Category: Blog

Like many players, I was hesitant as Microsoft gradually acquired some of the biggest sport producers in the world, including Activision Blizzard and ZeniMax Media. It was worrying to believe this could lead to a renewed time of big names trapped within the confines of software luxury. These concerns were largely alleviated, however, in the [ …]

The article Indiana Jones on PS5: Was Microsoft Be Going the Way of Sega? appeared second on Den of Geek.

With a grappling present, the opening match may be nearly as important as the main event. While the main function is about finishing the show in a climax style and leaving a lasting impact, you also need to get the visitors into the proceedings with a criminal start. Find the blood pumping and start all the energy to carry the next few days.

With WrestleMania being WWE’s biggest display of the year, those opening hours can often send us some great fits to get the game rolling. Here are the seamers that really started the show out right. For the sake of earth rules, we’re counting fits on the standard show itself, but no pre-shows or black matches.

The Rockers vs. Haku and The Barbarian ( WrestleMania VII )

WrestleMania VII was a good WrestleMania display with an additional hour or so of little matches topped on for the sake of getting people a paycheck. This opening worked to that edge, as there was zero history between The Rockers and Bobby Heenan’s warriors going in, but they ended up pulling off precisely the kind of match the present needed. It helped that this was the last real gasp of tag team wrestling actually mattering in WWF and just having two teams go out there and put on a solid performance was a regular thing.

It also helped that it had a great dynamic that any new viewer could pick up on: the lumbering and powerful heels up against the plucky faces who were smaller but could run rings around them. Lots of fun tag tropes and teamwork thrown in from The Rockers made this work and showed that even before he broke out as a solo star, Shawn Michaels was earning his reputation as Mr. WrestleMania.

Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart ( WrestleMania X )

Bret Hart had an eventful time at Royal Rumble 1994. In the undercard, he and his brother Owen lost when challenging for the tag team titles, causing Owen to snap and brutalize Bret’s hurt leg. Bret then pulled himself together to compete in the Royal Rumble match that night, becoming co-winners with Lex Luger due to falling to the floor at the same time. It was decided that Bret would face Owen at WrestleMania in an exhibition, as he’d then go on to face the winner of Lex Luger vs. Yokozuna in the main event.

Owen was already mad about how reluctant Bret was to face him, only now he was madder that Bret was technically looking past him, as he was going to compete for the title, win or lose. On the same night that gave us the legendary ladder match between Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon, the event peaked early with this battle between brothers. The two put on an excellent show full of amazing ringwork and reversals. That it ended with Owen cleanly getting an upset win was the icing on the cake.

Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero ( WrestleMania 21 )

Awesome as this one is, it ’s also a bittersweet middle to a thematic trilogy between the two competitors. At the previous WrestleMania, Eddie Guerrero successfully defended the WWE Championship and stood tall in the PPV’s final shot. In the months that followed, Eddie fell down the card and ended up as tag champ with Rey Mysterio. To open WrestleMania 21, the two partners had a singles match against each other, trying to stand on the legacy of their classic from Halloween Havoc 1997. While the two did n’t quite reach those heights, they still killed it and showed that they still had that chemistry. Despite Eddie’s best efforts, he could n’t keep Mysterio down for three and ended up losing to a flash pin, setting the stage for a heel turn and ridiculous storyline centered around the custody of a young Dominik Mysterio.

Sadly, this would be Eddie’s final WrestleMania due to a sudden death from heart issues. In the follow-up, Rey Mysterio would win the 2006 Royal Rumble match to make his way to WrestleMania 22, where he would win the World Heavyweight Championship. All the while, it was used as a tribute to his former tag partner and one of his greatest opponents.

Money in the Bank ( WrestleMania 23 )

The Money in the Bank concept was introduced at WrestleMania 21 and ended up being a huge success. It was n’t until its third installment at WrestleMania 23 that they decided to lead with it, and they went full ham by making it an eight-man match. A great set of talent here with initial winner Edge being joined by CM Punk, Randy Orton, King Booker, Finlay, Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, and Matt Hardy. Then you get Sharmell and Hornswoggle showing up, making this one of the more chaotic takes on the match.

There was rarely a bad Money in the Bank match, especially early on, and this one’s no different. They do get silly, like having Booker pull out a tiny ladder in the heat of the moment and the later bit where he could win the match, but Matt Hardy threatens Sharmell with a Twist of Fate unless he steps down. Then you get the crazy spots, like when Edge is laying on a ladder acting as a bridge and Jeff Hardy jumps off another ladder and into Edge. Or the time when Mr. Kennedy does the Green Bay Plunge on Hornswoggle off a ladder. Kennedy himself would end up winning this one, though his aftermath as the briefcase holder was entirely cursed.

Finlay vs. JBL ( WrestleMania XXIV )

Mercifully, WWE was finally putting an end to one of their most grueling ongoing stories about Hornswoggle being Vince McMahon’s illegitimate son. Only it turns out Vince was n’t the father, as it was really Finlay. Sure. This was all revealed after JBL beat the leprechaun half to death, setting up this “Belfast Brawl, ” which is quite a sentence I just typed. After months and months of awful McMahon sketches and segments, we were at least going to get a cool hardcore match out of it. We’ll take our wins where we can get them.

It’ s rare for WrestleMania to start off with a plunder match, but this one really gets the crowd going thanks to it being two stiff workers who can take it as much as they can dish it out. This also gives us the fantastic moment where JBL is in the ring with a trash can, sees Hornswoggle scrambling around on the outside, and just whips the can at him at lightning speed. JBL winning might have been seen as a downer, but putting this whole angle out of its misery was something to be celebrated.

Daniel Bryan vs. Triple H ( WrestleMania XXX )

The road to WrestleMania XXX was like somebody falling down the stairs, somehow landing on their feet, and insisting that they meant to do that. Daniel Bryan was meant to be swept under the rug as a top guy, but between CM Punk’s abrupt exodus from the company, the fanbase’s complete rejection of Batista as the top face, and an utterly disastrous Royal Rumble, they ended up being bullied into a fantastic main event storyline centering around Bryan winning the WWE World Heavyweight Championship against Randy Orton and Batista.

But that was n’t his only match of the night. In order to earn his spot in the main event, he had to face evil boss Triple H at the start of the show. It was their one and only match together, which made it more of a novelty to see so early on. The two jibed perfectly and we got one of the last truly great matches in Triple H’s career. Even though this was Bryan’s match to win, Triple H’s tendency to use his real life backstage sway mixed with how many times Bryan’s fans had been burned threw in a non-zero chance that the hero was n’t going to pull it off.

Seth Rollins vs. Finn Balor vs. The Miz ( WrestleMania 34 )

When done right, a triple threat match can really complement what the talent brings to the table. Seth Rollins and Finn Balor once had a great match to crown the first ever Universal Champion. Here, they were fighting for Miz’s Intercontinental Championship and by throwing the extra guy in there, it just allowed for a fast-paced match full of inventive spots and the ability to trade out a wrestler to rest up before jumping back into the fray.

Even with Miz being the weakest of the three wrestlers, he still adds a fantastic dynamic of being the one who takes advantage of the situation. Lots of moments of him trying to be an opportunist, including a wonderful spot where Rollins just barely escapes a roll-up pin from Balor, and is so distraught and distracted by making sure the ref only counted to two that it leaves him open for a sudden Skull-Crushing Finale. The extra man keeps spoiling the pinfalls until it ’s time for Rollins to flatten both opponents one after another with his Curb Stomp.

Seth Rollins vs. Brock Lesnar ( WrestleMania 35 )

Brock Lesnar was at one point the ultimate threat in WWE. At the same time, Seth Rollins was being built up as a top face and was challenging him for the Universal Championship. Despite the high-profile nature of this bout, the narrative, according to Paul Heyman, was that Brock was pissed about not being the main event. If he was n’t going to be the main event, he would open the show so he could be done with things early and skip town. Brock was so furious that he jumped Rollins during the entrance and unfairly destroyed him before the bell could even ring.

Rollins insisted on going through with the match and turned things around with an illegal punch to the balls. It was cheating, but it was justified. Rollins then spammed his Curb Stomp three times in a row to keep Brock down, winning the title in just a couple of minutes. Rollins would eventually beat Brock fair and square to give him that major rub ( immediately undone by his Fiend feud ), but this quick and impactful win was definitely a great start to the PPV.

Drew McIntyre vs. Bobby Lashley ( WrestleMania 37 )

WrestleMania 37 Night 1 had a very unique situation going on at the start. For one, this was the first major WWE show since the pandemic that had a full crowd. By default, this crowd starting off WrestleMania would be off the wall pumped. The problem was that there was a nasty storm that caused a major delay, and by the time they were ready to do the actual wrestling, the crowd was wet and defused.

It was n’t instantaneous, but Drew McIntyre and Bobby Lashley going at it eventually woke them up. Two big, meaty men slapping meat will do that sometimes. A great pairing who played off each other well, they did a good job making both of them seem like irresistible forces and immovable objects at the same time. It did involve a screwy finish, but Lashley being able to knock out Drew with the Hurt Lock really put a bow on how dominating the Almighty could be. Definitely better than the following night’s goofball Randy Orton vs. Fiend match and its “box-like structure ” bullshit.

Becky Lynch vs. Rhea Ripley ( WrestleMania XL )

Fun fact, it was n’t until WrestleMania 36 that a women’s match started off one of these shows. Even then, Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross vs. The Kabuki Warriors had no crowd to win over thanks to that pesky COVID thing that just made a mess of the world. We would n’t see any women fight it out at the beginning until the 40th WrestleMania in what was arguably the biggest potential match that WWE could put together with that division.

On one side, it was Rhea Ripley, who had an incredibly lengthy and popular run as WWE Women’s World Champion. On the other side, it was Becky Lynch, the woman who once won the main event of WrestleMania and was fresh off releasing her autobiography. It was a hard-hitting passing of the torch that ’s way more impressive when you realize that Becky was also battling through strep throat that week. Even with that handicap, the two started the show off with a bang.

The post The Best Opening Matches in WWE WrestleMania History appeared first on Den of Geek.

This essay contains Sinners clues. In a film suffused with unearthly music sequences and fantastical imagery, it is simply the weirdest point we see. Jack O’Connell’s presumably thousand-year-old Remmick is performing a Celtic jig from his homeland, and freshly turned vampires like poor disfigured Cornbread ( Omar Benson Miller ), lonely Mary ( Hailee Steinfeld ), and even rebellious [ … ]

The article Sinners: Ryan Coogler Reveals the Devil’s Bargain of America appeared initially on Den of Geek.

With a grappling present, the opening match may be nearly as important as the main event. While the main function is about finishing the show in a climax style and leaving a lasting impact, you also need to get the visitors into the proceedings with a criminal start. Find the blood pumping and start all the energy to carry the next few days.

With WrestleMania being WWE’s biggest display of the year, those opening hours can often send us some great fits to get the game rolling. Here are the seamers that really started the show out right. For the sake of earth rules, we’re counting fits on the standard show itself, but no pre-shows or black matches.

The Rockers vs. Haku and The Barbarian ( WrestleMania VII )

WrestleMania VII was a good WrestleMania display with an additional hour or so of little matches topped on for the sake of getting people a paycheck. This opening worked to that edge, as there was zero history between The Rockers and Bobby Heenan’s warriors going in, but they ended up pulling off precisely the kind of match the present needed. It helped that this was the last real gasp of tag team wrestling actually mattering in WWF and just having two teams go out there and put on a solid performance was a regular thing.

It also helped that it had a great dynamic that any new viewer could pick up on: the lumbering and powerful heels up against the plucky faces who were smaller but could run rings around them. Lots of fun tag tropes and teamwork thrown in from The Rockers made this work and showed that even before he broke out as a solo star, Shawn Michaels was earning his reputation as Mr. WrestleMania.

Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart ( WrestleMania X )

Bret Hart had an eventful time at Royal Rumble 1994. In the undercard, he and his brother Owen lost when challenging for the tag team titles, causing Owen to snap and brutalize Bret’s hurt leg. Bret then pulled himself together to compete in the Royal Rumble match that night, becoming co-winners with Lex Luger due to falling to the floor at the same time. It was decided that Bret would face Owen at WrestleMania in an exhibition, as he’d then go on to face the winner of Lex Luger vs. Yokozuna in the main event.

Owen was already mad about how reluctant Bret was to face him, only now he was madder that Bret was technically looking past him, as he was going to compete for the title, win or lose. On the same night that gave us the legendary ladder match between Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon, the event peaked early with this battle between brothers. The two put on an excellent show full of amazing ringwork and reversals. That it ended with Owen cleanly getting an upset win was the icing on the cake.

Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero ( WrestleMania 21 )

Awesome as this one is, it ’s also a bittersweet middle to a thematic trilogy between the two competitors. At the previous WrestleMania, Eddie Guerrero successfully defended the WWE Championship and stood tall in the PPV’s final shot. In the months that followed, Eddie fell down the card and ended up as tag champ with Rey Mysterio. To open WrestleMania 21, the two partners had a singles match against each other, trying to stand on the legacy of their classic from Halloween Havoc 1997. While the two did n’t quite reach those heights, they still killed it and showed that they still had that chemistry. Despite Eddie’s best efforts, he could n’t keep Mysterio down for three and ended up losing to a flash pin, setting the stage for a heel turn and ridiculous storyline centered around the custody of a young Dominik Mysterio.

Sadly, this would be Eddie’s final WrestleMania due to a sudden death from heart issues. In the follow-up, Rey Mysterio would win the 2006 Royal Rumble match to make his way to WrestleMania 22, where he would win the World Heavyweight Championship. All the while, it was used as a tribute to his former tag partner and one of his greatest opponents.

Money in the Bank ( WrestleMania 23 )

The Money in the Bank concept was introduced at WrestleMania 21 and ended up being a huge success. It was n’t until its third installment at WrestleMania 23 that they decided to lead with it, and they went full ham by making it an eight-man match. A great set of talent here with initial winner Edge being joined by CM Punk, Randy Orton, King Booker, Finlay, Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, and Matt Hardy. Then you get Sharmell and Hornswoggle showing up, making this one of the more chaotic takes on the match.

There was rarely a bad Money in the Bank match, especially early on, and this one’s no different. They do get silly, like having Booker pull out a tiny ladder in the heat of the moment and the later bit where he could win the match, but Matt Hardy threatens Sharmell with a Twist of Fate unless he steps down. Then you get the crazy spots, like when Edge is laying on a ladder acting as a bridge and Jeff Hardy jumps off another ladder and into Edge. Or the time when Mr. Kennedy does the Green Bay Plunge on Hornswoggle off a ladder. Kennedy himself would end up winning this one, though his aftermath as the briefcase holder was entirely cursed.

Finlay vs. JBL ( WrestleMania XXIV )

Mercifully, WWE was finally putting an end to one of their most grueling ongoing stories about Hornswoggle being Vince McMahon’s illegitimate son. Only it turns out Vince was n’t the father, as it was really Finlay. Sure. This was all revealed after JBL beat the leprechaun half to death, setting up this “Belfast Brawl, ” which is quite a sentence I just typed. After months and months of awful McMahon sketches and segments, we were at least going to get a cool hardcore match out of it. We’ll take our wins where we can get them.

It’ s rare for WrestleMania to start off with a plunder match, but this one really gets the crowd going thanks to it being two stiff workers who can take it as much as they can dish it out. This also gives us the fantastic moment where JBL is in the ring with a trash can, sees Hornswoggle scrambling around on the outside, and just whips the can at him at lightning speed. JBL winning might have been seen as a downer, but putting this whole angle out of its misery was something to be celebrated.

Daniel Bryan vs. Triple H ( WrestleMania XXX )

The road to WrestleMania XXX was like somebody falling down the stairs, somehow landing on their feet, and insisting that they meant to do that. Daniel Bryan was meant to be swept under the rug as a top guy, but between CM Punk’s abrupt exodus from the company, the fanbase’s complete rejection of Batista as the top face, and an utterly disastrous Royal Rumble, they ended up being bullied into a fantastic main event storyline centering around Bryan winning the WWE World Heavyweight Championship against Randy Orton and Batista.

But that was n’t his only match of the night. In order to earn his spot in the main event, he had to face evil boss Triple H at the start of the show. It was their one and only match together, which made it more of a novelty to see so early on. The two jibed perfectly and we got one of the last truly great matches in Triple H’s career. Even though this was Bryan’s match to win, Triple H’s tendency to use his real life backstage sway mixed with how many times Bryan’s fans had been burned threw in a non-zero chance that the hero was n’t going to pull it off.

Seth Rollins vs. Finn Balor vs. The Miz ( WrestleMania 34 )

When done right, a triple threat match can really complement what the talent brings to the table. Seth Rollins and Finn Balor once had a great match to crown the first ever Universal Champion. Here, they were fighting for Miz’s Intercontinental Championship and by throwing the extra guy in there, it just allowed for a fast-paced match full of inventive spots and the ability to trade out a wrestler to rest up before jumping back into the fray.

Even with Miz being the weakest of the three wrestlers, he still adds a fantastic dynamic of being the one who takes advantage of the situation. Lots of moments of him trying to be an opportunist, including a wonderful spot where Rollins just barely escapes a roll-up pin from Balor, and is so distraught and distracted by making sure the ref only counted to two that it leaves him open for a sudden Skull-Crushing Finale. The extra man keeps spoiling the pinfalls until it ’s time for Rollins to flatten both opponents one after another with his Curb Stomp.

Seth Rollins vs. Brock Lesnar ( WrestleMania 35 )

Brock Lesnar was at one point the ultimate threat in WWE. At the same time, Seth Rollins was being built up as a top face and was challenging him for the Universal Championship. Despite the high-profile nature of this bout, the narrative, according to Paul Heyman, was that Brock was pissed about not being the main event. If he was n’t going to be the main event, he would open the show so he could be done with things early and skip town. Brock was so furious that he jumped Rollins during the entrance and unfairly destroyed him before the bell could even ring.

Rollins insisted on going through with the match and turned things around with an illegal punch to the balls. It was cheating, but it was justified. Rollins then spammed his Curb Stomp three times in a row to keep Brock down, winning the title in just a couple of minutes. Rollins would eventually beat Brock fair and square to give him that major rub ( immediately undone by his Fiend feud ), but this quick and impactful win was definitely a great start to the PPV.

Drew McIntyre vs. Bobby Lashley ( WrestleMania 37 )

WrestleMania 37 Night 1 had a very unique situation going on at the start. For one, this was the first major WWE show since the pandemic that had a full crowd. By default, this crowd starting off WrestleMania would be off the wall pumped. The problem was that there was a nasty storm that caused a major delay, and by the time they were ready to do the actual wrestling, the crowd was wet and defused.

It was n’t instantaneous, but Drew McIntyre and Bobby Lashley going at it eventually woke them up. Two big, meaty men slapping meat will do that sometimes. A great pairing who played off each other well, they did a good job making both of them seem like irresistible forces and immovable objects at the same time. It did involve a screwy finish, but Lashley being able to knock out Drew with the Hurt Lock really put a bow on how dominating the Almighty could be. Definitely better than the following night’s goofball Randy Orton vs. Fiend match and its “box-like structure ” bullshit.

Becky Lynch vs. Rhea Ripley ( WrestleMania XL )

Fun fact, it was n’t until WrestleMania 36 that a women’s match started off one of these shows. Even then, Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross vs. The Kabuki Warriors had no crowd to win over thanks to that pesky COVID thing that just made a mess of the world. We would n’t see any women fight it out at the beginning until the 40th WrestleMania in what was arguably the biggest potential match that WWE could put together with that division.

On one side, it was Rhea Ripley, who had an incredibly lengthy and popular run as WWE Women’s World Champion. On the other side, it was Becky Lynch, the woman who once won the main event of WrestleMania and was fresh off releasing her autobiography. It was a hard-hitting passing of the torch that ’s way more impressive when you realize that Becky was also battling through strep throat that week. Even with that handicap, the two started the show off with a bang.

The post The Best Opening Matches in WWE WrestleMania History appeared first on Den of Geek.

The Man Who Fell to Earth. Labyrinth. The Notoriety. These are the headings that often come to mind when people think of David Bowie’s movie profession, and with good cause. Also when playing real-world scholar Nikola Tesla in The Fame, each of these shows captured Bowie’s ephemeral public image. Bowie floated through the movies like [ …]

The article David Bowie’s Best Performance Came in a Jesus Movie appeared second on Den of Geek.

With a grappling present, the opening match may be nearly as important as the main event. While the main function is about finishing the show in a climax style and leaving a lasting impact, you also need to get the visitors into the proceedings with a criminal start. Find the blood pumping and start all the energy to carry the next few days.

With WrestleMania being WWE’s biggest display of the year, those opening hours can often send us some great fits to get the game rolling. Here are the seamers that really started the show out right. For the sake of earth rules, we’re counting fits on the formal show itself, but no pre-shows or black matches.

The Rockers vs. Haku and The Barbarian ( WrestleMania VII )

WrestleMania VII was a good WrestleMania display with an additional hour or so of little matches topped on for the sake of getting people a paycheck. This opening worked to that edge, as there was zero history between The Rockers and Bobby Heenan’s warriors going in, but they ended up pulling off precisely the kind of match the present needed. It helped that this was the last real gasp of tag team wrestling actually mattering in WWF and just having two teams go out there and put on a solid performance was a regular thing.

It also helped that it had a great dynamic that any new viewer could pick up on: the lumbering and powerful heels up against the plucky faces who were smaller but could run rings around them. Lots of fun tag tropes and teamwork thrown in from The Rockers made this work and showed that even before he broke out as a solo star, Shawn Michaels was earning his reputation as Mr. WrestleMania.

Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart ( WrestleMania X )

Bret Hart had an eventful time at Royal Rumble 1994. In the undercard, he and his brother Owen lost when challenging for the tag team titles, causing Owen to snap and brutalize Bret’s hurt leg. Bret then pulled himself together to compete in the Royal Rumble match that night, becoming co-winners with Lex Luger due to falling to the floor at the same time. It was decided that Bret would face Owen at WrestleMania in an exhibition, as he’d then go on to face the winner of Lex Luger vs. Yokozuna in the main event.

Owen was already mad about how reluctant Bret was to face him, only now he was madder that Bret was technically looking past him, as he was going to compete for the title, win or lose. On the same night that gave us the legendary ladder match between Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon, the event peaked early with this battle between brothers. The two put on an excellent show full of amazing ringwork and reversals. That it ended with Owen cleanly getting an upset win was the icing on the cake.

Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero ( WrestleMania 21 )

Awesome as this one is, it ’s also a bittersweet middle to a thematic trilogy between the two competitors. At the previous WrestleMania, Eddie Guerrero successfully defended the WWE Championship and stood tall in the PPV’s final shot. In the months that followed, Eddie fell down the card and ended up as tag champ with Rey Mysterio. To open WrestleMania 21, the two partners had a singles match against each other, trying to stand on the legacy of their classic from Halloween Havoc 1997. While the two did n’t quite reach those heights, they still killed it and showed that they still had that chemistry. Despite Eddie’s best efforts, he could n’t keep Mysterio down for three and ended up losing to a flash pin, setting the stage for a heel turn and ridiculous storyline centered around the custody of a young Dominik Mysterio.

Sadly, this would be Eddie’s final WrestleMania due to a sudden death from heart issues. In the follow-up, Rey Mysterio would win the 2006 Royal Rumble match to make his way to WrestleMania 22, where he would win the World Heavyweight Championship. All the while, it was used as a tribute to his former tag partner and one of his greatest opponents.

Money in the Bank ( WrestleMania 23 )

The Money in the Bank concept was introduced at WrestleMania 21 and ended up being a huge success. It was n’t until its third installment at WrestleMania 23 that they decided to lead with it, and they went full ham by making it an eight-man match. A great set of talent here with initial winner Edge being joined by CM Punk, Randy Orton, King Booker, Finlay, Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, and Matt Hardy. Then you get Sharmell and Hornswoggle showing up, making this one of the more chaotic takes on the match.

There was rarely a bad Money in the Bank match, especially early on, and this one’s no different. They do get silly, like having Booker pull out a tiny ladder in the heat of the moment and the later bit where he could win the match, but Matt Hardy threatens Sharmell with a Twist of Fate unless he steps down. Then you get the crazy spots, like when Edge is laying on a ladder acting as a bridge and Jeff Hardy jumps off another ladder and into Edge. Or the time when Mr. Kennedy does the Green Bay Plunge on Hornswoggle off a ladder. Kennedy himself would end up winning this one, though his aftermath as the briefcase holder was entirely cursed.

Finlay vs. JBL ( WrestleMania XXIV )

Mercifully, WWE was finally putting an end to one of their most grueling ongoing stories about Hornswoggle being Vince McMahon’s illegitimate son. Only it turns out Vince was n’t the father, as it was really Finlay. Sure. This was all revealed after JBL beat the leprechaun half to death, setting up this “Belfast Brawl, ” which is quite a sentence I just typed. After months and months of awful McMahon sketches and segments, we were at least going to get a cool hardcore match out of it. We’ll take our wins where we can get them.

It’ s rare for WrestleMania to start off with a plunder match, but this one really gets the crowd going thanks to it being two stiff workers who can take it as much as they can dish it out. This also gives us the fantastic moment where JBL is in the ring with a trash can, sees Hornswoggle scrambling around on the outside, and just whips the can at him at lightning speed. JBL winning might have been seen as a downer, but putting this whole angle out of its misery was something to be celebrated.

Daniel Bryan vs. Triple H ( WrestleMania XXX )

The road to WrestleMania XXX was like somebody falling down the stairs, somehow landing on their feet, and insisting that they meant to do that. Daniel Bryan was meant to be swept under the rug as a top guy, but between CM Punk’s abrupt exodus from the company, the fanbase’s complete rejection of Batista as the top face, and an utterly disastrous Royal Rumble, they ended up being bullied into a fantastic main event storyline centering around Bryan winning the WWE World Heavyweight Championship against Randy Orton and Batista.

But that was n’t his only match of the night. In order to earn his spot in the main event, he had to face evil boss Triple H at the start of the show. It was their one and only match together, which made it more of a novelty to see so early on. The two jibed perfectly and we got one of the last truly great matches in Triple H’s career. Even though this was Bryan’s match to win, Triple H’s tendency to use his real life backstage sway mixed with how many times Bryan’s fans had been burned threw in a non-zero chance that the hero was n’t going to pull it off.

Seth Rollins vs. Finn Balor vs. The Miz ( WrestleMania 34 )

When done right, a triple threat match can really complement what the talent brings to the table. Seth Rollins and Finn Balor once had a great match to crown the first ever Universal Champion. Here, they were fighting for Miz’s Intercontinental Championship and by throwing the extra guy in there, it just allowed for a fast-paced match full of inventive spots and the ability to trade out a wrestler to rest up before jumping back into the fray.

Even with Miz being the weakest of the three wrestlers, he still adds a fantastic dynamic of being the one who takes advantage of the situation. Lots of moments of him trying to be an opportunist, including a wonderful spot where Rollins just barely escapes a roll-up pin from Balor, and is so distraught and distracted by making sure the ref only counted to two that it leaves him open for a sudden Skull-Crushing Finale. The extra man keeps spoiling the pinfalls until it ’s time for Rollins to flatten both opponents one after another with his Curb Stomp.

Seth Rollins vs. Brock Lesnar ( WrestleMania 35 )

Brock Lesnar was at one point the ultimate threat in WWE. At the same time, Seth Rollins was being built up as a top face and was challenging him for the Universal Championship. Despite the high-profile nature of this bout, the narrative, according to Paul Heyman, was that Brock was pissed about not being the main event. If he was n’t going to be the main event, he would open the show so he could be done with things early and skip town. Brock was so furious that he jumped Rollins during the entrance and unfairly destroyed him before the bell could even ring.

Rollins insisted on going through with the match and turned things around with an illegal punch to the balls. It was cheating, but it was justified. Rollins then spammed his Curb Stomp three times in a row to keep Brock down, winning the title in just a couple of minutes. Rollins would eventually beat Brock fair and square to give him that major rub ( immediately undone by his Fiend feud ), but this quick and impactful win was definitely a great start to the PPV.

Drew McIntyre vs. Bobby Lashley ( WrestleMania 37 )

WrestleMania 37 Night 1 had a very unique situation going on at the start. For one, this was the first major WWE show since the pandemic that had a full crowd. By default, this crowd starting off WrestleMania would be off the wall pumped. The problem was that there was a nasty storm that caused a major delay, and by the time they were ready to do the actual wrestling, the crowd was wet and defused.

It was n’t instantaneous, but Drew McIntyre and Bobby Lashley going at it eventually woke them up. Two big, meaty men slapping meat will do that sometimes. A great pairing who played off each other well, they did a good job making both of them seem like irresistible forces and immovable objects at the same time. It did involve a screwy finish, but Lashley being able to knock out Drew with the Hurt Lock really put a bow on how dominating the Almighty could be. Definitely better than the following night’s goofball Randy Orton vs. Fiend match and its “box-like structure ” bullshit.

Becky Lynch vs. Rhea Ripley ( WrestleMania XL )

Fun fact, it was n’t until WrestleMania 36 that a women’s match started off one of these shows. Even then, Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross vs. The Kabuki Warriors had no crowd to win over thanks to that pesky COVID thing that just made a mess of the world. We would n’t see any women fight it out at the beginning until the 40th WrestleMania in what was arguably the biggest potential match that WWE could put together with that division.

On one side, it was Rhea Ripley, who had an incredibly lengthy and popular run as WWE Women’s World Champion. On the other side, it was Becky Lynch, the woman who once won the main event of WrestleMania and was fresh off releasing her autobiography. It was a hard-hitting passing of the torch that ’s way more impressive when you realize that Becky was also battling through strep throat that week. Even with that handicap, the two started the show off with a bang.

The post The Best Opening Matches in WWE WrestleMania History appeared first on Den of Geek.

With a grappling present, the opening match may be nearly as important as the main event. While the main function is about finishing the show in a climax style and leaving a lasting impact, you also need to get the visitors into the proceedings with a criminal start. Get the blood pumping and start all [ …]

The article The Best Starting Games in WWE WrestleMania History appeared initially on Den of Geek.

With a grappling present, the opening match may be nearly as important as the main event. While the main function is about finishing the show in a climax style and leaving a lasting impact, you also need to get the visitors into the proceedings with a criminal start. Find the blood pumping and start all the energy to carry the next few days.

With WrestleMania being WWE’s biggest display of the year, those opening hours can often send us some great matches to get the game rolling. Here are the openers that truly started the show off right. For the sake of ground rules, we’re counting matches on the official show itself, so no pre-shows or dark matches.

The Rockers vs. Haku and The Barbarian ( WrestleMania VII )

WrestleMania VII was a solid WrestleMania show with an extra hour or so of nothing matches topped on for the sake of getting everyone a paycheck. This opener worked to that advantage, as there was zero story between The Rockers and Bobby Heenan’s goons going in, but they ended up pulling off exactly the kind of match the show needed. It helped that this was the last real gasp of tag team wrestling actually mattering in WWF and just having two teams go out there and put on a solid performance was a regular thing.

It also helped that it had a great dynamic that any new viewer could pick up on: the lumbering and powerful heels up against the plucky faces who were smaller but could run rings around them. Lots of fun tag tropes and teamwork thrown in from The Rockers made this work and showed that even before he broke out as a solo star, Shawn Michaels was earning his reputation as Mr. WrestleMania.

Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart ( WrestleMania X )

Bret Hart had an eventful time at Royal Rumble 1994. In the undercard, he and his brother Owen lost when challenging for the tag team titles, causing Owen to snap and brutalize Bret’s hurt leg. Bret then pulled himself together to compete in the Royal Rumble match that night, becoming co-winners with Lex Luger due to falling to the floor at the same time. It was decided that Bret would face Owen at WrestleMania in an exhibition, as he’d then go on to face the winner of Lex Luger vs. Yokozuna in the main event.

Owen was already mad about how reluctant Bret was to face him, only now he was madder that Bret was technically looking past him, as he was going to compete for the title, win or lose. On the same night that gave us the legendary ladder match between Shawn Michaels and Razor Ramon, the event peaked early with this battle between brothers. The two put on an excellent show full of amazing ringwork and reversals. That it ended with Owen cleanly getting an upset win was the icing on the cake.

Rey Mysterio vs. Eddie Guerrero ( WrestleMania 21 )

Awesome as this one is, it ’s also a bittersweet middle to a thematic trilogy between the two competitors. At the previous WrestleMania, Eddie Guerrero successfully defended the WWE Championship and stood tall in the PPV’s final shot. In the months that followed, Eddie fell down the card and ended up as tag champ with Rey Mysterio. To open WrestleMania 21, the two partners had a singles match against each other, trying to stand on the legacy of their classic from Halloween Havoc 1997. While the two did n’t quite reach those heights, they still killed it and showed that they still had that chemistry. Despite Eddie’s best efforts, he could n’t keep Mysterio down for three and ended up losing to a flash pin, setting the stage for a heel turn and ridiculous storyline centered around the custody of a young Dominik Mysterio.

Sadly, this would be Eddie’s final WrestleMania due to a sudden death from heart issues. In the follow-up, Rey Mysterio would win the 2006 Royal Rumble match to make his way to WrestleMania 22, where he would win the World Heavyweight Championship. All the while, it was used as a tribute to his former tag partner and one of his greatest opponents.

Money in the Bank ( WrestleMania 23 )

The Money in the Bank concept was introduced at WrestleMania 21 and ended up being a huge success. It was n’t until its third installment at WrestleMania 23 that they decided to lead with it, and they went full ham by making it an eight-man match. A great set of talent here with initial winner Edge being joined by CM Punk, Randy Orton, King Booker, Finlay, Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Hardy, and Matt Hardy. Then you get Sharmell and Hornswoggle showing up, making this one of the more chaotic takes on the match.

There was rarely a bad Money in the Bank match, especially early on, and this one’s no different. They do get silly, like having Booker pull out a tiny ladder in the heat of the moment and the later bit where he could win the match, but Matt Hardy threatens Sharmell with a Twist of Fate unless he steps down. Then you get the crazy spots, like when Edge is laying on a ladder acting as a bridge and Jeff Hardy jumps off another ladder and into Edge. Or the time when Mr. Kennedy does the Green Bay Plunge on Hornswoggle off a ladder. Kennedy himself would end up winning this one, though his aftermath as the briefcase holder was entirely cursed.

Finlay vs. JBL ( WrestleMania XXIV )

Mercifully, WWE was finally putting an end to one of their most grueling ongoing stories about Hornswoggle being Vince McMahon’s illegitimate son. Only it turns out Vince was n’t the father, as it was really Finlay. Sure. This was all revealed after JBL beat the leprechaun half to death, setting up this “Belfast Brawl, ” which is quite a sentence I just typed. After months and months of awful McMahon sketches and segments, we were at least going to get a cool hardcore match out of it. We’ll take our wins where we can get them.

It’ s rare for WrestleMania to start off with a plunder match, but this one really gets the crowd going thanks to it being two stiff workers who can take it as much as they can dish it out. This also gives us the fantastic moment where JBL is in the ring with a trash can, sees Hornswoggle scrambling around on the outside, and just whips the can at him at lightning speed. JBL winning might have been seen as a downer, but putting this whole angle out of its misery was something to be celebrated.

Daniel Bryan vs. Triple H ( WrestleMania XXX )

The road to WrestleMania XXX was like somebody falling down the stairs, somehow landing on their feet, and insisting that they meant to do that. Daniel Bryan was meant to be swept under the rug as a top guy, but between CM Punk’s abrupt exodus from the company, the fanbase’s complete rejection of Batista as the top face, and an utterly disastrous Royal Rumble, they ended up being bullied into a fantastic main event storyline centering around Bryan winning the WWE World Heavyweight Championship against Randy Orton and Batista.

But that was n’t his only match of the night. In order to earn his spot in the main event, he had to face evil boss Triple H at the start of the show. It was their one and only match together, which made it more of a novelty to see so early on. The two jibed perfectly and we got one of the last truly great matches in Triple H’s career. Even though this was Bryan’s match to win, Triple H’s tendency to use his real life backstage sway mixed with how many times Bryan’s fans had been burned threw in a non-zero chance that the hero was n’t going to pull it off.

Seth Rollins vs. Finn Balor vs. The Miz ( WrestleMania 34 )

When done right, a triple threat match can really complement what the talent brings to the table. Seth Rollins and Finn Balor once had a great match to crown the first ever Universal Champion. Here, they were fighting for Miz’s Intercontinental Championship and by throwing the extra guy in there, it just allowed for a fast-paced match full of inventive spots and the ability to trade out a wrestler to rest up before jumping back into the fray.

Even with Miz being the weakest of the three wrestlers, he still adds a fantastic dynamic of being the one who takes advantage of the situation. Lots of moments of him trying to be an opportunist, including a wonderful spot where Rollins just barely escapes a roll-up pin from Balor, and is so distraught and distracted by making sure the ref only counted to two that it leaves him open for a sudden Skull-Crushing Finale. The extra man keeps spoiling the pinfalls until it ’s time for Rollins to flatten both opponents one after another with his Curb Stomp.

Seth Rollins vs. Brock Lesnar ( WrestleMania 35 )

Brock Lesnar was at one point the ultimate threat in WWE. At the same time, Seth Rollins was being built up as a top face and was challenging him for the Universal Championship. Despite the high-profile nature of this bout, the narrative, according to Paul Heyman, was that Brock was pissed about not being the main event. If he was n’t going to be the main event, he would open the show so he could be done with things early and skip town. Brock was so furious that he jumped Rollins during the entrance and unfairly destroyed him before the bell could even ring.

Rollins insisted on going through with the match and turned things around with an illegal punch to the balls. It was cheating, but it was justified. Rollins then spammed his Curb Stomp three times in a row to keep Brock down, winning the title in just a couple of minutes. Rollins would eventually beat Brock fair and square to give him that major rub ( immediately undone by his Fiend feud ), but this quick and impactful win was definitely a great start to the PPV.

Drew McIntyre vs. Bobby Lashley ( WrestleMania 37 )

WrestleMania 37 Night 1 had a very unique situation going on at the start. For one, this was the first major WWE show since the pandemic that had a full crowd. By default, this crowd starting off WrestleMania would be off the wall pumped. The problem was that there was a nasty storm that caused a major delay, and by the time they were ready to do the actual wrestling, the crowd was wet and defused.

It was n’t instantaneous, but Drew McIntyre and Bobby Lashley going at it eventually woke them up. Two big, meaty men slapping meat will do that sometimes. A great pairing who played off each other well, they did a good job making both of them seem like irresistible forces and immovable objects at the same time. It did involve a screwy finish, but Lashley being able to knock out Drew with the Hurt Lock really put a bow on how dominating the Almighty could be. Definitely better than the following night’s goofball Randy Orton vs. Fiend match and its “box-like structure ” bullshit.

Becky Lynch vs. Rhea Ripley ( WrestleMania XL )

Fun fact, it was n’t until WrestleMania 36 that a women’s match started off one of these shows. Even then, Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross vs. The Kabuki Warriors had no crowd to win over thanks to that pesky COVID thing that just made a mess of the world. We would n’t see any women fight it out at the beginning until the 40th WrestleMania in what was arguably the biggest potential match that WWE could put together with that division.

On one side, it was Rhea Ripley, who had an incredibly lengthy and popular run as WWE Women’s World Champion. On the other side, it was Becky Lynch, the woman who once won the main event of WrestleMania and was fresh off releasing her autobiography. It was a hard-hitting passing of the torch that ’s way more impressive when you realize that Becky was also battling through strep throat that week. Even with that handicap, the two started the show off with a bang.

The article The Best Starting Games in WWE WrestleMania History appeared initially on Den of Geek.

We agree: the computer-generated heads could be a great fit for personas—but not for the purpose you might think. Ironically, the website highlights the core issue of this very common design method: the person ( a ) does not exist. Personas are deliberately created, just like in the pictures. Knowledge is taken out of natural environment and recombined into an isolated preview that’s detached from reality.

However, it’s odd that manufacturers use personalities to guide their style in the real world.

Personas: A action up

Most manufacturers have created, used, or come across personalities at least once in their job. The Interaction Design Foundation defines profile as “fictional characters, which you create based upon your research in order to represent the various consumer types that might use your company, product, page, or brand” in their article” Personas- A Simple Introduction.” In their most complete expression, personas typically consist of a name, profile picture, quotes, demographics, goals, needs, behavior in relation to a certain service/product, emotions, and motivations ( for example, see Creative Companion’s Persona Core Poster ). According to design firm Designit, the goal of personas is to “make the research relateable, ]and ] easy to communicate, digest, reference, and apply to product and service development.”

The decontextualization of identities

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

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

People are assumed to be dynamic, according to people.

Although many companies still try to box in their employees and customers with outdated personality tests ( referring to you, Myers-Briggs ), here’s a painfully obvious truth: people are not a fixed set of features. Depending on how you feel, how you act, think, and think, what you do and do. You appear distinct to different people, you may act helpful to some, tough to others. And you change your mind all the time about selections you’ve taken.

Current psychologists concur that while individuals typically act in accordance with specific patterns, how people act and make decisions is ultimately influenced by a combination of history and culture. The context—the atmosphere, the effect of other people, your feelings, the whole story that led up to a situation—determines the kind of person you are in each particular time.

Personas provide a consumer as a predetermined set of features in an effort to improve reality, but do so without taking this variability into account. Like personality tests, personas seize people away from real existence. Even worse, individuals are reduced to a brand and categorized as” that kind of guy” with no means to practice their inherent flexibility. This behavior lowers diversity, reinforces stereotypes, and doesn’t reveal reality.

Personas rely on people, not the setting

You’re designing for a environment, not an individual, in the real world. Each individual lives in a community, a group, an habitat, where there are environmental, social, and cultural factors you need to consider. A pattern is not meant for a single customer. Instead, you create a product that is intended to be used by a certain number of people. Personas, yet, show the customer alone rather than define how the consumer relates to the environment.

Do you make the same choice over and over again? Maybe you’re a dedicated vegan but also decide to buy some meats when your family are coming across. As they depend on various situations and characteristics, your decisions—and behavior, thoughts, and comments —are no absolute but extremely contextual. Because it doesn’t identify the grounds for your decisions, the image that “represents” you doesn’t take into account this interdependence. It doesn’t provide a explanation of why you act the way you do. People practice the well-known attribution error, which states that they too often attribute others ‘ behavior to their personalities and not to the circumstances.

As mentioned by the Interaction Design Foundation, identities are often placed in a situation that’s a” specific environment with a problem they want to or have to solve “—does that mean environment actually is considered? However, what frequently happens is that you take a hypothetical figure and based on that fiction decide how this character may deal with a particular situation. How could you possibly comprehend how someone you want to represent behave in new circumstances given that you haven’t even fully investigated and understood the current context of the people you want to represent?

Personas are meaningless averages

A persona is depicted as a specific person but is not a real person, as stated in Shlomo Goltz’s introduction article on Smashing Magazine; rather, it is synthesized from observations of many people. A well-known critique to this aspect of personas is that the average person does not exist, as per the famous example of the USA Air Force designing planes based on the average of 140 of their pilots ‘ physical dimensions and not a single pilot actually fitting within that average seat.

The same limitation applies to mental aspects of people. Have you ever heard a famous person say something was taken out of context? They used my words, but I didn’t mean it like that”. Although the celebrity’s statement was literally reported, the reporter failed to explain the context of the statement and to explain the non-verbal expressions. As a result, the intended meaning was lost. You do the same when you create personas: you collect somebody’s statement ( or goal, or need, or emotion ), of which the meaning can only be understood if you provide its own specific context, yet report it as an isolated finding.

However, personas go one step further, combining a decontextualized finding with another decontextualized finding from another. The resulting set of findings often does not make sense: it’s unclear, or even contrasting, because it lacks the underlying reasons on why and how that finding has arisen. It lacks any significance. And the persona doesn’t give you the full background of the person ( s ) to uncover this meaning: you would need to dive into the raw data for each single persona item to find it. What, then, is the usefulness of the persona?

People’s relatability can be deceiving.

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

After accepting that people’s personalities are fixed, ignored the importance of their environment, and hidden meaning by joining isolated, non-generalizable findings, designers create new context to create ( their own ) meaning. In doing so, as with everything they create, they introduce a host of biases. As phrased by Designit, as designers we can” contextualize]the persona ] based on our reality and experience. We make connections that are well-known to us. This practice reinforces stereotypes, doesn’t reflect real-world diversity, and gets further away from people’s actual reality with every detail added.

Everyone should use their own empathy and develop their own interpretation and emotional response if we want to conduct good design research by reporting the reality “as-is” and making it relatable for our audience.

Dynamic Selves: The alternative to personas

If we shouldn’t use personas, what should we do instead?

Designit suggests using mindsets rather than personas. Each Mindset is a” spectrum of attitudes and emotional responses that different people have within the same context or life experience”. It challenges designers to avoid becoming fixated on just one person’s way of being. Unfortunately, while being a step in the right direction, this proposal doesn’t take into account that people are part of an environment that determines their personality, their behavior, and, yes, their mindset. Therefore, Mindsets are also not absolute but change in regard to the situation. What determines a particular Mindset, remains to be seen.

Another alternative comes from Margaret P., author of the article” Kill Your Personas“, who has argued for replacing personas with persona spectrums that consist of a range of user abilities. For instance, a visual impairment could be permanent ( blindness ), temporary ( recovery from eye surgery ), or situational (screen glare ). Persona spectrums are highly useful for more inclusive and context-based design, as they’re based on the understanding that the context is the pattern, not the personality. Their limitation, however, is that they have a very functional take on users that misses the relatability of a real person taken from within a spectrum.

We want to change the traditional design process to be context-based by creating an alternative to personas. Contexts are generalizable and have patterns that we can identify, just like we tried to do previously with people. How can we identify these patterns, then? How do we ensure truly context-based design?

Understand real individuals in multiple contexts

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

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

1. Choose the right sample

We frequently get slammed for saying,” Where are you going to find a single person that encapsulates all the information from one of these advanced personas ]” when we debate personas. The answer is simple: you don’t have to. You don’t need to have information about many people for your insights to be deep and meaningful.

Quantity is key to qualitative research, but sampling accuracy is key to its validity. You select the people that best represent the “population” you’re designing for. If this sample is chosen wisely and you have a deep understanding of the sampled people, you can infer how the rest of the population thinks and acts. There’s no need to study seven Susans and five Yuriys, one of each will do.

Similarly, you don’t need to understand Susan in fifteen different contexts. You have understood Susan’s plan of action once you have seen her in a few different settings. Not Susan as an atomic being but Susan in relation to the surrounding environment: how she might act, feel, and think in different situations.

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

However, the question persists: how do you choose a representative sample? First of all, you have to consider what’s the target audience of the product or service you are designing: it might be useful to look at the company’s goals and strategy, the current customer base, and/or a possible future target audience.

We were creating an application for those who already have a smart thermostat in our example project. In the future, everyone could have a smart thermostat in their house. Right now, though, only early adopters own one. We had to understand the causes behind these early adopters ‘ development in order to create a sizable sample. We therefore recruited by asking people why they had a smart thermostat and how they got it. There were those who had made the decision to purchase it, those who had been influenced by others to do so, and those who had located it in their homes. So we selected representatives of these three situations, from different age groups and geographical locations, with an equal balance of tech savvy and non-tech savvy participants.

2. Conduct your research

After having chosen and recruited your sample, conduct your research using ethnographic methodologies. This will give you more examples and anecdotes to enrich your qualitative data. In our example project, given COVID-19 restrictions, we converted an in-house ethnographic research effort into remote family interviews, conducted from home and accompanied by diary studies.

To gain an in-depth understanding of attitudes and decision-making trade-offs, the research focus was not limited to the interviewee alone but deliberately included the whole family. With the additions or corrections made by wives, husbands, children, or occasionally even pets, each interviewee would tell a story that would then become much more engaging and precise. We also focused on the relationships with other meaningful people ( such as colleagues or distant family ) and all the behaviors that resulted from those relationships. This extensive field of study gave us the ability to create a vivid mental image of dynamic situations involving multiple actors.

It’s essential that the scope of the research remains broad enough to be able to include all possible actors. Therefore, it normally works best to define broad research areas with macro questions. Interviews should be conducted in a semi-structured manner, with follow-up questions delve into subjects that the interviewee has blatantly mentioned. This open-minded “plan to be surprised” will yield the most insightful findings. One of our participants responded,” My wife has not installed the thermostat’s app; she uses WhatsApp instead,” when we asked how his family controlled the house temperature. If she wants to turn on the heater and she is not home, she will text me. I am her thermostat”.

3. Analysis: Create the Dynamic Selves

You begin to represent each individual as a series of dynamic selves during the research analysis, each” Self” representing a particular context. The core of each Dynamic Self is a quote, which comes supported by a photo and a few relevant demographics that illustrate the wider context. The research findings themselves will show which demographics are relevant to show. The key demographics were family type, number and type of homes owned, economic status, and technological maturity in our case because our research focused on families and their way of life to understand their needs for thermal regulation. ( We also included the individual’s name and age, but they’re optional—we included them to ease the stakeholders ‘ transition from personas and be able to connect multiple actions and contexts to the same person ).

Interviews must be video-recorded in order to capture precise quotes, and notes must be as much as possible taken verbatim. This is essential to the truthfulness of the several Selves of each participant. In the case of real-life ethnographic research, photos of the context and anonymized actors are essential to build realistic Selves. As long as these photos are realistic and depict meaningful actions that you associate with your participants, they should be taken directly from field research, but an evocative and representative image can also work. For example, one of our interviewees told us about his mountain home where he used to spend every weekend with his family. We depicted him hiking with his young daughter as a result.

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

4. Identify potential design challenges

Once you have collected all main quotes from the interview transcripts and diaries, and laid them all down as Self cards, you will see patterns emerge. These patterns will highlight the opportunity areas for new product creation, new functionalities, and new services—for new design.

A particularly intriguing finding was made in our example project regarding the concept of humidity. We realized that people don’t know what humidity is and why it is important to monitor it for health: an environment that’s too dry or too wet can cause respiratory problems or worsen existing ones. This made clear that our client had a significant opportunity to train users about the concept and work as a health advisor.

Benefits of Dynamic Selves

When you use the Dynamic Selves approach in your research, you start to notice unique social relations, peculiar situations real people face and the actions that follow, and that people are surrounded by changing environments. One of the participants in our thermostat project, Davide, is described as a boyfriend, dog lover, and tech nut.

Davide is an individual we might have once reduced to a persona called “tech enthusiast”. However, there are also those who are wealthy or poor, who are tech enthusiasts and have families or are single. Their motivations and priorities when deciding to purchase a new thermostat can be opposite according to these different frames.

Once you have understood Davide in multiple situations, and for each situation have understood in sufficient depth the underlying reasons for his behavior, you’re able to generalize how he would act in another situation. You can infer what he would think and do in the circumstances ( or scenarios ) you design for using your understanding of him.

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

If you take a real person as inspiration for your design, you no longer need to create an artificial character. No more developing plot devices to “realize” the character, and no more need for additional bias. It’s simply how this person is in real life. We all know that these characters don’t really exist, so in our experience personas quickly turn into nothing more than a name in our priority guides and prototype screens.

Another powerful benefit of the Dynamic Selves approach is that it raises the stakes of your work: if you mess up your design, someone real, a person you and the team know and have met, is going to feel the consequences. It might stop you from taking shortcuts and will remind you to conduct daily checks on your designs.

Finally, real people in their specific contexts provide a better foundation for anecdotal storytelling and are thus more persuasive. Documentation of real research is essential in achieving this result. It reinforces your design arguments by adding more weight and urgency:” When I met Alessandra, the conditions of her workplace struck me. Noise, bad ergonomics, lack of light, you name it. If we go for this functionality, I’m afraid we’re going to add complexity to her life”.

Conclusion

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

Design needs simplification but not generalization. You have to look at the research elements that stand out: the sentences that captured your attention, the images that struck you, the sounds that linger. Avoid using those and use them to describe the person in all of their contexts. Both insights and people come with a context, they cannot be cut from that context because it would remove meaning.

It’s high time for design to break away from fiction and use reality as our guide and inspiration, in all of its messy, surprising, and unquantifiable beauty.

” Any opinion” you might have? is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for suggestions. It’s obscure and unfocused, and it doesn’t give us a sense of what we’re looking for. Getting good opinions starts sooner than we might hope: it starts with the demand.

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

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

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

The query

Being available to input is important, but we need to be specific about what we’re looking for. Any comments,” What do you think,” or” I’d love to hear your mind” at the conclusion of a presentation are likely to garner a lot of different ideas, or worse, to make everyone follow the lead of the first speaker. And next… we get frustrated because vague issues like those can change a high-level moves review into folks rather commenting on the borders of buttons. Which theme may be significant, so it might be difficult to get the team to choose the one you wanted to concentrate on.

But how do we get into this scenario? It’s a combination of various aspects. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to assume that everyone else will agree with the problem and leave it alone. Another is that in nonprofessional conversations, there’s usually no need to be that exact. In summary, we tend to undervalue the value of the issues, and we don’t work to improve them.

The work of asking good questions guidelines and focuses the criticism. It’s even a form of acceptance because it specifies what kind of feedback you’d like to receive and how you’re open to them. It puts people in the right emotional position, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to provide feedback.

There isn’t a second best way to ask for opinions. It simply needs to be certain, and precision may take several shapes. The stage than depth model for design critique has been a particularly helpful tool for my coaching.

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

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

• Functionality: Is it desirable to automate account creation?
• Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
• Information architecture: This page contains two competing pieces of information. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
• User interface design: What do you think about the top-most error counter, which ensures that you can see the next error even when the error is outside the viewport?
• Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Exist any recommendations for resolving this?
• Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

How much of a presentation’s depth would be on the other axis of specificity. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful from one iteration to the next when it’s crucial to highlight the areas that have changed.

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

A quick fix is to get rid of the generic qualifiers from questions like “good”, “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and” cool.” For example, asking,” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good”? is it possible to look specific, but you can spot the “good” qualifier and make the question” When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is” look like?

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

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

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. Even experienced designers will appreciate the clarity and efficiency gained from concentrating solely on what is required, and those with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of those methods typically display changes as a single fluid stream in the same file. These methods cause conversations to vanish once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and require designs to always display the most recent version unless these would-be useful features were manually turned off. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That’s probably not the most effective way to go about designing critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive, it might work for some teams.

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

Using iteration posts has a number of benefits:

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

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

I don’t think there’s a standard format for iteration posts. However, there are a few high-level elements that make sense to include as a baseline:

1. The goal
2. The layout
3. The list of changes
4. The querys

Each project is likely to have a goal, and hopefully it’s something that’s already been summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, such as the client brief, the product manager’s outline, or the project owner’s request. In other words, I would copy and paste this into every iteration post to make it work. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. The most recent iteration post will have everything I need if I want to know about the most recent design.

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

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

It might also be helpful to have clear names on the objects since it makes them look better to refer to. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not very different from creating a strong live presentation.

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

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

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

I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be just a concept to start a conversation, or it might be a cumulative list of all the features that have been added gradually over the course of each iteration until the full picture is achieved.

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

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

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

The review

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

This shift has some significant advantages, making asynchronous feedback particularly effective, especially around these friction points:

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

The first friction point is having to press yourself to respond to each and every comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s simple, straightforward, and doesn’t cause any issues. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the respondent is a stakeholder or someone directly involved in the project who we feel we need to speak with. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. Responding to all comments at times can be effective, but when we consider a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t need to respond to every comment, and there are alternatives in asynchronous spaces:

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

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

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

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

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

Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You must examine it and come up with a rationale for your choice, but sometimes “no” is the best choice.

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

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

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

Feedback is also one of the most underestimated equipment, and generally by assuming that we’re already good at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a talent that can be trained, grown, and improved. Bad feedback can cause conflict in jobs, lower motivation, and negatively impact faith and teamwork over the long term. Quality opinions can be a revolutionary force.

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

A long history of sequential opinions can be found online: code was written and discussed on mailing lists before becoming an open source standard. Currently, engineers engage on pull calls, developers post in their favourite design tools, project managers and sprint masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

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

The material

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

This formula is typically used to provide feedback to people, but it also fits really well in a style criticism because it finally addresses one of the main inquiries that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some comments about some pattern function that spans several screens, like an onboard flow: there are some pages shown, a movement blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You notice a flaw in the situation. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

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

Not sure about the buttons ‘ styles and hierarchy—it feels off. Can they be altered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, for the request approach:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tone

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

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

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

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

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. Before writing, it’s important to make sure the person we’re writing will actually benefit them and improve the overall project. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but it can happen, which is fine. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? What can I do to encourage constructive behavior?

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

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

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

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. The best, most insightful moments for me came when I shared a comment and asked a trusted person how it sounds, how can I do it better, or even” How would you have written it”? I discovered that by seeing the two versions side by side, I’ve learned a lot.

The format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. Especially in large projects,” Why did we do this”? There’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time, and this could be a question that arises from time to time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved.

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

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

But what on earth is a passionate stress?

Envision a person determined to do it all. She is homeschooling two wonderful children while her husband, who is also working mildly, is likewise homeschooling. She has a demanding customer fill at work—all of whom she loves. She wakes up early to get some movement in ( or frequently catch up on work ), prepares dinner while the kids are having breakfast, and works while positioning herself near the end of her “fourth grade” to watch as she balances clients, tasks, and budgets. Sound like a bit? Yet with a supportive group both at home and at work, it is.

Sounds like this person needs self-care because she has too much on her disk. But no, she doesn’t have occasion for that. She begins to feel as though she’s dropping pellets. No accomplishing enough. There’s not enough of her to be here and that, she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all day, every day. She begins to question herself. And as those thoughts creep in more and more, her domestic tale becomes more and more important.

She instantly KNOWS what she must do! She may DO MORE.

This is a challenging and dangerous period. Know the reasons. Because when she doesn’t end that new purpose, that storyline will get worse. She immediately starts failing. She isn’t doing much. SHE is not enough. She’ll discover more she may do because she might neglect, or perhaps her home. She doesn’t nap as much, proceed because much, all in the attempts to do more. caught in this pattern of attempting to prove herself to herself without ever succeeding. Not feeling “enough”.

But, yeah, that’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It doesn’t develop overnight in some grand gesture, but it does rather develop gradually over the course of several weeks and months. My burning out process looks like speeding up, hardly a man losing focus. I move quickly and steadily, and therefore I simply quit.

I am the one who was

It’s amusing the things that shape us. Through the camera of my youth, I witnessed the battles, sacrifices, and fears of a person who had to make it all work without having much. I was happy that my mom was so competent and my dad sympathetic, I never went without and also got an extra here or there.

When my mother gave me food stamps as a child, I didn’t think shame; rather, I would have good started any debates about the subject, orally eviscerating anyone who dared to criticize the handicapped woman who was attempting to ensure all of our needs were met with so little. As a child, I watched the way the worry of not making those begins meet impacted people I love. As the non-disabled people in my home, I did take on many of the real things because I was” the one who was” make our lives a little easier. I soon realized that I had to put more of myself into it because I was the one who could. I learned first that when something frightens me, I may double down and work harder to make it better. I am in charge of the problem. When people have seen this in me as an child, I’ve been told I seem brave, but make no mistake, I’m not. If I seem courageous, it’s because this conduct was forged from other people’s worries.

And here I am, more than 30 years later, also feeling the urge to aimlessly force myself forward when faced with daunting tasks in front of me, assuming that I am the one who is and consequently does. I find myself driven to show that I may make things happen if I work longer hours, take on more responsibility, and do more.

I don’t see people who struggle economically as problems because I have seen how powerful that sea can be; it pulls you along the way. I really get that I have been privileged to be able to prevent many of the issues that were current in my children. That said, I am also” the one who can” who feels she does, but if I were faced with not having much to make ends meet for my own home, I do see myself as having failed. Despite my best efforts and education, the majority of this is due to great wealth. I will, but, permit myself the pride of saying I have been cautious with my options to have encouraged that chance. I believe I am” the one who can,” so I feel compelled to do the most because of this. I can choose to halt, and with some pretty precise warm water splashed in my face, I’ve made the choice to previously. But that choosing to stop is not my go-to, I move forward, driven by a fear that is so a part of me that I barely notice it’s there until I’m feeling utterly worn away.

Why all this history, then? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I’ve read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is real. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s difficult, and the avoidance, shutting down, and procrastination have an impact on so many amazing professionals. There are important articles that relate to what I imagine must be the majority of people out there, but not me. Not at the time of my burnout, though.

The dangerous invisibility of zealous burnout

A lot of work environments see the extra hours, extra effort, and overall focused commitment as an asset ( and sometimes that’s all it is ). They see someone attempting to overcome obstacles, not a person who is ensnared in fear. Many well-meaning organizations have safeguards in place to protect their teams from burnout. However, in situations like this, those alarms don’t always ring, and some organization members are surprised and depressed when the inevitable stop happens. And sometimes maybe even betrayed.

Parents—more so mothers, statistically speaking—are praised as being so on top of it all when they can work, be involved in the after-school activities, practice self-care in the form of diet and exercise, and still meet friends for coffee or wine. Many of us watched endless streaming COVID episodes to see how challenging the female protagonist is, but she is strong, funny, and capable of doing it. It’s a “very special episode” when she breaks down, cries in the bathroom, woefully admits she needs help, and just stops for a bit. Truth be told, countless people are avoiding tears or doomscrolling to flee. We know that the media is a lie to amuse us, but often the perception that it’s what we should strive for has penetrated much of society.

Women and burnout

I adore men. And though I don’t love every man ( heads up, I don’t love every woman or nonbinary person either ), I think there is a beautiful spectrum of individuals who represent that particular binary gender.

Despite this, especially in these COVID stressed out times, women are still more likely than their male counterparts to be burnout vulnerable. Mothers in the workplace feel the pressure to do all the “mom” things while giving 110 %. Mothers not in the workplace feel they need to do more to” justify” their lack of traditional employment. Women who are not mothers frequently feel the need to work even more at home because of the pressure. It’s vicious and systemic and so a part of our culture that we’re often not even aware of the enormity of the pressures we put on ourselves and each other.

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

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

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

You might not be the same as that. After all, each of us is so different and how we respond to stressors is too. It’s part of what makes us human. Don’t put too much emphasis on how burnout looks; instead, learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I sometimes ask friends if I am concerned about them.

Are you content? This simple question should be the first thing you ask yourself. Chances are, even if you’re burning out doing all the things you love, as you approach burnout you’ll just stop taking as much joy from it all.

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

What are three things you’ve done for yourself? Another observance is that we all tend to stop doing things for ourselves. anything from avoiding conversations with friends to skipping showers and eating poorly. These can be red flags.

Are you using justifications? Many of us try to disregard feelings of burnout. Over and over I have heard,” It’s just crunch time”,” As soon as I do this one thing, it will all be better”, and” Well I should be able to handle this, so I’ll figure it out”. And it might actually be crunch time, a single objective, or a set of skills you need to master. That happens—life happens. BUT if all of this doesn’t stop, be open to yourself. If you’ve worked more 50-hour weeks since January than not, maybe it’s not crunch time—maybe it’s a bad situation that you’re burning out from.

Do you have a plan to stop feeling this way? If something is only temporary and you have to push through, it has an exit route and a reward system.
defined end.

Take the time to listen to your friend in the same way. Be honest, allow yourself to be uncomfortable, and break the thought cycles that prevent you from healing.

So now what?

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

• Get enough sleep.
• Eat healthy.
• Work out.
• Go outside.
• Take a break.
• Practice self-care in general.

Those are hard for me because they feel like more tasks. If I’m in the burnout cycle, doing any of the above for me feels like a waste. Why would I take care of myself when I’m dropping all those other balls if I’m already failing, as the narrative suggests? People need me, right?

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

I have come up with a few suggestions for me to help me remember the airline attendant’s advice to put on your face first when I feel burned out.

Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

Okay, since I’m a “food-focused” person, I’ve always been a fan. There are countless tales in my home of someone walking into the kitchen and turning right around and walking out when they noticed I was” chopping angrily”. But it’s more than that, and you should give it a try. Seriously. It’s the perfect go-to if you don’t feel worthy of taking time for yourself—do it for someone else. Because the majority of us work in a digital world, cooking can pique all of your senses and make you feel present in the moment in all your ways of seeing the world. It can break you out of your head and help you gain a better perspective. In my house, I’ve been known to pick a place on the map and cook food that comes from wherever that is ( thank you, Pinterest ). I enjoy making Indian food because the smells are warm, the bread needs just enough kneading to keep my hands engaged, and the process requires real attention for me because it’s not what I was raised making. And in the end, we all win!

Vent like a sniveling jerk.

Be careful with this one!

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

When that is required, turn to a trusted friend and give yourself some pure verbal diarrhea by expressing all your concerns. You need to trust this friend not to judge, to see your pain, and, most importantly, to tell you to remove your cranium from your own rectal cavity. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he manages to simplify things down to the simplest. ” We’re spending our lives together, of course you’re going to disappoint me from time to time, so get over it” has been his way of speaking his dedication, love, and acceptance of me—and I could not be more grateful. Of course, it required that I remove my head from that rectal cavity. So, again, usually those moments are appreciated in hindsight.

Pick up a book!

There are many books out there that are more like people sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance than they are self-help. Maybe you’ll find something that speaks to you. Among the titles that have stood out to me are:

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

Or, if I love to read or listen to a book that doesn’t have anything to do with my work-life balance, I can use another tactic. I’ve read the following books and found they helped balance me out because my mind was pondering their interesting topics instead of running in circles:

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

If you’re not into reading, pick up a topic on YouTube or choose a podcast to subscribe to. I’ve watched countless permaculture and gardening topics in addition to how to raise chickens and ducks. I don’t currently own any livestock of any kind, nor do I have a particularly large food garden. I just find the topic interesting, and it has nothing to do with any aspect of my life that needs anything from me.

Give yourself a break.

You are never going to be perfect—hell, it would be boring if you were. It’s OK to be broken and flawed. It’s human to be depressed, anxious, and sad. It’s OK to not do it all. You can’t be brave without being imperfect, which is terrifying.

This last one is the most important: allow yourself permission to NOT do it all. You never promised to be everything to everyone at all times. We have greater power than the repressed fears that motivate us.

This is hard. I struggle with it. It’s what’s driven me to write this—that it’s OK to stop. It’s OK that your unhealthy habit that might even benefit those around you needs to end. You can still succeed in life.

I recently read that we are all writing our eulogy in how we live. What will your professional accomplishments say, knowing that your speech won’t include them? What do you want it to say?

Look, I get that none of these ideas will “fix it”, and that’s not their purpose. None of us has complete control over what happens in our environment, but only how we react to it. These suggestions are to help stop the spiral effect so that you are empowered to address the underlying issues and choose your response. They are things that most of the time work for me. Maybe they’ll work for you.

Does this sound familiar?

If something resounds familiar to you, it’s not just you. Don’t let your negative self-talk tell you that you “even burn out wrong”. It’s not improper. Even if rooted in fear like my own drivers, I believe that this need to do more comes from a place of love, determination, motivation, and other wonderful attributes that make you the amazing person you are. We’re going to be OK, ya know. The lives that come before us might never appear to be the same as the one we’re picturing, or that we’re looking for, but that’s okay because the only way to judge us is in the mirror when we stop and look around.

Do you remember that Winnie the Pooh sketch that had Pooh eat so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? Well, I already have a strong connection to Rabbit, so it was surprising when he unexpectedly declared that this was unacceptable. But do you recall what happened next? He put a shelf across poor Pooh’s ankles and decorations on his back, and made the best of the big butt in his kitchen.

At the end of the day, we are resourceful and aware that we can push ourselves if necessary, even when we are exhausted or have a ton of stuff in our room. None of us has to be afraid, as we can manage any obstacle put in front of us. And maybe that means we need to redefine success in order to make room for comfort for being uncomfortable human, but that doesn’t really sound that bad either.

So, wherever you are right now, please breathe. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Give thanks and be considerate.

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

Laptops have trouble because between spoken and written speech, talk is more primitive. Machines must wrestle with the complexity of human statement, including the disfluencies and pauses, the gestures and body speech, and the variations in expression choice and spoken dialect, which may impede even the most skillfully crafted human-computer interaction. In the human-to-human situation, spoken language also has the opportunity of face-to-face call, where we can easily interpret verbal interpersonal cues.

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

This luxury is not available in spoken language. Besides the nonverbal cues that decorate conversations with emphasis and emotional context, there are also verbal cues and vocal behaviors that modulate conversation in nuanced ways: how something is said, not what. Our spoken language conveys much more than the written word could ever contain, whether it be rapid-fire, low-pitched, or high-decibel, sarcastic, stilted, or sighing. So when it comes to voice interfaces—the machines we conduct spoken conversations with—we face exciting challenges as designers and content strategists.

Voice Compositions

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

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

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

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

That leaves two different types of conversations we can have with one another that a voice interface can also have easily, including one that is transactional and one that is informational, teaching us something new ( “discuss a musical” ).

Transactional voice interactions

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

How are things going, Alison?

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

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

Burhan: Sure, what size?

Large, Alison.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

Burhan: You got it. That will cost$ 13.55 and take about fifteen minutes.

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

Informational voice interactions

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

How are things going, Alison?

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

Alison: Can I ask a few questions?

Burhan: Of course! Go right ahead.

Alison, do you have any menu items that are halal?

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

Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

Burhan: For both our deep-dish and thin-crust pizzas, we can definitely make a gluten-free crust for you, without a problem. Anything else I can answer for you?

Alison: That’s it for the moment. Good to know. Thank you!

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

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

Voice Interfaces

Voice interfaces, in essence, use speech to assist users in accomplishing their objectives. But simply because an interface has a voice component doesn’t mean that every user interaction with it is mediated through voice. We’re most concerned with pure voice interfaces, which are completely dependent on spoken conversation and lack any visual component, making them much more nuanced and challenging to deal with because multimodal voice interfaces can lean on visual components like screens as crutches.

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

IVR ( interactive voice response ) systems

Though written conversational interfaces have been fixtures of computing for many decades, voice interfaces first emerged in the early 1990s with text-to-speech ( TTS ) dictation programs that recited written text aloud, as well as speech-enabled in-car systems that gave directions to a user-provided address. We became familiar with the first real voice interfaces that could actually be spoken with the help of interactive voice response ( IVR ) systems, which were developed as an alternative to overburdened customer service representatives.

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

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

Screen readers

The invention of the screen reader, a tool that converts visual content into synthesized speech, was a development of IVR systems in parallel. For Blind or visually impaired website users, it’s the predominant method of interacting with text, multimedia, or form elements. Perhaps the closest thing we have today to an out-of-the-box implementation of content delivered through voice is represented by screen readers.

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

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

There’s a big deal with screen readers: they’re difficult to use and relentlessly verbose, despite being incredibly instructive for voice interface designers. The visual structures of websites and web navigation don’t translate well to screen readers, sometimes resulting in unwieldy pronouncements that name every manipulable HTML element and announce every formatting change. Working with web-based interfaces takes a cognitive toll for many screen reader users.

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

I disliked the operation of Screen Readers from the beginning. Why are they designed the way they are? It makes no sense to present information visually and then only to have that information translated into audio. All of the time and energy that goes into creating the perfect user experience for an app is wasted, or even worse, adversely impacting the experience for blind users. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

In many cases, well-designed voice interfaces can speed users to their destination better than long-winded screen reader monologues. After all, users of the visual interface have the advantage of freely scurrying around the viewport to find information without getting too close to it. Blind users, meanwhile, are obligated to listen to every utterance synthesized into speech and therefore prize brevity and efficiency. Users with disabilities who have long had no choice but to use clumsy screen readers might benefit from more streamlined user interfaces, especially more advanced voice assistants.

Voice assistants

Many of us immediately associate voice assistants with the popular subset of voice interfaces found in living rooms, smart homes, and offices with the film Star Trek or with Majel Barrett’s voice as the omniscient computer. Voice assistants are akin to personal concierges that can answer questions, schedule appointments, conduct searches, and perform other common day-to-day tasks. And because of their assistive potential, they are quickly gaining more and more attention from accessibility advocates.

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

There is a significant variation in how programmable and customizable some voice assistants are compared to others due to the sheer number of voice assistants available today ( Fig 1 ). At one extreme, everything except vendor-provided features is locked down, for example, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be extended beyond their existing capabilities. There are no other means of developers communicating with Siri at a low level, aside from predefined categories of tasks like messaging, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and other things, which are still possible today.

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

As businesses like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google continue to occupy their positions, they’re also selling and open-sourcing an unheard array of tools and frameworks for designers and developers that aim to make creating voice interfaces as simple as possible, even without code.

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

Voice content

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

Our world is replete with voice content in various forms: screen readers reciting website content, voice assistants rattling off a weather forecast, and automated phone hotline responses governed by IVR systems. We’re most concerned with the audiobook content being delivered as a requirement rather than an option.

For many of us, our first foray into informational voice interfaces will be to deliver content to users. One issue is that any content we already have isn’t in any way suitable for this new environment. So how do we make the content trapped on our websites more conversational? And how do we create fresh copy that works with voice-activated text?

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

An example of microcontent can be a day’s weather forecast [sic], the arrival and departure times for an airplane flight, an abstract from a lengthy publication, or a single instant message. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

As microcontent, voice content is unique because it’s an example of how content is experienced in time rather than in space. We can instantly see when the next train is coming from a digital sign underground, but voice interfaces keep our attention occupied for so long that screen reader users are all too familiar.

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

Fundamentally, how voice content manifests in perceived time and space both affect the legibility and discoverability of our voice content.

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

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I set about making a layout that I would eventually drop content into a 960px cloth. The growth phase was about attaining pixel-perfect reliability using set widths, fixed levels, and absolute placement.

All of this was altered by Ethan Marcotte’s 2010 post in A List Off entitled” Responsive Web Design.” I was sold on responsive pattern as soon as I heard about it, but I was even terrified. The pixel-perfect models full of special figures that I had formerly prided myself on producing were no longer good enough.

My first encounter with reactive style didn’t help my fear. My second project was to get an active fixed-width website and make it reactive. I quickly realized that you didn’t just put responsiveness at the end of a job. To make smooth design, you need to prepare throughout the style stage.

A new way to style

Making articles accessible to all devices a priority when designing responsive or liquid websites has always been the goal. It relies on the use of percentage-based design, which I immediately achieved with local CSS and power groups:

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

Therefore with Sass but that I could use @includes to re-use repeated blocks of code and transition to more semantic premium:

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

Media questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our rely on multimedia queries resulted in parts that were tied to frequent window sizes. If the goal of part libraries is modify, then this is a real problem because you can just use these components if the devices you’re designing for correspond to the viewport sizes used in the pattern library—in the process never really hitting that “devices that don’t already occur” goal.

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

Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

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

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

In other words, responsive layouts are to be replaced by responsive components.

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

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

A component library that is disconnected from context and real content is probably not the best place to make that choice.

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

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

Without reliable cross-browser support, it’s difficult to say for certain whether container queries will succeed. Responsive component libraries would definitely evolve how we design and would improve the possibilities for reuse and design at scale. However, we might always need to modify these elements to fit our content.

CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrinsic layouts

I’d be remiss not to mention intrinsic layouts, a term used by Jen Simmons to describe a mix of contemporary and traditional CSS features used to create layouts that respond to available space.

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

frunits is a statement that says,” I want you to distribute the extra space in this way, but… don’t ever make it smaller than the content that is inside of it.”

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Without having to have the same breakpoints or content as in the previous implementation, components and patterns can be removed and reused.

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

Another 2010 moment?

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

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

One possible explanation for that is that I now work for a sizable company, which is quite different from the role I held as a design agency in 2010! In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. Nowadays, projects use existing tools and frameworks and are often improvements to existing websites with an existing codebase.

Another possibility is that I’m now more prepared for change. In 2010 I was new to design in general, the shift was frightening and required a lot of learning. Additionally, an intrinsic approach isn’t exactly new; it’s about applying existing skills and CSS knowledge in a unique way.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? Personally, I’m a big fan of this kind of design in the browser.

The debate about “whether designers should code” is another that has rumbled on for years. When designing a digital product, we should, at the very least, design for a best- and worst-case scenario when it comes to content. It’s not ideal to do this in a graphics-based software package. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Does it continue to function? Is the design too reliant on the current content?

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

Content should come first

Content is not constant. After all, to design for the unanticipated or unexpected, we must take into account changes in content, such as in our earlier Subgrid card illustration, which allowed the cards to make adjustments to both their own and sibling elements.

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

Instead of the dated markup tricks below,

 First line of text with different styling...

—we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

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

Directional variables must be set in the Sass version.

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

These variables can be used as values—

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

—or as real estate.

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

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

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

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

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

Fluid and fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the circumstances

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

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

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

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

Responsible design is important.

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

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

Chris Ashton

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

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

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

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

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

So how can we put users in control?

The media queries are now being returned.

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

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

The Media Queries Level 5 spec is still being developed as of this writing. It introduces some really exciting queries that in the future will help us design for multiple other unexpected situations.

For instance, there is a light-level feature that enables you to alter a user’s style when they are in the sun or the darkness. Paired with custom properties, these features allow us to quickly create designs or themes for specific environments.

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

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

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

Expect the unexpected

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

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

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

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

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