Blog

This article contains spoilers for Peacemaker season 2 episode 1. How is he going to deal with the Justice League? That question is usually reserved for Lex Luthor or Braniac, big baddies in the DC Universe. But as we head into the second season of Peacemaker, that question has increasingly been directed at James Gunn. […]

The post Peacemaker Season 2 Fixes the DCU Canon Before the Opening Credits Roll appeared first on Den of Geek.

In a March 2025 interview with Howard Stern to promote his Apple TV+ comedy The Studio, Seth Rogen described what drives his character Matt Remick, head of fictional Hollywood studio Continental.

“What’s so frustrating about Hollywood, and what’s so alluring about these delusions of grandeur – especially if you run a movie studio – is that you think you might be the person to course correct all of Hollywood,” he said. “Singular people have done that. But if you were someone who was willing to buy into the delusions of grandeur of all of it, you could view yourself as the person who single-handedly saves Hollywood.”

Spoiler alert: Matt Remick doesn’t save Hollywood. Funnily enough though, Rogen may have helped to save television this year all the same. That’s because Rogen and company’s delightful 10-episode series is just one of many 2025 cable and streaming efforts that understood the assignment.

From Apple TV+’s Severance to HBO Max’s The Pitt to FX’s Alien: Earth and beyond, this year has been filled with projects that have respect for TV as an episodic medium. And while the weekly release format remains more of a novelty than a fact of life in the streaming world, many properties are increasingly putting it to good use or at least finding a creative way of working within it like Andor season 2’s three-episode-per-week model.

Through it all there was plenty of serialized and episodic joy to be found on television in 2025. Here are some of our favorites so far.

Adolescence

Extended single-take shots or “oners” are all the rage on television nowadays. So much so that another 2025 show (that you’ll be reading about on this list soon enough) built an entire episode, fittingly called “The Oner,” out of the technique. With so many talented filmmakers and performers getting in on the action, the standards for what makes an effective oner have been raised. It can’t just all be about logistical mastery – the lack of interruption within a scene has to play emotionally as well. Enter Adolescence.

Created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, this four-episode Netflix series represents the most effective and affecting use of single take storytelling in some time. At the beginning of one unassuming day in an unspecified northern English town, police arrive at the doorstep of the Miller family to deliver unthinkable news: 13-year-old son Jamie (an astonishing Owen Cooper) is wanted for the murder of his classmate Katie. What follows are four excruciating installments examining a family and community’s pain, all without the relief of a single cut.

Alien: Earth

“There is surprisingly little mythology in the Alien film universe,” Alien: Earth showrunner Noah Hawley observed in an interview with Den of Geek. “All we really know is that there’s this company called Weyland-Yutani, and it has a knack for putting its employees in terrible danger.” Hawley is right. Much of the appeal of Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi classic comes down to the simplicity of letting an apex predator loose in a confined space amid a vacuum where no one can hear your scream. How can such a cinematic, elemental concept stand up to the episodic rigors of television? Pretty well it turns out!

Thanks to Hawley’s vision, a capable cast, and FX’s newfound Disney money, Alien: Earth presents some of the most compelling worldbuilding from an Alien story yet. Set just two years before Scott’s film, Earth imagines its title location as a playground for five megacorporations looking to achieve immortality. Young trillionaire Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) and his Prodigy Corporation believe they’ve reached that goal with the creation of powerful, child-brained hybrids, led by the indestructible Wendy (Sydney Chandler). Those ideas combined with some genuinely thrilling and bloody action have made for a heady, enjoyable sci-fi experience.

Andor

The success of Disney+’s Andor can be observed by its frequent use as a measuring stick. Across the entertainment landscape, any studio introducing a fresh new take on an existing IP plainly states that it’s intended to be the “Andor of [INSERT-FRANCHISE-HERE].” Marvel’s Secret Invasion was teased as the Andor of the MCU (and hooboy, that was a swing and a miss). More successfully, the aforementioned Alien: Earth has been pitched as the Alien’s Andor. Truthfully, however, there’s only one Andor and the show’s second and final season proved why.

Andor season 2 is quite simply a masterpiece of sci-fi genre storytelling. Imbued with authentic revolutionary spirit, the “conclusion” to Cassian Andor’s story (give or take a Rogue One) was a triumph. Diego Luna once again embodied Cassian as an unwilling folk hero who’s always there for the rebellion when it needs him. Meanwhile, the political analogies at play were more astute than ever with the villainous Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) and Syril Karn (Kyle Soller) finding out how little use fascism has for its adherents. Andor season 2 had friends everywhere and we count ourselves among them.

Dying for Sex

FX miniseries Dying for Sex didn’t receive quite the same attention as its franchise and IP-centric television peers and that’s a shame. This funny, touching, and bittersweet eight-episode series was one of the more pleasant and human experiences for the medium this year. Based loosely on a real-life story, Michelle Williams stars as Molly Kochan, a woman who receives a Stage IV breast cancer diagnosis. Faced with the prospect of death, Molly sets off on a journey of sexual self discovery.

Williams shines with a vulnerable performance and Jenny Slate chips in superb supporting work as Molly’s friend Nikki Boyer. Dying for Sex is ultimately a refreshingly blunt look at the most taboo of subjects – death and sex. By the time Rob Delaney enters the proceedings as a neighbor Molly finds herself equally repulsed and turned on by, it’s clear the show has something to say about both.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Few shows airing a 17th(!) season find their way onto a best-of-the-year list. Then again, not many shows make it to their 17th year in the first place. Thankfully FX comedy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has and TV is all the better for it. After a stretch of funny but ultimately dispensable installments in its late teenage years, Rob Mac, Charlie Day, and Glenn Howerton’s demented creation became the best version of itself once again in 2025.

Save for the second half of its charming yet inessential crossover with Abbott Elementary, Always Sunny season 17 features nothing but bangers. Everyone is at the top of their game here. Mac (Mac) salsa dances while under the influence of hot peppers. Dee (Kaitlin Olson) slaps some people. Dennis (Howerton) becomes a waxy-faced vampire. Charlie (Day) shaves his head. Frank (Danny DeVito) is cake. It all culminates in another one of the show’s hilarious, yet oddly touching finales.

Long Story Short

It’s hard to make an animated comedy series more personal, elegiac, and melancholy than BoJack Horseman. With Long Story Short, BoJack creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg gives it a shot anyway. This 10-episode effort, which premiered to Netflix on August 22, puts its viewers through the emotional wringer. Following the middle-class Jewish American Schwooper family over a span of 30-some years, Long Story Short doesn’t let the perpetual forward movement of time interrupt with its storytelling mission.

Whether it’s experiencing young Yoshi’s (Max Greenfield) bar mitzvah, checking in with an adolescent Shira (Abbi Jacobsen), or jumping forward to a middle-aged Avi (Ben Feldman) after experiencing multiple personal tragedies, Long Story Short examines the quiet desperation of American family life from every angle. And of course: it’s very funny … as all families are.

Murderbot

Apple TV+‘s Murderbot features one of the most slam dunk elevator pitches of the 2025 TV season. They’ve got Alexander Skarsgård … and he’s a murderbot. Ok, the titular cyborg (made from machine parts and cloned tissue) at the center of Murderbot isn’t actually called that. He’s an anonymous security tool known as “SecUnit” who is purchased to assist some egghead hippies on a dangerous scientific mission. Unbeknownst to both his creators and purchasers, however, Murderbot has achieved autonomy and given himself a colorful new name.

Just like Martha Wells’ beloved book series upon which Murderbot is based, this is easy-breezy sci-fi capable of entertaining mass audiences. Skarsgård is as likable as ever as he balances the needs of protecting his charges and keeping up his ruse all the while bingeing episodes of his favorite show The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon. The first season’s 10 episodes flow together nicely, ending in a finale that promises expanded Murderbot adventures (or Diaries) to come.

The Pitt

It might be hyperbole to say that The Pitt saved television this year, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t think that more than once while watching it. Amid a sea of low-effort streaming sludge and long-in-the-tooth franchise storytelling, only HBO Max’s The Pitt had the courage to step forward and say “what if it we just made an awesome ’90s medical drama?”

The Pitt obviously owes a lot to its med drama forefathers, particularly ER from which it borrows star lead Noah Wyle (and according to the Michael Crichton estate: a bit more than that). But its dedication to real-time storytelling and relentless plot movement is an entirely modern invention. These 15 episodes (released weekly obviously) just absolutely fly by. There’s always something going on at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. Glance down at your phone for a second and you’ve missed no fewer than 14 intubations. Take that, second screen TV culture!

The Rehearsal

The first season of Nathan Fielder’s The Rehearsal was a worthy follow-up to the Canadian satirist’s landmark Nathan For You docuseries. Still, it was hard to shake the feeling that the narrative, in which Fielder attempts to rehearse every encounter in his life, could have benefitted from a little more focus. That focus arrives in The Rehearsal season 2, with Fielder locking in to save the American aviation industry.

Over the span of six brilliant episodes, The Rehearsal season 2 identifies a problem (plane crashes), diagnoses its solution (lack of pilot communication), and rolls up its sleeves to fix everything (through rehearsal, of course). By the time you get to Fielder’s “Miracle Over the Mojave,” The Rehearsal‘s second season has truly entered into the “social advocacy comedy docuseries” genre Hall of Fame alongside pretty much just other Nathan Fielder projects. It’s a narrow category.

Severance

Viewers want answers when it comes to mystery box storytelling. In the case of Severance season 2, that means resolutions to questions like “Who was Kier Eagan?,” “Why is Lumon doing all of this,” and of course “What’s with the goats.” At the same time, however, wrapping up any mystery just ends that mystery. How can a show like Severance keep its audience engaged without stringing them along?

Season 2 makes that tightrope act look absurdly easy. Yes, some questions are answered in this batch of 10 episodes on Apple TV+ (including the goat one, believe it or not!). But the seasons real strengths lie in the quiet moments between those discoveries. Between Ben Stiller’s revelatory direction, immaculate production design, and a pitch perfect cast led by Adam Scott, there is truly never a dull moment on the Macrodata Refinement floor.

Squid Game

Thanks to Netflix’s creative (and frankly annoying) release strategy, Squid Game came close to airing two full seasons of television this year, with season 2’s Dec. 26, 2024 release date missing the cut by only six days. The fact that only season three’s six episodes premiered in 2025 might make its inclusion on this list controversial. The concluding arc to creator Hwang Dong-hyuk’s modern dystopian masterpiece was divisive to say the least.

We would argue it shouldn’t be, however. Aside from the aforementioned release model that made it feel like half a season, Squid Game season 3 was another pitch perfect round of dark storytelling. The central games, which are always equal parts thrilling and disgusting, took on an added foreboding resonance as viewers were forced to contend with the introduction of the ultimate innocent contestant and the lingering question of whether Player 456 could actually survive the brutal gauntlet twice. Somehow a very cynical, at times angry show found room to get even angrier while still introducing the slightest bit of hope for a brighter future.

The Studio

Despite feeling as though his job is to destroy them, Continental Studio head Matt Remick (Seth Rogen) really loves movies. The TV show built around him, The Studio, also loves movies…but maybe not as much as it loves television. In addition to being a satirical love letter to Hollywood, even in its imperfect IP era, The Studio has a deep appreciation of what works for its small screen brother. In this case that means gags…lots of ’em.

Save for arguably the premiere and a two-part finale, The Studio‘s 10 installments are wonderfully episodic. One episode finds Matt continually ruining a “oner” on Sarah Polley’s film. Another finds him tussling with Ron Howard over the indulgent end of his flick. Then, just when he thinks he can have a breather on a date with a pediatric oncologist, suddenly he’s suffered a gruesome injury. It’s almost as if this story about movies continues to present situations saturated with comedy. If only there were some kind of term for situational comedy. Maybe then Continental Studio could break into the TV biz.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

X-Men ’97 premiered to Disney+ in 2024 and immediately changed the perception of what Marvel can accomplish in episodic animated storytelling. The X-Men: The Animated Series continuation not only paid faithful homage to its ancestor, it took genuinely bold dramatic swings. 2025’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Man … didn’t do any of that. But it was still a remarkably fun and creative endeavor for Marvel right when the studio sorely needed it.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man wisely eschews any of the existing Spidey continuities for an alternate universe sandbox where it can dig in to what really makes Peter Parker tick. Blessed with some intriguing Spider-verse easter eggs and a pitch perfect performance from Colman Domingo as Norman Osborn, YFNSM just works. And if nothing else, it sets a satisfyingly simple template for where Marvel’s big screen webslinger can go in Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

The post The Best TV Shows of 2025 (So Far) appeared first on Den of Geek.

“You do something hard so they know that you love them.” There are infinite possibilities in play when it comes to animation, yet there’s a comforting universal constant when it comes to family sitcoms – animated or otherwise. A family provides a natural set of relationships for its characters, but it’s so much more than […]

The post Long Story Short Review: A Worthy BoJack Successor appeared first on Den of Geek.

In a March 2025 interview with Howard Stern to promote his Apple TV+ comedy The Studio, Seth Rogen described what drives his character Matt Remick, head of fictional Hollywood studio Continental.

“What’s so frustrating about Hollywood, and what’s so alluring about these delusions of grandeur – especially if you run a movie studio – is that you think you might be the person to course correct all of Hollywood,” he said. “Singular people have done that. But if you were someone who was willing to buy into the delusions of grandeur of all of it, you could view yourself as the person who single-handedly saves Hollywood.”

Spoiler alert: Matt Remick doesn’t save Hollywood. Funnily enough though, Rogen may have helped to save television this year all the same. That’s because Rogen and company’s delightful 10-episode series is just one of many 2025 cable and streaming efforts that understood the assignment.

From Apple TV+’s Severance to HBO Max’s The Pitt to FX’s Alien: Earth and beyond, this year has been filled with projects that have respect for TV as an episodic medium. And while the weekly release format remains more of a novelty than a fact of life in the streaming world, many properties are increasingly putting it to good use or at least finding a creative way of working within it like Andor season 2’s three-episode-per-week model.

Through it all there was plenty of serialized and episodic joy to be found on television in 2025. Here are some of our favorites so far.

Adolescence

Extended single-take shots or “oners” are all the rage on television nowadays. So much so that another 2025 show (that you’ll be reading about on this list soon enough) built an entire episode, fittingly called “The Oner,” out of the technique. With so many talented filmmakers and performers getting in on the action, the standards for what makes an effective oner have been raised. It can’t just all be about logistical mastery – the lack of interruption within a scene has to play emotionally as well. Enter Adolescence.

Created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, this four-episode Netflix series represents the most effective and affecting use of single take storytelling in some time. At the beginning of one unassuming day in an unspecified northern English town, police arrive at the doorstep of the Miller family to deliver unthinkable news: 13-year-old son Jamie (an astonishing Owen Cooper) is wanted for the murder of his classmate Katie. What follows are four excruciating installments examining a family and community’s pain, all without the relief of a single cut.

Alien: Earth

“There is surprisingly little mythology in the Alien film universe,” Alien: Earth showrunner Noah Hawley observed in an interview with Den of Geek. “All we really know is that there’s this company called Weyland-Yutani, and it has a knack for putting its employees in terrible danger.” Hawley is right. Much of the appeal of Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi classic comes down to the simplicity of letting an apex predator loose in a confined space amid a vacuum where no one can hear your scream. How can such a cinematic, elemental concept stand up to the episodic rigors of television? Pretty well it turns out!

Thanks to Hawley’s vision, a capable cast, and FX’s newfound Disney money, Alien: Earth presents some of the most compelling worldbuilding from an Alien story yet. Set just two years before Scott’s film, Earth imagines its title location as a playground for five megacorporations looking to achieve immortality. Young trillionaire Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) and his Prodigy Corporation believe they’ve reached that goal with the creation of powerful, child-brained hybrids, led by the indestructible Wendy (Sydney Chandler). Those ideas combined with some genuinely thrilling and bloody action have made for a heady, enjoyable sci-fi experience.

Andor

The success of Disney+’s Andor can be observed by its frequent use as a measuring stick. Across the entertainment landscape, any studio introducing a fresh new take on an existing IP plainly states that it’s intended to be the “Andor of [INSERT-FRANCHISE-HERE].” Marvel’s Secret Invasion was teased as the Andor of the MCU (and hooboy, that was a swing and a miss). More successfully, the aforementioned Alien: Earth has been pitched as the Alien’s Andor. Truthfully, however, there’s only one Andor and the show’s second and final season proved why.

Andor season 2 is quite simply a masterpiece of sci-fi genre storytelling. Imbued with authentic revolutionary spirit, the “conclusion” to Cassian Andor’s story (give or take a Rogue One) was a triumph. Diego Luna once again embodied Cassian as an unwilling folk hero who’s always there for the rebellion when it needs him. Meanwhile, the political analogies at play were more astute than ever with the villainous Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) and Syril Karn (Kyle Soller) finding out how little use fascism has for its adherents. Andor season 2 had friends everywhere and we count ourselves among them.

Dying for Sex

FX miniseries Dying for Sex didn’t receive quite the same attention as its franchise and IP-centric television peers and that’s a shame. This funny, touching, and bittersweet eight-episode series was one of the more pleasant and human experiences for the medium this year. Based loosely on a real-life story, Michelle Williams stars as Molly Kochan, a woman who receives a Stage IV breast cancer diagnosis. Faced with the prospect of death, Molly sets off on a journey of sexual self discovery.

Williams shines with a vulnerable performance and Jenny Slate chips in superb supporting work as Molly’s friend Nikki Boyer. Dying for Sex is ultimately a refreshingly blunt look at the most taboo of subjects – death and sex. By the time Rob Delaney enters the proceedings as a neighbor Molly finds herself equally repulsed and turned on by, it’s clear the show has something to say about both.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Few shows airing a 17th(!) season find their way onto a best-of-the-year list. Then again, not many shows make it to their 17th year in the first place. Thankfully FX comedy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has and TV is all the better for it. After a stretch of funny but ultimately dispensable installments in its late teenage years, Rob Mac, Charlie Day, and Glenn Howerton’s demented creation became the best version of itself once again in 2025.

Save for the second half of its charming yet inessential crossover with Abbott Elementary, Always Sunny season 17 features nothing but bangers. Everyone is at the top of their game here. Mac (Mac) salsa dances while under the influence of hot peppers. Dee (Kaitlin Olson) slaps some people. Dennis (Howerton) becomes a waxy-faced vampire. Charlie (Day) shaves his head. Frank (Danny DeVito) is cake. It all culminates in another one of the show’s hilarious, yet oddly touching finales.

Long Story Short

It’s hard to make an animated comedy series more personal, elegiac, and melancholy than BoJack Horseman. With Long Story Short, BoJack creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg gives it a shot anyway. This 10-episode effort, which premiered to Netflix on August 22, puts its viewers through the emotional wringer. Following the middle-class Jewish American Schwooper family over a span of 30-some years, Long Story Short doesn’t let the perpetual forward movement of time interrupt with its storytelling mission.

Whether it’s experiencing young Yoshi’s (Max Greenfield) bar mitzvah, checking in with an adolescent Shira (Abbi Jacobsen), or jumping forward to a middle-aged Avi (Ben Feldman) after experiencing multiple personal tragedies, Long Story Short examines the quiet desperation of American family life from every angle. And of course: it’s very funny … as all families are.

Murderbot

Apple TV+‘s Murderbot features one of the most slam dunk elevator pitches of the 2025 TV season. They’ve got Alexander Skarsgård … and he’s a murderbot. Ok, the titular cyborg (made from machine parts and cloned tissue) at the center of Murderbot isn’t actually called that. He’s an anonymous security tool known as “SecUnit” who is purchased to assist some egghead hippies on a dangerous scientific mission. Unbeknownst to both his creators and purchasers, however, Murderbot has achieved autonomy and given himself a colorful new name.

Just like Martha Wells’ beloved book series upon which Murderbot is based, this is easy-breezy sci-fi capable of entertaining mass audiences. Skarsgård is as likable as ever as he balances the needs of protecting his charges and keeping up his ruse all the while bingeing episodes of his favorite show The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon. The first season’s 10 episodes flow together nicely, ending in a finale that promises expanded Murderbot adventures (or Diaries) to come.

The Pitt

It might be hyperbole to say that The Pitt saved television this year, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t think that more than once while watching it. Amid a sea of low-effort streaming sludge and long-in-the-tooth franchise storytelling, only HBO Max’s The Pitt had the courage to step forward and say “what if it we just made an awesome ’90s medical drama?”

The Pitt obviously owes a lot to its med drama forefathers, particularly ER from which it borrows star lead Noah Wyle (and according to the Michael Crichton estate: a bit more than that). But its dedication to real-time storytelling and relentless plot movement is an entirely modern invention. These 15 episodes (released weekly obviously) just absolutely fly by. There’s always something going on at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. Glance down at your phone for a second and you’ve missed no fewer than 14 intubations. Take that, second screen TV culture!

The Rehearsal

The first season of Nathan Fielder’s The Rehearsal was a worthy follow-up to the Canadian satirist’s landmark Nathan For You docuseries. Still, it was hard to shake the feeling that the narrative, in which Fielder attempts to rehearse every encounter in his life, could have benefitted from a little more focus. That focus arrives in The Rehearsal season 2, with Fielder locking in to save the American aviation industry.

Over the span of six brilliant episodes, The Rehearsal season 2 identifies a problem (plane crashes), diagnoses its solution (lack of pilot communication), and rolls up its sleeves to fix everything (through rehearsal, of course). By the time you get to Fielder’s “Miracle Over the Mojave,” The Rehearsal‘s second season has truly entered into the “social advocacy comedy docuseries” genre Hall of Fame alongside pretty much just other Nathan Fielder projects. It’s a narrow category.

Severance

Viewers want answers when it comes to mystery box storytelling. In the case of Severance season 2, that means resolutions to questions like “Who was Kier Eagan?,” “Why is Lumon doing all of this,” and of course “What’s with the goats.” At the same time, however, wrapping up any mystery just ends that mystery. How can a show like Severance keep its audience engaged without stringing them along?

Season 2 makes that tightrope act look absurdly easy. Yes, some questions are answered in this batch of 10 episodes on Apple TV+ (including the goat one, believe it or not!). But the seasons real strengths lie in the quiet moments between those discoveries. Between Ben Stiller’s revelatory direction, immaculate production design, and a pitch perfect cast led by Adam Scott, there is truly never a dull moment on the Macrodata Refinement floor.

Squid Game

Thanks to Netflix’s creative (and frankly annoying) release strategy, Squid Game came close to airing two full seasons of television this year, with season 2’s Dec. 26, 2024 release date missing the cut by only six days. The fact that only season three’s six episodes premiered in 2025 might make its inclusion on this list controversial. The concluding arc to creator Hwang Dong-hyuk’s modern dystopian masterpiece was divisive to say the least.

We would argue it shouldn’t be, however. Aside from the aforementioned release model that made it feel like half a season, Squid Game season 3 was another pitch perfect round of dark storytelling. The central games, which are always equal parts thrilling and disgusting, took on an added foreboding resonance as viewers were forced to contend with the introduction of the ultimate innocent contestant and the lingering question of whether Player 456 could actually survive the brutal gauntlet twice. Somehow a very cynical, at times angry show found room to get even angrier while still introducing the slightest bit of hope for a brighter future.

The Studio

Despite feeling as though his job is to destroy them, Continental Studio head Matt Remick (Seth Rogen) really loves movies. The TV show built around him, The Studio, also loves movies…but maybe not as much as it loves television. In addition to being a satirical love letter to Hollywood, even in its imperfect IP era, The Studio has a deep appreciation of what works for its small screen brother. In this case that means gags…lots of ’em.

Save for arguably the premiere and a two-part finale, The Studio‘s 10 installments are wonderfully episodic. One episode finds Matt continually ruining a “oner” on Sarah Polley’s film. Another finds him tussling with Ron Howard over the indulgent end of his flick. Then, just when he thinks he can have a breather on a date with a pediatric oncologist, suddenly he’s suffered a gruesome injury. It’s almost as if this story about movies continues to present situations saturated with comedy. If only there were some kind of term for situational comedy. Maybe then Continental Studio could break into the TV biz.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

X-Men ’97 premiered to Disney+ in 2024 and immediately changed the perception of what Marvel can accomplish in episodic animated storytelling. The X-Men: The Animated Series continuation not only paid faithful homage to its ancestor, it took genuinely bold dramatic swings. 2025’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Man … didn’t do any of that. But it was still a remarkably fun and creative endeavor for Marvel right when the studio sorely needed it.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man wisely eschews any of the existing Spidey continuities for an alternate universe sandbox where it can dig in to what really makes Peter Parker tick. Blessed with some intriguing Spider-verse easter eggs and a pitch perfect performance from Colman Domingo as Norman Osborn, YFNSM just works. And if nothing else, it sets a satisfyingly simple template for where Marvel’s big screen webslinger can go in Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

The post The Best TV Shows of 2025 (So Far) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Later this month will see the release of The Toxic Avenger, the reboot of the beloved splatter comedy that introduced the world to the visceral joys of Troma. Starring Peter Dinklage in the title role, the movie is a proudly gory superhero pastiche with pitch black humor, cartoonish bad guys, and a total lack of […]

The post That Weird Time The Toxic Avenger Became a Kid-Friendly Saturday Morning Cartoon appeared first on Den of Geek.

In a March 2025 interview with Howard Stern to promote his Apple TV+ comedy The Studio, Seth Rogen described what drives his character Matt Remick, head of fictional Hollywood studio Continental.

“What’s so frustrating about Hollywood, and what’s so alluring about these delusions of grandeur – especially if you run a movie studio – is that you think you might be the person to course correct all of Hollywood,” he said. “Singular people have done that. But if you were someone who was willing to buy into the delusions of grandeur of all of it, you could view yourself as the person who single-handedly saves Hollywood.”

Spoiler alert: Matt Remick doesn’t save Hollywood. Funnily enough though, Rogen may have helped to save television this year all the same. That’s because Rogen and company’s delightful 10-episode series is just one of many 2025 cable and streaming efforts that understood the assignment.

From Apple TV+’s Severance to HBO Max’s The Pitt to FX’s Alien: Earth and beyond, this year has been filled with projects that have respect for TV as an episodic medium. And while the weekly release format remains more of a novelty than a fact of life in the streaming world, many properties are increasingly putting it to good use or at least finding a creative way of working within it like Andor season 2’s three-episode-per-week model.

Through it all there was plenty of serialized and episodic joy to be found on television in 2025. Here are some of our favorites so far.

Adolescence

Extended single-take shots or “oners” are all the rage on television nowadays. So much so that another 2025 show (that you’ll be reading about on this list soon enough) built an entire episode, fittingly called “The Oner,” out of the technique. With so many talented filmmakers and performers getting in on the action, the standards for what makes an effective oner have been raised. It can’t just all be about logistical mastery – the lack of interruption within a scene has to play emotionally as well. Enter Adolescence.

Created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, this four-episode Netflix series represents the most effective and affecting use of single take storytelling in some time. At the beginning of one unassuming day in an unspecified northern English town, police arrive at the doorstep of the Miller family to deliver unthinkable news: 13-year-old son Jamie (an astonishing Owen Cooper) is wanted for the murder of his classmate Katie. What follows are four excruciating installments examining a family and community’s pain, all without the relief of a single cut.

Alien: Earth

“There is surprisingly little mythology in the Alien film universe,” Alien: Earth showrunner Noah Hawley observed in an interview with Den of Geek. “All we really know is that there’s this company called Weyland-Yutani, and it has a knack for putting its employees in terrible danger.” Hawley is right. Much of the appeal of Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi classic comes down to the simplicity of letting an apex predator loose in a confined space amid a vacuum where no one can hear your scream. How can such a cinematic, elemental concept stand up to the episodic rigors of television? Pretty well it turns out!

Thanks to Hawley’s vision, a capable cast, and FX’s newfound Disney money, Alien: Earth presents some of the most compelling worldbuilding from an Alien story yet. Set just two years before Scott’s film, Earth imagines its title location as a playground for five megacorporations looking to achieve immortality. Young trillionaire Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) and his Prodigy Corporation believe they’ve reached that goal with the creation of powerful, child-brained hybrids, led by the indestructible Wendy (Sydney Chandler). Those ideas combined with some genuinely thrilling and bloody action have made for a heady, enjoyable sci-fi experience.

Andor

The success of Disney+’s Andor can be observed by its frequent use as a measuring stick. Across the entertainment landscape, any studio introducing a fresh new take on an existing IP plainly states that it’s intended to be the “Andor of [INSERT-FRANCHISE-HERE].” Marvel’s Secret Invasion was teased as the Andor of the MCU (and hooboy, that was a swing and a miss). More successfully, the aforementioned Alien: Earth has been pitched as the Alien’s Andor. Truthfully, however, there’s only one Andor and the show’s second and final season proved why.

Andor season 2 is quite simply a masterpiece of sci-fi genre storytelling. Imbued with authentic revolutionary spirit, the “conclusion” to Cassian Andor’s story (give or take a Rogue One) was a triumph. Diego Luna once again embodied Cassian as an unwilling folk hero who’s always there for the rebellion when it needs him. Meanwhile, the political analogies at play were more astute than ever with the villainous Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) and Syril Karn (Kyle Soller) finding out how little use fascism has for its adherents. Andor season 2 had friends everywhere and we count ourselves among them.

Dying for Sex

FX miniseries Dying for Sex didn’t receive quite the same attention as its franchise and IP-centric television peers and that’s a shame. This funny, touching, and bittersweet eight-episode series was one of the more pleasant and human experiences for the medium this year. Based loosely on a real-life story, Michelle Williams stars as Molly Kochan, a woman who receives a Stage IV breast cancer diagnosis. Faced with the prospect of death, Molly sets off on a journey of sexual self discovery.

Williams shines with a vulnerable performance and Jenny Slate chips in superb supporting work as Molly’s friend Nikki Boyer. Dying for Sex is ultimately a refreshingly blunt look at the most taboo of subjects – death and sex. By the time Rob Delaney enters the proceedings as a neighbor Molly finds herself equally repulsed and turned on by, it’s clear the show has something to say about both.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Few shows airing a 17th(!) season find their way onto a best-of-the-year list. Then again, not many shows make it to their 17th year in the first place. Thankfully FX comedy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has and TV is all the better for it. After a stretch of funny but ultimately dispensable installments in its late teenage years, Rob Mac, Charlie Day, and Glenn Howerton’s demented creation became the best version of itself once again in 2025.

Save for the second half of its charming yet inessential crossover with Abbott Elementary, Always Sunny season 17 features nothing but bangers. Everyone is at the top of their game here. Mac (Mac) salsa dances while under the influence of hot peppers. Dee (Kaitlin Olson) slaps some people. Dennis (Howerton) becomes a waxy-faced vampire. Charlie (Day) shaves his head. Frank (Danny DeVito) is cake. It all culminates in another one of the show’s hilarious, yet oddly touching finales.

Long Story Short

It’s hard to make an animated comedy series more personal, elegiac, and melancholy than BoJack Horseman. With Long Story Short, BoJack creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg gives it a shot anyway. This 10-episode effort, which premiered to Netflix on August 22, puts its viewers through the emotional wringer. Following the middle-class Jewish American Schwooper family over a span of 30-some years, Long Story Short doesn’t let the perpetual forward movement of time interrupt with its storytelling mission.

Whether it’s experiencing young Yoshi’s (Max Greenfield) bar mitzvah, checking in with an adolescent Shira (Abbi Jacobsen), or jumping forward to a middle-aged Avi (Ben Feldman) after experiencing multiple personal tragedies, Long Story Short examines the quiet desperation of American family life from every angle. And of course: it’s very funny … as all families are.

Murderbot

Apple TV+‘s Murderbot features one of the most slam dunk elevator pitches of the 2025 TV season. They’ve got Alexander Skarsgård … and he’s a murderbot. Ok, the titular cyborg (made from machine parts and cloned tissue) at the center of Murderbot isn’t actually called that. He’s an anonymous security tool known as “SecUnit” who is purchased to assist some egghead hippies on a dangerous scientific mission. Unbeknownst to both his creators and purchasers, however, Murderbot has achieved autonomy and given himself a colorful new name.

Just like Martha Wells’ beloved book series upon which Murderbot is based, this is easy-breezy sci-fi capable of entertaining mass audiences. Skarsgård is as likable as ever as he balances the needs of protecting his charges and keeping up his ruse all the while bingeing episodes of his favorite show The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon. The first season’s 10 episodes flow together nicely, ending in a finale that promises expanded Murderbot adventures (or Diaries) to come.

The Pitt

It might be hyperbole to say that The Pitt saved television this year, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t think that more than once while watching it. Amid a sea of low-effort streaming sludge and long-in-the-tooth franchise storytelling, only HBO Max’s The Pitt had the courage to step forward and say “what if it we just made an awesome ’90s medical drama?”

The Pitt obviously owes a lot to its med drama forefathers, particularly ER from which it borrows star lead Noah Wyle (and according to the Michael Crichton estate: a bit more than that). But its dedication to real-time storytelling and relentless plot movement is an entirely modern invention. These 15 episodes (released weekly obviously) just absolutely fly by. There’s always something going on at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. Glance down at your phone for a second and you’ve missed no fewer than 14 intubations. Take that, second screen TV culture!

The Rehearsal

The first season of Nathan Fielder’s The Rehearsal was a worthy follow-up to the Canadian satirist’s landmark Nathan For You docuseries. Still, it was hard to shake the feeling that the narrative, in which Fielder attempts to rehearse every encounter in his life, could have benefitted from a little more focus. That focus arrives in The Rehearsal season 2, with Fielder locking in to save the American aviation industry.

Over the span of six brilliant episodes, The Rehearsal season 2 identifies a problem (plane crashes), diagnoses its solution (lack of pilot communication), and rolls up its sleeves to fix everything (through rehearsal, of course). By the time you get to Fielder’s “Miracle Over the Mojave,” The Rehearsal‘s second season has truly entered into the “social advocacy comedy docuseries” genre Hall of Fame alongside pretty much just other Nathan Fielder projects. It’s a narrow category.

Severance

Viewers want answers when it comes to mystery box storytelling. In the case of Severance season 2, that means resolutions to questions like “Who was Kier Eagan?,” “Why is Lumon doing all of this,” and of course “What’s with the goats.” At the same time, however, wrapping up any mystery just ends that mystery. How can a show like Severance keep its audience engaged without stringing them along?

Season 2 makes that tightrope act look absurdly easy. Yes, some questions are answered in this batch of 10 episodes on Apple TV+ (including the goat one, believe it or not!). But the seasons real strengths lie in the quiet moments between those discoveries. Between Ben Stiller’s revelatory direction, immaculate production design, and a pitch perfect cast led by Adam Scott, there is truly never a dull moment on the Macrodata Refinement floor.

Squid Game

Thanks to Netflix’s creative (and frankly annoying) release strategy, Squid Game came close to airing two full seasons of television this year, with season 2’s Dec. 26, 2024 release date missing the cut by only six days. The fact that only season three’s six episodes premiered in 2025 might make its inclusion on this list controversial. The concluding arc to creator Hwang Dong-hyuk’s modern dystopian masterpiece was divisive to say the least.

We would argue it shouldn’t be, however. Aside from the aforementioned release model that made it feel like half a season, Squid Game season 3 was another pitch perfect round of dark storytelling. The central games, which are always equal parts thrilling and disgusting, took on an added foreboding resonance as viewers were forced to contend with the introduction of the ultimate innocent contestant and the lingering question of whether Player 456 could actually survive the brutal gauntlet twice. Somehow a very cynical, at times angry show found room to get even angrier while still introducing the slightest bit of hope for a brighter future.

The Studio

Despite feeling as though his job is to destroy them, Continental Studio head Matt Remick (Seth Rogen) really loves movies. The TV show built around him, The Studio, also loves movies…but maybe not as much as it loves television. In addition to being a satirical love letter to Hollywood, even in its imperfect IP era, The Studio has a deep appreciation of what works for its small screen brother. In this case that means gags…lots of ’em.

Save for arguably the premiere and a two-part finale, The Studio‘s 10 installments are wonderfully episodic. One episode finds Matt continually ruining a “oner” on Sarah Polley’s film. Another finds him tussling with Ron Howard over the indulgent end of his flick. Then, just when he thinks he can have a breather on a date with a pediatric oncologist, suddenly he’s suffered a gruesome injury. It’s almost as if this story about movies continues to present situations saturated with comedy. If only there were some kind of term for situational comedy. Maybe then Continental Studio could break into the TV biz.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

X-Men ’97 premiered to Disney+ in 2024 and immediately changed the perception of what Marvel can accomplish in episodic animated storytelling. The X-Men: The Animated Series continuation not only paid faithful homage to its ancestor, it took genuinely bold dramatic swings. 2025’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Man … didn’t do any of that. But it was still a remarkably fun and creative endeavor for Marvel right when the studio sorely needed it.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man wisely eschews any of the existing Spidey continuities for an alternate universe sandbox where it can dig in to what really makes Peter Parker tick. Blessed with some intriguing Spider-verse easter eggs and a pitch perfect performance from Colman Domingo as Norman Osborn, YFNSM just works. And if nothing else, it sets a satisfyingly simple template for where Marvel’s big screen webslinger can go in Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

The post The Best TV Shows of 2025 (So Far) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Seth Rogen described what motivates his figure Matt Remick, head of the mythical Hollywood studio Continental, in a March 2025 meeting with Howard Stern to showcase his Apple TV + sitcom The Studio. ” What’s so frustrating about Hollywood, and what’s so alluring about these delusions of grandeur – especially if you run a movie studio – is ]… ]

The Best TV Shows of 2025 ( So Far ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

In a March 2025 meeting with Howard Stern to showcase his Apple TV + sitcom The Studio, Seth Rogen described what drives his figure Matt Remick, head of imaginary Hollywood studio Continental.

What’s so unpleasant about Hollywood and what’s so appealing about these conceited notions of beauty, especially if you own a film workshop, is that you believe you might be the one to correct everything, he said. &#8220, Distinct people have done that. However, you might think of yourself as the one who utterly saves Hollywood if you were someone who was willing to accept the delusions of grandeur of everything. &#8221,

Spoiler alert: Matt Remick doesn’t keep Hollywood. Funnily enough though, Rogen does have helped to keep broadcast this time all the same. That&#8217 is because Rogen and business &#8217, a delightful 10-episode collection, is just one of many 2025 cable and streaming work that recognized the project.

From Apple TV+&#8217, s Severance to HBO Max&#8217, s The Pitt to FX&#8217, s Alien: World and beyond, this year has been filled with tasks that have value for TV as an acute method. And while the regular discharge style is still more of a novelty than a fact of life in the streaming industry, some properties are significantly utilizing it or at least finding a creative way to work with it, like Andor time 2&#8217, its three-episode-per-week design.

Through it all there was plenty of serialized and acute pleasure to be found on broadcast in 2025. Here are some of our favorite movies so much.

Adolescence

Extended single-take pictures or &#8220, oners &#8221, are all the rage on television today. Another 2025 show ( that you &#8217, ll be reading about on this list soon enough ) created an entire episode, fittingly called &#8220, The Oner, &#8221, out of the technique. With so many talented artists and players getting in on the actions, the criteria for what makes an efficient oner have been raised. The lack of interruption in a scene has to perform an emotional role as well, when can it all be about administrative mastery. Enter Adolescence.

This four-episode Netflix series, which was created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, is the most successful and moving use of single get story in recent memory. At the beginning of one unassuming day in an unspecified northern English town, police arrive at the doorstep of the Miller family to deliver unthinkable news: 13-year-old son Jamie ( an astonishing Owen Cooper ) is wanted for the murder of his classmate Katie. Without a single reduce, the four agonizing chapters examine a home and community’s suffering.

Alien: World

“There is surprisingly little mythology in the Alien film universe,” Alien: World showrunner Noah Hawley observed in an interview with Den of Geek. “All we really know is that there’s this company called Weyland-Yutani, and it has a knack for putting its employees in terrible danger.” Hawley is right. Much of the appeal of Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi classic comes down to the simplicity of letting an apex predator loose in a confined space amid a vacuum where no one can hear your scream. How can such a cinematic, elemental concept stand up to the episodic rigors of television? Pretty well it turns out!

Thanks to Hawley’s vision, a capable cast, and FX’s newfound Disney money, Alien: World presents some of the most compelling worldbuilding from an Alien story yet. Set just two years before Scott’s film, Earth imagines its title location as a playground for five megacorporations looking to achieve immortality. Young trillionaire Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) and his Prodigy Corporation believe they’ve reached that goal with the creation of powerful, child-brained hybrids, led by the indestructible Wendy (Sydney Chandler). Those ideas combined with some genuinely thrilling and bloody action have made for a heady, enjoyable sci-fi experience.

Andor

The success of Disney+’s Andor can be observed by its frequent use as a measuring stick. Across the entertainment landscape, any studio introducing a fresh new take on an existing IP plainly states that it’s intended to be the “Andor of [INSERT-FRANCHISE-HERE].” Marvel’s Secret Invasion was teased as the Andor of the MCU (and hooboy, that was a swing and a miss). More successfully, the aforementioned Alien: World has been pitched as the Alien’s Andor. Truthfully, however, there’s only one Andor and the show’s second and final season proved why.

Andor winter 2 is a truly outstanding work of sci-fi story. Imbued with authentic revolutionary spirit, the &#8220, conclusion &#8221, to Cassian Andor&#8217, s story ( give or take a Rogue One ) was a triumph. Once more, Diego Luna embodied Cassian as a disgruntled traditions warrior who was there for the rebellion when necessary. Meanwhile, the political analogies at play were more astute than ever with the villainous Dedra Meero ( Denise Gough ) and Syril Karn ( Kyle Soller ) finding out how little use fascism has for its adherents. We count ourselves among the friends from Andor winter 2 who were outside.

Dying for Sexual

FX miniseries Dying for Sexual didn’t receive quite the same attention as its franchise and IP-centric television peers and that’s a shame. This funny, touching, and bittersweet eight-episode series was one of the more pleasant and human experiences for the medium this year. Based loosely on a real-life story, Michelle Williams stars as Molly Kochan, a woman who receives a Stage IV breast cancer diagnosis. Faced with the prospect of death, Molly sets off on a journey of sexual self discovery.

Williams shines with a vulnerable performance and Jenny Slate chips in superb supporting work as Molly’s friend Nikki Boyer. Dying for Sexual is ultimately a refreshingly blunt look at the most taboo of subjects – death and sex. By the time Rob Delaney enters the proceedings as a neighbor Molly finds herself equally repulsed and turned on by, it’s clear the show has something to say about both.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

A 17th (! ) show is rare among TV shows! time find their way onto a best-of-the-year listing. However, not many exhibits actually reach the end of their 17th time. Thankfully FX comic It&#8217, s Often Sunny in Philadelphia has and Television is all the better for it. In its late teens, Rob Mac, Charlie Day, and Glenn Howerton&#8217’s deranged development resurrected as the best type of itself once more in 2025 following a protracted series of endearing but finally unintelligible installments.

Save for the second quarter of its enchanting yet inessential cross with Abbott Elementary, Always Sunny time 17 features zero but instrumentals. Everyone here is playing a top-notch activity. Mac ( Mac ) salsa dances while under the influence of hot peppers. Some people are slapbed by Dee ( Kaitlin Olson ). Dennis ( Howerton ) becomes a waxy-faced vampire. Charlie ( Day ) cuts his head. Frank ( Danny DeVito ) is cake. Another of the show’s hilarious yet curiously touching finales comes close to it all.

Long Story Short

It’s challenging to find a personal, mournful, and melancholy level in an active comedy series like BoJack Horseman. With Long Story Short, BoJack father Raphael Bob-Waksberg gives it a shot anyways. Netflix released the 10-episode film on August 22 and channels it for the personal wringer. Following the middle-class Israeli American Schwooper family over a period of 30-some times, Long Story Short does n&#8217, t let the eternal forward movement of time halt with its story goal.

Long Story Short examines the quiet desperation of American family life from every angle, whether it’s young Yoshi ( Max Greenfield ), checking in with an adolescent Shira ( Abbi Jacobsen ), or jumping forward to a middle-aged Avi ( Ben Feldman ) after going through several personal tragedies. And of course: it &#8217, s very funny &#8230, as all families are.

Murderbot

One of the most slam dunk elevator pitches of the 2025 TV season is featured on Apple TV+&#8216, S Murderbot. They &#8217, ve got Alexander Skarsgård &#8230, and he&#8217, s a murderbot. The titular cyborg ( made from machine parts and cloned tissue ) at the center of Murderbot isn’t actually called that, though. He&#8217, s an anonymous security tool known as &#8220, SecUnit&#8221, who is purchased to assist some egghead hippies on a dangerous scientific mission. However, Murderbot has a distinctive new name and has become independent of both his creators and customers.

Just like Martha Wells &#8217, beloved book series upon which Murderbot is based, this is easy-breezy sci-fi capable of entertaining mass audiences. As he binges episodes of his favorite show The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon, Skarsgrd finds himself as likeable as ever as he strikes a balance between protecting his family and maintaining his ruse. The first season &#8217, s 10 episodes flow together nicely, ending in a finale that promises expanded Murderbot adventures ( or Diaries ) to come.

The Pitt

It might be hyperbole to say that The Pitt saved television this year, but I&#8217, ll be damned if I didn&#8217, t think that more than once while watching it. Only HBO Max &#8217, s The Pitt had the guts to take the lead and say,” What if it we just made an awesome &#8217, 90s medical drama?” in the midst of low-effort streaming sludge and long-in-the-tooth franchise storytelling? &#8221,

The Pitt obviously owes a lot to its med drama ancestors, particularly ER, where it took Noah Wyle as star, and more importantly, according to the Michael Crichton estate, a little more than that. But its dedication to real-time storytelling and relentless plot movement is an entirely modern invention. These 15 episodes ( which were obviously released weekly ) just seem like they just fly by quickly. There&#8217, s always something going on at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. You &#8217 ;ve missed at least 14 intubations if you glance down at your phone for a second. Take that, second screen TV culture!

The Rehearsal

The first season of Nathan Fielder&#8217, s The Rehearsal was a worthy follow-up to the Canadian satirist&#8217, s landmark Nathan For You docuseries. However, it was difficult to understand how the narrative, which features Fielder making repeated appearances throughout his life, could have been improved. That focus arrives in The Rehearsal season 2, with Fielder locking in to save the American aviation industry.

The Rehearsal season 2 picks up a problem ( plane crashes ), determines its fix ( lack of pilot communication ), and rolls up its sleeves ( through rehearsal, of course ). It has six brilliant episodes. By the time you get to Fielder&#8217, s &#8220, Miracle Over the Mojave, &#8221, The Rehearsal&#8216, s second season has truly entered into the &#8220, social advocacy comedy docuseries &#8221, genre Hall of Fame alongside pretty much just other Nathan Fielder projects. It falls under a narrow category, says it.

Severance

Viewers want answers when it comes to mystery box storytelling. In the case of Severance season 2, that means answers to the questions &#8220, Who was Kier Eagan?, &#8221, &#8220, Why is Lumon doing all of this, &#8221, and of course, What&#8217, s with the goats. &#8221, At the same time, however, wrapping up any mystery just ends that mystery. How can a show like Severance keep its viewers interested without dragging them along?

Season 2 makes that tightrope act look absurdly easy. Yes, some questions ( including the goat one, believe it or not! ) are answered in this batch of 10 Apple TV + episodes. But the seasons real strengths lie in the quiet moments between those discoveries. There is never a dull moment on the Macrodata Refinement floor, thanks to Ben Stiller&#8217, revelatory direction, flawless production design, and a pitch-perfect cast led by Adam Scott.

Squid Game

Squid Game came close to airing two full seasons of television this year thanks to Netflix’s creative ( and frankly annoying ) release strategy, with season 2’s Dec. 26, 2024 release date missing the cut by only six days. The fact that only season three&#8217, s six episodes premiered in 2025 might make its inclusion on this list controversial. The arc that led to the release of Hwang Dong-hyuk’s contemporary dystopian masterpiece, Hwang Dong-hyuk’s final work was at least divided.

We would argue it should n&#8217, t be, however. Squid Game season 3 was another perfectly dark story with the exception of the aforementioned release model that made it feel like half a season. The central games, which are always equal parts thrilling and disgusting, took on an added foreboding resonance as viewers were forced to contend with the introduction of the ultimate innocent contestant and the lingering question of whether Player 456 could actually survive the brutal gauntlet twice. A somewhat cynical, occasionally angry show managed to get even more angrier while still bringing even the slightest hint of hope for a brighter future.

The Studio

Matt Remick, the head of Continental Studio ( Seth Rogen ), has a real passion for movies despite having the impression that his job is to destroy them. The TV show built around him, The Studio, also loves movies &#8230, but maybe not as much as it loves television. The Studio has a deep appreciation of what works for its small screen brother in addition to being a satirical love letter to Hollywood, even in its imperfect IP era. In this case that means gags &#8230, lots of &#8217, em.

The Studio&#8216, its 10 installments are fantastic episodic with the exception of arguably the premiere and a two-part finale. One episode finds Matt continually ruining a &#8220, oner&#8221, on Sarah Polley &#8217, s film. He and Ron Howard wrestle with each other after the indulgent conclusion of his film. Then, just when he thinks he can have a breather on a date with a pediatric oncologist, suddenly he&#8217, s suffered a gruesome injury. It almost seems as though this film series continues to show situations that are overflowing with comedy. If only there were some kind of term for situational comedy. Continental Studio might also be able to enter the TV industry.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

When X-Men &#8217, 97 first appeared on Disney + in 2024, it completely altered how people saw what Marvel could do with episodic animated storytelling. The X-Men: The Animated Series continuation not only paid faithful homage to its ancestor, it took genuinely bold dramatic swings. The Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Man &#8230, from 2025, didn’t do any of that. But it was still a remarkably fun and creative endeavor for Marvel right when the studio sorely needed it.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man wisely swaps out any of the recognizable Spidey roles for a sandbox in an alternate world to explore what makes Peter Parker so special. Blessed with some intriguing Spider-verse easter eggs and a pitch perfect performance from Colman Domingo as Norman Osborn, YFNSM just works. And if nothing else, it provides a satisfyingly straightforward template for Spider-Man: Brand New Day‘s direction in Marvel&#8217.

The Best TV Shows of 2025 ( So Far ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Peacemaker, its second season, made no mention of Bat-Mite, Kite-Man, and Matter-Eater Lad from the Legion of Super Heroes, but this article contains spoilers for Season 2, Episode 1. In its winter two opening, it’s obvious that Peacemaker intends to continue the custom. [An d]…

The article Peacemaker Season 2 Episode 1 Easter Eggs appeared initially on Den of Geek.

Seth Rogen described what motivates his figure Matt Remick, head of the mythical Hollywood studio Continental, in a March 2025 meeting with Howard Stern to showcase his Apple TV + sitcom The Studio.

” What’s so frustrating about Hollywood, and what’s so alluring about these delusions of grandeur – especially if you run a movie theater – is that you think you might be the person to course correct all of Hollywood, &#8221, he said. Distinctive people have done that. But if you were someone who was willing to buy into the delusions of beauty of all of it, you may see yourself as the person who single-handedly saves Hollywood. &#8221,

Spoiler alert: Matt Remick does n&#8217, t save Hollywood. Despite that, Rogen may have been able to keep broadcast this year. That&#8217, s because Rogen and business &#8217, s wonderful 10-episode set is just one of many 2025 wire and streaming initiatives that understood the project.

This year has been filled with tasks that respect Screen as an acute platform, from Apple TV+&#8217 to HBO Max&#8217, The Pitt to FX&#8217, and Earth: Alien and beyond. And while the regular discharge structure remains more of a novelty than a fact of life in the streaming earth, some properties are significantly putting it to good use or at least finding a creative means of working within it like Andor time 2&#8217, s three-episode-per-week design.

There was plenty of serialized and acute pleasure to be found on broadcast in 2025 despite it all. Here are some of our friends thus far.

Adolescence

Extended single-take pictures, or &#8220, oners &#8221, are currently popular on television. So much so that another 2025 show ( that you &#8217, ll be reading about on this list soon enough ) built an entire episode, fittingly called &#8220, The Oner, &#8221, out of the technique. With so many talented actors and directors joining the activity, the requirements for what constitutes an efficient oner have been raised. It can&#8217, t really all been about logistical expertise &#8211, the lack of delay within a scene has to perform psychologically as well. Enter Adolescence.

Created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham, this four-episode Netflix set represents the most effective and affecting use of one get storytelling in some time. Police arrive at the Miller family’s porch at the start of an unknown northern English city and reveal the unfathomable information: Jamie, son of the incredible Owen Cooper, is wanted for the murder of his classmate Katie. What follows are four excruciating installments examining a family and community &#8217, s pain, all without the relief of a single cut.

Earth: Alien

“There is surprisingly little mythology in the Alien film universe,” Earth: Alien showrunner Noah Hawley observed in an interview with Den of Geek. “All we really know is that there’s this company called Weyland-Yutani, and it has a knack for putting its employees in terrible danger.” Hawley is right. Much of the appeal of Ridley Scott’s 1979 sci-fi classic comes down to the simplicity of letting an apex predator loose in a confined space amid a vacuum where no one can hear your scream. How can such a cinematic, elemental concept stand up to the episodic rigors of television? Pretty well it turns out!

Thanks to Hawley’s vision, a capable cast, and FX’s newfound Disney money, Earth: Alien presents some of the most compelling worldbuilding from an Alien story yet. Set just two years before Scott’s film, Earth imagines its title location as a playground for five megacorporations looking to achieve immortality. Young trillionaire Boy Kavalier (Samuel Blenkin) and his Prodigy Corporation believe they’ve reached that goal with the creation of powerful, child-brained hybrids, led by the indestructible Wendy (Sydney Chandler). Those ideas combined with some genuinely thrilling and bloody action have made for a heady, enjoyable sci-fi experience.

Andor

The success of Disney+’s Andor can be observed by its frequent use as a measuring stick. Across the entertainment landscape, any studio introducing a fresh new take on an existing IP plainly states that it’s intended to be the “Andor of [INSERT-FRANCHISE-HERE].” Marvel’s Secret Invasion was teased as the Andor of the MCU (and hooboy, that was a swing and a miss). More successfully, the aforementioned Earth: Alien has been pitched as the Alien’s Andor. Truthfully, however, there’s only one Andor and the show’s second and final season proved why.

Andor season 2 is a truly outstanding example of sci-fi storytelling. Imbued with authentic revolutionary spirit, the &#8220, conclusion &#8221, to Cassian Andor&#8217, s story ( give or take a Rogue One ) was a triumph. Once more, Diego Luna embodied Cassian as a disgruntled folk hero who was there for the rebellion when necessary. Meanwhile, the political analogies at play were more astute than ever with the villainous Dedra Meero ( Denise Gough ) and Syril Karn ( Kyle Soller ) finding out how little use fascism has for its adherents. We count ourselves among the friends from Andor season 2. There were many of them.

Dying for Sex

It’s unfortunate that the FX miniseries Dying for Sex didn’t receive as much attention as its IP-centric and franchise-focused competition. This funny, touching, and bittersweet eight-episode series was one of the more pleasant and human experiences for the medium this year. Michelle Williams portrays Molly Kochan, a woman who is diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer in a loosely based real-life story. Faced with the prospect of death, Molly sets off on a journey of sexual self discovery.

Williams delivers a vulnerable performance, and Jenny Slate delivers excellent supporting acting as Molly &#8217, her friend Nikki Boyer. Dying for Sex is ultimately a refreshingly blunt look at the most taboo of subjects &#8211, death and sex. By the time Rob Delaney steps in as a neighbor Molly discovers that the show has something to say about both of them, Molly finds herself just as repulsed and turned on by.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Few television programs feature a 17th (! )! season find their way onto a best-of-the-year list. However, not many shows actually make it to their 17th year. Thankfully FX comedy It&#8217, s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has and TV is all the better for it. After a protracted series of funny but ultimately forgettable installments in its late teens, Rob Mac, Charlie Day, and Glenn Howerton&#8217’s insane creation resurrected as the best version of itself once more in 2025.

Save for the second half of its charming yet inessential crossover with Abbott Elementary, Always Sunny season 17 features nothing but bangers. Everyone is playing the best game right now. Mac ( Mac ) salsa dances while under the influence of hot peppers. Some people are slapbed by Dee ( Kaitlin Olson ). Dennis ( Howerton ) becomes a waxy-faced vampire. Charlie ( Day ) cuts his head. Frank ( Danny DeVito ) is cake. Another of the show’s hilarious yet oddly touching finales comes close to it.

Long Story Short

It’s challenging to find a way to elevate an animated comedy series beyond BoJack Horseman‘s personal, elegiac, and melancholy. With Long Story Short, BoJack creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg gives it a shot anyway. Netflix released the 10-episode film on August 22 and channels it for the emotional wringer. Following the middle-class Jewish American Schwooper family over a span of 30-some years, Long Story Short does n&#8217, t let the perpetual forward movement of time interrupt with its storytelling mission.

Long Story Short examines the quiet desperation of American family life from every angle, whether it’s young Yoshi ( Max Greenfield ), checking in with an adolescent Shira ( Abbi Jacobsen ), or jumping forward to a middle-aged Avi ( Ben Feldman ) after experiencing multiple personal tragedies. And of course: it &#8217, s very funny &#8230, as all families are.

Murderbot

One of the 2025 TV season’s most slam-dunk elevator pitches is featured on Apple TV+&#8216, Murderbot. They &#8217, ve got Alexander Skarsgård &#8230, and he&#8217, s a murderbot. The titular cyborg at the center of Murderbot, which was created from machine parts and cloned tissue, isn’t actually called that. He&#8217, s an anonymous security tool known as &#8220, SecUnit&#8221, who is purchased to assist some egghead hippies on a dangerous scientific mission. However, Murderbot has gained autonomy and given himself a colorful new name unknowst to both his creators and buyers.

Just like Martha Wells &#8217, beloved book series upon which Murderbot is based, this is easy-breezy sci-fi capable of entertaining mass audiences. As he binges episodes of his favorite show The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon, Skarsgrd finds himself as likeable as ever as he strikes a balance between protecting his family and maintaining his ruse. The first season &#8217, s 10 episodes flow together nicely, ending in a finale that promises expanded Murderbot adventures ( or Diaries ) to come.

The Pitt

It might be hyperbole to say that The Pitt saved television this year, but I&#8217, ll be damned if I didn&#8217, t think that more than once while watching it. Only HBO Max and The Pitt had the guts to take the lead and say,” What if it we just made an awesome 90s medical drama” in the middle of a sea of low-effort streaming sludge and long-in-the-tooth franchise storytelling?” &#8221,

The Pitt obviously owes a lot to its med drama ancestors, particularly ER, where it took Noah Wyle as star, and more importantly, according to the Michael Crichton estate, a little more than that. But its dedication to real-time storytelling and relentless plot movement is an entirely modern invention. These 15 episodes ( which were obviously released weekly ) just fly by so quickly. There&#8217, s always something going on at the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center. You &#8217, glance down at your phone for a second and have missed at least 14 intubations. Take that, second screen TV culture!

The Rehearsal

The first season of Nathan Fielder&#8217, s The Rehearsal was a worthy follow-up to the Canadian satirist&#8217, s landmark Nathan For You docuseries. However, it was difficult to understand how the narrative, in which Fielder attempts to recreate every encounter in his life, could have had a little more of a focus. That focus arrives in The Rehearsal season 2, with Fielder locking in to save the American aviation industry.

The Rehearsal season 2 picks up a problem ( plane crashes ), determines its fix ( lack of pilot communication ), and rolls up its sleeves ( through rehearsal, of course ). It has six brilliant episodes. By the time you get to Fielder&#8217, s &#8220, Miracle Over the Mojave, &#8221, The Rehearsal&#8216, s second season has truly entered into the &#8220, social advocacy comedy docuseries &#8221, genre Hall of Fame alongside pretty much just other Nathan Fielder projects. It is a very small category.

Severance

Viewers want answers when it comes to mystery box storytelling. In Severance season 2, resolutions are needed for the following inquiries: Who was Kier Eagan?, Who was Kier Eagan?, Why is Lumon doing all of this, &#8221, and of course, What&#8217, s with the goats. &#8221, At the same time, however, wrapping up any mystery just ends that mystery. How can a show like Severance keep its viewers interested without dragging them along?

Season 2 makes that tightrope act look absurdly easy. Yes, some questions are answered in this batch of 10 Apple TV + episodes ( including, you might say, the goat one, believe it or not! ). But the seasons real strengths lie in the quiet moments between those discoveries. There is never a dull moment on the Macrodata Refinement floor, thanks to Ben Stiller&#8217, revelatory direction, flawless production design, and a pitch-perfect cast led by Adam Scott.

Squid Game

Squid Game came close to airing two full seasons of television this year thanks to Netflix’s creative ( and frankly annoying ) release strategy, with season 2’s Dec. 26, 2024 release date missing the cut by only six days. The fact that only season three&#8217, s six episodes premiered in 2025 might make its inclusion on this list controversial. The arc that led to the release of Hwang Dong-hyuk’s contemporary dystopian masterpiece, Hwang Dong-hyuk’s final work was at least divided.

We would argue it should n&#8217, t be, however. Squid Game season 3 was another perfectly dark story with the exception of the aforementioned release model that made it feel like half a season. The central games, which are always equal parts thrilling and disgusting, took on an added foreboding resonance as viewers were forced to contend with the introduction of the ultimate innocent contestant and the lingering question of whether Player 456 could actually survive the brutal gauntlet twice. A somewhat cynical, occasionally angry show managed to get even more angrier while still bringing even the slightest hint of hope for a brighter future.

The Studio

Matt Remick, the head of Continental Studio ( Seth Rogen ), has a real passion for movies despite the impression that his job is to destroy them. The TV show built around him, The Studio, also loves movies &#8230, but maybe not as much as it loves television. The Studio has a deep appreciation of what works for its smaller brother in addition to being a satirical love letter to Hollywood, even in its imperfect IP era. In this case that means gags &#8230, lots of &#8217, em.

The Studio‘s 10 installments are fantastic episodic, with the exception of the premiere and the two-part finale. One episode finds Matt continually ruining a &#8220, oner&#8221, on Sarah Polley &#8217, s film. Another video shows him fighting with Ron Howard over the sluggish conclusion of his movie. Then, just when he thinks he can have a breather on a date with a pediatric oncologist, suddenly he&#8217, s suffered a gruesome injury. It almost seems as though this movie-related tale is continuing to show situations that are filled with humor. If only there were some kind of term for situational comedy. Continental Studio might then enter the TV industry.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

When X-Men &#8217, 97 first appeared on Disney + in 2024, it completely altered how people saw what Marvel could do with episodic animated storytelling. The X-Men: The Animated Series continuation not only paid faithful homage to its ancestor, it took genuinely bold dramatic swings. None of that was done by 2025’s Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Man and#8230. But it was still a remarkably fun and creative endeavor for Marvel right when the studio sorely needed it.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man wisely swaps out any of the recognizable Spidey roles for a world where it can discover what makes Peter Parker so special. Blessed with some intriguing Spider-verse easter eggs and a pitch perfect performance from Colman Domingo as Norman Osborn, YFNSM just works. And if nothing else, it provides a satisfyingly straightforward example of how Marvel’s big-screen webslinger can proceed in Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

The post The Best TV Shows of 2025 ( So Far ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Feedback, in whichever form it takes, and whatever it may be called, is one of the most effective soft skills that we have at our disposal to collaboratively get our designs to a better place while growing our own skills and perspectives.

Feedback is also one of the most underestimated tools, and often by assuming that we’re already good at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Poor feedback can create confusion in projects, bring down morale, and affect trust and team collaboration over the long term. Quality feedback can be a transformative force. 

Practicing our skills is surely a good way to improve, but the learning gets even faster when it’s paired with a good foundation that channels and focuses the practice. What are some foundational aspects of giving good feedback? And how can feedback be adjusted for remote and distributed work environments? 

On the web, we can identify a long tradition of asynchronous feedback: from the early days of open source, code was shared and discussed on mailing lists. Today, developers engage on pull requests, designers comment in their favorite design tools, project managers and scrum masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

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

The content

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

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

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

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

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

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back.

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

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. 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, for design critiques, in my experience, defaulting to the question approach usually reaches the best solutions because designers are generally more comfortable in being given an open space to explore.

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. A while ago, I was putting a lot of effort into improving my feedback: I did rounds of anonymous feedback, and I reviewed feedback with other people. 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. To my shock, my next round of feedback from one specific person wasn’t that great. 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. But now in this other team, there was one person who instead preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

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

No, this style of feedback is actually efficient because the length here is a byproduct of clarity, and spending time giving this kind of feedback can provide exactly enough information for a good fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just, “Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons.” The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just apply 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 the why, the designer might imagine that the change is about 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.

So the equation above isn’t meant to suggest a strict template for feedback but a mnemonic to reflect and improve 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. Tone alone can make the difference between content that’s rejected or welcomed, and it’s been demonstrated that only positive feedback creates sustained change in people.

Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the required soft skills in a formula that mirrors 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.

Timing refers to when the feedback happens. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. Questioning the entire high-level information architecture of a new feature when it’s about to ship might still be relevant if that questioning highlights a major blocker that nobody saw, but it’s way more likely that those concerns will have to wait for a later rework. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Late iteration? Polishing work in progress? These all have different 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 means checking before we write to see whether what we have in mind will truly help the person and make the project better overall. 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 that can happen, and that’s okay. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I be more constructive?

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 might be many reasons for this: sometimes certain words might trigger specific reactions; sometimes nonnative speakers might not understand all the nuances of some sentences; sometimes our brains might just be different and we might perceive the world differently—neurodiversity must be taken into consideration. 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 received some good advice but also a comment that surprised me. They pointed out that when I wrote “Oh, […],” I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intent! 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 made a quick fix: I added “oh” in my list of replaced words (your choice between: macOS’s text replacement, aText, TextExpander, or others) so that when I typed “oh,” it was instantly 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 remember here that a positive attitude doesn’t mean going light on the feedback—it just means that even when you provide hard, difficult, or challenging feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. 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. I found that the best, most insightful moments for me have happened when I’ve shared a comment and I’ve asked someone who I highly trusted, “How does this sound?,” “How can I do it better,” and even “How would you have written it?”—and I’ve learned a lot by seeing the two versions side by side.

The format

Asynchronous feedback also has a major inherent advantage: we can take more time to refine what we’ve written to make sure that it fulfills two main goals: the clarity of communication and the actionability of the suggestions.

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to do this, and of course context matters, but let’s try to think about some elements that may be useful to consider.

In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. Specifically, this means describing where you’re coming from: do you have a deep knowledge of the project, or is this the first time that you’re seeing it? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s perspective are you taking when providing 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?

Providing context is helpful even if you’re sharing feedback within a team that already has some information on the project. 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 often focus on the negatives, trying to outline all the things that could be done better. 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. This might seem superfluous, but it’s important to keep in mind that design is a discipline where there are hundreds of possible solutions for every 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. As a bonus, positive feedback can also help reduce impostor syndrome.

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

Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s “This button isn’t well aligned” versus “You haven’t aligned this button well.” This is very easy to change in your writing 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. For longer pieces of feedback, you might also consider splitting it into sections or even across multiple comments. 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. So a red square 🟥 means that it’s something that I consider blocking; a yellow diamond 🔶 is something that I can be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that it should be changed; and a green circle 🟢 is a detailed, positive confirmation. I also use a blue spiral 🌀 for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. But I’d use this approach only on teams where I’ve already established a good level of trust because if it happens that I have to deliver a lot of red squares, the impact could be quite demoralizing, and I’d reframe how I’d communicate that a bit.

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

• 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. 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 creates the impression that it’s a positive action because green is usually perceived as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
• 🔶Tiles—Given the number of items on the page, and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles shouldn’t be using the Subtitle 1 style but the Subtitle 2 style. This will 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 thinking in using that?

What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? In general, I find these difficult to use because they hide discussions and they’re harder to track, but in the right context, 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 obviously good or obviously wrong, and so we don’t say it. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it—that’s okay. 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.

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

Content, tone, and format. Each one of these subjects provides a useful model, but working to improve eight areas—observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability—is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective 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, then 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 feedback?” is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for opinions. It’s obscure and unfocused, and it doesn’t give us a sense of what we’re looking for. Getting good opinions starts sooner than we might hope: it starts with the demand.

When we realize that receiving input can be seen as a form of pattern study, it might seem counterintuitive to begin the process with a question. In the same way that we wouldn’t perform any studies without the correct questions to get the insight that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to build strong issues.

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

And suddenly, as with any great research, we need to review what we got up, get to the base of its perspectives, and take activity. Iteration, evaluation, and issue. 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 mind” at the end of a presentation are likely to garner a lot of different ideas, or worse, to make people follow the lead of the first speaker. And next… we get frustrated because vague issues like those you turn a high-level moves review into folks rather commenting on the borders of buttons. Which theme may be significant, so it might be difficult to get the team to choose the one you wanted to concentrate on.

But how do we get into this scenario? A number of elements are involved. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to keep the issue 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 concerns, so we don’t work to make them better.

The work of asking good questions guidelines and focuses the criticism. It also serves as a form of acceptance, outlining your willingness to make comments and the types of comments 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 suggestions. It simply needs to be certain, and sensitivity can take several shapes. The one of stage over level is a design for design criticism that I’ve found to be particularly helpful in my coaching.

” Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our event, the design process. The type of input changes as the consumer research moves on to the final design. But within a single stage, one might also examine whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a suitable language of the amassed opinions into updated designs as the project 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? 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 top-most error counter, which ensures that you can see the next error even when the error 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. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle 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. Even experienced designers will appreciate the clarity and efficiency gained from concentrating solely on what is required, and those with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of them only display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. 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’s probably not the most effective way to go about designing critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive, it might work for some teams.

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

Using iteration posts has a number of benefits:

• 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.
• Depending on the tool, it might also make it simpler to collect and act on feedback.

These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. 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 components 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 provide all I need to know about the most recent design.

This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. Therefore, repeating information in posts helps to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

The design is then the actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other kind of design work that’s been done. In essence, it’s any design work. 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 design process is complete and the feature is ready.

I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft, just a concept to start a discussion, or it might be a cumulative list of every feature that was 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. One can quickly say,” This was discussed in i4″ with each project, and everyone knows where to go to review things.
• Unassuming—It works like versions ( such as v1, v2, and v3 ) but in contrast, versions create the impression of something that’s big, exhaustive, and complete. Exploratory, incomplete, or partial should be the definition of an argument.
• 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 describe a design as complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits that still need more attention and in turn, more iterations would be required, such as” with i8 we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC” to indicate when it is finished.

The review

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

This shift has some significant advantages, making asynchronous feedback particularly effective, especially around these friction points:

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

The first friction point is having to feel pressured to respond to each and every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s just a few of them, it’s simple, and there isn’t much to worry about. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the respondent is a stakeholder or someone directly involved in the project who 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. The response is received when the design changes and a follow-up iteration is made. 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”!
• One more thing is to quickly summarize the comments before proceeding. 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 a team or non-project who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements, or of the discussions from earlier iterations, is the second friction point. 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 saying the same thing over and over.

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 has two benefits: first, they might point out something that isn’t clear, and second, they might serve as a reference point for someone who is first viewing the design. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

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

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

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

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

I’m never sure when I first heard this offer, but it’s something that has stayed with me over the centuries. How do you generate solutions for scenarios you can’t think? Or pattern products that work on products yet to be invented?

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I created a 960px paint and set about creating a design that I would eventually lose information in. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect precision using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute setting.

Ethan Marcotte’s speak at An Event Off and subsequent content” Responsive Web Design” in A List Off in 2010 changed all this. I 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.

The fear wasn’t helped by my first encounter with flexible style. My second project was to get an active fixed-width website and make it reactive. What I learned the hard way 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

Developing flexible or smooth sites has always been about removing limitations, producing material that can be viewed on any system. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved 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%;}

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

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

Media concerns

The next ingredient for reactive design is press queries. Without them, glad may shrink to fit the available area regardless of whether that information remained readable ( The exact same difficulty occurred with the introduction of a mobile-first view ).

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

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

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

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

Another difficulty arose as I moved from a design firm building websites for little- to medium-sized companies, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a collection of related sites. In those roles I started to work much more with reusable components.

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

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

Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

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

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

In other words, responsive components to replace responsive layouts.

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

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

A component library removed from context and real content is probably not the best place for that decision.

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

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

It’s hard to say for sure whether container queries will be a success story until we have solid cross-browser support for them. Responsive component libraries would definitely evolve how we design and would improve the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. But maybe we will always need to adjust these components to suit our content.

CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrinsic layouts

I’d be remiss not to mention intrinsic layouts, the term created by Jen Simmons to describe a mixture of new and old CSS features used to create layouts that respond to available space.

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

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

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Components and patterns can be lifted and reused without the prerequisite of having the same breakpoints or the same amount of content as in the previous implementation.

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

Another 2010 moment?

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

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

One reason for that could be that I now work in a large organization, which is quite different from the design agency role I had in 2010. In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. Nowadays, projects use existing tools and frameworks and are often improvements to existing websites with an existing codebase.

Another could be that I feel more prepared for change now. In 2010 I was new to design in general, the shift was frightening and required a lot of learning. Also, an intrinsic approach isn’t exactly all-new, it’s about using existing skills and existing CSS knowledge in a different way.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? This type of design must happen in the browser, which personally I’m a big fan of.

The debate about “whether designers should code” is another that has rumbled on for years. When designing a digital product, we should, at the very least, design for a best- and worst-case scenario when it comes to content. To do this in a graphics-based software package is far from ideal. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Does it still work? Is the design too reliant on the current content?

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

Content first

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

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

Instead of old markup hacks like this —

 First line of text with different styling...

—we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

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

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

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

These variables can be used as values—

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

—or as properties.

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed and fluid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This time, the element’s width will be 50 % ( the preferred value ) of its container but never less than 300px and never more than 600px.

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

Situation first

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

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

This is why choice is so important. One size never fits all, so we need to design for multiple scenarios to create equal experiences for all our users.

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

Responsible design

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

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

Chris Ashton

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

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

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

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

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

So how can we put users in control?

The return of media queries

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

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

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

For example, there’s a light-level feature that allows you to modify styles if a user is in sunlight or darkness. Paired with custom properties, these features allow us to quickly create designs or themes for specific environments.

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

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

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

Expect the unexpected

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

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

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

When it comes to unexpected situations, we need to make sure our products are usable when people need them, whenever and wherever that might be. We can move closer to achieving this by involving users in our design decisions, by creating choice via browsers, and by giving control to our users with user-preference-based media queries.

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

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

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

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

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

Voice Interactions

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

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

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

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

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

Transactional voice interactions

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

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

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

Burhan: Sure, what size?

Alison: Large.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No thanks, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

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

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

Informational voice interactions

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

Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

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

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

Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

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

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

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

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

Voice Interfaces

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

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

Interactive voice response (IVR) systems

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

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

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

Screen readers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice assistants

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the 1950s, many in the elite running community had begun to believe it wasn’t possible to run a mile in less than four minutes. Runners had been attempting it since the late 19th century and were beginning to draw the conclusion that the human body simply wasn’t built for the task. 

But on May 6, 1956, Roger Bannister took everyone by surprise. It was a cold, wet day in Oxford, England—conditions no one expected to lend themselves to record-setting—and yet Bannister did just that, running a mile in 3:59.4 and becoming the first person in the record books to run a mile in under four minutes. 

This shift in the benchmark had profound effects; the world now knew that the four-minute mile was possible. Bannister’s record lasted only forty-six days, when it was snatched away by Australian runner John Landy. Then a year later, three runners all beat the four-minute barrier together in the same race. Since then, over 1,400 runners have officially run a mile in under four minutes; the current record is 3:43.13, held by Moroccan athlete Hicham El Guerrouj.

We achieve far more when we believe that something is possible, and we will believe it’s possible only when we see someone else has already done it—and as with human running speed, so it is with what we believe are the hard limits for how a website needs to perform.

Establishing standards for a sustainable web

In most major industries, the key metrics of environmental performance are fairly well established, such as miles per gallon for cars or energy per square meter for homes. The tools and methods for calculating those metrics are standardized as well, which keeps everyone on the same page when doing environmental assessments. In the world of websites and apps, however, we aren’t held to any particular environmental standards, and only recently have gained the tools and methods we need to even make an environmental assessment.

The primary goal in sustainable web design is to reduce carbon emissions. However, it’s almost impossible to actually measure the amount of CO₂ produced by a web product. We can’t measure the fumes coming out of the exhaust pipes on our laptops. The emissions of our websites are far away, out of sight and out of mind, coming out of power stations burning coal and gas. We have no way to trace the electrons from a website or app back to the power station where the electricity is being generated and actually know the exact amount of greenhouse gas produced. So what do we do? 

If we can’t measure the actual carbon emissions, then we need to find what we can measure. The primary factors that could be used as indicators of carbon emissions are:

1. Data transfer 
2. Carbon intensity of electricity

Let’s take a look at how we can use these metrics to quantify the energy consumption, and in turn the carbon footprint, of the websites and web apps we create.

Data transfer

Most researchers use kilowatt-hours per gigabyte (kWh/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 provides a great reference point for energy consumption and carbon emissions. As a rule of thumb, the more data transferred, the more energy used in the data center, telecoms networks, and end user devices.

For web pages, data transfer for a single visit can be most easily estimated by measuring the page weight, meaning the transfer size of the page in kilobytes the first time someone visits the page. It’s fairly easy to measure using the developer tools in any modern web browser. Often your web hosting account will include statistics for the total data transfer of any web application (Fig 2.1).

The nice thing about page weight as a metric is that it allows us to compare the efficiency of web pages on a level playing field without confusing the issue with constantly changing traffic volumes. 

Reducing page weight requires a large scope. 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). Roughly half of this data transfer is image files, making images the single biggest source of carbon emissions on the average website. 

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

You might be familiar with the concept of performance budgeting as a way of focusing a project team on creating 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. Much like speed limits while driving, performance budgets are upper limits rather than vague suggestions, so the goal should always be to come in under budget.

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

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 benchmark page weight against competitors or the old version of the website we’re replacing. 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. 

If we want to take it to the next level, then we could also start looking at the transfer size of our web pages for repeat visitors. 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 example, visitors who load the same page multiple times will likely have a high percentage of the files cached in their browser, meaning they don’t need to transfer all of 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. Measuring transfer size at this next level of detail can help us learn even more about how we can optimize efficiency for users who regularly visit our pages, and enable us to set page weight budgets for additional scenarios beyond the first visit.

Page weight budgets are easy to track throughout a design and development process. Although they don’t actually tell us carbon emission and energy consumption analytics directly, they give us a clear indication of efficiency relative 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, reduced data transfer translates to energy efficiency, a key factor to reducing carbon emissions of web products. 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. But as we’ll see next, since all web products demand some power, it’s important to consider the source of that electricity, too.

Carbon intensity of electricity

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. Carbon intensity is a term used to define the grams of CO₂ produced for every kilowatt-hour of electricity (gCO₂/kWh). This varies widely, with renewable energy sources and nuclear having an extremely low carbon intensity of less than 10 gCO₂/kWh (even when factoring in their construction); whereas fossil fuels have very high carbon intensity of approximately 200–400 gCO₂/kWh. 

Most electricity comes from national or state grids, where energy from a variety of different sources is mixed together with varying 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.

We don’t have control over the full energy supply of web services, but we do have some control over where we host our projects. 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 this user-contributed data, and a glance at their map shows how, for example, choosing a data center in France will have significantly lower carbon emissions than a data center in the Netherlands (Fig 2.3).

That said, we don’t want to locate our servers too far away from our users; it takes energy to transmit data through the telecom’s networks, and the further the data travels, the more energy is consumed. 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.

Using the distance itself as a benchmark, we can use website analytics to identify the country, state, or even city where our core user group is located and measure the distance from that location to the data center used by our hosting company. 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 example, if a website is hosted in London but the primary user base is on the West Coast of the USA, then we could look up the distance from London to San Francisco, which is 5,300 miles. That’s a long way! We can see that hosting it somewhere in North America, ideally on the West Coast, would significantly reduce the distance and thus the energy used 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.

Converting it back 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. A tool my team created does this by measuring the data transfer over the wire when loading a web page, calculating the amount of electricity associated, and then converting that into a figure for CO₂ (Fig 2.4). It also factors in whether or not the web hosting is powered by renewable energy.

If you want to take it to the next level and tailor the data more accurately to the unique aspects of your project, the Energy and Emissions Worksheet accompanying this book shows you how.

With the ability to calculate carbon emissions for our projects, we could actually take a page weight budget one step further and set carbon budgets as well. 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. Translating that into carbon adds a layer of abstraction that isn’t as intuitive—but carbon budgets do focus our minds on the primary thing we’re trying to reduce, and support the core objective of sustainable web design: reducing carbon emissions.

Browser Energy

Data transfer 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. As front-end web technologies become more advanced, the computational load is increasingly moving from the data center to users’ devices, whether they be phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, or even smart TVs. Modern web browsers allow us to implement more complex styling and animation on the fly using CSS and JavaScript. Furthermore, JavaScript libraries such as Angular and React allow us to create applications where the “thinking” work is done partly or entirely 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 the user’s web browser means more energy used by their devices. This has implications not just environmentally, but also for user experience and inclusivity. Applications that put a heavy processing load on the user’s device can inadvertently exclude users with older, slower devices and cause batteries on phones and laptops to drain faster. 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. This isn’t just bad for the environment, but it puts a disproportionate financial burden on the poorest in society.

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. One tool we do currently have is the Energy Impact monitor inside the developer console of the Safari browser (Fig 2.5).

You know when you load a website and your computer’s cooling fans start spinning so frantically you think it might actually take off? That’s essentially what this tool is measuring. 

It shows us the percentage of CPU used and the duration of CPU usage when loading the web page, and uses these figures to generate an energy impact rating. 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.