Category: Blog

There was Simone before Tilly Norwood. Tilly Norwood, an AI-created artist, has been introduced in the most recent attempt to legitimize the systems, Particle6. Tilly boasts about her variety as a performer in Instagram videos, and Deadline claims the strategy worked. [] Ability companies have now made offers to indicate Tilly in […]

The second article on Den of Geek was This Al Pacino Movie Predicted Our AI Actor Future.

This article contains One Battle After Another clues.

One Battle After Another, a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, is full of incredible shows. Leonardo DiCaprio is in the spotlight as the bumbling past revolution Bob Ferguson. Teyana Taylor delivers a wrenching performance as the current revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ past lover. And Sean Penn, who plays Robert F. Kennedy Jr., utterly dominates every field. The law enforcement official who abducted Willa ( Chase Infiniti), Bob and Beverly Hills ‘ daughters, and Colonel Lockjaw ( Chase Infiniti, in yet another incredible performance ) is responsible for the kidnapping of the couple.

Unfortunately, the most memorable performance in the film comes from the most typical, typical, figure. Because he is played by Benicio del Toro, he is considered satirical.

In Bob&#8217’s war against Lockjaw, Del Toro appears as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s karate instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob slams into Sensei Sergio’s judo, yells at him about arms, and charges his phone. Sensei Sergio doesn’t actually bat an eye. He quietly closes the karate and transports Bob to his home where he&#8217 is running, a Latino version of Harriet Tubman. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground network in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit down and listen.

The film’s entire Sensei Sergio scene is as quiet and lively as everything else. Due to the bravado in his film, Anderson &#8217 is a standout in his now amazing career. Anderson’s cast matches his tone with similarly large, blended performances that demand attention without actually overtaking the actual film.

And still, Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out. Nothing more effectively captures this than his last scene in the film, when he drives Bob to the rendezvous spot with Willa. Sergio and his rider like some pints in order to keep Bob at ease, which backfires when they pass a police officer. Sergio forbids Bob to jump out of the moving vehicle in order to prevent his criminal pal from being apprehended, allowing him to draw the police as Bob departs. We catch up with Bob afterwards, where he&#8217, charmingly answers the official &#8217, s inquiries about his drinking. After that high-tension time, we catch up with him.

Del Toro plays these moments mostly fully stone-faced, but not without heat. When he admits to driving, he raises his voice always but somewhat when he needs Bob to pay attention, and he gives himself a little laugh when he admits to having &#8220, a few small beers &#8221. However, del Toro makes Sergio feeling like the only real people in a film full of heightened oddballs for the most part.

Which is, of course, amazing because Benicio del Toro enjoys playing an oddball. Del Toro made his first appearance in the James Bond film License to Kill, but he most famously failed to do so in the role of the mush-mouthed Window in The Common Offenders. Del Toro has merely since added a mumbling soldier to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Brimming with anger are yet his more well-known and ostensibly silent roles, such as those in Traffic and as an American assassin in Sicario, which are both more well-known and awaited.

Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another, though. Instead, he lets the people clamber for attention while he merely sits up and plays his personality. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in all of the venues globally.

The article Den of Geek‘s Best Performance in One Battle After Another Is its Softest second appeared.

Individuals who use their power to fight for the poor, prevent abuse, and seek justice are the subjects of superhero stories. However, superhero films have to frequently been produced using exploitative creators, with effective executives using their influence to avoid paying residuals to the actors who actually created the concepts that inspired the […]…

The first post James Gunn’s DC Universe Is Apparently Righting Superhero Movies ‘ Greatest Wrong appeared first on Den of Geek.

One Battle After Another has trailers in this post.

One Battle After Another, one of Paul Thomas Anderson‘s albums, is chock-full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio is in the spotlight as the bumbling past revolution Bob Ferguson. As the present revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ ex-lover, Teyana Taylor turns in a blistering way. And Sean Penn, who plays Robert F. Kennedy Jr., utterly dominates every picture. Willa ( Chase Infiniti), the law enforcement official who abducted Bob and Beverly Hills, and her daughter, Colonel Lockjaw, also appeared in yet another incredible performance.

Unfortunately, the most memorable performance in the film comes from the most standard, typical character, but unfortunately, this one. Because he is played by Benicio del Toro, he is considered satirical.

In Bob&#8217’s war against Lockjaw, Del Toro appears as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s karate instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob scuffles into Sensei Sergio’s karate, bangs about weapons, and charges his phone. Sensei Sergio doesn’t actually bat an eye. He quietly closes the karate and transports Bob to his home where he&#8217 is running, a Latino version of Harriet Tubman. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground system in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit back and listen.

The film’s entire Sensei Sergio scene is as quiet and lively as everything else. Due to the bravado film he demonstrates, One Battle After Another is striking in Anderson &#8217, s already impressive job. Anderson &#8217, s cast matches his tone with similarly large, split shows that all demand attention without actually overtaking the actual film.

And yet, Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out. Nothing more effectively exemplifies this than in his last scene, when he drives Bob to the rendezvous place with Willa. Sergio and his rider like some pints in order to keep Bob at ease, which backfires when they pass a police officer. Sergio forbids Bob to jump out of the moving vehicle in order to prevent his runaway pal from being apprehended, allowing him to draw the police as Bob departs. We catch up with Bob eventually after that high-tension incident, where he affaffably responds to the officer’s inquiries regarding his eating.

Del Toro plays these moments mostly fully stone-faced, but not without heat. He makes a little laugh when he admits to driving while having &#8220, a dozen little beers, and raises his voice always so slightly when he needs Bob to pay interest. However, Del Toro tends to make Sergio think like the only real people in a film full of more eccentric characters.

Which is, of course, astonishing because Benicio del Toro enjoys playing an odd. Del Toro made his first appearance in the James Bond film License to Kill, but he most famously failed to do so in the role of the mush-mouthed Window in The Common Offenders. Del Toro has simply since added a mumbling soldier to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Yet his more well-known and ostensibly quiet roles, such as those in Mexican police in Traffic or those in assassins in a game of Sicario, are filled with rage.

However, Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another. He simply sits up and plays his character while letting the others battle for the light. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in all of the cinemas globally.

The article Den of Geek‘s Best Performance in One Battle After Another Is its Softest second appeared.

Absolute Evil# 1 has complete clues in this article. What distinguishes Total Green Arrow from his major counterpart? That was the query that some readers had before Absolute Evil# 1, which is available today in comic book stores. Turns out, that was the incorrect inquiry. The Ultimate Universe, like its girlfriend over at Marvel, […]

The first article on Den of Geek: Washington Only Revamped Its Premier Group for the Absolute Universe appeared second.

One Battle After Another has trailers in this post.

One Battle After Another, a work of Paul Thomas Anderson, is full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the bumbling past revolution Bob Ferguson in the head role. As the recent revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ ex-lover, Teyana Taylor turns in a shocking way. And Sean Penn, who plays Robert F. Kennedy Jr., utterly dominates every field. Willa ( Chase Infiniti), the law enforcement official who abducted Bob and Beverly Hills, and her daughter, Colonel Lockjaw, also appeared in yet another incredible performance.

Unfortunately, the most memorable performance in the film comes from the most standard, typical character, but ironically, this one. Because Benicio del Toro plays him, he becomes humorous.

In Bob and Lockjaw, Del Toro appears as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s judo instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob slams into Sensei Sergio’s karate, yells at him about weapons, and charges his phone. Sergio, the Sensei, doesn’t actually blink in the eye. He quietly closes the karate and transports Bob to his home where he runs Latino Harriet Tubman-style. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground system in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit back and listen.

Every scene in Sensei Sergio&#8217, is as quiet and lively as every other scene in the movie. Due to the bravado film he demonstrates, One Battle After Another is striking in Anderson &#8217, s already impressive career. Anderson’s cast matches his tone with similarly large, blended performances that demand attention without actually overtaking the actual film.

Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out, which is why he does. Nothing more effectively captures this than his last scene in the film, when he drives Bob to the rendezvous spot with Willa. Sergio and his rider like some beverages to maintain Bob at ease, which turns out to be incorrect when they pass a police officer. Sergio forces Bob to leap out of the moving car to avoid the police from apprehending to his criminal pal. We catch up with Bob eventually after that high-tension incident, where he affaffably responds to the officer’s inquiries regarding his eating.

Del Toro plays these moments mostly fully slammed, but not without heat. When he admits to driving, he occasionally raises his voice to the point of interest and admits to having &#8220, a dozen little beers, while smiling. However, Del Toro tends to make Sergio think like the only real people in a film full of more eccentric characters.

Which is unsurprising, given Benicio Del Toro’s love of playing oddballs. Although his earlier acting roles included roles in the James Bond film License to Kill, Del Toro made his most of his breakout roles in The Usual Suspects. Del Toro has merely since added a mumbling soldier to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Perhaps his more well-known and ostensibly quiet roles, such as as Latino police officer in Traffic or as American assassin in Sicario, are filled with rage.

Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another, though. He simply sits up and plays his character while letting the others battle for the light. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in venues all over the country.

The article Den of Geek‘s Best Performance in One Battle After Another Is its Softest second appeared.

If there is one thing about Spider-Man viewers ( I’m one of them ), it’s that they will never get enough of him. We got so many Spider-Men in the lively adventure film Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse in 2023 that we even had to create a complete item outpointing them all. Keep them coming, though! we yell, and if]… ]

The first article on Den of Geek was titled” Batman Writer Trying to Make Tobey Maguire Spider-Man 4 a Real.”

This article contains One Battle After Another trailers.

One Battle After Another, one of Paul Thomas Anderson‘s albums, is chock-full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio is playing the bumbling past revolution Bob Ferguson in the lead role. As the recent revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ ex-lover, Teyana Taylor turns in a shocking way. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is represented by Sean Penn in every picture. Willa ( Chase Infiniti), the law enforcement official who abducted Bob and Beverly Hills, and her daughter, Colonel Lockjaw, also appeared in yet another incredible performance.

Unfortunately, the most powerful performance in the film comes from the most &#8220, regular &#8221, character. Ironic, because Benicio del Toro plays him.

In Bob and Lockjaw, Del Toro appears as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s judo instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob scuffles into Sensei Sergio’s karate, bangs about arms, and charges his phone. Sergio, the Sensei, doesn’t actually blink in the eye. He quietly closes the dojo and transports Bob to his home where he&#8217, a Latino Harriet Tubman factor, is running. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground community in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit back and listen.

The film’s entire Sensei Sergio scene is as quiet and lively as everything else. Due to the bravado in his film, Anderson &#8217 is a standout in his now impressive career. Anderson &#8217, s cast matches his tone with similarly large, split shows that all demand attention without previously overtaking the actual film.

And yet, Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out. Nothing much exemplifies this than in Bob’s last scene, when he drives her to Willa’s rendezvous spot. Sergio and his rider like some beverages to maintain Bob at ease, which turns out to be incorrect when they pass a police officer. Sergio forces Bob to bounce out of the moving car to avoid the police from apprehending to his criminal pal. We catch up with Bob afterwards, where he&#8217, charmingly answers the official &#8217, s concerns about his drinking. After that high-tension time, we catch up with him.

Del Toro plays these images mostly with a fully stone-faced tone, but not without heat. He makes a little laugh when he admits to driving while having &#8220, a dozen little beers, and raises his voice always but somewhat when he needs Bob to pay attention. However, del Toro tends to make Sergio feeling like the only real people in a film full of more eccentric characters for the most part.

Which is, of course, amazing because Benicio del Toro enjoys playing an odd. Del Toro made his first appearance in the James Bond film License to Kill, but he most famously failed to do so in the role of the mush-mouthed Window in The Common Defendants. Del Toro has merely since added a mumbling soldier to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Yet his more well-known and ostensibly quiet roles, such as as Latino police officer in Traffic or as American assassin in Sicario, are filled with rage.

Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another, though. He simply sits up and plays his character while letting the others battle for the light. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in all of the venues globally.

The first article on Den of Geek was The Best Achievement in One Battle After Another Is its Softest.

With a large emphasis on the Dark Knight himself, Gotham takes center stage on craigslist Live with” Gotham Gothic,” a specific life auction featuring unique DC Comics and items. The event is being hosted by Matthew Schuchman and veteran comic book dealer Mike” Carbo” Carbonaro and Michael Raphael ( co-hosts of the Mike’d Up Podcast ).

The second post Gotham Gothic: Rare Batman &amp, DC Comics Auction Hits eBay Dwell on September 25 was published on Den of Geek.

One Battle After Another has clues in this post.

One Battle After Another, a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, is full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio is playing the bumbling past revolutionary Bob Ferguson in the lead role. As the latest revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ ex-lover, Teyana Taylor turns in a shocking way. And Sean Penn, who plays Robert F. Kennedy Jr., utterly dominates every field. The law enforcement official who abducted Willa ( Chase Infiniti), Bob and Beverly Hills ‘ daughters, and Colonel Lockjaw ( Chase Infiniti, in yet another incredible performance ) is responsible for the kidnapping of the couple.

Unfortunately, the most memorable performance in the film comes from the most typical, typical, figure. Ironic, because Benicio del Toro plays him.

Del Toro appears in Bob’s war against Lockjaw as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s karate instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob scuffles into Sensei Sergio’s karate, bangs about weapons, and charges his phone. Sensei Sergio doesn’t also bat an eye. He quietly closes the dojo and transports Bob to his home where he&#8217, a Latino Harriet Tubman issue, is running. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground network in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit back and listen.

The film’s entire Sensei Sergio scene is as quiet and lively as everything else. Due to the bravado in his film, Anderson &#8217 is a standout in his now impressive career. Anderson’s cast matches his tone with extremely large, split performances that demand immediate attention without ever eroding the film itself.

And still, Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out. Nothing more effectively exemplifies this than in his last scene, when he drives Bob to the rendezvous place with Willa. Sergio and his rider like some pints in order to keep Bob at ease, which backfires when they pass a police officer. Sergio forbids Bob to jump out of the moving vehicle in order to prevent his criminal pal from being apprehended, allowing him to draw the police as Bob departs. We catch up with Bob afterwards, where he&#8217, charmingly answers the official &#8217, s inquiries about his drinking. After that high-tension time, we catch up with him.

Del Toro plays these moments mostly with a fully stone-faced tone, but not without heat. When he admits to driving, he occasionally raises his voice to the point of interest and admits to having &#8220, a dozen little beers, while smiling. However, Del Toro tends to make Sergio think like the only real people in a film full of more eccentric characters.

Which is, of course, amazing because Benicio del Toro enjoys playing an odd. Although his earlier acting roles included roles in the James Bond film License to Kill, Del Toro made his most of his breakout roles in The Common Suspects. Del Toro has simply since added a mumbling soldier to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Yet his more well-known and ostensibly quiet roles, such as as Latino police officer in Traffic or as American assassin in Sicario, are filled with rage.

Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another, though. He simply sits up and plays his character while letting the others battle for the light. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in venues all over the country.

The first article on Den of Geek was The Best Achievement in One Battle After Another Is its Nicest.

One Battle After Another clues are included in this article. One Battle After Another, a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, is full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the bumbling past revolution Bob Ferguson in the direct role. As the existing innovative and Perfidia Beverly Hills’s ex-lover, Teyana Taylor takes on a startling role. And Sean Penn utterly utters […]

The article Den of Geek‘s Best Performance in One Battle After Another Is its Softest first appeared.

One Battle After Another has clues in this post.

One Battle After Another, a work of Paul Thomas Anderson, is full of incredible achievements. Leonardo DiCaprio is playing the bumbling original revolutionary Bob Ferguson in the lead role. Teyana Taylor delivers a wrenching performance as the current revolution and Perfidia Beverly Hills ‘ past lover. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is portrayed by Sean Penn in every field. Willa ( Chase Infiniti), the law enforcement official who abducted Bob and Beverly Hills, and her daughter, Colonel Lockjaw, also appeared in yet another incredible performance.

Unfortunately, the most memorable performance in the film comes from the most typical, typical, figure. Because Benicio del Toro plays him, he becomes humorous.

In Bob and Lockjaw, Del Toro appears as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, Willa’s karate instructor, and a surprising alliance. When Lockjaw and Willa are pursuing them, Bob scuffles into Sensei Sergio’s judo, bangs about arms, and charges his phone. Sensei Sergio doesn’t also bat an eye. He quietly closes the karate and transports Bob to his home where he runs Latino Harriet Tubman-style. ”It turns out that Sergio has a whole underground system in his neighborhood, one that could save Bob if he could really sit down and listen.

Every scene in Sensei Sergio’s picture is as loud and lively as every other scene. Due to the bravado film he demonstrates, One Battle After Another is striking in Anderson &#8217, s already impressive career. Anderson’s cast matches his tone with similarly large, split performances that demand immediate attention without actually eroding the film itself.

And yet, Del Toro stands out because he doesn’t have out. Nothing more effectively exemplifies this than in his last scene, when he drives Bob to the rendezvous place with Willa. Sergio and his rider like some pints in order to keep Bob at ease, which backfires when they pass a police officer. Sergio forbids Bob to jump out of the moving vehicle in order to prevent his runaway pal from being apprehended, allowing him to draw the police as Bob departs. We catch up with Bob eventually after that high-tension incident, where he affaffably responds to the officer’s inquiries regarding his eating.

Del Toro plays these moments mostly fully slammed, but not without heat. When he admits to driving, he occasionally raises his voice to the point of interest and admits to having &#8220, a dozen little beers, while smiling. However, del Toro makes Sergio feeling like the only real people in a film full of heightened oddballs for the most part.

Which is, of course, astonishing because Benicio del Toro enjoys playing an odd. Although his earlier acting roles included roles in the James Bond film License to Kill, Del Toro made his most of his breakout roles in The Common Suspects. Del Toro has merely since added a mumbling selfish to his record of distinctive weirdos, including one in The Last Jedi and another in Escape at Dannemora. Brimming with anger are yet his more well-known and ostensibly quiet roles, such as those in Traffic and as an American assassin in Sicario, which are both more well-known and awaited.

However, Del Toro does not do that in One Battle After Another. He simply sits up and plays his character while letting the others battle for the light. And as a result, he ultimately ends up stealing the show entirely.

One Battle After Another is currently playing in venues all over the country.

The article Den of Geek‘s Best Performance in One Battle After Another Is its Softest first appeared.

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

Flash, Photoshop, and flexible pattern

When I first started designing sites, my go-to technology was Photoshop. I started by making a structure for a 960px canvas that I would later add willing to. 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 flexible 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

Removing restrictions and creating content that can be viewed on any device has always been the goal of designing responsive or liquid websites. 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 using Sass to re-use repeated slabs of code and transition to more semantic premium:

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

Media questions

The next ingredient for flexible design is press queries. Without them, regardless of whether the information was still readable, may shrink to fit the available storage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Container queries: our savior or a false dawn?

Container queries have long been touted as an improvement upon media queries, but at the time of writing are unsupported in most browsers. Workarounds for JavaScript exist, 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 elements are meant to replace responsive layouts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSS is changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSS Grid allows us to separate layout and content, thereby enabling flexible designs. Meanwhile, Subgrid allows us to create designs that can adapt in order to suit morphing content. Subgrid 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 to create layouts that respond to available space.

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

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

—Jen Simmons,” Designing Intrinsic Layouts”

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

What makes intrinsic design stand out is that it not only creates designs that can withstand future devices but also helps scale design without losing flexibility. Without having 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 “everything changed” moment for me.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you do that now, with each component responding to content and layouts flexing as and when they need to? This kind of design must take place in the browser, which is something I’m very fond of.

The debate about “whether designers should code” is another that has rumbled on for years. When designing a digital product, we should, at the very least, design for a best- and worst-case scenario when it comes to content. 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.

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

 First line of text with different styling...

—we can target content based on where it appears.

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

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

This flexibility allows for directional changes according to content, a common requirement when we need to present content in multiple languages. 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 % ( the preferred value ) of its container, 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”?

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

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

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

Responsible design

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

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

Chris Ashton

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

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

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

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

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

So how can we put users in control?

The media queries are returning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect the unexpected

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

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

A lot of the CSS discussed here is about moving away from layouts and putting content at the heart of design. There 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 accessible whenever and wherever needed. We can move closer to achieving this by involving users in our design decisions, by creating choice via browsers, and by giving control to our users with user-preference-based media queries.

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

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

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

Design analysis 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 review what we got up, get to the base of its perspectives, and take activity. 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 theme may be significant, so it might be difficult to get the team to choose the one you wanted to concentrate on.

But how do we get into this scenario? It’s a combination of various components. One is that we don’t often consider asking as a part of the input method. Another is how healthy it is to leave the question 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 concerns, so we don’t work to make them better.

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

There isn’t a second best method to request suggestions. It simply needs to be certain, and sensitivity can take several shapes. The level than depth model for design critique has been a particularly helpful tool for my coaching.

” Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our event, the design process. The kind of feedback changes as the person research moves forward to the final design. But within a single stage, one might also examine whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a suitable language of the amassed input into updated designs as the 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? a system of information architecture UI design? navigation planning Visual design? Branding?

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

• Functionality: Is it desirable to automate account creation?
• Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
• Information architecture: On this page, we have two competing pieces of information. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
• User interface design: What do you think about the error counter at the top of the page, which makes sure you see the next error even if it 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 would like to go with the presentation. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially helpful from one iteration to the next when it’s crucial to highlight the areas that have changed.

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

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

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 getting back into rabbit holes like those that could lead to further refinement but aren’t currently what matters most.

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

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Many design tools have inline commenting, but many of 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’s probably not the most effective way to go about designing critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive, it might work for some teams.

The asynchronous design-critique approach that I find most effective is to create explicit checkpoints for discussion. For this, I’ll 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 made immediately available for future review, and conversations are also always available.
• 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. And from there, other feedback techniques ( such as live critique, pair designing, or inline comments ) can emerge.

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 other words, I would copy and paste this into every iteration post to make it work. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. The most recent iteration post will have everything I need if I want to know about the most recent design.

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

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

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 in the desired direction. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

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

I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft, just a concept to start a discussion, or it might be a cumulative list of every feature that was 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

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

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

1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
2. It lessens the annoyance caused by swoop-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. That is the response when the design changes and we publish a follow-up iteration. 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 quickly summarize 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 saying the same thing over and over.

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

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

The personal stake we might have in 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 initial review of this article.

In the 1950s, some members of the wealthy 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 shock. 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 was possible because of this change in the standard. Bannister’s history lasted just forty-six days, when it was snatched aside by American sprinter John Landy. Finally, in the same race, three athletes all managed to cross the four-minute challenge. 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 people running speed, there are also hard limits on how a website can accomplish.

Establishing requirements for a lasting web

The key indicators of climate performance in most big companies are very 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. But, 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 amount of CO₂ that a website merchandise produces. We can’t measure the pollutants coming out of the exhaust valves on our devices. The pollution coming from power plants that burn coal and oil are far apart, out of sight, and out of mind. 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 measures of coal emissions:

1. Transfer of data
2. Electricity’s coal 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 great example of how much energy is consumed and how much carbon is released. As a rule of thumb, the more data transferred, the more energy used in the data center, telecoms networks, and end user devices.

The most accurate way to calculate data transfer for a single visit for web pages is to measure the page weight, which is the first time a user visits the page in kilobytes. It’s fairly easy to measure using the developer tools in any modern web browser. Frequently, any web application’s overall data transfer statistics will be 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 the majority 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 most 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 may be aware of the idea of performance budgeting as a method for directing a project team to deliver faster user experiences. 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 vague suggestions, much like speed limits while driving, so the goal should always be to come in 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 often depends more on the user’s perception of load times than it does on how effective the underlying system is.

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 the page weight to compare it to competitors or the outdated website we’re replacing. 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 are likely to have a high percentage of the files cached in their browser, which means they don’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. Moving away from the first visit and allowing us to determine page weight budgets for scenarios other than this one can help us learn even more about how to optimize efficiency for users who regularly visit our pages.

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.

Electricity’s coal 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, where different levels of carbon intensity are combined with energy from a variety of sources. 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 don’t have complete control over the energy supply of web services, we do have some control over where our projects are hosted. 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 have significantly lower carbon emissions than choosing a data center in the Netherlands ( Fig. 2.3 ).

However, we don’t want to move our servers too far away from our users because it requires a lot of 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 data transferred over wire when loading a website into a CO₂ figure ( Fig. ₂.4), calculating the associated electricity, and then converting that data into a figure ( Fig. ₂.4). 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 improve it and tailor the data more appropriately to your project’s unique features.

With the ability to calculate carbon emissions for our projects, we could even set up carbon budgets as well. 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 an air of abstraction, carbon budgets do focus our minds on the main issue we’re trying to reduce, which also 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 phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, or even smart TVs, as front-end web technologies advance. 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 make them use older, slower devices and make their phones and laptops ‘ batteries discharge 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 developer console of the Safari browser is one of the tools we currently have ( Fig. 2.5 ).

You are aware of the moment your computer’s cooling fans start spinning so frantically that you mistakenly believe 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 based on the percentage of CPU used and how long it took the web page to load. 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 many thousands of years. Whether to present information, perform transactions, or just to check in on one another, people have yammered aside, chattering and gesticulating, through spoken discussion for many generations. Only recently had conversations started to be written, and only recently have we outsourced them to the system, a system that exhibits a significantly higher affinity for written communications than for the vernacular rigors of spoken language.

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

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

Spoken language lacks this luxury. Besides the nonverbal cues that decorate conversations with emphasis and emotional context, there are also verbal cues and vocal behaviors that modulate conversation in nuanced ways: how something is said, not what. Our spoken language conveys much more than the written word can ever contain, 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 Compositions

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

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

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 is not always just 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. Users are also debating whether or not they prefer the kind of organic human conversation that starts with a prosocial voiceover and progresses seamlessly into other types. In fact, in Voice User Interface Design, Michael Cohen, James Giangola, and Jennifer Balogh recommend sticking to users ‘ expectations by mimicking how they interact with other voice interfaces rather than trying too hard to be human—potentially alienating them in the process ( ).

That leaves two 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?

Alison, can I get a pineapple-onion pizza in Hawaii?

Burhan: Sure, what size?

Large, Alison.

Burhan: Anything else?

Alison: No, that’s it.

Burhan: Something to drink?

Alison: I’ll have a bottle of Coke.

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

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

Informational voice interactions

Meanwhile, some conversations are primarily about obtaining information. Alison might only want to place an order at Crust Deluxe, but she might not want to leave without a pizza at all. She might be just as interested in whether they serve halal or kosher dishes, gluten-free options, or something else. We’re after much more than just a prosocial mini-conversation at the beginning, even though we do it once more to establish politeness.

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.

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

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

Alison: What about gluten-free pizzas?

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

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

Burhan: Anytime, come back soon!

This dialogue is entirely different. Here, the goal is to get a certain set of facts. Informational conversations are research expeditions to gather data, news, or facts in search of the truth. Voice interactions that are informational might be more long-winded than transactional conversations by necessity. 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 depend entirely on spoken conversation and lack any visual component, making multimodal voice interfaces much more nuanced and challenging to deal with because they can lean on visual components like screens as crutches.

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

IVR ( interactive voice response ) systems

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. When you call an airline or hotel company, which is a common practice in the corporate world, these systems were primarily intended as metaphorical switchboards to direct customers to a real phone agent (” Say Reservations to book a flight or check an itinerary” ), which are more likely to happen when you call 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. Perhaps the closest thing we have today to an out-of-the-box delivery of content via voice is represented by screen readers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice assistants

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

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

There is a significant variation in how programmable and customizable some voice assistants are compared to others due to the sheer number of voice assistants available today ( Fig. 1 ). At one extreme, everything except vendor-provided features is locked down, for example, at the time of their release, the core functionality of Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana couldn’t be extended beyond their existing capabilities. There are no other means 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 constrained by the limitations of Siri and Cortana are increasingly using programmable voice assistants that are extensibable and customizable. 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 are also selling and open-sourcing an unheard array of tools and frameworks for designers and developers, aiming 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, like Google’s Dialogflow, now support omnichannel features, allowing users to create a single conversational interface that then becomes a voice interface, textual chatbot, and IVR system upon deployment. I don’t prescribe any specific implementation approaches in this design-focused book, but in Chapter 4 we’ll get into some of the implications these variables might have on the way you build out your design artifacts.

Voice Content

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

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

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

Lately, we’ve begun slicing and dicing our content in unprecedented ways. Websites are, in many ways, massive vaults of what I call macrocontent: lengthy prose that can last for miles in a browser window while being viewed in microfilm format in 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 transcends 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 your content can be stretched to the limits of its potential is through microcontent, which will inform both established and new delivery channels.

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.