Blog

Marvel Rivals, which was released less than two months after its official launch, reportedly generated more than$ 130 million in revenue, attracted 640, 000 concurrent Steam users, and consistently appeared near the top of Twitch’s competitive popularity page. By any modern market metric, NetEase Games ‘ new Marvel-themed hero shooter is a massive ]… ]

The second post Marvel Rivals Is the Overwatch Killer Nothing Was Looking For appeared primary on Den of Geek.

Everyone is aware that the Royal Rumble suit, one of the biggest sunglasses in wrestling pleasure, is the beginning of the Road to WrestleMania in February. While the basic rules are the same as the standard battle king, where participants try to eliminate their opponents by throwing them out of the band, what’s always made the Royal Rumble unique is that it starts with only two wrestlers in the circle, with new entrants entering the suit every 90 seconds or so, allowing for all sorts of amazement returns and wonderful showdowns. Nearly all looks forward to the 30-man Rumble, despite the fact that wrestling fans adore to debate anything.

However, despite its tremendous idea, some Royal Rumbles are far superior to another. In fact, there have been some remarkably bad, or predictable, roars over the years ( notice how some roars from the’ 90s made this record ). However, when the Royal Rumble is well put together, it highlights all that makes professional wrestling a joy.

We&#8217 ;ve ranked the 13 best Royal Rumble matches in wrestling history:

Women’s Royal Rumble on December 13, 2018

In some ways, it’s amazing that the WWE didn’t even try to organize a children’s Royal Rumble until 2018. Sure, the children’s squad was n&#8217, t usually so extensive, but the annual women’s hum complement showed that it taxicab be done very well. A fantastic mixture of the very best people on the lineup at the time, like Sasha Banks, Bayley, and Becky Lynch, plus lots of returning Hall of Famers, including Trish Stratus, Lita, and Beth Phoenix, were present at the 2018 fit.

But most important, the way it was organized made it seem like almost any of these women could get, with Asuka’s greatest victory being both fully justified and only unexpected enough to please most fans.

12.1990 Royal Rumble

Even though this was just the third Royal Rumble match actually, it’s obvious that the WWE was still developing the idea. No, there aren’t any significant scares or inventive solutions. Hell, the champion didn’t even find a subject shot back then. However, the story is very well told throughout the suit.

Ted DiBiase,” The Million Dollar Man,” cheated to get a late access the previous year, came in first, and it lasted an impressive 45 hours before being eliminated ( a record at the time ). But what most older wrestling fans remember this suit for is for the surprising first meeting between Hulk Hogan ( the success of the suit ) and The Ultimate Warrior, which set up their famous match at WrestleMania VI a few months afterwards.

Men’s Royal Rumble on April 11, 2018

It starts to become fairly easy to predict a lot of the outcomes if you watch enough professional wrestling. Most longtime wrestling fans figured that Cody Rhodes would win the 2023 and 2024 Royal Rumble matches to finish the story. However, in 2018, the Rumble’s outcome was incredibly unpredictable, and Shinsuke Nakamura’s triumph was a real shock from a business that frequently relies on the same handful of main eventers over and over again.

Beyond that, this was a really enjoyable match with a few cool surprise entries in The Hurricane and Rey Mysterio and a distinctive old school vs. new school stare down between the final six men, Randy Orton, John Cena, Mysterio, Finn Balor, Nakamura, and Roman Reigns, which hadn’t really been done in one of these matches before.

10.2023 Women’s Royal Rumble

The issue with the first few women’s Royal Rumbles was that the WWE had to fill the match with far too many legends and NXT callups that everyone knew had no chance of winning. Michelle McCool made a rare return in this match, and there were a few NXT wrestlers as well, but overall it felt much more competitive and wide open.

Starting the match with Rhea Ripley and Liv Morgan, and having them both last until the end was a bold choice, and Rhea ultimately winning was the right call. With Liv Morgan right behind her, it helped propel her to the top of the card at the WWE.

………..

Botches happen in professional wrestling. It’s unavoidable. It’s typically a minor error, and you just get on with the match. Sometimes fans don’t even really notice. Then there is the notoriously bad finish to the 2005 Royal Rumble that will forever place it among the best of these matches.

By throwing John Cena over the top rope last, Batista was declared the winner going into the competition. As planned, Batista got Cena up for his signature Batista Bomb, Cena countered with a head scissors… and they both promptly fell right over the top rope, landing on the floor at the exact same time. When Vince McMahon got so upset, he returned to the ring to resumption the match, somehow tearing both of his quads in the process. Fans received one of the best, most chaotic Royal Rumble finishes of all time when Batista promptly threw Cena over the top rope as planned.

8.2008 Royal Rumble

Many fans are divided during this Rumble match. Yes, there were some times when things got a little too busy, but the positive aspect of this easily outweighs the negative, earning it a spot on the list. The match opens with Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker as the first two entrants. That combination really can’t be combined with one another, and they each lasted an impressive 30+ minutes.

The most memorable moment of this match is John Cena entering at number 30. There are some entertaining moments here, like the unexpected showdown between legends Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka and Hornswoggle hiding under the ring. Cena had legit torn his pectoral muscle just three months before, and was expected to be out of action for six months, so the crowd was completely shocked to see him show up and win the whole thing. His comeback is still considered one of the biggest pops in WWE history.

7.2016 Royal Rumble

To be fair, there’s a lot to like and dislike about this Rumble match. First, the good. It was interesting to see how the WWE approached this situation. A pre-Tribal Chief Roman Reigns had to enter first to defend his WWE Championship, and he had an impressive run throughout the match, even though he went backstage for part of it. A. J. Styles made his WWE debut, and he did look incredible, lasting almost 30 minutes. Working together to eliminate Brock Lesnar and Mark Henry, The Wyatt Family was also recognized as a real force to reckon with.

But while most of the match was enjoyable to watch, the ending was far too predictable, with Triple H entering at number 30, eliminating Reigns and ultimately winning the Rumble. Although the underwhelming finish is subject to a lot of valid criticism, the match is still a really good Rumble if you can get past that.

6. 2024 Women’s Royal Rumble

The most recent women’s Royal Rumble is easily the best so far. The match started off with a few significant surprises right away. Naomi, who had just returned from the break, was greeted with a huge cheer in the second spot, but what really shocked the arena was Jordynne Grace, the reigning TNA belt, who was also the fifth contestant. It’s still mind blowing to see stuff like this after WWE refused to acknowledge other promotions for decades.

Beyond the surprises, there were some other outstanding moments, like the showdown between Nia Jax and Jade Cargill, and a confused R-Truth trying to enter the match and wondering who all the men were. In the end, Bayley making the right decision by lasting more than an hour from the third spot was the right choice, which really helped her story advance.

5.2001 Royal Rumble

Even its biggest supporters must acknowledge that the majority of the Royal Rumble matches from this time were surprisingly unsatisfying, with few surprises, and most of the top stars leaving the Rumble for other matches on the schedule. However, the Rumble of 2001 made a significant exception.

Most of the biggest names of the era appeared in the 2001 Royal Rumble, with Kane in particular giving a dominant and career-defining performance thanks to his record-breaking 11 eliminations. Drew Carey, a comedian, made a unique choice for the match, which still turned out well. Stone Cold Steve Austin, who recorded his third Royal Rumble victory, a record that still stands today, was undoubtedly the real star here.

4.2020 Men’s Royal Rumble

What more could the WWE do to really muddle the formula after more than 30 years of Royal Rumble matches? The Beat Incarnate was the answer in 2020. Then-WWE champion Brock Lesnar entered the Rumble first, and promptly dispatched 13 other entrants almost as quickly as they entered the ring. You might think that would become boring, but after all these years, Lesnar’s dominance over his rivals is still a real treat.

That only added to the enjoyment of watching Drew McIntyre beat Lesnar and ultimately prevail in the final match. The 2020 Rumble is really a master class in booking performers to their fullest potential and building up a new main eventer.

Royal Rumble, April 3, 2004

Because Chris Benoit won, WWE doesn’t even really acknowledge this match. And since he entered from the first spot and lasted the entire thing, there’s really no way to talk about it without mentioning him. It’s unfortunate that this Rumble will always be overshadowed by the Benoit tragedy because it is truly a spectacular match.

Benoit was a well-known midcarder who needed to advance to the next level, and this match did a fantastic job of showing off his wrestling prowess right up until the final back and forth with Big Show, which is still one of the best endings to any Rumble match.

2.2007 Royal Rumble

The battle royals and rumble matches typically end with a surprisingly short spot between the final two rivals. After being there for an hour, wrestlers get tired and simply want to head back to the starting position. While this whole Rumble is quite good what truly puts it among the greats is the lengthy ending sequence.

Taker ducked a super kick to lift Michaels over the top rope and claim his first and only Royal Rumble victory, which was a complete miracle for The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. There may never be a more recognizable or better finish to a Rumble than this.

1.1992 Royal Rumble

What could possibly be disliked about the 1992 Royal Rumble? The winning combination, for the first time ever, actually had a lasting impact, with the only man standing being given the vacant WWF Championship. The entrants were a who’s who of all time wrestling greats, ranging from Kerry Von Erich and Greg” The Hammer” Valentine to Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan.

After an impressive hour-long performance, Ric Flair, arguably the greatest professional wrestler of all time, was the winner, according to all that was said and done. The legendary commentators Bobby Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon called all of this and more. If watching this match doesn’t make you a professional wrestling fan, nothing will.

The first post on Den of Geek: The Best WWE Royal Rumble Matches of All Time, Ranked appeared first.

It’s now a rare earn for a horror film to receive a Best Picture nomination, particularly one as joyfully gross as Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance. Although it would be more uncommon for one to actually earn, Demi Moore’s guide performance has already won at least one big earlier award at the Golden Globes, […]

The article The Substance’s Scariest Image Is All About Demi Moore’s Performance appeared initially on Den of Geek.

Everyone is aware that the Royal Rumble suit, one of the biggest sunglasses in wrestling pleasure, is the beginning of the Road to WrestleMania in February. The Royal Rumble has only two athletes in the circle, with new entrants entering every 90 seconds or so, allowing for all sorts of surprise results and wonderful showdowns, although the basic rules are the same as the standard battle royal, where participants try to eliminate their opponents by throwing them out of the band. As much as wrestling enthusiasts love to say about anything, nearly all looks forward to the 30-man Rumble.

However, despite its great idea, some Royal Rumbles are far superior to another. In fact, there have been some remarkably bad, or predictable, roars over the years ( notice how some roars from the’ 90s made this record ). However, when the Royal Rumble is well put together, it highlights anything that makes professional wrestling a joy.

We&#8217, d ranked the 13 best Royal Rumble matches in wrestling story:

13.2018 Women’s Royal Rumble

In some ways, it’s amazing that the WWE didn’t even try to guide a women’s Royal Rumble until 2018. Sure, the children’s squad was n&#8217, t usually so extensive, but the annual women’s roar complement showed that it taxicab be done very well. The 2018 meet featured a wonderful combination of the very best people on the lineup at the time, like Sasha Banks, Bayley, and Becky Lynch, plus lots of returning Hall of Famers, including Trish Stratus, Lita, and Beth Phoenix.

But most important, the way it was organized made it seem like almost any of these women could get, with Asuka’s greatest victory being both fully justified and only unexpected enough to please most fans.

12.1990 Royal Rumble

Even though this was just the third Royal Rumble match possibly, it’s obvious that the WWE was still developing the idea. No, there aren’t any big surprises, or actually innovative eliminations. Hell, the champion didn’t even find a subject shot back then. But the suit does include a lot of truly solid storytelling.

Ted DiBiase,” The Million Dollar Man,” cheated to get a late entrance the previous year, came in first, and it lasted an amazing 45 hours before being eliminated ( a record at the time ). The shocking first encounter between Hulk Hogan ( the match winner ) and The Ultimate Warrior, which set up their legendary match at WrestleMania VI a few months later, is what most older wrestling fans remember about this match.

11.2018 Men’s Royal Rumble

Many of the benefits become fairly predictable once you watch adequate professional wrestling. The story’s conclusion was predicted by the majority of wrestling enthusiasts who have watched the show for decades. However, in 2018, the Rumble’s outcome was incredibly uncertain, and Shinsuke Nakamura’s triumph was a real shock from a business that frequently relies on the same handful of major eventers over and over again.

Beyond that though, this was a really enjoyable suit, with a few great surprise entrants in The Hurricane and Rey Mysterio and a special older class vs. fresh school stare down between the last six men&#8212, Randy Orton, John Cena, Mysterio, Finn Balor, Nakamura, and Roman Reigns &#8212, that hadn’t really been done in one of these matches before.

10.2023 Women’s Royal Rumble

The issue with the first few women’s Royal Rumbles was that the WWE had to use far too many legends and NXT call-ups to fill the match, which everyone knew had no chance of winning. Although there were a few NXT wrestlers present in this match and Michelle McCool made a rare return, the actual rumble felt much more competitive and wide open.

Rhea Ripley and Liv Morgan were the wrong choice to start the match with, and they had to endure until the very end. With Liv Morgan right in front of her, it helped propel her to the top of the WWE card.

9.2005 Royal Rumble&nbsp,

Botches happen in professional wrestling. It’s unavoidable. Usually, it’s a small miscue, and you just go on with the match. Sometimes fans don’t even really notice. Then there is the notoriously bad finish to the 2005 Royal Rumble that will forever place it among the best of these matches.

By throwing John Cena over the top rope last, Batista was declared the winner at the start of the match. Cena countered with his signature Batista Bomb, and Batista managed to get Cena to do it, but both ended up on the floor at the exact same time. They both immediately fell over the top rope and fell to the floor at the same time. When Vince McMahon was so upset, he then returned to the ring to resumption the match, somehow legitimately torn both of his quads in the process. The match restarted, Batista promptly threw Cena over the top rope as planned, and fans were left with one of the greatest, most chaotic Royal Rumble finishes of all time.

8.2008 Royal Rumble

This Rumble match is polarizing for many fans. Yes, there were some times when things got a little too busy, but the positive aspect of this easily outweighs the negative, earning it a spot on the list. The first two entrants for the match are Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. You really can’t go wrong with that combo, and they each lasted an impressive 30+ minutes.

The most memorable aspect of this match is John Cena entering at number 30. There are some entertaining moments here, like an unexpected showdown between legends Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka, and Hornswoggle hiding under the ring. The crowd was completely shocked to see Cena show up and win the entire thing because he had legitimately torn his pectoral muscle just three months prior and was scheduled to be out of action for six months. One of WWE’s biggest pops still stands today despite his return.

7.2016 Royal Rumble

To be fair, there’s a lot to like and dislike about this Rumble match. First, the good. It was interesting to see how the WWE approached this situation. Roman Reigns, a pre-Tribal Chief, had to come in first to defend his WWE Championship, and he did so in a strong way throughout the match, even though he had to go backstage for a portion of it. This was also the debut of A. J. Styles in the WWE, and he did indeed look phenomenal, lasting almost 30 minutes. Working together to eliminate Brock Lesnar and Mark Henry, The Wyatt Family was also recognized as a real force to reckon with.

The match ended in a far-too-predictable manner, with Triple H claiming victory over Reigns and ultimately winning the Rumble, despite the majority of the viewing experience. The underwhelming finish is the subject of some valid criticism, but if you can get past that, it’s a really good Rumble.

6.2024 Women’s Royal Rumble

The most recent women’s Royal Rumble is unquestionably the best so far. A couple of significant surprises immediately caused the match to begin. Naomi, who had just returned from the break, was greeted with a huge cheer in the second spot, but what really shocked the arena was Jordynne Grace, the reigning TNA belt, who was also the fifth contestant. After WWE refused to acknowledge other promotions for decades, it’s still mind-blowing to see this.

Beyond the surprises, there were some other outstanding moments, like the showdown between Nia Jax and Jade Cargill, and a confused R-Truth trying to enter the match and wondering who all the men were. In the end, Bayley’s more than an hour from the third spot was the right choice, which really helped her story advance.

5.2001 Royal Rumble

Even its biggest supporters must acknowledge that the majority of the Royal Rumble matches from this time were surprisingly lackluster, with few surprises, and most of the top stars skipping the Rumble for other matches on the card, despite how beloved it was. But the 2001 Rumble was a big exception.

Most of the biggest names of the era appeared in the 2001 Royal Rumble, with Kane in particular giving a dominant and career-defining performance thanks to his record-breaking 11 eliminations. Entering the match was comedian Drew Carey a unique choice that still worked well despite being played for laughs. Stone Cold Steve Austin, who won his third Royal Rumble victory, is undoubtedly the real star, right?

4.2020 Men’s Royal Rumble

What more could the WWE add to the formula after more than 30 years of Royal Rumble matches? In 2020, the answer to that was the Beat Incarnate. Brock Lesnar, the then-WWE champion, entered the Rumble first, and the next day, 13 other competitors almost as quickly as they had ascended. You might think that would get boring, but after all these years, it really doesn’t get old watching Lesnar completely dominate his competition.

That only added to Drew McIntyre’s ability to eliminate Lesnar and ultimately win the entire match. The 2020 Rumble is truly a master class in utilizing performers to their full potential and developing a new main eventer.

3.2004 Royal Rumble

Because Chris Benoit won, WWE doesn’t even really acknowledge this match. And since he entered from the first spot and endured the entire thing, there is really no way to discuss it without mentioning him. This Rumble is a fantastic match, but it’s unfortunate that the Benoit tragedy will always dominate it.

Benoit was a well-known midcarder who needed to advance to the next level, and this match did a fantastic job of showing off his wrestling prowess right up until the final back-and-forth with Big Show, which is still one of the best Rumble match endings.

2.2007 Royal Rumble

Usually, the battle royals and rumble matches end with a fairly brief spot between the last two competitors. After spending an hour there, wrestlers simply want to head backwards. The lengthy ending sequence is what truly elevates Rumble to the top, despite how good it is overall.

The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels put on a show that could have easily been the headliner of any other event until Taker ducked a super kick to elevate Michaels over the top rope and claim his sole Royal Rumble victory. There may never be a more recognizable or better finish to a Rumble than this.

1.1992 Royal Rumble

What’s not to love about the 1992 Royal Rumble? For the first time ever, winning it actually meant something, with the last man standing being awarded the vacant WWF Championship. The list of who’s who of all time wrestlers included Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan, Kerry Von Erich and Greg” The Hammer” Valentine.

But when it was all said and done, the winner was none other than the number three entrant, arguably the greatest professional wrestler of all time, Ric Flair, after an impressive hour-long performance. And all of this was called by legendary commentator duo Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan. Nothing will convert you to a professional wrestling fan after watching this match.

The first post on Den of Geek: The Best WWE Royal Rumble Matches of All Time, Ranked appeared first.

Spoilers for Part 31 are included in this Star Trek content. Like the Bell Riots of Deep Space Nine, the movie Star Trek: Part 31 is such a catastrophe for Trekkies that we’ve stopped our minor conversations about Janeway killing Tuvix, or Kirk’s captain compared to Picard’s, and have finally come up. As much as Section 31 ]… ]

The first article on Den of Geek was Section 31 Got This One Thing Right About Star Trek.

The Royal Rumble suit, one of the biggest spectacles in wrestling pleasure, is the first match of the Road to WrestleMania that everyone is aware of, which takes place in February. The Royal Rumble has no more than two wrestlers in it, which makes it unique because it has its simple rules the same as the conventional battle royale, which allows for all kinds of surprise arrivals and unforgettable showdowns. As much as wrestling enthusiasts love to say about anything, nearly all looks forward to the 30-man Rumble.

However, despite its great idea, some Royal Rumbles are far superior to another. In fact, there have been some remarkably bad, or predictable, roars over the years ( notice how some roars from the’ 90s made this record ). However, when the Royal Rumble is well put together, it highlights anything that makes professional wrestlers a joy.

We&#8217, d ranked the 13 best Royal Rumble matches in wrestling story:

13.2018 Women’s Royal Rumble

In some ways, it’s amazing that the WWE didn’t even try to guide a children’s Royal Rumble until 2018. Sure, the children’s squad was n&#8217, t usually so extensive, but the annual women’s hum complement showed that it taxicab be done very well. The 2018 meet featured a wonderful combination of the very best people on the lineup at the time, like Sasha Banks, Bayley, and Becky Lynch, plus lots of returning Hall of Famers, including Trish Stratus, Lita, and Beth Phoenix.

But most important, the way it was organized made it seem like almost any of these women could get, with Asuka’s greatest victory being both fully justified and only unexpected enough to please most fans.

12.1990 Royal Rumble

Even though this was just the third Royal Rumble match actually, it’s obvious that the WWE was still developing the idea. No, there aren’t any big surprises, or truly innovative eliminations. Hell, the champion didn’t even find a subject shot back then. But the suit does include a lot of truly solid storytelling.

Ted DiBiase,” The Million Dollar Man,” cheated to get a late entrance the past year and dominated the competition for 45 hours before being eliminated ( a record at the time ). The shocking first encounter between Hulk Hogan ( the match’s winner ) and The Ultimate Warrior, which set up their legendary match at WrestleMania VI, is what most older wrestling fans will recall from the match.

11.2018 Men’s Royal Rumble

Many of the benefits become fairly predictable once you watch adequate professional wrestling. The majority of wrestling fans have long predicted that Cody Rhodes may prevail in the 2023 and 2024 Royal Rumble matches to bring the story to a close. However, in 2018, the Rumble’s outcome was undoubtedly uncertain, and Shinsuke Nakamura’s triumph was a real shock for a business that frequently relies on the same handful of primary eventers over and over again.

Beyond that though, this was a really enjoyable suit, with a few great surprise entrants in The Hurricane and Rey Mysterio and a special older class vs. fresh school stare down between the last six men&#8212, Randy Orton, John Cena, Mysterio, Finn Balor, Nakamura, and Roman Reigns &#8212, that hadn’t really been done in one of these matches before.

10.2023 Women’s Royal Rumble

The issue with the first few children’s Royal Rumbles was that the WWE had to use far too many traditions and Series callups in order to complete the match, which all knew had no chance of winning. Michelle McCool made a rare comeback in this fit, and there were a dozen Series athletes as well, but overall it felt much more competitive and wide-open.

Rhea Ripley and Liv Morgan were the wrong choice to start the meet with, and they had to endure until the very close. With Liv Morgan straight behind her, it helped propel her to the top of the cards at the WWE.

9.2005 Royal Rumble&nbsp,

Mistakes happen in specialized wrestling. It’s obvious. Often, it’s a little miscue, and you just go on with the suit. Often fans don’t even really see. The 2005 Royal Rumble’s notorious botched end will undoubtedly rank it among the best of these games.

By throwing John Cena over the top wire next, Batista was declared the winner at the start of the match. Cena countered with his personal Batista Bomb, and Batista managed to get Cena to do it, but both ended up on the floor at the exact same occasion. They both immediately fell over the top rope and fell to the floor at the same time. When Vince McMahon got but upset, he returned to the ring to resumption the match, apparently torn both of his quads. The suit restarted, Batista quickly threw Cena over the top wire as planned, and fans were left with one of the greatest, most turbulent Royal Rumble finishes of all time.

8.2008 Royal Rumble

Many fans are divided during this Rumble meet. Yes, there were some times when things got a little too busy, but the positive aspect of this quickly outweighs the negative, earning it a spot on the list. The second two participants for the suit are Shawn Michaels and The Funeral. You definitely can’t go wrong with that duo, and they each lasted an amazing 30+ days.

The most remarkable aspect of this suit is John Cena entering at number 30. There are some entertaining moments around, like an unexpected battle between traditions Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka and Hornswoggle lying under the band. The group was totally shocked to discover Cena show up and get the entire thing because he had legitimately torn his thoracic muscle just three months prior and was scheduled to be out of action for six months. One of the biggest wakes in Tournament history is also his return.

7.2016 Royal Rumble

To be honest, there’s a lot to like and dislike about this Rumble fit. Second, the great. Watching the WWE experiment with a new concept below was intriguing. Roman Reigns, a pre-Tribal Chief, had to come in second to defend his WWE Championship, and he did so in a strong way throughout the match, even though he had to go backstage for a portion of it. This was also the album of A. J. Styles in the WWE, and he did really seem remarkable, lasting about 30 days. Working up to reduce Brock Lesnar and Mark Henry, The Wyatt Family was also recognized as a real force to reckon with.

The conclusion, however, was far too repetitive, with Triple H claiming to be the match’s winner after Reigns and capturing the majority of the audience. The disappointing end is the subject of a lot of legitimate censure, but if you may get past that, it’s a really good Hum.

6.2024 Women’s Royal Rumble

The most recent women’s Royal Rumble is unquestionably the best so far. A couple of significant surprises immediately caused the match to begin. Naomi, who had just returned from the break, was greeted with a huge cheer in the second spot, but what really shocked the arena was Jordynne Grace, the reigning TNA belt, who was also the fifth contestant. After WWE refused to acknowledge other promotions for decades, it’s still mind-blowing to see stuff like this.

Beyond the surprises, there were some other outstanding moments, like the showdown between Nia Jax and Jade Cargill, and a confused R-Truth trying to enter the match and wondering who all the men were. In the end, Bayley making the right decision by lasting more than an hour from the third spot was the right choice, which really helped her story advance.

5.2001 Royal Rumble

Even its biggest supporters must acknowledge that the majority of the Royal Rumble matches from this time were surprisingly unsatisfying, with few surprises, and most of the top stars leaving the Rumble for other matches on the schedule. But the 2001 Rumble was a big exception.

Most of the biggest names of the era appeared in the 2001 Royal Rumble, with Kane in particular giving a dominant and career-defining performance thanks to his record-breaking 11 eliminations. Drew Carey, a comedian, made a unique choice for the match, which still turned out well. Stone Cold Steve Austin, who won his third Royal Rumble victory, is undoubtedly the real star, right?

4.2020 Men’s Royal Rumble

What more could the WWE add to the formula after more than 30 years of Royal Rumble matches? In 2020, the answer to that was the Beat Incarnate. Brock Lesnar, the then-WWE champion, entered the Rumble first, and the next day, 13 other competitors almost as quickly as they had ascended. You might think that would get boring, but after all these years, it really doesn’t get old watching Lesnar completely dominate his competition.

That only added to the enjoyment of watching Drew McIntyre beat Lesnar and ultimately prevail in the final match. The 2020 Rumble is truly a master class in utilizing performers to their full potential and developing a new main eventer.

3.2004 Royal Rumble

Because Chris Benoit won the match, WWE doesn’t even really acknowledge this one. There is really no way to talk about it without mentioning him because he entered from the first spot and lasted the entire thing. It’s unfortunate that this Rumble will always be overshadowed by the Benoit tragedy, because it is a truly spectacular match.

Benoit was a well-known midcarder who needed to advance to the next level, and this match did a fantastic job of showing off his wrestling prowess right up until the final back-and-forth with Big Show, which is still one of the best Rumble match endings.

2.2007 Royal Rumble

Usually, the battle royals and rumble matches end with a fairly brief spot between the last two competitors. After spending an hour there, wrestlers simply want to head backwards. The lengthy ending sequence really makes this Rumble one of the greats, even though it is quite good.

Taker ducked a super kick to lift Michaels over the top rope and claim his first and only Royal Rumble victory, which was a complete miracle for The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. There may never be a more recognizable or better Rumble finish than this.

1.1992 Royal Rumble

What’s not to love about the 1992 Royal Rumble? For the first time ever, winning it actually meant something, with the last man standing being awarded the vacant WWF Championship. The list of who’s who of all time wrestlers included Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan, Kerry Von Erich and Greg” The Hammer” Valentine.

But when it was all said and done, the winner was none other than the number three entrant, arguably the greatest professional wrestler of all time, Ric Flair, after an impressive hour-long performance. And all of this was called by legendary commentator duo Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan. Nothing will make you a professional wrestler if watching this match doesn’t.

The first post on Den of Geek: The Best WWE Royal Rumble Matches of All Time, Ranked appeared first.

The Royal Rumble suit, one of the biggest spectacles in wrestling pleasure, is the first match that everyone is aware of before the Road to WrestleMania begins in February. What’s always made the [ …] despite the same basic rules as the traditional battle royal, where participants try to get their opponents out of the ring and throw them out of the ring.

The second article on Den of Geek was The Best WWE Royal Rumble Matches of All Time, Ranked.

Everyone is aware that the Royal Rumble suit, one of the biggest sunglasses in wrestling pleasure, is the beginning of the Road to WrestleMania in February. The Royal Rumble has only two athletes in the circle, with new entrants entering every 90 seconds or so, allowing for all sorts of surprise results and wonderful showdowns, although the basic rules are the same as the standard battle royal, where participants try to eliminate their opponents by throwing them out of the band. As much as wrestling enthusiasts love to say about anything, nearly all looks forward to the 30-man Rumble.

However, despite its tremendous idea, some Royal Rumbles are far superior to another. In fact, there have been some remarkably bad, or predictable, roars over the years ( notice how some roars from the’ 90s made this record ). However, when the Royal Rumble is well put together, it highlights anything that makes professional wrestling a joy.

We&#8217, d ranked the 13 best Royal Rumble matches in wrestling story:

13.2018 Women’s Royal Rumble

In some ways, it’s amazing that the WWE didn’t even try to guide a women’s Royal Rumble until 2018. Sure, the children’s squad was n&#8217, t usually so extensive, but the annual women’s roar complement showed that it taxicab be done very well. The 2018 meet featured a wonderful combination of the very best people on the lineup at the time, like Sasha Banks, Bayley, and Becky Lynch, plus lots of returning Hall of Famers, including Trish Stratus, Lita, and Beth Phoenix.

Most important, the method it was organized made it seem like almost any of these women may gain, with Asuka’s victory being both fully justified and only unexpected enough to appeal to most fans.

12.1990 Royal Rumble

Even though this was just the third Royal Rumble match possibly, it’s obvious that WWE was still developing the idea. No, there aren’t any big surprises, or truly innovative eliminations. Hell, the success didn’t even find a subject shot back then. But the suit does include a lot of truly solid storytelling.

Ted DiBiase,” The Million Dollar Man,” cheated to get a late entrance the past year and dominated the competition for 45 hours before being eliminated ( a record at the time ). The shocking first encounter between Hulk Hogan ( the match’s winner ) and The Ultimate Warrior, which set up their legendary match at WrestleMania VI, is what most older wrestling fans will recall from the match.

11.2018 Men’s Royal Rumble

Many of the benefits become fairly predictable once you watch adequate professional wrestling. The majority of wrestling viewers have long predicted that Cody Rhodes may prevail in the 2023 and 2024 Royal Rumble matches to bring the account to a close. However, in 2018, the Rumble’s outcome was unfortunate, and Shinsuke Nakamura’s triumph was a real shock for a business that frequently relies on the same handful of key eventers.

Beyond that though, this was a really enjoyable suit, with a few great surprise entrants in The Hurricane and Rey Mysterio and a special older class vs. fresh school stare down between the last six men&#8212, Randy Orton, John Cena, Mysterio, Finn Balor, Nakamura, and Roman Reigns &#8212, that hadn’t really been done in one of these matches before.

10.2023 Women’s Royal Rumble

The issue with the first few women’s Royal Rumbles was that the WWE had to use far too many legends and NXT callups in order to fill the match, which everyone knew had no chance of winning. Michelle McCool made a rare return in this match, and there were a few NXT wrestlers as well, but overall it felt much more competitive and wide open.

Rhea Ripley and Liv Morgan were the first two to start the match, and it was a brave decision to let them both endure until the very end. Rhea ultimately won was the wise decision. With Liv Morgan right in front of her, it helped propel her to the top of the WWE standings.

9.2005 Royal Rumble&nbsp,

Botches happen in professional wrestling. It’s unavoidable. Usually, it’s a small miscue, and you just go on with the match. Sometimes fans don’t even really notice. The 2005 Royal Rumble’s notorious botched finish will undoubtedly rank it among the best of these matches.

By throwing John Cena over the top rope last, Batista was declared the winner at the start of the match. Cena countered with his signature Batista Bomb, and as planned, Batista managed to get Cena up for it, and they both promptly fell head over the top rope, landing on the floor at the exact same time. When Vince McMahon got so upset, he returned to the ring to resumption the match, somehow torn both of his quads. The match restarted, Batista promptly threw Cena over the top rope as planned, and fans were left with one of the greatest, most chaotic Royal Rumble finishes of all time.

8.2008 Royal Rumble

This Rumble match is polarizing for many fans. Yes, there were some times when things got a little too busy, but the positive aspect of this easily outweighs the negative, earning it a spot on the list. The first two entrants for the match are Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. You really can’t go wrong with that combo, and they each lasted an impressive 30+ minutes.

The most memorable moment of this match is John Cena entering at number 30. There are some entertaining moments here, like the unexpected showdown between legends Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka and Hornswoggle hiding under the ring. The crowd was completely shocked to see Cena show up and win the entire thing because he had legitimately torn his pectoral muscle just three months prior and was scheduled to be out of action for six months. His comeback is still considered one of the biggest pops in WWE history.

7.2016 Royal Rumble

To be fair, there’s a lot to like and dislike about this Rumble match. First, the good. It was interesting to see how the WWE approached this situation. Roman Reigns, a pre-Tribal Chief, had to enter first to defend his WWE Championship, and he did so in a strong way throughout the match, even though he went backstage for a portion of it. This was also the debut of A. J. Styles in the WWE, and he did indeed look phenomenal, lasting almost 30 minutes. Working together to eliminate Brock Lesnar and Mark Henry, The Wyatt Family was also recognized as a real force to reckon with.

The conclusion, however, was far too predictable, with Triple H claiming to be the match’s winner after Reigns and capturing the majority of the audience. Although the underwhelming finish is subject to a lot of valid criticism, the match is still a really good Rumble if you can get past that.

6.2024 Women’s Royal Rumble

The most impressive women’s Royal Rumble thus far is unquestionably the best. A couple of huge surprises led to a very early start to the match. Naomi, who had just returned from the break, was greeted with a huge cheer in the second spot, but what really shocked the arena was Jordynne Grace, the reigning TNA belt, who was also the fifth contestant. After WWE refused to acknowledge other promotions for decades, it’s still mind-blowing to see this.

Beyond the surprises, there were some other really great moments, like the showdown between Nia Jax and Jade Cargill, and a very confused R-Truth trying to enter the match and wondering where all the men were. In the end, Bayley’s more than an hour-long runaway from the third spot made the right decision, which really helped her story advance.

5.2001 Royal Rumble

Even its biggest supporters must acknowledge that the majority of the Royal Rumble matches from this time were surprisingly lackluster, with few surprises, and most of the top stars skipping the Rumble for other matches on the card, despite how beloved it was. But the 2001 Rumble was a big exception.

Most of the biggest names of the era appeared in the 2001 Royal Rumble, with Kane in particular giving a dominant and career-defining performance thanks to his record-breaking 11 eliminations. Drew Carey, a comedian, made a unique decision to play the game for laughs that still worked well. However, Stone Cold Steve Austin, who won his third Royal Rumble victory, a record that still stands today, was the real star, of course.

4.2020 Men’s Royal Rumble

What more could the WWE add to the formula after more than 30 years of Royal Rumble matches? In 2020, the answer to that was the Beat Incarnate. Brock Lesnar, the then-WWE champion, entered the Rumble first, and he immediately dispatched 13 other competitors almost as soon as they had stepped foot in the ring. You might think that would get boring, but after all these years, it really doesn’t get old watching Lesnar completely dominate his competition.

That only added to the enjoyment of watching Drew McIntyre beat Lesnar and ultimately prevail in the final match. The 2020 Rumble is truly a master class in utilizing performers to their full potential and developing a new main eventer.

3.2004 Royal Rumble

Because Chris Benoit won the match, WWE doesn’t even really acknowledge this match. And since he entered from the first spot and endured the entire thing, there is really no way to discuss it without mentioning him. It’s unfortunate that this Rumble will always be overshadowed by the Benoit tragedy because it is truly a spectacular match.

Benoit was a well-known midcarder who needed to advance to the next level, and this match did a fantastic job of showing off his wrestling prowess right up until the final back-and-forth with Big Show, which is still one of the best Rumble match endings.

2.2007 Royal Rumble

Usually, the battle royals and rumble matches end with a fairly brief spot between the last two competitors. After being there for an hour, wrestlers get tired and simply want to head back to the starting position. The lengthy ending sequence really makes this Rumble one of the greats, even though it is quite good.

Taker ducked a super kick to lift Michaels over the top rope and claim his first and only Royal Rumble victory, which was a complete miracle for The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels. There may never be a more recognizable or better Rumble finish than this.

1.1992 Royal Rumble

What’s not to love about the 1992 Royal Rumble? For the first time ever, winning it actually meant something, with the last man standing being awarded the vacant WWF Championship. The list of who’s who of all time wrestlers included Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan, Kerry Von Erich and Greg” The Hammer” Valentine.

But when it was all said and done, the winner was none other than the number three entrant, arguably the greatest professional wrestler of all time, Ric Flair, after an impressive hour-long performance. The legendary commentators Bobby Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon called all of this and more. Nothing will make you a professional wrestler if watching this match doesn’t.

The second article on Den of Geek was The Best WWE Royal Rumble Matches of All Time, Ranked.

We concur that personas may remain excellent matches for computer-generated eyes, but not for the purpose you might think. Ironically, the website highlights the core issue of this very common design method: the person ( a ) does not exist. Personas are deliberately created, much like in the photos. Knowledge is combined with natural environment to create a singular, unrealized snapshot.

But strangely enough, manufacturers use personalities to encourage their style for the real world.

Personas: A action up

Most manufacturers have at least once in their careers created, used, or encountered personalities. In their content” Personas- A Plain Introduction”, the Interaction Design Foundation defines profile as “fictional characters, which you create based upon your study in order to reflect the unique user types that might use your service, product, site, or brand”. Personas typically include a title, profile picture, rates, populations, goals, wants, behavior in relation to a particular service or product, feelings, and desires ( for instance, see Creative Companion’s Persona Core Poster ). According to design firm Designit, the goal of personas is to “make the research relateable, ]and ] easy to communicate, digest, reference, and apply to product and service development.”

The decontextualization of personalities

Personas are well-known because they make “dry” research information more realistic and people. However, this approach places a cap on the author’s ability to analyze the data in a way that excludes the subjects from their particular contexts. As a result, personalities don’t describe important factors that make you realize their decision-making method or allow you to connect to users ‘ thoughts and behavior, they lack stories. You are aware of the persona’s actions, but you lack the history knowledge to understand why. You end up with less human-like user images.

This “decontextualization” we see in identities happens in four way, which we’ll discuss below.

People are assumed to be stable, according to individuals.

Here’s a painfully obvious truth: people are not a fixed set of features. Although many businesses still try to box in their employees and customers with outdated personality tests ( referring to you, Myers-Briggs ), You act, think, and feel different according to the conditions you experience. You may work helpful to some people and harshly to others because you come across as different from everyone. And you constantly change your mind about the choices you’ve made.

Modern psychology agree that while persons usually behave according to certain styles, it’s actually a combination of history and culture that determines how people act and take decisions. The type of person you are at each particular moment depends on the context, the impact of other people, your mood, and the entire history that preceded it.

Personas provide a consumer as a predetermined set of features in an effort to improve reality, but do so without taking this variability into account. Like character tests, personas seize people away from real life. Even worse, individuals are labeled as” that kind of guy” with no means to practice their innate flexibility and are reduced to a brand. This behavior defies stereotypes, diminishes variety, and doesn’t reveal reality.

Personas rely on people, not the environment

You’re designing for a environment, not an individual, in the real world. There are economic, political, and social factors that you need to take into account when living in a home, a community, or an habitat. A pattern is not meant for a single customer. Instead, you create a product that is intended to be used by a certain number of people. However, personal experiences don’t explicitly explain how a person feels about the environment. Instead, they show the user only.

Do you often make the same decision over and over again? Possibly you’re a dedicated vegan but also decide to buy some beef when your relatives visit. Your decisions, including your behavior, opinions, and statements, are not only completely accurate but very contextual because they depend on a range of circumstances and variables. The image that “represents” you wouldn’t take into account this interdependence, because it doesn’t explain the grounds of your choices. It doesn’t provide a rationale for why you act in the way you do. People practice the well-known attribution error, which states that they too often attribute others ‘ behavior to their personalities and not to the circumstances.

As mentioned by the Interaction Design Foundation, identities are often placed in a situation that’s a” specific environment with a problem they want to or have to solve “—does that mean environment actually is considered? Unfortunately, it’s common to pick a fictional character and build a character’s behavior around a particular circumstance based on the fiction. How could you possibly comprehend how someone you want to represent behave in new circumstances given that you haven’t even fully investigated and understood the current context of the people you want to represent?

Personas are meaningless averages

A persona is depicted as a specific person in Shlomo Goltz’s introduction to Smashing Magazine, according to Shlomo Goltz’s introduction article. It is instead made up of observations from numerous people. The famous example of the USA Air Force designing planes based on the average of 140 of their pilots ‘ physical dimensions and not a single pilot actually fit within that average seat is a well-known criticism of this aspect of personas.

The same limitation applies to mental aspects of people. Have you ever heard a famous person say something was taken out of context? They uttered my words, but I didn’t mean it that way. The celebrity’s statement was reported literally, but the reporter failed to explain the context around the statement and didn’t describe the non-verbal expressions. In the end, the intended meaning was lost. You collect someone’s statement ( or need, or emotion ) into whose own specific context you specify it, and then report it as an isolated finding ( or goal, need, or emotion ).

But personas go a step further, extracting a decontextualized finding and joining it with another decontextualized finding from somebody else. The resultant set of findings frequently does not make sense because it is unclear or even contradictory because it lacks the underlying causes for and how that finding came about. It lacks any significance. And the persona doesn’t give you the full background of the person ( s ) to uncover this meaning: you would need to dive into the raw data for each single persona item to find it. What then is the persona’s usefulness?

The validity of personas can be deceiving.

To a certain extent, designers realize that a persona is a lifeless average. Designers invent and add “relatable” details to personas to make them resemble real people in order to overcome this. Nothing better explains the absurdity of this than a phrase from the Interaction Design Foundation,” Add a few fictional personal details to make the persona a realistic character.” In other words, you add non-realism in an attempt to create more realism. You purposefully understate the fact that” John Doe” is an abstract representation of research findings, but wouldn’t it be much more responsible to emphasize that John is only an abstraction? Let’s say something is artificial, and let’s say it’s that.

It’s the finishing touch of a persona’s decontextualization: after having assumed that people’s personalities are fixed, dismissed the importance of their environment, and hidden meaning by joining isolated, non-generalizable findings, designers invent new context to create ( their own ) meaning. As with everything they produce, they do so by introducing a lot of biases. As Designit put it, as designers, we can” contextualize]the persona ] based on our reality and experience. We create connections that are familiar to us“. With each new detail added, this practice deviates from people’s actual reality, reinforces stereotypes, and doesn’t reflect real-world diversity.

To conduct effective design research, we must report the “as-is” reality and make it relatable for our audience so that everyone can use their own empathy and formula for their own interpretation and emotional response.

Dynamic Selves: The alternative to personas

What should we do instead of using personas?

Designit suggests using mindsets rather than personas. Each Mindset is a” spectrum of attitudes and emotional responses that different people have within the same context or life experience”. It challenges designers to avoid becoming fixated on just one person’s way of being. Unfortunately, despite being a step in the right direction, this proposal disregards the fact that people are a part of a system that controls their behavior, personality, and mindset. Therefore, Mindsets are also not absolute but change in regard to the situation. What determines a particular Mindset, remains to be seen.

Margaret P., the author of the article” Kill Your Personas,” who has argued for the use of persona spectrums that include a range of user abilities, offers an alternative. For example, a visual impairment could be permanent ( blindness ), temporary ( recovery from eye surgery ), or situational (screen glare ). Persona spectrums are very helpful for more inclusive and context-based design because they are based on the understanding that the context is the pattern, not the personality. However, their only drawback is that they have a very functional perspective on users that misses the relatability of a real person viewed from within a spectrum.

In developing an alternative to personas, we aim to transform the standard design process to be context-based. Similar to how we previously dealt with people, contexts are generalizable and have patterns that we can identify. How do we find these patterns, then? How do we ensure truly context-based design?

Understand real people in a variety of settings

Nothing can be more relatable and inspiring than reality. Therefore, we have to understand real individuals in their multi-faceted contexts, and use this understanding to fuel our design. We refer to this method as Dynamic Selves.

Let’s take a look at how the approach looks based on an illustration of how one of us used it in a recent study that examined Italians ‘ habits around energy consumption. We drafted a design research plan aimed at investigating people’s attitudes toward energy consumption and sustainable behavior, with a focus on smart thermostats.

1. Select the appropriate sample.

When we argue against personas, we’re often challenged with quotes such as” Where are you going to find a single person that encapsulates all the information from one of these advanced personas]? ]” You don’t need to, which is the simple answer. Your insights need not be extensive and meaningful, as you don’t need to know much about everyone.

In qualitative research, validity does not derive from quantity but from accurate sampling. You choose the individuals who best fit the “population” you’re designing for. You can infer how the rest of the population thinks and acts if this sample is chosen wisely and you have a deep understanding of the sampled people. There’s no need to study seven Susans and five Yuriys, one of each will do.

In fifteen different situations, Susan is not necessary. Once you’ve seen her in a few different settings, you’ve come to understand how Susan responds to various circumstances. Not Susan as an atomic being but Susan in relation to the surrounding environment: how she might act, feel, and think in different situations.

It becomes clear why each person should be portrayed as an individual because each already represents an abstraction of a larger group of people in similar circumstances because each person is representative of a portion of the total population you’re researching. You don’t want to see abstracts of them! These selected people need to be understood and shown in their full expression, remaining in their microcosmos—and if you want to identify patterns you can focus on identifying patterns in contexts.

However, the question persists: how do you choose a sample representative? First of all, you must consider who the target market is for the product or service you are designing. It might be helpful to examine the company’s objectives and strategy, the current customer base, and/or a potential future target audience.

In our example project, we were designing an application for those who own a smart thermostat. Everyone could have a smart thermostat in their home in the future. However, only early adopters currently own one. To build a significant sample, we needed to understand the reason why these early adopters became such. We then recruited by enticing customers to explain their needs and sources of purchase. There were those who had made the decision to purchase it, those who had been influenced by other people’s decisions, and those who had discovered it in their homes. So we selected representatives of these three situations, from different age groups and geographical locations, with an equal balance of tech savvy and non-tech savvy participants.

2. Conduct your research

After having chosen and recruited your sample, conduct your research using ethnographic methodologies. This will give you more examples and anecdotes to enrich your qualitative data. Given COVID-19 restrictions, we transformed an internal ethnographic research project into remote family interviews conducted at home and accompanied by diary research for our example project.

To gain an in-depth understanding of attitudes and decision-making trade-offs, the research focus was not limited to the interviewee alone but deliberately included the whole family. With the additions or corrections made by wives, husbands, children, or occasionally even pets, each interviewee would tell a story that would then become much more engaging and precise. We also paid attention to the behaviors that came from having relationships with other important people ( such as coworkers or distant relatives ), as well as the relationships that came from those relationships. This wide research focus allowed us to shape a vivid mental image of dynamic situations with multiple actors.

It’s crucial that the scope of the study remain broad enough to cover all potential actors. Therefore, it typically works best to define broad research areas with broad questions. Interviews are best set up in a semi-structured way, where follow-up questions will dive into topics mentioned spontaneously by the interviewee. This “plan to be surprised” will allow for the most enlightening findings. One of our participants responded,” My wife doesn’t have the thermostat’s app installed; she uses WhatsApp instead,” when we asked how his family controlled the temperature in the house. If she wants to turn on the heater and she is not home, she will text me. I serve as her thermostat.

3. Analysis: Create the Dynamic Selves

You begin to represent each individual as a series of dynamic selves during the research analysis, each” Self” representing a particular context. A quote serves as the foundation of each Dynamic Self, which is supported by a photo and a few relevant demographics that serve as examples of the larger picture. The research findings themselves will show which demographics are relevant to show. The key demographics were family type, number and type of homes owned, economic status, and technological maturity in our case because our research focused on families and their way of life to understand their needs for thermal regulation. The individuals ‘ names and ages are optional, but they were included to facilitate the stakeholders ‘ transition from personas and allow them to connect multiple actions and contexts to the same person.

To capture exact quotes, interviews need to be video-recorded and notes need to be taken verbatim as much as possible. This is crucial to the completeness of each participant’s various selves. Photos of the setting and anonymized actors are necessary to create realistic Selves in the case of real-life ethnographic research. Ideally, these photos should come directly from field research, but an evocative and representative image will work, too, as long as it’s realistic and depicts meaningful actions that you associate with your participants. One of our interviewees, for instance, shared a story of how he used to spend weekends with his family in his mountain home. We depicted him hiking with his young daughter as a result.

At the end of the research analysis, we displayed all of the Selves ‘” cards” on a single canvas, categorized by activities. Each card featured a situation, which was indicated by a quote and a distinctive image. Each participant had several cards about themselves.

4. Identify potential designs

You will start to notice patterns once you have taken all of the main quotes from the interview transcripts and diaries and written them down as self-cards. These patterns will highlight the opportunity areas for new product creation, new functionalities, and new services—for new design.

There was a particularly intriguing insight around the concept of humidity in our example project. We became aware of the importance of humidity monitoring for health and how an environment that is too dry or wet can cause respiratory problems or worsen already existing ones. This highlighted a big opportunity for our client to educate users on this concept and become a health advisor.

Benefits of Dynamic Selves

People are surrounded by changing environments, peculiar situations that people face, and the actions that follow when using the Dynamic Selves approach for research. In our thermostat project, we have come to know one of the participants, Davide, as a boyfriend, dog-lover, and tech enthusiast.

Davide is a person we might have once consigned to the persona of a “tech enthusiast.” However, there are also those who are wealthy or poor, who are tech enthusiasts and have families or are single. Their motivations and priorities when deciding to purchase a new thermostat can be opposite according to these different frames.

You can generalize how he would act in a different situation once you have understood Davide in more detail and have fully understood the underlying causes of his behavior for each circumstance. You can infer what he would think and do in the circumstances ( or scenarios ) you design for using your understanding of him.

The Dynamic Selves approach aims to dismiss the conflicted dual purpose of personas—to summarize and empathize at the same time—by separating your research summary from the people you’re seeking to empathize with. This is crucial because scale affects how we feel about people and how difficult it is to feel empathy for others. We have the deepest compassion for people with whom we can relate.

If you take a real person as inspiration for your design, you no longer need to create an artificial character. No more developing plot devices to “realize” the character, and no more need for additional bias. Simply put, this is how they are in real life. In fact, in our experience, personas quickly become nothing more than a name in our priority guides and prototype screens, as we all know that these characters don’t really exist.

Another important benefit of Dynamic Selves is that it raises the stakes of your work: someone you and the team know and have met will experience the consequences if you violate your design. It might prompt you to stop using shortcuts and reminds you to check your designs every day.

And finally, real people in their specific contexts are a better basis for anecdotal storytelling and therefore are more effective in persuasion. Real research documentation is necessary to obtain this result. It reinforces your design arguments with more urgency and weight:” When I met Alessandra, the conditions of her workplace struck me. Noise, bad ergonomics, lack of light, you name it. I’m afraid that if we choose to use this functionality, we’ll add complexity to her life.

Conclusion

In their article on Mindsets, Designit mentioned that “design thinking tools offer a shortcut to deal with reality’s complexities, but this process of simplification can occasionally flatten out people’s lives into a few general characteristics.” Unfortunately, personas have been culprits in a crime of oversimplification. They fail to account for the complex nature of our users ‘ decision-making processes and don’t take into account the fact that people are immersed in environments.

Design needs to be simplified, not necessarily generalized. You have to look at the research elements that stand out: the sentences that captured your attention, the images that struck you, the sounds that linger. Use those to characterize the person in all of their contexts, and portray them. People and insights both come with a context, but they cannot be removed because it would detract from the context’s meaning.

It’s high time for design to move away from fiction, and embrace reality—in its messy, surprising, and unquantifiable beauty—as our guide and inspiration.

What on earth is a passionate stress, then?

Envision a person determined to accomplish it all. She has two wonderful children whom she, along with her father who is also working mildly, is homeschooling during a crisis. She loves everyone at work because of how demanding her work is. She wakes up early to get some movement in ( or frequently catch up on work ), prepares dinner as the kids are having breakfast, and works while positioning herself near “fourth grade” to listen in as she balances clients, tasks, and budgets. Sound like a bit? It is, even with a friendly group at home and at work.

Sounds like this person needs self-care because she has too much on her disk. But no, she doesn’t have occasion for that. She begins to feel as though she’s dropping pellets. Not enough is accomplished. There’s not enough of her to be here and there, she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all time, every time. She begins to question herself. And as those feelings grow more in, her domestic tale grows more and more important.

Instantly she KNOWS what she needs to accomplish! She ought to do more.

This is a challenging and risky period. Hear why? Because the narrative only gets worse when she doesn’t complete that fresh goal. She instantly starts failing. She isn’t doing much. She is insufficient. She’ll discover more she may do because she might neglect, or perhaps her home. She doesn’t nap as much, proceed because much, all in the attempts to do more. caught in this pattern of attempting to prove herself to herself without ever succeeding. Always feeling “enough”

But, yeah, that’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It develops gradually over the course of several weeks and months rather than immediately as a big sign. My using process appears to be moving more quickly than one’s focus loss. I rate up and up and up… and therefore I simply quit.

I have the potential to do so.

The things that shape us are interesting. Through the glass of youth, I viewed the worries, problems, and sacrifices of someone who had to make it all work without having much. I never went without and also got an extra here or there because my mom was so competent and my father was so friendly.

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

And here I am, surrounded by enormous tasks ahead of me, assuming that I am the one who is and therefore should, more than 30 years later, also feeling the urge to aimlessly drive myself forward. I feel more motivated to show that I can make things happen if I put in more effort, put on more responsibilities, and do more.

I do not see people who struggle financially as failures, because I have seen how strong that tide can be—it pulls you along the way. I fully realize that I had the opportunity to avoid many of the difficulties that my youth faced. Having said that, I am still” the one who can” who believes she should, so I would think I had failed if I had to struggle to make ends meet for my own family. Though I am supported and educated, most of this is due to good fortune. However, I’ll give myself the haughtiness of claiming that my choices were wise and that they had fueled that luck. I believe I am” the one who can,” so I feel compelled to do the most because of this. I can choose to stop, and with some quite literal cold water splashed in my face, I’ve made the choice to before. However, I don’t always choose to stop, so I move on, driven by a fear that is so present in me that I hardly ever notice until I’m completely worn out.

So why all the history? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I’ve read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is a real phenomenon. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s difficult, and so many amazing professionals are affected by the procrastination, avoidance, and shutting down. There are significant articles that, in my opinion, relate to the majority of people out there, but not me. That’s not what my burnout looks like.

The perilous invisibility of zealous burnout

In many workplaces, extra work, extra effort, and overall focused commitment are seen as an asset ( and sometimes that’s all it is ). They see someone trying to rise to challenges, not someone stuck in their fear. Many well-intentioned organizations have procedures in place to safeguard their teams from burnout. However, in situations like this, those alarms don’t always go off, and some organization members are surprised and depressed when the inevitable stop occurs. And sometimes maybe even betrayed.

Parents are praised for being so on top of it all when they can work, participate in the after-school activities, practice self-care in the form of diet and exercise, and still meet friends for coffee or wine. More so mothers, statistically speaking. Many of us have watched countless streaming COVID episodes to see how challenging it is for the female protagonist, but she is strong and funny and can do it. It’s a “very special episode” when she breaks down, cries in the bathroom, woefully admits she needs help, and just stops for a bit. Truth be told, countless people are hidden in tears or doom-scrolling to escape. Although we are aware that the media is a lie to amuse us, a large portion of society has been perceived as being biased against it.

Women and burnout

I cherish men. And despite the fact that I don’t love every man ( heads up, I don’t love every woman or nonbinary person either ), I think there is a wonderful range of people who fit that particular binary gender.

That said, women are still more often at risk of burnout than their male counterparts, especially in these COVID stressed times. Mothers at work experience the pressure to do all the “mom” things while giving absolutely everything. Mothers who are not employed feel they need to do more to” justify” their lack of traditional employment. Women who are not mothers often feel the need to do even more because they don’t have that extra pressure at home. It’s systemic and vicious, and it’s so embedded in our culture that we frequently are unaware of how much pressure we place on ourselves and others.

And there are costs that go beyond happiness. Harvard Health Publishing released a study a decade ago that “uncovered strong links between women’s job stress and cardiovascular disease”. According to the CDC,” Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, killing 299,578 women in 2017—or roughly 1 in every 5 female deaths,”

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

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

You might not be the same as that. After all, we are all unique, and so is our way of responding to stress. It’s part of what makes us human. Don’t put too much emphasis on how burnout looks; instead, learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I occasionally ask my friends if they worry about them.

Are you happy? This straightforward query ought to be your first inquiry. Even if you’re burning out doing all the things you love, chances are that as you get closer to burnout, you’ll just stop consuming as much joy from it all.

Do you feel empowered to say no? I’ve observed in myself and others that someone who is out of sorts no longer feels like they can turn their back on things. Even those who don’t” speed up” feel pressured to say “yes” and not let the people around them be disappointed.

What are three things you’ve done for yourself? Another fact to keep in mind is that we all have a habit of giving up on our own efforts. anything from avoiding conversations with friends to skipping showers and eating poorly. These can be red flags.

Are you using justifications? Many of us make an effort to ignore burnout. Over and over I have heard,” It’s just crunch time”,” As soon as I do this one thing, it will all be better”, and” Well I should be able to handle this, so I’ll figure it out”. And it might actually be crunch time, a single objective, or a set of skills you need to master. Life happens because of that. BUT if this doesn’t stop, be honest with yourself. Maybe it’s not crunch time; perhaps you’re burning out from a bad situation if you’ve worked more than 50 hours of weeks since January.

Do you have a method for overcoming this feeling? If something is truly temporary and you do need to just push through, then it has an exit route with a
defined conclusion

Take the time to listen to yourself as you would a friend. Be honest, allow yourself to be uncomfortable, and break the thought cycles that prevent you from healing.

What should I do then?

What I just described has a different path to burnout, but it’s still burnout. There are well-established approaches to working through burnout:

• Get enough sleep.
• Eat well.
• Work out.
• Go outside.
• Take a break, please.
• Overall, practice self-care.

These are challenging for me because they seem like more chores. Doing any of the above for me feels like a waste if I’m in the burnout cycle. The narrative is that if I’m already failing, why would I take care of myself when I’m dropping all those other balls? People need me, don’t they?

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

I have come up with a few suggestions for me to help me remember the airline attendant’s advice to put on your face first when I feel burned out.

Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

Okay, since I’m a “food-focused” person, cooking for someone always comes naturally to my mind. In my home, there are countless tales of people coming into the kitchen, turning right, and leaving when they noticed I was” chopping angrily.” But it’s more than that, and you should give it a try. Seriously. If you don’t feel like giving time for yourself, make it a priority for someone else. Most of us work in a digital world, so cooking can fill all of your senses and force you to be in the moment with all the ways you perceive the world. It can help you get a better perspective and help you get out of your head. I’ve been known to pick a location on a map and prepare food that comes from it ( thank you, Pinterest ) in my home. I love cooking Indian food, as the smells are warm, the bread needs just enough kneading to keep my hands busy, and the process takes real attention for me because it’s not what I was brought up making. And ultimately, we all triumph!

Vent like a sniveling jerk.

Be careful with this one!

Over the past few years, I have made an effort to practice more gratitude, and I am aware of the real advantages of doing so. Having said that, sometimes you just need to let it all out, even the ugly ones. Hell, I’m a big fan of not sugarcoating our lives, and that sometimes means that to get past the big pile of poop, you’re gonna wanna complain about it a bit.

When that is required, approach a trusted friend and express your concerns verbally. You must rely on this friend to not judge you, to feel your pain, and, most importantly, to instruct you to get your rectal cavity removed. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he manages to simplify things down to the simplest. We’re spending our lives together, and I can’t wait to get over it. I’m so grateful for his words of dedication, love, and acceptance of me. It also, of course, has meant that I needed to remove my head from that rectal cavity. Again, those are typically appreciated in retrospect.

Grab a book, please!

There are many books out there that aren’t so much self-help as they are people just like you sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance. You might discover something that resonates with you. Among the titles that have stood out to me are:

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

Or, if I love to read or listen to a book that doesn’t have anything to do with my work-life balance, I can use another tactic. I’ve read the following books, and I think they helped to balance me out because my mind was thinking about the subjects they were interested in rather than whizzing around:

• The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart
• Darin Olien’s Superlife
• A Brief History of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Adam Rutherford
• Gaia’s Garden by Toby Hemenway

If you’re not interested in reading, pick up a topic on YouTube or subscribe to a podcast. In addition to learning about raising chickens and ducks, I’ve watched countless permaculture and gardening topics. For the record, I do not have a particularly large food garden, nor do I own livestock of any kind… yet. I just find the subject fascinating, and it’s unrelated to anything that needs to be done in my life.

Give yourself a break.

You are never going to be perfect—hell, it would be boring if you were. It’s acceptable to have flaws and imperfections. It’s human to be depressed, anxious, and sad. It’s OK to not do it all. You can’t be brave without being imperfect, which is terrifying.

The most crucial thing to remember is to grant yourself permission to NOT do it all. You never promised to be everything to everyone at all times. We have greater power than the repressed fears that motivate us.

It’s challenging. It is hard for me. That it’s okay to stop is what inspired me to write this. It’s acceptable that your unhealthy habit, which might even be beneficial to those around you, needs to end. You can still be successful in life.

I just learned that we are all euthanizing in our daily lives. What will your professional accomplishments say, knowing that yours won’t be mentioned in that speech? What do you want it to say?

Look, I understand that none of these concepts will “fix it,” and that’s not their intention. Only how we react to the things around us is what we control. These suggestions are to help stop the spiral effect so that you are empowered to address the underlying issues and choose your response. They are the things that largely work for me. They might be able to help you.

Does this sound familiar?

If something resounds familiar to you, it’s not just you. Don’t let your sluggish self-talk tell you that you “even burn out wrong.” It’s not wrong. Even if I’m rooted in fear like my own drivers, I think this need to do more comes from a place where you have the same kind of love, determination, motivation, and other wonderful qualities that make you the amazing person you are. We’re going to be fine, you see. The lives that unfold before us might never look like that story in our head—that idea of “perfect” or “done” we’re looking for, but that’s OK. Really, when we stop and look around, usually the only eyes that judge us are in the mirror.

Do you recall the Winnie the Pooh cartoon in which Pooh ate so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? It came as no surprise when Rabbit abruptly declared that this was unacceptable because I already associate a lot with him. But do you recall what happened next? He made the most of the large butt in his kitchen by placing a shelf across poor Pooh’s ankles and decorations on his back.

At the end of the day, we are resourceful and aware that we can push ourselves if necessary, even when we are exhausted or have a ton of stuff in our room. None of us has to be afraid, as we can manage any obstacle put in front of us. And maybe that means we need to redefine success in order to make room for comfort for being uncomfortable human, but that doesn’t really sound that bad either.

So, if you’re anywhere right now, take a deep breath. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Give thanks and be considerate.

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

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

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

On the web, we may discover a long history of sequential suggestions: from the early weeks of open source, script was shared and discussed on email addresses. Programmers and sprint masters discuss ideas on tickets, designers make comments in their favourite design tools, and so on.

Design criticism is frequently referred to as a form of collaborative suggestions that is used to improve our work. So it shares a lot of the rules with comments in public, but it also has some variations.

The information

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

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

Here is a reply that could be given as a part of some comments, and it might seem reasonable at a first glance: it seems to casually serve the elements in the equation. But does it exist?

Not sure about the hierarchy and styles of the buttons; it seems off. Can you change them?

Observation for design feedback also refers to providing a perspective that is as specific as possible, not just by pointing out which portion of the interface your feedback refers to. Do you offer the user’s viewpoint? Your expert perspective? From a business perspective? From the perspective of the project manager? A first-time user’s perspective?

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

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

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

The question approach is intended to give the designer some open guidance by provoking the designer’s critical thinking when they receive the feedback. Notably, Lara’s equation includes a second approach: request, which instead provides instructions for a particular 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.

For the question approach, the difference between the two can be demonstrated with the following example:

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

In some situations, it might be helpful to include an additional reason why: why you think the suggestion is better.

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

Choosing between the request and question approaches can occasionally be influenced by one’s personal preferences. 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 switched teams. Surprise surprise, my next round of criticism from a specific person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was a member of this other team who preferred specific guidance. So I changed my feedback so that it included requests.

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

No, this style of feedback is actually efficient because the length here is a byproduct of clarity, and spending time giving this kind of feedback can provide exactly enough information for a good fix. Additionally, if we zoom out, it may lessen misunderstandings and back-and-forth conversations in the future, thereby increasing overall effectiveness and efficiency of collaboration beyond the single comment. Consider the example above where the feedback would be simply” Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons.” The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just apply the change. The interface might change in later iterations or new features might be introduced, and perhaps the change won’t make sense anymore. Without explaining the why, the designer might assume that the change is one of consistency, but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

Yes, this type of feedback is not always effective because some comments don’t always need to be thorough, some times because some changes are made because they don’t always follow our instructions, and others because the team may have extensive internal knowledge, which makes some of the whys possible be implied.

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

The atmosphere

Feedback forms the basis for well-developed content, 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 lasting change in people, and tone alone can determine whether content is rejected or welcomed.

Tone is crucial to work on because our goal is to be understood and create a positive working environment. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the required soft skills in a formula that mirrors the one for content: the receptivity equation.

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

Timing refers to when the feedback happens. When given at the wrong time, to-the-point feedback has little chance of receiving favorable reception. If a new feature’s entire high-level information architecture is about to go live when it’s about to be released, it might still be relevant if that questioning raises a significant blocker that no one saw, but those concerns are much more likely to have to wait for a later revision. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Iteration in the morning? Iteration that was later? Polishing work in progress? Each of these needs a different one. Your feedback will be received favorably if the right timing is chosen.

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. Sometimes it might be difficult to reflect on this because we might not want to admit our deep appreciation for that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but that can happen, and that’s okay. How would I write if I really cared about them, if you could help you make up for it? How can I stop being a passive tyrant? How can I be more constructive?

Form is important especially in diverse and cross-cultural workplaces because having excellent writing, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not be effective if the writing style leads to miscommunications. There could be many reasons for this: some words might cause particular reactions, some non-native speakers might not understand all the nuances of some sentences, and other times our brains might be different and we might perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity must be taken into account. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

A few years ago, I asked for some feedback on how I respond. I was given some helpful advice, but I also found a surprise in my comment. They pointed out that when I wrote” Oh, ]… ]”, I made them feel stupid. That’s not what I meant to say! I just realized that I had been giving them feedback for months and that I had always made them feel foolish. 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.

People tend to beat around the bush, which is something to emphasize because it happens quite frequently, especially in teams with strong group spirit. It’s important to remember here that a positive attitude doesn’t mean going light on the feedback—it just means that even when you provide hard, difficult, or challenging feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. You can help someone grow the best way you can.

Giving feedback in written form can be reviewed by someone else who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or eliminate any bias that might exist. I found that the best, most insightful moments for me have happened when I’ve shared a comment and I’ve asked someone who I highly trusted,” How does this sound”?,” How can I do it better”, and even” How would you have written it” ?—and I’ve learned a lot by seeing the two versions side by side.

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 fulfill two main objectives.

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are commenting on it while reviewing it. 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? Do you have a high-level perspective, or are you just learning the ins and outs? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view do you consider when providing feedback? Is the design iteration at the point where it would be acceptable to ship this, or are there important issues that need to be addressed first?

Providing context is helpful even if you’re sharing feedback within a team that already has some information on the project. And context is a must when providing cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be directly connected to my work, and if I had no idea how the project might have come to that conclusion, I would say so, highlighting my opinion as external.

We often focus on the negatives, trying to outline all the things that could be done better. That is obviously important, but focusing on the positives, especially if you saw improvement in the previous iteration, is even more crucial. 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. Sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been identified as crucial in the long run. Positive feedback can also help to lessen impostor syndrome as an added bonus.

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

Depersonalizing the feedback is another way to improve it: comments should always be about the work and never the creator of 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.

One of the best ways to assist the designer who is reading through your feedback in terms of actionability is to divide it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. For longer pieces of feedback, you might also consider splitting it into sections or even across multiple comments. Of course, it can also be particularly helpful to include screenshots or indicators of the specific area of the interface you’re referring to.

Emojis have been a method I’ve personally used to enhance the bullet points in some situations. So a red square � � means that it’s something that I consider blocking, a yellow diamond � � is something that I can be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that it should be changed, and a green circle � � is a detailed, positive confirmation. A blue spiral is also used for exploration, open alternatives, or just a note when I’m not sure what to make. However, I’d only use this strategy on teams where I’ve already established a high level of trust because it might turn out to be quite demoralizing if I deliver a lot of red squares and change how I communicate that.

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

• 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
• Overall, I believe the page is strong, and this is a good candidate for our version 1. 1.0 release candidate.
• � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
• Button Style: Using the green accent in this context, which conveys that it is a positive action because green is typically seen as a confirmation color. Should we look for a different color?
• 🔶Tiles—Given the number of items on the page, and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles shouldn’t be using the Subtitle 1 style but the Subtitle 2 style. This will maintain consistency in the visual hierarchy.
• Background: Using a light texture is effective, but I’m not sure if doing so will cause too much noise on this kind of page. What is the thinking in using that?

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

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

Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. Why did we do this, especially in large projects? could be a question that pops up from time to time, and there’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time. For this reason, I suggest using software to save these discussions without keeping them hidden until they are resolved.

Content, tone, and format. Each one of these subjects provides a useful model, but working to improve eight areas—observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability—is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective way to approach them is to start with the area you lack the most, either from your point of view or from feedback from others, first. Then the second, followed by the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

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

” Any feedback?” is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for suggestions. It’s obscure and unfocused, and it doesn’t give us a sense of what we’re looking for. Great feedback begins sooner than we might anticipate: it begins with the request.

It might seem contradictory to start the process of receiving feedback with a problem, but that makes sense if we realize that getting feedback can be thought of as a form of design study. The best way to ask for feedback is to write down some insightful questions, just like we wouldn’t do any research without the right questions to obtain the insight we need.

Design criticism is not a one-time procedure. Sure, any great comments process continues until the project is finished, but this is especially true for layout because architecture work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each stage requires its unique set of questions.

Finally, we need to review what we received, get to the heart of its findings, and taking action, as with any great research. Topic, generation, and evaluation. Let’s take a closer look at each of those.

The query

Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Any comments,” What do you think,” or” I’d love to hear your opinion” at the conclusion of a presentation are likely to generate a lot of divergent ideas, or worse, to make people follow the lead of the first speaker. And finally, we become irritated because ambiguous queries like those can result in people leaving reviews that don’t even consider buttons. Which might be a savory matter, so it might be hard at that point to divert the crew to the topics that you had wanted to focus on.

But how do we enter this circumstance? A number of elements are involved. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to assume that everyone else will agree with the problem and leave it alone. Another is that being extremely precise is frequently not necessary in non-professional conversations. In short, we tend to underestimate the importance of the concerns, so we don’t work on improving them.

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

There isn’t a second best method to request comments. It only needs to be certain, which can take many forms. A design for design critique that I’ve found especially helpful in my training is the one of stage over depth.

The term” level” refers to each stage of the process, specifically the design phase. The type of input changes as the customer research moves on to the final design. But within a single stage, one might also examine whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a suitable language of the amassed input into updated designs as the job has evolved. The levels of user experience may serve as a starting point for possible questions. What are your job goals, exactly? User requirements? Funnality? Information? Contact design? Data structures Interface design Navigation style? Physical layout Brand?

Here’re a some example questions that are specific and to the place that refer to different levels:

• Functionality: Is it attractive to automate accounts creation?
• Contact design: Please review the updated flow for any errors or steps I might have missed.
• Information infrastructure: We have two competing bits of information on this site. Does the framework make a good communication between them both?
• User interface design: What do you think about the problem desk at the top of the page, which makes sure you see the following error even if it is outside the viewport?
• Navigation style: From study, we identified these second-level routing items, but when you’re on the webpage, the list feels overly long and hard to understand. Exist any recommendations for resolving this?
• The bottom-right corner’s slippery messages are clearly visible, but are they sufficient?

The other plane of sensitivity is about how heavy you’d like to go on what’s being presented. For instance, we may have introduced a new end-to-end stream, but you might want to know more about a particular viewpoint you found challenging. This can be particularly helpful from one generation to the next when it’s crucial to highlight the areas that have changed.

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

A quick fix is to get rid of the general qualifiers from issues like “good”, “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool.” Asking,” When the stop opens and the switches appear, is this conversation great, for instance?” may seem precise, but you can place the “good” tournament, and transfer it to an even better query:” When the wall opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is”?

Sometimes, we do need a lot of comments. Although that’s uncommon, it does occur. In that feel, you may also make it obvious that you’re looking for a wide range of ideas, whether at a high level or with information. Or perhaps just say,” At first glance, what do you think”? so that it is obvious that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on a person’s impression after their first five seconds of inquiry.

Sometimes the project is particularly expansive, and some areas may have already been explored in detail. In these circumstances, it might be helpful to state explicitly that some parts are already locked in and aren’t accessible for feedback. Although it’s not something I’d recommend in general, I’ve found it helpful in avoiding getting back into rabbit holes like those that could lead to further refinement but aren’t currently what matters most.

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People who have less refined critique abilities will now be able to provide more useful feedback, and even experienced designers will appreciate the clarity and effectiveness gained from concentrating solely on what is required. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

The most widely visible aspect of the design process is probably the design iteration, which serves as a natural feedback loop. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of those methods typically display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. These methods cause conversations to vanish once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and require designs to always display the most recent version unless these would-be useful features were 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 approach to design critiques is probably not the best approach, but some teams might benefit from it even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive.

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

There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

The layouter can review the feedback from each iteration and get ready for the next one by creating a rhythm in the design work.
• It makes decisions visible for future review, and conversations are likewise always available.
• It keeps track of how the design evolved over time.
• Depending on the tool, it might also make it simpler to collect and act on feedback.

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

There isn’t, in my opinion, a universal format for iteration posts. But there are a few high-level elements that make sense to include as a baseline:

1. The objective is.
2. The layout
3. The list of changes
4. The querys

A goal for each project is likely to be one that has already been condensed into a single sentence, such as the request for the project owner, the product manager, or the client brief. So this is something that I’d repeat in every iteration post—literally copy and pasting it. To avoid having to search through information from multiple posts, the goal is to provide context and repeat what is necessary to complete each iteration post. The most recent iteration post will provide all I need to know about the most recent design.

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

The actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other design work that has been done is what the design is then called. In short, it’s any design artifact. In the final stages of the project, I prefer the term “blank” to indicate that I’ll be displaying complete flows rather than individual screens to make it simpler to comprehend the larger picture.

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

A bullet list of the changes made in the previous iteration should also be included for a successful discussion so that attendees can concentrate on what’s changed. This is especially useful for larger works of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, might prove difficult.

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. Creating a numbered list of questions can also help make it simpler to refer to each one by its number.

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

Even if these iteration posts are written and intended as checkpoints, I want to point out that they are not by any means 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.

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

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

The wording release candidate (RC ) could be used to describe a design as complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits that still need more attention and in turn, more iterations would be required, such as” with i8 we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC” to indicate when it is finished.

The evaluation

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

Asynchronous feedback is particularly effective around these friction points because of this shift’s significant benefits:

It makes it easier to respond to everyone.
1. It reduces the frustration from swoop-by comments.
2. It lessens our personal stakes.

The first friction point is having to feel pressured to respond to each and every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s simple, straightforward, and doesn’t cause any issues. Sometimes, however, some solutions may require more in-depth discussions, and the number of responses can quickly rise, which can cause tension between trying to be a good team player by responding to everyone and attempting 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. It’s human nature to try to accommodate those we care about, and we need to accept that this pressure is completely normal. When responding to all comments, it can be effective, but when we consider a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t need to respond to every comment, and there are alternatives in asynchronous spaces:

One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. The response is received when the design changes and a follow-up iteration is made. You could tag everyone in the previous discussion, but even that is 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. In the upcoming iteration, I’ll include these. 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”!
• One more thing is to quickly summarize the comments before proceeding. This may be particularly helpful if your workflow allows you to create a simplified checklist that you can use for the following 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. One can hope that they will learn something from them, starting with acknowledging that they are doing this and making their location more explicit. It can be annoying to have to repeat the same response repeatedly in swoop-by comments.

Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. However, if responding to a previously litigated point is useful, a brief response with a link to the previous discussion for additional information is typically sufficient. Remember that repetition results in alignment; therefore, it’s acceptable to occasionally repeat things!

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. Yes, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help you deal with it.

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

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

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

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

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

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

Photoshop was my go-to program when I first started creating blogs. I created a 960px paint and set about creating a design that I would eventually lose information in. The growth phase aimed to achieve pixel-perfect accuracy by using set widths, fixed heights, and absolute setting.

Ethan Marcotte’s speak at An Event Off and subsequent content” Responsive Web Design” in A List Off in 2010 changed all this. I immediately became enthralled when I learned about flexible style. The pixel-perfect models full of special figures that I had formerly prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

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

a novel style process

Developing flexible or smooth sites has always been about removing limitations, producing material that can be viewed on any system. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved using native CSS and power groups:

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

Then with Sass so I could take advantage of @includes to re-use repeated slabs of script and walk up to more semantic premium:

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

Media inquiries

The next ingredient for flexible design is press queries. Without them, regardless of whether the content remained readable, would shrink to fit the available space. ( The exact opposite issue developed with the introduction of a mobile-first approach. )

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

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

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

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

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

Our rely on multimedia queries resulted in parts that were tied to frequent screen sizes. This is a real problem if component libraries are intended to be reused because they cannot be used when the devices being designed for match the pattern library’s viewport sizes, thus failing to achieve the “devices that don’t already exist” goal.

Then there’s the problem of space. Media inquiries 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: A bogus sun or our lord?

Container questions have long been touted as an improvement upon press questions, but at the time of composing are unsupported in most computers. Although there are JavaScript alternatives, they can lead to dependability and connectivity issues. The basic principle underlying pot queries is that elements may change based on the size of their family box and not the viewport diameter, as seen in the following illustrations.

One of the biggest arguments in favor of box concerns is that they help us create parts or design patterns that are really reusable because they can be picked up and placed somewhere in a design. This is a significant step in the direction of a component-based design that can be used with any device, regardless of size.

In other words, responsive components to replace responsive layouts.

Container queries will enable us to design components that can be placed in a sidebar or in the main content and respond accordingly rather than designing pages that respond to the browser or device size.

My concern is that we are still using layout to determine when a design needs to adapt. This strategy will always be restrictive because we will still require 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?

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

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?

The container’s dimensions shouldn’t be the design’s, but rather the image should.

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 undoubtedly change the way we design, and they would increase the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. But maybe we will always need to adjust these components to suit our content.

CSS is evolving.

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 is not tied to page markup in the same way, allowing for changes or additions to content without further development.

This is a significant improvement when it comes to developing designs that allow for dynamic content, but CSS Subgrid is the real game changer for flexible designs.

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. Subgrid also enables us to create designs that can be modified to fit changing 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.

Columns with percentages are flexible in responsive layouts. Intrinsic layouts, on the other hand, use the fr unit to create flexible columns that won’t ever shrink so much that they render the content illegible.

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

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

Additionally, intrinsic layouts can mix and match both fixed and flexible units, letting the content choose how much space is taken up.

Intriguing design distinguishes itself because it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale designs 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.

They now have the ability to adapt to the content both inside and outside of 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. It’s another instance of “everything changed,” in my opinion.

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

One possible explanation for that is that I now work for a sizable company, which is quite different from the role I held as a design agency in 2010! In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. Modern projects frequently improve existing websites with an existing codebase and use existing tools and frameworks.

Another could be that I feel more prepared for change now. I was relatively new to design in 2010; the shift was frightening and involved 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 issue.

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

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

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

Additionally, 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 right away, with each component reacting to content and layout flexing as needed? This type of design must happen in the browser, which personally I’m a big fan of.

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

Personally, I look forward to the day that a design component can truly be flexible and adapt to both its space and content without relying on the device or container dimensions. This is the day intrinsic design is the standard for design.

Content first

Content is not a fixed number. 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 dated markup tricks 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. This was frequently accomplished with Sass mixins in the past, but it was frequently limited to a switch from a left-to-right to a 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 also be used as values—

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

—or as properties.

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

However, with native logical properties, we can now avoid relying on Sass ( or a similar tool ) and pre-planning, which meant using variables throughout a codebase. These properties also start to break apart the tight coupling between a design and strict physical dimensions, creating more flexibility for changes in language and in direction.

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

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

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

Fluid and fixed

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

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

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

As long as the element’s width is not greater than 300px, the element in the figure above will cover 50 % of its container.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With these techniques, we have a content-first approach to responsive design. We can distinguish between markup and content, which means that user modifications will not have an impact on the design. We can start to future-proof designs by planning for unexpected changes in language or direction. Additionally, we can increase flexibility by specifying desired dimensions alongside adaptable alternatives, which will allow for more or less content to be displayed correctly.

Situation first

We can address device flexibility by changing our approach, designing around content and space, and responding to what we’ve already discussed. But what about that last bit of Jeffrey Zeldman’s quote,”… situations you haven’t imagined”?

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

This is why making a choice is so crucial. 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 give people choices.

Responsible design

There are places on the planet where mobile data is prohibitively expensive and where broadband infrastructure is sparse or absent.

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

Chris Ashton

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

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

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. 

Additionally, there is native lazy loading, which indicates that only required files should be downloaded for use.

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 inquiries

Media inquiries 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. Because of these checks, we can offer options that work for more than one situation. It’s less about one-size-fits-all and more about providing adaptable content.

As of this writing, the Media Queries Level 5 spec is still under development. It brings up some really intriguing queries that will eventually help us design for a number of other unanticipated situations.

For example, there’s a light-level feature that allows you to modify styles if a user is in sunlight or darkness. These features, which are enhanced by custom properties, make it simple to create designs or themes for particular 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 inquiries like this go beyond choices made by a browser to grant more control to the user.

Expect the unanticipated

In the end, the one thing we should always expect is for things to change. With foldable screens already available on the market, devices especially change more quickly than we can keep up.

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

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

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

A good design for the unexpected should allow for change, give choice, and give control to the people we serve: our users themselves.

We’ve been conversing for a long time. Whether to present information, perform transactions, or just to check in on one another, people have yammered aside, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken discussion for many generations. Only recently have we begun to write our conversations, and only recently have we outsourced them to the system, a system that exhibits a far greater affection for written communications than for the vernacular rigors of spoken speech.

Computers have issues because conversation is more important than written language, between spoken and written. To have productive conversations with us, machines may struggle with the messiness of mortal speech: the disfluencies and pauses, the gestures and body language, and the variations in word choice and spoken dialect that is stymie even the most carefully crafted human-computer interaction. Speaking language also has the advantage of face-to-face contact, which allows us to view visual social cues in the human-to-human scenario.

In contrast, written language develops its own fossil record of dated terms and phrases as we report it and keep utilization long after they are no longer needed in spoken communication ( for example, the welcome” To whom it may concern” ). Because it tends to be more consistent, smooth, and proper, written word is necessarily far easier for devices to interpret and know.

Spoken speech is not a pleasure in this regard. There are verbal cues and vociferous behaviors that mimic conversation in nuanced ways, including how something is said, never what. These are also included in conversational cues that emphasize and enhance emotional context. Whether rapid-fire, low-pitched, or high-decibel, whether satirical, awkward, or groaning, our spoken speech conveys much more than the written word had ever muster. But as designers and content strategists, we face exciting challenges when it comes to voice interfaces, the machines we use to execute spoken conversations.

Voice Compositions

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 ( ). We typically strike up a discussion by:

• we require something to be done ( such as a transaction ),
• we want to know something ( information of some sort ), or
• We are social creatures and seek out a conversation partner ( for the purpose of chat ).

These three categories, which I refer to as contextual, technical, and prosocial, also apply to virtually every voice interaction: a solitary conversation that begins with the voice interface’s initial greeting and ends with the user leaving the interface. Notice here that a discussion in our individual sense—a talk between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass many interpersonal, technical, and interpersonal voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but it must not be one particular voice interaction.

Most voice interfaces are more gimmicky than captivating in purely prosocial conversations because machines are unable to yet be truly interested in our progress and engage in the kind of glad-handing behavior that people 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 Voice User Interface Design, Michael Cohen, James Giangola, and Jennifer Balogh advise sticking to user expectations by imitating how they interact with other voice interfaces, which might lead to alienating them ( ).

That leaves two different types of conversations we can have with one another that a voice interface can also have easily, such as one that focuses on a transactional voice interaction ( buying iced tea ) and another on learning something new ( discuss a musical ).

Transactional voice interactions

When you order a Hawaiian pizza with extra pineapple, you’re typically having a conversation and a voice interaction when you’re tapping buttons on a food delivery app. The conversation quickly shifts from an initial smattering of neighborly small talk to the actual task at hand, which is ordering a pizza ( generously topped with pineapple, as it should be ).

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

Burhan: Hello and welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s chilly outside. How can I help you?

Alison, can I get a pineapple-onion pizza in Hawaii?

Burhan: Yes, but what size?

Alison: Large.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

I’ll have a bottle of Coke, Alison.

Burhan, you know what. That’ll be$ 13.55 and about fifteen minutes.

A service rendered or a product delivered is the desired outcome of the transaction, and each progressive disclosure in this transactional conversation reveals more and more of it. Transactional conversations exhibit a few key characteristics: they’re direct, to the point, and economical. They quickly dispense with pleasantries.

Informational voice interactions

While some conversations are primarily about obtaining information, some are. 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 interested in trying kosher or halal dishes, trying gluten-free dishes, or something else entirely. Even though we have a prosocial mini-conversation once more at the beginning to practice politeness, we are after much more.

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

Burhan: Hello and welcome to Crust Deluxe! It’s chilly outside. How can I help you?

Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

Burhan: Of course! Continue straight ahead.

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

Burhan: Totally! On request, we can make any pie halal. We also have lots of vegetarian, ovo-lacto, and vegan options. Do you have any other dietary restrictions in mind?

Alison, what about pizzas that are gluten-free?

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 say to you to help?

Alison: That’s it for now. Good to know. Thank you.

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

This is a very different dialogue. Here, the goal is to obtain a particular set of facts. Informational conversations are research expeditions to gather data, news, or facts in search of the truth. Voice interactions that are informational might be more long-winded than transactional conversations by necessity. In order for the customer to understand the key takeaways, responses are typically longer, more in-depth, and carefully communicated.

Voice Interfaces

At their core, voice interfaces employ speech to support users in reaching their goals. However, just because an interface has a voice component doesn’t mean that every user interaction with it is mediated through voice. We’re most concerned in this book with pure voice interfaces because multimodal voice interfaces can lean on visual components like screens as crutches, which are completely dependent on spoken conversation and lack any visual component, making them much more nuanced and challenging to deal with.

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.

IVR ( interactive voice response ) systems

Written conversational interfaces have been a part of computing for many decades, but voice interfaces first started to appear 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 made it easier for businesses to cut down on call centers, but they soon gained a reputation for their clunkiness. When you call an airline or hotel company, which is a common practice in the corporate world, these systems were primarily intended as metaphorical switchboards to direct customers to a real phone agent (” Say Reservations to book a flight or check an itinerary” ), which are more likely to happen when you call one. 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).

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

Screen readers are the norm

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 are the norm 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 ( ). The first IBM Screen Reader for text-based computers was created by Jim Thatcher in the same year, which was later recreated for a computer with graphical user interfaces ( GUIs ) ( ).

With the rapid expansion of the web in the 1990s, there was an explosion in the demand for user-friendly tools for websites. 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. Screen readers for the web, in other words, “provide mechanisms that translate visual design constructs—proximity, proportion, etc.. in A List Apart, writes Aaron Gustafson, “into useful information.” ” At least they do when documents are authored thoughtfully” ( ).

There is a big draw for screen readers: they’re challenging to use and relentlessly verbose, despite being incredibly instructive for voice interface designers. Sometimes unwieldy pronouncements that name every manipulable HTML element and announce every formatting change are made because the visual structures of websites and web navigation don’t translate well to screen readers. For many screen reader users, working with web-based interfaces exacts a cognitive toll.

Accessibility advocate and voice engineer Chris Maury examines why the screen reader experience is ill-suited for users who rely on voice in Wired:

I hated the way Screen Readers operated from the beginning. Why are they designed the way they are? It makes no sense to present information visually before converting it to audio only after that. All the effort and thought that goes into creating the ideal user experience for an app is wasted, or worse, having a negative effect on blind users ‘ experience. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

In many cases, well-designed voice interfaces can deliver users ‘ requests more quickly than rambling screen reader monologues. After all, users of the visual interface have the advantage of freely scurrying around the viewport to find information without getting too close to it. Blind users, meanwhile, are obligated to listen to every utterance synthesized into speech and therefore prize brevity and efficiency. Users with disabilities who have long had no choice but to use clumsy screen readers might find that voice interfaces, especially more contemporary voice assistants, provide a more streamlined experience.

Voice-overseers are

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-overseers are 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 created their vision for a” semantic web agent” that would carry out routine tasks like” checking calendars, making appointments, and finding locations” ( hinter paywall ). Apple’s Siri only became a reality until 2011 when it finally made voice assistants a 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 but vendor-provided features are locked down. For instance, when Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana were released, they couldn’t extend their existing capabilities. There are no other means of developers communicating with Siri at a low level, aside from predefined categories of tasks like messaging, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and other things, which are still possible today.

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, developers who feel stifled by the limitations of Siri and Cortana are increasingly using programmable voice assistants that are capable of customization and extensibility. Google Home enables arbitrary Google Assistant skills generation, while Amazon offers the Alexa Skills Kit, a developer framework for creating custom voice interfaces for Amazon Alexa. Today, users can choose from among thousands of custom-built skills within both the Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant ecosystems.

As businesses like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google continue to dominate their markets, they are also selling and open-sourcing an unmatched range of tools and frameworks for designers and developers, aiming to make creating voice interfaces as simple as possible, even without the use of any 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. In contrast, many development platforms, like Google’s Dialogflow, now support omnichannel features, allowing users to create a single conversational interface that then becomes a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. In this design-focused book, I don’t recommend any particular implementation strategies, but in Chapter 4 we’ll discuss some of the possible effects that these variables might have on how you construct your design artifacts.

Voice Content

Simply put, voice content is voice-transmitted content. Voice content must be free-flowing, organic, contextless, and concise in order to preserve what makes human conversation so compelling in the first place.

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. We’re most concerned with the content in this book being delivered auditorically, not as an option but as a necessity.

Our initial foray into informational voice interfaces will likely be to provide user content, for many of us. There’s only one problem: any content we already have isn’t in any way ready for this new habitat. How can we make the content on our websites more conversational? And how do we create fresh copy that works with voice-activated text?

Lately, we’ve begun slicing and dicing our content in unprecedented ways. Websites are, in many ways, massive vaults of what I call macrocontent: lengthy prose that can last for miles in a browser window while being viewed in microfilm format in newspaper archives. Microcontent was defined by technologist Anil Dash as permalinked pieces of content that could be read in any environment, such as email or text messages, in 2002, well before the current-day ubiquity of voice assistants:

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 would update Dash’s definition of microcontent to include all instances of bite-sized content that transcends 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. The best way to learn how your content can be stretched to the limits of its potential is through microcontent, which will inform both established and new delivery channels.

Voice content stands out as being unique because it illustrates how content is experienced in space as opposed to time. 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.

We must ensure that our microcontent performs well as voice content because it is essentially composed of individual blobs without any connection to the channels in which they will eventually end up. This means focusing on the two most crucial characteristics of robust voice content: voice content legibility and voice content discoverability.

Our voice content’s legibility and discoverability in general both depend on how it manifests in terms of perceived space and time.