Category: Blog

Your blog category

  • Avowed: Best Builds for Every Starting Background

    Avowed: Best Builds for Every Starting Background

    The best Avowed builds make the most of the game’s good equipment and skill sets, which effectively let you create a unique class. While you’ll be using the fundamental stat and ability combinations, there are an amazing many possibilities when you combine those core character ideas with all the items you’ll discover. Fortunately, ]…]

    The second article on Den of Geek was Avowed: Best Builds for Every Starting Background.

    The coldest heart runs through my veins at the beginning of Casino Royale, the movie that rebooted the James Bond company with a new technique and a new experience as 007. &#8221, sings Chris Cornell at the start of the video. But, as many times as the man playing James Bond changed, fans may count on one continuous title: Broccoli.

    But that &#8217, s about to change. Amazon Studios has announced a &#8220, shared venture&#8221, with Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, the present mind of Eon Productions, to &#8220, home the James Bond intellectual property rights. &#8221, Although the statement makes clear that Broccoli and Wilson &#8220, may be co-owners of the company, &#8221, it also indicates that &#8220, Amazon MGM Studios did get creative power of the James Bond franchise following closing of the transaction. &#8221,

    cnx. command. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    That&#8217, s a geological change in the world of James Bond. Since 1961, Eon Productions has been the ultimate creative sheep of live-action alterations of Ian Fleming &#8217, s books and figures. Founded by Albert R. &#8220, Cubby&#8221, Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, Eon has remained family-owned, yet after Saltzman sold his stock in 1975 and Cubby died in 1996, after which his child Barbara Broccoli and his son Michael G. Wilson assumed command.

    The persons who were most culpable for James Bond’s successes and failures are Eon and the Broccoli home. Outside of the unusual creation that occurs outside of Eon&#8217, s aegis &#8212, the 1967 skit version of Casino Royale, Never Say Never Again from 1983 &#8212, the home has been in charge of choosing the stars, directors, and innovative way of the project. The Broccolis were the ones who chose Scot Sean Connery and blond-haired Daniel Craig to play the dark-haired English agent, but it was also the Broccolis who snuck Moonraker into theaters and refused to allow Steven Spielberg to direct a Bond movie.

    Obviously, the family &#8217, s record is imperfect. But it &#8217, s the type of record that can only occur when unique voices are at work, a rare thing in our current state of boardroom-driven IP-mining. The Broccolis have largely avoided farming out the James Bond for cheap cash ins thus far. If we don’t think about the strange cartoon series James Bond Jr. and the failed attempts to create a show about Jinx Johnson, Halle Berry, and American agent from Die Another Day, then. Still, compared to a media landscape that includes Pennyworth: The Origin of Batman&#8217, s Butler, such restraint is absolutely monk-like.

    Will Amazon’s leadership lead to that change? A company known for delivering cheap iPhone chargers to your door may not be anyone’s best chance for creative integrity. However, the corporate giant has produced some pretty fantastic work, including the TV series The Boys and last year &#8217, s groundbreaking film Nickel Boys ( produced by Orion Pictures, a subsidiary of MGM, which Amazon now owns ). Even if Amazon wants to preserve the brand, Eon may want to keep the level of care it does.

    The Wall Street Journal also reported on tensions between Eon and Amazon just two months ago. &#8220, These people are f__ __g idiots, &#8221, Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying of Amazon executives, dismissing their suggestions by repeating a line she heard from her father: &#8220, Don’t have temporary people make permanent decisions. &#8221, The Wall Street Journal article described Eon as having primary control in the negotiations, which they wielded to prevent spinoffs and short-term ideas that the Broccolis found contrary to James Bond&#8217, s best interests.

    Apparently, that &#8217, s changed. &#8220, With my 007 career spanning nearly 60 incredible years, I am stepping back from producing the James Bond films to focus on art and charitable projects, &#8221, Wilson says in his statement with Amazon. &#8220, Therefore, Barbara and I agree, it is time for our trusted partner, Amazon MGM Studios, to lead James Bond into the future. &#8221,

    For her part, Broccoli looks backward in her statement, reflecting on Eon&#8217, s successes rather than her issues with Amazon. My life has been dedicated to upholding and expanding the extraordinary legacy that our father, producer Cubby Broccoli, left behind for Michael and I. She stated that she has had the honor of working closely with four of the extraordinarily talented actors who have played the roles of 007 and thousands of other wonderful artists in the industry.

    What will James Bond’s future hold? It&#8217, s hard to say. However, Bond has previously gone through a lot of changes and still managed to come out as good. If Bond can survive Auric Goldfinger, Xenia Onatopp, and Blofeld, then he can also survive Jeff Bezos.

    Well, maybe. Bezos has taken to social media to ask users to choose the next Bond just hours after announcing creative control of the franchise.

    Henry Cavill appears to be the favorite, much to the surprise of probably no one, with recently leaked footage of him reading for Bond during the casting of Casino Royale. His popularity is most likely brought on by his popularity. Some users also advocate for Daniel Craig to be back in the role while Idris Elba, who is rumored to be the first non-white actor to do so, is also in the running. And, of course, many others point out that Bezos has more in common with a Bond villain than he does M. or anyone likely to hand out 00-status, and thus should n&#8217, t be in charge of such things.

    It&#8217, s hard to disagree with that last opinion. It’s shocking to see Amazon almost immediately give up everything and let the people decide after the rigorous control that the Broccolis and Eon have had over the franchise. That&#8217, s underscored by their choice of Cavill, a guy who Casino Royale director Martin Campbell wanted for the role, but was overruled by the Broccolis, who picked Craig. Craig’s take on the character is both original and instantly recognizable, and it only comes from someone with creative vision, not someone trying to get subscribers to a delivery service or earn easy social media points.

    The first post James Bond Franchise Just Confirmed a Significant Change for the 007 Movies ‘ upcoming appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Marvel Just Decided the Fate of Nova in the MCU

    Marvel Just Decided the Fate of Nova in the MCU

    Captain America: Brave New World is outperforming field business objectives and enthusiasm is ramping up for Daredevil: Born Once. However, those who anticipate another Marvel job blast should raise their hopes. Deadline reports that Disney has paused pre-production on three series planned for release on Disney+: Nova, Strange Academy, and Terror, Inc. .]… ]

    The first post on Den of Geek was Marvel Only Chosen Nova’s fate in the MCU.

    The coldest heart runs through my veins at the beginning of Casino Royale, the movie that rebooted the James Bond company with a new technique and a new experience as 007. &#8221, sings Chris Cornell at the start of the movie. However, as many times as the man playing James Bond changed, fans may count on one continual title: Broccoli.

    But that &#8217, s about to change. Amazon Studios has announced a &#8220, shared venture&#8221, with Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, the present mind of Eon Productions, to &#8220, home the James Bond intellectual property rights. &#8221, Although the statement makes clear that Broccoli and Wilson &#8220, may be co-owners of the company, &#8221, it also indicates that &#8220, Amazon MGM Studios did get creative power of the James Bond franchise following closing of the transaction. &#8221,

    cnx. powershell. push ( function ( ) {cnx ( {playerId:” 106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530″, }). render ( “0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796” ), }),

    That&#8217, s a geological change in the world of James Bond. Since 1961, Eon Productions has been the ultimate creative sheep of live-action alterations of Ian Fleming &#8217, s books and figures. Founded by Albert R. &#8220, Cubby&#8221, Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, Eon has remained family-owned, yet after Saltzman sold his stock in 1975 and Cubby died in 1996, after which his child Barbara Broccoli and his son Michael G. Wilson assumed command.

    James Bond’s successes and failures were most largely attributable to Eon and the Broccoli home. Outside of the unusual creation that occurs outside of Eon&#8217, s aegis &#8212, the 1967 skit version of Casino Royale, Never Say Never Again from 1983 &#8212, the home has been in charge of choosing the stars, directors, and innovative way of the project. The Broccolis were the ones who chose Scot Sean Connery and blond-haired Daniel Craig to play the dark-haired English agent, but they also were the ones who snuck Moonraker into theaters to make money off of Star Wars and turned down Steven Spielberg‘s involvement in the Bond motion picture.

    Obviously, the family &#8217, s record is imperfect. But it &#8217, s the type of record that can only occur when unique voices are at work, a rare thing in our current state of boardroom-driven IP-mining. The Broccolis have largely avoided farming out James Bond for cheap cash ins thus far. If we don’t think about the strange cartoon series James Bond Jr. and the failed attempts to create a show starring Halle Berry, the character’s American agent from Die Another Day, then. Still, compared to a media landscape that includes Pennyworth: The Origin of Batman&#8217, s Butler, such restraint is absolutely monk-like.

    Will Amazon’s leadership lead to that change? Perhaps not the best chance for creative integrity is to find a company that is best known for delivering cheap iPhone chargers to your door. However, the corporate giant has produced some pretty fantastic work, including the TV series The Boys and last year &#8217, s groundbreaking film Nickel Boys ( produced by Orion Pictures, a subsidiary of MGM, which Amazon now owns ). Amazon might want to carry on the work that Eon has done, if only to preserve the brand.

    However, the Wall Street Journal reported on tensions between Eon and Amazon just two months prior. &#8220, These people are f__ __g idiots, &#8221, Barbara Broccoli was quoted as saying of Amazon executives, dismissing their suggestions by repeating a line she heard from her father: &#8220, Don’t have temporary people make permanent decisions. &#8221, The Wall Street Journal article described Eon as having primary control in the negotiations, which they wielded to prevent spinoffs and short-term ideas that the Broccolis found contrary to James Bond&#8217, s best interests.

    Apparently, that &#8217, s changed. &#8220, With my 007 career spanning nearly 60 incredible years, I am stepping back from producing the James Bond films to focus on art and charitable projects, &#8221, Wilson says in his statement with Amazon. &#8220, Therefore, Barbara and I agree, it is time for our trusted partner, Amazon MGM Studios, to lead James Bond into the future. &#8221,

    For her part, Broccoli looks backward in her statement, reflecting on Eon&#8217, s successes rather than her issues with Amazon. My life has been dedicated to upholding and expanding the extraordinary legacy that our father, producer Cubby Broccoli, passed down to us. She stated that she has had the honor of working closely with four of the extraordinarily talented actors who have played the roles of 007 and thousands of other wonderful artists in the industry.

    What does James Bond’s future hold? It&#8217, s hard to say. However, Bond has previously experienced a number of altercations and still managed to come out as normal. If Bond can survive Auric Goldfinger, Xenia Onatopp, and Blofeld, then he can also survive Jeff Bezos.

    Well, maybe. Bezos has taken to social media to ask users to choose the next Bond just hours after announcing creative control of the franchise.

    Henry Cavill appears to be the favorite, much to the surprise of probably no one, with recently leaked video of him reading for Bond during the casting of Casino Royale. Some users also advocate for Daniel Craig to be back in the role while Idris Elba, who is rumored to be the first non-white actor to do so, is also in the running. And, of course, many others point out that Bezos has more in common with a Bond villain than he does M. or anyone likely to hand out 00-status, and thus should n&#8217, t be in charge of such things.

    It&#8217, s hard to disagree with that last opinion. It&#8217 ;s shocking to see Amazon almost immediately throw it all away and let the people decide after the demanding control that the Broccolis and Eon have had over the franchise. That&#8217, s underscored by their choice of Cavill, a guy who Casino Royale director Martin Campbell wanted for the role, but was overruled by the Broccolis, who picked Craig. Craig’s take on the character is both original and instantly recognizable, and it only comes from someone with creative vision, not someone trying to get subscribers to a delivery service or earn easy social media points.

    The first post James Bond Franchise Just Confirmed a Significant Change for the 007 Movies ‘ upcoming appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Beware the Cut ‘n’ Paste Persona

    Beware the Cut ‘n’ Paste Persona

    A machine learning algorithm is used to create individual encounters on this person does not occur. It takes actual photos and recombines them into false human faces. We just squirted past a LinkedIn article that claimed this site might be helpful “if you are developing a image and looking for a photo.”

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

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

    A step up, identities

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

    The decontextualization of personalities

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

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

    People are assumed to be dynamic, according to people.

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

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

    Personas do not account for this variation in their attempt to reduce reality; instead, they present a consumer as a set of features. Like personality tests, personas seize people away from real existence. Even worse, individuals are labeled as” that kind of guy” with no means to practice their innate flexibility and are reduced to a brand. This behavior defies stereotypes, diminishes diversity, and doesn’t reveal reality.

    Personas rely on people, not the environment

    You’re designing for a environment, not an individual, in the real world. There are economic, political, and cultural factors to consider when a person lives in a home, a community, or an ecosystem. A pattern is not meant for a single customer. Instead, you create a style for one or more specific situations where a large number of individuals may use that product. But, personas don’t explicitly describe how a person feels about the environment, rather than show the user.

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

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

    Personas are irrelevant statistics

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

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

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

    The validity of personas is deceiving.

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

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

    To conduct effective design research, we must report the actual situation and make it relatable for our audience, so that everyone can use their own empathy and develop their own interpretation and emotional response.

    Dynamic Selves: The alternative to personas

    What should we do instead if we shouldn’t use personas?

    Designit suggests using mindsets rather than personas. Each Mindset is a” spectrum of attitudes and emotional responses that different people have within the same context or life experience”. It challenges designers to avoid getting fixated on just one person’s way of being. Unfortunately, despite being a step in the right direction, this proposal disregards the fact that people are influenced by how their personality, behavior, and, yes, mindset are shaped by their surroundings. Therefore, Mindsets are also not absolute but change in regard to the situation. What determines a certain Mindset, is the question still unanswered.

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

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

    Understand real people in a variety of settings

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

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

    1. Select the appropriate sample.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. Conduct your research

    After having chosen and recruited your sample, conduct your research using ethnographic methodologies. Your qualitative data will be enriched with examples and anecdotes thanks to this. Given COVID-19 restrictions, we turned an internal ethnographic research project into home-based remote family interviews that were followed by diary research in our example project.

    To gain an in-depth understanding of attitudes and decision-making trade-offs, the research focus was not limited to the interviewee alone but deliberately included the whole family. Each interviewee would provide a story that would later become much more interesting and precise with the additions made by their spouses, partners, kids, or occasionally even pets. We also paid attention to the behaviors that came from having relationships with other important people ( such as coworkers or distant relatives ), as well as the relationships that came into being with them. This wide research focus allowed us to shape a vivid mental image of dynamic situations with multiple actors.

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

    3. Analysis: Create the Dynamic Selves

    You begin to represent each individual with several Dynamic Selves, each” Self” representing one of the circumstances you have examined throughout the research analysis. A quote serves as the foundation of each Dynamic Self, which is supported by a photo and a few relevant demographics that serve as examples of the larger picture. The research findings themselves will show which demographics are relevant to show. The important demographics were family type, number and type of houses owned, economic status, and technological maturity in our case because our research focused on families and their way of life to understand their needs for thermal regulation. To facilitate the stakeholders ‘ transition from personas and be able to connect multiple actions and contexts to the same person, we also included the individual’s name and age, but they are optional.

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

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

    4. Identify creative uses

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

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

    Benefits of Dynamic Selves

    When you conduct your research using the Dynamic Selves method, you start to notice peculiar social relations, peculiar circumstances that people face and the consequences of their actions, and that people are surrounded by ever-changing environments. In our thermostat project, we have come to know one of the participants, Davide, as a boyfriend, dog-lover, and tech enthusiast.

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

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

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

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

    Another important benefit of Dynamic Selves is that it raises the stakes of your work: someone you and the team know and have met will experience the consequences if you violate your design. It might prompt you to perform daily design checks and may prevent you from taking shortcuts.

    And finally, real people in their specific contexts are a better basis for anecdotal storytelling and therefore are more effective in persuasion. Real research documentation is necessary to obtain this result. The circumstances of your design proposals resound in your mind when you encounter Alessandra. Noise, bad ergonomics, lack of light, you name it. I’m afraid that if we choose to use this functionality, we’ll add complexity to her life.

    Conclusion

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

    Design needs to be simplified, but not to be a generalization. You have to look at the research elements that stand out: the sentences that captured your attention, the images that struck you, the sounds that linger. Use those as metaphors for the person in all of their contexts. People and insights are subject to a context, but they cannot be removed because it would detract from the context’s meaning.

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

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Getting Feedback

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

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

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

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

    The query

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

    But how do we enter this circumstance? It’s a combination of various aspects. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input method. Another is how healthy it is to assume that everyone else will agree with the problem and leave it alone. Another is that there’s frequently no need to be that exact in nonprofessional conversations. In short, we tend to underestimate the importance of the issues, so we don’t work on improving them.

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

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

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

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

    • Features: Is it desired to automate accounts creation?
    • Interaction style: Take a look at the updated flowing and let me know if there are any steps or failure states I may have missed.
    • Information infrastructure: We have two competing bits of information on this site. Does the construction make a good communication between them?
    • User interface design: What do you think about the top-most error counter, which ensures that you can see the future error even when the error is outside the viewport?
    • Navigation style: From study, we identified these second-level routing items, but when you’re on the webpage, the list feels overly long and hard to understand. Do you have any ideas for how to handle this?
    • The bottom-right corner’s thick messages are clearly visible, but are they sufficient?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The iteration

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

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

    There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

      It establishes a rhythm in the design process, allowing the designer to review the feedback from each iteration and get ready for the following.
    • It makes decisions visible for future review, and conversations are likewise always available.
    • It keeps track of how the design evolved over time.
    • It might also make it simpler to collect and act on feedback depending on the tool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For a successful discussion, you should also include a bullet list of the changes made in the previous iteration to help people concentrate on what’s changed. This can be especially useful for larger pieces of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, may prove difficult.

    And finally, as noted earlier, it’s essential that you include a list of the questions to drive the design critique in the direction you want. Creating a numbered list of questions can also make it simpler to refer to each one by its number.

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

    Even if these iteration posts are written and intended as checkpoints, I want to point out that they are not by any means exhaustive. A post might be a draft—just a concept to get a conversation going—or it could be a cumulative list of each feature that was added over the course of each iteration until the full picture is done.

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

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

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

    The evaluation

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

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

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

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

      One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You could tag everyone in the previous discussion, but that is only a choice, not a requirement.
    • Another is to briefly reply to acknowledge each comment, such as” Understood. ” Thanks,”” Good points— I’ll review,” or” Thanks. These will be included in the upcoming iteration. In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of” Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon”!
    • One more thing is to quickly summarize the comments before proceeding. This may be particularly helpful if your workflow uses a simplified checklist to refer to for the following iteration.

    The second friction point is the swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from someone outside the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements —or of the previous iterations ‘ discussions. One can hope that they will learn something from them, starting with acknowledging that they are doing this and making their location more explicit. It can be annoying to have to repeat the same response repeatedly in swoop-by comments.

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

    Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: they might point out something that still isn’t clear, and they also have the potential to stand in for the point of view of a user who’s seeing the design for the first time. Yes, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help you deal with it.

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

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

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

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

  • Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    Asynchronous Design Critique: Giving Feedback

    One of the most successful soft knowledge we have at our disposal is the ability to work together to improve our patterns while developing our own abilities and opinions, in whatever form it takes, and whatever it may be called.

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

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

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

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

    The information

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

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

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

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

    Finding a perspective that is as specific as possible when conducting design feedback refers to more than just pointing out which area of the interface. Do you offer the user’s viewpoint? Your expert perspective? from a business perspective? From the perspective of the project manager? A first-time user’s perspective?

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

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

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

    The question approach is intended to give the designer some open guidance by provoking the designer’s critical thinking when they receive the feedback. Notably, Lara’s equation includes a second approach: request, which instead provides instructions for a particular solution. While that’s a viable option for feedback in general, for design critiques, in my experience, defaulting to the question approach usually reaches the best solutions because designers are generally more comfortable in being given an open space to explore.

    For the question approach, consider the difference between the two:

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

    Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The atmosphere

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

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

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

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

    Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. Before writing, it’s important to make sure the person we’re writing will actually benefit them and improve the overall project. Sometimes it might be difficult to reflect on this because we might not want to admit our deep appreciation for that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but that can happen, and that’s okay. How would I write if I really cared about them? Acknowledging that and owning that can help you make up for it. How can I stop acting aggressively? How can I be more constructive?

    Form is important because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not be effective if our writing is interpreted as misunderstandings, especially in diverse and cross-cultural workplaces. There could be many reasons for this, including the fact that occasionally certain words may cause specific reactions, that non-native speakers may not be able to comprehend all thenuances of some sentences, that our brains may be different, and that we may perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity is a requirement. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

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

    Something to keep in mind is that people frequently beat around the bush, especially in teams with strong group spirit. It’s important to remember here that a positive attitude doesn’t mean going light on the feedback—it just means that even when you provide hard, difficult, or challenging feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. The best thing you can do for someone is to encourage their growth.

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

    The format

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

    Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are commenting on it while reviewing it. Let’s try to think about some factors that might be helpful to consider, as there are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course a factor.

    In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. This includes specifically describing where you’re coming from: do you know the project well, or do you just see it for the first time? Are you bringing in a high-level perspective, or are you just learning the ins and outs? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view do you consider when providing feedback? Is the design iteration at the point where it would be acceptable to ship this, or are there important issues that need to be addressed first?

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

    We often focus on the negatives, trying to outline all the things that could be done better. That’s obviously important, but it’s even more crucial to concentrate on the positives, especially if you saw improvement in the previous iteration. Although this may seem superfluous, it’s important to keep in mind that design is a field with hundreds of possible solutions to each problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. Sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions in the long run because those things will have been identified as crucial. Positive feedback can also help to lessen impostor syndrome as an added bonus.

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

    Depersonalizing the feedback is another way to improve it: comments should always be about the work and never the creator of it. It’s” This button isn’t well aligned” versus” You haven’t aligned this button well”. This can be changed in your writing very quickly by reviewing it just before sending.

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

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

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

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

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

    Say the obvious, please. We don’t say something because we sometimes think it’s obvious that something is either good or wrong. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it, that’s fine. Don’t hold it back, though, because you might need to change the phrasing a little to make the reader feel more at ease. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

    Another benefit of asynchronous feedback is that written feedback automatically monitors decisions. Why did we do this, especially in large projects? could be a question that pops up from time to time, and there’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time. I advise using software to save these discussions so they can be hidden once they are resolved, for this reason.

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

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

  • That’s Not My Burnout

    That’s Not My Burnout

    Do you find it hard to connect when I read about people who are dying as they experience exhaustion? Do you feel like your feelings are invisible to the earth because you’re experiencing burnout different? Our main comes through more when stress starts to press down on us. Beautiful, content hearts quieten and fade into the remote and distracted stress we’ve all experienced. But some of us, those with fires constantly burning on the sides of our key, getting hotter. I am a fire in my brain. In an effort to overcome fatigue, I twice down, triple down, burn hotter and hotter in an effort to overcome the challenge. I don’t fade— I am engulfed in a passionate stress.

    What on earth does passionate stress actually mean?

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

    This person seems to need self-care because she has too much going on. But no, she doesn’t have occasion for that. She begins to feel as though she’s dropping pellets. Not enough is achieved. There’s not enough of her to be here and that, she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all day, every day. She begins to question herself. And as those emotions become more and more real, her domestic tale becomes more and more important.

    Immediately she KNOWS what she needs to do! She ought to do more.

    This loop is challenging and risky. Hear why? Because the narrative only gets worse when she doesn’t complete that novel goal. She instantly starts failing. She isn’t doing much. She is insufficient. She’ll discover more she may do because she might neglect, or perhaps her home. She doesn’t nap as much, proceed because much, all in the attempts to do more. Trying to prove herself to herself, but always succeeding in any endeavor. Always feeling “enough”

    But, yeah, that’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It doesn’t develop immediately in a great sign; it develops gradually over the course of several weeks and months. My using process appears to be moving more quickly than one’s target loss. I rate up and up and up… and therefore I simply quit.

    I have the potential to do so.

    The things that shape us are interesting. Through the camera of youth, I viewed the worries, problems, and sacrifices of someone who had to make it all work without having much. I always went without and occasionally received extras thanks to my mother’s tremendous resourcefulness and my father’s generosity.

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

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

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

    Why the long history, then? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I have read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is a real thing. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s difficult, and the avoidance, shutting down, and procrastination have an impact on so many amazing professionals. There are significant articles that deal with what I believe the majority of people are out there, but not me. That’s not what my burnout looks like.

    The perilous invisibility of zealous burnout

    The extra hours, extra work, and overall focused commitment are often viewed as an asset in many workplaces ( and occasionally that’s all it is ). They see someone trying to rise to challenges, not someone stuck in their fear. Many well-intentioned organizations have measures in place to safeguard their employees from burnout. However, in situations like this, those alarms don’t always ring, and some organization members are surprised and depressed when the inevitable stop happens. And sometimes maybe even betrayed.

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

    Women and burnout

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

    That said, women are still more often at risk of burnout than their male counterparts, especially in these COVID stressed times. Mothers at work feel the pressure to do everything while giving absolutely everything. Mothers who are not employed feel they must do more to” justify” their discontinuance from traditional employment. Women who are not mothers often feel the need to do even more because they don’t have that extra pressure at home. We are frequently unaware of the magnitude of the pressures we place on ourselves and others because it is vicious and systemic and a part of our culture.

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

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

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

    That might not be you either. After all, we are all unique, and our responses to stressors are also unique. It’s part of what makes us human. Don’t put too much emphasis on how burnout looks; instead, learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I occasionally ask my friends if they worry about them.

    Are you happy? This straightforward query ought to be your first inquiry. Even if you’re burning out doing all the things you love, chances are you’ll just stop enjoying yourself as much as you do.

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

    What are three things you’ve done for yourself? We all have a tendency to stop doing things for ourselves, according to another observation. anything from avoiding conversations with friends to skipping showers and eating poorly. These can be red flags.

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

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

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

    So what comes next?

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

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

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

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

    I have come up with a few things that I do when I start to feel like I’m going into a zealous burnout to help me remember the airline attendant advice to put the mask on yourself first.

    Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

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

    Vent like a sniveling jerk.

    Be careful with this one!

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

    When that is required, turn to a trusted friend and give yourself some pure verbal diarrhea by expressing all your concerns. You must have faith in this friend to not judge you, to feel your pain, and, most importantly, to instruct you to take your own rectal cavity out of your cranium. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he can simplify things down to the simplest of terms, even though sometimes after the fact. He has used his words in a way that embodies his commitment, love, and acceptance of me, and I couldn’t be more appreciative.” We’re spending our lives together, of course you’re going to disappoint me occasionally, so get over it.” It also, of course, has meant that I needed to remove my head from that rectal cavity. Again, those situations are typically overlooked.

    Grab a book, please!

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

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

    Or, another method I enjoy using is to read or listen to a book that is NOTHING to do with my work-life balance. I’ve read the following books, and I think they helped to balance me out because my mind was thinking about the subjects they were interested in rather than whizzing around:

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

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

    Give yourself a break.

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

    This is the most crucial part: give yourself permission to NOT do it all. You never promised to be everything to everyone at all times. Our fears determine our strength, not ours.

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

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

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

    Does this sound familiar?

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

    Do you recall the Winnie the Pooh cartoon in which Pooh ate so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? Well, I already have a strong connection to Rabbit, so it was surprising when he unexpectedly declared that this was unacceptable. But do you recall what happened next? The big butt in his kitchen was made up of poor Pooh’s ankles and decorations, and he made the most of it.

    We are resourceful and aware that we can push ourselves when necessary, even when we are exhausted or have a ton of clutter in our room. None of us has to be afraid, as we can manage any obstacle put in front of us. And maybe that means we will need to redefine success to make room for comfortable human space, but that doesn’t really sound that bad either.

    So, wherever you are at this moment, take a deep breath. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Give thanks and be considerate.

  • Voice Content and Usability

    Voice Content and Usability

    We’ve been conversing for a long time. Whether to present information, perform transactions, or just to check in on one another, people have yammered aside, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken discussion for many generations. Only recently have conversations started to be written, and only recently have we outsourced them to the system, a device that exhibits a significantly higher affinity for written communications than for the vernacular rigors of spoken language.

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

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

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

    Voice-to-voice relations

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

    • we require something to be done, such as a purchase ).
    • we want to know something ( information of some sort ), or
    • We are sociable creatures, and we need a talk partner.

    A second talk from beginning to end that achieves some goal for the consumer, starting with the voice interface’s initial greeting and ending with the user exiting the interface, also fits into these three categories, which I refer to as interpersonal, technical, and prosocial. Note here that a conversation in our human sense—a chat between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass multiple transactional, informational, and prosocial voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but it is not always just one voice interaction.

    Most voice interfaces are more gimmicky than captivating in purely prosocial conversations because machines are unable to yet be truly interested in our progress and engage in the kind of glad-handing behavior that people crave. There’s also ongoing debate as to whether users actually prefer the sort of organic human conversation that begins with a prosocial voice interaction and shifts seamlessly into other types. In fact, Michael Cohen, James Giangola, and Jennifer Balogh advise sticking to user expectations by imitating how they interact with other voice interfaces rather than trying too hard to be human, which could lead to alienation of them ( ).

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

    Transactional voice interactions

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

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

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

    Burhan: Yes, but what size?

    Alison: Large.

    Burhan: Anything else?

    Alison: No, that’s it.

    Burhan: Something to drink?

    Alison, I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

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

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

    Informational voice interactions

    While some conversations are primarily about obtaining information, some are. Though Alison might visit Crust Deluxe with the sole purpose of placing an order, she might not actually want to walk out with a pizza at all. She might be interested in trying kosher or halal dishes, trying gluten-free dishes, or something else entirely. Even though we have a prosocial mini-conversation once more at the beginning to practice politeness, we are after much more.

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

    Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

    Burhan: Of course! Continue straight ahead.

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

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

    Alison, what about pizzas that don’t contain gluten?

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

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

    Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

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

    Voice interfaces

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

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

    IVR ( interactive voice response ) systems

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

    IVR systems made it easier for businesses to cut down on call centers, but they soon gained a reputation for their clunkiness. These systems, which are commonplace in the corporate world, were primarily intended as metaphorical switchboards to direct customers to real phone agents (” Say Reservations to book a flight or check an itinerary” ), and it is likely that when you call an airline or hotel conglomerate, you will have the opportunity to have a conversation with one. Despite their functional issues and users ‘ frustration with their inability to speak to an actual human right away, IVR systems proliferated in the early 1990s across a variety of industries (, PDF).

    IVR systems have a reputation for having less scintillating conversations than we’re used to in real life ( or even in science fiction ), despite being extremely repetitive and monotonous conversations that typically don’t veer from a single format.

    Screen readers

    Parallel to the evolution of IVR systems was the invention of the screen reader, a tool that transcribes visual content into synthesized speech. It is the most popular way for blind or visually impaired website users to interact with text, multimedia, or form elements. The most recent version of a voice-over-text format of content delivery is probably the one that is closest to it.

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

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

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

    Chris Maury, an advocate for voice quality and voice engineer, examines why the screen reader experience is not appropriate for users who rely on voice in Wired:

    I disliked the operation of Screen Readers from the beginning. Why are they designed the way they are? It makes no sense to present information visually and then only to have that information translated into audio. All the effort and thought that goes into creating the ideal user experience for an app is wasted, or worse, having a negative effect on blind users ‘ experience. ( )

    Well-designed voice interfaces can often be more effective than long-winded screen reader monologues in guiding users to their destination. After all, users of the visual interface have the advantage of freely scurrying around the viewport to find information without getting too close to it. Blind users, meanwhile, are obligated to listen to every utterance synthesized into speech and therefore prize brevity and efficiency. Users with disabilities who have long had no choice but to use clumsy screen readers might find that voice interfaces, especially more contemporary voice assistants, provide a more streamlined experience.

    Voice-overseers are

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

    Before the earliest IVR systems found success in the enterprise, Apple published a demonstration video in 1987 depicting the Knowledge Navigator, a voice assistant that could transcribe spoken words and recognize human speech to a great degree of accuracy. Then, in 2001, Tim Berners-Lee and others created their vision for a” semantic web agent” that would carry out routine tasks like” checking calendars, making appointments, and finding locations” ( hinter paywall ). Apple’s Siri only became a reality until 2011 when it finally made voice assistants a reality for consumers.

    Thanks to the plethora of voice assistants available today, there is considerable variation in how programmable and customizable certain voice assistants are over others ( Fig 1.1 ). At one extreme, everything but vendor-provided features are locked down. For instance, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be expanded beyond their already-existing capabilities. There are no other means by which developers can interact with Siri at a low level, aside from predefined categories of tasks like sending messages, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and other things, which are still unavoidable today.

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

    As businesses like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google continue to dominate their markets, they are also selling and open-sourcing an unmatched range of tools and frameworks for designers and developers, aiming to make creating voice interfaces as simple as possible, even without the use of any code.

    Often by necessity, voice assistants like Amazon Alexa tend to be monochannel—they’re tightly coupled to a device and can’t be accessed on a computer or smartphone instead. In contrast, many development platforms, such as Google’s Dialogflow, have omnichannel capabilities that allow users to create a single conversational interface that then manifests as a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. In Chapter 4, we’ll explore some of the possible effects these variables might have on how you build out your design artifacts, but I don’t recommend any particular implementation strategies in this design-focused book.

    Voice Content

    Simply put, voice content is content that is delivered through voice. Voice content must be free-flowing and organic, contextless and concise in order to preserve what makes human conversation so compelling in the first place. Everything written content is not.

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

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

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

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

    I would update Dash’s definition of microcontent to include all instances of bite-sized content that goes beyond written communiqués. After all, today we encounter microcontent in interfaces where a small snippet of copy is displayed alone, unmoored from the browser, like a textbot confirmation of a restaurant reservation. Informing delivery channels both established and novel, Microcontent provides the best opportunity to find out how your content can be stretched to the limits of its potential.

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

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

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

  • Designing for the Unexpected

    Designing for the Unexpected

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

    Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

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

    Ethan Marcotte’s speak at An Event Off and later content” Responsive Web Design” in A List Off in 2010 changed all this. As soon as I learned about flexible style, I was convinced, but I was even terrified. The pixel-perfect models full of special figures that I had formerly prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

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

    A novel method of style

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

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

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

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

    Media inquiries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Container queries: a false sun or our lord?

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

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

    In other words, responsive components to replace responsive layouts.

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

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

    The best place to make that choice is probably a component library that is disconnected from context and real content.

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

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

    It’s hard to say for sure whether container queries will be a success story until we have solid cross-browser support for them. Responsive component libraries would undoubtedly change the way we design, enhancing reuse possibilities and scaling. But maybe we will always need to adjust these components to suit our content.

    CSS is evolving.

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

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

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

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

    The biggest benefit of all this is you don’t need to wrap elements in container rows. Without rows, content is not directly related to page markup, allowing for changes or additions to content without further development.

    The real game changer for flexible designs is CSS Subgrid, which is a significant improvement in terms of designing designs that allow for evolving content.

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

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

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

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

    Intrinsic layouts

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

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

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

    —Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

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

    They now have the ability to adapt to the content both inside and outside of them. With an intrinsic approach, we can construct responsive components without depending on container queries.

    Another 2010 moment?

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

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

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

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

    You can’t framework your way out of a content issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Content first

    Content is variable. After all, to design for the unknown or unexpected we need to account for content changes like our earlier Subgrid card example that allowed the cards to respond to adjustments to their own content and the content of sibling elements.

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

    This is not the same as previous markup hacks like this.

    First line of text with different styling...

    —we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

    This flexibility allows for directional changes according to content, a common requirement when we need to present content in multiple languages. This was frequently accomplished with Sass mixins in the past, but it was frequently limited to a switch from a left-to-right to a right-to-left orientation.

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

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

    These variables can be used as values.

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

    —or as properties.

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

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

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

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

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

    Fluid and fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Situation first

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

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

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

    Thankfully, we have many options available to you.

    Responsible design

    ” Mobile data is prohibitively expensive in some places around the world, and broadband infrastructure is sparse or absent.”

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

    Chris Ashton

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

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

    Image alt text

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

      

    Additionally, there is native lazy loading, which indicates that assets should only be downloaded when they are required.

    …

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

    So how can we put users in control?

    The media queries are returning.

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

    We’ve long been able to check for media types like print and speech and features such as hover, resolution, and color. Because of these checks, we can offer options that work for multiple situations, not just one-size-fits-all.

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

    For example, there’s a light-level feature that allows you to modify styles if a user is in sunlight or darkness. These features, which have custom properties, make it simple to create designs or themes for particular environments.

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

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

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

    Expect the Unexpected

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

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

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

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

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

  • A Content Model Is Not a Design System

    A Content Model Is Not a Design System

    Do you recall the days when having a fantastic site was sufficient? Nowadays, people are getting answers from Siri, Google search fragments, and mobile applications, not only our websites. Companies with forward-thinking goals have adopted an holistic information strategy that aims to reach people across a range of digital stations and platforms.

    However, how can a content management system ( CMS ) be set up to reach your audience both now and in the future? I learned the hard way that creating a content model—a concept of information types, attributes, and relationships that let people and systems understand content—with my more comfortable design-system wondering would collapse my patient’s holistic information strategy. By developing conceptual material models that also connect related content, you can avoid that result.

    I just had the opportunity to direct the CMS application for a Fortune 500 company. The customer was excited by the benefits of an holistic information plan, including material modify, multichannel marketing, and robot delivery—designing content to be comprehensible to bots, Google knowledge panels, snippets, and voice user interfaces.

    A content type is essential for an omnichannel information strategy, and the model needed conceptual types, which are types of types that are categorized according to their meaning rather than their presentation. Our aim was to allow writers to write articles and use it where necessary. However, as the project progressed, I realized that the entire team had to be aware of a new design in order to support willing reuse at the level that my customer needed.

    Despite our best motives, we kept drawing from what we were more common with: design techniques. Unlike web-focused information strategies, an holistic information strategy doesn’t rely on WYSIWYG equipment for design and structure. Our inclination to approach the material model using our well-known design-system thinking consistently made us wander away from one of the main objectives of a willing model: delivering content to audiences across multiple marketing channels.

    Two fundamental tenets govern a successful information type

    We needed to explain to our designers, developers, and stakeholders that we were doing something completely different from their previous internet projects, where everyone assumed that content would fit into layouts as physical building blocks. The past approach made the designs feel more recognizable and intuitive, at first, at least initially, because it made them feel more recognizable. The team was able to know how a willing model differs from the design systems we were familiar with by discovering two principles:

    1. Instead of design, content models may establish semantics.
    2. And material models may connect elements that belong together.

    Conceptual articles models

    A conceptual content type uses form and attribute names that reflect the content’s intended purpose and not its intended display. For instance, in a nonsemantic design, groups may make varieties like teasers, press blocks, and cards. Although these types may make it simple to present information, they don’t aid in understanding the meaning of the information, which would have opened the door to the information presented in each advertising channel. In contrast, a conceptual content model employs type names like product, service, and testimony to allow for each supply route to interpret the information and use it as necessary.

    A great place to start when creating a semantic content model is by reviewing the types and properties that Schema has defined. org, a community-driven resource for type definitions that are intelligible to platforms like Google search.

    A semantic content model has several benefits:

      A semantic content model decouples content from its presentation so that teams can change the website’s design without having to refactor its content, even if your team doesn’t care about omnichannel content. In this way, content can withstand disruptive website redesigns.
    • A competitive advantage can also be gained by a semantic content model. by including structured, schema-based data. org’s types and properties, a website can provide hints to help Google understand the content, display it in search snippets or knowledge panels, and use it to answer voice-interface user questions. Without ever visiting your website, potential visitors could easily find your content.
    • Beyond those practical advantages, you’ll also require an omnichannel content delivery model. Delivery channels must be able to comprehend the same content in order to use it across multiple marketing channels. For instance, if your content model provided a list of questions and answers, it could be easily displayed on a frequently asked questions ( FAQ ) page as well as be used by a bot to answer frequently asked questions.

    For example, using a semantic content model for articles, events, people, and locations lets A List Apart provide cleanly structured data for search engines so that users can read the content on the website, in Google knowledge panels, and even with hypothetical voice interfaces in the future.

    Content models that connect

    Instead of slicing up related content across disparate content components, I’ve come to the realization that the best models are those that are semantic and also connect related content components ( such as a FAQ item’s question and answer pair ). A good content model connects pieces of content that ought to be preserved so that multiple delivery channels can use it without having to assemble those pieces separately.

    Write an essay or article about it. An article’s meaning and usefulness depends upon its parts being kept together. Without the full context of the article, would one of the headings or paragraphs have any relevance on their own? Our well-known design-system thinking on our project frequently led us to want to develop content models that would divide content into distinct chunks to fit the web-centric layout. This had a similar effect to an article that had its headline removed. Content that belonged together became challenging to manage and nearly impossible for multiple delivery channels to understand because we were cutting content into separate pieces based on layout.

    To illustrate, let’s look at how connecting related content applies in a real-world scenario. The client’s design team created a challenging layout for a software product page that included numerous tabs and sections. Our instincts were to follow the content model’s. Shouldn’t we make adding any number of tabs in the future as simple and flexible as possible?

    We felt like we needed a content type called “tab section” because our design-system instincts were so well-known, so that multiple tab sections could be added to a page. Each tab section would display a variety of content. One tab might provide the software’s overview or its specifications. Another tab might provide a list of resources.

    Our tendency to divide the content model into “tab section” pieces would have resulted in an unnecessary complex model and laborious editing procedures, as well as creating content that couldn’t possibly be understood by additional delivery channels. How would another system have resorted to counting tab sections and content blocks, for instance, if it had been able to identify a product’s “tab section” when referring to its specifications or resource list? This would have prevented the tabs from ever being rearranged, and it would have required adding logic to each other delivery channel to interpret the layout of the design system. Additionally, it would have been difficult to migrate to a new content model in response to the new page redesign if the customer had decided against displaying this content in a tab layout.

    We had a breakthrough when we discovered that our customer had a specific purpose in mind for each tab: it would reveal specific information such as the software product’s overview, specifications, related resources, and pricing. Our desire to concentrate on what was visually and historically significant had obscured the purpose of the designs once implementation began. With a little digging, it didn’t take long to realize that the concept of tabs wasn’t relevant to the content model. What was important was the meaning of the information that they intended to display in the tabs.

    In fact, the customer could have chosen to display this content elsewhere in a different manner, without tabs. Based on the meaningful attributes the customer had desired to display on the web, we created content types for the software product. There were obvious semantic attributes like name and description as well as rich attributes like screenshots, software requirements, and feature lists. The software’s product information stayed together because it wasn’t sliced across separate components like “tab sections” that were derived from the content’s presentation. Any delivery channel—including future ones—could understand and present this content.

    Conclusion

    In this omnichannel marketing project, we discovered that the best way to maintain our content model was to ensure that it was semantic ( with type and attribute names that reflected the content’s meaning ) and that it preserved content that belonged to be together ( instead of fragmenting it ). These two ideas made it easier for us to shape the content model based on the design. Remember: If you’re developing a content model to support an omnichannel content strategy, or even if you just want to make sure Google and other interfaces understand your content, keep in mind:

    • A design system isn’t a content model. You should maintain the semantic value and contextual structure of the content strategy throughout the entire implementation process because team members might be drawn to conflate them and force your content model to resemble your design system. This will enable each delivery channel to consume the content without the need for a magic decoder ring.
    • If your team is having trouble making this transition, Schema can still offer some of the advantages. org–based structured data in your website. The benefit of search engine optimization is a compelling argument on its own, even if additional delivery channels aren’t on the horizon at this time.
    • Remind the team that removing the content model from the design will allow them to update the designs more quickly because content migration costs won’t be prohibitive. They’ll be able to create new designs without compromising the compatibility between the content and the design, and they’ll be prepared for the upcoming big thing.

    By firmly defending these ideas, you’ll help your team view content as the most important component of your user experience and as the most effective way to engage with your audience.

  • Design for Safety, An Excerpt

    Design for Safety, An Excerpt

    According to antiracist analyst Kim Crayton, “intention without plan is chaos.” We’ve discussed how our prejudices, beliefs, and carelessness toward marginalized and resilient parties lead to dangerous and irresponsible tech—but what, precisely, do we need to do to fix it? We need a strategy, not just the desire to make our software safer.

    This book will provide you with that plan of action. It covers how to persuade your stakeholders that this work is required, how to respond to criticism that there isn’t really room for more variety, and how to incorporate health principles into your design work to create healthy tech. ( Spoiler: we do, but diversity alone is not the antidote to fixing unethical, unsafe tech. )

    The procedure for ensuring that everyone is safe

    When you are designing for protection, your goals are to:

    • detect the abuse potential of your product.
    • style ways to prevent the maltreatment, and
    • offer assistance for harmed people to regain control and power.

    The Process for Inclusive Safety is a tool to help you reach those goals ( Fig 5.1 ). It’s a method I developed in 2018 to better understand the different methods I used to create products that were designed with safety in mind. Whether you are creating an entirely new product or adding to an existing element, the Process can help you produce your product secure and diverse. Five main basic areas of action are included in the Process:

    • Conducting study
    • creating tropes
    • Pondering problems
    • creating options
    • Testing for health

    The Process is meant to be flexible; in some situations, it didn’t make sense for groups to adopt every step. Use the parts that are related to your special function and environment, this is meant to be something you can put into your existing style process.

    And once you use it, if you have suggestions for improving it or just want to give an overview of how it helped your staff, please get in touch with me. It’s a dwelling report that I hope will continue to be a helpful and practical tool that technicians can use in their day-to-day job.

    Be sure to study Chapter 7, which explicitly addresses the situation and should be handled a little different if you’re creating a product especially for a defenseless group or victims of some form of injury, such as an application for survivors of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or drug dependency. The guidelines below are for evaluating safety when designing a more basic product that will have a wide customer base ( which, we now know from data, will include particular groups that should be protected from harm ). Chapter 7 concentrates on goods made specifically for those who are vulnerable and those who have endured trauma.

    Step 1: Conduct research

    A thorough analysis of how your technology might be used to abuse people as well as a detailed analysis of the experiences of those who have survived and perpetrated that kind of abuse should be included in the design research. At this stage, you and your team will investigate issues of interpersonal harm and abuse, and explore any other safety, security, or inclusivity issues that might be a concern for your product or service, like data security, racist algorithms, and harassment.

    broad research

    Your project should begin with broad, general research into similar products and issues around safety and ethical concerns that have already been reported. For instance, a team building a smart home device would be wise to comprehend the many ways that already-existing smart home devices have been misused as abuse tools. If your product will involve AI, seek to understand the potentials for racism and other issues that have been reported in existing AI products. Nearly all forms of technology have potential or actual harm that have been covered in academic writing or in the media. Google Scholar is a useful tool for finding these studies.

    Survivors as a specific field of study

    When possible and appropriate, include direct research ( surveys and interviews ) with people who are experts in the forms of harm you have uncovered. In order to have a better understanding of the subject and be better positioned to prevent retraumatize survivors, you should interview advocates working in the area of your research first. If you’ve uncovered possible domestic violence issues, for example, the experts you’ll want to speak with are survivors themselves, as well as workers at domestic violence hotlines, shelters, other related nonprofits, and lawyers.

    It is crucial to pay people for their knowledge and lived experiences, especially when interviewing survivors of any kind of trauma. Don’t ask survivors to share their trauma for free, as this is exploitative. You should always make the offer in the first interview, even though some survivors might not want to be paid. An alternative to payment is to donate to an organization working against the type of violence that the interviewee experienced. In Chapter 6, we’ll discuss more about how to appropriately interview survivors.

    Specific research: Abusers

    Teams aiming to design for safety are unlikely to be able to interview self-declared abductors or those who have broken laws in areas like hacking. Don’t make this a goal, rather, try to get at this angle in your general research. Attempt to understand how abusers or bad actors use technology to harm others, how they use it against others, and how they justify or explain the abuse.

    Step 2: Create archetypes

    Use your research after you’ve finished conducting it to create abuser and survivor archetypes. Archetypes are not personas, as they’re not based on real people that you interviewed and surveyed. They are based on your investigation into potential safety problems, much like when we design for accessibility: we don’t need to have identified any blind or deaf people in our interview pool to come up with a design that is representative of them. Instead, we base those designs on existing research into what this group needs. Personas typically represent actual users and contain a lot of information, whereas archetypes are more diverse and can be more generalized.

    The abuser archetype is someone who will look at the product as a tool to perform harm ( Fig 5.2 ). They may be attempting to harm someone they don’t know by using surveillance or anonymous harassment, or they may be attempting to control, monitor, abuse, or otherwise torment someone they know.

    The survivor archetype refers to a person who is being abused with the product. There are various situations to consider in terms of the archetype’s understanding of the abuse and how to put an end to it: Do they need proof of abuse they already suspect is happening, or are they unaware they’ve been targeted in the first place and need to be alerted ( Fig 5.3 )?

    To capture a range of experiences, you might want to create several survivor archetypes. They may know that the abuse is happening but not be able to stop it, like when an abuser locks them out of IoT devices, or they know it’s happening but don’t know how, such as when a stalker keeps figuring out their location ( Fig 5.4). In your survivor archetype, include as many of these scenarios as you need. You’ll use these later on when you design solutions to help your survivor archetypes achieve their goals of preventing and ending abuse.

    It may be useful for you to create persona-like artifacts for your archetypes, such as the three examples shown. Focus on their objectives rather than the demographic details we frequently see in personas. The goals of the abuser will be to carry out the specific abuse you’ve identified, while the goals of the survivor will be to prevent abuse, understand that abuse is happening, make ongoing abuse stop, or regain control over the technology that’s being used for abuse. Later, you’ll think about how to help the survivor’s goals and prevent the abuser’s goals.

    And while the “abuser/survivor” model fits most cases, it doesn’t fit all, so modify it as you need to. For instance, if you found a security flaw, such as the ability for someone to talk to children through a home camera system, the malicious hacker would receive the abuser archetype and the child’s parents would receive the survivor archetype.

    Step 3: Brainstorm problems

    Brainstorm novel abuse cases and safety concerns after creating archetypes. ” Novel” means things not found in your research, you’re trying to identify completely new safety issues that are unique to your product or service. The purpose of this step is to exhaust every effort put forth to find potential problems that your product might cause. You aren’t worrying about how to prevent the harm yet—that comes in the next step.

    How else could your product be used for any kind of abuse besides what you’ve already found in your research? I recommend setting aside at least a few hours with your team for this process.

    Try conducting a Black Mirror brainstorming if you’re looking for a place to start. This exercise is based on the show Black Mirror, which features stories about the dark possibilities of technology. Try to figure out the most outrageous, horrible, and out-of-control ways your product could be used to cause harm in an episode of the show. When I’ve led Black Mirror brainstorms, participants usually end up having a good deal of fun ( which I think is great—it’s okay to have fun when designing for safety! ). I suggest that you time-box a Black Mirror brainstorm for the first half an hour, then dial it back, and then consider more realistic ways of harm the remaining half.

    After you’ve identified as many opportunities for abuse as possible, you may still not feel confident that you’ve uncovered every potential form of harm. When you’re doing this kind of work, a healthy amount of anxiety is normal. It’s common for teams designing for safety to worry,” Have we really identified every possible harm? What if something is missing, then? If you’ve spent at least four hours coming up with ways your product could be used for harm and have run out of ideas, go to the next step.

    It’s impossible to say 100 % assurance that you’ve done everything right, but instead of aiming for 100 % assurance, acknowledge that you’ve taken this step and have done everything you can, and pledge to keep putting safety first in the future. Once your product is released, your users may identify new issues that you missed, aim to receive that feedback graciously and course-correct quickly.

    4. Create solutions

    At this point, you should have a list of ways your product can be used for harm as well as survivor and abuser archetypes describing opposing user goals. Next, it’s time to figure out how to design in accordance with the objectives of the abuser and the survivors ‘ objectives. This step is a good one to insert alongside existing parts of your design process where you’re proposing solutions for the various problems your research uncovered.

    Questions to ask yourself include: What are some ways to protect your archetypes and to support your self-identity?

    • Can you design your product in such a way that the identified harm cannot happen in the first place? What barriers can you place to stop the harm from occurring if not?
    • How can you make the victim aware that abuse is happening through your product?
    • How can you explain to the victim what they must do to stop the problem?
    • Can you identify any types of user activity that would indicate some form of harm or abuse? Could your product assist the user in getting support?

    In some products, it’s possible to proactively recognize that harm is happening. For instance, a pregnancy app might be modified to allow users to report being assault victims, which could result in an offer to receive resources from local and national organizations. This sort of proactiveness is not always possible, but it’s worth taking a half hour to discuss if any type of user activity would indicate some form of harm or abuse, and how your product could assist the user in receiving help in a safe manner.

    Nonetheless, be careful when doing anything that could harm a user if their devices are being monitored. If you do offer some kind of proactive help, always make it voluntary, and think through other safety issues, such as the need to keep the user in-app in case an abuser is checking their search history. In the next chapter, we’ll walk through a good illustration of this.

    Step 5: Test for safety

    The final step is to evaluate your prototypes from the perspective of your archetypes, who wants to harm the product and the victim of the harm who needs to regain control over the technology. Just like any other kind of product testing, at this point you’ll aim to rigorously test out your safety solutions so that you can identify gaps and correct them, validate that your designs will help keep your users safe, and feel more confident releasing your product into the world.

    Safety testing should be performed in addition to usability testing. If you’re at a company that doesn’t do usability testing, you might be able to use safety testing to cleverly perform both, a user who goes through your design attempting to weaponize the product against someone else can also be encouraged to point out interactions or other elements of the design that don’t make sense to them.

    If your final prototype or the finished product has already been released, you’ll want to conduct safety testing on both. There’s nothing wrong with testing an existing product that wasn’t designed with safety goals in mind from the onset —”retrofitting” it for safety is a good thing to do.

    Although it might not make sense for you to test for both an abuser and a survivor, keep in mind that testing for safety involves both. Alternatively, if you made multiple survivor archetypes to capture multiple scenarios, you’ll want to test from the perspective of each one.

    You as the designer are most likely too closely connected to the product and its design by this point to be a valuable tester, you know the product too well, as with other forms of usability testing. Instead of doing it yourself, set up testing as you would with other usability testing: find someone who is not familiar with the product and its design, set the scene, give them a task, encourage them to think out loud, and observe how they attempt to complete it.

    Abuse testing

    The goal of this testing is to understand how easy it is for someone to weaponize your product for harm. You want to make it impossible, or at least difficult for them to accomplish their goal, unlike with usability testing. Reference the goals in the abuser archetype you created earlier, and use your product in an attempt to achieve them.

    For instance, we can imagine that the abuser archetype would have the goal of discovering where his ex-girlfriend currently lives in a fitness app with GPS-enabled location features. With this goal in mind, you’d try everything possible to figure out the location of another user who has their privacy settings enabled. You might try to follow her running routes, view any information she has on her profile, view any information she has made private, and check out other users ‘ profiles, such as those of her followers.

    If by the end of this you’ve managed to uncover some of her location data, despite her having set her profile to private, you know now that your product enables stalking. Reverting to step 4 and figuring out how to stop this from occurring is your next step. You may need to repeat the process of designing solutions and testing them more than once.

    Survivor testing

    Survivor testing involves identifying how to give information and power to the survivor. Depending on the product or context, it might not always make sense. Thwarting the attempt of an abuser archetype to stalk someone also satisfies the goal of the survivor archetype to not be stalked, so separate testing wouldn’t be needed from the survivor’s perspective.

    However, there are instances where it makes sense. For example, for a smart thermostat, a survivor archetype’s goals would be to understand who or what is making the temperature change when they aren’t doing it themselves. If you couldn’t find the information in step 4, you would need to perform more work in step 4. You could test this by looking for the thermostat’s history log and looking for usernames, actions, and times.

    Another goal might be regaining control of the thermostat once the survivor realizes the abuser is remotely changing its settings. Are there any instructions that explain how to remove a user and change the password, and are they simple to find? For your test, you would need to try to figure out how to do this. This might again reveal that more work is needed to make it clear to the user how they can regain control of the device or account.

    stress testing

    To make your product more inclusive and compassionate, consider adding stress testing. Eric Meyer and Sara Wachter-Boettcher’s Design for Real Life inspired this idea. The authors pointed out that personas typically center people who are having a good day—but real users are often anxious, stressed out, having a bad day, or even experiencing tragedy. These are known as” stress cases,” and analyzing your products to see if they respond to users in stressful circumstances can reveal areas where your design lacks compassion. Design for Real Life has more details about what it looks like to incorporate stress cases into your design as well as many other great tactics for compassionate design.