Category: Blog

Your blog category

  • Corey Parker’s Most Underrated ‘80s Movie Feels More Relevant Than Ever

    Corey Parker’s Most Underrated ‘80s Movie Feels More Relevant Than Ever

    After news arrived that Corey Parker had died of cancer at 60 this March, loving tributes flooded in for the Memphis-born actor, who had starred in such ’80s movies as Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning, Scream for Help, and Biloxi Blues, before also becoming an acting coach for shows like Ms. Marvel […]

    The post Corey Parker’s Most Underrated ‘80s Movie Feels More Relevant Than Ever appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Daredevil: Born Again’s Central Romance is the Most Comic Accurate Part of the Show

    Daredevil: Born Again’s Central Romance is the Most Comic Accurate Part of the Show

    You might think that the Disney+ series Daredevil: Born Again should be about Matt Murdock putting on a bright red devil costume and leaping along the rooftops of buildings to fight supervillains like Stilt-Man and Mr. Hyde. After all, the show is based on a Marvel comic book, and superhero comics are primarily concerned with […]

    The post Daredevil: Born Again’s Central Romance is the Most Comic Accurate Part of the Show appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Ready or Not 2: Exclusive Look Inside Radio Silence and Samara Weaving’s BBQ of the Rich

    Ready or Not 2: Exclusive Look Inside Radio Silence and Samara Weaving’s BBQ of the Rich

    This article appears in the new issue of DEN OF GEEK magazine. You can read all of our magazine stories here. The future of horror is spontaneously combusting bodies! You heard it here first.  Arriving seven years after Ready or Not saw Samara Weaving’s new bride engage in a deadly game of hide and seek, the sequel Here […]

    The post Ready or Not 2: Exclusive Look Inside Radio Silence and Samara Weaving’s BBQ of the Rich appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Hamnet’s Power is in Its Emotional Immediacy, Not Historical Accuracy

    Hamnet’s Power is in Its Emotional Immediacy, Not Historical Accuracy

    As we head into the climax of Oscar season, the charges against Hamnet only seem to intensify. Detractors have called Chloé Zhao’s adaptation of the 2020 novel by Maggie O’Farrell “Shakespeare fan fiction,” decrying everything from its imposition of modern marital roles onto 16th century England to the design of playbills to Paul Mescal as […]

    The post Hamnet’s Power is in Its Emotional Immediacy, Not Historical Accuracy appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Thirty Years Later, Fargo Remains the Best and Most Beguiling Coen Bros Movie

    Thirty Years Later, Fargo Remains the Best and Most Beguiling Coen Bros Movie

    In 2013, former Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman began his review of Inside Llewyn Davis by declaring Joel and Ethan Coen as masters of the “art of contempt.” Where forerunners such as Marcel Duchamp or Johnny Rotten only dabbled in the medium, the Coens perfected it. “An undeniably talented two-man band of brothers, the […]

    The post Thirty Years Later, Fargo Remains the Best and Most Beguiling Coen Bros Movie appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • 15 Cinematic Experiences That Left Us Wanting More

    15 Cinematic Experiences That Left Us Wanting More

    Not every film delivers on its premise, even expensive blockbusters with a budget you’d think would get the job done. In this list, we explore 15 big movies that had all the ingredients for success but somehow fell short of the hype. Whether through uneven storytelling, lackluster character development, or twists that just didn’t land, these films left audiences craving more excitement, more payoff, and more of the magic they were promised.

    The post 15 Cinematic Experiences That Left Us Wanting More appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen

    15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

    Hollywood productions spend enormous amounts of time and money perfecting every detail, but even the biggest films aren’t immune to small mistakes slipping through. Continuity errors, background props that don’t make sense, and scientific inaccuracies sometimes skate right on through to the final cut. Many of these moments go unnoticed by casual viewers, but eagle eyed fans and online communities, especially Reddit’s r/MovieMistakes, love spotting them. Here are 15 memorable movie mistakes that somehow made it onto the big screen.

    The Bourne Ultimatum

    A newspaper headline visible in one scene contains several misspelled words, suggesting it was a rushed prop.

    cnx.cmd.push(function() {
    cnx({
    playerId: “106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530”,

    }).render(“0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796”);
    });

    The Dark Knight

    In the interrogation scene, the position of the Joker’s handcuffs changes between cuts, even though his hands never leave the table.

    The Matrix

    In the famous lobby shootout, one of the marble pillars that Neo and Trinity use for cover is already cracked before any bullets hit it in the following shots, suggesting damage that appears before the action actually happens.

    The Shawshank Redemption

    Andy’s prison poster changes slightly in position across different shots of the same wall.

    Titanic

    During the dinner scene in first class, Rose’s necklace appears and disappears between cuts depending on the camera angle.

    Avatar

    In one lab scene, a coffee cup changes position on the table between shots.

    Grease

    In the final carnival scene, a cameraman can be spotted reflected in the Ferris wheel.

    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

    In the Quidditch match scene, the position of Harry’s broom changes several times between shots even though he is supposed to be holding it steadily while hovering.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    At the Yule Ball, Hermione’s hairstyle changes subtly between wide shots and close ups.

    Interstellar

    On Miller’s Planet, the water level suddenly changes between shots. In one moment, waves barely reach Cooper’s feet, and in the next, the same scene shows much deeper water, creating a continuity error in the tense rescue sequence.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout

    During the rooftop chase, Ethan’s jacket zipper repeatedly moves between fully open and half closed.

    Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

    During the pod race, the number of racers visible on the track changes depending on the camera angle.

    Terminator 2: Judgment Day

    During the motorcycle chase, the truck’s windshield suddenly repairs itself between shots after being shattered moments earlier.

    The Amazing Spider-Man

    In the subway fight scene, Spider Man’s mask appears torn in one shot and fully intact in the next.

    The Avengers

    In the shawarma scene, Chris Evans keeps his hand over his jaw because he had grown a beard for another role and it had to be digitally removed.

    The post 15 Movie Mistakes That Slipped Through to the Big Screen appeared first on Den of Geek.

  • Voice Content and Usability

    Voice Content and Usability

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

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

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

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

    Voice Interactions

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

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

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

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

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

    Transactional voice interactions

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

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

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

    Burhan: Sure, what size?

    Alison: Large.

    Burhan: Anything else?

    Alison: No thanks, that’s it.

    Burhan: Something to drink?

    Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

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

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

    Informational voice interactions

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

    Alison: Hey, how’s it going?

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

    Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

    Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

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

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

    Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

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

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

    Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

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

    Voice Interfaces

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

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

    Interactive voice response (IVR) systems

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

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

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

    Screen readers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Voice assistants

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Voice Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Designing for the Unexpected

    Designing for the Unexpected

    I’m not sure when I first heard this quote, but it’s something that has stayed with me over the years. How do you create services for situations you can’t imagine? Or design products that work on devices yet to be invented?

    Flash, Photoshop, and responsive design

    When I first started designing websites, my go-to software was Photoshop. I created a 960px canvas and set about creating a layout that I would later drop content in. The development phase was about attaining pixel-perfect accuracy using fixed widths, fixed heights, and absolute positioning.

    Ethan Marcotte’s talk at An Event Apart and subsequent article “Responsive Web Design” in A List Apart in 2010 changed all this. I was sold on responsive design as soon as I heard about it, but I was also terrified. The pixel-perfect designs full of magic numbers that I had previously prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

    The fear wasn’t helped by my first experience with responsive design. My first project was to take an existing fixed-width website and make it responsive. What I learned the hard way was that you can’t just add responsiveness at the end of a project. To create fluid layouts, you need to plan throughout the design phase.

    A new way to design

    Designing responsive or fluid sites has always been about removing limitations, producing content that can be viewed on any device. It relies on the use of percentage-based layouts, which I initially achieved with native CSS and utility classes:

    .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 blocks of code and move back to more semantic markup:

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

    Media queries

    The second ingredient for responsive design is media queries. Without them, content would shrink to fit the available space regardless of whether that content remained readable (The exact opposite problem occurred with the introduction of a mobile-first approach).

    Media queries 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.

    Row markup was a staple of early responsive design, present in all the widely used frameworks 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 problem arose as I moved from a design agency building websites for small- to medium-sized businesses, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a suite of related sites. In those roles I started to work much more with reusable components. 

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

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

    Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

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

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

    In other words, responsive components to replace responsive layouts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Intrinsic layouts 

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

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

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

    —Jen Simmons, “Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

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

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

    Another 2010 moment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Content first 

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

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

    Instead of old markup hacks like this—

    First line of text with different styling...

    —we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

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

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

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

    These variables can be used as values—

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

    —or as properties.

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

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

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

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

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

    Fixed and fluid 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Situation first

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

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

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

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

    Responsible design 

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

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

    Chris Ashton

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

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

    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. 

     
     

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

    …

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

    So how can we put users in control?

    The return of media queries 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Expect the unexpected

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

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

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

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

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

  • A Content Model Is Not a Design System

    A Content Model Is Not a Design System

    Do you remember when having a great website was enough? Now, people are getting answers from Siri, Google search snippets, and mobile apps, not just our websites. Forward-thinking organizations have adopted an omnichannel content strategy, whose mission is to reach audiences across multiple digital channels and platforms.

    But how do you set up a content management system (CMS) to reach your audience now and in the future? I learned the hard way that creating a content model—a definition of content types, attributes, and relationships that let people and systems understand content—with my more familiar design-system thinking would capsize my customer’s omnichannel content strategy. You can avoid that outcome by creating content models that are semantic and that also connect related content. 

    I recently had the opportunity to lead the CMS implementation for a Fortune 500 company. The client was excited by the benefits of an omnichannel content strategy, including content reuse, multichannel marketing, and robot delivery—designing content to be intelligible to bots, Google knowledge panels, snippets, and voice user interfaces. 

    A content model is a critical foundation for an omnichannel content strategy, and for our content to be understood by multiple systems, the model needed semantic types—types named according to their meaning instead of their presentation. Our goal was to let authors create content and reuse it wherever it was relevant. But as the project proceeded, I realized that supporting content reuse at the scale that my customer needed required the whole team to recognize a new pattern.

    Despite our best intentions, we kept drawing from what we were more familiar with: design systems. Unlike web-focused content strategies, an omnichannel content strategy can’t rely on WYSIWYG tools for design and layout. Our tendency to approach the content model with our familiar design-system thinking constantly led us to veer away from one of the primary purposes of a content model: delivering content to audiences on multiple marketing channels.

    Two essential principles for an effective content model

    We needed to help our designers, developers, and stakeholders understand that we were doing something very different from their prior web projects, where it was natural for everyone to think about content as visual building blocks fitting into layouts. The previous approach was not only more familiar but also more intuitive—at least at first—because it made the designs feel more tangible. We discovered two principles that helped the team understand how a content model differs from the design systems that we were used to:

    1. Content models must define semantics instead of layout.
    2. And content models should connect content that belongs together.

    Semantic content models

    A semantic content model uses type and attribute names that reflect the meaning of the content, not how it will be displayed. For example, in a nonsemantic model, teams might create types like teasers, media blocks, and cards. Although these types might make it easy to lay out content, they don’t help delivery channels understand the content’s meaning, which in turn would have opened the door to the content being presented in each marketing channel. In contrast, a semantic content model uses type names like product, service, and testimonial so that each delivery channel can understand the content and use it as it sees fit. 

    When you’re creating a semantic content model, a great place to start is to look over the types and properties defined by Schema.org, a community-driven resource for type definitions that are intelligible to platforms like Google search.

    A semantic content model has several benefits:

    • Even if your team doesn’t care about omnichannel content, a semantic content model decouples content from its presentation so that teams can evolve the website’s design without needing to refactor its content. In this way, content can withstand disruptive website redesigns. 
    • A semantic content model also provides a competitive edge. By adding structured data based on Schema.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. Potential visitors could discover your content without ever setting foot in your website.
    • Beyond those practical benefits, you’ll also need a semantic content model if you want to deliver omnichannel content. To use the same content in multiple marketing channels, delivery channels need to be able to understand it. For example, if your content model were to provide a list of questions and answers, it could easily be rendered on a frequently asked questions (FAQ) page, but it could also be used in a voice interface or by a bot that answers common 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

    After struggling to describe what makes a good content model, I’ve come to realize that the best models are those that are semantic and that also connect related content components (such as a FAQ item’s question and answer pair), instead of slicing up related content across disparate content components. A good content model connects content that should remain together so that multiple delivery channels can use it without needing to first put those pieces back together.

    Think about writing an article or essay. An article’s meaning and usefulness depends upon its parts being kept together. Would one of the headings or paragraphs be meaningful on their own without the context of the full article? On our project, our familiar design-system thinking often led us to want to create content models that would slice content into disparate chunks to fit the web-centric layout. This had a similar impact to an article that were to have been separated from its headline. Because we were slicing content into standalone pieces based on layout, content that belonged together became difficult to manage and nearly impossible for multiple delivery channels to understand.

    To illustrate, let’s look at how connecting related content applies in a real-world scenario. The design team for our customer presented a complex layout for a software product page that included multiple tabs and sections. Our instincts were to follow suit with the content model. Shouldn’t we make it as easy and as flexible as possible to add any number of tabs in the future?

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

    Our inclination to break down the content model into “tab section” pieces would have led to an unnecessarily complex model and a cumbersome editing experience, and it would have also created content that couldn’t have been understood by additional delivery channels. For example, how would another system have been able to tell which “tab section” referred to a product’s specifications or its resource list—would that other system have to have resorted to counting tab sections and content blocks? This would have prevented the tabs from ever being reordered, and it would have required adding logic in every other delivery channel to interpret the design system’s layout. Furthermore, if the customer were to have no longer wanted to display this content in a tab layout, it would have been tedious to migrate to a new content model to reflect the new page redesign.

    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. Once implementation began, our inclination to focus on what’s visual and familiar had obscured the intent of the designs. With a little digging, it didn’t take long to realize that the concept of tabs wasn’t relevant to the content model. The meaning of the content that they were planning to display in the tabs was what mattered.

    In fact, the customer could have decided to display this content in a different way—without tabs—somewhere else. This realization prompted us to define content types for the software product based on the meaningful attributes that the customer had wanted to render on the web. 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 keep our content model on track was to ensure that it was semantic (with type and attribute names that reflected the meaning of the content) and that it kept content together that belonged together (instead of fragmenting it). These two concepts curtailed our temptation to shape the content model based on the design. So if you’re working on a content model to support an omnichannel content strategy—or even if you just want to make sure that Google and other interfaces understand your content—remember:

    • A design system isn’t a content model. Team members may be tempted to conflate them and to make your content model mirror your design system, so you should protect the semantic value and contextual structure of the content strategy during the entire implementation process. This will let every delivery channel consume the content without needing a magic decoder ring.
    • If your team is struggling to make this transition, you can still reap some of the benefits by using Schema.org–based structured data in your website. Even if additional delivery channels aren’t on the immediate horizon, the benefit to search engine optimization is a compelling reason on its own.
    • Additionally, remind the team that decoupling the content model from the design will let them update the designs more easily because they won’t be held back by the cost of content migrations. They’ll be able to create new designs without the obstacle of compatibility between the design and the content, and ​they’ll be ready for the next big thing. 

    By rigorously advocating for these principles, you’ll help your team treat content the way that it deserves—as the most critical asset in your user experience and the best way to connect with your audience.