Designers as facilitators, protectors, and collaboratorsEvery time I visit my mom, she asks me the same question: WHAT exactly are you designing? I tried to explain it to a friend, but they didnt quite understand.Many people (not just my mom) still see design as something tangiblesomething they can hold and touch. While that might have been true 20 years ago, the world of design has shifted. Today, much of design is digital, and it focuses on strategic thinking rather than just creating physical products.This shiftfrom design as the creation of objects to design as a tool for enabling changehas reshaped the profession. Now, we must ask: What is the next necessary evolution of design? How do we adapt our work to address todays interconnected crises of climate change, housing, justice, and meaning? What is the future role of designers that helps heal and regenerate ourplanet?DesignShift: From designing things to designing realchangeAs I ponder these questions, I keep returning to this idea of lessnot in the sense of sleek, Scandinavian inspired solutions (I actually think that can be quite harmful), but in terms of our role as designers. If we want to design for real change, the role of a designers must become less about designing new things, and more about facilitating, protecting, and enhancing what alreadyexists.Lets explore these threeareas.1. Designers as a facilitator:For decades, designers have pushed for a seat at the table in boardrooms where crucial decisions are made. Yet, as a 2020 Fast Company article explains, many CEOs still dont understand the role of design leadership (its not just my mom). The survey revealed that Only one-third of CEOs could detail what their CDO (Chief Design Officer) oversaw at the company. In other words, 66% of CEOs couldnt say what their CDO actually did, or how that success should be measured.When you listen to these kinds of seat-at-the-table discussions, the obvious conclusion might be that designers just need to do more to prove that they deserve to be there. But what if were approaching this in the wrongway?As important as our role in boardrooms and decision-making conversations may be, users or customers themselves are rarely at these tables. They are out and about, living their lives. Rather than speaking for users, how can we facilitate the conversation and create spaces where others can share their insights and solutions? The key shift is moving from designing for others to designing with them and one way we can do this is through co-design.Co-Design: A key method for designers as facilitatorsWhen I think about the role of designers evolving from creating things to facilitating change, my mind naturally turns to co-design. Kelly Ann McKercher, alongside many other practitioners, pioneered co-design. The method aims to shift the role of the designer away from the designing at or for to designing with and by. On their website, McKercher describes how Co-design brings together lived experience, lived expertise and professional experience to learn from each other and make things betterby design. Today, a lot of designers are designing at or for others. Our work centers clients wants over community needs. Co-design centers the lived experiences of the people, families, and communities themselves. The designer isnt in charge of solving problems or making things, but rather responsible for enabling others to find their own solutions.Levels of participation in design in four columns: design at, design for, design with and design by. Image from: https://www.beyondstickynotes.com/what-is-codesignWhen we look at co-design we can see that the future (and in many places current) role of designers is not to impose our expert knowledge onto communities but rather about facilitating spaces where people can share their ideas and problems in an open and safeway.4 core principles of co-design:share powerprioritise relationshipsuse participatory meansbuild capabilityWhen I think about this mindset and method shift, designers moving from expert to facilitators I often come back to the work of community organizers. In this interview, Ezra Klein speaks with labor organizer Jane McAlevey about what it takes to mobilize people within a labor movement. McAlevey, who has organized hundreds of thousands of workers on the front lines of Americas labor movement, explains: When Im looking for organizers, Im looking for people who genuinely believe that ordinary people have high intelligence and who really deeply respect ordinary people. I start out every day genuinely believing that people can make radical changes in how they think about and see theworld.Designers have much to learn from this mindset. If we truly believe that people have the answers to the problems were trying to solve, then our role shifts. Our work becomes less about designing things or imposing expert knowledge onto people, about facilitating conversations and creating environments where the people closest to the problem are also closest to thepower.2. Designers as protectorsDesigners shape the products we use and the content we consume. Design is a powerful tool, and if we want to make sure were designing for a better tomorrow, designers need to balance opportunities with responsibilities.Over the years, the question How might we? has become a cornerstone of design thinking, encouraging optimism and creativity. I love this question. It opens up possibilities.However, Ive also realized that as designers, our responsibility isnt just to spot problemsits to ensure we dont create newones.This means not just asking How might we? but also At whatcost?Dont move fast and break things when it comes to mykidsThese were the words from the mom of a 14 year old boy who ended his life after a chatbot conversation. The story is heartbreaking on so many levels. As designers and developers of whats new and whats next, how do we really make sure our solutions do not have unintended consequences? How do we move from good intentions to taking responsibility for the potential harms before we go to market? How do we stop moving fast? How do we stop breaking things, people, and theplanet?The cost of poorly designed solutions is far-reaching. Products end up in landfills, software isolates us, and messaging manipulates us into excess consumption. Good intentions are not enough. Designers must be responsible for the impact of their work. We must ask ourselves: Are we considering all stakeholders? Are we accounting for invisible users? Could our solutions cause environmental harm? We need to take these questions seriously, not just during the design process, but throughout the entire lifecycle of a product or service. We must test for unintended consequences and build in safeguards to mitigate risks. We must become protectors of people andplanet.3. Designers as collaborators:The 10th Design Justice Principle states: Before seeking new design solutions, we look for what is already working at the community level. We honor and uplift traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge and practices.Design can sometimes feel like a club that few are invited to. We use fancy words and frameworks, and our offices, while beautiful and inspiring, can often feel exclusive and elitist. However, when we look at what design really is, the combination of sense making and form giving we can see that design happens in all professional fields AND in our day-to-day lives. A physical therapist designs when they diagnose a patient and create a treatment plan. A teacher designs when they adjust a curriculum based on past experiences. A policymaker designs when they shape laws based on societal needs. And in everyday life, people design when they plan vacations, build routines, or adjust theirhabits.Designers dont have a monopoly on creativity. People are designing solutions every day without formal titles. Our role should be to amplify and collaborate, rather than to reinvent thewheel.Designers need to recognize this and look for ways to collaborate and uplift the people who are already doing the work rather than coming up with our own new inventions. This might mean that we are not actually designing a new thing but rather supporting the work ofothers.Design by collaboration means recognizing that our world doesnt always need another app, product, or service. Sometimes, it needs us to step back and ask: Whats already working? What systems need strengthening rather than replacing? What voices need amplification rather than interpretation?Why now? Whyus?We are in a time of interconnected crisesclimate change, energy depletion, food scarcity, and social inequality. Design as usual isnt just inadequateits harmful. If we want to contribute to a better future, we must use our design skills in different ways.As Julia Watsonstates:With environmental and societal collapse imminent in the coming decades, design at the intersection of anthropology, ecology, and innovation is the most pressing discussion of ourtime.The designers role moving forward is crucial but the future is less about viewing success through the lens of creation and production, and more about measuring our impact through restoration, connection, and amplification. It means approaching our work with humility, curiosity, and care. By acting as facilitators, protectors, and collaborators, we can create a future where design doesnt harmand where it empowers others to thrive. The true magic of design lies not in what we create but in the change we help othersachieve.So the next time my mom asks, What do you actually design?maybe the best answer wont be about the things I make. Maybe its about what I help protect, who I collaborate with, and how I empower others to shape their own futures.. Maybe good design isnt about what we create, but about what we choose to leave untouched, to nurture, or to amplify. And maybe thats something worth explaining.Resources:Design JusticeNetworkWhen the Person Abusing Your Child is a Chatbot: The Tragic Story of SewellSetzerWhat is co-design?Beyond StickyNotesLabor organizer Jane McAlevey on The Ezra Klein Show |VoxKelly Ann McKercherCoDesign and PowerSocial Design Sydney Aug2020The Politics ofDesignFrom designing things to designing change was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Gina Trapani, founder of the website you're reading right now, popularized a plaintext format for to-do lists way back in 2006 (please excuse any weird formatting on that nearly 20-year-old article). Called Todo.txt, it is used by many people to this day, in part thanks to an ecosystem of applications built around the format.I recently stumbled on Calendar.txt, by author and teacher Tero Karvinen. It's a text document based on a similar philosophya stripped down, just-the-basics take on your overloaded calendar app. It's a concept worth considering. We're at least a decade into the "using a separate app for everything" era, and sure, a lot of those apps are pretty great. I've spent years recommending software-based tools for everything from managing tasks to making drinks, and I don't plan to stop anytime soon.But not everyone needs a bespoke app for everything they do. Productivity is personal, and everyone has different needs. I've known several highly technically competent people who still use paper day planners to track their appointments and tasksa simple notebook is flexible in a way that no app can match.One line of text per dayI view plaintext tools like Calendar.txt in a similar light. This specific tool is about as simple as it gets: It uses one line of text for every day. You can download a pre-made file with lines for dates that stretches through the year 2033, or you can just make your own.Every line starts with the date, followed by the week number, followed by a three-letter week name. The idea is that you write your appointments after that, by simply writing the time, followed by the name of the event. Events are simply added, in order, to the line.So, for example, a line for today, with one appointment/task (me cleaning the house this afternoon) would look like this:2025-03-06 w10 Thu 14 cleaning the houseThere are many shortcomings to this approach. There's no built-in tool for reminding you of events, for one thing, and there's no way to invite others to your appointment. But this simple approach might work for you.And, as todo.txt demonstrated two decades ago, there are benefits to using plaintext files. Plaintext is versatile, can be opened on any device, and your files won't disappear because some software company decides it wanted to change its priorities. If you're familiar with the command line, you can use existing tools in all kinds of interesting ways. For example, the calendar.txt documentation shows how you can use grep, a tool for searching text documents, to pull up today's appointments: grep 2025-03-06 calendar.txtYou could use the same command to search for events by the day. Credit: Justin Pot Again, this approach won't seem useful to everyoneespecially if you never open the command promptbut not every tool needs to be for every user. Only you can decide which tools work best for you.

1Password has added a new feature that allows users to tag their entries with physical locations. That way, when the user is close by a credential's location, that information will be surfaced in the password manager's mobile app. This 'nearby items' feature makes the most relevant information quickly available to 1Password customers and cuts out the need to search for the correct details or remember exactly what you'd named an account.Location information can be added to any new or existing item in a 1Password vault. The app has also been updated with a map view for setting and viewing the locations of your items. In the blog post announcing the feature, the company cited examples such as door codes for a workplace, health records at a doctor's office, WiFi access at the gym and rewards membership information for local shops as potential uses for location data.Privacy and security are paramount for a password manager, and 1Password confirmed that a user's location coordinates are only used locally and do not leave the device. Nearby items is available to 1Password customers starting today.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/1password-introduces-nearby-items-tying-passwords-to-physical-locations-140040723.html?src=rss

Another day, another move from the Trump administration that will benefit Elon Musk shocking. The US Department of Commerce has announced an overhaul of 2021's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program and its $42.5 billion that will funnel work to Musk's Starlink.The BEAD program was originally designed to give states funding for fiber-optic cable installation, increase Wi-Fi networks and free broadband internet access for some individuals. Fiber-optic broadband provides the fastest internet speeds, but the new mandate will get rid of BEAD's preference for it."The Department is ripping out the Biden Administrations pointless requirements," said US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick in a statement."It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide internet access for the lowest cost."The writing on the wall is clear: Musk, the richest person in the world, leader of a department to reduce government waste (read: cut many critical jobs and programs) and an unelected right hand to what can best be described as an authoritarian government, is about to make even more money.Under the Biden administration in 2023, Starlink received a rejection from the Federal Communications Commission for nearly $900 million in subsidies. The FCC stated that Starlink's application, which was part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program, failed to meet the program's requirements.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/musks-starlink-stands-to-benefit-from-changes-to-a-broadband-equity-program-132521582.html?src=rss

Spotify appears to have run out of patience with cracked apps, but it should be normal service for everyone else.

Prime Video is trialing a new AI feature for dubbing that will make its movies and shows even more accessible.

Rural cancer patients may miss out on cutting-edge treatments in Utah. Therapies for intellectual disorders could stall in Maryland. Red states and blue states alike are poised to lose jobs in research labs and the local businesses serving them.Ripple effects of the Trump administrations crackdown on U.S. biomedical research promise to reach every corner of America. Its not just about scientists losing their jobs or damaging the local economy their work indirectly supports scientists around the country say its about patient health.Discoveries are going to be delayed, if they ever happen, said Dr. Kimryn Rathmell, former director of the National Cancer Institute.Its hard for patients to comprehend how they could lose an undiscovered cure.Yet all the people out there who have, you know, sick parents, sick children, this is going to impact, said neuroscientist Richard Huganir of Johns Hopkins University.The administrations unprecedented moves are upending the research engine that has made the U.S. the envy of the world in terms of scientific innovation, said Georgetown University health policy expert Lawrence Gostin.Among the biggest blows, if it survives a court challenge: Massive cuts in funding from the National Institutes of Health that would cost jobs in every state, according to an analysis by The Associated Press with assistance from the nonprofit United for Medical Research.Thats on top of mass firings of government workers, NIH delays in issuing grants and uncertainty about how many already funded studies are being canceled under the presidents anti-diversity executive orders.Earlier this week, lawmakers pressured Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the nominee to become NIH director, about the turmoil. Bhattacharya said if confirmed, hed look into it to ensure scientists employed by and funded by the agency have resources to do the lifesaving work they do.Funding cuts may leave rural patients more vulnerablePatients who live in rural counties are 10% more likely to die of their cancer than those living in metropolitan areas, said Neli Ulrich of the University of Utahs Huntsman Cancer Institute.A third of patients travel more than 150 miles for care at the Salt Lake City cancer center. But for patients even further away in Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming because its also the regional hub for NIH-funded studies of new treatments.So Ulrichs center helps train local doctors to do at least some of the blood tests and other steps of clinical trials that let faraway patients participate without traveling a program threatened if her university loses tens of millions in NIH cuts.The issue: Most of the NIHs budget more than $35 billion a year goes to universities, hospitals and other research groups. The grants are divided into direct costs covering researchers salaries and a projects supplies and indirect costs, to reimburse other expenses supporting the work such as electricity, maintenance and janitorial staff, and safety and ethics oversight.NIH directly negotiates with research groups, a process that grants managers say requires receipts and audits, to set rates for those indirect expenses that can reach 50% or more. But the Trump administration now plans to cap those rates at 15%. The administration estimates it would save the government $4 billion a year but scientists say it really means theyll have to stop some lifesaving work.They are real expenses, thats the critical point they are not fluff, said Ulrich. Using separate cancer center funds to cover those costs would threaten other activities that are really important to us in serving our communities across the mountain West.A federal judge has blocked the move but until the court fight is done researchers arent sure what they can continue to afford.Indirect costs directly support local jobsNIH grants divided between researchers in every state in 2023 supported more than 412,000 jobs and $92 billion in new economic activity, according to a yearly report from United for Medical Research that often is cited as Congress sets the agencys budget.The AP tallied how much money would have been lost in each state under a 15% cap on those grants indirect costs. Those lost dollars alone would have cost at least 58,000 jobs, concluded an analysis assisted by Inforum, a nonpartisan economic consulting firm that conducts UMRs economic impact reports.Consider Hopkins, which runs about 600 NIH-funded clinical trials plus other laboratory research and is Baltimores largest private employer. If we cant do science and we cant support the science, we cant support the surrounding community either, Huganir said.Research cuts could leave new treatments on the brinkHuganir studies how the brain stores memory as people learn when he discovered a gene that, when mutated, causes certain intellectual disabilities.After years studying the SynGap1 gene, we have what we think is a really great therapeutic almost ready to be tested in severely affected children. Huganir has applied for two new NIH grants key for moving toward those trials.The problem is for the kids, theres a window of time to treat them, he said. Were running out of time.NIH reviews of new grant applications have been delayed despite court rulings to end a government spending freeze, and its unclear how quickly they can get back on track.Everyone I know is basically freaking out because we suddenly dont know how much longer well be able to keep our labs open, said neuroscientist Rebecca Shansky at Bostons Northeastern University, whos awaiting word on grants for her study of how the brain processes pain and trauma.Even scientists with existing funding are left wondering if their projects from transgender health to learning why white breast cancer patients in Oklahoma fare worse than Black patients in Massachusetts will be caught in Trumps anti-diversity crackdown. Some already have, even though studying different populations is fundamental to medicine.Those studies are very much threatened right now. People dont know what the rules are, said well-known Hopkins specialist Dr. Otis Brawley. Were actually going to kill people is what it amounts to, because were not studying how to get appropriate care to all people.AP journalists Shelby Lum and Adithi Ramakrishnan contributed to this report.The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Lauran Neergaard and Kasturi Pananjady, Associated Press

Branding is design. Its the logos, typefaces, and design systems that bring a company to life. But its also strategy. A rebrand can reveal the priorities, motivations, and aspirations of a company if you look beyond the logo. In a recent conversation for FC Live, Fast Companys design editors Liz Stinson and Mark Wilson explored the true impact of branding through the lens of some of the biggest branding moments from the past year.If you missed the subscriber-only event, youre in luck. You can catch the whole conversation in the video above.

As the 1950s became the '60s, a new automotive phenomenon was emerging: The sports car. In 1960 Chevrolet broke the 10,000-unit production milestone for their Corvette, the first time that automotive niche had reached five figures. Up until that point, automobiles in America were predominantly objects used to move families around. Now there was a mass-market alternative in a fun, powerful two-seater with no backseat for pesky kids. The Corvette later went on to be associated with astronauts, further cementing its "cool" status. Around the same time, Ferrari began dominating the international racing scene with their 250 GTO. In 1962 the 250 took first, second and third place at the grueling 24-hour LeMans race. Carroll Shelby, an American race car driver turned car designer and entrepreneur, wanted to knock both cars off of their pedestals. He envisioned a powerful, lightweight car that would smoke the Corvette at stoplights and best the Ferrari at Le Mans.Shelby talked to Ford, who was eager to compete with the Corvette. Ford made powerful engines, but had no Corvette-like chassis. Then Shelby talked to AC Cars, a British company that made the AC Ace, a lightweight, early English sports car. The AC Ace had the suitably lightweight chassis, but no engine; their supplier, Bristol, had discontinued them.Shelby talked AC into shipping their chassis to California, where he could retrofit them with powerful V8 motors that Ford was happy to supply. Shelby strengthened the chassis, steering, suspension and differential to handle the extra power, and the AC Cobra was born.Image: Jaydec, CC BY-SA 3.0 The Cobra started racking up race wins, and by 1965, it beat the Ferrari at the World Sportscar Championship.Image: JacoTen, CC BY-SA 2.0 However, production realities prevented the AC Cobra from becoming a mass-market Corvette killer. Shipping car bodies from a small manufacturer in England to California, where a team hand-modified each to accommodate Ford engines, was not a scalable business model. Shelby shifted his attention to helping Ford with the Mustang, and together they produced the Shelby Mustang GT350 and later the GT500. As both began racking up race wins (see the movie Ford v. Ferrari), the AC Cobra project fell by the wayside.The AC Cobra was discontinued in 1968. Only about 1,000 were ever produced, and as you'd expect from their target market, a lot of them wound up being wrapped around trees. The few AC Cobras that have survived to present day are extremely valuable. Meanwhile, the Mustang became Ford's legitimate Corvette challenger, and the model exists to this day.A bit of surprising news: Here in the 2020s, the AC Cobra is making a comebackby way of Sweden and China. AC Cars has somehow survived to this day and company CEO David Conza, a Swede, is bringing back the Cobra in both Coupe and Roadster forms. The cars will be built in both England and Sweden, the latter country being home to T-Engineering, an outfit of ex-Saab engineers backed by Chinese carmaker Dongfeng. And the engines are still by Ford. How's that for globalization. The resurrected Cobras will be the domain of the rich. The Roadster and Coupe will run around $245,000 and $280,000, respectively.