Blog

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

Think of your favourite film. It probably follows a three-act narrative architecture: the installation, the conflict, and the resolution, which is prevalent in literature. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two sets the scene for the issue and the action begins. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. The solution comes in the third and final work. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. This construction, in my opinion, is also a fantastic way to think about consumer research, and it might be particularly useful for introducing user research to others.

Use story as a framework for conducting research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to view studies as being inconsequential. Research is frequently one of the first things to go when expenses or deadlines are tight. Instead of investing in study, some goods professionals rely on manufacturers or—worse—their personal judgment to make the “right” options for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That might lead to some groups getting in the way, but it’s too easy to overlook the real problems facing users. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User study improves style. It keeps it on trail, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the problems with your goods and taking action can help you be ahead of your competition.

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

Act one: installation

The basic study comes in handy because the layout is all about understanding the background. Basic research ( also called relational, discovery, or preliminary research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. You’re learning about the problems people face now, what options are available, and how those challenges impact them, just like in the films. To do basic research, you may conduct cultural inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both problems and opportunities. It doesn’t need to get a great investment in time or money.

What is the least sustainable ethnography that Erika Hall can do is spend fifteen minutes with a consumer and say,” Walk me through your day yesterday. That’s it. Give that one ask. Opened up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to keep yourself and your pursuits out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. According to Hall, “[This ] will definitely prove quite fascinating. In the very unlikely event that you didn’t learn anything new or helpful, carry on with increased confidence in your way”.

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

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

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

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

Act two: fight

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

According to Jakob Nielsen, five users should be normally in usability tests, which means that this number of users can generally identify the majority of the issues:” You learn less and less as you add more and more users because you will keep seeing the same things over and over again… After the second user, you are wasting your time by constantly observing the same findings but no learning much new.”

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

Usability tests have been conducted in person for tens of thousands of years, but remote testing can also be done using software like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing tools. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You might interpret in-person usability tests as a form of theater watching as opposed to remote testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Usability research in person is a much more valuable learning experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. Additionally, you’ll also hear their reactions in real-time, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions of what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Act three: resolution

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

Voiceover narration of this act is typically used with audience input. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They offer the stakeholders their suggestions and suggestions for how to create this vision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researcher performs a number of tasks: they are the producer, the director, and the storyteller. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters ( in the research ). And the audience is one of the stakeholders. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users ‘ stories through research. In the end, the parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to fix the product’s flaws.

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

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

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

The fatalities of feature-first creation

It’s easy to get swept up in the enthusiasm of developing innovative features when you start developing a financial product from scratch or are migrating existing client journeys from papers or telephony channels to online bank or mobile applications. They may believe,” If I can only add one more thing that solves this particular person problem, they’ll enjoy me”! But what happens if you inevitably encounter a roadblock as a result of your security team’s negligence? not like it? When a battle-tested film isn’t as well-known as you anticipated, or when it fails due to unforeseen complexity?

The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) comes into play in this context. Even if Jason Fried doesn’t always refer to this concept, his book Getting Real and his podcast Rework frequently discuss it. An MVP is a product that offers just enough value to your users to keep them interested without becoming too difficult or overwhelming to use. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a ruthless edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because” the Columbo Effect” makes it easy to fall for something when someone always says” just one more thing …” to add.

The issue with most finance apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an experience created solely for the customer. Instead of offering a clear value proposition that is focused on what people in the real world want, the focus should be on delivering as many features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and desires of competing internal departments. As a result, these products can very quickly become a mixed bag of confusing, unrelated, and ultimately unlovable customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The significance of the foundation

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

The concept of “bedrock” comes into play here. The main component of your product that truly matters to users is Bedrock. It’s the fundamental building block that creates value and maintains relevance over time.

The bedrock has to be in and around the regular servicing journeys in the world of retail banking, which is where I work. People only look at their current account once every five minutes, but they also look at it daily. They purchase a credit card every year or two, but they at least once a month check their balance and pay their bills.

The key is in identifying the core tasks that people want to complete and then relentlessly striving to make them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

But how do you reach the foundation? By focusing on the” MVP” approach, giving simplicity the top priority, and working toward a clear value proposition. This entails removing unnecessary features and putting the emphasis on providing genuine value to your users.

It also requires having some guts, as your coworkers might not always agree with you immediately. And controversially, occasionally it can even mean making it clear to customers that you won’t be coming to their house and making their dinner. Sometimes you need to use the sporadic “opinionated user interface design” ( i .e. clunky workaround for edge cases ) to test a concept or to give yourself some more time to work on something more crucial.

Practical methods for creating reliable financial products

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

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

The “bedrock paradox”

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

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

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

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

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

When you begin to think of your style organization as a pattern organism, the magic happens when you accept collide rather than fight it.

The biology of a good design team

Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this formula: consider of your design team as a living organism. The Design Manager concentrates on the internal security, career advancement, team dynamics, and other factors. The Lead Designer concentrates on the body ( the handiwork, the design standards, the hands-on projects that are delivered to users ).

But just like mind and body aren’t totally separate systems, but, also, do these tasks overlap in significant ways. Without working in harmony with one another, you didn’t have a healthier person. The technique is to know where those aligns are and how to understand them gently.

When we look at how good team really function, three critical devices emerge. Each requires the collaboration of both jobs, but one must assume the lead role in maintaining that system sturdy.

Folks & Psychology: The Nervous System

Major custodian: Design Manager
Supporting position: Guide Custom

The anxious system is all about mental health, comments, and signals. When this technique is good, information flows easily, people feel safe to take risks, and the staff may react quickly to new problems.

The primary caregiver is around, the Design Manager. They are making sure the team’s emotional pulse is healthier, creating the ideal environment for growth, and keeping track of the team’s psychological pulse. They’re hosting job meetings, managing task, and making sure no single burns out.

However, the Lead Designer has a vital enabling position. They’re offering visual feedback on build development needs, identifying stagnant design skills in someone, and pointing out potential growth opportunities that the Design Manager might overlook.

Design Manager tends to:

• development planning and job conversations
• internal security and dynamics of the crew
• Job management and resource planning
• Performance evaluations and opinions management methods
• Providing learning options

Direct Custom supports by:

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

The Muscular System: Design, Design, and Execution

Major caretaker: Lead Designer
Supporting position: Design Manager

Power, coordination, and skill development are the hallmarks of the skeletal system. When this technique is healthy, the team can do complicated design work with precision, maintain regular quality, and adjust their craft to fresh challenges.

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

However, the Design Manager has a significant supporting role. They are making sure the team has the resources and support they need to perform their best work, such as ensuring that an athlete receives proper nutrition and recovery time.

Lead Designer tends to:

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

Design Manager supports by:

• ensuring that design standards are understood and accepted by all members of the team
• Confirming that a direction of experience is being pursued
• Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
• facilitating design alignment among all teams
• Providing resources and removing obstacles to outstanding craft work

The Circulatory System: Strategy &amp, Flow

Shared caretakers: Lead Designer and Design Manager, respectively.

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

True partnership occurs in this area. Although both positions bring unique perspectives, keeping the circulation strong is a dual responsibility.

Lead Designer contributes:

• The product fulfills the user’s needs.
• overall experience and product quality
• Strategic design initiatives
• User needs based on research for each initiative

Contributes the design manager:

• Communication to team and stakeholders
• Management of stakeholders and alignment
• Team accountability across all levels
• Strategic business initiatives

Both parties work together on:

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

Keeping the Organism Healthy

Understanding that all three systems must work together is the key to making this partnership sing. A team will eventually lose their way despite excellent craftmanship and poor psychological safety. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team that has both but poor strategic planning will concentrate on the wrong things.

Be Specific About the System You’re Defending.

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

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

Create Positive Feedback Loops

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

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

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

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

Handle Handoffs Gracefully

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

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

Stay original and avoid being a tourist.

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

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

When the Organism Gets Sick

This partnership has the potential to go wrong, even with clear roles. Here are the most typical failure modes I’ve seen:

System Isolation

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

The signs: Team members receive conflicting messages, poor morale, and poor communication.

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

Poor Circulation

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

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

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

Autoimmune Response

The other person’s expertise makes them feel threatened. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Design Manager is allegedly misunderstanding the craft, according to the lead designer.

The signs: defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members sucked into the middle.

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

The Payoff

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

The best of both worlds can be found in strong people leadership and deep craft expertise when both roles are healthy and effective together. One person can help keep the team’s health when one is sick, on vacation, or overjoyed. When a decision requires both the people perspective and the craft perspective, you’ve got both right there in the room.

The framework has a balance, which is crucial. As your team expands, you can use the same system thinking to new problems. Need to launch a design system? Both the muscular system and the nervous system are more prevalent in the work environment and communication, and the design manager is more focused on the implementation and change management.

Bottom Line

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

The mind and body work together. The team receives both the craft excellence and strategic thinking they need. And most importantly, users benefit from both perspectives when they receive the work.

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

Superman made us believe a man may travel in 1978. But in 1989, Batman made film producers believe that comic book reports as a music unto themselves may be successful. Hollywood gave the green light to content that they would otherwise ignore in the wake of Batman’s huge cash. While that IP-hunt definitely proved successful for ]…]

The post The Weird Comic Book Movies of the 1990s ( That Aren’t Batman &amp, Robin ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Superman made us think a man could travel in 1978. But in 1989, Batman made film producers believe that comic book reports as a music unto themselves may be successful. Hollywood gave the green light to materials that they would otherwise ignore in the darkness of Batman&#8217’s huge payday. While that IP-hunt definitely proved profitable for the Dark Knight also, who returned to cinemas in various sequels and in the animated movie Batman: Mask of the Phantom, it generally applied to B- and C-level characters, most of whom did not come from the pages of DC or Marvel Comics. And yet thoses that did, tended to be from the rear bench. Let’s take a look back at a strange and presently antiquated time in superhero theatre in this modern era of MCU and DC dominance at the box office. Also, at most of it.

You won’t get the Filipino film Darna here because we are looking at movies that had a positive impact on domestic musical production. Even this record will rely on movies based on characters or superhero-esque figures from comics. So Dick Tracy, with the headline figure &#8217, s unique clothing and talents, earns him participation on the list, but Richie Rich&#8216, s largess does not.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ( 1990 )

As much as film studios were ready to react comic books in the 1990s, they often wanted to adjust them diligently. To frequently, they simply insert some names and imagery into a completely different style of story. That desire makes 1990 &#8217, s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles all the more impressive. Directed by Steve Barron and written by Todd W. Langen and Bobby Herbeck, the drama draws most of its creativity from the dark first movie that spawned the sensation, as opposed to the more famous cartoon series.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles performs remarkably well and continues to perform better than other movie adaptations of the heroes in a half-shell ( though Mutant Mayhem comes close ). There is an edge to this movie with a dark color palette and some relatively tense action for a children&#8217, s film. Additionally, it takes its quartet of heroes seriously enough that the viewer doesn’t have to as they scarf down pizza and yell cowabunga at the audience. &#8221,

Dick Tracy ( 1990 )

The majority of the films on this list were produced as a result of Batman and later Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Not so for Dick Tracy, a true passion project for star and director Warren Beatty. Beatty has made an effort to bring Chester Gould, a hatchet-faced detective and his grotesque rouges gallery to the big screen. At first glance, Beatty &#8217, s perseverance was worth it, as Dick Tracy is not only accurate to its comic strip roots, thanks to the incredible makeup work by John Caglione Jr. and production design, but also filled with top-level talent. With Beatty &#8217, s insistence on using just seven basic colors &#8212, the same you would have found in the funny pages of the 1940s&#8212, the film has a visual pop art look that has never quite been matched.

Ironically, Beatty himself drags down Dick Tracy because he refuses to cover up his own handsome mug with makeup or give Tracy much of a personality beyond that of a &#8220, dashing hero. &#8221, His one-note copper is never as compelling as the baddies and women around him, making the movie feel both overindulgent and undercooked.

Captain America ( 1990 )

&#8220, But wait a minute! &#8221, I hear you saying. I thought it was all B- and C-listers in the 1990s, but I forgot! Why did Captain America get a movie? The answer is straightforward. &#8221 Compared to Spider-Man, the X-Men, and even the Hulk, Captain America was in the second tier of Marvel superheroes back in the day. In fact, this 1990 direct-to-video movie, directed by Albert Pyun and starring Matt Salinger ( son of J. D. ) only proves this fact. Although the movie has its charms, such as the overstuffed script that Steve Rogers, who was a man-of-the-time in his own movie, was quoted as having an inert passenger in Captain America: The First Avenger in 2011 by Alan Silvestri.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze ( 1991 )

Just read everything I said about the original movie and reverse it if you want to read this entry on the 1991 sequel Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze. That is n&#8217, t to say that the sequel is a train wreck, but it takes more from the cartoon than the comics and tries to be as inoffensive as possible. The puppet work remains impressive, courtesy of Jim Henson&#8217, s creature shop, especially with new additions Tokka and Rahzar, and it &#8217, s nice to see &#8217, 90s karate kid Ernie Reyes Jr. do his thing.

There is, however, very little reason to revisit Secret of the Ooze thirty years later if the only reason is nostalgia. With that said, some around here will still put those nostalgia goggles on as they go to bat for Vanilla Ice&#8217, s &#8220, Go Ninja&#8221, rap…

The Rocketeer ( 1991 ) )

Given that artist Dave Stevens drew inspiration from Bettie Page to design hero Cliff Secord&#8217, s best gal Betty, one would expect a Disney take on the Rocketeer to fall short in every imaginable way. And yet, The Rocketeer remains one of the true gems of &#8217, 90s superhero movies, thanks to the incredible talent involved. Director Joe Johnston possesses that talent, who is able to create high adventure using the same sepia-tone nostalgia that inspired the first comics. Under Johnston&#8217, s direction—as well as some crackerjack performances from Alan Arkin as Cliff&#8217, s mentor and Timothy Dalton as an Errol Flynn-esque Nazi secret agent hiding in Hollywood—and augmented by James Horner&#8217, s glorious score, The Rocketeer is Disney doing pulp adventure correctly. Jennifer Connelly could undoubtedly play Bettie.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III ( 1993 )

After the diminished returns from the goofy Secret of the Ooze, one would understand why New Line Cinema would return to rougher roots for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. The Turtles are greeted as mystical creatures meant to intervene in a battle between local factions and foreign invaders in feudal Japan, which is where they are transported and welcomed. However, director Stuart Gillard treats the material with stultifying seriousness, making for a deadly dull kid&#8217, s movie. In addition, Casey Jones ( Elias Koteas, who is returning for some reason in the franchise ), gets time-displaced samurai to goof off in scenes set in the present day, goes too far in the other direction. As a result, TMNT III manages to please nobody and annoy everyone.

Cemetery Man ( 1994 )

We’re making things a little too much of Dylan Dog, the cynical paranormal investigator that Italian artist Tiziano Sclavi created as a superhero. Yet we&#8217, d argue that signature red shirt and gift for dealing with the supernatural is enough to include on this list via Dellamorte Dellamore, aka Cemetery Man. Rupert Everett is the lead character in a casting coup, according to director Michele Soavi. After all, Scalvi modeled the character on the English actor.

Everett brings the appropriate disaffected cool to a story involving a zombie invasion in a small town, and he has excellent chemistry with the stunning Anna Falchi as the wife of a rich man for whom he falls. However, Cemetery Man&#8216, François Hadji-Lazaro&#8217, s mugging and irritating performance as a mentally disabled man, severely undermines a lot of the attempt to create the tone.

The Crow ( 1994 )

It’s difficult to rival Alex Proyas ‘ tone-building with The Crow in terms of tone-building. Based on the indie revenge comic from James O&#8217, Barr, The Crow stars Brandon Lee as Eric Draven, who is resurrected a year after he and his fiancée ( Sofia Shinas ) were killed by a gang led by Michael Wincott&#8217, s chilly Top Dollar. Guided by the titular fowl, Eric brutally makes his way to Top Dollar by destroying thugs while a weary detective ( Ernie Hudson ) cleans up the mess left behind.

There is no denying that The Crow maintains a distinctive sense of style absent from most comic book movies today despite being a pretty one-note in terms of plotting. The film has an urban Gothic grandeur that in many ways outdoes Tim Burton&#8217, s more kid-friendly aesthetic in Batman, lacing elements of both Grimm fairy tale and neo noir into The Crow&#8216, s hellish cityscape. However, the film still has a sensitive beauty that is largely influenced by Lee’s haunting performance. And it lingers all the more when one knows he died while making the film.

The Mask ( 1994 )

Producers at New Line Cinema wisely abandoned the source material’s cruelness when bringing the Dark Horse comic The Mask to the screen. Even better they managed to cast Jim Carrey right as the Canadian comedian was about to break out, giving him the perfect vehicle to show off his rubber-faced talents. Although it &#8217, the still stunning live-action cartoon scenes that most people today remember merit more consideration because they reveal the dramatic prowess the actor would eventually develop in films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

The film also marked the acting debut of one Cameron Diaz who breaks into the film like a &#8217, 40s femme fatale, complete with a truly swinging swing number during the genre&#8217, s brief mainstream revival. It&#8217, s all the more remarkable since director Chuck Russell told us he had to fight for her casting.

Timecop ( 1994 )

Dark Horse Comics had two adaptations in theaters in 1994, even if one is less obvious in its comic book roots. For the 1992 anthology series, Dark Horse Presents, the film is based on Dark Horse editor Mike Richardson, writer Mark Verheiden, and artist Ron Randall. Two years later, a movie version hit theaters, starring Jean-Claude Van Damme as hero Max Walker and using the concept of a law enforcement agency for time travelers. Although Verheiden wrote the movie script, Timecop, directed by Peter Hyams, deviates heavily from the original comic. It&#8217 ;s difficult to get upset about the differences, given that Richardson commissioned the original story with an eye toward a movie adaptation ( as opposed to The Mask, incidentally ).

Tank Girl ( 1995 )

Even though Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett, the studio’s directors for the 1996 film based on their comic series, expressed disappointment in the film, it quickly gained a cult following. It&#8217, s easy to see why the story of rebels in a post-apocalyptic world would resonate with viewers. Director Rachel Talalay, working from a script by Tedi Sarafian, gives Lori Petty plenty of space to play a punk agent of chaos. However, whenever the film begins to pay attention to its plot, which involves crudely rendered kangaroo men and Malcom McDowell acting like a bad guy, Tank Girl moves as slowly as its title. While Petty is still a delight today, the movie feels like a rough draft for the work that Margot Robbie would do as Harley Quinn decades later.

Judge Dredd ( 1995 )

Objectively, Judge Dredd fails as an adaptation. Star Sylvester Stallone puts his screen presence over the character, which means that instead of playing a fascist law enforcer who never removes his mask, Stallone portrays, well, a standard Stallone action hero. Even worse, Judge Dredd belongs to that ignoble group of 90s films that cast Rob Schneider as a sidekick. Still, the oppressive mega-city set designs by Nigel Phelps remain pretty compelling, and the weird world that director Danny Cannon and his team create often feels like the mutant dystopia from the 2000 AD comics.

Black Mask ( 1995 ) )

Like the other mask movie on this list, the superhero comedy Black Mask works as a comic book adaptation because its star provides all the special effects himself. Where Jim Carrey made the Mask antihero feel like a living cartoon, Jet Li&#8216, s martial arts excellence brought to life the 1992 comic that inspired it. Li portrays a librarian who is chosen as a test subject for a super soldier program after a covert military operation. Director Daniel Lee creates a sense of place that falls in line with the other distinctive cities on this list, which gives Black Mask enough personality to stand out in Li&#8217, s filmography.

Barb Wire 1996 )

The fact that Barb Wire adapts a little-known Dark Horse Comics story about a futuristic mercenary probably won&#8217, t convince anyone to check out the movie. Nor, really, would the fact that it stars Pamela Anderson, who spends the opening credits doing a striptease while being hosed down with water.

What if I told you that Pamela Anderson played a sexy future mercenary in Barb Wire, which also serves as a riff on Casablanca? And what if I added it also features great &#8220, that guys &#8221, like Temuera Morrison, Udo Kier, and Xander Berkeley, all of whom lean into the wacky idea of making a trashy version of a classic film? Barb Wire is a much more interesting movie than one might think, despite the fact that that isn’t enough to make it good, exactly.

The Phantom ( 1996 )

Defenders of the 1966 Batman series are quick to point out that Adam West &#8217, s stiff performance as the Dark Knight is a good thing, as it honors the square-jawed character from the comic. Billy Zane plays the lead role in The Phantom, and the same thing holds true. Somehow the ridiculously handsome but dramatically limited Zane makes sense as a purple-clad white guy who lives as a mythical figure in the African jungle. It’s great that he’s paired up with fantastic actors like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Treat Williams as the bad guy and, of course, it’s helpful that he’s paired with a vampy sky pirate, of course. By emphasizing that silly stuff, director Simon Wincer and screenwriter Jeffrey Boam give The Phantom the same campy, pulpy fun of the original Lee Falk comic strip.

Vampirella ( 1996 )

Fans of the Fantastic Four argued for a long time that the 1994 Roger Corman film was still the team’s best film version. One has to wonder if such a reputation would have developed had the film actually been released. If the response to Corman&#8217, Vampirella, was any indication, the answer is#8220, no. &#8221,

On the surface, the movie has what a Vampirella adaptation needs: a pretty lady in a skimpy outfit ( Talisa Soto ), plus a plot about alien bloodsuckers on Earth ( led by the Who&#8217, s Roger Daltrey as the villain ). Even a game lead can save Vampirella from becoming a dull mockery of the comics it claims to adapt, because the film’s director Jim Wynorski and screenwriter Gary Gerani approach the subject with such little interest.

Spawn ( 1997 )

A hero who escapes Hell on a quest for retribution is the subject of the film Spawn. After spending five minutes watching John Leguizamo do motormouth comedy riffing under hideous clown makeup, most viewers think they &#8217, ve been sentenced to eternal damnation in exchange. Spawn the movie came out just a few years after Todd McFarlane introduced the character through Image Comics, and the film retains all the limitations of that initial run: lots of surface-level edgy designs, a preponderance of lore, and zero character stakes.

The practical effects of the movie still look fantastic, and Michael Jai White does a good job portraying Al Simmons ‘ anger. But between Leguizamo&#8217, s grating performance and a climax that features the worst CGI to ever appear in a Hollywood film, Spawn is only for those who crave punishment.

Steel 1997 )

Okay, let&#8217, s get this out of the way up front. You could replace Shaquille O&#8217, Neal with an actual lump of metal and it would have more charisma and screen presence than the basketball player/insurance pitchman who plays inventor-turned-hero John Henry Irons. Even though Steel was only four years old when it first appeared in theaters, we should probably also acknowledge that the excellent character from DC Comics is not nearly as strong as the film version of it.

Nevertheless, Steel has an aw-shucks charm that makes it impossible to hate. The portrayal of a man who wants to help his beleaguered community is always successful, especially when Richard Roundtree and Irma P. Hall serve as elders who guide John on his mission and Annabeth Gish as Steel’s sidekick, Judd Nelson as glowering villain Burke, and Neal and Richard Roundtree as Irma P. Hall as his mentor.

Men in Black ( 1997 )

It&#8217, s common knowledge that the next movie on this list is the first good Marvel movie. Men in Black may technically be based on a Marvel comic, but that doesn’t diminish Daywalker’s accomplishments. It may be a perfect movie. That&#8217, s because Men in Black is n&#8217, t really a Marvel comic. The Men in Black was written by Lowell Cunningham and Sandy Carruthers for Aircel Comics, which Malibu Comics acquired, which was then later acquired by Marvel.

Whatever the origin, it was worth it to make the flawless thrill ride that director Barry Sonnenfeld and screenwriter Ed Solomon concoct, anchored by a pitch-perfect Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as co-leads and Vincent D&#8217, Onofrio giving an all-timer performance as an alien bug wearing human skin.

Blade ( 1998 )

No one can come up with a better film about the Daywalker in the era of MCU dominance, which is a testament to the excellence of the first Blade film. Half of that is due to star Wesley Snipes fully embodying the role, dropping lines about skating up hill with believable ease. However, Stephen Norrington, the director, has contributed an equally significant portion to making a cool, stylish, and satisfying film. From the incredible blood rave opening scene to the final showdown with Deacon Frost ( Stephen Dorff ), Blade ushered in the age of great superhero movies.

Mystery Men ( 1999 )

The cast and the script of Mystery Men are fantastic. So good is the script and cast, in fact, that they manage to make Mystery Men an entertaining film despite having some of the worst direction in Hollywood history. A group of loser superheroes from the odd ball comic series Flaming Carrot is brought to life by an ensemble cast that includes Ben Stiller, William H. Macy, Wes Studi, and Paul Reubens, adding real pathos to its team of rejects. Even though director Kinka Usher feels the need to punctuate every moment with squishy noises and fisheye lenses, Mystery Men remains an unlikely cult classic due to its kooky ensemble energy and forward-thinking cynicism toward cape stuff.

The post The Weird Comic Book Movies of the 1990s ( That Aren&#8217, t Batman &amp, Robin ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

With Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater, Konami revived its lineup military spy motion video game series in the same way with the Silent Hill company in 2024. As the name suggests, the match is a version of 2004’s Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, built from the ground up for present entertainment systems. However, while]…]

The article Metal Gear Solid Delta Missed the Opportunity for a Bolder Remake appeared second on Den of Geek.

In 1978, Superman made us believe a person could fly. However, Batman made film producers accept that graphic book reports as a distinct narrative may generate income in 1989. In the darkness of Batman&#8217, s large payday, Hollywood gave the green to materials that they would earlier ignore. Although that IP-hunt was truly profitable for the Dark Knight, who returned to cinemas in numerous sequels and in the animated movie Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, it mainly focused on B- and C-level figures, the majority of whom did not come from DC or Marvel Comics. And also thoses that did, tended to be from the rear bench. So in this modern era of MCU and DC hegemony at the box office, let&#8217, s look up at a man and now antiquated time in hero film. At most of it, I suppose.

*Editor&#8217, s Note: We are looking at films that had a impact in domestic theatrical release, which means that you won&#8217, t find the Filipino hit Darna here. Additionally, this list will concentrate on films with superhero-inspired characters from comic books. Thus Dick Tracy, with the title character &#8217, s distinctive outfit and abilities, earns him inclusion on the list, but Richie Rich&#8216, s largess does not.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ( 1990 )

In the 1990s, movie studios were hesitant to adapt comic books, but they surprisingly rarely wanted to do so faithfully. Too often they would just take some names and iconography from the comics and shove it into a radically different type of story. That attitude makes the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from 1990 all the more impressive. Directed by Steve Barron and written by Todd W. Langen and Bobby Herbeck, the film draws most of its inspiration from the gritty first miniseries that spawned the phenomenon, as opposed to the more popular cartoon series.

As a result, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles holds up remarkably well, and continues to work better than other cinematic adaptations of the heroes in a half-shell ( though Mutant Mayhem comes close ). For a children’s film, there is an edge to this one with a dark color palette and some comparatively tense action. It also takes its quartet of heroes seriously enough that the viewer does n&#8217, t have to as they scarf down pizza and shout &#8220, cowabunga. &#8221,

Dick Tracy ( 1990 )

Most of the movies on this list went into production because of Batman and later Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. For Warren Beatty’s true passion project Dick Tracy, the opposite is true. For years Beatty tried to bring to the big screen Chester Gould &#8217, s hatchet-faced detective and his grotesque rouges gallery. At first glance, Beatty’s perseverance was worthwhile because Dick Tracy is not only accurate to its comic strip roots thanks to John Caglione Jr.’s incredible makeup and production design but also a source of top-notch talent. With Beatty &#8217, s insistence on using just seven basic colors &#8212, the same you would have found in the funny pages of the 1940s&#8212, the film has a visual pop art look that has never quite been matched.

Ironically however, Beatty himself drags down Dick Tracy with his refusal to cover his own handsome mug in makeup or to give Tracy much of a personality beyond &#8220, dashing hero. His one-note copper never manages to be as compelling as the villains and women who live there, giving the film a feel of both overindulgent and undercooked.

Captain America ( 1990 )

But wait a minute! &#8220 &#8221, I hear you saying. &#8220, I thought you said it was all B- and C-listers in the 1990s! Why was a movie made for Captain America? &#8221, The answer is simple. Captain America was in the second tier of Marvel superheroes in the 1960s when compared to Spider-Man, the X-Men, and even the Hulk. In fact, this 1990 direct-to-video movie, directed by Albert Pyun and starring Matt Salinger ( son of J. D. ) only proves this fact. While the film certainly has its charms, including a score that Alan Silvestri quoted for 2011&#8217, s Captain America: The First Avenger, it &#8217, s overstuffed script turns man-out-of-time Steve Rogers into an inert passenger in his own film.

The Ooze: The Secret of the Ooze ( 1991 ) is a sequel to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Rather than read this entry on the 1991 sequel Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze, just read everything I said about the original movie and reverse it. The sequel is a train wreck, not to say that, but it draws as much from the cartoon as it can from the comics and attempts to be as unoffensive as possible. The puppet work remains impressive, courtesy of Jim Henson&#8217, s creature shop, especially with new additions Tokka and Rahzar, and it &#8217, s nice to see &#8217, 90s karate kid Ernie Reyes Jr. do his thing.

But outside of nostalgia, there&#8217, s very little reason to revisit Secret of the Ooze thirty years later. Despite that, some people in this country will still wear those nostalgia goggles when they play the drums for Go Ninja, Vanilla Ice, and rap…

The Rocketeer ( 1991 )

One would expect a Disney adaptation of the Rocketeer to fall short in every conceivable way given that artist Dave Stevens drew inspiration from Bettie Page to design hero Cliff Secord&#8217, s best gal Betty. And yet, The Rocketeer remains one of the true gems of &#8217, 90s superhero movies, thanks to the incredible talent involved. That talent begins with director Joe Johnston, who understands how to make high adventure from the sepia-tone nostalgia that drove the original comics. The Rocketeer is Disney doing pulp adventure correctly under Johnston&#8217, s direction, as well as some crackerjack performances from Alan Arkin as Cliff&#8217, s mentor and Timothy Dalton as an Errol Flynn-esque Nazi secret agent hiding in Hollywood. Enhanced by James Horner&#8217, s glorious score, Also Jennifer Connelly certainly could have played Bettie.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III ( 1993 )

After the diminished returns from the goofy Secret of the Ooze, one would understand why New Line Cinema would return to rougher roots for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. That roughness comes in the form of feudal Japan, to which the Turtles are transported and welcomed as mystical creatures meant to intercede in a war involving local factions and foreign invaders. Director Stuart Gillard, however, treats the subject matter with sultifying seriousness, creating a terribly uninteresting film. Meanwhile scenes set in the present day, in which Casey Jones ( Elias Koteas, returning for some reason to the franchise ) gets time-displaced samurai to goof off, goes too far in other direction. In consequence, TMNT III is able to annoy everyone and please no one.

Cemetery Man ( 1994 )

We&#8217, re stretching things a bit to call Dylan Dog, the cynical paranormal investigator created by Italian artist Tiziano Sclavi, a superhero. However, we’d argue that Cemetery Man‘s signature red shirt and gift for dealing with the supernatural make up the rest of the list thanks to Dellamorte Dellamore, also known as Cemetery Man. Director Michele Soavi gets a casting coup by placing Rupert Everett as the lead. After all, Scalvi modeled the actor after the English actor.

Everett brings the appropriate disaffected cool to a story involving a zombie invasion in a small town, and he has excellent chemistry with the stunning Anna Falchi as the wife of a rich man for whom he falls. But Cemetery Man&#8216, s obsession with François Hadji-Lazaro&#8217, s mugging and irritating performance as a mentally challenged man undoes a lot of the tone building the film attempts.

The Crow ( 1994) )

Speaking of tone-building, it &#8217, s hard to outdo what Alex Proyas accomplished with The Crow. In a film based on the independent revenge comic by James O&#8217, Brandon Lee portrays Eric Draven who was shot dead by a gang led by Michael Wincott and his fiancée ( Sofia Shinas ) a year later. Guided by the titular fowl, Eric brutally makes his way to Top Dollar by destroying thugs while a weary detective ( Ernie Hudson ) cleans up the mess left behind.

Admittedly pretty one-note in terms of plotting, there&#8217, s no denying that The Crow maintains a unique sense of style absent from most comic book films today. The Crow&#8216, a hellish cityscape, combines elements of both Grimm fairy tale and neo noir with the film’s urban Gothic grandeur, which far outweighs Tim Burton&#8217, Tim Burton&#8217, and Batman‘s more kid-friendly aesthetic. Yet there remains a sensitive beauty to the film, largely informed by Lee &#8217, s haunted performance. And it persists even more when one is aware that he passed away while making the movie.

The Mask ( 1994 )

When bringing the Dark Horse comic The Mask to screen, producers at New Line Cinema wisely abandoned the mean-spiritedness of the source material. Jim Carrey was about to break out, which was even better because they were able to cast him right away, giving him the perfect opportunity to showcase his rubber-faced skills. Although its &#8217, the ( still incredible looking ) live-action cartoon sequences that most people remember today, the scenes in which Carrey plays put-upon Stanley Ipkiss deserve more attention, as they foreshadow the dramatic chops that the actor would later develop in movies such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Cameron Diaz made his acting debut with the movie in the form of a 1940s femme fatale, complete with a truly swinging swing number during the genre’s brief mainstream renaissance. It&#8217, s all the more remarkable since director Chuck Russell told us he had to fight for her casting.

Timecop ( 1994 )

Even though one of the adaptations is less obvious in its comic book roots, Dark Horse Comics did two in theaters in 1994. The movie is inspired by Dark Horse editor Mike Richardson, writer Mark Verheiden, and artist Ron Randall&#8217, s &#8220, Time Cop: A Man Out of Time&#8221, for the 1992 anthology series, Dark Horse Presents. A movie version, starring Jean-Claude Van Damme as Max Walker and using the idea of a law enforcement agency for time travelers, was released two years later. Although Verheiden wrote the movie script, Timecop, directed by Peter Hyams, deviates heavily from the original comic. Yet given that Richardson commissioned the original story with an eye toward a movie adaptation ( same with The Mask, incidentally ), it &#8217, s hard to get upset at the differences.

Tank Girl ( 1995 )

Although even Tank Girl creators Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett expressed disappointment in the 1996 movie based on their comic series, the film soon developed a cult following. It is obvious why the rebels ‘ tale in a post-apocalyptic world would appeal to viewers. Director Rachel Talalay, working from a script by Tedi Sarafian, gives Lori Petty plenty of space to play a punk agent of chaos. However, whenever the movie starts paying attention to its plot, which involves hideously rendered kangaroo men and Malcom McDowell doing his usual bad guy thing, Tank Girl moves as slowly as its titular vehicle. Although Petty is still a delight today, the film has the feel of a draft for Margot Robbie’s portrayal of Harley Quinn decades later.

Judge Dredd ( 1995 )

Judge Dredd fails as an adaptation, objectively speaking. Star Sylvester Stallone puts his screen presence over the character, which means that instead of playing a fascist law enforcer who never removes his mask, Stallone portrays, well, a standard Stallone action hero. Worse still, Judge Dredd belongs to that ignoble group of &#8217, 90s movies that featured Rob Schneider as a &#8220, funny &#8221, sidekick. The oppressive megacity set designs by Nigel Phelps are still quite compelling, and the strange world that director Danny Cannon and his team create frequently reminds one of the mutant dystopia from the 2000 AD comics.

Black Mask ( 1995 )

The superhero comedy Black Mask, like the other mask movies on this list, works as a comic book adaptation because its star performs all the special effects himself. Where Jim Carrey made the Mask antihero feel like a living cartoon, Jet Li&#8216, s martial arts excellence brought to life the 1992 comic that inspired it. Li stars as a librarian who gains amazing abilities when a secret military operation chooses him as a test subject for a super soldier program. Director Daniel Lee gives Black Mask enough personality to stand out in Li&#8217’s filmography, which gives it a sense of place that matches the other distinct cities on this list.

Barb Wire ( 1996 )

Nobody will likely be interested in seeing the movie because Barb Wire adapts a well-known Dark Horse Comics tale about a futuristic mercenary. Nor, really, would the fact that it stars Pamela Anderson, who spends the opening credits doing a striptease while being hosed down with water.

But what if I told you that Barb Wire was a movie staring Pamela Anderson as a sexy future mercenary and is also a riff on Casablanca? What if I included great &#8221, like Temuera Morrison, Udo Kier, and Xander Berkeley, all of whom lean into the absurdity of creating a trashy adaptation of a classic movie? That&#8217, s not enough to make Barb Wire good, exactly, but it is a far more interesting movie than one might assume.

The Phantom ( 2002 )

Defenders of the 1966 Batman series are quick to point out that Adam West &#8217, s stiff performance as the Dark Knight is a good thing, as it honors the square-jawed character from the comic. The same is true of Billy Zane in the lead role of The Phantom. The ridiculously handsome but dramatically limited Zane makes sense as a white man who lives as a mythical figure in the African jungle. Of course it helps that he&#8217, s paired against a wonderful Treat Williams as the cad villain and Catherine Zeta-Jones as vampy sky pirate. The Phantom receives the same campy, pulpy humor as the original Lee Falk comic strip, but Simon Wincer, the director, and Jeffrey Boam, the screenwriter, make that silly stuff.

Vampirella ( 1996 )

For a long time, Fantastic Four fans insisted that the 1994 Roger Corman produced movie was still the best film version of the team. If the movie had actually been released, one might wonder how a reputation like that would have developed. If the reception to Corman&#8217, s 1996 production of Vampirella is any indication, the answer is &#8220, no. &#8221,

On the surface, the movie has what a Vampirella adaptation needs: a pretty lady in a skimpy outfit ( Talisa Soto ), plus a plot about alien bloodsuckers on Earth ( led by the Who&#8217, s Roger Daltrey as the villain ). Yet director Jim Wynorski and screenwriter Gary Gerani approach the material with so little interest that even a game lead can save Vampirella from being a dull mockery of the comics it claims to adapt.

Spawn ’97

Spawn is a movie about a hero who leaves Hell on a mission of revenge. Most viewers believe they have been sentenced to eternal damnation after five minutes of John Leguizamo performing a motormouth comedy riff while wearing hideous clown outfits. Spawn the movie came out just a few years after Todd McFarlane introduced the character through Image Comics, and the film retains all the limitations of that initial run: lots of surface-level edgy designs, a preponderance of lore, and zero character stakes.

Michael Jai White does a good job playing the anger of hero Al Simmons, and the film &#8217, s practical effects still look great. However, Spawn is only for those who crave punishment because of Leguizamo&#8217, his grating performance, and the worst CGI to ever appear in a Hollywood movie.

Steel ( 1997 )

Okay, let’s get this out of the way right away. You could replace Shaquille O&#8217, Neal with an actual lump of metal and it would have more charisma and screen presence than the basketball player/insurance pitchman who plays inventor-turned-hero John Henry Irons. And we should probably also acknowledge that the movie version of Steel has little to nothing in common with the excellent character from DC Comics, even though he was just four years old when Steel hit theaters.

However, Steel has an incredible charm that makes it impossible to hate. The story of a man who wants to help his beleaguered community always plays well, especially when O&#8217, Neal&#8217, s significant shortcomings are more than covered by an able cast, including Annabeth Gish as Steel&#8217, s sidekick, Judd Nelson as glowering villain Burke, and Richard Roundtree and Irma P. Hall as elders who guide John on his mission.

Men in Black ( 2000 )

It&#8217, s common knowledge that the next movie on this list is the first good Marvel movie. Men in Black may be a perfect film, and it may technically be based on a Marvel comic, but that does n&#8217, t detract from the Daywalker&#8217, s achievement. That&#8217 is because Men in Black is n&#8217 is n&#8217, a true Marvel comic. Writer Lowell Cunningham and artist Sandy Carruthers originally made The Men in Black for Aircel Comics, which was acquired by Malibu Comics, which was finally in turn acquired by Marvel.

Whatever the origin, it was worthwhile to watch the flawless thrill ride that Barry Sonnenfeld and Ed Solomon, with Vincent D&#8217, Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, and Vincent D&#8217, put together, made it possible.

Blade ( 1998 )

It&#8217, s a testament to the excellence of the first Blade movie that, even today, in this era of MCU domination, no one can figure out how to make a better movie about the Daywalker. Wesley Snipes, who completely plays the role, dropped the lines about skating uphill with believable ease, to account for half of that. But the other equally important half is due to director Stephen Norrington, who crafts a cool, stylish, and satisfying movie. Blade ushered in the era of great superhero movies, from the incredible blood-roof opening scene to the epic showdown with Deacon Frost ( Stephen Dorff ).

Mystery Men ( 1999 )

Mystery Men has an incredible script and a fantastic cast. In fact, Mystery Men is a fun movie despite having some of the worst direction in Hollywood history. The script and cast are so good. An ensemble cast that includes Ben Stiller, William H. Macy, Wes Studi, and Paul Reubens brings to life a group of loser superheroes from the odd ball comic series Flaming Carrot, adding real pathos to its team of rejects. Mystery Men is an unlikely cult classic thanks to its kooky ensemble energy and forward-thinking cynicism toward cape stuff, despite director Kinka Usher feeling the need to punctuate every moment with squishy noises and fisheye lenses.

The post The Weird Comic Book Movies of the 1990s ( That Aren&#8217, t Batman &amp, Robin ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

One of the most successful soft knowledge we have at our disposal is the ability to work together to improve our patterns while developing our own abilities and opinions, in whatever form it takes, and whatever it may 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 feedback can cause conflict in jobs, lower motivation, and negatively impact faith and teamwork over the long term. Quality comments can be a revolutionary force.

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

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

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

The material

The content of the feedback serves as the foundation for every effective criticism, so we need to start there. There are many designs that you can use to form your content. The one that I personally like best—because it’s obvious and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

This formula is typically used to provide feedback to people, but it also fits really well in a pattern 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 something that needs to be improved. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

Here is a comment that could be included in some feedback, and it might appear reasonable at first glance because it appears to partially fulfill the requirements. But does it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I spent a while working on improving my feedback, conducting anonymous feedback reviews and sharing feedback with others. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Surprise surprise, 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 person in this other team who had always preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

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

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

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

The equation above is not intended to provide a predetermined template for feedback, but rather a mnemonic to reflect and enhance the practice. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

The tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. It’s important to keep in mind that having a positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean passing judgment on the feedback; rather, it simply means that you give it constructive and respectful feedback, whether it be difficult or positive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. When I shared a comment and asked someone I trusted,” How does this sound,”” How can I do it better,” or even” How would you have written it,” I discovered that the best, most insightful moments for me occurred when I saw 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 reviewing it and leaving a comment. Let’s try to think about some factors that might be helpful to consider, as there are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course a factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final note: say the obvious. Sometimes we might feel 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. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. Especially in large projects,” Why did we do this”? There’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time, which could be a question that arises from time to time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved.

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

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

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

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

Design criticism is 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.

And suddenly, as with any great research, we need to review what we got up, get to the base of its perspectives, and take activity. Problem, generation, and analysis. This look at each of those.

The query

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

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

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

There isn’t a second best method to request comments. It simply needs to be certain, and sensitivity can take several shapes. The stage than depth model for design critique has been a particularly helpful tool for my coaching.

” Stage” refers to each of the actions of the process—in our event, the design process. The kind of feedback changes as the consumer research moves forward 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 layers of user experience could serve as a starting point for potential questions. What do you want to know: Project objectives? user requirements? Functionality? the content Interaction design? Information architecture UI design? Navigation planning? Visual design? Branding?

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

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

The other axis of specificity is determined by how far you would like to go with the presentation. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful from one iteration 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 achieve more specific—and more effective—questions.

A quick fix is to get rid of the generic qualifiers from questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool.” For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? is possible to appear specific, but the “good” qualifier can be found in an even better question,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is?”

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

Sometimes the project is particularly broad, and some areas may have already been thoroughly explored. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. Although it’s not something I’d recommend in general, I’ve found it helpful in avoiding 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

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

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

There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The review

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

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

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

The first friction is being forced to respond to every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s just a few of them, it’s simple, and there isn’t much of a problem with it. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the respondent is a stakeholder or a person who is directly involved in the project and whom we feel we need to speak with. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. When 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. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
• Another option is to respond politely to acknowledge each comment, such as” Understood. Thank you”,” Good points— I’ll review”, or” Thanks. These will be included in the upcoming iteration. In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of” Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon”!
• Another option is to quickly summarize the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

The swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from a member of the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements —or of the discussions from earlier iterations. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments frequently prompt the simple thought,” We’ve already discussed this,” and it can be frustrating to have to keep coming back and forth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I started by making a design for a 960px canvas that I would later add glad to. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect precision using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute setting.

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

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

A new way to style

Removing restrictions and creating content that can be viewed on any device has always been the goal of designing responsive or liquid websites. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved with local CSS and power groups:

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

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

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

Media questions

The next ingredient for reactive 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 questions 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 tiny- 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 pieces.

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

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

Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

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

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

In other words, responsive elements are meant to replace responsive layouts.

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

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

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?

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

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

CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrinsic layouts

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

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

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

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

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

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

Another 2010 moment?

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

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. Nowadays, projects use existing tools and frameworks and are often improvements to existing websites with an existing codebase.

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

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

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

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

Because the benefit of having a selection of units is a hindrance when it comes to 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.

And then there are design tools. We probably all used Photoshop templates for desktop, tablet, and mobile devices at some point in our careers to drop designs in and demonstrate how the site would look at each of the three stages.

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

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

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

First, the content

Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unanticipated or unexpected, we must take into account changes in content, like in our earlier Subgrid card illustration, which allowed the cards to modify both their own content and that of their sibling components.

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. In the past, this was often achieved with Sass mixins but was often limited to switching from left-to-right to right-to-left orientation.

Directional variables must be specified in the Sass version.

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

These variables can be used as values—

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

—or as real estate.

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

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

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

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

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

Fluid and fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the situation

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

It’s a 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.

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

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

Responsible design

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

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

Chris Ashton

One of the biggest assumptions we make is that people interacting with our designs have a good wifi connection and a wide screen monitor. However, 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. 

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

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

So how can we put users in control?

The media queries are now being returned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect the unexpected

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

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

A lot of the CSS discussed here is about moving away from layouts and putting content at the heart of design. There are still many more things we can do to adopt a more intrinsic approach, from responsive to fluid and fixed. 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 usable when people need them, whenever and wherever that may be. We can move closer to achieving this by involving users in our design decisions, by creating choice via browsers, and by giving control to our users with user-preference-based media queries.

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

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 discussions, and only recently have we outsourced them to the system, a system that exhibits a significantly higher affection for written letter than for the vernacular rigors of spoken language.

Laptops have trouble because between spoken and written speech, talk is more primitive. Machines must wrestle with the complexity of human statement, including the disfluencies and pauses, the gestures and body speech, and the variations in phrase choice and spoken dialect, which may impede even the most skillfully crafted human-computer interaction. In the human-to-human scenario, spoken language also has the privilege of face-to-face contact, where we can readily interpret nonverbal social cues.

In contrast, written language develops its own fossil record of dated terms and phrases as we record it and retain usages long after they are no longer relevant in spoken communication ( for example, the salutation” To whom it may concern” ). Because it tends to be more consistent, polished, and formal, written text is fundamentally much easier for machines to parse and understand.

Spoken language lacks this luxury. Besides the nonverbal cues that decorate conversations with emphasis and emotional context, there are also verbal cues and vocal behaviors that modulate conversation in nuanced ways: how something is said, not what. Our spoken language conveys much more than the written word could ever contain, whether it be rapid-fire, low-pitched, or high-decibel, sarcastic, stilted, or sighing. So when it comes to voice interfaces—the machines we conduct spoken conversations with—we face exciting challenges as designers and content strategists.

Voice-to-voice interactions

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

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

These three categories, which I refer to as transactional, informational, and prosocial, also apply to essentially every voice interaction: a single conversation that starts with the voice interface’s first greeting and ends with the user leaving the interface. Note here that a conversation in our human sense—a chat between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass multiple transactional, informational, and prosocial voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but it may not always be one voice interaction.

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

That leaves two different types of conversations we can have with one another that a voice interface can also have easily, including one that is transactional and one that is informational, teaching us 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. Even when we walk up to the counter and place an order, the conversation quickly pivots from an initial smattering of neighborly small talk to the real mission at hand: ordering a pizza ( generously topped with pineapple, as it should be ).

How are things going, Alison?

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

Alison: Can I get a pizza from Hawaii with extra pineapple.

Burhan: Sure, what size?

Large, Alison.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

Burhan: You got it. It will cost about$ 15 and take fifteen minutes to complete.

Each progressive disclosure in this transactional conversation reveals more and more of the desired outcome of the transaction: a service rendered or a product delivered. Conversations that are transactional have certain characteristics: they are direct, concise, and cost-effective. They quickly dispense with pleasantries.

Informational voice interactions

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

How are things going, Alison?

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

Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

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

Burhan: Absolutely! On request, we can make any pie halal. We also have lots of vegetarian, ovo-lacto, and vegan options. Are you considering any additional dietary restrictions?

Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

Burhan: For both our deep-dish and thin-crust pizzas, we can definitely make a gluten-free crust for you, without a problem. Anything else I can answer for you?

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

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

This dialogue is entirely different. Here, the goal is to get a certain set of facts. Informational conversations are research expeditions that seek the truth through information gathering. 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

Voice interfaces essentially use speech to assist users in accomplishing their objectives. But simply 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

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

IVR systems allowed organizations to reduce their reliance on call centers but soon became notorious 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 conversations than we’re used to in real life ( or even in science fiction ), despite being extremely repetitive and monotonous conversations that typically don’t veer from a single format.

Screen readers

The invention of the screen reader, a tool that converts visual content into synthesized speech, was a development of IVR systems in parallel. For Blind or visually impaired website users, it’s the predominant method of interacting with text, multimedia, or form elements. The most recent version of a voice-over-text format of content delivery is probably the one that is closest to it.

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 computers with graphical user interfaces ( GUIs ) ( ).

With the rapid growth of the web in the 1990s, the demand for accessible tools for websites exploded. Screen readers started facilitating quick 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 with the introduction of semantic HTML and especially ARIA roles in 2008, enabling speedy interactions with the pages. In other words, screen readers for the web “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” ( ).

Although incredibly instructive for voice interface designers, screen readers have a major flaw: they’re challenging to use and consistently verbose. The visual structures of websites and web navigation don’t translate well to screen readers, sometimes resulting in unwieldy pronouncements that name every manipulable HTML element and announce every formatting change. Working with web-based interfaces takes a cognitive toll for many screen reader users.

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

I disliked the operation of Screen Readers 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 of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the experience for blind users. ( ) _ _ _

In many cases, well-designed voice interfaces can speed users to their destination better than long-winded screen reader monologues. After all, users of the visual interface have the advantage of freely scurrying around the viewport to find information without worrying about 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 assistants

Many of us immediately associate voice assistants with the popular subset of voice interfaces found in living rooms, smart homes, and offices with the film A Space Odyssey or with Majel Barrett’s voice as the omniscient computer from Star Trek. Voice assistants are akin to personal concierges that can answer questions, schedule appointments, conduct searches, and perform other common day-to-day tasks. And they’re quickly 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 ). It wasn’t until 2011 that Apple’s Siri finally entered the picture, making voice assistants a tangible reality for consumers.

There is a significant variation in how programmable and customizable some voice assistants are compared to others due to the sheer number of voice assistants available today ( Fig 1 ). At one extreme, everything except vendor-provided features is locked down, for example, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be extended beyond their existing capabilities. There are no other means by which developers can interact with Siri at a low level, aside from predefined categories of tasks like sending messages, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and other things, which are still unavoidable 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 allow for customization and extensibility. Amazon offers the Alexa Skills Kit, a developer framework for building custom voice interfaces for Amazon Alexa, while Google Home offers the ability to program arbitrary Google Assistant skills. Users of the Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant ecosystems can choose from among the thousands of custom-built skills available today.

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, such as Google’s Dialogflow, have omnichannel capabilities that allow users to create a single conversational interface that then becomes a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. I don’t prescribe any specific implementation approaches in this design-focused book, but in Chapter 4 we’ll get into some of the implications these variables might have on the way you build out your design artifacts.

Voice Content

Simply put, voice content is content delivered through voice. 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.

For many of us, our first foray into informational voice interfaces will be to deliver content to users. One issue is that any content we already have isn’t in any way suitable for this new environment. So how do we make the content trapped 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. Back in 2002, well before the present-day ubiquity of voice assistants, technologist Anil Dash defined microcontent as permalinked pieces of content that stay legible regardless of environment, such as email or text messages:

An example of microcontent can be a day’s weather forecast [sic], an airplane flight’s arrival and departure times, an abstract from a lengthy publication, or a single instant message. ( ) _ _ _

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. Informing delivery channels both established and novel, Microcontent provides the best opportunity to find out how your content can be stretched to the limits of its potential.

As microcontent, voice content is unique because it’s an example of how content is experienced in time rather than in space. We can instantly look at a digital sign for an instant and be informed when the next train is coming, but voice interfaces keep our attention captive for so long that we can’t quickly evade or skip, a feature that screen reader users are all too familiar with.

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

Fundamentally, how voice content manifests in perceived time and space both affect the legibility and discoverability of our voice content.

In the 1950s, several members of the elite running group had come to accept the idea that it was impossible to run a hour in less than four hours. Riders had been attempting it since the later 19th century and were beginning to draw the conclusion that the human body just wasn’t built for the job.

However, on May 6, 1956, Roger Bannister caught people by shock. It was a cold, damp morning in Oxford, England—conditions no one expected to give themselves to record-setting—and but Bannister did really that, running a mile in 3: 59.4 and becoming the first people in the history books to run a mile in under four hours.

The world then knew that the four-minute hour was possible because of this change in the standard. Bannister’s history lasted just forty-six days, when it was snatched aside by American sprinter John Landy. Finally, in the same race, three athletes all managed to cross the four-minute challenge. Since therefore, over 1, 400 walkers have actually run a mile in under four days, the current document is 3: 43.13, held by Moroccan performer Hicham El Guerrouj.

We can do a lot more with what we think is possible, and we can only do it if we see that someone else has already done it. As with people running speed, there are also difficult limits on how a website can accomplish.

Establishing requirements for a green website

The key indicators of climate performance in most big companies are very well established, such as power per square metre for homes and miles per gallon for cars. The tools and methods for calculating those measures are standardized as well, which keeps everyone on the same site when doing economic evaluations. However, in the world of websites and apps, we aren’t held to any specific environmental standards, and we have only recently developed the tools and methods we need to also conduct an environmental assessment.

The main objective in green web layout is to reduce carbon emissions. However, it’s nearly impossible to accurately assess the CO₂ output of a online product. We didn’t measure the pollutants coming out of the exhaust valves on our laptops. The pollution coming from power plants that burn coal and oil are far apart, out of sight, and out of mind. We have no way to track the particles from a website or app up to the power station where the light is being generated and really know the exact amount of house oil produced. What then do we do?

If we can‘t measure the actual carbon emissions, then we need to get what we can estimate. The following are the main elements that could be used as coal pollution gauges:

1. Transfer of data
2. Electricity’s carbon power

Let’s take a look at how we can use these indicators to calculate the energy use, and in turn the carbon footprint, of the sites and web applications we create.

Transfer of data

Most researchers use kilowatt-hours per gigabyte (k Wh/GB ) as a metric of energy efficiency when measuring the amount of data transferred over the internet when a website or application is used. This serves as a reliable indicator of how much power is being consumed and how much carbon is being released. As a rule of thumb, the more files transferred, the more electricity used in the data center, telecoms systems, and end users products.

The webpage weight, or the page’s transfer size in kilobytes, can be most readily calculated for a second visit for web pages. It’s very easy to measure using the engineer equipment in any modern internet browser. Statistics for the total data transfer of any web application are frequently included in your web hosting account ( Fig. 2.1 ).

The great thing about website weight as a parameter is that it allows us to compare the effectiveness of web pages on a level playing field without confusing the issue with frequently changing traffic volumes.

A large scope is required to reduce page weight. By early 2020, the median page weight was 1.97 MB for setups the HTTP Archive classifies as “desktop” and 1.77 MB for “mobile”, with desktop increasing 36 percent since January 2016 and mobile page weights nearly doubling in the same period ( Fig 2.2 ). Image files account for roughly half of this data transfer, making them the single biggest contributor to carbon emissions on a typical website.

History clearly shows us that our web pages can be smaller, if only we set our minds to it. While most technologies, including the underlying technology of the web like data centers and transmission networks, become more and more energy efficient, websites themselves become less effective as time goes on.

You might be aware of the idea behind performance budgeting as a method for directing a project team to deliver faster user experiences. For example, we might specify that the website must load in a maximum of one second on a broadband connection and three seconds on a 3G connection. Performance budgets are upper limits rather than vague suggestions, much like speed limits while driving, so the goal should always be to come within budget.

Designing for fast performance does often lead to reduced data transfer and emissions, but it isn’t always the case. Page weight and transfer size are more objective and reliable benchmarks for sustainable web design, but web performance is frequently more about the subjective perception of load times than it is about the underlying system’s true efficiency.

We can set a page weight budget in reference to a benchmark of industry averages, using data from sources like HTTP Archive. We can also use competitor page weight to compare the new website to the old one. For example, we might set a maximum page weight budget as equal to our most efficient competitor, or we could set the benchmark lower to guarantee we are best in class.

We could start looking at the transferability of our web pages for repeat visitors if we want to take it one step further. Although page weight for the first time someone visits is the easiest thing to measure, and easy to compare on a like-for-like basis, we can learn even more if we start looking at transfer size in other scenarios too. For instance, visitors who load the same page more frequently are likely to have a high percentage of the files cached in their browser, which means they don’t need to move all the files on subsequent visits. Likewise, a visitor who navigates to new pages on the same website will likely not need to load the full page each time, as some global assets from areas like the header and footer may already be cached in their browser. We can learn even more about how to optimize efficiency for users who regularly visit our pages by measuring transfer size at this next level of detail, which will also enable us to establish page weight budgets for situations that extend beyond the initial visit.

Page weight budgets are easy to track throughout a design and development process. Although they don’t actually provide direct information on carbon emissions and energy consumption, they do provide a clear indicator of efficiency in comparison to other websites. And as transfer size is an effective analog for energy consumption, we can actually use it to estimate energy consumption too.

In summary, less data transfer leads to more energy efficiency, a crucial component of reducing web product carbon emissions. The more efficient our products, the less electricity they use, and the less fossil fuels need to be burned to produce the electricity to power them. However, as we’ll see next, it’s important to take into account the source of that electricity because all web products require some.

Electricity’s carbon power

Regardless of energy efficiency, the level of pollution caused by digital products depends on the carbon intensity of the energy being used to power them. The term” carbon intensity” (gCO₂/k Wh ) is used to describe how much carbon dioxide is produced for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This varies widely, with renewable energy sources and nuclear having an extremely low carbon intensity of less than 10 gCO₂/k Wh ( even when factoring in their construction ), whereas fossil fuels have very high carbon intensity of approximately ₂00–400 gCO₂/k Wh.

The majority of electricity is produced by national or state grids, where energy from a variety of sources is combined with various levels of carbon intensity. The distributed nature of the internet means that a single user of a website or app might be using energy from multiple different grids simultaneously, a website user in Paris uses electricity from the French national grid to power their home internet and devices, but the website’s data center could be in Dallas, USA, pulling electricity from the Texas grid, while the telecoms networks use energy from everywhere between Dallas and Paris.

Although we have some control over where our projects are hosted, we do not have complete control over the energy supply of web services. With a data center using a significant proportion of the energy of any website, locating the data center in an area with low carbon energy will tangibly reduce its carbon emissions. Danish startup Tomorrow reports and maps the user-provided data, and a look at their map demonstrates how, for instance, choosing a data center in France will result in significantly lower carbon emissions than choosing a data center in the Netherlands ( Fig. 2.3 ).

However, we don’t want to move our servers too far away from our users because it requires a lot of energy to transmit data through the telecom’s networks, and the more energy is used, the further the data travels. Just like food miles, we can think of the distance from the data center to the website’s core user base as “megabyte miles” —and we want it to be as small as possible.

We can use website analytics to determine the country, state, or even city where our core user group is located and measure the distance between that location and the data center that our hosting company uses as a benchmark. This will be a somewhat fuzzy metric as we don’t know the precise center of mass of our users or the exact location of a data center, but we can at least get a rough idea.

For instance, if a website is hosted in London but the main audience is on the United States ‘ West Coast, we could calculate the distance between San Francisco and London, which is 5,300 miles. That’s a long way! We can see how hosting it somewhere in North America, ideally on the West Coast, would significantly shorten the distance and the amount of energy needed to transmit the data. In addition, locating our servers closer to our visitors helps reduce latency and delivers better user experience, so it’s a win-win.

Reverting it to carbon emissions

If we combine carbon intensity with a calculation for energy consumption, we can calculate the carbon emissions of our websites and apps. The method my team developed converts the data transferred over wire when loading a website into a CO₂ figure ( Fig. ₂.4), calculating the associated electricity, and then converting that data into a figure ( Fig. ₂.4). It also factors in whether or not the web hosting is powered by renewable energy.

The Energy and Emissions Worksheet that comes with this book teaches you how to improve it and tailor the data more appropriately to your project’s unique features.

We could even expand our page weight budget by establishing carbon budgets as well with the ability to calculate carbon emissions for our projects. CO₂ is not a metric commonly used in web projects, we’re more familiar with kilobytes and megabytes, and can fairly easily look at design options and files to assess how big they are. Although translating that into carbon adds a layer of abstraction that isn’t as intuitive, carbon budgets do focus our minds on the main thing we’re trying to reduce, which supports the main goal of sustainable web design: reducing carbon emissions.

Browser Energy

Transfer of data might be the simplest and most complete analog for energy consumption in our digital projects, but by giving us one number to represent the energy used in the data center, the telecoms networks, and the end user’s devices, it can’t offer us insights into the efficiency in any specific part of the system.

One part of the system we can look at in more detail is the energy used by end users ‘ devices. The computational load is increasingly shifting from the data center to users ‘ devices, whether they are phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, or even smart TVs, as front-end web technologies advance. Modern web browsers allow us to implement more complex styling and animation on the fly using CSS and JavaScript. Additionally, JavaScript libraries like Angular and React make it possible to create applications where the” thinking” process is performed either partially or completely in the browser.

All of these advances are exciting and open up new possibilities for what the web can do to serve society and create positive experiences. However, more computation in a web browser requires more energy to be used by the user’s devices. This has implications not just environmentally, but also for user experience and inclusivity. Applications that put a lot of processing power on a user’s device unintentionally exclude those who have older, slower devices and make the batteries on phones and laptops drain more quickly. Furthermore, if we build web applications that require the user to have up-to-date, powerful devices, people throw away old devices much more frequently. The poorest members of society are also under disproportionate financial burdens due to this, which is not just bad for the environment.

In part because the tools are limited, and partly because there are so many different models of devices, it’s difficult to measure website energy consumption on end users ‘ devices. The Energy Impact monitor inside the developer console of the Safari browser is one of the tools we currently have ( Fig. 2.5 ).

You are aware of the moment your computer’s cooling fans start spinning so frantically that you mistakenly believe it might take off when you load a website? That’s essentially what this tool is measuring.

It uses these figures to create an energy impact rating based on the percentage of CPU used and how long it took the web page to load. It doesn’t give us precise data for the amount of electricity used in kilowatts, but the information it does provide can be used to benchmark how efficiently your websites use energy and set targets for improvement.