Category: Blog

In tomorrow’s data-driven environment, it’s becoming more and more common for a UX specialist to be asked to create a personal digital experience, whether it’s a common website, user portal, or local application. However while there continues to be no lack of marketing buzz around personalization systems, we also have very few defined approaches for implementing personalized UX.

That’s where we come in. After completing tens of personalisation projects over the past few years, we gave ourselves a purpose: could you make a systematic personalization platform especially for UX practitioners? The Personalization Pyramid is a designer-centric framework for establishing human-centered personalization initiatives that cover data, classification, content delivery, and overall objectives. By using this strategy, you will be able to understand the core elements of a modern, UX-driven personalization system ( or at the very least understand enough to get started ).

Getting Started

We’ll assume that you are already comfortable with the fundamentals of modern personalization for the purposes of this article. A nice guide can be found these: Website Personalization Planning. Although Graphic tasks in this field can take a variety of forms, they frequently start from the same place.

Common scenarios for starting a personalisation task:

• Your business or client made a purchase to support personalization of a content management system ( CMS ), marketing automation platform ( MAP ), or other related technology.
• The CMO, CDO, or CIO has identified customisation as a target
• Consumer data is unclear or disjointed.
• You are running some secluded targeting strategies or A/B tests
• On personalization strategy, participants disagree.
• Mandate of customer privacy rules ( e. g. GDPR ) requires revisiting existing user targeting practices

Regardless of where you begin, a powerful personalization system will require the same key creating stones. These are the “levels” on the tower, as we’ve made them. Whether you are a UX artist, scholar, or planner, understanding the core components may help make your contribution effective.

From top to bottom, the rates include:

North Star: What larger geopolitical goal is driving the personalization system?
1. Objectives: What are the specific, tangible benefits of the system?
2. Touchpoints: Where will you get a customized experience?
3. Contexts and Campaigns: What personalization information does the person view?
4. What makes up a distinct, useable market according to consumer segments?
5. Actionable information: What dependable and credible information is captured by our professional platform to generate personalization?
6. What wider set of data is conceivable ( now in our environment ) to allow you to optimize?

We’ll go through each of these amounts in change. An associated deck of cards serves as an example of each level’s specific examples to make this more meaningful. We’ve found them helpful in customisation brainstorming periods, and will include cases for you here.

Starting at the Top

The parts of the pyramids are as follows:

North Star

With your personalisation plan, whether large or small, you aim for a general north star. The North Star defines the (one ) overall mission of the personalization program. What do you hope to accomplish? North Stars cast a ghost. The darkness is bigger the sun the bigger the sun. Example of North Starts may incorporate:

Function: Use simple user inputs to optimize. Examples:” Raw” messages, basic search effects, system user settings and settings options, general flexibility, basic improvements
1. Feature: Self-contained customisation component. Examples:” Cooked” notifications, advanced optimizations ( geolocation ), basic dynamic messaging, customized modules, automations, recommenders
2. Experience: Individualized person experiences across a range of consumer flows and interactions. Examples: Email campaigns, landing pages, advanced messaging ( i. e. C2C chat ) or conversational interfaces, larger user flows and content-intensive optimizations ( localization ).
3. Solution: Highly distinctive, personalized solution experiences. Example: Standalone, branded encounters with personalization at their base, like the “algotorial” songs by Spotify quite as Discover Weekly.

Goals

Personalization can help speed up designing with user intentions, as in any great UX design. Goals are the military and tangible metrics that may prove the entire program is effective. Start with your existing analytics and measurement system, as well as metrics that you can benchmark against. In some cases, fresh targets may be ideal. The most important thing to remember is that personalisation is more of a means of achieving an objective than a desired result. Common targets include:

• Conversion
• Time spent on work
• Net promoter score ( NPS)
• Satisfaction of the customers

Touchpoints

Touchpoints are where the personalisation happens. One of your main responsibilities as a UX artist will be in this area. The connections available to you will depend on how your personalization and associated technology features are instrumented, and should be rooted in improving a person’s experience at a certain point in the trip. Touchpoints can be multi-device ( mobile, in-store, website ), but they can also be more specific ( web banner, web pop-up, etc. ). Here are a few illustrations:

Touchpoints at the channel level

• Email: Role
• Email opens at what time?
• In-store display ( JSON endpoint )
• Native app
• Search

Wireframe-level Touchpoints

• Web overlay
• Web alert bar
• Web banner
• Web content block
• Web home page

If you’re designing for web interfaces, for example, you will likely need to include personalized “zones” in your wireframes. Based on our next step, context, and campaigns, the content for these can be presented programmatically in touchpoints.

Contexts and Campaigns

Once you’ve identified some touchpoints, you can decide what kind of personalized content a user will receive. Many personalization tools will refer to these as” campaigns” ( so, for example, a campaign on a web banner for new visitors to the website ). These will be displayed programmatically to specific user segments at specific touchpoints, as defined by user data. At this stage, we find it helpful to consider two separate models: a context model and a content model. The context helps you consider the user’s level of engagement at the personalization moment, such as when they are casually browsing information or deep-dive. Think of it in terms of information retrieval behaviors. The content model can then guide you in deciding which personalization to use in terms of the context ( for instance, an” Enrich” campaign that features related articles might be a good substitute for extant content ).

Personalization Context Model:

1. Browse
2. Skim
3. Nudge
4. Feast

Content model for personalization

1. Alert
2. Make Easier
3. Cross-Sell
4. Enrich

We’ve written a lot more in depth about each of these models elsewhere, so be sure to check out Colin’s Personalization Content Model and Jeff’s Personalization Context Model.

User Groups

User segments can be created prescriptively or adaptively, based on user research ( e. g. via rules and logic tied to set user behaviors or via A/B testing ). You will need to think about how to treat the unidentified or first-time visitor, the guest or returning visitor for whom you may have a stateful cookie ( or an equivalent post-cookie identifier ), or the logged-in visitor who is authenticated. Here are some examples from the personalization pyramid:

• Unknown
• Guest
• Authenticated
• Default
• Referred
• Role
• Cohort
• Unique ID

Actionable information

Every organization with any digital presence has data. It’s important to inquire about how to use the data you can ethically collect on users, its inherent reliability and value, and what is the term for “data activation.” Fortunately, the tide is turning to first-party data: a recent study by Twilio estimates some 80 % of businesses are using at least some type of first-party data to personalize the customer experience.

First-party data has a number of benefits for the user experience, including being relatively simple to collect, more likely to be accurate, and less susceptible to the” creep factor” of third-party data. So a key part of your UX strategy should be to determine what the best form of data collection is on your audiences. Here are a few illustrations:

There is a progression of profiling when it comes to recognizing and making decisioning about different audiences and their signals. As time and confidence and data volume increase, it varies to more granular constructs about smaller and smaller cohorts of users.

While some combination of implicit / explicit data is generally a prerequisite for any implementation ( more commonly referred to as first party and third-party data ) ML efforts are typically not cost-effective directly out of the box. This is because optimization requires a strong data backbone and content repository. But these approaches should be considered as part of the larger roadmap and may indeed help accelerate the organization’s overall progress. At this point, you will typically work with key stakeholders and product owners to create a profiling model. The profiling model includes defining approach to configuring profiles, profile keys, profile cards and pattern cards. a scalable, multi-faceted approach to profiling.

Pulling it Together

The cards serve as the foundation for an inventory of sorts ( we provide blanks for you to tailor your own ), a set of potential levers and motivations for the kind of personalization activities you aspire to deliver, but they are more valuable when grouped together.

In assembling a card “hand”, one can begin to trace the entire trajectory from leadership focus down through a strategic and tactical execution. It serves as the foundation for the workshops that both co-authors have conducted to build a program backlog, which would make a good article topic.

In the meantime, what is important to note is that each colored class of card is helpful to survey in understanding the range of choices potentially at your disposal, it is threading through and making concrete decisions about for whom this decisioning will be made: where, when, and how.

Lay Down Your Cards

Near, medium, and long-term goals must be taken into account in any sustainable personalization strategy. Even with the leading CMS platforms like Sitecore and Adobe or the most exciting composable CMS DXP out there, there is simply no “easy button” wherein a personalization program can be stood up and immediately view meaningful results. Having said that, every personalization activity has a common grammar, just like every sentence has nouns and verbs. These cards attempt to map that territory.

The mobile-first design approach is excellent because it concentrates on what the customer truly needs, is well-practiced, and has become a standard design practice for years. But developing your CSS mobile-first should also be wonderful, too…right?

Well, not necessarily. Classic mobile-first CSS development is based on the principle of overwriting style declarations: you begin your CSS with default style declarations, and overwrite and/or add new styles as you add breakpoints with min-width media queries for larger viewports (for a good overview see “What is Mobile First CSS and Why Does It Rock?”). But all those exceptions create complexity and inefficiency, which in turn can lead to an increased testing effort and a code base that’s harder to maintain. Admit it—how many of us willingly want that?

Mobile-first CSS may yet be the best option for your own tasks, but you need to first determine whether it is appropriate in light of the physical design and user interactions you’re creating. To help you get started, here’s how I go about tackling the elements you need to watch for, and I’ll discuss some alternative remedies if mobile-first doesn’t seem to fit your job.

merits of mobile-first technology

Some of the benefits of mobile-first CSS creation, and why it’s been the de facto growth practice for so long, make a lot of sense:

Development order. A good development hierarchy is something you can definitely get from mobile-first; you simply get developing while paying attention to the mobile view.

tested and verified. It’s a tried and tested technique that’s worked for years for a cause: it solves a problem actually also.

prioritizes the portable watch. The smart watch is the simplest and perhaps the most crucial because it covers all of the crucial user journeys and frequently accounts for more user visits ( depending on the project ) in terms of both simple and crucial aspects.

Inhibits desktop-centric growth. It can be tempting to first focus on the desktop perspective because desktop computers are used for growth. No one wants to spend their day retrofitting a desktop-centric website to work on mobile devices, but thinking about smart from the beginning prevents us from getting stuck in the future!

Drawbacks of mobile-first

Kind declarations can be set at higher breakpoints and therefore overwritten at higher breakpoints:

More breadth. The farther up the target order you go, the more unnecessary script you inherit from lower thresholds.

higher CSS precision A group name declaration’s default style has then a higher specificity that has been returned to the browser’s default value. This can be a pain on big projects when you want to preserve the CSS candidates as simple as possible.

Takes more regression analysis. All higher thresholds must be regression tested if modifications to CSS at a lower see ( such as adding a new style ) are to be made.

The browser can’t prioritize CSS downloads. At wider breakpoints, classic mobile-first min-width media queries don’t leverage the browser’s capability to download CSS files in priority order.

Home value issue is overruled by the issue.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with overwriting beliefs, CSS was designed to do just that. Even so, inheriting wrong values may be laborious and ineffective. When you need to replace styles to restore them to their defaults, which may cause issues after, especially if you’re using a combination of bespoke CSS and power classes, does this also lead to more style specificity. We won’t be able to use a power school for a design that has been restore with a higher precision.

With this in mind, I’m developing CSS with a focus on the default values much more these days. Since there’s no specific order, and no chains of specific values to keep track of, this frees me to develop breakpoints simultaneously. I concentrate on finding common styles and isolating the specific exceptions in closed media query ranges (that is, any range with a max-width set). 

As you can view each target as a blank slate, this strategy opens up some opportunities. It’s acceptable and can be coded in the default style plate if a product’s layout appears to be based on Flexbox at all thresholds. But if it looks like Grid would be much better for large windows and Flexbox for portable, these can both be done entirely freely when the CSS is put into finished media keyword ranges. Additionally, having a thorough understanding of any given component in all breakpoints upfront is necessary for developing simultaneously. This can help identify issues with the design more quickly in the development process. We don’t want to get stuck down a rabbit hole building a complex component for mobile, and then get the designs for desktop and find they are equally complex and incompatible with the HTML we created for the mobile view!

I encourage you to try this method, even though it won’t work for everyone. Responsively App, Blisk, and many others are among the many tools available to assist with concurrent development.

Having said that, I don’t feel the order itself is particularly relevant. Stick to the classic development order if you like to concentrate on the mobile view, understand the requirements for other breakpoints, and prefer to work on multiple devices at once. The key is to find common styles and exceptions so that you can include them in the appropriate stylesheet, which is a manual tree-shaking procedure! Personally, I find this a little easier when working on a component across breakpoints, but that’s by no means a requirement.

In practice, closed media query ranges

We overwrite the styles in the traditional mobile-first CSS, but media query ranges can be used to prevent this. To illustrate the difference ( I’m using SCSS for brevity ), let’s assume there are three visual designs:

• smaller than 768
• from 768 to less than 1024
• 1024 and anything larger

Take a simple example where a block-level element has a default padding of “20px,” which is overwritten at tablet to be “40px” and set back to “20px” on desktop.

.my-block { padding: 20px; @media (min-width: 768px) { padding: 40px; } @media (min-width: 1024px) { padding: 20px; }}

.my-block { padding: 20px; @media (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023.98px) { padding: 40px; }}

The subtle difference is that the mobile-first example sets the default padding to “20px” and then overwrites it at each breakpoint, setting it three times in total. In contrast, the second example sets the default padding to “20px” and only overrides it at the relevant breakpoint where it isn’t the default value (in this instance, tablet is the exception).

The goal is to: 

• Only set styles when needed. 
• Not set them with the expectation of overwriting them later on, again and again. 

To this end, closed media query ranges are our best friend. If we need to make a change to any given view, we make it in the CSS media query range that applies to the specific breakpoint. We’ll be much less likely to introduce unwanted alterations, and our regression testing only needs to focus on the breakpoint we have actually edited. 

Taking the above example, if we find that .my-block spacing on desktop is already accounted for by the margin at that breakpoint, and since we want to remove the padding altogether, we could do this by setting the mobile padding in a closed media query range.

.my-block {  @media (max-width: 767.98px) {    padding: 20px;  }  @media (min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1023.98px) {    padding: 40px;  }}

The browser default padding for our block is “0,” so instead of adding a desktop media query and using unset or “0” for the padding value (which we would need with mobile-first), we can wrap the mobile padding in a closed media query (since it is now also an exception) so it won’t get picked up at wider breakpoints. At the desktop breakpoint, we won’t need to set any padding style, as we want the browser default value.

Bundling versus separating the CSS

Back in the day, keeping the number of requests to a minimum was very important because the browser's concurrent requests limit (typically around six ) was high. In consequence, using image sprites and CSS bundling was the norm, with all the CSS being downloaded as a single stylesheet with the highest priority.

With HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 now on the scene, the number of requests is no longer the big deal it used to be. By using a media query, we can separate the CSS into several files. The obvious benefit of this is that the browser can now request the CSS it currently requires with a higher priority than the CSS it doesn't. This is more performant and can reduce the overall time page rendering is blocked.

What version of HTTP do you use?

Go to your website and open the dev tools for your browser to find out which version of HTTP you're using. Next, select the Network tab and make sure the Protocol column is visible. If "h2" is included in the protocol list, that indicates that HTTP/2 is being used.

Note: To check the Protocol column in your browser's dev tools, right-click any column header ( such as Name ), go to the Network tab, reload your page, and then check the Protocol column.

Also, if your website is still using HTTP/1... WHHY!! What are you waiting for? Excellent user support exists for HTTP/2.

CSS is split in half.

Separating the CSS into individual files is a worthwhile task. Linking the separate CSS files using the relevant media attribute allows the browser to identify which files are needed immediately (because they’re render-blocking) and which can be deferred. Based on this, it allocates each file an appropriate priority.

In the following example of a website visited on a mobile breakpoint, we can see the mobile and default CSS are loaded with" Highest" priority, as they are currently needed to render the page. The last three CSS files ( print, tablet, and desktop ) are still being downloaded in case they need to be later, but with" Lowest" priority.

Before rendering can begin, the browser will need to download and parse the CSS file when using bundled CSS.

While, as noted, with the CSS separated into different files linked and marked up with the relevant media attribute, the browser can prioritize the files it currently needs. Using closed media query ranges allows the browser to do this at all widths, as opposed to classic mobile-first min-width queries, where the desktop browser would have to download all the CSS with Highest priority. We can’t assume that desktop users always have a fast connection. For instance, in many rural areas, internet connection speeds are still slow. 

Depending on project requirements, the media queries and the number of separate CSS files will vary from project to project, but the example below might look similar.

Depending on the project’s deployment strategy, a change to one file (mobile.css, for example) would only require the QA team to regression test on devices in that specific media query range. Compare that to the prospect of deploying the single bundled site.css file, an approach that would normally trigger a full regression test.

Moving on

The adoption of mobile-first CSS was a significant development milestone because it allowed front-end developers to concentrate on mobile web applications rather than creating websites for desktop use and attempting to retrofit them to work on other devices.

I don't think anyone wants to return to that development model again, but it's important we don't lose sight of the issue it highlighted: that things can easily get convoluted and less efficient if we prioritize one particular device—any device—over others. For this reason, it seems like the natural next step to concentrate on the CSS in its own right, always mindful of what is the default setting and what constitutes an exception. I've started to notice subtle simplifications in the CSS I write for myself as well as other developers, and that the testing and maintenance work is also a little more organized and effective.

In general, simplifying CSS rule creation whenever we can is ultimately a cleaner approach than going around in circles of overrides. However, whatever method you use, it must fit the project. Mobile-first may turn out to be the best option for the situation at hand, but first you need to fully comprehend the trade-offs you're entering.

Weekend Favs March 1st written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

My weekend blog post routine includes posting links to a handful of tools or great content I ran across during the week. I don’t go into depth about the finds, but I encourage you to check them out if they sound interesting. The photo in the post is a favorite for the week from an online […]

Why Selling Less Could Be the Key to Earning More written by John Jantsch read more at Duct Tape Marketing

The Duct Tape Marketing Podcast with Chuck Blakeman

In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, I interviewed Chuck Blakeman, a successful entrepreneur, business advisor, and author of Sell Less, Earn More. Chuck has built 13 businesses across 10 industries and has worked with top companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. His approach to business growth challenges the traditional sales mindset, proving that relationship marketing and trust-based sales strategies can generate more revenue than aggressive selling.

During our conversation, Chuck shared powerful insights on why selling less can actually lead to earning more. He explains how business owners can shift away from outdated sales techniques and instead focus on client acquisition through relationships, referrals, and networking. His strategies help entrepreneurs break free from transactional selling and build sustainable, long-term business success.

Chuck Blakeman’s fresh take on business development and sales strategy provides a clear roadmap for entrepreneurs looking to earn more with less selling. By prioritizing relationships, referrals, and trust, business owners can ditch aggressive sales tactics and create a more sustainable and enjoyable way to grow their businesses.

Key Takeaways:

• Stop Selling, Start Serving – The best way to grow your business is by building relationships and providing value, not pushing sales.
• Leverage Your Existing Network – Your best clients and referrals often come from people you already know, not cold calls or ads.
• Trust-Based Sales Work Better – Consumers prefer buying from businesses they trust. Building trust leads to higher conversion rates.
• The Role of Recency and Frequency – Staying top of mind through consistent, value-driven communication is key to effective small business marketing.
• Find the Right Partnerships – Instead of chasing individual clients, connect with “lumberjacks”—people who already have access to your ideal customers.
• Shift from Pain Points to Joy Points – Traditional sales focuses on problems; instead, focus on helping customers achieve their goals and aspirations.

Chapters:

• [00:09] Introducing Chuck Blakeman
• [02:27] What Does Sell Less, Earn More Mean?
• [03:35] Why Do Business Owners Hate Selling?
• [06:40] Serve. Don’t Sell.
• [013:54] Staying Recent and Frequent
• [15:21] The Four Quadrants of Relationship Marketing
• [17:21] Getting Started in Relationship Marketing
• [18:54] Relationship Marketing on Modern Platforms

More About Mike Ganino: 

• Check out Chuck Blakeman’s Website
• Connect with Chuck Blakeman on LinkedIn
• Read Sell Less, Earn More: Double Your Income in 90 Days with People You Already Know by Chuck Blakeman

Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated with movies. I loved the characters and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I wanted to be an actor. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on exciting adventures. I even dreamed up ideas for movies that my friends and I could make and star in. But they never went any further. I did, however, end up working in user experience (UX). Now, I realize that there’s an element of theater to UX—I hadn’t really considered it before, but user research is storytelling. And to get the most out of user research, you need to tell a good story where you bring stakeholders—the product team and decision makers—along and get them interested in learning more.

Think of your favorite movie. More than likely it follows a three-act structure that’s commonly seen in storytelling: the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. The first act shows what exists today, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the conflict, where the action is. Here, problems grow or get worse. And the third and final act is the resolution. This is where the issues are resolved and the characters learn and change. I believe that this structure is also a great way to think about user research, and I think that it can be especially helpful in explaining user research to others.

Use storytelling as a structure to do research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see research as being expendable. If budgets or timelines are tight, research tends to be one of the first things to go. Instead of investing in research, some product managers rely on designers or—worse—their own opinion to make the “right” choices for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get teams some of the way, but that approach can so easily miss out on solving users’ real problems. To remain user-centered, this is something we should avoid. User research elevates design. It keeps it on track, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay ahead of your competitors.

In the three-act structure, each act corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is critical to telling the whole story. Let’s look at the different acts and how they align with user research.

Act one: setup

The setup is all about understanding the background, and that’s where foundational research comes in. Foundational research (also called generative, discovery, or initial research) helps you understand users and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists today, the challenges users have, and how the challenges affect them—just like in the movies. To do foundational research, you can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies (or both!), which can help you start to identify problems as well as opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a huge investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum viable ethnography, which can be as simple as spending 15 minutes with a user and asking them one thing: “‘Walk me through your day yesterday.’ That’s it. Present that one request. Shut up and listen to them for 15 minutes. Do your damndest to keep yourself and your interests out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography.” According to Hall, “[This] will probably prove quite illuminating. In the highly unlikely case that you didn’t learn anything new or useful, carry on with enhanced confidence in your direction.”  

This makes total sense to me. And I love that this makes user research so accessible. You don’t need to prepare a lot of documentation; you can just recruit participants and do it! This can yield a wealth of information about your users, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their lives. That’s really what act one is all about: understanding where users are coming from. 

Jared Spool talks about the importance of foundational research and how it should form the bulk of your research. If you can draw from any additional user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can supplement what you’ve heard in the foundational studies or even point to areas that need further investigation. Together, all this data paints a clearer picture of the state of things and all its shortcomings. And that’s the beginning of a compelling story. It’s the point in the plot where you realize that the main characters—or the users in this case—are facing challenges that they need to overcome. Like in the movies, this is where you start to build empathy for the characters and root for them to succeed. And hopefully stakeholders are now doing the same. Their sympathy may be with their business, which could be losing money because users can’t complete certain tasks. Or maybe they do empathize with users’ struggles. Either way, act one is your initial hook to get the stakeholders interested and invested.

Once stakeholders begin to understand the value of foundational research, that can open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making process. And that can guide product teams toward being more user-centered. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. Storytelling is the key to this process, and knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to get stakeholders to really care about doing more research. 

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution (such as a design) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. Like act two in a movie, more issues will crop up along the way. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act. 

Usability tests should typically include around five participants according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify most of the problems: “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 fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly 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. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about 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.

Researchers have run usability tests in person for decades, but you can also conduct usability tests remotely using tools like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You can think of in-person usability tests like going to a play and remote sessions as more like watching a movie. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. You also get real-time reactions—including surprise, agreement, disagreement, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors’ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If in-person usability testing is like watching a play—staged and controlled—then conducting usability testing in the field is like immersive theater where any two sessions might 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 go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. As researchers, you have less control over how these sessions go, but this can sometimes 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 provide another level of detail that’s often missing from remote usability tests. 

That’s not to say that the “movies”—remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote 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. And they open the doors to a much wider geographical pool of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working. 

The benefit of usability testing, whether remote or in person, is that you get to see real users interact with the designs in real time, and you can ask them questions to understand their thought processes and grasp of the solution. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. Act two is the heart of the story—where the excitement is—but there can be surprises too. This is equally true of usability tests. Often, participants will say unexpected things, which change the way that you look at things—and these twists in the story can move things in new directions. 

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. 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 the focus of what you’re getting feedback on, without understanding the users’ needs. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. It’s only feedback on a particular design in the context of a usability test.  

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 illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional 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 help motivate stakeholders to address the issues that come up.

Act three: resolution

While the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can propel stakeholders into action, the third part is about resolving the problems from the first two acts. 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 means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the whole team to hear users’ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. And it lets the UX research and design teams clarify, suggest alternatives, or give more context behind their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is mostly told in 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 give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. “The most effective presenters use the same techniques as great storytellers: By reminding people of the status quo and then revealing the path to a better way, they set up 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 evidence for “what is”—the problems that you’ve identified. And “what could be”—your recommendations on how to address them. And so on and so forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick mockups of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage gives stakeholders the next steps and hopefully the momentum to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. All the elements of a good story are there in the three-act structure of user research: 

• Act one: You meet the protagonists (the users) and the antagonists (the problems affecting users). This is the beginning of the plot. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. The output of these methods can include personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.

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

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

The researcher has multiple roles: they’re the storyteller, the director, and the producer. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters (in the research). And the stakeholders are the audience. 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 stakeholders should walk away with a purpose and an eagerness to resolve the product’s ills. 

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. Ultimately, user research is a win-win for everyone, and you just need to get stakeholders interested in how the story ends.

Picture this. You’ve joined a squad at your company that’s designing new product features with an emphasis on automation or AI. Or your company has just implemented a personalization engine. Either way, you’re designing with data. Now what? When it comes to designing for personalization, there are many cautionary tales, no overnight successes, and few guides for the perplexed. 

Between the fantasy of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong—like when we encounter “persofails” in the vein of a company repeatedly imploring everyday consumers to buy additional toilet seats—the personalization gap is real. It’s an especially confounding place to be a digital professional without a map, a compass, or a plan.

For those of you venturing into personalization, there’s no Lonely Planet and few tour guides because effective personalization is so specific to each organization’s talent, technology, and market position. 

But you can ensure that your team has packed its bags sensibly.

There’s a DIY formula to increase your chances for success. At minimum, you’ll defuse your boss’s irrational exuberance. Before the party you’ll need to effectively prepare.

We call it prepersonalization.

Behind the music

Consider Spotify’s DJ feature, which debuted this past year.

We’re used to seeing the polished final result of a personalization feature. Before the year-end award, the making-of backstory, or the behind-the-scenes victory lap, a personalized feature had to be conceived, budgeted, and prioritized. Before any personalization feature goes live in your product or service, it lives amid a backlog of worthy ideas for expressing customer experiences more dynamically.

So how do you know where to place your personalization bets? How do you design consistent interactions that won’t trip up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many budgeted programs to justify their ongoing investments, they first needed one or more workshops to convene key stakeholders and internal customers of the technology. Make yours count.

​From Big Tech to fledgling startups, we’ve seen the same evolution up close with our clients. In our experiences with working on small and large personalization efforts, a program’s ultimate track record—and its ability to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and organize its design and technology efforts—turns on how effectively these prepersonalization activities play out.

Time and again, we’ve seen effective workshops separate future success stories from unsuccessful efforts, saving countless time, resources, and collective well-being in the process.

A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a switch-flip moment in your tech stack. It’s best managed as a backlog that often evolves through three steps: 

1. customer experience optimization (CXO, also known as A/B testing or experimentation)
2. always-on automations (whether rules-based or machine-generated)
3. mature features or standalone product development (such as Spotify’s DJ experience)

This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. You won’t need these cards. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

Set your kitchen timer

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The surrounding assessment activities that we recommend including can (and often do) span weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our broader approach along with details on the essential first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

1. Kickstart: This sets the terms of engagement as you focus on the opportunity as well as the readiness and drive of your team and your leadership. .
2. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
3. Work your plan: This phase is all about creating a competitive environment for team participants to individually pitch their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its operating model.

Give yourself at least a day, split into two large time blocks, to power through a concentrated version of those first two phases.

Kickstart: Whet your appetite

We call the first lesson the “landscape of connected experience.” It explores the personalization possibilities in your organization. A connected experience, in our parlance, is any UX requiring the orchestration of multiple systems of record on the backend. This could be a content-management system combined with a marketing-automation platform. It could be a digital-asset manager combined with a customer-data platform.

Spark conversation by naming consumer examples and business-to-business examples of connected experience interactions that you admire, find familiar, or even dislike. This should cover a representative range of personalization patterns, including automated app-based interactions (such as onboarding sequences or wizards), notifications, and recommenders. We have a catalog of these in the cards. Here’s a list of 142 different interactions to jog your thinking.

This is all about setting the table. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? If you want a broader view, here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework.

Assess each example that you discuss for its complexity and the level of effort that you estimate that it would take for your team to deliver that feature (or something similar). In our cards, we divide connected experiences into five levels: functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to focus the conversation on the merits of ongoing investment as well as the gap between what you deliver today and what you want to deliver in the future.

Next, have your team plot each idea on the following 2×2 grid, which lays out the four enduring arguments for a personalized experience. This is critical because it emphasizes how personalization can not only help your external customers but also affect your own ways of working. It’s also a reminder (which is why we used the word argument earlier) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

Each team member should vote on where they see your product or service putting its emphasis. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. The intention here is to flesh out how different departments may view their own upsides to the effort, which can vary from one to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

The third and final kickstart activity is about naming your personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy compliance be too big of a challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? (We’re pretty sure that you do: it’s just a matter of recognizing the relative size of that need and its remedy.) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. Our Detractor card, for example, lists six stakeholder behaviors that hinder progress.

Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential barriers to your future progress. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. As studies have shown, personalization efforts face many common barriers.

At this point, you’ve hopefully discussed sample interactions, emphasized a key area of benefit, and flagged key gaps? Good—you’re ready to continue.

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s look at what you’ll need to bring your personalization recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are sweeping and powerful, and they present broad options for how your organization can conduct its activities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

What’s important here is to avoid treating the installed software like it were a dream kitchen from some fantasy remodeling project (as one of our client executives memorably put it). These software engines are more like test kitchens where your team can begin devising, tasting, and refining the snacks and meals that will become a part of your personalization program’s regularly evolving menu.

The ultimate menu of the prioritized backlog will come together over the course of the workshop. And creating “dishes” is the way that you’ll have individual team stakeholders construct personalized interactions that serve their needs or the needs of others.

The dishes will come from recipes, and those recipes have set ingredients.

Verify your ingredients

Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure—andyou’ll validate with the right stakeholders present—that you have all the ingredients on hand to cook up your desired interaction (or that you can work out what needs to be added to your pantry). These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together. 

This isn’t just about discovering requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team: 

1. compare findings toward a unified approach for developing features, not unlike when artists paint with the same palette; 
2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar; 
3. and develop parity across performance measurements and key performance indicators too. 

This helps you streamline your designs and your technical efforts while you deliver a shared palette of core motifs of your personalized or automated experience.

Compose your recipe

What ingredients are important to you? Think of a who-what-when-why construct: 

• Who are your key audience segments or groups?
• What kind of content will you give them, in what design elements, and under what circumstances?
• And for which business and user benefits?

We first developed these cards and card categories five years ago. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And we still encounter new possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

Here are three examples for a subscription-based reading app, which you can generally follow along with right to left in the cards in the accompanying photo below. 

1. Nurture personalization: When a guest or an unknown visitor interacts with  a product title, a banner or alert bar appears that makes it easier for them to encounter a related title they may want to read, saving them time.
2. Welcome automation: When there’s a newly registered user, an email is generated to call out the breadth of the content catalog and to make them a happier subscriber.
3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

A useful preworkshop activity may be to think through a first draft of what these cards might be for your organization, although we’ve also found that this process sometimes flows best through cocreating the recipes themselves. Start with a set of blank cards, and begin labeling and grouping them through the design process, eventually distilling them to a refined subset of highly useful candidate cards.

You can think of the later stages of the workshop as moving from recipes toward a cookbook in focus—like a more nuanced customer-journey mapping. Individual “cooks” will pitch their recipes to the team, using a common jobs-to-be-done format so that measurability and results are baked in, and from there, the resulting collection will be prioritized for finished design and delivery to production.

Better kitchens require better architecture

Simplifying a customer experience is a complicated effort for those who are inside delivering it. Beware anyone who says otherwise. With that being said,  “Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes.”

When personalization becomes a laugh line, it’s because a team is overfitting: they aren’t designing with their best data. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. Your AI’s output quality, for example, is indeed limited by your IA. Spotify’s poster-child prowess today was unfathomable before they acquired a seemingly modest metadata startup that now powers its underlying information architecture.

You can definitely stand the heat…

Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach will bring about the necessary focus and intention to succeed. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, hit the test kitchen to save time, preserve job satisfaction and security, and safely dispense with the fanciful ideas that originate upstairs of the doers in your organization. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

This workshop framework gives you a fighting shot at lasting success as well as sound beginnings. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. But if you use the same cookbook and shared recipes, you’ll have solid footing for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

While there are associated costs toward investing in this kind of technology and product design, your ability to size up and confront your unique situation and your digital capabilities is time well spent. Don’t squander it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

I offer a single bit of advice to friends and family when they become new parents: When you start to think that you’ve got everything figured out, everything will change. Just as you start to get the hang of feedings, diapers, and regular naps, it’s time for solid food, potty training, and overnight sleeping. When you figure those out, it’s time for preschool and rare naps. The cycle goes on and on.

The same applies for those of us working in design and development these days. Having worked on the web for almost three decades at this point, I’ve seen the regular wax and wane of ideas, techniques, and technologies. Each time that we as developers and designers get into a regular rhythm, some new idea or technology comes along to shake things up and remake our world.

How we got here

I built my first website in the mid-’90s. Design and development on the web back then was a free-for-all, with few established norms. For any layout aside from a single column, we used table elements, often with empty cells containing a single pixel spacer GIF to add empty space. We styled text with numerous font tags, nesting the tags every time we wanted to vary the font style. And we had only three or four typefaces to choose from: Arial, Courier, or Times New Roman. When Verdana and Georgia came out in 1996, we rejoiced because our options had nearly doubled. The only safe colors to choose from were the 216 “web safe” colors known to work across platforms. The few interactive elements (like contact forms, guest books, and counters) were mostly powered by CGI scripts (predominantly written in Perl at the time). Achieving any kind of unique look involved a pile of hacks all the way down. Interaction was often limited to specific pages in a site.

The birth of web standards

At the turn of the century, a new cycle started. Crufty code littered with table layouts and font tags waned, and a push for web standards waxed. Newer technologies like CSS got more widespread adoption by browsers makers, developers, and designers. This shift toward standards didn’t happen accidentally or overnight. It took active engagement between the W3C and browser vendors and heavy evangelism from folks like the Web Standards Project to build standards. A List Apart and books like Designing with Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman played key roles in teaching developers and designers why standards are important, how to implement them, and how to sell them to their organizations. And approaches like progressive enhancement introduced the idea that content should be available for all browsers—with additional enhancements available for more advanced browsers. Meanwhile, sites like the CSS Zen Garden showcased just how powerful and versatile CSS can be when combined with a solid semantic HTML structure.

Server-side languages like PHP, Java, and .NET overtook Perl as the predominant back-end processors, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the trash bin. With these better server-side tools came the first era of web applications, starting with content-management systems (particularly in the blogging space with tools like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress). In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened doors for asynchronous interaction between the front end and back end. Suddenly, pages could update their content without needing to reload. A crop of JavaScript frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and jQuery arose to help developers build more reliable client-side interaction across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like image replacement let crafty designers and developers display fonts of their choosing. And technologies like Flash made it possible to add animations, games, and even more interactivity.

These new technologies, standards, and techniques reinvigorated the industry in many ways. Web design flourished as designers and developers explored more diverse styles and layouts. But we still relied on tons of hacks. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes (such as rounded or angled corners) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks). Complicated layouts required all manner of nested floats or absolute positioning (or both). Flash and image replacement for custom fonts was a great start toward varying the typefaces from the big five, but both hacks introduced accessibility and performance problems. And JavaScript libraries made it easy for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, although at the cost of doubling or even quadrupling the download size of simple websites.

The web as software platform

The symbiosis between the front end and back end continued to improve, and that led to the current era of modern web applications. Between expanded server-side programming languages (which kept growing to include Ruby, Python, Go, and others) and newer front-end tools like React, Vue, and Angular, we could build fully capable software on the web. Alongside these tools came others, including collaborative version control, build automation, and shared package libraries. What was once primarily an environment for linked documents became a realm of infinite possibilities.

At the same time, mobile devices became more capable, and they gave us internet access in our pockets. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

This combination of capable mobile devices and powerful development tools contributed to the waxing of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and consume. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media offered connections on a global scale, with both the good and bad that that entails.

Want a much more extensive history of how we got here, with some other takes on ways that we can improve? Jeremy Keith wrote “Of Time and the Web.” Or check out the “Web Design History Timeline” at the Web Design Museum. Neal Agarwal also has a fun tour through “Internet Artifacts.”

Where we are now

In the last couple of years, it’s felt like we’ve begun to reach another major inflection point. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. There are many different ways to make a website, from the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators to content management systems of all flavors. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other tools of the IndieWeb can help with this, but they’re still relatively underimplemented and hard to use for the less nerdy. We can build amazing personal websites and add to them regularly, but without discovery and connection, it can sometimes feel like we may as well be shouting into the void.

Browser support for CSS, JavaScript, and other standards like web components has accelerated, especially through efforts like Interop. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. I often learn about a new feature and check its browser support only to find that its coverage is already above 80 percent. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often isn’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

Today, with a few commands and a couple of lines of code, we can prototype almost any idea. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. But the upfront cost that these frameworks may save in initial delivery eventually comes due as upgrading and maintaining them becomes a part of our technical debt.

If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks—which used to let us adopt new techniques sooner—have now become hindrances instead. These same frameworks often come with performance costs too, forcing users to wait for scripts to load before they can read or interact with pages. And when scripts fail (whether through poor code, network issues, or other environmental factors), there’s often no alternative, leaving users with blank or broken pages.

Where do we go from here?

Today’s hacks help to shape tomorrow’s standards. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks—for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we’re unwilling to admit that they’re hacks or we hesitate to replace them. So what can we do to create the future we want for the web?

Build for the long haul. Optimize for performance, for accessibility, and for the user. Weigh the costs of those developer-friendly tools. They may make your job a little easier today, but how do they affect everything else? What’s the cost to users? To future developers? To standards adoption? Sometimes the convenience may be worth it. Sometimes it’s just a hack that you’ve grown accustomed to. And sometimes it’s holding you back from even better options.

Start from standards. Standards continue to evolve over time, but browsers have done a remarkably good job of continuing to support older standards. The same isn’t always true of third-party frameworks. Sites built with even the hackiest of HTML from the ’90s still work just fine today. The same can’t always be said of sites built with frameworks even after just a couple years.

Design with care. Whether your craft is code, pixels, or processes, consider the impacts of each decision. The convenience of many a modern tool comes at the cost of not always understanding the underlying decisions that have led to its design and not always considering the impact that those decisions can have. Rather than rushing headlong to “move fast and break things,” use the time saved by modern tools to consider more carefully and design with deliberation.

Always be learning. If you’re always learning, you’re also growing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. You might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year, even if you were to focus solely on learning standards. (Remember XHTML?) But constant learning opens up new connections in your brain, and the hacks that you learn one day may help to inform different experiments another day.

Play, experiment, and be weird! This web that we’ve built is the ultimate experiment. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be courageous and try new things. Build a playground for ideas. Make goofy experiments in your own mad science lab. Start your own small business. There has never been a more empowering place to be creative, take risks, and explore what we’re capable of.

Share and amplify. As you experiment, play, and learn, share what’s worked for you. Write on your own website, post on whichever social media site you prefer, or shout it from a TikTok. Write something for A List Apart! But take the time to amplify others too: find new voices, learn from them, and share what they’ve taught you.

Go forth and make

As designers and developers for the web (and beyond), we’re responsible for building the future every day, whether that may take the shape of personal websites, social media tools used by billions, or anything in between. Let’s imbue our values into the things that we create, and let’s make the web a better place for everyone. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then share it, make it better, make it again, or make something new. Learn. Make. Share. Grow. Rinse and repeat. Every time you think that you’ve mastered the web, everything will change.

In reading Joe Dolson’s recent piece on the intersection of AI and accessibility, I absolutely appreciated the skepticism that he has for AI in general as well as for the ways that many have been using it. In fact, I’m very skeptical of AI myself, despite my role at Microsoft as an accessibility innovation strategist who helps run the AI for Accessibility grant program. As with any tool, AI can be used in very constructive, inclusive, and accessible ways; and it can also be used in destructive, exclusive, and harmful ones. And there are a ton of uses somewhere in the mediocre middle as well.

I’d like you to consider this a “yes… and” piece to complement Joe’s post. I’m not trying to refute any of what he’s saying but rather provide some visibility to projects and opportunities where AI can make meaningful differences for people with disabilities. To be clear, I’m not saying that there aren’t real risks or pressing issues with AI that need to be addressed—there are, and we’ve needed to address them, like, yesterday—but I want to take a little time to talk about what’s possible in hopes that we’ll get there one day.

Alternative text

Joe’s piece spends a lot of time talking about computer-vision models generating alternative text. He highlights a ton of valid issues with the current state of things. And while computer-vision models continue to improve in the quality and richness of detail in their descriptions, their results aren’t great. As he rightly points out, the current state of image analysis is pretty poor—especially for certain image types—in large part because current AI systems examine images in isolation rather than within the contexts that they’re in (which is a consequence of having separate “foundation” models for text analysis and image analysis). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant (that should probably have descriptions) and those that are purely decorative (which might not need a description) either. Still, I still think there’s potential in this space.

As Joe mentions, human-in-the-loop authoring of alt text should absolutely be a thing. And if AI can pop in to offer a starting point for alt text—even if that starting point might be a prompt saying What is this BS? That’s not right at all… Let me try to offer a starting point—I think that’s a win.

Taking things a step further, if we can specifically train a model to analyze image usage in context, it could help us more quickly identify which images are likely to be decorative and which ones likely require a description. That will help reinforce which contexts call for image descriptions and it’ll improve authors’ efficiency toward making their pages more accessible.

While complex images—like graphs and charts—are challenging to describe in any sort of succinct way (even for humans), the image example shared in the GPT4 announcement points to an interesting opportunity as well. Let’s suppose that you came across a chart whose description was simply the title of the chart and the kind of visualization it was, such as: Pie chart comparing smartphone usage to feature phone usage among US households making under $30,000 a year. (That would be a pretty awful alt text for a chart since that would tend to leave many questions about the data unanswered, but then again, let’s suppose that that was the description that was in place.) If your browser knew that that image was a pie chart (because an onboard model concluded this), imagine a world where users could ask questions like these about the graphic:

• Do more people use smartphones or feature phones?
• How many more?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these buckets?
• How many is that?

Setting aside the realities of large language model (LLM) hallucinations—where a model just makes up plausible-sounding “facts”—for a moment, the opportunity to learn more about images and data in this way could be revolutionary for blind and low-vision folks as well as for people with various forms of color blindness, cognitive disabilities, and so on. It could also be useful in educational contexts to help people who can see these charts, as is, to understand the data in the charts.

Taking things a step further: What if you could ask your browser to simplify a complex chart? What if you could ask it to isolate a single line on a line graph? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you could ask it to swap colors for patterns? Given these tools’ chat-based interfaces and our existing ability to manipulate images in today’s AI tools, that seems like a possibility.

Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. For example, perhaps it could turn that pie chart (or better yet, a series of pie charts) into more accessible (and useful) formats, like spreadsheets. That would be amazing!

Matching algorithms

Safiya Umoja Noble absolutely hit the nail on the head when she titled her book Algorithms of Oppression. While her book was focused on the ways that search engines reinforce racism, I think that it’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to amplify conflict, bias, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A lot of this stems from a lack of diversity among the people who shape and build them. When these platforms are built with inclusively baked in, however, there’s real potential for algorithm development to help people with disabilities.

Take Mentra, for example. They are an employment network for neurodivergent people. They use an algorithm to match job seekers with potential employers based on over 75 data points. On the job-seeker side of things, it considers each candidate’s strengths, their necessary and preferred workplace accommodations, environmental sensitivities, and so on. On the employer side, it considers each work environment, communication factors related to each job, and the like. As a company run by neurodivergent folks, Mentra made the decision to flip the script when it came to typical employment sites. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in; reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

When more people with disabilities are involved in the creation of algorithms, that can reduce the chances that these algorithms will inflict harm on their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so important.

Imagine that a social media company’s recommendation engine was tuned to analyze who you’re following and if it was tuned to prioritize follow recommendations for people who talked about similar things but who were different in some key ways from your existing sphere of influence. For example, if you were to follow a bunch of nondisabled white male academics who talk about AI, it could suggest that you follow academics who are disabled or aren’t white or aren’t male who also talk about AI. If you took its recommendations, perhaps you’d get a more holistic and nuanced understanding of what’s happening in the AI field. These same systems should also use their understanding of biases about particular communities—including, for instance, the disability community—to make sure that they aren’t recommending any of their users follow accounts that perpetuate biases against (or, worse, spewing hate toward) those groups.

Other ways that AI can helps people with disabilities

If I weren’t trying to put this together between other tasks, I’m sure that I could go on and on, providing all kinds of examples of how AI could be used to help people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

• Voice preservation. You may have seen the VALL-E paper or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day announcement or you may be familiar with the voice-preservation offerings from Microsoft, Acapela, or others. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. This is, of course, the same tech that can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so it’s something that we need to approach responsibly, but the tech has truly transformative potential.
• Voice recognition. Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are actively recruiting people with Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they have plans to expand this to other conditions as the project progresses. This research will result in more inclusive data sets that will let more people with disabilities use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as well as control their computers and other devices more easily, using only their voice.
• Text transformation. The current generation of LLMs is quite capable of adjusting existing text content without injecting hallucinations. This is hugely empowering for people with cognitive disabilities who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions of text or even text that’s prepped for Bionic Reading.

The importance of diverse teams and data

We need to recognize that our differences matter. Our lived experiences are influenced by the intersections of the identities that we exist in. These lived experiences—with all their complexities (and joys and pain)—are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences need to be represented in the data that we use to train new models, and the folks who contribute that valuable information need to be compensated for sharing it with us. Inclusive data sets yield more robust models that foster more equitable outcomes.

Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you have content about disabilities that’s authored by people with a range of disabilities, and make sure that that’s well represented in the training data.

Want a model that doesn’t use ableist language? You may be able to use existing data sets to build a filter that can intercept and remediate ableist language before it reaches readers. That being said, when it comes to sensitivity reading, AI models won’t be replacing human copy editors anytime soon. 

Want a coding copilot that gives you accessible recommendations from the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.

I have no doubt that AI can and will harm people… today, tomorrow, and well into the future. But I also believe that we can acknowledge that and, with an eye towards accessibility (and, more broadly, inclusion), make thoughtful, considerate, and intentional changes in our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Many thanks to Kartik Sawhney for helping me with the development of this piece, Ashley Bischoff for her invaluable editorial assistance, and, of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

I am a creative. What I do is alchemy. It is a mystery. I do not so much do it, as let it be done through me.

I am a creative. Not all creative people like this label. Not all see themselves this way. Some creative people see science in what they do. That is their truth, and I respect it. Maybe I even envy them, a little. But my process is different—my being is different.

Apologizing and qualifying in advance is a distraction. That’s what my brain does to sabotage me. I set it aside for now. I can come back later to apologize and qualify. After I’ve said what I came to say. Which is hard enough. 

Except when it is easy and flows like a river of wine.

Sometimes it does come that way. Sometimes what I need to create comes in an instant. I have learned not to say it at that moment, because if you admit that sometimes the idea just comes and it is the best idea and you know it is the best idea, they think you don’t work hard enough.

Sometimes I work and work and work until the idea comes. Sometimes it comes instantly and I don’t tell anyone for three days. Sometimes I’m so excited by the idea that came instantly that I blurt it out, can’t help myself. Like a boy who found a prize in his Cracker Jacks. Sometimes I get away with this. Sometimes other people agree: yes, that is the best idea. Most times they don’t and I regret having  given way to enthusiasm. 

Enthusiasm is best saved for the meeting where it will make a difference. Not the casual get-together that precedes that meeting by two other meetings. Nobody knows why we have all these meetings. We keep saying we’re doing away with them, but then just finding other ways to have them. Sometimes they are even good. But other times they are a distraction from the actual work. The proportion between when meetings are useful, and when they are a pitiful distraction, varies, depending on what you do and where you do it. And who you are and how you do it. Again I digress. I am a creative. That is the theme.

Sometimes many hours of hard and patient work produce something that is barely serviceable. Sometimes I have to accept that and move on to the next project.

Don’t ask about process. I am a creative.

I am a creative. I don’t control my dreams. And I don’t control my best ideas.

I can hammer away, surround myself with facts or images, and sometimes that works. I can go for a walk, and sometimes that works. I can be making dinner and there’s a Eureka having nothing to do with sizzling oil and bubbling pots. Often I know what to do the instant I wake up. And then, almost as often, as I become conscious and part of the world again, the idea that would have saved me turns to vanishing dust in a mindless wind of oblivion. For creativity, I believe, comes from that other world. The one we enter in dreams, and perhaps, before birth and after death. But that’s for poets to wonder, and I am not a poet. I am a creative. And it’s for theologians to mass armies about in their creative world that they insist is real. But that is another digression. And a depressing one. Maybe on a much more important topic than whether I am a creative or not. But still a digression from what I came here to say.

Sometimes the process is avoidance. And agony. You know the cliché about the tortured artist? It’s true, even when the artist (and let’s put that noun in quotes) is trying to write a soft drink jingle, a callback in a tired sitcom, a budget request.

Some people who hate being called creative may be closeted creatives, but that’s between them and their gods. No offense meant. Your truth is true, too. But mine is for me. 

Creatives recognize creatives.

Creatives recognize creatives like queers recognize queers, like real rappers recognize real rappers, like cons know cons. Creatives feel massive respect for creatives. We love, honor, emulate, and practically deify the great ones. To deify any human is, of course, a tragic mistake. We have been warned. We know better. We know people are just people. They squabble, they are lonely, they regret their most important decisions, they are poor and hungry, they can be cruel, they can be just as stupid as we can, because, like us, they are clay. But. But. But they make this amazing thing. They birth something that did not exist before them, and could not exist without them. They are the mothers of ideas. And I suppose, since it’s just lying there, I have to add that they are the mothers of invention. Ba dum bum! OK, that’s done. Continue.

Creatives belittle our own small achievements, because we compare them to those of the great ones. Beautiful animation! Well, I’m no Miyazaki. Now THAT is greatness. That is greatness straight from the mind of God. This half-starved little thing that I made? It more or less fell off the back of the turnip truck. And the turnips weren’t even fresh.

Creatives knows that, at best, they are Salieri. Even the creatives who are Mozart believe that. 

I am a creative. I haven’t worked in advertising in 30 years, but in my nightmares, it’s my former creative directors who judge me. And they are right to do so. I am too lazy, too facile, and when it really counts, my mind goes blank. There is no pill for creative dysfunction.

I am a creative. Every deadline I make is an adventure that makes Indiana Jones look like a pensioner snoring in a deck chair. The longer I remain a creative, the faster I am when I do my work and the longer I brood and walk in circles and stare blankly before I do that work. 

I am still 10 times faster than people who are not creative, or people who have only been creative a short while, or people who have only been professionally creative a short while. It’s just that, before I work 10 times as fast as they do, I spend twice as long as they do putting the work off. I am that confident in my ability to do a great job when I put my mind to it. I am that addicted to the adrenaline rush of postponement. I am still that afraid of the jump.

I am not an artist.

I am a creative. Not an artist. Though I dreamed, as a lad, of someday being that. Some of us belittle our gifts and dislike ourselves because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism—but at least we aren’t in politics.

I am a creative. Though I believe in reason and science, I decide by intuition and impulse. And live with what follows—the catastrophes as well as the triumphs. 

I am a creative. Every word I’ve said here will annoy other creatives, who see things differently. Ask two creatives a question, get three opinions. Our disagreement, our passion about it, and our commitment to our own truth are, at least to me, the proofs that we are creatives, no matter how we may feel about it.

I am a creative. I lament my lack of taste in the areas about which I know very little, which is to say almost all areas of human knowledge. And I trust my taste above all other things in the areas closest to my heart, or perhaps, more accurately, to my obsessions. Without my obsessions, I would probably have to spend my time looking life in the eye, and almost none of us can do that for long. Not honestly. Not really. Because much in life, if you really look at it, is unbearable.

I am a creative. I believe, as a parent believes, that when I am gone, some small good part of me will carry on in the mind of at least one other person.

Working saves me from worrying about work.

I am a creative. I live in dread of my small gift suddenly going away.

I am a creative. I am too busy making the next thing to spend too much time deeply considering that almost nothing I make will come anywhere near the greatness I comically aspire to.

I am a creative. I believe in the ultimate mystery of process. I believe in it so much, I am even fool enough to publish an essay I dictated into a tiny machine and didn’t take time to review or revise. I won’t do this often, I promise. But I did it just now, because, as afraid as I might be of your seeing through my pitiful gestures toward the beautiful, I was even more afraid of forgetting what I came to say. 

There. I think I’ve said it. 

Look out, here comes Daredevil, the Man Without Fear! Seven years after the Netflix series ended with its third season, Daredevil: Born Again brings back stars Charlie Cox and Vincent D’Onofrio, this time for Disney+. Daredevil’s journey from star of a canceled, violent Netflix series to new entry completely in the Marvel Cinematic Universe highlights […]

The post Every Marvel TV Show in the MCU Era Ranked appeared first on Den of Geek.

Look out, here comes Daredevil, the Man Without Fear! Seven years after the Netflix series ended with its third season, Daredevil: Born Again brings back stars Charlie Cox and Vincent D’Onofrio, this time for Disney+.

Daredevil’s journey from star of a canceled, violent Netflix series to new entry completely in the Marvel Cinematic Universe highlights the strange case of Marvel shows. Although Marvel has been a constant presence on television since the cartoons of the 1960s, the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe reinvigorated public interest in the characters.

Yet, while the movies boasted a shared universe, in which Captain America can drop by Asgard (albeit as a Loki projection) in Thor: The Dark World, the TV shows were strangely sequestered. Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones lived on Netflix. Cloak & Dagger and Runaways stayed on Freeform. Characters from the movies got spun off into shows on Disney+.

However, with Born Again bringing the Netflix series back, it’s time to look at all of the shows produced under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner… mostly. A few shows that came out during the MCU era fall a bit outside the scope of this list. Legion and Gifted both deal with the X-Men, but they don’t even wink at the MCU and instead tell their own idiosyncratic stories. Likewise, the animated series Spidey and His Amazing Spider-Friends, Hit-Monkey, and M.O.D.O.K. might have some overlap with characters that appear in the MCU, but they have radically different takes and don’t even acknowledge the multiverse like shows that are on this list.

Even cutting out those shows leaves a ton of superhero action left to cover, some better than others. So let’s dive into the world of Marvel heroes that have been forever changed by the MCU.

28. Inhumans

Perhaps the least essential creation of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, the Inhumans work best as supporting characters within the Fantastic Four franchise. A messy royal family who support eugenics, the Inhumans are hardly the most likable characters from the House of Ideas. Yet, back when the X-Men adaptation rights were with 20th Century Fox instead of Disney/Marvel, then Marvel chief Ike Perlmutter pushed the Inhumans as replacements for the mutants.

To that end Perlmutter advocated an Inhumans movie, something that Kevin Feige resisted as much as he could, bumping the project to a short ABC miniseries. And what a terrible miniseries it was. Despite some likable actors such as Anson Mount and Ken Leung, Inhumans never justified its own existence. When Medusa (Serinda Swan), a character with the cool power of long hair she can control, gets her head shaved at the start of the series, smart people forgot about Inhuamans until Black Bolt’s delightful death in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

27. Marvel’s Runaways

Here’s the thing about the Runaways: they have to run away. By issue #2 of the acclaimed comic book series by Brian K. Vaughan and Adrian Alphona, the primary teens had escaped from home, upon learning that their parents were supervillains. For some reason, the television adaptation kept the kids in the house for almost the entirety of the series. Even when the kids officially left home, they kept breaking into one another’s houses for one reason or another.

Without actually much running away and with superpower usage limited by television budgets, Runaways only had generic teen angst let to portray. It portrayed the angst ably, but covered the same ground that other shows had done first and better, leaving us viewers wondering why anyone even bothered making Runaways.

26. Helstrom

The best shows on this list figure out a way to take concepts from Marvel Comics and translate them to the medium of television. The worst get that balance wrong, hoping that the slightest gestures at one end can make up for deficiancies on the other. Case in point, the supernatural crime series Helstrom, starring Tom Austen and Sydney Lemmon as Daimon and Ana Helstrom.

In the comics, Daimon and Satana Hellstrom are the literal children of Satan and a human woman, who struggle to make sense of their conflicting heritages. The television show turns the two into children of a demon-possessed serial killer and send them to investigate spiritual mysteries, not unlike Supernatural or Lucifer (a show that does a much better job adapting a comic book to procedural television). The result is a show that trades in tired tv tropes that it’s occasional concessions to the comics cannot overcome.

25. Secret Invasion

The most damning thing that anyone can say about Secret Invasion is that it doesn’t matter at all. You could skip it and not be confused at all when Nick Fury shows up again in The Marvels, seemingly unfazed by what happened in his own show — a show that included the deaths of strong supporting characters Maria Hill and Talos and revealed that Fury had a wife who was a Skrull.

Frankly, those who skipped Secret Invasion were probably the happiest with the show. Despite strong work from the reliably great Samuel L. Jackson and Olivia Colman being Olivia Colman, the show couldn’t decide if it was a sci-fi show about aliens, a spy thriller, or a political satire, resulting in a forgettable, sloppy mess.

24. The Defenders

As this list will show, the Netflix Marvel series were a mixed bag, never able to balance the superheroics of the characters with the more grounded tone the shows wanted to achieve. It’s fitting, then, that the crossover miniseries The Defenders exemplifies all of the other shows’ problems.

The eight-episode mini wisely builds out of Daredevil, the strongest of the Netflix shows, with a plot that involves Hand ninjas trying to gain control of a super weapon called Black Sky, which turns out to be Daredevil’s girlfriend Elektra. As much as the Hand leader Alexandria, played by a disinterested Sigourney Weaver, talks about the end of the world, The Defenders feels shockingly tiny, mostly a bunch of people in business suits having conversations in officers.

23. Iron Fist

Like The Defenders, Iron Fist also confuses conversations in office buildings with compelling genre television. Somehow, a comic book series about a young man who becomes kung fu master after thrusting his hands into a dragon’s heart transformed into a show about corporate intrigue. Then again, given star Finn Jones’s nothing of a take on the main character Danny Rand, maybe producers didn’t have faith that he could carry the action scenes.

The show’s second season benefits from a change in showrunner and more of a focus on the strong supporting cast, which includes an outstanding turn by Jessica Henwick as Colleen Wing. However, it was too little too late, and very people even cared enough to tune in for a second season.

22. Echo

Unlike the aforementioned Helstrom siblings, at least Maya Lopez had a strong MCU showing before getting spun off into her own miniseries Echo. As portrayed by Alaqua Cox, Lopez made for a compelling antagonist to Clint Barton in Hawkeye. But Maya’s connection to Wilson Fisk, which does exist in the Daredevil comics in which she debuted, overshadowed the character, making her feel like a supporting character in her own show.

Then again, there’s not much to the show itself. Despite gathering some of the best Native actors working today (including most of the cast of the far superior Reservation Dogs), Echo drags across its five episodes, biding time until Maya can finally face off with Fisk. At least creative leads Marion Dayre, Amy Rardin, and Sydney Freeland work in enough underseen elements of Choctaw culture to give Echo some flavor it would otherwise lack.

21. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law

Easily the most divisive show on this list, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law will certainly rank much higher for some and perhaps even lower for others. No one would place the show in the middle. On one hand, the strong reactions speak to the show’s willingness to break the MCU model, something to be applauded. Harnessing the irreverent humor of writer and artist John Byrne’s comic run, She-Hulk stars Tatiana Maslany in a self-aware legal comedy.

However, the show’s success relies entirely on how much the audience finds the jokes actually funny. If watching She-Hulk twerk with Megan Thee Stallion is the height of comedy, then you probably enjoyed the show. If the series felt like watching the charming Maslany try to sell sub-UCB improv, then everything about the show — including the terrible effects and awkward MCU connections — felt like a drag.

20. Cloak and Dagger

Cloak and Dagger are two of the trickier characters to bring out of their genesis as moralizing characters from the “Just Say No” 1980s. Not only does the story of teenage runaways Tyrone Johnson and Tandy Bowen, who gain powers after being subjected to flawed street drugs, feel preachy, but Dagger has one of the most improbable costumes in comics history.

The television adaptation, starring Aubrey Joseph and Olivia Holt, ditches the costumes and instead plays up the teen drama. As a result, the show works as a melodrama with supernatural elements, gaining a solid following across its two seasons. Fans of weird Marvel characters might be disappointed with the series’ downplaying of the superhero aspects, but those who wanted off-kilter YA tales were pleased.

19. I Am Groot

Kids love Groot, so what would be better than a kids’ series about baby Groot getting into misadventures? I Am Groot is beautifully animated and each show’s six-minute runtime meant that the adventures had to stay small and focused.

And yet, even members of the target demographic get bored after one or two episodes. Ten episodes of the series feel like far too many, especially in the second season, which adds characters like the Watcher and alienates young children even more.

18. Marvel’s What If…? 

What If…? might be the most perfect adaptation of a comic book series. Like the long-running comic series, What If…? features alternate reality versions of familiar characters, playing out various thought experiments. And like the comic series, What If…? was occasionally interesting and mostly dull.

Which isn’t to say that the entire show was a waste of time. What If…? gave us one more chance to see/hear Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa and the series recently featured Storm in her Asgardian armor, a fan favorite from the comics. Moreover, Jeffrey Wright proved to be the ideal person to voice the all-powerful Watcher, thanks to his ability to keep tongue in cheek without sacrificing gravitas. Still, it’s hard to believe that anyone remembers the episodes as soon as the credits roll.

17. Moon Knight

One’s enjoyment of Moon Knight might depend entirely on one’s feelings about Oscar Isaac. For those who like Isaac, but see the actor’s limitations, then Moon Knight drags every time he deploys his goofy English accent to portray Steven Grant, and depictions of his alternate (and American) identity Marc Spector didn’t help things. By the time the show ended with a television CG equivalent of a kaiju battle, Moon Knight was a lost cause.

Yet, for those who love everything that Isaac’s handing out, Moon Knight is a lot of fun. The series wisely adapts the great Moon Knight run by Jeff Lemire and Greg Smallwood, combining psychological exploration with archeological adventure. Even better, May Calamawy steals every single scene she’s in as Layla El-Faouly, leaving us still clamoring for more Silver Scarab.

16. Luke Cage

The tragedy of the Neftlix Marvel shows is that they could have been really, really good. Luke Cage brims with potential, thanks to a captivating performance by Mike Colter in the lead and ambitious storytelling from showrunner Cheo Hodari Coker, who did not shy away from the social relevance of the characters. Add in ringers such as Mahershala Ali and Alfre Woodard as villains, and Luke Cage was set to match Daredevil for excitement and intensity.

Yet, the Netflix shows were mired by some requirement instituted by Marvel, most notably a mandatory minimum of 13 episodes per season. As a result, most of the Netflix shows felt oddly paced, none worse than Luke Cage. The electric charge of the first season fizzled out, even before the show unwisely killed off Ali’s character and replaced him with the much sillier Diamondback (Erik LaRay Harvey). Coming out of The Defenders, the show lost any direction, saddling the series with uninspired team ups and a generic mystery plot.

15. The Punisher

The Punisher might be one of the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe, but he’s not one of the richest. The entire appeal of the Punisher comes from the misery of watching broken man Frank Castle inflict all manner of pain on the worst of the worst. So it’s remarkable that the MCU has wrung two seasons of compelling television out of the character and that we’re excited to see the Punisher return for Daredevil: Born Again.

A lot of the show’s success can be attributed to Jon Bernthal, who first played the character in Daredevil. Bernthal finds empathy for Castle, ensuring that he feels human, even when he goes to incredibly dark lengths in his war on crime. Then again, the show didn’t always match Bernthal’s efforts, too often falling back into the standard doom and gloom of the Punisher’s world. That said, it does have Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Frank’s usual sidekick Microchip, which will probably come up with some wacky multiverse shenanigans in the Fantastic Four.

14. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier

At times, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier pays off the promise of the MCU shows. Where the movies have to tell big stories that leave little room for proper character development, the shows could take their time and flesh out the person behind the mask. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, intended to be the first of the Disney+ series, devotes its best parts to Sam Wilson wrestling with the idea of becoming the next Captain America and to Bucky dealing with the fallout of his crimes as the Winter Soldier.

And yet, the show doesn’t seem to trust the characters enough to really focus on them. Instead, it borrows from excellent Mark Gruenwald-written Captain America comics from the 1980s to tell a thriller dealing with refugees from the Blip who call themselves the Flag Smashers. Throw in Wyatt Russell as an unstable new Captain America, and there’s very little room left over for character growth. Still, the stuff that’s there is pretty compelling, and the series ends with Sam fully grown into the Captain America role.

13. Jessica Jones

Nowhere was the 13-episode requirement of the Netflix shows felt more keenly than midway through the first season of Jessica Jones. The series had a fantastic hook, with a perfectly cast Krysten Ritter as the acerbic private investigator facing off against David Tennant as Kilgrave, the mind-controlling Purple Man. And yet, all of the tension dissipated midway through the first season, when a subplot involving Jessica’s best pal and an unstable cop took the center stage while Jones and Kilgrave bided their time.

Jessica Jones settled into a better rhythm for its second and third seasons, and Ritter remained strong throughout. But without Tennant’s Kilgrave as the main villain, those later seasons feel solid if unremarkable. Still, that’s all a testament to what a remarkable show Jessica Jones was with Kilgrave as the antagonist, adding a level true menace to the procedural structure and adding true pathos to Ritter’s disaffected exterior.

12. Agatha All Along

For its first few episodes Agatha All Along felt like Marvel at its least essential. The draw to the series seemed to be watching the always-delightful Kathryn Hahn pal around with other great actors, including Patti LuPone, Sasheer Zamata, Ali Ahn, and Debra Jo Rupp as back-biting witches, alongside Joe Locke as a mysterious magic user mostly just called “Teen” and Aubrey Plaza as a flirtatious enemy.

But by the time that the second half of the season kicks in, Agatha All Along finds surprising pathos. It’s not just the depths to Agatha’s backstory, but especially a Doctor Who style twist to LuPone’s time-displaced witch and a tale of displacement and found family with the Teen. What began as a lackluster spin-off became a starting point for one of the Young Avengers, giving the MCU a shared universe boost that once was the franchise’s calling card.

11. Agents of SHIELD

It’s hard to judge Agents of SHIELD for what it was, not what it could have been. Agents of SHIELD debuted at the height of Marvel mania, promising more MCU action by following fan-favorite Phil Coulson and his secret agents as they do superhero espionage. Yet, that first season quickly revealed itself as a pretty by-the-numbers procedural with only the slightest MCU trappings. When the movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier ended by completely recreating SHIELD, it seemed like the series would find its footing in season two, but that didn’t happen either.

And yet, once expectations fell away (and, frankly, a lot of people stopped watching), Agents of SHIELD got room to breathe. It’s likable ensemble cast settled into their roles and the show got room to be more experimental and fun. Kree soldiers, Ghost Rider, and actual supervillains became part of the story. The less that people paid attention to Agents of SHIELD, the more it got to be itself, and the show was better for it.

10. Werewolf by Night

By this point, readers have certainly noticed a reoccurring complaint across this list, that some shows waste even good ideas because they stretch their stories across too many episodes. The first of two specials created for Disney+, Werewolf by Night fills every one of its 53 minutes with delightful detail, not wasting a second.

Directed by composer turned first-time filmmaker Michael Giacchino, Werewolf by Night pairs Gael García Bernal at his most lovable with a flinty Laura Donnelly, the former playing a good man cursed with lycanthropy and the latter the unwilling scion of monster hunters. Giacchino channels the gothic thrills of Universal Horror and even manages to put Man-Thing on screen without generating any guffaws. By the time Werewolf by Night ends, we’re still hungry for more, a rarity among MCU shows.

9. Agent Carter

Obviously, Agent Carter isn’t the best show on this list. But Agent Carter does the best job at translating the Marvel Universe to television. The series spun-off Hayley Atwell‘s scene-stealing Peggy Carter from Captain America: The First Avenger and lets her be so much more than the long-lost girlfriend of Steve Rogers.

Even better, the World War II setting protected Agent Carter from the expectations that hobbled Agents of SHIELD, letting it play in its own corner of the universe. Yes, Edwin Jarvis and Howard Stark show up, but Agent Carter mostly got to be a high-energy spy show. The fact that it lasted just two seasons proves that Marvel didn’t always know what to do with its shows.

8. Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

Given all of the changes that the show experienced in pre-production, given its cast overstuffed with Marvel supporting characters, its remarkable that Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man managed to be as breezy and fresh as it is. Showrunner Jeff Trammell remixes over-familiar story beats to give us a modern-day take on Peter Parker, unlike any version seen in movies, comics, or television.

All of the changes work. Perennial B-list villain Tombstone gets a tragic arc, Harry feels like proper 2024 rich boy, and Colman Domingo gives us one of the most compelling takes on Norman Osborn ever seen. The entire show comes via stylized animation that recalls both the Spider-Verse films and Steve Ditko’s pop art, capturing the timeless quality of Spider-Man.

7. Hawkeye

No one in their right mind would pick Clint Barton as their favorite Avenger. Although played well by Jeremy Renner, he could never shake the fact that he was just a normal guy with bows and arrows among gods. Avengers: Age of Ultron effectively turned Clint’s weaknesses as strengths, but no one expected him to carry a television series.

Hawkeye works, in part, because he doesn’t have to carry it. The MCU gets a shot in the arm by adding Hailee Steinfeld as Kate Bishop, a rich girl who takes up the mantle of Hawkeye. Bishop’s tangled life, which includes a dashing Tony Dalton as a potential villain and a cameo by Florence Pugh as the White Widow, pairs nicely with Clint’s domestic stress. Plus, the series uses its Christmas setting and gives us Rogers: The Musical. What more could you want?

6. Loki

If Loki didn’t come back for a second season, it would have ranked much lower. The first series gave fans more of the MCU’s first real breakout Tom Hiddleston and paired him with the only person he could love, a variation of himself called Sylvie (Sophia Di Martino) as well as a perfectly-cast Owen Wilson as company man Mobius. M. Mobius. Fun, yes, but the multiverse shenanigans muted the show’s emotional stakes.

To the shock of everyone, Loki’s second season did the exact opposite, amping up the emotional power by leaning into the multiversal elements. Even adding Jonathan Majors, then burdened with scandal and failed franchise plans, doesn’t slow things down, as the second show combines the end of all realities as an existential crisis for the God of Lies. The show sticks the landing, giving Loki something so rare among Marvel characters: a proper ending.

5. Ms. Marvel

After Avengers: Endgame, Marvel hoped that younger characters could fill the gaps left by Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans. The execution of these new characters has been hit or miss, but Marvel absolutely scored a home run when they got Iman Vellani to play Kamala Khan, the fangirl who becomes superhero Ms. Marvel.

The idea of making a Marvel superfan into a superhero could be self-congratulatory, but Villani plays it with such a lack of guile that no one feels upset. Grounded by a great ensemble cast playing her friends and family, Ms. Marvel takes surprising chances, from the pop art look of the first two episodes to an episode that depicts the Partition of India to an unexpected X-Men twist. Ms. Marvel could be the future of MCU, if only the franchise would let her lead.

4. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special

Leaving aside the fact that the only holiday celebrated in The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is Christmas, it’s hard to imagine a more perfect use of the MCU’s Disney+ connection. After two movies and supporting parts in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, the Guardians of the Galaxy had become some of the most beloved characters in the Marvel Universe, and that affection helps us forgive some of the clunky setups in the special.

Even better, the Holiday Special shows off what James Gunn does best, finding an unexpected genuine pathos in what seems like a goofy, somewhat metatextual tale, in which Mantis and Drax kidnap Kevin Bacon to give Starlord some Christmas cheer. And, of course, it has a killer soundtrack.

3. Daredevil

Daredevil isn’t exempt from the problems that plagued the other Netflix series. The second season in particular sags under the weight of too many plots and characters, and even the mostly-great first season spends way too much time with Matt Murdock recovering from his injuries. But when Daredevil is working, it’s among the best in superhero television.

The show establishes itself within its first three episodes. We meet Charlie Cox as Matt Murdock, an endlessly charming man whose tragic history and complicated Catholicism drive him to dress up as a devil and pummel baddies. He’s matched by the Kingpin of Crime Wilson Fisk, whom Vincent D’Onofrio plays as a hurt child in the body of a massive killer. The electricity between the two powered the series not just through its low points, but through seven years after its cancelation, making Daredevil: Born Again the most anticipated show of the year.

2. X-Men ’97

X-Men ’97 didn’t have to be this good. It could have just brought back the characters and cast from the ’90s show and make us all feel like kids again. It could have been fantasy escapism, letting us grown ups ignore the problems in the real world.

X-Men ’97 does the exact opposite. Yes, we have the same characters from the ’90s show, many of whom have the same voice actors. And yes, the series continues to adapt stories from the incredibly popular but artistically questionable X-Men comics of the era. But the series leans hard into our current situation, making the mutant as minority metaphor more explicit than ever before and offering a thrilling vision of resistance.

1. WandaVision

For a minute, it seemed like Marvel television would be something truly special. Intended to air after The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, WandaVision ended up making it to Disney+ first and announced itself as the ideal television adaptation. For its first two thirds, WandaVision took favorites from the MCU, namely Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff and Paul Bettany as her robot husband Vision, and put them in riffs on classic television.

One could argue that the drops in quality toward the end, when the television aspect falls away and traditional Marvel heroics take over. But the show does an excellent job weaving larger universe mystery throughout those early episodes, earning its big ending. Plus, the show wisely balances Wanda’s CGI off against Agatha with Vision having a deep conversation with himself. By the time it finished, WandaVision set a standard no other MCU show has been able to match. Yet.

The post Every Marvel TV Show in the MCU Era Ranked appeared first on Den of Geek.

This article contains major spoilers for Paradise season 1 episode 8. In Hulu’s eight-episode post-apocalyptic murder mystery Paradise, Agent Xavier Collins (Sterling K. Brown) is a secret service agent tasked with protecting President Cal Bradford (James Marsden) in a society created under a sealed dome after a series of natural disasters led to the end […]

The post Paradise Ending Explained: Who Killed Wildcat and What’s Next for Season 2? appeared first on Den of Geek.

Look out, here comes Daredevil, the Man Without Fear! Seven years after the Netflix series ended with its third season, Daredevil: Born Again brings back stars Charlie Cox and Vincent D’Onofrio, this time for Disney+.

Daredevil’s journey from star of a canceled, violent Netflix series to new entry completely in the Marvel Cinematic Universe highlights the strange case of Marvel shows. Although Marvel has been a constant presence on television since the cartoons of the 1960s, the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe reinvigorated public interest in the characters.

Yet, while the movies boasted a shared universe, in which Captain America can drop by Asgard (albeit as a Loki projection) in Thor: The Dark World, the TV shows were strangely sequestered. Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Jessica Jones lived on Netflix. Cloak & Dagger and Runaways stayed on Freeform. Characters from the movies got spun off into shows on Disney+.

However, with Born Again bringing the Netflix series back, it’s time to look at all of the shows produced under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner… mostly. A few shows that came out during the MCU era fall a bit outside the scope of this list. Legion and Gifted both deal with the X-Men, but they don’t even wink at the MCU and instead tell their own idiosyncratic stories. Likewise, the animated series Spidey and His Amazing Spider-Friends, Hit-Monkey, and M.O.D.O.K. might have some overlap with characters that appear in the MCU, but they have radically different takes and don’t even acknowledge the multiverse like shows that are on this list.

Even cutting out those shows leaves a ton of superhero action left to cover, some better than others. So let’s dive into the world of Marvel heroes that have been forever changed by the MCU.

28. Inhumans

Perhaps the least essential creation of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee, the Inhumans work best as supporting characters within the Fantastic Four franchise. A messy royal family who support eugenics, the Inhumans are hardly the most likable characters from the House of Ideas. Yet, back when the X-Men adaptation rights were with 20th Century Fox instead of Disney/Marvel, then Marvel chief Ike Perlmutter pushed the Inhumans as replacements for the mutants.

To that end Perlmutter advocated an Inhumans movie, something that Kevin Feige resisted as much as he could, bumping the project to a short ABC miniseries. And what a terrible miniseries it was. Despite some likable actors such as Anson Mount and Ken Leung, Inhumans never justified its own existence. When Medusa (Serinda Swan), a character with the cool power of long hair she can control, gets her head shaved at the start of the series, smart people forgot about Inhuamans until Black Bolt’s delightful death in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

27. Marvel’s Runaways

Here’s the thing about the Runaways: they have to run away. By issue #2 of the acclaimed comic book series by Brian K. Vaughan and Adrian Alphona, the primary teens had escaped from home, upon learning that their parents were supervillains. For some reason, the television adaptation kept the kids in the house for almost the entirety of the series. Even when the kids officially left home, they kept breaking into one another’s houses for one reason or another.

Without actually much running away and with superpower usage limited by television budgets, Runaways only had generic teen angst let to portray. It portrayed the angst ably, but covered the same ground that other shows had done first and better, leaving us viewers wondering why anyone even bothered making Runaways.

26. Helstrom

The best shows on this list figure out a way to take concepts from Marvel Comics and translate them to the medium of television. The worst get that balance wrong, hoping that the slightest gestures at one end can make up for deficiancies on the other. Case in point, the supernatural crime series Helstrom, starring Tom Austen and Sydney Lemmon as Daimon and Ana Helstrom.

In the comics, Daimon and Satana Hellstrom are the literal children of Satan and a human woman, who struggle to make sense of their conflicting heritages. The television show turns the two into children of a demon-possessed serial killer and send them to investigate spiritual mysteries, not unlike Supernatural or Lucifer (a show that does a much better job adapting a comic book to procedural television). The result is a show that trades in tired tv tropes that it’s occasional concessions to the comics cannot overcome.

25. Secret Invasion

The most damning thing that anyone can say about Secret Invasion is that it doesn’t matter at all. You could skip it and not be confused at all when Nick Fury shows up again in The Marvels, seemingly unfazed by what happened in his own show — a show that included the deaths of strong supporting characters Maria Hill and Talos and revealed that Fury had a wife who was a Skrull.

Frankly, those who skipped Secret Invasion were probably the happiest with the show. Despite strong work from the reliably great Samuel L. Jackson and Olivia Colman being Olivia Colman, the show couldn’t decide if it was a sci-fi show about aliens, a spy thriller, or a political satire, resulting in a forgettable, sloppy mess.

24. The Defenders

As this list will show, the Netflix Marvel series were a mixed bag, never able to balance the superheroics of the characters with the more grounded tone the shows wanted to achieve. It’s fitting, then, that the crossover miniseries The Defenders exemplifies all of the other shows’ problems.

The eight-episode mini wisely builds out of Daredevil, the strongest of the Netflix shows, with a plot that involves Hand ninjas trying to gain control of a super weapon called Black Sky, which turns out to be Daredevil’s girlfriend Elektra. As much as the Hand leader Alexandria, played by a disinterested Sigourney Weaver, talks about the end of the world, The Defenders feels shockingly tiny, mostly a bunch of people in business suits having conversations in officers.

23. Iron Fist

Like The Defenders, Iron Fist also confuses conversations in office buildings with compelling genre television. Somehow, a comic book series about a young man who becomes kung fu master after thrusting his hands into a dragon’s heart transformed into a show about corporate intrigue. Then again, given star Finn Jones’s nothing of a take on the main character Danny Rand, maybe producers didn’t have faith that he could carry the action scenes.

The show’s second season benefits from a change in showrunner and more of a focus on the strong supporting cast, which includes an outstanding turn by Jessica Henwick as Colleen Wing. However, it was too little too late, and very people even cared enough to tune in for a second season.

22. Echo

Unlike the aforementioned Helstrom siblings, at least Maya Lopez had a strong MCU showing before getting spun off into her own miniseries Echo. As portrayed by Alaqua Cox, Lopez made for a compelling antagonist to Clint Barton in Hawkeye. But Maya’s connection to Wilson Fisk, which does exist in the Daredevil comics in which she debuted, overshadowed the character, making her feel like a supporting character in her own show.

Then again, there’s not much to the show itself. Despite gathering some of the best Native actors working today (including most of the cast of the far superior Reservation Dogs), Echo drags across its five episodes, biding time until Maya can finally face off with Fisk. At least creative leads Marion Dayre, Amy Rardin, and Sydney Freeland work in enough underseen elements of Choctaw culture to give Echo some flavor it would otherwise lack.

21. She-Hulk: Attorney at Law

Easily the most divisive show on this list, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law will certainly rank much higher for some and perhaps even lower for others. No one would place the show in the middle. On one hand, the strong reactions speak to the show’s willingness to break the MCU model, something to be applauded. Harnessing the irreverent humor of writer and artist John Byrne’s comic run, She-Hulk stars Tatiana Maslany in a self-aware legal comedy.

However, the show’s success relies entirely on how much the audience finds the jokes actually funny. If watching She-Hulk twerk with Megan Thee Stallion is the height of comedy, then you probably enjoyed the show. If the series felt like watching the charming Maslany try to sell sub-UCB improv, then everything about the show — including the terrible effects and awkward MCU connections — felt like a drag.

20. Cloak and Dagger

Cloak and Dagger are two of the trickier characters to bring out of their genesis as moralizing characters from the “Just Say No” 1980s. Not only does the story of teenage runaways Tyrone Johnson and Tandy Bowen, who gain powers after being subjected to flawed street drugs, feel preachy, but Dagger has one of the most improbable costumes in comics history.

The television adaptation, starring Aubrey Joseph and Olivia Holt, ditches the costumes and instead plays up the teen drama. As a result, the show works as a melodrama with supernatural elements, gaining a solid following across its two seasons. Fans of weird Marvel characters might be disappointed with the series’ downplaying of the superhero aspects, but those who wanted off-kilter YA tales were pleased.

19. I Am Groot

Kids love Groot, so what would be better than a kids’ series about baby Groot getting into misadventures? I Am Groot is beautifully animated and each show’s six-minute runtime meant that the adventures had to stay small and focused.

And yet, even members of the target demographic get bored after one or two episodes. Ten episodes of the series feel like far too many, especially in the second season, which adds characters like the Watcher and alienates young children even more.

18. Marvel’s What If…? 

What If…? might be the most perfect adaptation of a comic book series. Like the long-running comic series, What If…? features alternate reality versions of familiar characters, playing out various thought experiments. And like the comic series, What If…? was occasionally interesting and mostly dull.

Which isn’t to say that the entire show was a waste of time. What If…? gave us one more chance to see/hear Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa and the series recently featured Storm in her Asgardian armor, a fan favorite from the comics. Moreover, Jeffrey Wright proved to be the ideal person to voice the all-powerful Watcher, thanks to his ability to keep tongue in cheek without sacrificing gravitas. Still, it’s hard to believe that anyone remembers the episodes as soon as the credits roll.

17. Moon Knight

One’s enjoyment of Moon Knight might depend entirely on one’s feelings about Oscar Isaac. For those who like Isaac, but see the actor’s limitations, then Moon Knight drags every time he deploys his goofy English accent to portray Steven Grant, and depictions of his alternate (and American) identity Marc Spector didn’t help things. By the time the show ended with a television CG equivalent of a kaiju battle, Moon Knight was a lost cause.

Yet, for those who love everything that Isaac’s handing out, Moon Knight is a lot of fun. The series wisely adapts the great Moon Knight run by Jeff Lemire and Greg Smallwood, combining psychological exploration with archeological adventure. Even better, May Calamawy steals every single scene she’s in as Layla El-Faouly, leaving us still clamoring for more Silver Scarab.

16. Luke Cage

The tragedy of the Neftlix Marvel shows is that they could have been really, really good. Luke Cage brims with potential, thanks to a captivating performance by Mike Colter in the lead and ambitious storytelling from showrunner Cheo Hodari Coker, who did not shy away from the social relevance of the characters. Add in ringers such as Mahershala Ali and Alfre Woodard as villains, and Luke Cage was set to match Daredevil for excitement and intensity.

Yet, the Netflix shows were mired by some requirement instituted by Marvel, most notably a mandatory minimum of 13 episodes per season. As a result, most of the Netflix shows felt oddly paced, none worse than Luke Cage. The electric charge of the first season fizzled out, even before the show unwisely killed off Ali’s character and replaced him with the much sillier Diamondback (Erik LaRay Harvey). Coming out of The Defenders, the show lost any direction, saddling the series with uninspired team ups and a generic mystery plot.

15. The Punisher

The Punisher might be one of the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe, but he’s not one of the richest. The entire appeal of the Punisher comes from the misery of watching broken man Frank Castle inflict all manner of pain on the worst of the worst. So it’s remarkable that the MCU has wrung two seasons of compelling television out of the character and that we’re excited to see the Punisher return for Daredevil: Born Again.

A lot of the show’s success can be attributed to Jon Bernthal, who first played the character in Daredevil. Bernthal finds empathy for Castle, ensuring that he feels human, even when he goes to incredibly dark lengths in his war on crime. Then again, the show didn’t always match Bernthal’s efforts, too often falling back into the standard doom and gloom of the Punisher’s world. That said, it does have Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Frank’s usual sidekick Microchip, which will probably come up with some wacky multiverse shenanigans in the Fantastic Four.

14. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier

At times, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier pays off the promise of the MCU shows. Where the movies have to tell big stories that leave little room for proper character development, the shows could take their time and flesh out the person behind the mask. The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, intended to be the first of the Disney+ series, devotes its best parts to Sam Wilson wrestling with the idea of becoming the next Captain America and to Bucky dealing with the fallout of his crimes as the Winter Soldier.

And yet, the show doesn’t seem to trust the characters enough to really focus on them. Instead, it borrows from excellent Mark Gruenwald-written Captain America comics from the 1980s to tell a thriller dealing with refugees from the Blip who call themselves the Flag Smashers. Throw in Wyatt Russell as an unstable new Captain America, and there’s very little room left over for character growth. Still, the stuff that’s there is pretty compelling, and the series ends with Sam fully grown into the Captain America role.

13. Jessica Jones

Nowhere was the 13-episode requirement of the Netflix shows felt more keenly than midway through the first season of Jessica Jones. The series had a fantastic hook, with a perfectly cast Krysten Ritter as the acerbic private investigator facing off against David Tennant as Kilgrave, the mind-controlling Purple Man. And yet, all of the tension dissipated midway through the first season, when a subplot involving Jessica’s best pal and an unstable cop took the center stage while Jones and Kilgrave bided their time.

Jessica Jones settled into a better rhythm for its second and third seasons, and Ritter remained strong throughout. But without Tennant’s Kilgrave as the main villain, those later seasons feel solid if unremarkable. Still, that’s all a testament to what a remarkable show Jessica Jones was with Kilgrave as the antagonist, adding a level true menace to the procedural structure and adding true pathos to Ritter’s disaffected exterior.

12. Agatha All Along

For its first few episodes Agatha All Along felt like Marvel at its least essential. The draw to the series seemed to be watching the always-delightful Kathryn Hahn pal around with other great actors, including Patti LuPone, Sasheer Zamata, Ali Ahn, and Debra Jo Rupp as back-biting witches, alongside Joe Locke as a mysterious magic user mostly just called “Teen” and Aubrey Plaza as a flirtatious enemy.

But by the time that the second half of the season kicks in, Agatha All Along finds surprising pathos. It’s not just the depths to Agatha’s backstory, but especially a Doctor Who style twist to LuPone’s time-displaced witch and a tale of displacement and found family with the Teen. What began as a lackluster spin-off became a starting point for one of the Young Avengers, giving the MCU a shared universe boost that once was the franchise’s calling card.

11. Agents of SHIELD

It’s hard to judge Agents of SHIELD for what it was, not what it could have been. Agents of SHIELD debuted at the height of Marvel mania, promising more MCU action by following fan-favorite Phil Coulson and his secret agents as they do superhero espionage. Yet, that first season quickly revealed itself as a pretty by-the-numbers procedural with only the slightest MCU trappings. When the movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier ended by completely recreating SHIELD, it seemed like the series would find its footing in season two, but that didn’t happen either.

And yet, once expectations fell away (and, frankly, a lot of people stopped watching), Agents of SHIELD got room to breathe. It’s likable ensemble cast settled into their roles and the show got room to be more experimental and fun. Kree soldiers, Ghost Rider, and actual supervillains became part of the story. The less that people paid attention to Agents of SHIELD, the more it got to be itself, and the show was better for it.

10. Werewolf by Night

By this point, readers have certainly noticed a reoccurring complaint across this list, that some shows waste even good ideas because they stretch their stories across too many episodes. The first of two specials created for Disney+, Werewolf by Night fills every one of its 53 minutes with delightful detail, not wasting a second.

Directed by composer turned first-time filmmaker Michael Giacchino, Werewolf by Night pairs Gael García Bernal at his most lovable with a flinty Laura Donnelly, the former playing a good man cursed with lycanthropy and the latter the unwilling scion of monster hunters. Giacchino channels the gothic thrills of Universal Horror and even manages to put Man-Thing on screen without generating any guffaws. By the time Werewolf by Night ends, we’re still hungry for more, a rarity among MCU shows.

9. Agent Carter

Obviously, Agent Carter isn’t the best show on this list. But Agent Carter does the best job at translating the Marvel Universe to television. The series spun-off Hayley Atwell‘s scene-stealing Peggy Carter from Captain America: The First Avenger and lets her be so much more than the long-lost girlfriend of Steve Rogers.

Even better, the World War II setting protected Agent Carter from the expectations that hobbled Agents of SHIELD, letting it play in its own corner of the universe. Yes, Edwin Jarvis and Howard Stark show up, but Agent Carter mostly got to be a high-energy spy show. The fact that it lasted just two seasons proves that Marvel didn’t always know what to do with its shows.

8. Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man

Given all of the changes that the show experienced in pre-production, given its cast overstuffed with Marvel supporting characters, its remarkable that Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man managed to be as breezy and fresh as it is. Showrunner Jeff Trammell remixes over-familiar story beats to give us a modern-day take on Peter Parker, unlike any version seen in movies, comics, or television.

All of the changes work. Perennial B-list villain Tombstone gets a tragic arc, Harry feels like proper 2024 rich boy, and Colman Domingo gives us one of the most compelling takes on Norman Osborn ever seen. The entire show comes via stylized animation that recalls both the Spider-Verse films and Steve Ditko’s pop art, capturing the timeless quality of Spider-Man.

7. Hawkeye

No one in their right mind would pick Clint Barton as their favorite Avenger. Although played well by Jeremy Renner, he could never shake the fact that he was just a normal guy with bows and arrows among gods. Avengers: Age of Ultron effectively turned Clint’s weaknesses as strengths, but no one expected him to carry a television series.

Hawkeye works, in part, because he doesn’t have to carry it. The MCU gets a shot in the arm by adding Hailee Steinfeld as Kate Bishop, a rich girl who takes up the mantle of Hawkeye. Bishop’s tangled life, which includes a dashing Tony Dalton as a potential villain and a cameo by Florence Pugh as the White Widow, pairs nicely with Clint’s domestic stress. Plus, the series uses its Christmas setting and gives us Rogers: The Musical. What more could you want?

6. Loki

If Loki didn’t come back for a second season, it would have ranked much lower. The first series gave fans more of the MCU’s first real breakout Tom Hiddleston and paired him with the only person he could love, a variation of himself called Sylvie (Sophia Di Martino) as well as a perfectly-cast Owen Wilson as company man Mobius. M. Mobius. Fun, yes, but the multiverse shenanigans muted the show’s emotional stakes.

To the shock of everyone, Loki’s second season did the exact opposite, amping up the emotional power by leaning into the multiversal elements. Even adding Jonathan Majors, then burdened with scandal and failed franchise plans, doesn’t slow things down, as the second show combines the end of all realities as an existential crisis for the God of Lies. The show sticks the landing, giving Loki something so rare among Marvel characters: a proper ending.

5. Ms. Marvel

After Avengers: Endgame, Marvel hoped that younger characters could fill the gaps left by Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans. The execution of these new characters has been hit or miss, but Marvel absolutely scored a home run when they got Iman Vellani to play Kamala Khan, the fangirl who becomes superhero Ms. Marvel.

The idea of making a Marvel superfan into a superhero could be self-congratulatory, but Villani plays it with such a lack of guile that no one feels upset. Grounded by a great ensemble cast playing her friends and family, Ms. Marvel takes surprising chances, from the pop art look of the first two episodes to an episode that depicts the Partition of India to an unexpected X-Men twist. Ms. Marvel could be the future of MCU, if only the franchise would let her lead.

4. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special

Leaving aside the fact that the only holiday celebrated in The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special is Christmas, it’s hard to imagine a more perfect use of the MCU’s Disney+ connection. After two movies and supporting parts in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, the Guardians of the Galaxy had become some of the most beloved characters in the Marvel Universe, and that affection helps us forgive some of the clunky setups in the special.

Even better, the Holiday Special shows off what James Gunn does best, finding an unexpected genuine pathos in what seems like a goofy, somewhat metatextual tale, in which Mantis and Drax kidnap Kevin Bacon to give Starlord some Christmas cheer. And, of course, it has a killer soundtrack.

3. Daredevil

Daredevil isn’t exempt from the problems that plagued the other Netflix series. The second season in particular sags under the weight of too many plots and characters, and even the mostly-great first season spends way too much time with Matt Murdock recovering from his injuries. But when Daredevil is working, it’s among the best in superhero television.

The show establishes itself within its first three episodes. We meet Charlie Cox as Matt Murdock, an endlessly charming man whose tragic history and complicated Catholicism drive him to dress up as a devil and pummel baddies. He’s matched by the Kingpin of Crime Wilson Fisk, whom Vincent D’Onofrio plays as a hurt child in the body of a massive killer. The electricity between the two powered the series not just through its low points, but through seven years after its cancelation, making Daredevil: Born Again the most anticipated show of the year.

2. X-Men ’97

X-Men ’97 didn’t have to be this good. It could have just brought back the characters and cast from the ’90s show and make us all feel like kids again. It could have been fantasy escapism, letting us grown ups ignore the problems in the real world.

X-Men ’97 does the exact opposite. Yes, we have the same characters from the ’90s show, many of whom have the same voice actors. And yes, the series continues to adapt stories from the incredibly popular but artistically questionable X-Men comics of the era. But the series leans hard into our current situation, making the mutant as minority metaphor more explicit than ever before and offering a thrilling vision of resistance.

1. WandaVision

For a minute, it seemed like Marvel television would be something truly special. Intended to air after The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, WandaVision ended up making it to Disney+ first and announced itself as the ideal television adaptation. For its first two thirds, WandaVision took favorites from the MCU, namely Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff and Paul Bettany as her robot husband Vision, and put them in riffs on classic television.

One could argue that the drops in quality toward the end, when the television aspect falls away and traditional Marvel heroics take over. But the show does an excellent job weaving larger universe mystery throughout those early episodes, earning its big ending. Plus, the show wisely balances Wanda’s CGI off against Agatha with Vision having a deep conversation with himself. By the time it finished, WandaVision set a standard no other MCU show has been able to match. Yet.

The post Every Marvel TV Show in the MCU Era Ranked appeared first on Den of Geek.