Blog

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

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

Use story as a framework when conducting study.

It’s sad to say, but many have come to view studies as being inconsequential. Research is typically one of the first things to go when expenses or deadlines are tight. Instead of investing in study, some goods professionals rely on manufacturers or—worse—their personal judgment to make the “right” options for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get groups a little bit out of the way, but that approach is therefore easily miss out on resolving people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User study improves pattern. It keeps it on trail, pointing to problems and opportunities. You can keep back of your competition by being aware of the problems with your goods and fixing them.

In the three-act structure, each action corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is important to telling the whole story. Let’s take a look at the various functions and how they relate to customer research.

Act one: installation

The basic research comes in handy because the layout is all about understanding the background. Basic research ( also called relational, discovery, or preliminary research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. Like in the movies, you’re learning about the difficulties users face, what options are available, and how they are affected by them. To do basic research, you may conduct situational inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both challenges and options. It doesn’t need to get a great investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about the most effective anthropology, which can be as straightforward as spending 15 hours with a customer and asking them to” Walk me through your morning yesterday.” That’s it. Give that one ask. Locked up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to protect both your objectives and yourself. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. According to Hall, “[This ] will probably prove quite fascinating. In the very unlikely event that you didn’t learn anything new or helpful, carry on with increased confidence in your way”.

This makes perfect sense to me. And I love that this makes consumer research so visible. You can simply attract participants and carry out the recruitment process without having to make a lot of paperwork! This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. That’s exactly what work one is all about: understanding where people are coming from.

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

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can influence product groups ‘ focus on improving. This gains everyone—users, the goods, and partners. It’s similar to winning an Oscar for a film; it frequently results in a favorable reception and success for your item. And this can be an opportunity for participants to repeat this process with different items. Knowing how to show a good story is the only way to convince partners to worry about doing more research, and story is the key to this method.

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

Act two: issue

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

According to Jakob Nielsen, five users should be normally in usability tests, which means that this number of users can generally identify the majority of the issues:” As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the second user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings consistently but not learning much new.”

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

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

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

That’s not to say that the “movies” —remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote training sessions can reach a wider audience. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. Additionally, they make access to a much wider user base geographically. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working.

The advantage of usability testing, whether conducted remotely or in person, is that you can ask real users questions to understand their reasoning and understanding of the problem. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. You can also test your own ideas and determine whether they are true. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. The excitement is in the second act, but there are also potential surprises in the third. This is equally true of usability tests. Unexpected things that participants say frequently alter the way you look at things, and these unexpected revelations can lead to unexpected turns in the narrative.

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

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

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

Act three: resolution

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

This act is primarily told through voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They provide the stakeholders with their suggestions and suggestions for how to create this vision.

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

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

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick sketches of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the session is over when you’ve concluded by bridging the gaps and offering suggestions for improvement. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. The stakeholders will now have the opportunity to take the next steps, and hopefully the will-power to do so!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve lost count of the times when promising ideas go from being useless in a few days to being useless after working as a solution designer for too long to explain.

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

The drawbacks of feature-first growth

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

The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) is applied to this. Even if Jason Fried doesn’t usually refer to this concept, his book Getting Real and his radio Rework frequently discuss it. An MVP is a product that offers only enough value to your users to keep them interested, but not so much that it becomes difficult to keep up. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a ruthless edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because it is easy to fall for” the Columbo Effect” when there is always” just one more thing …” to add.

The issue with most fund apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an encounter created specifically for the customer. Instead of offering a distinct value statement that is focused on what people in the real world want, the focus should be on delivering as some features and functionalities as possible to satisfy the needs and wants of competing inside sections. These products may therefore quickly become a muddled mess of confusing, related, and finally unlovable client experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The significance of the foundation

What is a better strategy, then? How may we create products that are user-friendly, firm, and, most importantly, stick?

The concept of “bedrock” comes into play here. Rock is the main feature of your solution that really matters to customers. It’s the fundamental building block that creates price and maintains relevance over time.

The core must be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the retail banking industry, which is where I work. People only look at their existing account once every blue moon, but they do so every day. They sign up for a credit card every year or two, but they check their balance and pay their bill at least once a quarter.

The key is in identifying the main jobs that people want to complete and working relentlessly to render them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

But how do you reach the foundation? By focusing on the” MVP” strategy, giving ease the top priority, and working toward a distinct value proposition. This means avoiding unnecessary characteristics and putting your customers first, and adding real value.

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

Functional methods for creating reliable financial goods

What are the main learnings I’ve made from my own research and practice, then?

1. What trouble are you trying to solve first and foremost with a distinct “why”? For whom? Before beginning any project, make sure your goal is completely clear. Make certain it also aligns with the goals of your business.
2. Avoid the temptation to put too many characteristics at once and focus on getting that right first. Choose one that actually adds price, and work from that.
3. Give clarity the precedence it deserves over difficulty when it comes to financial products. Eliminate unwanted details and concentrate solely on what matters most.
4. Accept ongoing iteration: Bedrock is not a fixed destination; it is a fluid process. Continuously collect customer comments, make improvements to your product, and move toward that foundation.
5. Stop, glance, and talk: You must test your product frequently in the field rather than just as part of the shipping process. Use it for yourself. Work A/B testing. User opinions on Gear. Speak to those who use it, and change things up correctly.

The core dilemma

This is an intriguing conundrum: sacrificing some of the potential for short-term progress in favor of long-term stability is at play. But the reward is worthwhile because products created with a concentrate on core will outlive and outperform their competitors and provide people with ongoing value over time.

How do you begin your quest for rock, then? Consider it gradually. Start by identifying the underlying factors that your customers actually care about. Focus on developing and improving a second, potent have that delivers real value. And most importantly, check constantly because, whatever you think, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker are all in the same boat! The best way to foretell the future is to make it, he said.

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

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

The conventional solution has been to create clear traces on an organizational chart. The Design Manager handles persons, the Lead Designer handles art. Best, problem is fixed, best? Except that clear nonprofit charts are fantasy. In fact, both roles care greatly about crew health, style quality, and shipping great work.

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

A Healthy Design Team’s Biology

Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both flanks of this formula: think of your design team as a living organism. The design manager has a focus on the internal safety, career advancement, team dynamics, and other aspects. The Lead Designer is more focused on the body ( the handiwork, the design standards, the hands-on projects that are delivered to users ).

But just like mind and body aren’t totally separate systems, but, also, do these tasks overlap in significant ways. Without working in harmony with one person, you can’t have a good person. The technique is to recognize those overlaps and how to understand them gently.

When we look at how good team really function, three critical devices emerge. Each role must be combined, but one has to assume the lead role in keeping that system sturdy.

The Nervous System: Persons & Psychology

Major caretaker: Design Manager
Supporting position: Guide Custom

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

The main caretaker here is the Design Manager. They are keeping track of the team’s emotional signal, making sure feedback rings are good, and creating the conditions for people to develop. They’re hosting job meetings, managing task, and making sure no single burns out.

However, the Lead Designer has a significant supporting position. They provide visual feedback on build development requirements, identifying stagnant design skills, and assisting with the Design Manager’s potential growth opportunities.

Design Manager tends to:

• development planning and job conversations
• emotional stability and dynamics of the team
• Overhead management and resource allocation
• Performance evaluations and opinions management systems
• Providing learning options

Direct Custom supports by:

• Providing craft-specific evaluation of staff member growth
• identifying opportunities for growth and style talent gaps
• Providing style mentorship and assistance
• indicating when a crew is prepared for more challenging tasks.

The Muscular System: Design & Execution

Major custodian: Lead Designer
Supporting position: Design Manager

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

The Lead Designer is the main caregiver at this place. They are raising the bar for quality work, providing craft instruction, and ensuring that shipping work is done to the highest standards. They’re the ones who can tell you if a design decision is sound or if we’re solving the right problem.

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

Lead Designer tends to:

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

Design Manager supports by:

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

The Circulatory System: Strategy &amp, Flow

Shared caretakers: Lead Designer and Design Manager, respectively.

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

This is the true partnership that occurs. Although both roles are responsible for maintaining the circulation, they both have unique perspectives to offer.

Lead Designer contributes:

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

Contributes the design manager:

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

Both parties work together on:

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

Keeping the Organism Healthy

Understanding that all three systems must work together is the key to making this partnership sing. A team with excellent craftmanship but poor psychological protection will eventually burn out. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team that has both but poor strategic planning will work hard on the wrong things.

Be Specific About the System You’re Defending.

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

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

Create Positive Feedback Loops

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

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

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

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

Handle Handoffs Gracefully

When something switches from one system to another, this partnership’s pivotal moment is. This might occur when a design standard ( muscular system ) needs to be implemented across the team ( nervous system ) or when a tactical initiative ( circulatory system ) requires specific craft execution ( muscular system ).

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

Stay curious and not territorial.

The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Great design leadership requires both parties to be concerned with the entire organism, even when they are not the primary caregiver.

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

When the Organism Gets Sick

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

System Isolation

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

The signs: Mixed messages are sent to team members, poor morale is attained, and there are negative things.

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

Poor Circulation

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

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

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

Autoimmune Response

One person feels threatened by the other’s skill set. The Design Manager thinks the Lead Designer is undermining their authority. The Design Manager is allegedly misunderstanding the craft, according to the Lead Designer.

The signs: defensive behavior, territorial disputes, team members stifled in the middle.

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

The Payoff

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

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

The framework has a balance, which is crucial. You can use the same system thinking to new challenges as your team grows. Need to launch a design system? Both the muscular system ( standards and implementation ), the nervous system (team adoption and change management ), and both have a tendency to circulate ( communication and stakeholder alignment ).

The End result

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

The mind and body work together. The team benefits from both strategic thinking and craftmanship. And most importantly, users benefit from both perspectives when they receive the work.

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

If you enjoy the Yautja and xenomorphs, you’re going to enjoy this summer. We’re even getting a noble Yajuta in Predator: Badlands, which Hulu and the FX series Alien: Earth have eventually brought the fronds to our home planet. One thing, for some fans, may merely improve this horde of riches: getting […]

The article Alien: Earth Showrunner Jokes About Alien vs. On Den of Geek, Predator Possibilities second appeared.

James Gunn has been hesitant to respond to too many inquiries regarding the connection between the DC Universe reboot that he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-founded and the earlier universe that Zack Snyder launched with Man of Steel in 2013. There are some things from the old world that we refer to in Peacemaker time 2, he just told Den of Geek, but they’re not cannon until next.

We finally getting some good links with SDCC upon us. We catch up with Christopher Smith, aka Peacemaker ( John Cena ), when he reunites with his friends in the 11th Street Kids: Leota Adebayo ( Danielle Brooks ), Emilia Harcourt ( Jennifer Holland ), John Economos ( Steve Agee ), and Adrian Chase aka Vigilante ( Freddie Stroma ), in the most recent trailer for Peacemaker&#8216, s second season, set to &#8220, Road to

The same can’t be said for another well-known face, that of new ARGUS director Rick Flag Sr. ( Frank Grillo ), as happy as they are to see one another again. Following the death of his son Rick Flag Jr. ( Joel Kinnaman ), whom Chris murdered at the behest of Amanda Waller ( Viola Davis ), at the conclusion of The Suicide Squad, Gunn&#8217, the first DC film from 2021, Flag plans to use his new position to seek vengeance against Chris.

So far, we have been given complete assurance that The Suicide Squad‘s events are relevant in the new DCU and that it is also a cannon. That, of course, doesn’t answer every lingering question ( not even as it does with Peacemaker, which famously featured celebrities from Jason Momoa, Jason Momoa, and Aquaman in the final episode ).

However, the trailer did point out something that might give some answers to those original DC heroes. We see Chris provide a different world through a unique website throughout the video. Chris is precious in one of the different challenges we see him discovering, whereas in his house dimension, he is still a laughing stock yet after he and the 11th Street Kids stopped an alien conquest in Peacemaker‘s first season. In fact, he is loved by Auggie ( Robert Patrick ), his father, and not just by Chris killed in season 1, but also by his father, who must be very different from that person.

We see hints that Chris will spend more time in this alternate universe throughout the trailer, even stealing his counterpart’s sleek, cooler uniform ( and less cool silk shirts ). And if the footage of two John Cenas battling one another is any indication, the additional Chris has some thoughts about the perfect Chris’s attempted murder.

On the one hand, it’s a little surprising that the world is already the sole formal entry in the new DC Universe. Gunn&#8217 is certainly back away, telling panelists that Peacemaker season 2 may establish that the DC Universe has at least 100 alternative realities. This expands on earlier assertions made by Gunn that Chris ‘ sites between experiences are an extension of Lex Luthor’s in Superman.

Speaking of Superman, the SDCC board stated that the film’s next season of Peacemaker&#8216 will come a month after the film’s conclusion. That brief arc helps explain the cameos Chris can audition for the Justice Gang thanks to the contributions of Hawkgirl ( Isabela Merced ), Maxwell Lord ( Sean Gunn ), and Guy Gardner ( Nathan Fillion ). However, Chris&#8217’s conviction that he belongs with the Justice Gang straight stems from his remarkable personal development and achievements in time 1. &#8220, I don&#8217, t want to be a joke again, &#8221, Chris says in voice over in the video. &#8220, I want to get a true hero. &#8221,

Did Chris be able to develop Peacemaker into a superhero like Superman? If so, it will most likely occur in the first, sixth, and eighth incidents of Gunn’s directorial debut, Peacemaker&#8216.

Chris will undoubtedly benefit from some great technology from the universe, but he’ll first have to make amends for past transgressions. And if the trailer’s portrayal of Rick Flag Sr. is any indicator, that’s going to be a challenging task. If The Suicide Squad wasn’t a cannon, it might be much easier for Chris.

On HBO Max, Peacemaker winter 2 airs on August 12, 2025.

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes The World and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

Predator: Killer of Killers and Predator: Desert have recently been revealed clues for this article. Anyone attending Hall H at San Diego Comic-Con is currently anticipating great reveals and large taunts. For the most recent installment in the Predator company, Predator: Badlands, producer Dan Trachtenberg apparently outdid all anticipation. In a panel ]… ]

On Den of Geek, the second article Predator: Badlands SDCC Footage Description and New Connections to 1987’s Dutch appeared.

James Gunn has been hesitant to respond to too many inquiries regarding the connection between the DC Universe reboot that he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-founded and the earlier world that Zack Snyder launched with Man of Steel in 2013. There are some things from the old world that we refer to in Peacemaker time 2, he just told Den of Geek, but they are not cannon until then.

We finally getting some good links with SDCC upon us. We catch up with Christopher Smith, aka Peacemaker ( John Cena ), when he reunites with his friends in the 11th Street Kids: Leota Adebayo ( Danielle Brooks ), Emilia Harcourt ( Jennifer Holland ), John Economos ( Steve Agee ), and Adrian Chase aka Vigilante ( Freddie Stroma ), in the most recent trailer for Peacemaker&#8216, the second season of the film.

The same can’t be said for another familiar face, that of new ARGUS director Rick Flag Sr. ( Frank Grillo ), how happy as they are to see one another again. Following the death of his son Rick Flag Jr. ( Joel Kinnaman ), whom Chris murdered at the behest of Amanda Waller ( Viola Davis ) at the conclusion of The Suicide Squad, Gunn&#8217, the first DC film from 2021, Flag plans to use his new position to seek vengeance against Chris.

So far, we have been given complete assurance that The Suicide Squad‘s events are relevant in the new DCU and that it is also a lore. Of course, that doesn’t address every lingering query ( not even as it does with Peacemaker, which famously featured celebrities from Jason Momoa, Jason Momoa, and Aquaman in the final episode ).

However, the video did mention something that might explain why those previous DC soldiers were there. We see Chris provide a different world through a unique website throughout the video. Chris is cherished in one of the different challenges we see him discovering, whereas in his house dimension, he is still a laughing stock yet after he and the 11th Street Kids stopped an mysterious invasion in the first year of Peacemaker. In fact, he is loved by Auggie ( Robert Patrick ), his father, whose alternate must be drastically different from the violent white supremacist Chris killed in season 1, and by him as well.

We see hints that Chris will spend more time in this alternate universe throughout the trailer, even stealing his counterpart’s sleek, cooler uniform ( and less cool silk shirts ). And if the John Cenas ‘ fight-against-one videos are any indication, the alternate Chris has some insight into the perfect Chris’s attempted suicide.

On the one hand, it’s amazing that the multiverse is only the fourth official entry from the new DC Universe. Gunn&#8217 is no back apart, telling panelists that Peacemaker season 2 may establish the DC Universe’s existence in at least 100 alternative realities. This expands on responses Gunn made abroad, confirming that Chris’s sites for moving between experiences are an expansion of the ones Lex Luthor used in Superman.

The SDCC board stated that the next season of Peacemaker‘s runtime would begin one month after the movie’s conclusion. That brief arc helps to explain the cameos Chris can audition for the Justice Gang thanks to the contributions of Hawkgirl ( Isabela Merced ), Maxwell Lord ( Sean Gunn ), and Guy Gardner ( Nathan Fillion ). However, Chris&#8217’s conviction that he belongs with the Justice Gang straight stems from his remarkable personal development and achievements in time 1. &#8220, I don&#8217, t want to be a joke again, &#8221, Chris says in voice over in the video. &#8220, I want to get a true hero. &#8221,

Did Chris be able to develop Peacemaker into a superhero like Superman? If thus, it will likely occur in incidents one, six, and eight of Gunn’s next year, Peacemaker&#8216, which are the three that Gunn himself directs.

Chris will undoubtedly benefit from some awesome technology from the universe, but he’ll first have to make amends for past transgressions. And if the trailer’s portrayal of Rick Flag Sr. is any indicator, that’s going to be a challenging process. If The Suicide Squad wasn’t a cannon, it might be much easier for Chris.

On HBO Max, Peacemaker year 2 airs on August 12, 2025.

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes The World and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

This article contains spoilers for The Fantastic Four: First Steps. A peaceful moment between a father and son takes a quick and depressing change in The Fantastic Four: First Steps. Reed had been monitoring Franklin for signs of power, similar to the treated powers he shares, ever since the world-devourer Galactus expressed curiosity in the child.

The first article on Den of Geek: The Terrifying Reed Richards Line That May Alter Avengers: Key War was posted.

James Gunn has so far been reluctant to respond to too many inquiries regarding the connection between the DC Universe reboot that he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-founded and the earlier world that Zack Snyder launched with Man of Steel in 2013? There are some things from the old world that we refer to in Peacemaker time 2, he just told Den of Geek, but they’re not cannon until next.

With SDCC upon us, we can expect some trustworthy links. We catch up with Christopher Smith, aka Peacemaker ( John Cena ), when he reunites with his friends in the 11th Street Kids: Leota Adebayo ( Danielle Brooks ), Emilia Harcourt ( Jennifer Holland ), John Economos ( Steve Agee ), and Adrian Chase aka Vigilante ( Freddie Stroma ), in the most recent trailer for Peacemaker&#8216, s second season, set to &#8220, Road to

The same can’t be said for another familiar face, that of new ARGUS director Rick Flag Sr. ( Frank Grillo ), how happy as they are to see one another again. Following the death of his son Rick Flag Jr. ( Joel Kinnaman ), whom Chris murdered at the behest of Amanda Waller ( Viola Davis ) at the conclusion of The Suicide Squad, Gunn&#8217, the first DC film from 2021, Flag plans to use his new position to seek vengeance against Chris.

So we now have complete assurance that The Suicide Squad is still a cannon and that the events that surround it are relevant in the new DCU. That, of course, doesn’t address every lingering question ( not even as it does with Peacemaker, which famously featured Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, and Aquaman in the final episode ).

However, the trailer did point out something that may give some answers to those past DC heroes. We see Chris provide a different world through a unique website throughout the video. Chris is precious in one of the different challenges we see him discovering, whereas in his house dimension, he is still a laughing stock yet after he and the 11th Street Kids stopped an alien conquest in Peacemaker‘s first season. In fact, he is loved by Auggie ( Robert Patrick ), his father, and not just by Chris, who killed him in season 1.

We see hints that Chris will spend more time in this alternate universe throughout the trailer, even stealing his counterpart’s sleek, cooler uniform ( and less cool silk shirts ). And if the footage of two John Cenas battling one another is any indication, the additional Chris has some thoughts about the perfect Chris’s attempted murder.

On the one hand, it’s a little surprising that the world is already the sole formal entry in the new DC Universe. Gunn&#8217 is no back apart, telling panelists that Peacemaker season 2 may establish the DC Universe’s existence in at least 100 alternative realities. This expands on earlier assertions made by Gunn that Chris ‘ sites between experiences are an extension of Lex Luthor’s in Superman.

The SDCC board stated that the next season of Peacemaker‘s runtime would begin one month after the movie’s conclusion. That brief arc helps explain the cameos Chris can audition for the Justice Gang thanks to the contributions of Hawkgirl ( Isabela Merced ), Maxwell Lord ( Sean Gunn ), and Guy Gardner ( Nathan Fillion ). However, Chris&#8217’s conviction that he belongs with the Justice Gang straight stems from his heroic and personal development in time 1. &#8220, I don&#8217, t want to be a joke again, &#8221, Chris says in voice over in the video. &#8220, I want to become a true hero. &#8221,

Did Chris be able to develop Peacemaker into a superhero like Superman? If so, it will most likely occur in the first, sixth, and eighth bouts of Gunn’s directorial debut, Peacemaker&#8216.

Chris will undoubtedly benefit from some awesome technology from the universe, but he’ll first have to make amends for past transgressions. And if the trailer’s portrayal of Rick Flag Sr. is any indicator, that’s going to be a challenging task. If Chris didn’t like The Suicide Squad, it might be much easier.

On HBO Max, Peacemaker winter 2 premieres on August 12, 2025.

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes the Multiverse and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

Starfleet Academy is the upcoming major live-action installment of the Star Trek series. And San Diego Comic-Con 2025 provided us with a first glimpse of what the set will be like. The show’s style and aesthetic are very similar to those of Star Trek: Discovery’s after times, which makes sense.

Den of Geek‘s first article Paul Giamatti’s New Star Trek monster Really Made One Wild Thing Canon appeared initially.

James Gunn has so far been reluctant to respond to too many inquiries about the connection between the reboot of the DC Universe by Zack Snyder in 2013 and the one he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-founded. There are some things from the old world that we refer to in Peacemaker time 2, he just told Den of Geek, but they’re not cannon until next.

With SDCC upon us, we can expect some trustworthy links. We catch up with Christopher Smith, aka Peacemaker ( John Cena ), when he reunites with his friends in the 11th Street Kids: Leota Adebayo ( Danielle Brooks ), Emilia Harcourt ( Jennifer Holland ), John Economos ( Steve Agee ), and Adrian Chase aka Vigilante ( Freddie Stroma ), in the most recent trailer for Peacemaker&#8216, the second season of the film.

The same can’t be said for another familiar face, that of new ARGUS director Rick Flag Sr. ( Frank Grillo ), how happy as they are to see one another again. Following the death of his son Rick Flag Jr. ( Joel Kinnaman ), whom Chris murdered at the behest of Amanda Waller ( Viola Davis ) at the conclusion of The Suicide Squad, Gunn&#8217, the first DC film from 2021, Flag plans to use his new position to seek vengeance against Chris.

So far, we have received full assurance that The Suicide Squad‘s events are still relevant in the new DCU and that it is also cannon. That, of course, doesn’t answer every lingering question ( not even as it does with Peacemaker, which famously featured celebrities from Jason Momoa, Jason Momoa, and Aquaman in the final episode ).

However, the video did mention something that might explain why those previous DC soldiers were there. We see Chris provide a different world through a unique website throughout the video. Chris is precious in one of the alternative realities he and the 11th Street Kids discovered, despite the fact that he is still laughing in his house aspect despite stopping an alien invasion in Peacemaker‘s first time. In fact, he is loved by Auggie ( Robert Patrick ), his father, and not just by Chris killed in season 1, but also by his father, who must be very different from that person.

We see hints that Chris will spend more time in this alternate universe throughout the trailer, even stealing his counterpart’s sleek, cooler uniform ( and less cool silk shirts ). And if the footage of two John Cenas battling one another is any indication, the additional Chris has some thoughts about the perfect Chris’s attempted murder.

On the one hand, it’s a little surprising that the new DC Universe is only its second recognized entry introducing the world. Gunn&#8217 is no back away, telling panelists that Peacemaker season 2 may establish that the DC Universe has at least 100 alternative realities. This expands on responses Gunn made abroad, confirming that Chris’s sites for escaping between experiences are a continuation of those Lex Luthor used in Superman.

Speaking of Superman, the SDCC board stated that the next season of Peacemaker&#8216 will premiere one fortnight after the movie’s conclusion. That brief arc helps explain the cameos Chris can audition for the Justice Gang thanks to the contributions of Hawkgirl ( Isabela Merced ), Maxwell Lord ( Sean Gunn ), and Guy Gardner ( Nathan Fillion ). However, Chris&#8217’s conviction that he belongs with the Justice Gang straight stems from his heroic and personal development in time 1. &#8220, I don&#8217, t want to be a joke again, &#8221, Chris says in voice over in the video. &#8220, I want to get a true hero. &#8221,

Did Chris be able to develop Peacemaker into a superhero like Superman? If so, it will most likely occur in incidents one, six, and eight of Gunn’s own directorial debut, Peacemaker&#8216, which are the three episodes.

Chris will undoubtedly benefit from some great technology from the universe, but he’ll first have to make amends for past transgressions. And if the trailer’s portrayal of Rick Flag Sr. is any indicator, that’s going to be a challenging task. If The Suicide Squad wasn’t a cannon, it might be much easier for Chris.

On HBO Max, Peacemaker winter 2 airs on August 12, 2025.

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes The World and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

James Gunn has so far been reluctant to respond to too many inquiries regarding the connection between the DC Universe reboot that he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-hosted and the earlier universe that Zack Snyder launched with Man of Steel in 2013? He just stated to Den of Geek that” there are certain things from the]…] […]

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes the Multiverse and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

James Gunn has been hesitant to respond to too many inquiries regarding the connection between the DC Universe reboot that he and DC Studios co-head Peter Safran co-founded and the earlier world that Zack Snyder launched with Man of Steel in 2013. There are some things from the old world that aren’t lore in Peacemaker time 2, he just told Den of Geek.

We finally have some credible links now that SDCC is upon us. We catch up with Christopher Smith, aka Peacemaker ( John Cena ), when he reunites with his friends in the 11th Street Kids: Leota Adebayo ( Danielle Brooks ), Emilia Harcourt ( Jennifer Holland ), John Economos ( Steve Agee ), and Adrian Chase aka Vigilante ( Freddie Stroma ), in the most recent trailer for Peacemaker&#8216, the second season of the film.

The same can’t be said for another well-known face, that of new ARGUS director Rick Flag Sr. ( Frank Grillo ), as happy as they are to see one another again. Following the death of his son Rick Flag Jr. ( Joel Kinnaman ), whom Chris murdered at the behest of Amanda Waller ( Viola Davis ), at the conclusion of The Suicide Squad, Gunn&#8217, the first DC film from 2021, Flag plans to use his new position to seek vengeance against Chris.

So we now have complete assurance that The Suicide Squad is still a cannon and that the situations that surround it are relevant in the new DCU. Of course, that doesn’t address every lingering query ( not even as it does with Peacemaker, which famously featured celebrities from Jason Momoa, Jason Momoa, and Aquaman in the final episode ).

However, the trailer did point out something that might give some answers to those original DC heroes. Chris is seen entering a different planet through a unique website throughout the trailer. Chris is precious in one of the alternative realities he and the 11th Street Kids discovered, despite the fact that he is still laughing in his house aspect despite stopping an alien invasion in Peacemaker‘s first time. In fact, he is loved by Auggie ( Robert Patrick ), his father, and not just by Chris, who killed him in season 1.

We see hints that Chris will spend more time in this alternate universe throughout the trailer, even stealing his counterpart’s sleek, cooler uniform ( and less cool silk shirts ). And if the footage of two John Cenas battling one another is any indication, the additional Chris has some thoughts about the perfect Chris’s attempted murder.

On the one hand, it’s a little surprising that the world is already the sole formal entry in the new DC Universe. Gunn&#8217 is certainly back away, telling panelists that Peacemaker season 2 may establish the DC Universe’s existence in at least 100 alternative realities. This expands on earlier assertions made by Gunn that Chris ‘ sites between experiences are an extension of Lex Luthor’s in Superman.

Speaking of Superman, the SDCC board stated that the film’s next season of Peacemaker&#8216 will come a month after the film’s conclusion. That brief arc helps to explain the cameos Chris can audition for the Justice Gang thanks to the contributions of Hawkgirl ( Isabela Merced ), Maxwell Lord ( Sean Gunn ), and Guy Gardner ( Nathan Fillion ). However, Chris&#8217’s conviction that he belongs with the Justice Gang straight stems from his remarkable personal development and achievements in time 1. &#8220, I don&#8217, t want to be a joke again, &#8221, Chris says in voice over in the video. &#8220, I want to get a true hero. &#8221,

Does Chris be able to transform Peacemaker into a warrior deserving of a place in the same way as Superman? If so, it will most likely occur in the first, sixth, and eighth incidents of Gunn’s directorial debut, Peacemaker&#8216.

Chris will undoubtedly benefit from some amazing technology from the multiverse, but he’ll first have to make amends for past transgressions. And if the trailer’s portrayal of Rick Flag Sr. is any indicator, that’s going to become a challenging task. If Chris didn’t like The Suicide Squad, it might be much easier.

On HBO Max, Peacemaker year 2 airs on August 12, 2025.

The first article Peacemaker Season 2 Video Completes the Multiverse and Confirms The Suicide Squad Also Canon appeared initially on Den of Geek.

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

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

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

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

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

The material

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

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

A comment that appears to be acceptable at first glance could be included in some feedback, as it only appears to partially fulfill the requirements. But does it?

Not confident about the keys ‘ patterns and hierarchy—it feels off. Does you alter them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I did rounds of anonymous feedback and I reviewed feedback with other people a while back when I was putting a lot of effort into improving my feedback. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Quite unexpected, my next round of criticism from one particular person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was a member of this other team who preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

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

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

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

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

The atmosphere

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

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

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

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

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That entails checking before writing to see if what we have in mind will actually help the person and improve the project 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 it 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 encourage constructive behavior?

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

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

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

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. When I shared a comment with someone I knew,” How does this sound,”” How can I do it better,” or even” How would you have written it,” I discovered that the two versions had different meanings.

The format

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

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course important, but let’s try to think about some things that might be worthwhile to take into account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The query

Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Any comments,” What do you think,” or” I’d love to hear your opinion” at the conclusion of a presentation are likely to generate a lot of divergent ideas, or worse, to make people follow the lead of the first speaker. And next… we get frustrated because vague issues like those can change a high-level moves review into folks rather commenting on the borders of buttons. Which topic may be a wholesome one, so it might be difficult to get the team to switch to the subject 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 leave the question open and assume that everyone else will agree. Another is that in nonprofessional debate, there’s usually no need to be that exact. In summary, we tend to undervalue the value of the issues, and we don’t work to improve them.

The work of asking good questions guidelines and focuses the criticism. It also serves as a form of acceptance, outlining your willingness to make remarks and the types of comments you want to receive. It puts people in the right emotional position, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to 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 than level is a design for design criticism that I’ve found to be particularly helpful in my coaching.

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

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

• Functionality: Is it desirable to automate account creation?
• Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
• Information architecture: On this page, we have two competing pieces of information. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
• User interface design: What do you think about the 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. Exist any recommendations for resolving 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. Although that is uncommon, it is possible. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or perhaps just say,” At first glance, what do you think”? so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

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

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined criticism will now be able to provide more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will appreciate the clarity and effectiveness gained from concentrating solely on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of those methods typically display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. These methods cause conversations to vanish once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and require designs to always display the most recent version unless these would-be useful features were manually turned off. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That’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.

There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

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

These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. And from there, there can develop 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 have everything I need if I want to know about the most recent design.

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

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

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

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

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

Not every iteration is the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then, later, the iterations begin coming to a decision and improving it until the 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 just a concept to start a conversation, or it might be a cumulative list of all the features that have been added gradually over the course of each iteration until the full picture is achieved.

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

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

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

The review

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

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

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

The first friction is being forced to respond to every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s simple, straightforward, and doesn’t cause any issues. 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 we treat a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t need to respond to every comment, and there are alternatives: In asynchronous spaces, responding to all comments can be effective.

One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
• Another option is to respond politely to acknowledge each comment, such as” Understood. Thank you”,” Good points— I’ll review”, or” Thanks. In the upcoming iteration, I’ll include these. In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of” Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon”!
• One more thing is to quickly summarize the comments before proceeding. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

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

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

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

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