Category: Blog

The same holds true for those of us who are currently employed in design and development. Having worked on the web for about three years at this point, I’ve seen the typical wax and wane of concepts, strategies, and systems. Every day we as developers and designers get into a routine pattern, a brand-new concept or technology emerges to shake things up and completely alter our planet.

How we got below

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

The development of online requirements

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

Server-side language like PHP, Java, and.NET took Perl as the primary back-end computers, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the garbage bin. With these improved server-side software, the first period of internet programs started with content-management methods (especially those used in blogs like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress ) In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened gates for sequential interaction between the front end and back close. Websites now no longer needed to reload their pages ‘ content. A grain of Script frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and ruby arose to aid developers develop more credible client-side conversation across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like photo replacement enable skilled manufacturers and developers to show fonts of their choosing. And technology like Flash made it possible to include movies, sports, and even more engagement.

These new methods, requirements, and technologies greatly reenergized the sector. Web style flourished as creators and designers explored more different styles and designs. However, we also relied heavily on exploits. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes ( such as rounded or angled corners ) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks ). All kinds of nested floats or absolute positioning were required for complicated layouts ( or both ). Display and photo substitute for specialty styles was a great start toward varying the designs from the big five, but both tricks introduced convenience and efficiency issues. Additionally, JavaScript libraries made it simple for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, even at the expense of double or even quadrupling the download size of basic websites.

The web as software platform

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

Mobile devices also increased in their capabilities, and they gave us access to internet in our pockets at the same time. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

The development of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and use resulted from this combination of potent mobile devices and potent development tools. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media made connections on a global scale, with both positive and negative outcomes.

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

Where we are now

It seems like we’ve reached yet another significant turning point in recent years. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. From the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators and content management systems of all kinds, there are many different ways to create websites. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other IndieWeb tools can be useful in this regard, but they’re still largely underdeveloped and difficult to use for the less geeky. We can build amazing personal websites and add to them regularly, but without discovery and connection, it can sometimes feel like we may as well be shouting into the void.

Browser support for standards like web components like CSS, JavaScript, and other standards has increased, particularly with efforts like Interop. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. When I first learn about a new feature, I frequently discover that its coverage is already over 80 % when I check the browser support. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often isn’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

With a few commands and a few lines of code, we can currently prototype almost any concept. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. However, as we upgrade and maintain these frameworks, we eventually pay the upfront costs that these frameworks may initially save in terms of our technical debt.

If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks, which once made it easier to adopt new techniques sooner, have since evolved into obstacles. These same frameworks often come with performance costs too, forcing users to wait for scripts to load before they can read or interact with pages. And frequently, when scripts fail ( whether due to poor code, network problems, or other environmental factors ), users are left with blank or broken pages.

Where do we go from here?

Hacks of today help to shape standards for the future. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks —for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we refuse to acknowledge that they are hacks or when we choose not to replace them. So what can we do to create the future we want for the web?

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

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

Design with care. Consider the effects of each choice, whether your craft is code, pixels, or processes. The convenience of many a modern tool comes at the cost of not always understanding the underlying decisions that have led to its design and not always considering the impact that those decisions can have. Use the time saved by modern tools to think more carefully and make decisions with care rather than rushing to “move fast and break things”

Always be learning. If you’re constantly learning, you’re also developing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. Even if you were to concentrate solely on learning standards, you might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year. ( Remember XHTML? ) However, ongoing learning opens up new neural connections, and the techniques you learn in one day may be useful for guiding future experiments.

Play, experiment, and be weird! The ultimate experiment is this web that we’ve created. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be brave and make new friends. Build a playground for ideas. In your own bizarre science lab, perform bizarre experiments. Start your own small business. There has never been a place where we have more room to be creative, take risks, and discover our potential.

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

Go ahead and create.

As designers and developers for the web ( and beyond ), we’re responsible for building the future every day, whether that may take the shape of personal websites, social media tools used by billions, or anything in between. Let’s give everything we produce a positive vibe by infusing our values into everything we do. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then share it, improve it, re-use it, or create something new. Learn. Make. Share. grow. Rinse and repeat. Everything will change whenever you believe you have mastered the web.

I’d like you to consider this a “yes … and” piece to complement Joe’s post. Instead of refuting everything he’s saying, I’m pointing out some areas where AI may make real, positive impacts on people with disabilities. To be clear, I want to take some time to talk about what’s possible in hope that we’ll find it one day. There are, and we’ve needed to address them, like, yesterday.

Other text

Joe’s article spends a lot of time examining how computer vision models can create other words. He raises a number of legitimate points about the state of affairs right now. And while computer-vision concepts continue to improve in the quality and complexity of information in their information, their benefits aren’t wonderful. He argues to be accurate that the state of image research is currently very poor, especially for some image types, in large part due to the lack of context-based analysis that exists in the AI systems ( which is a result of having separate “foundation” models for text analysis and image analysis ). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant ( should probably have descriptions ) and those that are purely decorative ( couldn’t possibly need a description ) either. However, I still think there’s possible in this area.

As Joe points out, far word authoring by human-in-the-loop should definitely be a thing. And if AI can intervene and provide a starting point for alt text, even if the swift reads,” What is this BS?” That’s certainly correct at all … Let me try to offer a starting point— I think that’s a win.

If we can specifically station a design to examine image usage in context, this may help us more quickly determine which images are likely to be elegant and which ones are likely to be descriptive. That will clarify which situations require image descriptions, and it will increase authors ‘ effectiveness in making their sites more visible.

While complex images—like graphs and charts—are challenging to describe in any sort of succinct way ( even for humans ), the image example shared in the GPT4 announcement points to an interesting opportunity as well. Let’s say you came across a map that was simply the name of the table and the type of visualization it was: Pie table comparing smartphone use to have phone use among US households making under$ 30, 000 annually. ( That would be a pretty bad alt text for a chart because it would frequently leave many unanswered questions about the data, but let’s just assume that that was the description in place. ) If your browser knew that that image was a pie chart ( because an onboard model concluded this ), imagine a world where users could ask questions like these about the graphic:

• Do more people use smartphones or other types of smartphones?
• How many more are there?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these buckets?
• That number, how many?

For a moment, the chance to learn more about images and data in this way could be revolutionary for people who are blind and low vision as well as for those with various forms of color blindness, cognitive disabilities, and other issues. Putting aside the realities of large language model ( LLM) hallucinations. It could also be useful in educational contexts to help people who can see these charts, as is, to understand the data in the charts.

What if you could ask your browser to make a complicated chart simpler? What if you demanded that the line graph be isolated into just one line? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you could ask it to switch colors for patterns? That seems like a possibility given the chat-based interfaces and our current ability to manipulate images in today’s AI tools.

Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. Perhaps it could convert that pie chart (or, better yet, a series of pie charts ) into more usable ( and useful ) formats, like spreadsheets, for instance. That would be incredible!

Matching algorithms

When Safiya Umoja Noble chose to put her book Algorithms of Oppression, she hit the nail on the head. Although her book focused on how search engines can foster racism, I believe it’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to foster conflict, prejudice, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A large portion of this is a result of a lack of diversity in the people who design and construct them. However, when these platforms are built with inclusive features in mind, there is real potential for algorithm development to help people with disabilities.

Take Mentra, for example. They serve as a network of people with disabilities. Based on more than 75 data points, they match job seekers with potential employers using an algorithm. On the job-seeker side of things, it considers each candidate’s strengths, their necessary and preferred workplace accommodations, environmental sensitivities, and so on. It takes into account the workplace, the communication environment, and other factors. Mentra made the decision to change the script when it came to traditional employment websites because it was run by neurodivergent people. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in, reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

When more people with disabilities are involved in developing algorithms, this can lower the likelihood that these algorithms will harm their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so crucial.

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

Other ways that AI can assist people with disabilities

If I weren’t attempting to combine this with other tasks, I’m sure I could go on and on, giving various examples of how AI could be used to assist people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

Voice preservation You may have been aware of the voice-prescribing options from Microsoft, Acapela, or others, or you may have seen the VALL-E paper or Apple’s announcement for Global Accessibility Awareness Day. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS ( Lou Gehrig’s disease ) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. This technology can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so we need to approach it responsibly, but the technology has truly transformative potential.
• voice recognition is. Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are currently hiring people with Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they intend to expand this list as the project develops. More people with disabilities will be able to use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as a result of this research, which will lead to more inclusive data sets that enable them to use their computers and other devices more effectively and with just their voices.
• Text transformation. The most recent generation of LLMs is quite capable of changing existing text without giving off hallucinations. This is incredibly empowering for those who have cognitive disabilities and who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions, or even text that has been prepared for bionic reading.

The importance of diverse teams and data

We must acknowledge that our differences matter. The intersections of the identities we exist in have an impact on our lived experiences. These lived experiences—with all their complexities ( and joys and pain ) —are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences must be reflected in the data we use to develop new models, and those who provide that valuable information must be compensated for doing so. More robust models are produced by inclusive data sets, which promote more justifiable outcomes.

Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you include information about disabilities that has been written by people with a variety of disabilities in the training data.

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

Want a copilot for coding that provides recomprehensible recommendations after the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.

I have no doubt that AI has the potential to harm people today, tomorrow, and long into the future. However, I also think that we can acknowledge this and make thoughtful, thoughtful, and intentional changes in our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Many thanks to Kartik Sawhney for supporting the development of this article, Ashley Bischoff for providing me with invaluable editorial support, and of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

I have a creative side. Alchemy is what I do. It is a secret. I prefer to let it be done through me rather than through me.

I have a creative side. Certainly all creative people approve of this brand. No everyone sees themselves in this way. Some innovative individuals incorporate technology into their work. I honor their assertion, which is true. Perhaps I also have a little bit of envy for them. However, my method is different; my being is unique.

It distracts you to apologize and qualify in progress. That’s what my head does to destroy me. I’ll leave it alone for today. I may regret and be qualified at any time. after I’ve said what I should have. Which is too difficult.

Except when it is simple and flows like a beverage valley.

Sometimes it does. Maybe what I need to make arrives right away. When I say something at that time, I’ve learned not to say it because people often don’t work hard enough to acknowledge that the idea is the best idea even when you know it’s the best idea.

Maybe I work and work and work until the thought strikes me. Maybe it arrives right away and I don’t remind people for three days. Often I blurt out the plan so quickly that I didn’t stop myself. like a child who discovered a reward in a box of Cracker Jacks. Often I get away with this. Yes, that is the best idea, but sometimes another people disagree. The majority of the time, they don’t, and I regret that passion has faded.

Passion should only be saved for the meet, when it matters. Certainly the informal get-together that comes before that meet with two more meetings. Nobody understands why these conferences occur. We keep saying we’re going to get rid of them, but we end up really trying to. They occasionally yet are good. But occasionally they are a hindrance to the actual labor. Depending on what you do and where you do it, the ratio between when conferences are valuable and when they are a sad distraction vary. And who you are and how you go about doing it. Once, I digress. I have a creative side. That is the topic.

Often, a lot of hours of diligent and diligent work ends up with something that is barely useful. Often I have to accept that and move on to the next task.

Don’t inquire about the procedure. I have a creative side.

I have a creative side. I have no control over my goals. And I have no power over my best tips.

I can chisel aside, surround myself with information or photos, and occasionally that works. I can go for a move, which occasionally works. There is a Eureka, which has nothing to do with boiling pots and sizzling petrol, and I may be making dinner. I frequently have a sense of direction when I awaken. The idea that may have saved me disappears almost as frequently as I become aware and a part of the world once more as a senseless wind of oblivion. For inventiveness, in my opinion, originates in that other world. The one that we enter in goals, and possibly before and after death. But writers should be asking this, and I am not a writer. I have a creative side. Theologians are encouraged to build massive armies in their artistic world, which they insist is true. That is yet another tangent, though. And one that is miserable. Possibly on a much bigger issue than whether or not I am creative. But this is still a departure from what I said when I came around.

Often the outcome is evasion. And suffering. Do you know the designer who is tortured by the cliché? Even when the artist ( this place that noun in quotes ) attempts to write a sweet drink jingle, a call in a worn-out comedy, or a budget ask, it’s true.

Some individuals who detest being called artistic perhaps been closeted artists, but that’s between them and their gods. No offence intended. Your reality is also true. But I should take care of me.

Designers acknowledge their work.

Disadvantages know cons, just like real rappers recognize true rappers, just like queers recognize queers. Artists are highly revered by people in the world. We respect, follow, and almost deify the excellent ones. Of course, it is dreadful to revere any person. We’ve been given a warning. Better is what we are. We are aware that people are simply people. They argue, they are depressed, they regret their most critical decisions, they are weak and hungry, they can be violent, and they can be as ridiculous as we can if, like us, they are clay. But. But. However, they produce this incredible point. They give birth to something that may not exist before them and couldn’t exist without. They are the inspirations ‘ parents. And I suppose I should add that they are the mother of technology because it’s just lying it. Ba ho backside! Okay, that’s all said and done. Continue.

Because we compare our personal small accomplishments to those of the great ones, designers denigrate our own. Wonderful video I‘m not Miyazaki, though. Greatness is then that. That is brilliance directly from God’s heart. This unsatisfied small thing I created? It essentially fell off the back of the pumpkin trailer. And the carrots weren’t actually new.

Artists is aware that they are at best Some. That is what Mozart’s creatives do, also.

I have a creative side. In my hallucinations, my previous artistic managers are the ones who judge me because I haven’t worked in advertising in 30 times. They are correct in doing so. My mind goes blank when it really counts because I’m too sluggish and complacent. No medication is available to treat artistic function.

I have a creative side. Every project I create has a goal that makes Indiana Jones appear to be a retiree snoring in a deck head. The more I pursue my creative endeavors, the faster I progress in my work, and the more I slog through lines and gaze blankly before beginning that task.

I can move ten times more quickly than those who aren’t creative, those who have just been creative for a short while, and those who have just been creative for a short time in their careers. Only that I spend twice as long putting the work off as they do before I work ten times as quickly as they do. When I put my mind to it, I am so confident in my ability to do a wonderful career. I am completely dependent on the excitement scramble of delay. The climb also terrifies me.

I don’t create anything.

I have a creative side. hardly a musician. Though as a child, I had a dream that I would one day become that. Some of us criticize our abilities and like our own accomplishments because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism, but at least we aren’t in elections.

I have a creative side. Despite my belief in reason and science, I make decisions based on my own senses and instincts. and survive in the aftermath of both the triumphs and disasters.

I have a creative side. Every term I’ve said these may irritate another artists who see things differently. Ask a question to two artists, and three thoughts will be formed. Our dispute, our interest in it, and our commitment to our own truth, at least in my opinion, are the proof that we are creative, no matter how we does think about it.

I have a creative side. I lament my lack of taste in the areas of human knowledge that I know quite small, that is to say about everything. And I put my ego before everything else in the areas that are most important to me, or perhaps more precisely, to my passions. Without my passions, I’d probably have to spend the majority of our time looking ourselves in the eye, which is something that almost none of us can do for very much. No seriously. Actually, not. Because so much in existence is intolerable if you really look at it.

I have a creative side. I think that when I’m gone, some of the good parts of me will stay in the head of at least one additional person, just like a family does.

Working frees me from worrying about my job.

I have a creative side. I fear that my little present will disappear without warning.

I have a creative side. I spend way too much time making the next thing, given that almost nothing I create did achieve the level of brilliance I conceive of.

I have a creative side. I think that method is the greatest mystery. I think so strongly that I am also foolish enough to post an essay I wrote into a small machine without having to go through or edit it. I swear I didn’t accomplish this frequently. But I did it right away because I was even more frightened of forgetting what I was saying because I was afraid of you seeing through my sad gestures toward the beautiful.

There. I believe I’ve said it.

Humility, a writer’s most important quality, has a great circle to it. What about sincerity, an business manager’s important value? Or a surgeon’s? Or a student’s? They all have excellent sounding voices. When humility is our guiding light, the course is usually available for fulfillment, development, relation, and commitment. We’re going to discuss why in this section.

That said, this is a guide for developers, and to that conclusion, I’d like to begin with a story—well, a voyage, actually. Along the way, I’m going to render myself a little vulnerable. I call it:

The Absurd Pate of Justin: A Tale of its Author

When I was coming out of arts school, a long-haired, goateed novice, write was a known quantity to me, design on the web, however, was riddled with complexities to understand and learn, a problem to be solved. Although I had formal training in typography, layout, and creative design, how could these fundamental skills be applied to a developing electric landscape was what piqued my interest. This style would eventually form the rest of my profession.

So I devoured HTML and JavaScript novels into the wee hours of the morning and self-taught myself how to code during my freshman year rather than student and go into print like many of my companions. I wanted—nay, needed—to better understand the underlying relevance of what my design decisions may think when rendered in a website.

The so-called” Wild West” of website design existed in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Manufacturers at the time were all figuring out how to use layout and visual connection to the online environment. What were the guidelines? How may we break them and also engage, entertain, and present information? How could my values, which include value, humility, and relation, go along with that on a more general degree? I was eager to find out.

Even though I’m referring to a different time, those are amazing factors between non-career relationships and the world of layout. What are your main passions, or ideals, that elevate medium? The main themes remain the same, much like the clear parallels between what fulfills you, who is independent of the physical or digital worlds.

First within tables, animated GIFs, Flash, then with Web Standards, divs, and CSS, there was personality, raw unbridled creativity, and unique means of presentment that often defied any semblance of a visible grid. Splash screens and “browser requirement” pages aplenty. Usability and accessibility were typically victims of such a creation, but such paramount facets of any digital design were largely (and, in hindsight, unfairly) disregarded at the expense of experimentation.

For instance, this iteration of my personal portfolio site (” the pseudoroom” ) from that time was experimental if not a little overt with regard to how the idea of a living sketchbook was conveyed visually. Very skeuomorphic. This one involved sketching and then passing a Photoshop file back and forth to experiment with various user interactions with fellow designer and dear friend Marc Clancy, who is now a co-founder of the creative project organizing app Milanote. Then, I’d break it down and code it into a digital layout.

Along with design folio pieces, the site also offered free downloads for Mac OS customizations: desktop wallpapers that were effectively design experimentation, custom-designed typefaces, and desktop icons.

GUI Galaxy was a design, pixel art, and Mac-centric news portal that my friends and I conceptualized, designed, developed, and deployed around the same time.

Design news portals were incredibly popular at the time, and they now accept Tweet-sized, small-format versions of relevant news from the categories I previously covered. If you took Twitter, curated it to a few categories, and wrapped it in a custom-branded experience, you’d have a design news portal from the late 90s / early 2000s.

We as designers had changed and developed a bandwidth-sensitive, award-winning, much more accessibility-conscious website. Still ripe with experimentation, yet more mindful of equitable engagement. There are a few content panes here, with both Mac-focused news and general news (tech, design ) to be seen. We also offered many of the custom downloads I cited before as present on my folio site but branded and themed to GUI Galaxy.

The presentation layer of the website’s backbone was made up of global design + illustration + news author collaboration. The backbone was a homegrown CMS. And the collaboration effort here, in addition to experimentation on a’ brand’ and content delivery, was hitting my core. We were creating a global audience by creating something bigger than just one of us.

Collaboration and connection transcend medium in their impact, immensely fulfilling me as a designer.

Why am I going down this design memory lane with you, now? Two reasons.

First of all, there’s a reason for the nostalgia for that design era ( the” Wild West” era, as I put it ): the inherent exploration, personality, and creativity that dominated many design portals and personal portfolio websites. Ultra-finely detailed pixel art UI, custom illustration, bespoke vector graphics, all underpinned by a strong design community.

The web design industry has been in a state of stagnation right now. I suspect there’s a strong chance you’ve seen a site whose structure looks something like this: a hero image / banner with text overlaid, perhaps with a lovely rotating carousel of images ( laying the snark on heavy there ), a call to action, and three columns of sub-content directly beneath. Perhaps there are selections that vaguely relate to their respective content in an icon library.

Design, as it’s applied to the digital landscape, is in dire need of thoughtful layout, typography, and visual engagement that goes hand-in-hand with all the modern considerations we now know are paramount: usability. accessibility Load times and bandwidth- sensitive content delivery. A user-friendly presentation that connects with people wherever they are. We must be mindful of, and respectful toward, those concerns—but not at the expense of creativity of visual communication or via replicating cookie-cutter layouts.

Pixel Issues

Websites during this period were often designed and built on Macs whose OS and desktops looked something like this. Although Mac OS 7.5 is available, 8 and 9 are not very different.

How could any single icon, at any point, stand out and grab my attention, fascinated me? In this example, the user’s desktop is tidy, but think of a more realistic example with icon pandemonium. How did it maintain cohesion among the group, for example, if an icon was a part of a larger system grouping ( fonts, extensions, control panels )?

These were 32 x 32 pixel creations, utilizing a 256-color palette, designed pixel-by-pixel as mini mosaics. This seemed to me to be the embodiment of digital visual communication under such absurd restrictions. And often, ridiculous restrictions can yield the purification of concept and theme.

So I started doing my homework and conducting research. I was a student of this new medium, hungry to dissect, process, discover, and make it my own.

I wanted to see how I could push the boundaries of a 32×32 pixel grid with that 256-color palette, expanding upon the idea of exploration. Those ridiculous constraints forced a clarity of concept and presentation that I found incredibly appealing. The challenge of throwing the digital gauntlet had been thrown at me. And so, in my dorm room into the wee hours of the morning, I toiled away, bringing conceptual sketches into mini mosaic fruition.

These are some of my creations that made use of ResEdit, the only program I had at the time, to create icons. ResEdit was a clunky, built-in Mac OS utility not really made for exactly what we were using it for. Research is at the center of all of this endeavor. Challenge. solving problems. Again, these core connection-based values are agnostic of medium.

There’s one more design portal I want to talk about, which also serves as the second reason for my story to bring this all together.

This is the Kaliber 1000, or K10k, short for. K10k was founded in 1998 by Michael Schmidt and Toke Nygaard, and was the design news portal on the web during this period. It was the place to be, my friend, with its pixel art-fueled presentation, ultra-focused care given to every aspect of every detail, and many of the more influential designers of the time who were invited to be news authors on the site. With respect where respect is due, GUI Galaxy’s concept was inspired by what these folks were doing.

For my part, the combination of my web design work and pixel art exploration began to get me some notoriety in the design scene. K10k eventually added me as one of their very select group of news writers to the website’s content.

Amongst my personal work and side projects —and now with this inclusion—in the design community, this put me on the map. Additionally, my design work has started to appear on other design news portals, as well as in publications abroad and domestically. With that degree of success while in my early twenties, something else happened:

I actually changed into a massive asshole in about a year of high school, not less. The press and the praise became what fulfilled me, and they went straight to my head. They inflated my ego. I actually felt somewhat superior to my fellow designers.

The victims? My design stagnated. Its evolution, which is what I evolved, has stagnated.

I felt so supremely confident in my abilities that I effectively stopped researching and discovering. When my first instinct was to sketch concepts or iterate ideas in lead, I instead leaped right into Photoshop. I drew my inspiration from the smallest of sources ( and with blinders on ). Any criticism of my work from my fellow students was frequently vehemently dissented. The most tragic loss: I had lost touch with my values.

My ego almost destroyed some of my friendships and blossoming professional relationships. I was toxic in talking about design and in collaboration. But thankfully, those same friends gave me a priceless gift: candor. They called me out on my unhealthy behavior.

It’s true, I initially didn’t accept it, but after much reflection, I was able to accept it. I was soon able to accept, and process, and course correct. Although the re-awakening was necessary, the realization let me down. I let go of the “reward” of adulation and re-centered upon what stoked the fire for me in art school. Most importantly, I regained my fundamental values.

Always Students

Following that temporary regression, I was able to advance in both my personal and professional design. And I could self-reflect as I got older to facilitate further growth and course correction as needed.

Let’s use the Large Hadron Collider as an example. The LHC was designed” to help answer some of the fundamental open questions in physics, which concern the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, and in particular the interrelation between quantum mechanics and general relativity”. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Around fifteen years ago, in one of my earlier professional roles, I designed the interface for the application that generated the LHC’s particle collision diagrams. These diagrams are the depiction of what is actually happening inside the Collider during any given particle collision event and are frequently regarded as works of art by themselves.

Designing the interface for this application was a fascinating process for me, in that I worked with Fermilab physicists to understand what the application was trying to achieve, but also how the physicists themselves would be using it. In order to accomplish this, in this role,

I cut my teeth on usability testing, working with the Fermilab team to iterate and improve the interface. To me, their language and the topics they discussed seemed to me to be foreign languages. And by making myself humble and working under the mindset that I was but a student, I made myself available to be a part of their world to generate that vital connection.

I also had my first ethnographic observational experience, where I observed how the physicists used the tool in their own environments, on their own terminals. For example, one takeaway was that due to the level of ambient light-driven contrast within the facility, the data columns ended up using white text on a dark gray background instead of black text-on-white. They could read through a lot of data at once and relieve their strain in the process. And Fermilab and CERN are government entities with rigorous accessibility standards, so my knowledge in that realm also grew. Another crucial form of communication was the barrier-free design.

So to those core drivers of my visual problem-solving soul and ultimate fulfillment: discovery, exposure to new media, observation, human connection, and evolution. I checked my ego before entering those values, which opened the door for those values.

An evergreen willingness to listen, learn, understand, grow, evolve, and connect yields our best work. I want to pay attention to the words “grow” and “evolve” in particular in that statement. If we are always students of our craft, we are also continually making ourselves available to evolve. Yes, we have completed years of design research. Or the focused lab sessions from a UX bootcamp. Or the monogrammed portfolio of our creative work. Or, ultimately, decades of a career behind us.

However, with all that being said, experience does not make one an “expert.”

As soon as we close our minds via an inner monologue of’ knowing it all’ or branding ourselves a” #thoughtleader” on social media, the designer we are is our final form. The artist we can be will never be there.

I’ve been fascinated by movies since I was a child. I loved the heroes and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I aspired to be an artist. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on interesting activities. Yet my friends and I had movie ideas to make and sun in. But they never went any farther. However, I did end up in the user experience ( UX) field. Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I hadn’t actually considered it before, but consumer analysis is story. And you must show a compelling story to entice stakeholders, such as the product team and decision-makers, to learn more in order to get the most out of consumer research.

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

Use story as a framework for conducting research

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

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

Act one: layout

The rig consists entirely in comprehending the history, and that’s where basic research comes in. Basic research ( also called conceptual, discovery, or preliminary research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. You’re learning about the difficulties people face now, what options are available, and how those challenges impact them, just like in the films. To do basic research, you may conduct situational inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both prospects and problems. It doesn’t need to get a great investment in time or money.

What is the least feasible ethnography that Erika Hall can do is spend fifteen minutes with a consumer and say,” Walk me through your day yesterday. That’s it. Current that one ask. Locked up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to protect both your objectives and yourself. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. According to Hall, “[This ] will likely prove quite fascinating. In the very unlikely event that you didn’t learn anything new or helpful, carry on with increased confidence in your way”.

This makes perfect sense to me. And I love that this makes consumer studies so visible. You can only attract participants and do it! You don’t need to make a lot of documentation. This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. That’s exactly what work one is all about: understanding where people are coming from.

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

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can help product teams become more user-centric. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s similar to winning an Oscar for a film because it frequently results in a favorable and successful outcome for your product. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. The secret to this process is storytelling, and knowing how to tell a compelling story is the only way to entice stakeholders to do more research.

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

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. In order to evaluate a potential solution ( such as a design ), you typically conduct directional research, such as usability tests, to see if it addresses the issues you identified. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. More issues will come up in the process, much like in act two of a movie. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act.

Usability tests should typically consist of five participants, according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can typically identify the majority of the issues:” As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.”

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

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

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

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

You can ask real users questions to understand their thoughts and understanding of the solution as a result of usability testing, whether it is done remotely or in person. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. You can also test your own ideas and determine whether they are true. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. The excitement centers on Act 2, but there are also potential surprises in that Act. This is equally true of usability tests. Sometimes, participants will say unexpected things that alter the way you look at them, which can lead to unexpected turns in the story.

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

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

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

Act three: resolution

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

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

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. The most effective presenters” set up a conflict that needs to be resolved” using the same methods as great storytellers, Duarte writes. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

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

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be as visual as quick sketches of a potential solution to a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the session is over when you’ve concluded everything by summarizing the key points and offering suggestions for a solution. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage provides stakeholders with the next steps, and hopefully, the motivation to take those steps as well!

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

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

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

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

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

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. User research is ultimately a win-win situation for everyone, and all you need to do is pique stakeholders ‘ interest in how the story ends.

Netflix lost, at least for the time being, in Netflix’s conflict with film theaters. The streamer has made it known that the final season of Stranger Stuff will debut on the same day as the company. We’re over excited that viewers will get to see the final season of Stranger Things.

The first article on Den of Geek was titled Netflix Caves and Brings Stranger Stuff to Theaters.

A kaiju may provide everything a world needs to exist, and more. The King of the Monsters passes away on January 7, 2026. That’s right, in Godzilla #6, IDW Publishing will stop the world’s greatest dragon. And to help them honor the occasion, they &#8217 are bringing in a couple of men who have a knack for telling the story of the passing of a famous number.

Dan Jurgens, who wrote and penciled 1992 &#8217, Superman# 75, the concern that saw the Man of Steel and the horrible Doomsday, will be the cover artist for Godzilla# 6. Additionally, Brett Breeding, who collaborated with Jurgens on Superman# 75, will pen the support. The include homages to the legendary story, in which a fallen demon collapsed amid the wreckage of a wonderful city and a tattered flag in the foreground, are appropriately fitting.

The death of Godzilla provided Jurgens with the best excuse to re-visit his most well-known job. I was absolutely interested in a particular Death of Godzilla cover that would be based on the classic include Brett Breeding and I did for Superman# 75, and Jurgens admitted to IGN. I’ve always loved the great man, but I haven’t had the chance to draw him, so this was the best way to stifle that itch. It was a lot of fun to be able to help out.

One may wonder why in the universe IDW may kill off for a significant personality, especially one that has played such a significant role in the publisher’s story. However, any admirer of Kaiju can attest that Godzilla has appeared on screen several times before coming back in remakes or reimaginings. In fact, in matter #7, author Tim Seeley and performer Hendry Prasetya will make their first appearance in a new incarnation of Godzilla one month after his death in the film Godzilla# 6.

Godzilla’s swift exit from the future is in line with some comic book stories, and it is in line with some. No humorous book death stones, after all, come to mind when Jason Todd swings around as the Red Hood, Bucky swings around as the Winter Soldier, Barry Allen back in action as the Flash, and an alternative reality Gwen Stacy swings across the Spider-Verse. In Ultimate Spider-Man, you can find Uncle Ben running a paper, when the most holy of comic book demises.

Death, according to legend, didn’t keep Superman for very long either, as Jurgens and his brother co-creators saw the Man of Steel replaced by four replacements, one of whom became Superboy, another became Steel, and a third who became the wicked Cyborg Superman, before the actual Kryptonian returned for genuine, albeit with an ugly mullet.

In keeping with that, the Jurgens and Breeding include isn’t really a homage; it also serves as a guarantee that Godzilla will soon be back from the dead. Hopefully Jurgens won’t be doing the King of Monsters a horrible haircut this time around.

On January 7, 2026, Godzilla# 6 will ship to humorous businesses.

The first article on Den of Geek was entitled Godzilla Will Die by the Same Hands That Killed Superman.

Today’s online is not always a welcoming place. Websites greet you with a popover that requires assent to their muffin coverage, and leave you with Taboola advertising promising” One Crazy Trick”! to treat your problems. Social media sites are tuned for wedding, and some things are more interesting than a duel. I’ve witnessed fire war among birders now, and it seems like everyone wants to get into a fight.

These conflicts are often at conflict with a site’s targets. We don’t want those customers to tussle with each other if we are offering customer support and advice. If we offer information about the latest study, we want visitors to feel at ease, if we promote approaching marches, we want our core followers to feel comfortable and we want wondering newcomers to experience welcome.

I looked at the origins of computer science in Vienna ( 1928-1934 ) for a case study on the significance of amiability in a research community and the disastrous effects of its demise in a study for a conference on the History of the Web. That story has interesting implications for web environments that promote amiable interaction among disparate, difficult ( and sometimes disagreeable ) people.

The Vienna Circle

Though people had been thinking about calculating engines and thinking machines from antiquity, Computing really got going in Depression-era Vienna. In the absence of divine authority, the people who developed the theory had no desire to construct machines. They were trying to understand what the limits of reason were. If we could not rely on God or Aristotle to tell us how to think, could we instead build arguments that were self-contained and demonstrably correct? Can we be certain that mathematics is accurate? Are there things that are true but that cannot be expressed in language?

The group known as the Vienna Circle held weekly meetings on Thursdays at 6 ). The main ideas were developed. They got together in the office of Professor Moritz Schlick at the University of Vienna to discuss problems in philosophy, math, and language. This Vienna department’s focus on the intersection of physics and philosophy had long been one of its strengths, and their work had elevated them to a position among the world’s leaders. Schlick’s colleague Hans Hahn was a central participant, and by 1928 Hahn brought along his graduate students Karl Menger and Kurt Gödel. Rudolf Carnap, Karl Popper, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, the architect and physicist, and Otto Neurath, the inventor of infographics, were among the other prominent participants. Out-of-town visitors often joined, including the young Johnny von Neumann, Alfred Tarski, and the irascible Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Participants adjourned to a nearby café for additional discussion with an even larger circle of participants when Schlick’s office grew too dim. This convivial circle was far from unique. The Austrian School of free-market economics was established by an intersecting circle: Neurath, von Mises, and Oskar Morgenstern. There were theatrical circles ( Peter Lorre, Hedy Lamarr, Max Reinhardt ), and literary circles. Things actually happened in the café.

The interdisciplinarity of the group posed real challenges of temperament and understanding. Personalities were frequently a challenge. Gödel was convinced people were trying to poison him. Josef Frank, an architect, relied on contracts for public housing, which Mises criticized as wasteful. Wittgenstein’s temper had lost him his job as a secondary school teacher, and for some of these years he maintained a detailed list of whom he was willing to meet. Neurath would interrupt a speaker with a shouted” Metaphysics” and was eager to find muddled thought! The continuing amity of these meetings was facilitated by the personality of their leader, Moritz Schlick, who would be remembered as notably adept in keeping disagreements from becoming quarrels.

In the Café

The Viennese café of this era was long remembered as a particularly good place to argue with your friends, to read, and to write. With the collapse of the Empire, the cafés found themselves with too little space and fewer customers than they could have anticipated. There was no need to turn tables: a café could only survive by coaxing customers to linger. They might order another cup of coffee, or perhaps a friend might stop by. One could play chess, or billiards, or read newspapers from abroad. In a time when most water was still considered unsafe to drink, coffee was frequently served with a glass of pure spring water. That water glass would be refilled indefinitely.

Jura Soyfer, the poet behind” The End of the World,” a musical comedy about Professor Peep discovering a comet that is heading for Earth, was performed in one café.

Prof. Peep: The comet is going to destroy everybody!

Hitler: It’s my business to destroy everyone.

Of course, coffee can be prepared in many ways, and the Viennese café developed a broad vocabulary to represent precisely how one preferred to drink it: melange, Einspänner, Brauner, Schwarzer, Kapuziner. The café was transformed into a warm and personal third space, a neutral ground in which anyone who could afford a cup of coffee would be welcome. This extensive customization, with correspondingly esoteric conventions of service, resulted in the establishment of the café. Viennese of this era were fastidious in their use of personal titles, of which an abundance were in common use. Café waiters also gave regular customers titles, but they avoided using them to refer to their customers as a notch or two above their proper titles. A graduate student would be Doktor, an unpaid postdoc Professor. Because so many of the Circle’s members ( and so many other Viennese ) were from elsewhere: Carnap from Wuppertal, Gödel from Brno, von Neumann from Budapest, and so many others, this assurance mattered even more. No one was going to make fun of your clothes, mannerisms, or accent. The pram in the hall wouldn’t bother your friends. Everyone shared a Germanic Austrian literary and philosophical culture, not least those whose ancestors had been Eastern European Jews who knew that culture well, having read all about it in books.

The café circle’s openness increased its friendliness. Because the circle sometimes extended to architects and actors, people could feel less constrained to admit shortfalls in their understanding. As an improvised and accessible blackboard, it was soon discovered that marble tabletops were useful for pencil sketches.

Comedies like” The End Of The World” and fictional newspaper sketches or feuilletons of writers like Joseph Roth and Stefan Zweig served as a second defense against disagreeable or churlish behavior. It was certainly helped Professor Schlick stay on top of things when she knew that a parody of one’s remarks might soon appear in Neue Freie Presse.

The End Of Red Vienna

Vienna’s city council had been Socialist, dedicated to public housing based on user-centered design, and supported ambitious programs of public outreach and adult education even though Austria’s government had drifted to the right after the War. In 1934 the Socialists lost a local election, and this era soon came to its end as the new administration focused on the imagined threat of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Von Neumann to Princeton, Neurath to Holland and Oxford, Popper to New Zealand, and Carnap to Chicago were the Circle’s most frequent members who left in less than a month. Prof. Schlick was murdered on the steps of the University by a student outraged by his former association with Jews. The End of the World author, Julie Soyfer, passed away in Buchenwald.

In 1939, von Neumann finally convinced Gödel to accept a job in Princeton. Gödel was required to pay significant fines before moving abroad. The officer in charge of these fees would look back on this as the best posting of his career, his name was Eichmann.

Design for Amiability

An impressive literature recounts those discussions and the environment that facilitated the development of computing. How can we create a design that is amiable? This is not just a matter of choosing rounded typefaces and a cheerful pastel palette. I think we might find eight distinct design constraints that go in a lot of useful ways.

Seriousness: The Vienna Circle was wrestling with a notoriously difficult book—Wittgenstein’s Tractus Logico-Philosophicus—and a catalog of outstanding open questions in mathematics. They were concerned with long-term issues rather than just generating debate points. Constant reminders that the questions you are considering matter—not only that they are consequential or that those opposing you are scoundrels —help promote amity.

Empiricism: The Vienna Circle’s distinctive approach required that knowledge be grounded either in direct observation or in rigorous reasoning. Disagreement, when it arose, could be settled by observation or by proof. The dispute couldn’t be resolved if neither appeared ready to take the situation. On these terms, one can seldom if ever demolish an opposing argument, and trolling is pointless.

Abstraction: When a disagreement becomes unresolved, the argument escalates to a point where the opponent loses their face or their jobs. The Vienna Circle’s focus on theory—the limits of mathematics, the capability of language—promoted amity. Abstraction could have been purely academic without seriousness, but it was obvious that mathematics had bounds with reason and consistency.

Formality: The punctilious demeanor of waiters and the elaborated rituals of coffee service helped to establish orderly attitudes amongst the argumentative participants. This contrasts favorably with the contemptuous sneer that currently dominates social media.

Schlamperei: Members of the Vienna Circle maintained a global correspondence, and they knew their work was at the frontier of research. However, this was Vienna, at the edge of Europe: it was dated, frumpy, and dingy. Many participants came from even more obscure backwaters. The majority of or all of them had the suspicion that they were actually schleppers, and a dash of the absurdity helped to control their tempers. The director of” The End Of The World” had to pass the hat for money to purchase a moon for the set, and thought it was funny enough to write up for publication.

Openness: Anyone could join in the discussion because there were all kinds of people present. Each week would bring different participants. Fluidic borders reduce conflict and open up new areas for discussion and discussion. Low entrance friction was characteristic of the café: anyone could come, and if you came twice you were virtually a regular. Vienna’s cafés had no shortage of humorists, and permeable boundaries and café culture made it easier for moderating influences to draw in raconteurs and storytellers to ease up awkward situations. Openness counteracts the suspicion that promoters of amiability are exerting censorship.

Parody: The University of Chicago and the Café were unmistakably public areas. There were writers about, some of them renowned humorists. The possibility that one’s bad behavior or taste might be derided in print kept discussion within bounds. The sanction of public humiliation, however, was itself made mild by the veneer of fiction, even if you got a little carried away and a character based on you made a splash in some newspaper fiction, it wasn’t the end of the world.

Engagement: Although the subject matter was significant to the participants, it was esoteric: neither their mothers nor their siblings were particularly interested in it. A small stumble or a minor humiliation could be shrugged off in ways that major media confrontations cannot.

I think it is noteworthy that this setting was created to promote amiability through the use of a variety of voices. The café waiter flattered each newcomer and served everyone, and also kept out local pickpockets and drunks who would be mere disruptions. Schickel and other regulars kept the conversation moving and on topic. The fiction writers and raconteurs—perhaps the most peripheral of the participants—kept people in a good mood and reminded them that bad behavior could make anyone ridiculous. Each of these voices, naturally speaking, was a human being; you could understand that. Algorithmic or AI moderators, however clever, are seldom perceived as reasonable. No central authority or Moderator was present in the café circles, so everyone’s resentments might be focused on one. Even after the disaster of 1934, what people remembered were those cheerful arguments.

Voices are available on the internet. But if our manufacturing processes.

Designing methods as living language

Designing languages are living languages, not portion libraries. The parts are terms, patterns are phrases, and sentences are layouts. Tokens are phonemes. The experiences we create with consumers become the reports that our products are able to tell.

The more tones a language may help without losing its meaning, the more smoothly it is spoken. English in Sydney and English in Scotland are clearly different, but both are identical. The speech adapts to the situation while maintaining its fundamental significance. As a Brazilian Portuguese presenter who grew up in Sydney and learned English with an American accent, this was even more apparent to me.

Our pattern processes must operate in the same manner. A rigorous adhesion to physical conventions results in brittle techniques that disintegrate under pressure from the outside. Fluidic devices can bend without rupturing.

Consistent behavior turns into a captivity

Design systems had a promise that was easy: regular components may speed up development and bring together experiences. But as methods evolved and products developed more sophisticated, that promises has grown to the point of being a prison. Team submit “exception” demands innumerate. Alternatively of system parts, items build with solutions. Designers devote more time defending regularity than resolving customer issues.

Our design techniques may acquire dialects to function properly.

A pattern pronunciation is a comprehensive adaptation of a design system that maintains its foundational principles while creating novel patterns for particular situations. Languages maintain the state’s necessary language while expanding its vocabulary to fit various people, settings, or constraints, in contrast to one-off customizations or product themes.

When Perfect Consistency Is A Problem

I had a difficult lesson to learn at Booking.com. Everything we A/B tested was color, version, button shapes, yet logo colors. This surprised me as a specialist who has knowledge creating brand style guides and a background in graphic design. While people adored Airbnb’s flawless design program, Booking grew into a giant without ever taking into account physical consistency.

The conflict taught me things important: solved issues are, not consistency.

At Shopify. Our crown jewel was Polyris ( ), a mature design language that worked well for laptop manufacturers. We were expected to follow Polaris as-is as a product group. Then my accomplishment team slammed an” Oh, Ship”! momentous as we had to create an app for inventory pickers using our program on shared, battered Android scanners in dark aisles, wearing heavy gloves, scanning dozens of items per moment, some with only minimal levels of English comprehension.

Task completion with the accepted Polaris of 0 %.

Every aspect that worked flawlessly for merchants entirely failed to satisfy pickers. Bright backgrounds produced light. The goals of 44px tap were obscuring with covered fingers. Sentence-case brands took too long to interpret. Non-native listeners were confused by multi-step travels.

Polaris had to be completely abandoned, or it could be taught to speak inventory.

The Dialect’s Delivery

We favored creation over trend. We created what we now refer to as a style pronunciation by adhering to Polaris’s core values of clarity, efficiency, consistency.

Results: Task completion increased from 0 % to 100 %. From three days to one move, onboard time was cut.

This was a dialect, not a modification or theming; it was a systematic translation that preserved Polaris ‘ fundamental language while creating new words for a particular context. It had picked up the language of storehouse and not failed.

The Flexibility Framework

Working on the Jira platform, which is a component of the larger Atlassian program, at Atlassian, I advocated for formalizing this understanding. We needed comprehensive mobility because dozens of products shared a style language across various versions, but we built straight into our ways of working. The outdated model, which required exception requests and specific approvals, was failing at scale.

To help creators determine how flexible their elements should remain, we created the Flexibility Framework:

Every aspect was tied together during a transportation redesign. World research and logo remain constant. Breadcrumbs and cultural activities evolved into Flexible. Product teams could quickly identify areas where development was advantageous and where regularity was important.

The Decision Ladder

There must be boundaries for freedom. We built a straightforward staircase to determine when regulations should be broken:

Good: Include system pieces that already exist. Strong, reliable, and reliable.

Better: somewhat stretch a part. Document the shift. Bring changes up to the program so that everyone can use it.

Best: Create the ideal encounter second. Update the program to allow for user tests to verify the benefit.

Which choice allows users to achieve the fastest? is the key question.

Guidelines are tools, not objects.

Unity Beats Uniformity

Google, Drive, and Maps all speak with their own accent, but they are clearly Google. They achieve coherence through shared values rather than copied pieces. About$ 30K in engineer time is spent on one more year of box color debate.

Competency is a result of using, not a company. Part with the customer when the two fight.

Management Without Gates

How can dialects be enabled while maintaining consistency? Treat your diction like a life dictionary:

Document every change, such as dialects or warehouses. director with explanations for before and after photos.

Promote shared designs: when three teams freely adopt a dialect and assess its core inclusion.

Retire old idioms using flags and migration notes; this is never a big-bang clean. Degrade with context.

A living vocabulary performs better than a freezing handbook.

Your First Dialect: Start Small

Do you have time to introduce languages? Start with a bad practice:

Get one user flow this week where best consistency prevents task completion. Users who use wireless devices might have issues with desktop-sized components or convenience issues that their traditional patterns do not address.

What causes common patterns to fail in this environment of documentation? economic restrictions customer capabilities Task intensity?

Focus on actions rather than aesthetics, style one systematic change. If gloves are the issue, bigger targets are actually serving the customer rather than “broken the technique.” Create the adjustments and render them purposeful.

Test and determine: Does the shift make tasks more effective? Time to increase performance? customer fulfillment

Present the savings: Competence has already paid off by letting that dialect free perhaps a sprint.

Beyond the Component Library

We’re cultivating design languages, no managing design systems anymore. cultures that develop as they speak. voices without losing their significance in language. language that prioritize the needs of people over cosmetic ideals.

Our buttons breaking the style guide didn’t matter, the warehouse workers who went from 0 % to 100 % of their tasks were satisfied with our work. They were concerned that the knobs would suddenly function.

Your customers share your opinion. Give your program permission to use their speech.

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

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

Fresh lines on an organizational chart have always been the standard solution. The Design Manager handles persons, the Lead Designer handles art. Problem is fixed, isn’t it? Except that clear nonprofit charts are fantasy. In fact, both roles care greatly about crew health, style quality, and shipping great work.

When you start thinking of your style organization as a pattern organism, the magic happens when you embrace the collide rather than fighting it.

The biology of a good design team

Here’s what I’ve learned from years of being on both sides of this formula: think of your design team as a living cell. The layout manager is guided by the group dynamics, emotional security, and career growth. The Lead Designer is more focused on the body ( the user-generated design standards, the handcrafted skills ), than the hands-on work that is done.

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

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

The Nervous System: Citizens & Psychology

Major custodian: Design Manager
Supporting part: Lead Designer

Signs, comments, emotional health are all important components of the nervous program. When this technique is good, information flows easily, people feel safe to take risks, and the staff may react quickly to new problems.

The main caretaker here is the Design Manager. They are making sure the team’s emotional pulse is healthier, creating the ideal environment for growth, and keeping track of the team’s psychological pulse. They’re hosting job meetings, managing task, and making sure no single burns out.

However, the Lead Designer has a significant supporting position. They’re offering visual feedback on build development needs, identifying stagnant design skills in someone, and pointing out potential growth opportunities that the Design Manager might overlook.

Design Manager tends to:

• discussions about careers and career development
• internal security and dynamics of the group
• Overhead management and resource allocation
• Performance evaluations and input mechanisms
• Providing opportunities for learning

Direct Custom supports by:

• Providing craft-specific evaluation of team member growth
• identifying opportunities for growth and style talent gaps
• Giving design mentoring and assistance
• indicating when staff members are prepared for more challenging problems.

The Muscular System: Design, Design, and Execution

Major custodian: Lead Designer
Design Manager supporting position

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

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

However, the Design Manager has a significant supporting role. They’re making sure the team has the resources and support they need to perform their best work, such as proper nutrition and time for an athlete recovering.

Lead Designer tends to:

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

Design Manager supports by:

• ensuring that design standards are understood and accepted by all members of the team
• Confirming that the right direction is being used is being done
• Supporting practices and systems that scale without bottlenecking
• facilitating design alignment among all teams
• Providing resources and removing obstacles to outstanding craft work

The Circulatory System: Strategy &amp, Flow

Shared caretakers: Lead Designer and Design Manager, respectively.

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

True partnership occurs in this context. Although both roles are responsible for maintaining the circulation, they both have unique perspectives to offer.

Lead Designer contributes:

• The product fulfills the needs of the users.
• overall experience and product quality
• Strategic design initiatives
• User needs based on research for each initiative

Contributes the design manager:

• Communication to team and stakeholders
• Stakeholder management and alignment
• Team accountability across all levels
• Strategic business initiatives

Both parties work together:

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

Keeping the Organism Healthy

Understanding that all three systems must work together is the key to making this partnership sing. A team will eventually lose their way despite excellent craftmanship and poor psychological security. A team with great culture but weak craft execution will ship mediocre work. A team that has both but poor strategic planning will concentrate on the wrong things.

Be Specific About the System You’re Defending.

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

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

Create Positive Feedback Loops

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

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

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

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

Handle Handoffs Gracefully

When something switches from one system to another, this partnership’s most crucial moments occur. This might occur when a design standard ( muscular system ) needs to be implemented across the team ( nervous system ) or when a tactical initiative ( circulatory system ) requires a particular craft system ( muscular system ) rollout.

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

Stay original and avoid being a tourist.

The Design Manager who never thinks about craft, or the Lead Designer who never considers team dynamics, is like a doctor who only looks at one body system. Even when they aren’t the primary caretaker, great design leadership requires both people to be as concerned with the entire organism.

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

When the Organism Gets Sick

Even with clear roles, this partnership can go wrong. Here are the most typical failure modes I’ve seen:

System Isolation

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

The signs: Team members receive conflicting messages, work conditions suffer, and morale declines.

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

Poor Circulation

There is no clear strategic direction, shifting priorities, or accepting responsibility for the flow of information.

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

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

Autoimmune Response

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

The symptoms: defensive behavior, territorial disputes, middle-class teammates, etc.

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

The Payoff

Yes, this model calls for more interaction. Yes, both parties must be able to assume full responsibility for team health. But the payoff is worth it: better decisions, stronger teams, and design work that’s both excellent and sustainable.

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

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

The End result

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

The mind and body work together. The team receives both the craft excellence and strategic thinking they need. And most importantly, users benefit from both perspectives when they receive the work.

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

As a solution developer for too many years, I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen promising ideas go from being heroes in a few weeks to being useless within months.

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

The perils of feature-first growth

It’s easy to get swept up in the enthusiasm of developing innovative features when you start developing a financial product from scratch or are migrating existing client journeys from papers or phone channels to online bank or mobile applications. They may think,” If I may only add one more thing that solves this particular person problem, they’ll appreciate me”! But what happens if you eventually encounter a roadblock as a result of your safety team’s negligence? don’t like it, right? When a difficult-fought film fails to win over viewers or fails owing to unanticipated difficulty?

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

The issue with most fund apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an experience created purely for the customer. This implies that the priority should be given to delivering as some features and functionalities as possible in order to satisfy the requirements and wishes of competing internal departments as opposed to crafting a compelling value proposition that is focused on what people in the real world actually want. As a result, these products can very quickly became a mixed bag of misleading, related, and finally unhappy customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The significance of the foundation

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

The concept of “bedrock” comes into play in this context. The mainstay of your product is really important to people, and Bedrock is that. It’s the fundamental building block that creates price and maintains relevance over time.

The rock has to be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the world of retail bank, which is where I work. People only look at their existing accounts once every blue sky, but they do so every day. They purchase a credit card every year or two, but they at least once a month assess their stability and pay their bills.

The key is in identifying the main tasks that individuals want to complete and therefore persistently striving to make them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

But how do you reach the foundation? By focusing on the” MVP” strategy, giving clarity the top priority, and working toward a distinct value proposition. This means avoiding pointless extras and putting your clients first, making the most of them.

It also requires some nerve, as your coworkers might not always agree on your perspective right away. And in some cases, it might even mean making it clear to consumers that you won’t be coming over to their home to prepare their meal. Sometimes you need to use “opinionated user interface design” ( i .e., clumsy workaround for edge cases ) to test a concept or to give yourself some more time to work on something else.

Functional methods for creating financially successful items

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

1. What trouble are you trying to solve first and foremost with a distinct “why”? For whom? Before beginning any project, make sure your vision is completely clear. Make certain it also complies with the goals of your business.
2. Avoid putting too many features on the list at after; instead, focus on getting that right first. Choose one that actually adds benefit, and work from that.
3. When it comes to financial goods, clarity is often over difficulty. Eliminate unwanted details and concentrate solely on what matters most.
4. Accept constant iteration: Bedrock is not a fixed destination; it is a dynamic process. Continuously collect customer comments, make product improvements, and advance in that direction.
5. Stop, look, and listen: Don’t just go through with testing your product as part of the delivery process; test it constantly in the field. Use it for yourself. Work A/B testing. User opinions on Gear. Speak to the users of it and make adjustments accordingly.

The rock dilemma

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

How do you begin your quest for rock, then? Consider it gradually. Start by identifying the underlying factors that your customers actually care about. Focus on developing and improving a second, potent function that delivers real value. And most importantly, make an obsessive effort because, whatever you think, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker, you can’t deny it! The best way to foretell the future is to make it, he said.