lessons in this book, yes, you’ve written this for a young audience, but the lessons in this really do. mean, I, there a of, lot of my listeners are entrepreneurs and, you know, resilience is probably one of the core characteristics of a successful entrepreneur. Do you feel like you limit the message a little bit because somebody looks at that cover and says, well that’s not for

    Lynn Smith (03:57.916)

    No,

    Lynn Smith (04:05.243)

    Well, I think that it’s for, is there somebody that is an entrepreneur with no children that’s going to buy the book? No, probably not unless they read children’s books for themselves. It’s for the entrepreneur that has their little one that they want to be able to instill this message that they’ve so brilliantly embraced because you can’t survive as an entrepreneur without it. And so I think myself as a recovering W-2, what I like to call myself,

    and now an entrepreneur that I hope my children will become because I think it’s the greatest path in your career that you can have. And it does take a certain mindset. And there’s a reason why in life there are two types of people. There are ones that need to be sort of told what to do and those that can take on the risk and the responsibility of not only doing, but also telling their team how to execute their vision. So can we

    raise those many entrepreneurs. think we can.

    John Jantsch (05:06.966)

    So I’ve written seven books myself. I think my longest book topped out at slightly over a hundred thousand words. Was it hard writing a book that doesn’t have that many words?

    Lynn Smith (05:18.791)

    Great question because I’m in the process of writing a nonfiction. Spoiler alert, there will be a version of a Just Keep Going for grownups. The challenge wasn’t the amount of words. It was the way that you distill down a very complex topic like resilience, courage, bravery, and took years for me to accomplish. So everyone talks about their nonfiction books, which you being an author, you know this very well. It can take up to…

    two years to write a book, the time that it takes to write a thousand words, but it took just as long to write 40 pages because there were so many different iterations and it helped me grow as a writer. I’m used to writing four minute television segments where I hook them and I give them twists and turns and then I button it up and I can’t write like that. So I grew as a writer through that process and what we landed on, I’m confident, helps children understand and not a you

    John Jantsch (06:03.758)

    Yeah.

    Yeah, yeah.

    Lynn Smith (06:16.187)

    be resilient kind of a way, but it takes them on the journey where they realize that they can just keep going through their fears and they can get to their destinations.

    John Jantsch (06:26.486)

    I’m curious, know, children’s books and the illustrations quite often tell a great deal of the story. How was that having such an important collaborator really? You know, not just to mention the beautiful art, but that it helped tell the story.

    Lynn Smith (06:32.103)

    couldn’t agree more.

    Lynn Smith (06:42.505)

    and Lauren Gallegos, who is the illustrator who I didn’t choose because the publisher chooses it and I could not be happier because to your point, what she did with the illustrations was she brought to life the emotion. So when Mouse is feeling overwhelmed, you see this cloud around him with jagged edges and it slowly dissipates over time and the whimsical idea of breathing in and out and his ears.

    John Jantsch (06:50.87)

    wow.

    Lynn Smith (07:07.371)

    up when he breathes in look like he’s about to float away and when they’re down it looks like they actually move. I mean, only an artist can do that. And what I did, you know, because I’ve been asked the question, was it hard to let go of your story and hand it over to somebody else to bring it to life? What I learned throughout my career is you find the best of the best and then you trust them because they’re the expert.

    and maybe you learned that you didn’t find the best of the best and then you move on to the next thing and you lose a little bit of money. We know as entrepreneurs how many vendors did we hire and we have just, it’s like, okay, there’s another 10 grand out the window. This was, it truly was the best and best out there and I just trusted her expertise.

    John Jantsch (07:48.334)

    So there are a lot of very adult themes in this book. Re-framing adversity, for example. A lot of adults really have trouble with that. How do you bring that, something that’s that complex and make it not, I hate the term dumb it down because that’s not what you’re doing. You’re making it understand. So how do you take something that is really hard for

    Lynn Smith (08:09.241)

    No, it’s drill it down to that audience. Yes.

    John Jantsch (08:16.17)

    know, full adults, grown adults to understand and make it something that a seven year old, as you mentioned, understands.

    Lynn Smith (08:23.495)

    Throughout the book, Mouse starts in a forest and he’s trying to get home and he encounters a animal along the way through each challenge he faces. So in some cases, it’s sometimes Mouse has big feelings and that makes him scared. And a friend will come along and say, have you tried taking a deep breath in and taking a deep breath out? that helps. I’ll just keep going. And he gets to his next scene, which is sometimes Mouse is frustrated because

    someone won’t share. Have you tried jumping up and down? that helps. And just keep going. And throughout each vignette, there are different physical techniques that are very simple that kids understand. So when my kids read it, they’re the best test market, right? And that’s what I did before the manuscript ever was finalized. I was like, does my six-year-old like this? And, you know, they were reading it and then they’d get off the couch and they’d start jumping up and down. Or they know this because I put it in the book.

    because this is what we do when I say, a deep breath in and they’re like, take a deep breath out. And so it is not, are overcoming adversity, which is what we would say to an adult. It is leading them to the water through these magical scenes. And then at the end he gets to his house and he realizes that putting one foot in front of the other, taking deep breaths helped him to get to where he wants to be. And the ultimate, okay,

    we nailed it on the messaging was my now six-year-old, who’s my youngest, my six-year-old at the time who is now nine is my oldest. That was my test market when I was writing this. But my six-year-old now said to me at the start of school, he said, Mom, can we bring your book into the class? And I said, well, why? And he’s like, well, George just started at our school and he doesn’t know anyone. And I think he’s scared. And I was like, yeah, okay. They get it. They get it.

    John Jantsch (10:17.112)

    Mm. Yeah.

    Lynn Smith (10:21.519)

    because that’s the situation that they can relate to. And I said to him, you’re being a deer, you know, because with a deer is one of the friends in the book. And so it’s like, can we teach them how to be the other animal that might help the mouse out there? Because I think there’s a mouse in all of us.

    John Jantsch (10:37.952)

    Yeah. So, so speaking of that, while this is not purely autobiographical, I’m wondering how much you’ve had some reinventions in your career. I’m wondering how much of this you feel like is, is autobiographical.

    Lynn Smith (10:47.441)

    Just a few.

    Lynn Smith (10:53.615)

    Yeah, and I don’t even know that word reinvention because that almost makes it sound like there’s a restart to it. I would say more of a development of where I went with my career. So I was a news anchor for 15 years, felt the news business was no longer how I could serve. And so I wanted to reverse engineer what helped me to feel like I’m talking to you when you’re sitting in your living room and like, I know her, I like her, I want to spend time with her.

    How do I teach that to executives that are struggling with the boardroom or the presentation that they’re giving? And so when I made that transition, were there just keep going moments? Of course. I was starting from scratch as an entrepreneur. mean, John, I didn’t even know how to do an Excel worksheet. You know, I read Glass for a living. I didn’t know how to do any of these things. I didn’t even know what the term scale meant. Like, what does it mean to scale was an actual Google search?

    John Jantsch (11:42.403)

    Yeah.

    Lynn Smith (11:51.97)

    And what I had to do along the way was just keep going. You’ll fail. I have bad business partnerships, bad decisions, bad people that came through. All of it’s happened. It’s going to happen again. We know this to be the case. What do we do when it happens? We just keep going.

    John Jantsch (12:12.012)

    Again, find myself keep going back to adults on this because it’s so relevant, how much do you think self-awareness plays a role in being able to just keep going? Rather than like the world’s against me, I’m a failure, I’m this, how much of it is, no, this was supposed to happen, for example.

    Lynn Smith (12:17.137)

    Yeah, that’s.

    Lynn Smith (12:37.895)

    I think the reason that you keep going back to the adult piece is because we as adults, the things that we’re struggling with are often rooted in childhood. So when I’m working with executives and I uncover for them the reality that what they’re struggling with, which is their communication, is not actually their problem. Their problem is their fear. Am I going to say the wrong thing? Are people going to like this? Do I sound smart? That’s what we fix first, and then I teach them the tactical.

    And whenever I’m digging through the fear piece, I always ask the question, where do you think that comes from? And inevitably, and we’re talking hundreds of executives that we’ve tested this with, and these are fortune 500 CEOs in many cases, always goes back to childhood. Well, you know, I was a latchkey kid and I had to sort of figure out things on my own or, you know, I had a very critical mother or whatever it was, it somewhere rooted back in

    childhood and so much of this book I wrote for the parent reading it to their child as much as I wrote for the child.

    John Jantsch (13:43.32)

    Yeah. So as you’ve mentioned, you’re a parent. And then obviously, I’m sure there are going to be a lot of teachers that see your book. How do you think adults then can model that just keep going kind of mindset in their own lives for those who might be paying attention? Because I do recall, I do recall they hear every word you say and see everything you do, whether you know.

    Lynn Smith (13:59.772)

    Yeah, and I, yeah.

    Every word. And gosh, I could be so hard on myself for that reality because I’m learning how much that’s true and how many times I have screwed up. And I am not a parenting expert, but I do host a parenting podcast. So I’ve talked to a lot of parenting experts and they helped me to change the way that I present to my children. I say, well, they say, and I’m believing, if I’m doing it 70 % of the time, then…

    John Jantsch (14:09.1)

    Ha ha ha!

    John Jantsch (14:15.886)

    You

    John Jantsch (14:32.418)

    Yeah, right.

    Lynn Smith (14:32.481)

    we’re good. They’ll forget the other 30. But what I have done is I’ve welcomed them into my failures. So I shared with them throughout the book process, you know what, someone rejected the book again. I’m disappointed. But you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to do something that, you know, they said that maybe this could be worked on. So I’m going to go and do you want to help me? Like I brought them into the process so they could see me pushing through rejection.

    and perceived failure. And then things like I’ve had my son when he was nervous about a game. What if I don’t win? Right? Instead of, know, get out there, you know, win, right? That’s what we teach our kids. Get first place and then you are on the sidelines and these parents are going crazy. And what does that teach our kids? Like, oh my gosh, wait, the stakes are really high. My mom and dad are on the sidelines. Like, they’re screaming at me to just do better.

    John Jantsch (15:21.048)

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    Lynn Smith (15:30.119)

    And instead it’s like, you know, I was, cause this did happen to me when I was in middle school, I got cut from every single team. And instead of sulking, I went to camps during the summer and I, and I tried practicing every single second that I could. And the next year I made the team. And so I share that with them of like, if you don’t, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to stop or are you going to keep going and practice and get better? Because that’s entrepreneurship, right? You get knocked down and you don’t get pushed out.

    John Jantsch (16:00.942)

    So have you, I’m sure in your consulting, you’ve developed some frameworks and some tools and there are some things that you mentioned in this book, breathing, asking for help, shaking it off. Do you envision some worksheets or things that could be used in the class or used by families?

    Lynn Smith (16:20.763)

    Yeah, we actually have an educator and a parent guide that we have on the website for the book. And we did that because we wanted this to be the starting point. We wanted this to spark greater conversations with your children. So in the guide, it’s definition of brave. What is the definition of courage? What does it mean to fail? And then question prompts, like, have you ever felt like you failed at something? What did that feel like? And

    What does it mean to be brave? And how can you be a friend to somebody that might be struggling? And then at the end of the guide, it’s a worry journal. And this was from another parenting expert that shared with me the importance of writing kids’ feelings down. And I started it with my boys. And now my son will say, mom, can you go get my worry journal? So we put that at the end so that they have a place where they can write down the feelings, the big feelings that we address at the beginning of the book.

    mouse sometimes has big feelings. And I use that word specifically because I have a big feeling kid. So I have a big feeling, big reaction kid. And sometimes we’re big feeling adults, right? We react bigger than maybe we need to because of our emotion. And so, yes, in my frameworks, what we work through are beating the brain bully, which is our inner critic, and

    having the Goldilocks effect of preparation so that we walk into communications with the right messaging. All of those things are the big, big concepts. We just wanna teach our kids what does it mean to be brave? What does it mean to have courage?

    John Jantsch (17:56.92)

    So you mentioned already that you’re working on a book that uses the same, really to use in your consulting, right? The same message. do you, do ever envision a series of books? Maybe it’ll depend on how well this sells, right? Do ever envision a series of books that, you know, you have a whole group of emotional lessons that you could probably talk

    Lynn Smith (18:19.707)

    Well, from your mouth to the skies, yes. Of course, that’s the dream for every author, that your message resonates and that it develops and it continues. And that’s what I would love to be able to do with this book. As you say, you’ve written, you said eight books, is that right? Seven? Yeah. And when you’re an author and you just feel like your content evolves and you want to share your frameworks and your IP with as many people as possible, because that’s how you make an impact, right?

    John Jantsch (18:22.1)

    Yeah.

    John Jantsch (18:37.294)

    That’s seven, but yeah.

    Lynn Smith (18:49.765)

    especially as a business owner.

    John Jantsch (18:49.806)

    Yeah, absolutely. So, all right. The hardest question, I said the hardest question for last, maybe it’s not the hardest question. Was there a time in your life, career or not career related, that you had to just keep going?

    Lynn Smith (19:07.025)

    could give you hundreds of examples, right? I’ll give you a great story for TV news. So I was a producer at the Today Show and they approached me when I had appeared in one of the segments and they said, have you ever thought about doing on air? Well, the skills of being great on camera are not natural for most people. And that was true for me. So they sent me to Hartford, Connecticut to cut my teeth.

    get a reel and then they sent me to Philadelphia for a little boot camp and local. And so was my first day on the job. I was supposed to be a consumer reporter because clearly I could write great pieces. I was at the Today Show, but they needed me to be on tape so that they could train me to be great on camera. And the first day on the job, I was sent to a breaking news stabbing at a school and I had never reported breaking news. I was a disaster.

    John Jantsch (19:55.349)

    what? Huh.

    Lynn Smith (20:00.433)

    Bumbled through it. I said the wrong name. I said the wrong weapon. This is why people say that you should cut your teeth in a small market. We could have a whole other podcast in my disagreement with that statement. That being said, it was humiliating. It was on live television. It wasn’t the last time something embarrassing on TV happened, but I continuously choose throughout my career and in my life to just keep going and not have those failures stop me from what I want to accomplish.

    And I hope that this book inspires your children to do the same.

    John Jantsch (20:33.422)

    Well, again, Lynn, I appreciate you stopping by the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast. Is there someplace you’d invite people to find out more about you, your work, and obviously just keep going.

    Lynn Smith (20:43.779)

    John, it was great to be with you. My work with executives is linsmith.com, where you can learn all about what we do. And then the book is justkeepgoingbook.com. It is out on September 30th, but available for presale, whatever you love to buy your books.

    John Jantsch (20:59.63)

    Awesome. Again, well, congratulations and I appreciate you stopping by. Maybe we’ll run into you one of these days out there on the road.

    powered by

  • The Long Walk Review: Stephen King at His Most Nihilistic Done Justice

    The Long Walk Review: Stephen King at His Most Nihilistic Done Justice

    Anyone may succeed. This is the message that Americans are taught from the cradle to the grave and that they also tell themselves. If you put in the effort necessary, try hard enough, and are basically good enough, you too can become a millionaire, businessman, or an dictator above the laws of men and women. Of course ]… ]

    The Long Walk Review: Stephen King and His Most Hedonistic Done Justice first appeared on Den of Geek.

    Although it’s popular these days to condemn Dwayne” The Rock” Johnson’s acting choices, there was a time not long ago when the wrestler-turned-actor’s natural charisma attracted slightly different attentions. Although he was never acknowledged as a potential nominee for an award, he was also praised on SNL as “franchise viagra,” and if critics did not, he was undoubtedly respected for his infinite charisma and a nature thus beautiful that, even when he’s not grinning, his facial muscles carry the ghost of one. &#8221,

    That is what makes Benny Safdie’s most recent trailer for The Smashing Machine seem strange and haunted.

    In the fresh trailer, Johnson’s Mark Kerr states,” For me, a moment without pain is like a day without sunshine.” A day without pain or sunshine feels like anathema to Johnson &#8217, the onscreen persona of the past 20 or so years, which may be why the position is already receiving rave reviews from Venice, where the movie also received the Silver Lion for Safdie&#8217, the course. It would appear that the sun has gone out apparently. It has been replaced by a piece of metal unlike anything since Pain &amp, Gain. &nbsp,

    In the 2002 HBO video of the same name, Johnson stars as Kerr, a two-time UFC Heavyweight champion and previous fighter. Kerr appears to be a favorable subject matter for Safdie, a mixed martial artist who admitted to dealing with substance misuse and specialized losses. Good Time and Uncut Gems, two of the previous two movies he co-directed with sibling Josh, were unflaggingly bleak in their dealings with the sports industry, and together they promise a video that &#8217, s likely thornier than the typical sports movie trailer Smashing System offers&nbsp, over.

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    In this sing reel, Johnson undoubtedly exhibits a side unlike anything he has in over a decade. Here is the striking and quirky character actor who could imitate John Travolta’s scenes in popular culture’s Be Great and form the basis for the more enigmatic Southland Tales. In Pain & Gain, Michael Bay would paint his obscene painting of American ambition and haughtiness using clay that he had already given himself. &nbsp,

    Johnson has shown to have a lot of charisma and an untapped, more confusing reserve of skill since starting his transition from wrestling to film acting. Yet in humorous but upbeat smut like The Rundown, Arnold Schwarzenegger seemed to identify him as the heir visible. &nbsp,

    Johnson has chosen not to fully exploit that ability over the past 12 years, but it was there in vain when riffing on Big in Jumanji, and it might have been that when playing same Emily Blunt. In fact, the two collaborated on Jungle Cruise in 2021, a by-the-numbers theater production that requested Johnson and Blunt to, in theory, upgrade Bogie and Hepburn, but in reality amounted to exalted cast people on a theme park trip. &nbsp,

    However, the piece in this new Smashing System video suggest substantial chemistry when Blunt’s Dawn tenderly treats a maimed boyfriend with compassion but even a controlled weariness. Johnson and Blunt both make appearances outside of their respective milieus when they are filmed in grittier gyms or gritty dramas. Given that we’ve seen Blunt switch roles and genres before, including Benny Safdie in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a film with a completely different aesthetic, but having real, painful sparks with Johnson is something new. With any luck, it will strike the octagon as hard as Kerr.

    Smashing Machine is available on A24 on October 3rd.

    The Smashing Machine Trailer featured Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt like never before, according to Den of Geek.

  • The Duffers Reveal Stranger Things’ Most Important Season

    The Duffers Reveal Stranger Things’ Most Important Season

    We can essentially taste the Eggo waffles because Stranger Things ‘ final season is so close to its conclusion! Over three years of rumors about the story of the second season’s plot will eventually come to light in a few months, but the Duffer Brothers, the show’s creators, have added a little more substance to the mix.[ ]

    The Duffers Reveal Stranger Things ‘ Most Critical Time first appeared on Den of Geek.

    Although it’s trendy these days to condemn Dwayne” The Rock” Johnson’s acting choices, there was a time not long ago when the wrestler-turned-actor’s natural charisma attracted slightly different attentions. Although he was never acknowledged as a potential nominee for an award, he was also praised on SNL as “franchise viagra,” and if not praised by critics, he was undoubtedly regarded for his infinite personality and a character so beautiful that &#8220, yet when he’s not wearing a smile, his physical muscles carry the ghost of one. &#8221,

    That is what makes Benny Safdie’s latest trailer for The Smashing Machine‘s latest trailer seem strange and haunted.

    In the fresh trailer, Johnson’s Mark Kerr states,” For me, a moment without pain is like a day without sunshine.” A day without pain or sunshine feels like anathema to Johnson &#8217, the onscreen persona of the past 20 or so years, which may be why the position is already receiving rave reviews from Venice, where the movie also received the Silver Lion for Safdie&#8217, the course. It would appear that the sun has gone out apparently. It has been replaced by a piece of metal unlike anything since Pain &amp, Gain. &nbsp,

    In the 2002 HBO video of the same name, Johnson stars as Kerr, a two-time UFC Heavyweight champion and previous fighter. Kerr appears to be a favorable subject matter for Safdie, a mixed martial artist who admitted to dealing with substance misuse and specialized losses. Good Time and Uncut Gems, two of the two movies he co-directed with his brother Josh, were unflaggingly bleak in their dealings with the sports industry, and jointly they promise a video that &#8217, s likely thornier than the typical sports movie trailer Smashing System offers&nbsp, over.

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

    Johnson undoubtedly exhibits a side in this sizzle reel, which is something we haven’t seen from him in over a decade. Here is the bold and eccentric character actor who could be the center of the more enigmatic Southland Tales and take John Travolta’s scenes from popular studio movies like Be Cool. In Pain &amp, Gain, Michael Bay would paint his obscene portrait of American greed and haughtiness using clay that he had even given himself to make. &nbsp,

    Johnson has shown to have a lot of charisma and an untapped, more ambiguous reserve of talent since starting his transition from wrestling to film acting. However, there’s a reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger chose to make him the heir apparent, even in lighthearted but vivacious schlock like The Rundown. &nbsp,

    Johnson has chosen not to fully exploit that talent over the past 12 years, but it was there in vain when riffing on Big in Jumanji, and it might have been there when playing opposite Emily Blunt. In fact, the pair collaborated on Jungle Cruise in 2021, a formulaic studio production that requested that Johnson and Blunt modernize Bogie and Hepburn, but in reality amounted to glorified cast members on a theme park ride. &nbsp,

    However, the pair in this new Smashing Machine trailer suggest tangible chemistry when Blunt’s Dawn tenderly treats a wounded boyfriend with compassion but also a guarded weariness. In gritty drama or grittier gym, Johnson and Blunt both appear outside of their respective milieus. Given that we’ve seen Blunt switch roles and genres before, including Benny Safdie in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a biopic with a completely different cast, Blunt’s real, painful sparks with Johnson is something entirely new. It might be able to strike the octagon just as hard as Kerr if it has any luck.

    Smashing Machine is released by A24 on October 3rd, at &nbsp.

    The Smashing Machine Trailer featured Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt like never before, according to Den of Geek.

  • Seven Remains Morgan Freeman’s Best Performance

    Seven Remains Morgan Freeman’s Best Performance

    Morgan Freeman is a legend. His message is immediately recognized. He has a image on screen that instantly grabs attention from supervillain films like Batman Begins to Oscar contenders of Invictus. In The Lego Movie, Freeman also maintains respect while playing a funny wizard and pitching payment cards. Despite being as well-liked as]…

    Den of Geek initially published Seven Bones Morgan Freeman’s Best Achievement.

    Although it’s popular these days to condemn Dwayne” The Rock” Johnson’s acting choices, there was a time when the wrestler-turned-actor’s organic charisma attracted slightly different attentions. Although he was never acknowledged as a potential nominee for an Oscar, he was also praised on SNL as “franchise viagra,” and if critics did not, he was undoubtedly respected for his boundless charisma and sunny nature. Yet when he’s not grinning, his facial muscles still carry the ghost of one. &#8221,

    That is what makes Benny Safdie’s latest video for The Smashing Machine‘s latest trailer seem strange and haunted.

    In the fresh trailer, Johnson’s Mark Kerr states,” For me, a moment without pain is like a day without sunshine.” A day without pain or sunshine feels like anathema to Johnson &#8217, the onscreen persona of the past 20 or so years, which may be why the position is already receiving rave reviews from Venice, where the movie also received the Silver Lion for Safdie&#8217, s manner. It seems that the moon has apparently set in that laugh. It has been replaced by a piece of metal unlike anything since Pain &amp, Gain. &nbsp,

    In the 2002 HBO video of the same name, Johnson stars as Kerr, a two-time UFC Heavyweight champion and previous fighter. Kerr appears to be a favorable subject matter for Safdie, a mixed martial artist who admitted to dealing with substance misuse and specialized losses. Good Time and Uncut Gems, two of the movies he co-directed with his brother Josh, were unflaggingly dark in their dealings with the sports industry, and together they deliver a picture that is likely to be more complex than the standard sports movie trailer Crushing System offers.

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    Johnson undoubtedly exhibits a part in this sing clip, which is something we haven’t seen from him in over a century. Here is the strong and quirky character actor who could imitate John Travolta’s scenes in popular culture’s Be Great and form the basis for the more enigmatic Southland Tales. In Pain & Gain, Michael Bay would paint his obscene painting of American ambition and haughtiness using clay that he had already given himself. &nbsp,

    Johnson has shown to have a lot of charisma and an untapped, more confusing reserve of skill since starting his transition from wrestling to film acting. Yet in humorous but upbeat smut like The Rundown, Arnold Schwarzenegger seemed to identify him as the heir visible. &nbsp,

    Johnson has chosen not to fully exploit that ability over the past 12 years, but it was there in vain when riffing on Big in Jumanji, and it might have been that when playing same Emily Blunt. In fact, the two collaborated on Jungle Cruise in 2021, a by-the-numbers theater production that requested that Johnson and Blunt upgrade Bogie and Hepburn, but in reality amounted to exalted cast members on a theme garden ride. &nbsp,

    However, the piece in this new Smashing System video suggest substantial chemistry when Blunt’s Dawn tenderly treats a maimed boyfriend with compassion but even a controlled weariness. Johnson and Blunt both make appearances outside of their respective milieus when they are filmed in edgier gyms or dark dramas. Given that we’ve seen Blunt switch functions and genres before, including Benny Safdie in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a film with a completely different cast, Blunt’s genuine, painful sparks with Johnson is something entirely new. With any luck, it will strike the octagon as difficult as Kerr.

    Smashing Equipment is available on A24 on October 3rd.

    The first article on Den of Geek: View Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt Like Never Before in the The Smashing Machine Trailer was titled,” View Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt Like Never Before.”

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Feedback, in whichever form it takes, and whatever it may be called, is one of the most powerful sweet skills that we have at our disposal to jointly get our models to a better position while growing our own skills and ideas.

    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 feedback can make confusion in projects, send down confidence, and change faith and team collaboration over the long term. 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 basic aspects of giving excellent feedback? And how can comments be adjusted for rural and distributed job settings?

    On the web, we can discover a long history of sequential suggestions: from the early days of open source, script was shared and discussed on email lists. Today, developers engage on pull requests, designers comment in their favorite design tools, project managers and scrum masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

    Design critique is often the name used for a type of feedback that’s provided to make our work better, collaboratively. So it shares a lot of the principles with feedback in general, but it also has some differences.

    The content

    The foundation of every good critique is the feedback’s content, so that’s where we need to start. There are many models that you can use to shape your content. The one that I personally like best—because it’s clear and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

    While this equation is generally used to give feedback to people, it also fits really well in a design critique because it ultimately answers some of the core questions that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some feedback about some design work that spans multiple screens, like an onboarding flow: there are some pages shown, a flow blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You spot something that could be improved. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

    Here is a comment that could be given as a part of some feedback, and it might look reasonable at a first glance: it seems to superficially fulfill the elements in the equation. But does it?

    Not sure about the buttons ‘ styles and hierarchy—it feels off. Can you change them?

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

    When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one 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 expect one to go forward and one to go back. This is the only instance of this occurring, as it was before when we only 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, for design critiques, in my experience, defaulting to the question approach usually reaches the best solutions because designers are generally more comfortable 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 expect one to go forward and one to go back. This is the only instance of this occurring, as it was before when we only 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 expect one to go forward and one to go back. This is the only instance of this occurring, as it was before when we only 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 expect one to go forward and one to go back. This is the only instance of this occurring, as it was before when we only 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. Surprise surprise, one particular person gave me a lot of negative feedback. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was a person in this other team who had always preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

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

    No, this kind of feedback is effective because the length is a byproduct of clarity, and giving this kind of feedback can provide precisely enough information for a sound fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just,” Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons”. Since the designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, they might just 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.

    The equation above is not intended to provide a predetermined template for feedback, but rather a mnemonic to reflect and enhance the practice. 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, 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 that of the content receptivity equation.

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

    The 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 live, 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 needs a different one. 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, 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? 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’s not what I meant to say! 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 situation 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. It’s important to keep in mind that having a positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean passing judgment on the feedback; rather, it simply means that you give it constructive and respectful feedback, whether it be difficult or positive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

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

    The format

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

    Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. Let’s try to think about some factors that might be helpful to consider, as there are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course a factor.

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

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

    We frequently concentrate on the negatives and attempt to list every 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 remember that design has a number of possible solutions to each problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. Positive feedback can also help, as an added bonus, prevent impostor syndrome.

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

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

    In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. You might want to break up the feedback into sections or even between several comments for longer pieces. 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 expect one to go forward and one to go back. This is the only instance of this occurring, as it was before when we only used a single button and an”” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
    • � � Overall— I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
    • � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
    • Button Style: Using the green accent in this context gives the impression that it’s a positive action because green is typically seen as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
    • Given the number of items on the page and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles should use Subtitle 2 instead of Subtitle 1. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
    • � � Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the purpose 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. 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.

    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 improving eight of the subjects ‘ focus points, including observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability, is a lot of work to complete 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 comment?” is probably one of the worst ways to ask for feedback. It’s vague and open ended, and it doesn’t provide any indication of what we’re looking for. Getting good feedback starts earlier than we might expect: it starts with the request. 

    It might seem counterintuitive to start the process of receiving feedback with a question, but that makes sense if we realize that getting feedback can be thought of as a form of design research. In the same way that we wouldn’t do any research without the right questions to get the insights that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to craft sharp questions.

    Design critique is not a one-shot process. Sure, any good feedback workflow continues until the project is finished, but this is particularly true for design because design work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each level needs its own set of questions.

    And finally, as with any good research, we need to review what we got back, get to the core of its insights, and take action. Question, iteration, and review. Let’s look at each of those.

    The question

    Being open to feedback is essential, but we need to be precise about what we’re looking for. Just saying “Any comment?”, “What do you think?”, or “I’d love to get your opinion” at the end of a presentation—whether it’s in person, over video, or through a written post—is likely to get a number of varied 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 questions

    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

    I’m not sure when I first heard this quote, but it’s something that has stayed with me over the years. How do you create services for situations you can’t imagine? Or design products that work on devices yet to be invented?

    Flash, Photoshop, and responsive design

    When I first started designing websites, my go-to software was Photoshop. I created a 960px canvas and set about creating a layout that I would later drop content in. The development phase was about attaining pixel-perfect accuracy using fixed widths, fixed heights, and absolute positioning.

    Ethan Marcotte’s talk at An Event Apart and subsequent article “Responsive Web Design” in A List Apart in 2010 changed all this. I was sold on responsive design as soon as I heard about it, but I was also terrified. The pixel-perfect designs full of magic numbers that I had previously prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

    The fear wasn’t helped by my first experience with responsive design. My first project was to take an existing fixed-width website and make it responsive. What I learned the hard way was that you can’t just add responsiveness at the end of a project. To create fluid layouts, you need to plan throughout the design phase.

    A new way to design

    Designing responsive or fluid sites has always been about removing limitations, producing content that can be viewed on any device. It relies on the use of percentage-based layouts, which I initially achieved with native CSS and utility classes:

    .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%;
    }

    Then with Sass so I could take advantage of @includes to re-use repeated blocks of code and move back to more semantic markup:

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

    Media queries

    The second ingredient for responsive design is media queries. Without them, content would shrink to fit the available space regardless of whether that content remained readable (The exact opposite problem occurred with the introduction of a mobile-first approach).

    Media queries 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.

    Row markup was a staple of early responsive design, present in all the widely used frameworks 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 problem arose as I moved from a design agency building websites for small- to medium-sized businesses, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a suite of related sites. In those roles I started to work much more with reusable components. 

    Our reliance on media queries resulted in components that were tied to common viewport sizes. If the goal of component libraries is reuse, then this is a real problem because you can only use these components if the devices you’re designing for correspond to the viewport sizes used in the pattern library—in the process not really hitting that “devices that don’t yet exist”  goal.

    Then there’s the problem of space. Media queries 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. There are JavaScript workarounds, but they can create dependency 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 components to replace responsive layouts.

    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 concern is that we are still using layout 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 removed from context and real content is probably not the best place for that decision. 

    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.

    It’s hard to say for sure whether container queries will be a success story until we have solid cross-browser support for them. Responsive component libraries would definitely evolve how we design and would improve the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. But maybe we will always need to adjust these components to suit 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 this is you don’t need 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. Subgrid at the time of writing is only supported in Firefox but the above code can be implemented behind an @supports feature query. 

    Intrinsic layouts 

    I’d be remiss not to mention intrinsic layouts, the term created by Jen Simmons to describe a mixture of new and old 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.

    fr units is a way to say I want you to distribute the extra space in this way, but…don’t ever make it smaller than the content that’s inside of it.

    —Jen Simmons, “Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

    Intrinsic layouts can also utilize a mixture of fixed and flexible units, allowing the content to dictate the space it takes up.

    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. Components and patterns can be lifted and reused without the prerequisite of having the same breakpoints or the same amount of content as in the previous implementation. 

    We can now create designs that adapt to the space they have, the content within them, and the content around them. With an intrinsic approach, we can construct responsive components without depending 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. For me, it’s another “everything changed” moment. 

    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 reason for that could be that I now work in a large organization, which is quite different from the design agency role I had 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 could be that I feel more prepared for change now. In 2010 I was new to design in general; the shift was frightening and required a lot of learning. Also, an intrinsic approach isn’t exactly all-new; it’s about using existing skills and existing CSS knowledge in a different 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. 

    Responsive grid systems were all over the place ten years ago. With a framework like Bootstrap or Skeleton, you had a responsive design template at your fingertips.

    Intrinsic design and frameworks do not go hand in hand quite so well because the benefit of having a selection of units is a hindrance when it comes to creating layout templates. 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, at some point in our careers, used Photoshop templates for desktop, tablet, and mobile devices to drop designs in and show how the site would look at all three stages.

    How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? This type of design must happen in the browser, which personally I’m a big fan 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. To do this in a graphics-based software package is far from ideal. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Does it still work? 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 first 

    Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unknown or unexpected we need to account for content changes like our earlier Subgrid card example that allowed the cards to respond to adjustments to their own content and the content of 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 old markup hacks like this—

    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.

    In the Sass version, directional variables need to be set.

    $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 properties.

    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.

    Fixed and fluid 

    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% (the preferred value) of its container but never less than 300px and never more than 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. We can start to future-proof designs by planning for unexpected changes in language or direction. And we can increase flexibility by setting desired dimensions alongside flexible alternatives, allowing for more or less content to be displayed correctly.

    Situation first

    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 very different thing to design for someone seated at a desktop computer as opposed to someone using a mobile phone and moving through a crowded street in glaring sunshine. Situations and environments are hard to plan for or predict because they change as people react to their own unique challenges and tasks.

    This is why choice is so important. 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. But in the real world, our users may be commuters traveling on trains or other forms of transport using smaller mobile devices that can experience drops in connectivity. 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 return of media queries 

    Media queries 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. 

    As of this writing, the Media Queries Level 5 spec is still under development. It introduces some really exciting queries that in the future will help us design for multiple other unexpected situations.

    For example, there’s a light-level feature that allows you to modify styles if a user is in sunlight or darkness. 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 queries 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 expect is for things to change. Devices in particular change faster than we can keep up, with foldable screens already on the market.

    We can’t design the same way we have for this ever-changing landscape, but we can design for content. 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. From responsive components to fixed and fluid units, there is so much more we can do to take a more intrinsic approach. 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 situations, we need to make sure our products are usable when people need them, whenever and wherever that might be. 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.

  • Voice Content and Usability

    Voice Content and Usability

    We’ve been having conversations for thousands of years. Whether to convey information, conduct transactions, or simply to check in on one another, people have yammered away, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken conversation for countless generations. Only in the last few millennia have we begun to commit our conversations to writing, and only in the last few decades have we begun to outsource them to the computer, a machine that shows much more affinity for written correspondence than for the slangy vagaries of spoken language.

    Computers have trouble because between spoken and written language, speech is more primordial. To have successful conversations with us, machines must grapple with the messiness of human speech: the disfluencies and pauses, the gestures and body language, and the variations in word choice and spoken dialect that can stymie even the most carefully crafted human-computer interaction. In the human-to-human scenario, spoken language also has the privilege of face-to-face contact, where we can readily interpret nonverbal social cues.

    In contrast, written language immediately concretizes as we commit it to record and retains usages long after they become obsolete in spoken communication (the salutation “To whom it may concern,” for example), generating its own fossil record of outdated terms and phrases. Because it tends to be more consistent, polished, and formal, written text is fundamentally much easier for machines to parse and understand.

    Spoken language has no such luxury. Besides the nonverbal cues that decorate conversations with emphasis and emotional context, there are also verbal cues and vocal behaviors that modulate conversation in nuanced ways: how something is said, not what. Whether rapid-fire, low-pitched, or high-decibel, whether sarcastic, stilted, or sighing, our spoken language conveys much more than the written word could ever muster. So when it comes to voice interfaces—the machines we conduct spoken conversations with—we face exciting challenges as designers and content strategists.

    Voice Interactions

    We interact with voice interfaces for a variety of reasons, but according to Michael McTear, Zoraida Callejas, and David Griol in The Conversational Interface, those motivations by and large mirror the reasons we initiate conversations with other people, too (). Generally, we start up a conversation because:

    • we need something done (such as a transaction),
    • we want to know something (information of some sort), or
    • we are social beings and want someone to talk to (conversation for conversation’s sake).

    These three categories—which I call transactional, informational, and prosocial—also characterize essentially every voice interaction: a single conversation from beginning to end that realizes some outcome for the user, starting with the voice interface’s first greeting and ending with the user exiting the interface. Note here that a conversation in our human sense—a chat between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass multiple transactional, informational, and prosocial voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but a conversation is not necessarily a single voice interaction.

    Purely prosocial conversations are more gimmicky than captivating in most voice interfaces, because machines don’t yet have the capacity to really want to know how we’re doing and to do the sort of glad-handing humans crave. There’s also ongoing debate as to whether users actually prefer the sort of organic human conversation that begins with a prosocial voice interaction and shifts seamlessly into other types. In fact, in Voice User Interface Design, Michael Cohen, James Giangola, and Jennifer Balogh recommend sticking to users’ expectations by mimicking how they interact with other voice interfaces rather than trying too hard to be human—potentially alienating them in the process ().

    That leaves two genres of conversations we can have with one another that a voice interface can easily have with us, too: a transactional voice interaction realizing some outcome (“buy iced tea”) and an informational voice interaction teaching us something new (“discuss a musical”).

    Transactional voice interactions

    Unless you’re tapping buttons on a food delivery app, you’re generally having a conversation—and therefore a voice interaction—when you order a Hawaiian pizza with extra pineapple. Even when we walk up to the counter and place an order, the conversation quickly pivots from an initial smattering of neighborly small talk to the real mission at hand: ordering a pizza (generously topped with pineapple, as it should be).

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

    Burhan: Hi, welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s cold out there. How can I help you?

    Alison: Can I get a Hawaiian pizza with extra pineapple?

    Burhan: Sure, what size?

    Alison: Large.

    Burhan: Anything else?

    Alison: No thanks, that’s it.

    Burhan: Something to drink?

    Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

    Burhan: You got it. That’ll be $13.55 and about fifteen minutes.

    Each progressive disclosure in this transactional conversation reveals more and more of the desired outcome of the transaction: a service rendered or a product delivered. Transactional conversations have certain key traits: they’re direct, to the point, and economical. They quickly dispense with pleasantries.

    Informational voice interactions

    Meanwhile, some conversations are primarily about obtaining information. Though Alison might visit Crust Deluxe with the sole purpose of placing an order, she might not actually want to walk out with a pizza at all. She might be just as interested in whether they serve halal or kosher dishes, gluten-free options, or something else. Here, though we again have a prosocial mini-conversation at the beginning to establish politeness, we’re after much more.

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

    Burhan: Hi, welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s cold out there. How can I help you?

    Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

    Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

    Alison: Do you have any halal options on the menu?

    Burhan: Absolutely! We can make any pie halal by request. We also have lots of vegetarian, ovo-lacto, and vegan options. Are you thinking about any other dietary restrictions?

    Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

    Burhan: We can definitely do a gluten-free crust for you, no problem, for both our deep-dish and thin-crust pizzas. Anything else I can answer for you?

    Alison: That’s it for now. Good to know. Thanks!

    Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

    This is a very different dialogue. Here, the goal is to get a certain set of facts. Informational conversations are investigative quests for the truth—research expeditions to gather data, news, or facts. Voice interactions that are informational might be more long-winded than transactional conversations by necessity. Responses tend to be lengthier, more informative, and carefully communicated so the customer understands the key takeaways.

    Voice Interfaces

    At their core, voice interfaces employ speech to support users in reaching their goals. But simply because an interface has a voice component doesn’t mean that every user interaction with it is mediated through voice. Because multimodal voice interfaces can lean on visual components like screens as crutches, we’re most concerned in this book with pure voice interfaces, which depend entirely on spoken conversation, lack any visual component whatsoever, and are therefore much more nuanced and challenging to tackle.

    Though voice interfaces have long been integral to the imagined future of humanity in science fiction, only recently have those lofty visions become fully realized in genuine voice interfaces.

    Interactive voice response (IVR) systems

    Though written conversational interfaces have been fixtures of computing for many decades, voice interfaces first emerged in the early 1990s with text-to-speech (TTS) dictation programs that recited written text aloud, as well as speech-enabled in-car systems that gave directions to a user-provided address. With the advent of interactive voice response (IVR) systems, intended as an alternative to overburdened customer service representatives, we became acquainted with the first true voice interfaces that engaged in authentic conversation.

    IVR systems allowed organizations to reduce their reliance on call centers but soon became notorious for their clunkiness. Commonplace in the corporate world, these systems were primarily designed as metaphorical switchboards to guide customers to a real phone agent (“Say Reservations to book a flight or check an itinerary”); chances are you will enter a conversation with one when you call an airline or hotel conglomerate. Despite their functional issues and users’ frustration with their inability to speak to an actual human right away, IVR systems proliferated in the early 1990s across a variety of industries (, PDF).

    While IVR systems are great for highly repetitive, monotonous conversations that generally don’t veer from a single format, they have a reputation for less scintillating conversation than we’re used to in real life (or even in science fiction).

    Screen readers

    Parallel to the evolution of IVR systems was the invention of the screen reader, a tool that transcribes visual content into synthesized speech. For Blind or visually impaired website users, it’s the predominant method of interacting with text, multimedia, or form elements. Screen readers represent perhaps the closest equivalent we have today to an out-of-the-box implementation of content delivered through voice.

    Among the first screen readers known by that moniker was the Screen Reader for the BBC Micro and NEEC Portable developed by the Research Centre for the Education of the Visually Handicapped (RCEVH) at the University of Birmingham in 1986 (). That same year, Jim Thatcher created the first IBM Screen Reader for text-based computers, later recreated for computers with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) ().

    With the rapid growth of the web in the 1990s, the demand for accessible tools for websites exploded. Thanks to the introduction of semantic HTML and especially ARIA roles beginning in 2008, screen readers started facilitating speedy interactions with web pages that ostensibly allow disabled users to traverse the page as an aural and temporal space rather than a visual and physical one. In other words, screen readers for the web “provide mechanisms that translate visual design constructs—proximity, proportion, etc.—into useful information,” writes Aaron Gustafson in A List Apart. “At least they do when documents are authored thoughtfully” ().

    Though deeply instructive for voice interface designers, there’s one significant problem with screen readers: they’re difficult to use and unremittingly verbose. The visual structures of websites and web navigation don’t translate well to screen readers, sometimes resulting in unwieldy pronouncements that name every manipulable HTML element and announce every formatting change. For many screen reader users, working with web-based interfaces exacts a cognitive toll.

    In Wired, accessibility advocate and voice engineer Chris Maury considers why the screen reader experience is ill-suited to users relying on voice:

    From the beginning, I hated the way that Screen Readers work. Why are they designed the way they are? It makes no sense to present information visually and then, and only then, translate that into audio. All of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the experience for blind users. ()

    In many cases, well-designed voice interfaces can speed users to their destination better than long-winded screen reader monologues. After all, visual interface users have the benefit of darting around the viewport freely to find information, ignoring areas irrelevant to them. Blind users, meanwhile, are obligated to listen to every utterance synthesized into speech and therefore prize brevity and efficiency. Disabled users who have long had no choice but to employ clunky screen readers may find that voice interfaces, particularly more modern voice assistants, offer a more streamlined experience.

    Voice assistants

    When we think of voice assistants (the subset of voice interfaces now commonplace in living rooms, smart homes, and offices), many of us immediately picture HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey or hear Majel Barrett’s voice as the omniscient computer in Star Trek. Voice assistants are akin to personal concierges that can answer questions, schedule appointments, conduct searches, and perform other common day-to-day tasks. And they’re rapidly gaining more attention from accessibility advocates for their assistive potential.

    Before the earliest IVR systems found success in the enterprise, Apple published a demonstration video in 1987 depicting the Knowledge Navigator, a voice assistant that could transcribe spoken words and recognize human speech to a great degree of accuracy. Then, in 2001, Tim Berners-Lee and others formulated their vision for a Semantic Web “agent” that would perform typical errands like “checking calendars, making appointments, and finding locations” (, behind paywall). It wasn’t until 2011 that Apple’s Siri finally entered the picture, making voice assistants a tangible reality for consumers.

    Thanks to the plethora of voice assistants available today, there is considerable variation in how programmable and customizable certain voice assistants are over others (Fig 1.1). At one extreme, everything except vendor-provided features is locked down; for example, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be extended beyond their existing capabilities. Even today, it isn’t possible to program Siri to perform arbitrary functions, because there’s no means by which developers can interact with Siri at a low level, apart from predefined categories of tasks like sending messages, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and certain others.

    At the opposite end of the spectrum, voice assistants like Amazon Alexa and Google Home offer a core foundation on which developers can build custom voice interfaces. For this reason, programmable voice assistants that lend themselves to customization and extensibility are becoming increasingly popular for developers who feel stifled by the limitations of Siri and Cortana. Amazon offers the Alexa Skills Kit, a developer framework for building custom voice interfaces for Amazon Alexa, while Google Home offers the ability to program arbitrary Google Assistant skills. Today, users can choose from among thousands of custom-built skills within both the Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant ecosystems.

    As corporations like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google continue to stake their territory, they’re also selling and open-sourcing an unprecedented array of tools and frameworks for designers and developers that aim to make building voice interfaces as easy as possible, even without code.

    Often by necessity, voice assistants like Amazon Alexa tend to be monochannel—they’re tightly coupled to a device and can’t be accessed on a computer or smartphone instead. By contrast, many development platforms like Google’s Dialogflow have introduced omnichannel capabilities so users can build a single conversational interface that then manifests as a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. I don’t prescribe any specific implementation approaches in this design-focused book, but in Chapter 4 we’ll get into some of the implications these variables might have on the way you build out your design artifacts.

    Voice Content

    Simply put, voice content is content delivered through voice. To preserve what makes human conversation so compelling in the first place, voice content needs to be free-flowing and organic, contextless and concise—everything written content isn’t.

    Our world is replete with voice content in various forms: screen readers reciting website content, voice assistants rattling off a weather forecast, and automated phone hotline responses governed by IVR systems. In this book, we’re most concerned with content delivered auditorily—not as an option, but as a necessity.

    For many of us, our first foray into informational voice interfaces will be to deliver content to users. There’s only one problem: any content we already have isn’t in any way ready for this new habitat. So how do we make the content trapped on our websites more conversational? And how do we write new copy that lends itself to voice interactions?

    Lately, we’ve begun slicing and dicing our content in unprecedented ways. Websites are, in many respects, colossal vaults of what I call macrocontent: lengthy prose that can extend for infinitely scrollable miles in a browser window, like microfilm viewers of newspaper archives. Back in 2002, well before the present-day ubiquity of voice assistants, technologist Anil Dash defined microcontent as permalinked pieces of content that stay legible regardless of environment, such as email or text messages:

    A day’s weather forcast [sic], the arrival and departure times for an airplane flight, an abstract from a long publication, or a single instant message can all be examples of microcontent. ()

    I’d update Dash’s definition of microcontent to include all examples of bite-sized content that go well beyond written communiqués. After all, today we encounter microcontent in interfaces where a small snippet of copy is displayed alone, unmoored from the browser, like a textbot confirmation of a restaurant reservation. Microcontent offers the best opportunity to gauge how your content can be stretched to the very edges of its capabilities, informing delivery channels both established and novel.

    As microcontent, voice content is unique because it’s an example of how content is experienced in time rather than in space. We can glance at a digital sign underground for an instant and know when the next train is arriving, but voice interfaces hold our attention captive for periods of time that we can’t easily escape or skip, something screen reader users are all too familiar with.

    Because microcontent is fundamentally made up of isolated blobs with no relation to the channels where they’ll eventually end up, we need to ensure that our microcontent truly performs well as voice content—and that means focusing on the two most important traits of robust voice content: voice content legibility and voice content discoverability.

    Fundamentally, the legibility and discoverability of our voice content both have to do with how voice content manifests in perceived time and space.