Category: Blog

It became challenging to evaluate Marvel films alone around Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While any number of punters could roll up at the theater, see the latest installment of their favorite superhero’s adventures and leave happy, having experienced callbacks, Marvel Comics references, and fan-pleasing moments, your average critic might have ]… ]

On Den of Geek, the first article Marvel Star claimed that MCU films are for fans and no detractors.

Jason shows aren&#8217, t supposed to be good. They weren’t actually supposed to be about Jason, hmm. Back in the late 1970s, maker Sean S. Cunningham saw the economic achievements of Halloween and an opportunity to cash in himself. In response, he ran an advertisement for a film called Friday the 13th that riffed on the John Carpenter movie’s holiday theme.

Only later did he come up with the idea of a whodunnit, in which a criminal begins menacing lawyers trying to restart a camp times after a junior named Jason Voorhees drowned it. As everyone is aware of, Jason&#8217’s family Pamela Voorhees, who wanted to stop Camp Crystal Lake from reopening, was the criminal. The shock end of that picture, in which Jason emerges from the water to get a last lady, was only tacked on because Cunningham wanted to copy the shock ending of Carrie.

Creativity wasn’t the end objective. Cash was. And to achieve that, Cunningham and Paramount Pictures were successful, with Friday the 13th being a huge hit as well as its primary some sequels. And still, apparently, imagination happened yet. Jason replaced his mother in the next film, taking the lead. And midway through the next movie, Jason got his name face, entirely becoming a dread image.

As you might have guessed, those films had varying levels of quality as a result of this digressive course. Not all of the Friday the 13th movies are great, but they all offer something worth watching—if only the grisly death of some camp counselor of ill-repute.

12. Friday the 13th ( 2009 )

Who exactly is the target of the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th? One would think that a reboot of the series would try to clarify the franchise&#8217, s famously ambling and imprecise timeline to make things easier for new viewers. Instead, Friday the 13th ( 2009 )’s first 30 minutes attempt to condense the first three movies into a single prologue, complete with killer Pamela ( portrayed by Nana Visitor of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ) and baghead Jason. The opening only confuses newcomers and feeds long-time fans insubstantial &#8216, member berries, pleasing no one&#8211, which accurately sums up the movie.

Which is not to say that the reboot lacks charm, though. Derek Mears is fantastic as a more feral Jason, trading dynamic energy for the usual slow-moving beast of previous films. The film pulls off a surprising final girl fake out and does a great job with its young adult jerks. Still, Friday the 13th 2009 never shakes the feeling of being a fan film instead of a proper entry in the series.

11. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan ( 1989 )

People have been making fun of this film for more than three and a half decades because the majority of it is shot on a boat and the majority of the New York and Vancouver sections are actually in the water. And you know what? Jason Takes Manhattan deserves all the sneering praise! Why give the eighth Friday the 13th entry that name if you &#8217, re never going to actually be in Manhattan (outside of some second unit stuff shot for the opening credits )?

Sincerely, if anything interesting happened in the movie, we could forgive a boat and we could forgive Canada. But, outside of a couple of cool kills, nothing does. Jason Takes Manhattan instead spends way too much time once more mythologizing the death of a young Jason ( which may or may not have happened, depending on the status of Fridays II, III, and IV ). In the end, Jason Takes Manhattan succeeds at nothing: not drama, not horror, and not even taking Manhattan.

10. Friday the 13th Part III ( 1983 )

After the first two entries, Friday the 13th ran the risk of becoming predictable and rote. Cunningham and Paramount were aware of this. They knew they had to shake things up. They made the gimmick that would set the series apart, perhaps the most disastrous one. They decided that Part III would be in 3-D.

Everything in Part III is well-known, from the group of counselors reopening the camp to the hicks who turn into early cannon fodder to the shocking ending in which Pamela emerges from the lake to grab the final girl. And unless you &#8217, re using the flimsy blue and red 3D glasses that get distributed with modern releases, or unless you saw a special screening at a repertory theater, you &#8217, re watching all of this in 2-D, making the pointy bits annoying instead of compelling. Part III at least finally reveals Jason his hockey mask. Outside of that, everything in this movie is a dud.

9. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday ( 1993 )

Jason Goes to Hell, like Jason Takes Manhattan, falls short of the title’s expectations. No, Jason does n&#8217, t spend time in Hell in this movie. He&#8217 is instead scurrying around a town in New Jersey. No, it &#8217, s not the final Friday movie, as this list shows. The most shocking of all is Jason, who isn’t even mentioned in Jason Goes to Hell when he is blown up by government agents in the cold air.

Instead, Jason Goes to Hell directly rips from The Hidden to introduce a bunch of nonsense lore about Jason being a demonic worm that can jump into other bodies. So instead of seeing Kane Hodder or any other big men play Jason, we instead see Jason as Richard Grant or Stephen Culp, who are hardly imposing actors. That said, Jason Goes to Hell commits so much to its absurd premise that it does provide some wacky fun for those who don&#8217, t get hung up on Friday the 13th lore.

8. Freddy vs. Jason ( 2003 )

Freddy wins the Freddy vs. Jason game. Yes, we all know that New Line Cinema wanted to keep the actual outcome of their monster mash ambiguous, letting Jason behead the Nightmare on Elm Street monster, but having Freddy give the camera a knowing wink at the end. However, it is unquestionably a bad Jason movie and a good Freddy movie.

Sure, Jason gets in some cool kills and there is a part where he rips off Freddy &#8217, s arms and attacks him with them. However, Ronny Yu&#8217, the director, does much better with Freddy than Jason, and Robert Englund is fantastic reprising his signature role. All in all, Freddy vs. Jason manages to be a functional monster mash with a pretty coherent story. However, you’ll be disappointed if you’re here for Jason.

7. The 13th of September ( 1980 )

As discussed earlier, the first Friday the 13th is little more than a rip off of Halloween with a little bit of Carrie. Because The Burning is coming out next year, it doesn’t even get to call itself the best camp slasher of the era. Instead, it &#8217, s a pretty by-the-numbers whodunnit with none of the flash or style of the Italian Giallo that precede it.

Nonetheless, Friday the 13th does receive two marks in its favor. First, the movie has an absolute ringer in Betsy Palmer as Pamela Voorhees. In her final scenes, she convincingly channels her son and pulls a reverse Norman Bates routine. Second, Friday the 13th has effects by Tom Savini, who gives the film a level of gore quality that, frankly, it does n&#8217, t deserve. It would be remembered as a curio if the film never did lead to any sequels. Instead, it has to fall midway on a ranking in the franchise it started.

6. Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning ( 1985 )

Paramount made an effort to keep its word. The studio really did kill Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th Part IV. Paramount attempted to return to the drawing board when box office receipts made it clear that they couldn’t just ignore this profitable franchise. A New Beginning is another whodunnit with a new person doing the killing. Has Jason come back from the dead? Is it Tommy Jarvis, the troubled boy who was sent to a juvenile home after killing the killer in the previous entry?

No, it’s Roy, an ambulance driver who appears once at the beginning of the film, who commits murder after his obnoxious son is killed by a teenager with an anger issue. That massive flub aside&#8211, and it is a big one&#8211, A New Beginning is actually kinda fun. And it has a kill sequence that lasts forever thanks to the reliable Miguel Nuez Jr., an outhouse, and some burritos.

5. The New Blood ( 1988 ): Friday the 13th Part VII

The biggest knock against Freddy vs. Jason is that it learned nothing from the far superior seventh entry in the franchise, in which Freddy fights Carrie White. Okay, it’s not really Carrie White, but teen Tina ( Lar Park Lincoln ) does share the same psychokinetic powers and parent issues as the well-known character from the Stephen King novel and Brian DePalma movie. On the orders of her unscrupulous therapist, Tina goes to Camp Crystal Lake for isolated study, and inadvertently brings Jason back from his watery grave.

From there, The New Blood gives Jason plenty of room to concentrate on what he does best. As so often happens with the top entries on this list, censors did cut down a lot of the movie, which diminishes the shock of its best kill scenes. There is something triumphant in watching Jason shove a weed eater into the therapist’s face, even if we don’t get all the bloody gory.

4. Part 2 of Friday the 13th ( 1981 )

It would n&#8217, t be accurate to say that this list would not exist without Friday the 13th Part 2. However, that statement isn’t entirely accurate either. Part 2 took everything good about its predecessor and did it better, actually giving us Jason in the flesh and an excellent final girl in Ginny ( Amy Steel ).

Additionally, Part 2 is the first illustration of what the franchise actually becomes. A bunch of teens come to the camp, and Jason ( wearing a burlap bag instead of the hockey mask that would be his trademark ) kills them in inventive, gory ways. Part II makes a strong case for Friday the 13th as a reputable series in addition to the pure energy of the kills and Ginny’s intelligent final girl.

3. Jason X ( 2001 )

If Friday the 13th Part 2 says that Jason deserves respect, then Jason X suggests maybe he does n&#8217, t. And that &#8217, s a good thing. Jason X belongs to the long, strange line of horror films that transport their killers to space. Although Jason’s interpretation of the Leprechaun or Pinhead has mixed results, Jason’s suitability is admirable.

Well, mostly perfectly. There are so many characters, and Jason X wants so badly to be a Kevin Williamson or Joss Whedon movie. He also can’t say anything without dripping it in snark. Yet, these annoyances aside, it &#8217, s hard not to cheer when uber-Jason takes the stage or when he&#8217, s killing people with space-age weapons and chemicals.

2. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives ( 1986 )

Jason Lives ‘ first appearance in Part VI was Scream. Okay, okay, that &#8217, s going too far. However, Part VI has a metatextural quality that both acknowledges the franchise’s absurdity and situates it firmly in horror history. Jason Lives completes the Tommy Jarvis trilogy with yet another actor playing the part ( Thom Matthews here ), but it makes him into a proper Jason hunter and gives him a reason to accidentally resurrect the killer.

Better yet, the film strikes a balance between clever jokes and effective kills. There&#8217, s, of course, the James Bond opening in which Jason throws a machete at the screen. However, there is a pitch-black joke that occurs when one child realizes that Jason is coming to get him and asks,” So, what did you want to be when you were growing up?” &#8221, A genuinely smart Friday the 13th movie? Believe it or not, yes!

1. The final chapter of Friday the 13th ( 1984 )

It took four movies for Friday the 13th to get it right. But man, did it actually get it right? The Final Chapter is the platonic ideal of a slasher movie. It has interesting victims, is lean, and some incredible and unforgettable kills. It even has a great kid performance from Corey Feldman as Tommy Jarvis at his youngest and awesome Savini effects.

The Final Chapter‘s story isn’t anything special, either. Again, we have teens coming to party at the campground, at the same time that single mom Mrs. Jarvis ( Joan Freeman ) arrives with her kids Trish ( Kimberly Beck ) and Tommy. However, that skewed plot allows for some excellent kills and for the teenagers to stand out. I mean, when you have Crispin Glover as a slasher movie teen, you don&#8217, t need any plot. The Final Chapter is the 13th movie’s perfect Friday, simple, and sparse.

The post Friday the 13th Movies Ranked appeared first on Den of Geek.

The Black Phone and V/H/S/8 5 have clues in this post. In two days, the history of the Grabber continues, as Black Phone 2 comes to venues on October 17. Someone who doesn’t want to wait until that point you pique their interest by seeing a completely different film. Before casting Ethan Hawke as the Grabber, Mason ]…]

The Forgotten VHS Entry That’s a Black Phone Sequel initially appeared on Den of Geek.

Jason shows aren&#8217, t supposed to be good. They weren’t actually supposed to be about Jason, hmm. Back in the late 1970s, supplier Sean S. Cunningham saw the economic achievements of Halloween and an opportunity to cash in himself. In response, he ran an advertisement for a film called Friday the 13th that riffed on the John Carpenter movie’s trip theme.

Only later did he come up with the idea of a whodunnit, in which a criminal begins menacing lawyers trying to restart a camp times after a junior named Jason Voorhees drowned it. As everyone is well aware, Jason&#8217, Pamela Voorhees, Jason’s family, wanted to stop Camp Crystal Lake from reopening. The shock end of that picture, in which Jason emerges from the water to get a last lady, was only tacked on because Cunningham wanted to copy the shock ending of Carrie.

Creativity wasn’t the end objective. Cash was. And to accomplish that, Cunningham and Paramount Pictures succeeded, as Friday the 13th was a huge hit, as were its second some sequels. And yet, apparently, imagination happened yet. In the next film, Jason stepped up and replaced his family. And midway through the next movie, Jason got his name face, entirely becoming a dread image.

As you might have guessed, that prolix way produced movies of varying quality. Not all of the Friday the 13th shows are wonderful, but they all offer something for watching—if just the terrible death of some camp counsellor of ill-repute.

12. Friday the 13th ( 2009 )

Who specifically is the 2009 version of Friday the 13th for? One may think that a reboot of the collection may try to clarify the franchise&#8217, s notably wandering and vague timeframe to make things easier for fresh viewers. Instead, Friday the 13th ( 2009 )’s first 30 minutes attempt to condense the first three movies into a single prologue, complete with killer Pamela ( portrayed by Nana Visitor of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ) and baghead Jason. The beginning just confuses visitors and feeds long-time enthusiasts ephemeral &#8216, part berries, pleasing no one&#8211, which accurately sums up the film.

Which is not to say that the reboot lacks its charms, which isn’t. Derek Mears is fantastic as a more feral Jason, trading dynamic energy for the usual slow-moving beast of previous films. The film pulls off a surprising final girl fake out and does a great job with its young adult jerks. Still, Friday the 13th 2009 never shakes the feeling of being a fan film instead of a proper entry in the series.

11. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan ( 1989 )

People have been making fun of this film for more than three and a half decades because the majority of it is shot on a boat and the majority of the New York and Vancouver sections. And you know what? All that mockery belongs to Jason Takes Manhattan, though! Why give the eighth Friday the 13th entry that name if you &#8217, re never going to actually be in Manhattan (outside of some second unit stuff shot for the opening credits )?

Sincerely, if anything interesting happened in the movie, we could forgive a boat and we could forgive Canada. But, outside of a couple of cool kills, nothing does. Jason Takes Manhattan instead spends way too much time once more mythologizing the death of a young Jason ( which may or may not have happened, depending on the status of Fridays II, III, and IV ). In the end, Jason Takes Manhattan succeeds at nothing: not drama, not horror, and not even taking Manhattan.

10. Friday the 13th Part III ( 1983 )

After the first two entries, Friday the 13th ran the risk of becoming predictable and rote. Cunningham and Paramount were aware of this. They knew they had to shake things up. They made the gimmick that would set the series apart, perhaps the most disastrous one. They decided that Part III would be in 3-D.

Everything in Part III is well-known, from the group of counselors reopening the camp to the hicks who turn into early cannon fodder to the shocking ending in which Pamela emerges from the lake to grab the final girl. And unless you &#8217, re using the flimsy blue and red 3D glasses that get distributed with modern releases, or unless you saw a special screening at a repertory theater, you &#8217, re watching all of this in 2-D, making the pointy bits annoying instead of compelling. Part III at least finally reveals Jason his hockey mask. Outside of that, everything in this movie is a dud.

9. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday ( 1993 )

Jason Goes to Hell, like Jason Takes Manhattan, falls short of the title’s expectations. No, Jason does n&#8217, t spend time in Hell in this movie. Instead, he&#8217 is scurrying around a town in New Jersey. No, it &#8217, s not the final Friday movie, as this list shows. The most shocking of all is Jason, who isn’t even mentioned in Jason Goes to Hell when he is blown up by government agents in the cold air.

Instead, Jason Goes to Hell directly rips from The Hidden to introduce a bunch of nonsense lore about Jason being a demonic worm that can jump into other bodies. So instead of seeing Kane Hodder or any other big men play Jason, we instead see Jason as Richard Grant or Stephen Culp, who are hardly imposing actors. That said, Jason Goes to Hell commits so much to its absurd premise that it does provide some wacky fun for those who don&#8217, t get hung up on Friday the 13th lore.

8. Freddy vs. Jason ( 2003 )

Freddy wins the Freddy vs. Jason game. Yes, we all know that New Line Cinema wanted to keep the actual outcome of their monster mash ambiguous, letting Jason behead the Nightmare on Elm Street monster, but having Freddy give the camera a knowing wink at the end. However, it is unquestionable that Freddy vs. Jason is both a good and bad Jason movie.

Sure, Jason gets in some cool kills and there is a part where he rips off Freddy &#8217, s arms and attacks him with them. However, other than that, director Ronny Yu&#8217’s hyper fight style and reliance on digital effects suit Freddy much better than they do Jason, and Robert Englund has a blast reprising his signature role. All in all, Freddy vs. Jason manages to be a functional monster mash with a pretty coherent story. However, if you &#8217, are here for Jason, you &#8217 will be pretty disappointed.

7. The 13th of September ( 1980 )

As discussed earlier, the first Friday the 13th is little more than a rip off of Halloween with a little bit of Carrie. Because The Burning is coming out next year, it doesn’t even get to call itself the best camp slasher of the era. Instead, it &#8217, s a pretty by-the-numbers whodunnit with none of the flash or style of the Italian Giallo that precede it.

However, Friday the 13th receives two favorable marks. First, the movie has an absolute ringer in Betsy Palmer as Pamela Voorhees. In her final scenes, she convincingly pulls a reverse Norman Bates routine and channels her son, fully chewing on the scenery. Second, Friday the 13th has effects by Tom Savini, who gives the film a level of gore quality that, frankly, it does n&#8217, t deserve. It would be remembered as a curio if the film didn’t produce any sequels. Instead, it has to fall midway on a ranking in the franchise it started.

6. Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning ( 1985 )

Paramount made an effort to keep its word. The studio really did kill Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th Part IV. Paramount attempted to return to the drawing board when box office receipts made it clear that they couldn’t just ignore this profitable franchise. A New Beginning is another whodunnit with a new person doing the killing. Is it Jason who has come back from the dead? Is it Tommy Jarvis, the troubled boy who was sent to a juvenile home after killing the killer in the previous entry?

No, it’s Roy, an ambulance driver who appears once at the beginning of the film, who commits murder after his obnoxious son is killed by a teenager with an anger issue. That massive flub aside&#8211, and it is a big one&#8211, A New Beginning is actually kinda fun. Additionally, it has an all-timer of a kill sequence thanks to the ever-reliable Miguel Nuez Jr., an outhouse, and some burritos.

5. The New Blood ( 1988 ) is the title of Friday the 13th Part VII.

The biggest knock against Freddy vs. Jason is that it learned nothing from the far superior seventh entry in the franchise, in which Freddy fights Carrie White. Okay, it’s not really Carrie White, but teen Tina ( Lar Park Lincoln ) does share the same psychokinetic powers and parent issues as the well-known character from the Stephen King novel and Brian DePalma movie. On the orders of her unscrupulous therapist, Tina goes to Camp Crystal Lake for isolated study, and inadvertently brings Jason back from his watery grave.

From there, Jason has plenty of room to do what he does best in The New Blood. As so often happens with the top entries on this list, censors did cut down a lot of the movie, which diminishes the shock of its best kill scenes. There is something triumphant in watching Jason shove a weed eater into the therapist’s face, even if we don’t get all the bloody gory.

4. Part 2 of Friday the 13th ( 1981 )

It would n&#8217, t be accurate to say that this list would not exist without Friday the 13th Part 2. However, that statement isn’t entirely accurate either. Part 2 took everything good about its predecessor and did it better, actually giving us Jason in the flesh and an excellent final girl in Ginny ( Amy Steel ).

Additionally, Part 2 provides the first illustration of what the franchise actually becomes. A bunch of teens come to the camp, and Jason ( wearing a burlap bag instead of the hockey mask that would be his trademark ) kills them in inventive, gory ways. Part II makes a strong case for Friday the 13th as a reputable series in addition to the pure energy of the kills and an actually intelligent final girl in Ginny.

3. Jason X ( 2001 )

If Friday the 13th Part 2 says that Jason deserves respect, then Jason X suggests maybe he does n&#8217, t. And that &#8217, s a good thing. Jason X belongs to the long and odd line of horror films that transport their murderers to space. Although that approach has had mixed results with the Leprechaun or Pinhead, it still works well with Jason.

Well, mostly perfectly. There are so many characters, and Jason X wants so badly to be a Kevin Williamson or Joss Whedon movie, and he can’t say anything without dripping it in snark. Yet, these annoyances aside, it &#8217, s hard not to cheer when uber-Jason takes the stage or when he&#8217, s killing people with space-age weapons and chemicals.

2. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives ( 1986 )

Jason Lives was Scream before Scream in Part VI. Okay, okay, that &#8217, s going too far. However, Part VI has a metatextual quality that both acknowledges the absurdity of the franchise and firmly places it in horror history. Jason Lives completes the Tommy Jarvis trilogy with yet another actor playing the part ( Thom Matthews here ), but it makes him into a proper Jason hunter and gives him a reason to accidentally resurrect the killer.

Better yet, the film strikes a balance between clever jokes and effective kills. There&#8217, s, of course, the James Bond opening in which Jason throws a machete at the screen. However, there is a pitch-black joke that occurs when one child realizes that Jason is coming to get him and asks,” So, what did you want to be when you were growing up?” &#8221, A genuinely smart Friday the 13th movie? Believe it or not, yes!

1. The final chapter of Friday the 13th ( 1984 )

It took four movies for Friday the 13th to get it right. But man, did it actually get it right? The Final Chapter is the platonic ideal of a slasher movie. It has interesting victims, lean, and some incredible and unforgettable kills. It even has a great kid performance from Corey Feldman as Tommy Jarvis at his youngest and awesome Savini effects.

The Final Chapter‘s story isn’t anything special, either. Again, we have teens coming to party at the campground, at the same time that single mom Mrs. Jarvis ( Joan Freeman ) arrives with her kids Trish ( Kimberly Beck ) and Tommy. However, that skewed plot allows for some excellent kills and for the teenagers to stand out. I mean, when you have Crispin Glover as a slasher movie teen, you don&#8217, t need any plot. The Final Chapter is the 13th movie of Friday, which is simple and sparse.

The post Friday the 13th Movies Ranked appeared first on Den of Geek.

Jason videos aren’t supposed to be good. Heck, they weren’t actually supposed to be about Jason. Producer Sean S. Cunningham saw the economic achievements of Halloween as an opportunity to funds in himself in the late 1970s. But he took out an ad for a movie called Friday the 13th, riffing on the trip ]…]

On Den of Geek, the second post Friday the 13th Movies Ranked appeared.

Jason shows aren&#8217, t supposed to be good. They weren’t actually supposed to be about Jason, hmm. Producer Sean S. Cunningham saw the economic achievements of Halloween as an opportunity to money in himself in the late 1970s. In response, he ran an advertisement for a film called Friday the 13th that was a riff on the John Carpenter movie’s holiday theme.

Only later did he come up with the idea of a whodunnit, in which a criminal begins menacing lawyers trying to restart a camp times after a junior named Jason Voorhees drowned it. As everyone is aware of, Jason&#8217’s family Pamela Voorhees, who wanted to stop Camp Crystal Lake from reopening, was the killer. The shock end of that picture, in which Jason emerges from the water to get a last lady, was only tacked on because Cunningham wanted to copy the shock ending of Carrie.

Creativity wasn’t the end objective. Income was. And to achieve that, Cunningham and Paramount Pictures were successful, with Friday the 13th being a huge hit as well as its earliest some sequels. And still, apparently, imagination happened yet. Jason replaced his mother in the next film, taking the lead. And midway through the next movie, Jason got his name face, entirely becoming a dread image.

As you might have guessed, those pictures had varying levels of quality as a result of this prolix approach. Not all of the Friday the 13th shows are wonderful, but they all offer something for watching—if just the terrible death of some camp counsellor of ill-repute.

12. Friday the 13th ( 2009 )

Who accurately is the 2009 version of Friday the 13th for? One may think that a reboot of the collection may try to clarify the franchise&#8217, s reportedly wandering and vague timeframe to make things easier for fresh viewers. Instead, Friday the 13th ( 2009 )’s first 30 minutes attempt to condense the first three movies into a single prologue, complete with killer Pamela ( portrayed by Nana Visitor of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ) and baghead Jason. The beginning just confuses visitors and feeds long-time enthusiasts ephemeral &#8216, part berries, pleasing no one&#8211, which accurately sums up the film.

Which is not to say that the reboot lacks charm, though. Derek Mears is fantastic as a more feral Jason, trading dynamic energy for the usual slow-moving beast of previous films. The film pulls off a surprising final girl fake out thanks to the excellent acting by the cast of young adult jerks. Still, Friday the 13th 2009 never shakes the feeling of being a fan film instead of a proper entry in the series.

11. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan ( 1989 )

People have been making fun of this film for more than three and a half decades because the majority of it is shot on a boat and the majority of the New York and Vancouver sections are actually in the water. And you know what? Jason Takes Manhattan deserves a lot of mockery! Why give the eighth Friday the 13th entry that name if you &#8217, re never going to actually be in Manhattan (outside of some second unit stuff shot for the opening credits )?

Sincerely, we could forgive a boat and Canada if anything interesting happened in the movie. But, outside of a couple of cool kills, nothing does. Jason Takes Manhattan instead spends way too much time mythologizing the tragic passing of a young Jason ( which, depending on the status of Fridays II, III, and IV ), again. In the end, Jason Takes Manhattan succeeds at nothing: not drama, not horror, and not even taking Manhattan.

10. Friday the 13th Part III ( 1983 )

After the first two entries, Friday the 13th ran the risk of becoming predictable and rote. Cunningham and Paramount were aware of this. They knew they had to shake things up. They made the gimmick that would set the series apart, perhaps the most disastrous one. They decided that Part III would be in 3-D.

Everything in Part III is well-known, from the group of counselors reopening the camp to the hicks who turn into early cannon fodder to the &#8220, shocker &#8221, ending in which Pamela emerges from the lake to grab the final girl. And unless you &#8217, re using the flimsy blue and red 3D glasses that get distributed with modern releases, or unless you saw a special screening at a repertory theater, you &#8217, re watching all of this in 2-D, making the pointy bits annoying instead of compelling. Jason receives his hockey mask at the end of Part III. Outside of that, everything in this movie is a dud.

9. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday ( 1993 )

Like Jason Takes Manhattan, Jason Goes to Hell falls short of the title’s intended use. No, Jason does n&#8217, t spend time in Hell in this movie. He&#8217 is instead scurrying around a town in New Jersey. No, it &#8217, s not the final Friday movie, as this list shows. Most shocking of all, Jason isn’t even in Jason Goes to Hell when he is blown up by government agents in the cold open.

Instead, Jason Goes to Hell directly rips from The Hidden to introduce a bunch of nonsense lore about Jason being a demonic worm that can jump into other bodies. So Jason is cast as Richard Grant or Stephen Culp, not as imposing as Kane Hodder or any other big-boy actor, which is not what we get. That said, Jason Goes to Hell commits so much to its absurd premise that it does provide some wacky fun for those who don&#8217, t get hung up on Friday the 13th lore.

8. Freddy vs. Jason ( 2003 )

Freddy wins the Freddy vs. Jason game. Yes, we all know that New Line Cinema wanted to keep the actual outcome of their monster mash ambiguous, letting Jason behead the Nightmare on Elm Street monster, but having Freddy give the camera a knowing wink at the end. However, it is unquestionably a bad Jason movie and a good Freddy movie.

Sure, Jason gets in some cool kills and there is a part where he rips off Freddy &#8217, s arms and attacks him with them. However, other than that, director Ronny Yu&#8217’s hyper fight style and reliance on digital effects suit Freddy much better than Jason, and Robert Englund has a blast reprising his signature role. All in all, Freddy vs. Jason manages to be a functional monster mash with a pretty coherent story. However, if you’re here for Jason and are willing to pay a premium, you’ll be disappointed.

7. 1980’s Friday the 13th

As discussed earlier, the first Friday the 13th is little more than a rip off of Halloween with a little bit of Carrie. The Burning will be released the following year, so it doesn’t even get to call itself the best camp slasher of all time. Instead, it &#8217, s a pretty by-the-numbers whodunnit with none of the flash or style of the Italian Giallo that precede it.

However, Friday the 13th receives two favorable marks. First, the movie has an absolute ringer in Betsy Palmer as Pamela Voorhees. In her final scenes, she convincingly pulls a reverse Norman Bates routine and channels her son, chewing on the scenery. Second, Friday the 13th has effects by Tom Savini, who gives the film a level of gore quality that, frankly, it does n&#8217, t deserve. If the film didn’t produce any sequels, it would be remembered as a curio. Instead, it has to fall midway on a ranking in the franchise it started.

6. Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning ( 1985 )

Paramount made an effort to keep its word. The studio really did kill Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th Part IV. Paramount attempted to return to the drawing board when box office receipts made it clear that they couldn’t just ignore this profitable franchise. A New Beginning is another whodunnit with a new person doing the killing. Is it Jason who has come back from the dead? Is it Tommy Jarvis, the troubled boy who was sent to a juvenile home after killing the killer in the previous entry?

No, it &#8217 is not Roy, an ambulance driver we only see once at the beginning of the film, who commits murder after his obnoxious son is killed by a teenager with an anger issue. That massive flub aside&#8211, and it is a big one&#8211, A New Beginning is actually kinda fun. And it has a kill sequence that lasts forever thanks to the reliable Miguel Nuez Jr., an outhouse, and some burritos.

5. The New Blood ( 1988 ) is the title of Friday the 13th Part VII.

The biggest knock against Freddy vs. Jason is that it learned nothing from the far superior seventh entry in the franchise, in which Freddy fights Carrie White. Okay, it’s not really Carrie White, but teen Tina ( Lar Park Lincoln ) does share the same psychokinetic powers and parent issues as the well-known character from the Stephen King novel and Brian DePalma movie. On the orders of her unscrupulous therapist, Tina goes to Camp Crystal Lake for isolated study, and inadvertently brings Jason back from his watery grave.

From there, Jason has plenty of room to do what he does best in The New Blood. As so often happens with the top entries on this list, censors did cut down a lot of the movie, which diminishes the shock of its best kill scenes. There is something triumphant in watching Jason shove a weed eater into the therapist’s face, even if we don’t get all the bloody gory.

4. Part 2 of Friday the 13th ( 1981 )

It would n&#8217, t be accurate to say that this list would not exist without Friday the 13th Part 2. However, that statement isn’t entirely accurate either. Part 2 took everything good about its predecessor and did it better, actually giving us Jason in the flesh and an excellent final girl in Ginny ( Amy Steel ).

Additionally, Part 2 provides the first illustration of what the franchise actually becomes. A bunch of teens come to the camp, and Jason ( wearing a burlap bag instead of the hockey mask that would be his trademark ) kills them in inventive, gory ways. Part II makes a strong case for Friday the 13th as a reputable series in addition to the pure energy of the kills and an actually intelligent final girl in Ginny.

3. Jason X ( 2001 )

If Friday the 13th Part 2 says that Jason deserves respect, then Jason X suggests maybe he does n&#8217, t. And that &#8217, s a good thing. Jason X belongs to the long and odd line of horror films that transport their murderers to space. Although that approach has had mixed results with the Leprechaun or Pinhead, it still works well with Jason.

Well, mostly perfectly. There are so many characters, and Jason X wants so badly to be a Kevin Williamson or Joss Whedon movie, and he can’t say anything without dripping it in snark. Yet, these annoyances aside, it &#8217, s hard not to cheer when uber-Jason takes the stage or when he&#8217, s killing people with space-age weapons and chemicals.

2. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives ( 1986 )

Jason Lives was Scream before Scream in Part VI. Okay, okay, that &#8217, s going too far. However, Part VI has a metatextual quality that both acknowledges the absurdity of the franchise and firmly places it in horror history. Jason Lives completes the Tommy Jarvis trilogy with yet another actor playing the part ( Thom Matthews here ), but it makes him into a proper Jason hunter and gives him a reason to accidentally resurrect the killer.

Even better, the film strikes a balance between clever jokes and effective kills. There&#8217, s, of course, the James Bond opening in which Jason throws a machete at the screen. However, there is also the pitch black joke when one child realizes that Jason is coming to get him and asks,” So, what did you want to be when you were growing up?” &#8221, A genuinely smart Friday the 13th movie? Believe it or not, yes!

1. The final chapter of Friday the 13th ( 1984 )

It took four movies for Friday the 13th to get it right. But man, did it actually get it right? The Final Chapter is the platonic ideal of a slasher movie. It has interesting victims, is lean, and some incredible and unforgettable kills. It even has a great kid performance from Corey Feldman as Tommy Jarvis at his youngest and awesome Savini effects.

The Final Chapter‘s plot isn’t anything special, either. Again, we have teens coming to party at the campground, at the same time that single mom Mrs. Jarvis ( Joan Freeman ) arrives with her kids Trish ( Kimberly Beck ) and Tommy. However, that skewed plot allows for some excellent kills and for the teens to stand out. I mean, when you have Crispin Glover as a slasher movie teen, you don&#8217, t need any plot. The Final Chapter is what every Friday the 13th movie should be, sparse and straightforward.

On Den of Geek, the second post Friday the 13th Movies Ranked appeared.

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

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible style

When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I set about making a layout that I would eventually fall 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 speak at An Event Apart and the subsequent article in A Checklist Off in 2010. I was sold on reactive style 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. You can’t really put responsiveness at the end of a job, which I learned the hard way. To make smooth design, you need to prepare throughout the style stage.

A new way to style

Making flexible or smooth websites has always been about removing restrictions and creating content that can be viewed on any system. 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 concerns

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

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

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

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

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

Another difficulty arose as I moved from a design firm building websites for tiny- to medium-sized companies, to larger in-house teams where I worked across a collection of related sites. In those positions, I began to work more frequently with recyclable 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 concerns allow components to adapt based on the viewport size, but what if I put a component into a sidebar, like in the figure below?

Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

Container queries have long been touted as an improvement upon media queries, but at the time of writing are unsupported in most browsers. There are workarounds for JavaScript, but they can lead to dependencies 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?

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

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

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

Without having strong cross-browser support for them, it’s difficult to say for certain whether container queries will be a success story. 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 manner, but never that it should be smaller than the content inside.

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

Additionally, intrinsic layouts can mix and match both fixed and flexible units, letting the content choose how much space is taken up.

What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Without having the same breakpoints or the same amount of content as in the previous implementation, components and patterns can be lifted 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 instance of “everything changed,” in my opinion.

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

One possible explanation for that might be that I now work for a sizable company, which is significantly different from the role I held as a design agency in 2010: In my agency days, every new project was a clean slate, a chance to try something new. 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 all-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 implement this in a graphics-based software package. In code, we can add longer sentences, more radio buttons, and extra tabs, and watch in real time as the design adapts. Still in use? Is the design too reliant on the current content?

Personally, I look forward to the day 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, like in our earlier Subgrid card illustration, which allowed the cards to modify both their own content and that of their sibling components.

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 dated markup tricks like this —

 First line of text with different styling...

—we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

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

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 completely different design process for someone using a mobile phone and moving through a crowded street in glaring sunshine from a person 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”.

On a 50 MB budget, I spent a day surfing the web.

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 return of media inquiries

Media concerns 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 Level 5 spec for Media Queries 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 concerns like this go beyond choices made by a browser to grant more control to the user.

Expect the unexpected

In the end, we should always anticipate 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 is a lot more we can do to adopt a more intrinsic approach, from responsive components to fixed and fluid units. Even better, we can test these techniques during the design phase by designing in-browser and watching how our designs adapt in real-time.

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

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

” Any reply”? is perhaps one of the worst ways to ask for opinions. It’s obscure and unfocused, and it doesn’t give a clear picture 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 input can be seen as a form of design 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. Iteration, evaluation, and problem. 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 topic may be important, so it might be difficult to get the team to pay attention to it.

But how do we get into this scenario? A number of elements are involved. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input approach. Another is how healthy it is to keep the issue open and assume that everyone else will agree. Another is that in nonprofessional debate, 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 also serves as a form of acceptance, outlining your willingness to make remarks and the types of comments you want to receive. 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 method to request suggestions. It simply needs to be certain, and sensitivity can take several shapes. The concept of stage over level is a concept for design critique that I’ve found to be particularly helpful in my coaching.

” Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our case, the design process. The type of feedback changes as the user research moves on to the final design. But within a single step, one might still review whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a proper translation of the amassed feedback into updated designs as the project 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? 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. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this?
• Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

The other axis of specificity is determined by how far you’d like to go with the information being presented. 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 when switching between iterations because it’s crucial to highlight the changes made.

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

The iteration

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

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.

There are many benefits to using iteration posts:

• 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 components 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 every iteration post, I would copy and paste this, so I could do it again. 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 artifact, in essence. 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.

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

For 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. 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 a draft, just a concept to start a discussion, or it might be a cumulative list of all the features that have been added 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 describe a design as complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits that still need more attention and in turn, more iterations would be required, such as” with i8 we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC” to indicate when it is finished.

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, it is more effective to adopt a different strategy: 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.

Asynchronous feedback is particularly effective around these friction points because of this shift’s significant benefits:

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. If the respondent is a stakeholder or a person directly involved in the project, this might be especially true. 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. When the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration, that’s the response. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement.
• Another option is to respond politely to acknowledge each comment, 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”!
• Another option is to provide a quick summary of the comments before moving on. 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. Swoop-by comments frequently prompt the simple thought,” We’ve already discussed this,” and it can be frustrating to have to keep coming back and forth.

Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. However, a brief response with a link to the previous discussion for additional information is typically sufficient if responding to a previously litigated point might be helpful. 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 fit in with a user’s perspective when they are seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

The personal stake we might have in relation to the design could be the third friction point, which might cause us to feel defensive if the review turned out to be more of a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego ( because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there ). In the end, putting everything in aggregate 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 conclusion that you can support, 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 has the most background and knowledge to make the best choice. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

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

In the 1950s, some members of the elite running group had come to accept the idea that it was impossible to run a hour in less than four hours. Riders had been attempting it since the later 19th century and were beginning to draw the conclusion that the human body just wasn’t built for the job.

However, on May 6, 1956, Roger Bannister caught people by surprise. It was a cold, damp morning in Oxford, England—conditions no one expected to give themselves to record-setting—and but Bannister did really that, running a mile in 3: 59.4 and becoming the first people in the history books to run a mile in under four hours.

The world today knew that the four-minute hour could be accomplished thanks to this change in the standard. Bannister’s history lasted just forty-six days, when it was snatched aside by American sprinter John Landy. Finally, a year later, three runners all managed to cross the four-minute challenge in the same competition. Since therefore, over 1, 400 walkers have actually run a mile in under four days, the current document is 3: 43.13, held by Moroccan performer Hicham El Guerrouj.

We can do a lot more with what we think is possible, and we can only do it if we see that someone else has already done it. As with individual running speed, there are also hard limits on how a website can accomplish.

Establishing requirements for a green website

The key indicators of climate performance in most big companies are pretty well established, such as power per square metre for homes and miles per gallon for cars. The tools and methods for calculating those measures are standardized as well, which keeps everyone on the same site when doing economic evaluations. However, we are not required to follow any specific environmental standards in the world of websites and apps, and we have only recently developed the tools and methods to do so.

The main objective in green web layout is to reduce carbon emissions. However, it’s nearly impossible to accurately assess the CO₂ output of a online product. We didn’t measure the pollutants coming out of the exhaust valves on our laptops. Our websites ‘ emissions are far away, out of mind, and out of sight when fuel and oil are burned in power plants. We have no way to track the particles from a website or app up to the power station where the light is being generated and really know the exact amount of house oil produced. What then do we do?

If we can‘t measure the actual carbon emissions, then we need to get what we can estimate. The following are the main elements that could be used as carbon pollution gauges:

1. Transfer of data
2. Electricity’s carbon power

Let’s take a look at how we can use these indicators to calculate the energy use, and in turn the carbon footprint, of the sites and web applications we create.

Transfer of data

Most researchers use kilowatt-hours per gigabyte (k Wh/GB ) as a metric of energy efficiency when measuring the amount of data transferred over the internet when a website or application is used. This serves as a wonderful example of how much energy is consumed and how much carbon is released. As a rule of thumb, the more files transferred, the more electricity used in the data center, telecoms systems, and end users products.

The easiest way to calculate data transfer for a single visit for web pages is to measure the page weight, which is the page’s transfer size in kilobytes when someone first visits the page. It’s fairly easy to measure using the developer tools in any modern web browser. Statistics for the total data transfer of any web application are frequently included in your web hosting account ( Fig. 2.1 ).

The nice thing about page weight as a metric is that it allows us to compare the efficiency of web pages on a level playing field without confusing the issue with constantly changing traffic volumes.

A large scope is required to reduce page weight. By early 2020, the median page weight was 1.97 MB for setups the HTTP Archive classifies as “desktop” and 1.77 MB for “mobile”, with desktop increasing 36 percent since January 2016 and mobile page weights nearly doubling in the same period ( Fig 2.2 ). Image files account for roughly half of this data transfer, making them the single biggest contributor to carbon emissions on a typical website.

History clearly shows us that our web pages can be smaller, if only we set our minds to it. While the majority of technologies, including the underlying technology of the web like data centers and transmission networks, become more and more energy efficient, websites themselves become less effective as time goes on.

You might be aware of the project team’s focus on creating faster user experiences using the concept of performance budgeting. For example, we might specify that the website must load in a maximum of one second on a broadband connection and three seconds on a 3G connection. Performance budgets are upper limits rather than hazy ideas, much like speed limits while driving. As a result, the goal should always be to stay within budget.

Designing for fast performance does often lead to reduced data transfer and emissions, but it isn’t always the case. Page weight and transfer size are more objective and reliable benchmarks for sustainable web design, whereas web performance is frequently more about the subjective perception of load times than it is about the underlying system’s actual efficiency.

We can set a page weight budget in reference to a benchmark of industry averages, using data from sources like HTTP Archive. We can also use competitor page weight to compare the new website to the old one. For example, we might set a maximum page weight budget as equal to our most efficient competitor, or we could set the benchmark lower to guarantee we are best in class.

We could start looking at the transferability of our web pages for repeat visitors if we want to take it one step further. Although page weight for the first time someone visits is the easiest thing to measure, and easy to compare on a like-for-like basis, we can learn even more if we start looking at transfer size in other scenarios too. For instance, visitors who load the same page more frequently will likely have a high percentage of the files cached in their browser, which means they won’t need to move all the files on subsequent visits. Likewise, a visitor who navigates to new pages on the same website will likely not need to load the full page each time, as some global assets from areas like the header and footer may already be cached in their browser. We can learn even more about how to optimize efficiency for users who regularly visit our pages by measuring transfer size at this next level of detail, which will also enable us to establish page weight budgets for situations that extend beyond the initial visit.

Page weight budgets are easy to track throughout a design and development process. Although they don’t actually provide direct information on carbon emissions and energy consumption, they do provide a clear indicator of efficiency in comparison to other websites. And as transfer size is an effective analog for energy consumption, we can actually use it to estimate energy consumption too.

In summary, less data transfer leads to more energy efficiency, which is a crucial component of reducing web product carbon emissions. The more efficient our products, the less electricity they use, and the less fossil fuels need to be burned to produce the electricity to power them. However, as we’ll see next, it’s important to take into account the source of that electricity because all web products require some power.

Electricity’s carbon power

Regardless of energy efficiency, the level of pollution caused by digital products depends on the carbon intensity of the energy being used to power them. The term” carbon intensity” (gCO₂/k Wh ) is used to describe how much carbon dioxide is produced for each kilowatt-hour of electricity ). This varies widely, with renewable energy sources and nuclear having an extremely low carbon intensity of less than 10 gCO₂/k Wh ( even when factoring in their construction ), whereas fossil fuels have very high carbon intensity of approximately ₂00–400 gCO₂/k Wh.

The majority of electricity is produced by national or state grids, which combine energy from a variety of sources with different carbon intensity levels. The distributed nature of the internet means that a single user of a website or app might be using energy from multiple different grids simultaneously, a website user in Paris uses electricity from the French national grid to power their home internet and devices, but the website’s data center could be in Dallas, USA, pulling electricity from the Texas grid, while the telecoms networks use energy from everywhere between Dallas and Paris.

Although we have some control over where our projects are hosted, we do not have complete control over the energy supply of web services. With a data center using a significant proportion of the energy of any website, locating the data center in an area with low carbon energy will tangibly reduce its carbon emissions. Danish startup Tomorrow reports and maps the user-provided data, and a look at their map demonstrates how, for instance, choosing a data center in France will result in significantly lower carbon emissions than choosing a data center in the Netherlands ( Fig. 2.3 ).

Having said that, we don’t want to locate our servers too far away from our users; however, it takes energy to transmit data through the telecom’s networks, and the more energy is used, the further the data travels. Just like food miles, we can think of the distance from the data center to the website’s core user base as “megabyte miles” —and we want it to be as small as possible.

We can use website analytics to determine the country, state, or even city where our core user group is located and determine the distance between that location and the data center that our hosting company uses as a benchmark. This will be a somewhat fuzzy metric as we don’t know the precise center of mass of our users or the exact location of a data center, but we can at least get a rough idea.

For instance, if a website is hosted in London but the main audience is on the United States ‘ West Coast, we could look up the travel distance between London and San Francisco, which is 5,300 miles. That’s a long way! We can see how hosting it somewhere in North America, ideally on the West Coast, would significantly shorten the distance and the amount of energy needed to transmit the data. In addition, locating our servers closer to our visitors helps reduce latency and delivers better user experience, so it’s a win-win.

Reverting it to carbon emissions

If we combine carbon intensity with a calculation for energy consumption, we can calculate the carbon emissions of our websites and apps. The method my team developed converts the amount of electricity transferred when loading a web page into a CO₂ figure ( Fig. ₂.4), and then converts that data into a figure for the tool. It also factors in whether or not the web hosting is powered by renewable energy.

The Energy and Emissions Worksheet that comes with this book teaches you how to take it one step further and tailor the data more precisely to the unique aspects of your project.

We could even expand our page weight budget by establishing carbon budgets as well with the ability to calculate carbon emissions for our projects. CO₂ is not a metric commonly used in web projects, we’re more familiar with kilobytes and megabytes, and can fairly easily look at design options and files to assess how big they are. Although translating that into carbon adds a layer of abstraction that isn’t as intuitive, carbon budgets do focus our minds on the main thing we’re trying to reduce, which supports the main goal of sustainable web design: reducing carbon emissions.

Browser Energy

Transfer of data might be the simplest and most complete analog for energy consumption in our digital projects, but by giving us one number to represent the energy used in the data center, the telecoms networks, and the end user’s devices, it can’t offer us insights into the efficiency in any specific part of the system.

One part of the system we can look at in more detail is the energy used by end users ‘ devices. The computational burden is increasingly shifting from the data center to the users ‘ devices, whether they are smart TVs, tablets, laptops, phones, tablets, laptops, or other front-end web technologies. Modern web browsers allow us to implement more complex styling and animation on the fly using CSS and JavaScript. Additionally, JavaScript libraries like Angular and React make it possible to create applications where the” thinking” process is performed either partially or completely in the browser.

All of these advances are exciting and open up new possibilities for what the web can do to serve society and create positive experiences. However, more energy is used by the user’s devices as a result of the user’s web browser’s increased computation. This has implications not just environmentally, but also for user experience and inclusivity. Applications that put a lot of processing power on a user’s device unintentionally exclude users with older, slower devices and make the batteries on phones and laptops drain more quickly. Furthermore, if we build web applications that require the user to have up-to-date, powerful devices, people throw away old devices much more frequently. The poorest members of society are also under disproportionate financial burdens due to this, which is not just bad for the environment.

In part because the tools are limited, and partly because there are so many different models of devices, it’s difficult to measure website energy consumption on end users ‘ devices. The Energy Impact monitor inside the Safari browser’s developer console ( Fig. 2.5 ) is one of the tools we currently use.

You know what happens when your computer’s cooling fans start spinning so frantically that you suspect it might take off when you load a website? That’s essentially what this tool is measuring.

It uses these figures to create an energy impact rating and shows how much CPU is used and how long it takes to load the web page. It doesn’t give us precise data for the amount of electricity used in kilowatts, but the information it does provide can be used to benchmark how efficiently your websites use energy and set targets for improvement.

We’ve been conversing for a long time. Whether to present information, perform transactions, or just to check in on one another, people have yammered aside, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken discussion for many generations. Only recently have we begun to write our discussions, and only recently have we outsourced them to the system, a system that exhibits a significantly higher affection for written letter 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 chaos of human statement, including the squabbling and pauses, the gestures and body vocabulary, and the dialect variations that can impede even the most skillfully created human-computer conversation. In the human-to-human situation, spoken language also has the opportunity of face-to-face call, where we can easily interpret visual 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 devices 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 reaches far beyond what the written word can ever deliver, whether it’s rapid-fire, low-pitched, 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-to-text interactions

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

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

These three categories, which I refer to as transactional, informational, and prosocial, also apply to essentially every voice interaction: a single conversation that starts with the voice interface’s first greeting and ends with the user leaving the interface. Note here that a conversation in our human sense—a chat between people that leads to some result and lasts an arbitrary length of time—could encompass multiple transactional, informational, and prosocial voice interactions in succession. In other words, a voice interaction is a conversation, but 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, such as one that focuses on a transactional voice interaction ( buying iced tea ) and another on learning something new ( discuss a musical ).

Transactional voice interactions

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

Alison: Hey, how are things going?

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?

Alison: Big.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

Burhan: You got it. It will cost about$ 15 and take fifteen minutes to complete.

Each progressive disclosure in this transactional conversation reveals more and more of the desired outcome of the transaction: a service rendered or a product delivered. Transactional conversations exhibit a few key characteristics: they’re direct, to the point, and economical. 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.

Alison: Hey, how are things going?

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.

Do you have any halal options available on the menu, Alison?

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. Anything else I can answer for you?

Alison: That’s it for now. 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 that seek the truth through information gathering. Voice interactions that are informational might be more long-winded than transactional conversations by necessity. Responses are typically longer, more in-depth, and carefully communicated to ensure that the customer understands the main ideas.

Voice Interfaces

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

IVR systems have a reputation for having less scintillating conversations than we’re used to in real life ( or even in science fiction ), despite being extremely repetitive and monotonous.

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. The most recent version of a voice-over-text format of content delivery is probably the one that is closest to it.

Among the first screen readers known by that moniker was the Screen Reader for the BBC Micro and NEEC Portable developed by the Research Centre for the Education of the Visually Handicapped (RCEVH) at the University of Birmingham in 1986 ( ). The first IBM Screen Reader for text-based computers was created by Jim Thatcher in the same year, which was later recreated for 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 is a big draw for screen readers: they’re challenging 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 is a cognitive burden 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, ignoring areas that are unimportant to them. 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 they’re quickly gaining more attention from accessibility advocates for their assistive potential.

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

There are a lot of variations in the programmability and customization of some voice assistants compared to others ( Fig. 1 ). As a result of the breadth 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 by which developers can interact with Siri at a low level, aside from predefined categories of tasks like sending messages, hailing rideshares, making restaurant reservations, and other things, so even now it isn’t possible to program Siri to perform arbitrary functions.

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 are capable of 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 of the Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant ecosystems can choose from among the thousands of custom-built skills available today.

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 manifests as a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. I don’t prescribe any specific implementation approaches in this design-focused book, but in Chapter 4 we’ll get into some of the implications these variables might have on the way you build out your design artifacts.

Voice content

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

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 movements?

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], an airplane flight’s arrival and departure times, 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. The best way to learn how to stretch your content to the limits of its potential is through microcontent, which will inform both established and new delivery methods.

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.

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

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

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

A content type is essential for an omnichannel articles strategy, and the model needed conceptual types, which are types of types that are categorized according to their meaning rather than their presentation. Our objective was to allow writers to write articles and use it where necessary. But as the job proceeded, I realized that supporting material utilize at the range that my client needed required the whole group to identify a new pattern.

Despite our best efforts, we remained influenced by design systems, which we were more comfortable with. An holistic content strategy doesn’t rely on WYSIWYG equipment for design and layout, unlike web-focused material strategies. Our tendency to approach the material model with our common design-system thinking frequently led us to veer away from one of the main purposes of a material model: delivering content to audiences on various marketing channels.

Two fundamental tenets are necessary for a successful content model

We needed to explain to our designers, developers, and stakeholders that we were doing something completely different from their previous web projects, where everyone assumed that content would fit into layouts as visual building blocks. The previous approach was not only more familiar but also more intuitive—at least at first—because it made the designs feel more tangible. We discovered two guiding principles that helped the team understand how a content model and the design processes we were familiar with were:

1. Instead of layout, semantics must be used by content models.
2. And content models should connect content that belongs together.

Semantic content models

A semantic content model uses type and attribute names that reflect the content’s intended purpose and not how it will be displayed. For example, in a nonsemantic model, teams might create types like teasers, media blocks, and cards. Although these types might make it simple to present content, they don’t aid in understanding the meaning of the content, which would have opened the door to the content presented in each marketing channel. To allow each delivery channel to comprehend the content and use it as it sees fit, a semantic content model uses type names like product, service, and testimonial.

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

A semantic content model has a number of advantages:

Even if your team doesn’t care about omnichannel content, a semantic content model decouples content from its presentation so that teams can evolve the website’s design without needing to refactor its content. Content can withstand obtrusive website redesigns in this way.
• A semantic content model also gives you a competitive advantage. By adding structured data based on Schema. A website can provide hints to Google to understand the content, display it in search snippets or knowledge panels, and use it to respond to user voice-interface queries. Without ever visiting your website, potential visitors could easily find your content.
• Beyond those practical benefits, you’ll also need a semantic content model if you want to deliver omnichannel content. Delivery channels must be able to comprehend the same content in order to use it across multiple marketing channels. For instance, if your content model provided a list of questions and answers, it could be used as a voice interface or by a bot to answer frequently asked questions ( FAQ ) pages.

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

Content models that connect

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

Write an essay or article about it. The unity of an article’s parts determines its meaning and usefulness. Would one of the headings or paragraphs be meaningful on their own without the context of the full article? Our well-known design-system thinking on our project frequently led us to want to develop content models that would divide content into distinct chunks to fit the web-centric layout. This had a similar effect to an article that had had its headline removed. Because we were slicing content into standalone pieces based on layout, content that belonged together became difficult to manage and nearly impossible for multiple delivery channels to understand.

Let’s take a look at how connecting related content works in a real-world setting to illustrate. A complex layout for a software product page that included multiple tabs and sections was presented by the client’s design team. Our instincts were to follow suit with the content model. Shouldn’t we make adding multiple tabs in the future as simple and flexible as possible?

We felt like we needed a content type called “tab section” because our design-system instincts were so well-known, so that multiple tab sections could be added to a page. Each tab section would display various types of content. The software’s overview or specifications might be available in one tab. A list of resources might be provided by another tab.

Our inclination to break down the content model into “tab section” pieces would have led to an unnecessarily complex model and a cumbersome editing experience, and it would have also created content that couldn’t have been understood by additional delivery channels. How would another system have resorted to counting tab sections and content blocks, for instance, if it had been able to identify a product’s “tab section” when referring to its specifications or resource list? This would have prevented the tabs from ever being rearranged, and logic would have had to be added to each other delivery channel to interpret the layout of the design system. Furthermore, if the customer were to have no longer wanted to display this content in a tab layout, it would have been tedious to migrate to a new content model to reflect the new page redesign.

Our customer had a breakthrough when we realized that each tab’s specific information, such as the software product’s overview, specifications, related resources, and pricing, was intended to reveal a specific purpose. Once implementation began, our inclination to focus on what’s visual and familiar had obscured the intent of the designs. It wasn’t long after a little digging that the content model didn’t like the idea of tabs. What was important was the meaning of the content they were planning to display in the tabs.

In fact, the customer could have decided to display this content in a different way—without tabs—somewhere else. In response to this realization, we created content types for the software product based on the meaningful attributes the client wanted to display on the web. There were rich attributes like screenshots, software requirements, and feature lists as well as obvious semantic attributes like name and description. The software’s product information stayed together because it wasn’t sliced across separate components like “tab sections” that were derived from the content’s presentation. Any delivery channel, including those that follow, could comprehend and display this content.

Conclusion

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

• A design system isn’t a content model. Team members may be persuaded to combine them and have their content model resemble their design system, so you should guard the semantic and contextual integrity of the content strategy throughout the entire implementation process. Without the use of a magic decoder ring, every delivery channel can now consume the content.
• If your team is struggling to make this transition, you can still reap some of the benefits by using Schema. Your website uses structured data from org. The benefit of search engine optimization is a compelling reason on its own, even if additional delivery channels aren’t on the horizon in the near future.
• Additionally, remind the team that decoupling the content model from the design will let them update the designs more easily because they won’t be held back by the cost of content migrations. They will be prepared for the upcoming big thing, and they will be able to create new designs without compromising compatibility between the design and the content.

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

This book will provide you with that plan of action. It covers how to incorporate safety principles into your design work in order to make tech that’s secure, how to persuade your stakeholders that this work is important, and how to respond to the critique that what we really need is more diversity. ( Spoiler: we do, but diversity alone is not the solution to fixing unethical, unsafe technology. )

The procedure for equitable safety

Your objectives when designing for protection are as follows:

• discover ways your solution can be used for abuse,
• style ways to prevent the maltreatment, and
• offer assistance for harmed people to regain control and power.

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

• conducting studies
• Creating tropes
• Pondering issues
• Designing answers
• Testing for security

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

And once you use it, if you have an idea for making it better or simply want to give perspective of how it helped your staff, please get in touch with me. It’s a living document, which I hope engineers may apply as a practical and useful tool throughout their day-to-day tasks.

If you’re working on a product especially for a resilient team or survivors of some form of injury, such as an application for survivors of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or drug addiction, be sure to read Section 7, which covers that position directly and should be handled a bit different. The principles set forth here are for putting safety first when creating a more general product with a broad user base ( which, as we already know from statistics, will include some groups that should be protected from harm ). Chapter 7 is focused on products that are specifically for vulnerable groups and people who have experienced trauma.

Step 1: Conduct research

Design research should include a thorough analysis of how your technology might be used for abuse as well as specific insights into the experiences of those who have witnessed and perpetrated that kind of abuse. At this stage, you and your team will investigate issues of interpersonal harm and abuse, and explore any other safety, security, or inclusivity issues that might be a concern for your product or service, like data security, racist algorithms, and harassment.

broad research

Your project should begin with broad, general research into similar products and issues around safety and ethical concerns that have already been reported. For example, a team building a smart home device would do well to understand the multitude of ways that existing smart home devices have been used as tools of abuse. If you’re creating an AI product, be aware of the potential for racism and other issues that have been reported in other AI products. Nearly all types of technology have some kind of potential or actual harm that’s been reported on in the news or written about by academics. Google Scholar is a useful resource for locating these studies.

Specific research: Survivors

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

It is crucial to pay people for their knowledge and lived experiences, especially when interviewing survivors of any kind of trauma. Don’t ask survivors to share their trauma for free, as this is exploitative. While some survivors may not want to be paid, you should always make the offer in the initial ask. Alternative to paying is to donate to a cause fighting the kind of violence the interviewee experienced. We’ll talk more about how to appropriately interview survivors in Chapter 6.

Specific research: Abusers

It’s unlikely that teams aiming to design for safety will be able to interview self-proclaimed abusers or people who have broken laws around things like hacking. Don’t make this a goal, rather, try to get at this angle in your general research. Attempt to understand how abusers or bad actors use technology to harm others, how they use it against others, and how they justify or explain the abuse.

Step 2: Create archetypes

Use your research’s findings to create abuser and survivor archetypes once you’ve finished conducting your research. Archetypes are not personas, as they’re not based on real people that you interviewed and surveyed. Instead, they’re based on your research into likely safety issues, much like when we design for accessibility: we don’t need to have found a group of blind or low-vision users in our interview pool to create a design that’s inclusive of them. Instead, we base those designs on existing research and the requirements of this group. Personas typically represent real users and include many details, while archetypes are broader and can be more generalized.

The abuser archetype is a person who views a product as a tool to cause harm ( Fig. 5.2 ). They may be trying to harm someone they don’t know through surveillance or anonymous harassment, or they may be trying to control, monitor, abuse, or torment someone they know personally.

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

You may want to make multiple survivor archetypes to capture a range of different experiences. They may be aware of the abuse is occurring but not be able to stop it, such as when a stalker keeps figuring out where they are from ( Fig. 5.4), or they may be aware that it is happening but are unable to stop it ( such as when an abuser locks them out of IoT devices ). Include as many of these scenarios as you need to in your survivor archetype. These will be used later when you create solutions to help your survivor archetypes achieve their goals of preventing and ending abuse.

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

And while the “abuser/survivor” model fits most cases, it doesn’t fit all, so modify it as you need to. For example, if you uncovered an issue with security, such as the ability for someone to hack into a home camera system and talk to children, the malicious hacker would get the abuser archetype and the child’s parents would get survivor archetype.

3. Brainstorming issues

After creating archetypes, brainstorm novel abuse cases and safety issues. You’re trying to identify completely new safety issues that are unique to your product or service by using the term” Novel” in terms of things that are not found in your research. The goal with this step is to exhaust every effort of identifying harms your product could cause. You aren’t worrying about how to prevent the harm yet—that comes in the next step.

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

Try conducting a Black Mirror brainstorming session if you want to start somewhere. This exercise is based on the show Black Mirror, which features stories about the dark possibilities of technology. Try to figure out how your product would be used in an episode of the show—the most wild, awful, out-of-control ways it could be used for harm. Participants typically end up having a good deal of fun when I’ve led Black Mirror brainstorms ( which I think is great because having fun when designing for safety! ). I recommend time-boxing a Black Mirror brainstorm to half an hour, and then dialing it back and using the rest of the time thinking of more realistic forms of harm.

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

It’s impossible to say 100 % assurance that you’ve done everything, but instead of aiming for 100 %, acknowledge that you’ve done it and will continue to prioritize safety in the future. Once your product is released, your users may identify new issues that you missed, aim to receive that feedback graciously and course-correct quickly.

Step 4: Design solutions

You should now be able to identify potential harm-causing uses for your product as well as survivor and abuser archetypes describing opposing user objectives. The next step is to identify ways to design against the identified abuser’s goals and to support the survivor’s goals. This is a good addition to existing areas of your design process where you’re making recommendations for solutions to the various issues your research has identified.

Some questions to ask yourself to help prevent harm and support your archetypes include:

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

In some products, it’s possible to proactively detect harm that is occurring. For example, a pregnancy app might be modified to allow the user to report that they were the victim of an assault, which could trigger an offer to receive resources for local and national organizations. Although it’s not always possible to be this proactive, it’s worthwhile to spend an hour discussing whether any kind of user activity would indicate harm or abuse and how your product could help them in a secure manner.

That said, use caution: you don’t want to do anything that could put a user in harm’s way if their devices are being monitored. If you do offer some kind of proactive help, always make it voluntary, and think through other safety issues, such as the need to keep the user in-app in case an abuser is checking their search history. In the next chapter, we’ll walk through a good illustration of this.

Step 5: Test for safety

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

Ideally, safety testing happens along with usability testing. If you work for a company that doesn’t conduct usability testing, you might be able to use safety testing to deftly perform both. A user who uses your design while trying to use it against someone else can also be encouraged to point out interactions or other design details that don’t make sense.

You’ll want to conduct safety testing on either your final prototype or the actual product if it’s already been released. It’s okay to test an existing product that wasn’t created with safety goals in mind right away; “etrofitting” it for safety is a good thing to do.

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

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

testing for abuse

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

For example, for a fitness app with GPS-enabled location features, we can imagine that the abuser archetype would have the goal of figuring out where his ex-girlfriend now lives. With this in mind, you’d make every effort to discover the location of a different user who has their privacy settings in place. You might try to see her running routes, view any available information on her profile, view anything available about her location ( which she has set to private ), and investigate the profiles of any other users somehow connected with her account, such as her followers.

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

Testing for Survivors

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

However, there are cases where it makes sense. A survivor archetype’s goal, for instance, would be to discover what causes the temperature change when they aren’t altering it themselves. You could test this by looking for the thermostat’s history log and checking for usernames, actions, and times, if you couldn’t find that information, you would have more work to do in step 4.

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

Stress testing

To make your product more inclusive and compassionate, consider adding stress testing. This concept comes from Design for Real Life by Eric Meyer and Sara Wachter-Boettcher. The authors noted that personas typically focus on those who are having a good day, but that real users are frequently anxious, stressed out, having a bad day, or even going through tragedy. These are called” stress cases”, and testing your products for users in stress-case situations can help you identify places where your design lacks compassion. More information about how to incorporate stress cases into your design can be found in Design for Real Life, as well as in many other effective methods for designing with compassion.

CSS is all about design containers. In fact, the whole website is made of containers, from the computer viewport to components on a webpage. However, every now and then a new function emerges that prompts us to reevaluate our design philosophy.

Square features, for instance, make it fun to play with round picture areas. Mobile display holes and electronic keyboards offer issues to best manage content that stays clear of them. Additionally, dual-screen or portable devices force us to consider how to make the most of the available room in various device configurations.

These latest changes to the online platform have made it both more difficult and fascinating to create products. They’re wonderful opportunities for us to break out of our rectangular boxes.

I’d like to talk about a new feature similar to the above: the Window Controls Overlay for Progressive Web Apps ( PWAs ).

Liberal Web Apps are bridging the gap between websites and apps. They combine the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they are flexible, linkable, and stable, just like websites. On the other hand, they provide more effective features, work online, and read documents just like local apps.

As a style area, PWAs are really exciting because they challenge us to think about what mixing online and device-native user interface can get. We have more than 40 years of experience telling us what software may look like on desktop products in particular, and it can be challenging to get out of this psychological design.

At the end of the day though, PWAs on desktop are constrained to the window they appear in: a rectangle with a title bar at the top.

What does a typical desktop PWA app look like:

Sure, as the author of a PWA, you get to choose the color of the title bar (using the Web Application Manifest theme_color property ), but that’s about it.

What if we could think differently and reclaim the entire window of the app? Doing so would give us a chance to make our apps more beautiful and feel more integrated in the operating system.

This is exactly what the Window Controls Overlay provides. This new PWA functionality makes it possible to take advantage of the full surface area of the app, including where the title bar normally appears.

About the title bar and window controls

Let’s get started with an explanation of what the window and title controls are.

The title bar is the area displayed at the top of an app window, which usually contains the app’s name. The buttons or buttons that are displayed at the top of an app’s window are the ones that allow it to minimize, maximize, or close its window.

Window Controls Overlay removes the physical constraint of the title bar and window controls areas. It frees up the entire app window’s height, allowing the overlay of the title bar and window control buttons on top of the application’s web content.

If you are reading this article on a desktop computer, take a quick look at other apps. Chances are they’re already doing something similar to this. In fact, the web browser you are using uses the top area to display tabs.

Spotify displays album artwork to the top of the application window at the very top.

Microsoft Word uses the available title bar space to display the auto-save and search functionalities, and more.

The whole point of this feature is to allow you to make use of this space with your own content while providing a way to account for the window control buttons. And it makes it possible to offer this modified experience across a variety of platforms without having a negative impact on browsers or other devices that don’t support Window Controls Overlay. After all, PWAs are all about progressive enhancement, so this feature is a chance to enhance your app to use this extra space when it’s available.

Let’s use the feature.

For the rest of this article, we’ll be working on a demo app to learn more about using the feature.

The demo app is called 1DIV. Users can create designs using CSS and a single HTML element in a simple CSS playground.

The app has two pages. The first lists your existing CSS designs:

The second page enables you to create and edit CSS designs:

We can install the app as a PWA on the desktop because I added a straightforward web manifest and service representative. Here is what it looks like on macOS:

And on Windows:

Our app is looking good, but the white title bar in the first page is wasted space. It would be really nice if the design area extended to the top of the app window on the second page.

Let’s use the Window Controls Overlay feature to improve this.

enabling overlay for window control

The feature is still experimental at the moment. To try it, you need to enable it in one of the supported browsers.

It has currently been implemented in Chromium as a result of a collaboration between Microsoft and Google. We can therefore use it in Chrome or Edge by going to the internal about: //flags page, and enabling the Desktop PWA Window Controls Overlay flag.

Using the overlay of Window Controls

To use the feature, we need to add the following display_override member to our web app’s manifest file:

{ "name": "1DIV", "description": "1DIV is a mini CSS playground", "lang": "en-US", "start_url": "/", "theme_color": "#ffffff", "background_color": "#ffffff", "display_override": [ "window-controls-overlay" ], "icons": [ ... ]}

On the surface, the feature is really simple to use. The only thing required is for this manifest change to transform the window controls into an overlay and make the title bar disappear.

However, to provide a great experience for all users regardless of what device or browser they use, and to make the most of the title bar area in our design, we’ll need a bit of CSS and JavaScript code.

Here is how the app currently looks:

Our logo, search field, and NEW button are now partially obscured by the window controls because our layout now begins at the top of the window, which is what we wanted.

It’s similar on Windows, with the difference that the close, maximize, and minimize buttons appear on the right side, grouped together with the PWA control buttons:

Using CSS to keep clear of the window controls

New CSS environment variables have also been added in addition to the feature:

• titlebar-area-x
• titlebar-area-y
• titlebar-area-width
• titlebar-area-height

You use these variables with the CSS env ( ) function to position your content where the title bar would have been while ensuring it won’t overlap with the window controls. In our case, we’ll position our header, which includes the logo, search bar, and NEW button, using two of the variables.

header { position: absolute; left: env(titlebar-area-x, 0); width: env(titlebar-area-width, 100%); height: var(--toolbar-height);}

The titlebar-area-x variable gives us the distance from the left of the viewport to where the title bar would appear, and titlebar-area-width is its width. (Remember, this is not equivalent to the width of the entire viewport, just the title bar portion, which as noted earlier, doesn’t include the window controls.)

By doing this, we make sure our content remains fully visible. We’re also defining fallback values (the second parameter in the env() function) for when the variables are not defined (such as on non-supporting browsers, or when the Windows Control Overlay feature is disabled).

Now our header adapts to its surroundings, and it doesn’t feel like the window control buttons have been added as an afterthought. The interface resembles a native app much more.

Changing the window controls background color so it blends in

Now let’s take a closer look at our second page: the CSS playground editor.

Not very good. Our CSS demo area does go all the way to the top, which is what we wanted, but the way the window controls appear as white rectangles on top of it is quite jarring.

We can fix this by changing the app’s theme color. There are several definitions for it:

PWAs can define a theme color in the web app manifest file using the theme_color manifest member. The OS then uses this color in various ways. On desktop platforms, it is used to provide a background color to the title bar and window controls.
• Websites can use the theme-color meta tag as well. It’s used by browsers to customize the color of the UI around the web page. For PWAs, this color can override the manifest theme_color.

In our case, we can set the manifest theme_color to white to provide the right default color for our app. The OS will read this color value when the app is installed and use it to make the window controls background color white. This color works great for our main page with the list of demos.

The theme-color meta tag can be changed at runtime, using JavaScript. So we can do that to override the white with the right demo background color when one is opened.

Here is the function we’ll employ:

function themeWindow(bgColor) { document.querySelector("meta[name=theme-color]").setAttribute('content', bgColor);}

With this in place, we can imagine how using color and CSS transitions can produce a smooth change from the list page to the demo page, and enable the window control buttons to blend in with the rest of the app’s interface.

Dragging the window

Now, getting rid of the title bar entirely does have an important accessibility consequence: it’s much more difficult to move the application window around.

Users can use the Window Controls Overlay feature to move the window, but this area becomes limited to where the control buttons are, and they must very precisely aim between these buttons to move the window. However, the title bar offers a sizable area for users to click and drag.

Fortunately, this can be fixed using CSS with the app-region property. This property is, for now, only supported in Chromium-based browsers and needs the -webkit- vendor prefix. 

We can use the following to make any feature of the app a dragging target for the window:

-webkit-app-region: drag;

It is also possible to explicitly make an element non-draggable:

-webkit-app-region: no-drag; 

These choices might be beneficial to us. We can make the entire header a dragging target, but make the search field and NEW button within it non-draggable so they can still be used as normal.

However, because the editor page doesn’t display the header, users wouldn’t be able to drag the window while editing code. So let’s take a different strategy. We’ll create another element before our header, also absolutely positioned, and dedicated to dragging the window.

...

.drag { position: absolute; top: 0; width: 100%; height: env(titlebar-area-height, 0); -webkit-app-region: drag;}

With the above code, we’re making the draggable area span the entire viewport width, and using the titlebar-area-height variable to make it as tall as what the title bar would have been. This way, our draggable area is aligned with the window control buttons as shown below.

And, now, to make sure our search field and button remain usable:

header .search,header .new { -webkit-app-region: no-drag;}

Users can now click and drag the title bar back into the above code. It is an area that users expect to be able to use to move windows on desktop, and we’re not breaking this expectation, which is good.

Adapting to window resize

It may be useful for an app to know both whether the window controls overlay is visible and when its size changes. In our situation, there wouldn’t be enough room for the search field, logo, and button to fit because the user made the window very narrow. We would want to push them a little lower.

The Window Controls Overlay feature comes with a JavaScript API we can use to do this: navigator.windowControlsOverlay.

The API offers three intriguing features:

• navigator.windowControlsOverlay.visiblelets us know whether the overlay is visible.
• navigator.windowControlsOverlay.getBoundingClientRect()lets us know the position and size of the title bar area.
• navigator.windowControlsOverlay.ongeometrychangelets us know when something changes in size or visibility.

Let’s use this to be aware of the size of the title bar area and move the header down if it’s too narrow.

if (navigator.windowControlsOverlay) { navigator.windowControlsOverlay.addEventListener('geometrychange', () => { const { width } = navigator.windowControlsOverlay.getBoundingClientRect(); document.body.classList.toggle('narrow', width < 250); });}

In the example above, we set the narrow class on the body of the app if the title bar area is narrower than 250px. We could do something similar with a media query, but using the windowControlsOverlay API has two advantages for our use case:

• It’s only fired when the feature is supported and used, we don’t want to adapt the design otherwise.
• We can see the title bar area on different operating systems, which is great because Mac and Windows have different title bar sizes. Using a media query wouldn’t make it possible for us to know exactly how much space remains.

.narrow header { top: env(titlebar-area-height, 0); left: 0; width: 100%;}

When the window is too small, we can use the above CSS code to move our header down and the thumbnails down in accordance with this.

Thirty pixels of exciting design opportunities

We were able to convert our simple demo app to something that felt much more connected to desktop devices by using the Window Controls Overlay feature. Something that reaches out of the usual window constraints and provides a custom experience for its users.

In reality, this feature only gives us about 30 more pixels of room and presents challenges when using the window controls. And yet, this extra room and those challenges can be turned into exciting design opportunities.

More devices of all shapes and forms get invented all the time, and the web keeps on evolving to adapt to them. New features are added to the web platform to make it easier for web authors to integrate more and more fully with those devices. From watches or foldable devices to desktop computers, we need to evolve our design approach for the web. We can now think beyond the rectangular box when building for the web.

So let’s embrace this. Let’s use the standard technologies already at our disposal, and experiment with new ideas to provide tailored experiences for all devices, all from a single codebase!

If you have the chance to try the Window Controls Overlay feature and have feedback on it, you can open issues in the spec’s repository. It’s still early in the development of this feature, and you can help make it even better. You can also check out this demo app and its source code, or the feature’s existing documentation.