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.

Most challenging (and disappointing) things about working in Content Design.Continue reading on UX Collective

The evolution and ultimate demise of a drinking straw design.Continue reading on UX Collective

An animated comic illustration of a Fortnite character looking up and to the right, while a city burns in the background. Credit:Me.Fortnite wasnt a hit when it started. It was a totally different game back then. No battle royale, no millions of dollars in prize money, no Mariah Carey frozen in an ice block for Christmas. Originally, it was a third person, tower defense game. Youd gather resources, build a base, and you and your friends would prepare to be attacked by a torrent of horrible zombies. You worked alongside others to free survivors and combat thehorde.It didnt sell well. In fact, before being inspire by PUBG, it was almost cancelled. But they pivoted from their original idea. They looked around at other game models and listened to their user base. And they made out with bookoodollares.I think that the process of making video games lends itself towards making. You have to make a game in order to show it to someone and have them play it. Then, judging by the joy or frustration on that persons face, youll make changes and tweaks to improve thegame.Lets make morethingsIn software, particularly big software companies, Ive seen a different trend. Ive seen a lot of talking, planning, and twiddling. Oftentimes, there way less making than I would expect. And, I think that it comes from a fear of judgement. Because, with the making, comes judgement.But thats a fear that we need toface.If we really want to make things that are useful for other people, the only way well be able to do that is by making something to be judged. We cant build things in avacuum.Dont get me wrong, Im not saying that we shouldnt plan. Plans are great! Lets do our research, understand the problem, and cast vision for the future. But when the rubber hits the road, we need to makestuff.Were not always going to know what the right thing to do is. Sometimes (most times) there isnt a right thing. The path is obfuscated. Maybe were trying to serve other people, but were afraid of making a mistake. What if our mistake hurts the people were trying tohelp?But, if we do nothing, were not helping at all. Were not making thingsbetter.I dont think we should let our fear keep us from at least trying to make thingsbetter.And if we make something that messes things up, we can fix it. We can talk all we want about an idea, but until we actually make something visible and tangible, they wont know what the hell were talkingabout.People need something to respondto.And when we make it? People will give us feedback! We can use it! We can make it better, more effective!!!As long as we keep iterating, well make something great.Starting withresearchHeres where I was four years ago. I had just started my role at Cisco. It was my responsibility to breath new life into their design system, Momentum. This design system was used to create consistency within the Webex App. But there were a few problems that we needed to dealwith.I didnt know anything about this system, how it was implemented, or how people usedit.It spanned five different platforms, with varying degrees of differences depending on the operating system.All the components in those platforms were custom built; no UI toolkits.At the time, I had one designer on my team and we doubled down on our curiosity. Claire and I put together a research project, interviewing designers and engineers across the Webex App to try and understand what Momentum was and how people were using it. At the time, the Webex App was undergoing a complete rebrand. The entire UI was being evolved, and the transition was pretty difficult. People were building the plane as they were flyingit.We surveyed over 30 users and conducted research interviews with 20 participants across the organization. We used the findings from this research to help solidify our mission as a design systems team and specifically target the areas that we wanted to improve with Momentum.Here are some of our key insights:Give us clarity: Participants communicated that they wanted to have a better understanding of the current state of the design system, where its going in the future, and who has ownership ofit.Build a yellow brick road. Onboarding to the design system is particularly difficult here, because it requires so much one on one time to transfer knowledge. Theres a need for better tools and processes used for onboarding, collaboration and system improvement.The system lives inside a select few. It is currently impossible to learn the design system without facetime with experts. We need more solutions to become familiar.Build the machine. Users of the design system want more tools, processes, and resources to build effective and efficient solutions.Rebalance ownership with engineering. Better collaboration and communication is needed across design and engineering so that we can be on the same page when it comes to components, process, and language.More thinking through making. We need to have methods for evolving our system. How do we approach product evolution in a systematic way? How do we incorporate conceptual thinking and cast vision for the future while still delivering producttoday?Breaking things to make thembetterWriting down our guidelines All the information of Momentum was housed inside the heads of a few designers. They were archons; gatekeepers to the halls of software consistency. They gave out their advice and guidance to others, but it was slow. It wasnt scalable, and our features were often blocked, or the design system was ignored completely.Being new to the team, I didnt know how our system worked. I was unfamiliar with our components, colors, and processes. So, I did what Ive learned to be one of the most powerful tools for organizational influence: I made friends. I got to know each and every one of these design system leaders and scheduled a regular meeting with them to discuss common design patterns used in oursystem.Oftentimes the meetings would revolve around a specific issue for a component or design pattern. A question about the dialog component would come up from a feature designer and we would discuss how to answer it with clarity, and make any necessary updates to the component in thelibrary.An example of our Grid and Layout guidelines to help designers understand the importance of spacing consistency.My team and I distilled the information that we learned in various guidelines which we then used to format all our information on our iconography system, layout, illustrations, color tokens, typography, and accessibility.Any time we got a recurring question in office hours, or received multiples of the same request, we used what we learned as an opportunity for something that might be written in our guidelines.An example from our Design Token Guidelines.A brand new process In 2021 when I started, the Momentum Design system consisted of 4 Figma libraries for each of the Platforms that Webex was on (Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android). A decision was made that the UI of Webex should lean native, ie leverage operating system components where appropriate. This has since bit us in the butt, as a lot of these operating systems core components arent as accessible as we need, but thats another story entirely.A FigJam board with the results of our design system change process workshop.The libraries were maintained via a guild model, with quite a few designers having access and adding components whenever the need arose. This led to massive discrepancies between the libraries as well as an unclear process for new component additions. My team and I were having multiple conversations during the week, being asked to add a new component to our figma library, because its already being built in product. To top everything off with a cherry, none of the platforms had UI toolkits. Components were being built as part of feature work in a completely custom and unscalable way.We had very little control or oversight and inconsistency reigned. We needed to stop themadness.I facilitated a workshop with my team and several key designers who had been on the design system guild where we discussed and created the Design System Change Process. This took work, but was the first milestone in creating order amongst ourchaos.We ran a weekly Office Hours where designers with questions could come and ask questions about their feature work. We used it as an opportunity to share the new component creation process, as well as several teams weekly Show &Shares.We implemented a Momentum Request Form where people could submit requests to our team and they would be stored on our backlog for review and work at a laterdate.All this helped create a stop gap for the massive amounts of changes going into our component library on a dailybasis.The final Momentum Change ProcessChart.Restructuring our Figma Libraries While reviewing our four figma libraries, the obvious thing that we noticed was an inconsistency in component naming. In the Windows library, the Banner component would have its own page. But in iOS, it would be on an Alerts page with Dialogs and Toasts. These inconsistencies made navigating the libraries, and building features across platforms extremely difficult.My team and I (at this point Claire and I had another designer, Morgan) met together several times to discuss how we might approach figma component library alignment.How we used to organize our components on layers. Lots of similar components were on the samepage.Our new way of organizing components. We start with Core Components, then Native Components, and then Product Specific Components.There were three potential strategies that wesaw:Individual components; grouping individual components on their own page, listed out alphabetically.Group by usage; multiple components with similar features or applications would be grouped together on the samepage.Group by complexity; this is something that Brad Frost discusses in his atomic design model when showing the difference between Atoms and Molecules.I proposed to the team that we list out our components individually, and group them together by Core Components, Native Components, and Application Components. Because we wanted to align four different platforms, I felt it necessary to show what all the libraries had in common in the Core Component library and relegate any operating system components to the native section. The Application Components was honestly a free for all. So many strange and unique cards, widgets, or list items were placed there because they could not be used in more than one part of theproduct.This update was one of the biggest that we made. It had the greatest effect on designers daily lives. We were really worried that these new changes might impact or impede their workflows.ConclusionThroughout this process, I was sweating. As design system designers, the things we make and maintain have an immediate impact on the designers around us. I didnt know how they would respond to the huge amount of change in their libraries and processes.A year later we performed another user research project on design system usage. This time around, we were able to increase our overall scores for Momentums ease of use and understandability. Theres still a lot of work ahead of us, but were ready to both break andmake.ReferencesOriginal FortniteTrailerFortnite was nearly cancelled years before it became a global phenomenon, according to a former employee of Epic Games BusinessInsiderPrototyping: Turning Ideas into TangibleProductsMove New Ideas Forward in Your Organization IdeoUAn illustration of the author waving. Credit:Me.Hey yall! Im Trip Carroll, a design leader at Cisco and aspiring cartoonist.I write and publish a new article on design, leadership, and software development every other Monday. You can see more of my work on my website, check out my drawings on Instagram, or subscribe to my newsletter on Substack.Lets make workgreat!Theres no making without breaking was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Craft and problem solving goes much deeper than the solutions we build; heres mystory.Ken and Jean NeemanMyParentsMy parents didnt use technology muchthey got excited when I bought them an iPad and then bought three more as their primary computing devicesbut they were and still are problem solvers at heart regardless of what theydid.They also had vastly different careers.My father was a refrigeration mechanic for Kraft Foods and Albertsons; my mother was (and still is) a practicing artist and conservator for Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Getty Center and Hearst Castle. Im proud of what theydid.They both fixed things with unmatched craft and precision.Ive been thinking about how their practical approach to solving problems and focus on craft influenced my career. I also thought that writing about it would help influence others to think about user experience differently.I think about it even more because while we are entering the age of AI, its still about people that use our solutions for practical means.Some of this thought is because of my fathers recent passing, but Ive also been thinking about how their philosophy deeply influenced my career. I learned so much just by watching themwork.My practical approach to user experience matches their philosophy of problem solving and craft. I believe we should all be a bit more practical in getting to an outcome like theywere.Here are a few things I learned from both that I carry in my profession to thisday.Focus on theproblemAs a refrigeration mechanic, my father approached each system like a detective at a crimescene.He understood that all systems were about balance and flowpressure, temperature differentials, and mechanical harmony. Hed start by observing, then eliminate possibilities. His hands would trace lines, seeing patterns in what appeared to others as chaos, to gain clarity in both refrigeration and electrical systems.My mother creates and restores artwork through a similar systems-thinking lens. She arranges color and form to achieve visual balance, understanding that each element affects the whole. When painting, she observes how light interacts with surfaces and how the eye naturally moves throughspace.They both taught me that mastery comes from understanding relationships. Dads mechanical systems followed physical laws; Moms artistic systems followed perceptual ones.Its about what the viewer experiences and nothingelse.Both require observation before action, pattern recognition, and respect for the mediums properties. Ive learned that whether working with refrigerant or sculpting materials, its all about making precise decisions, and recognizing when to get out of the way and let the system find its idealstate.The solution should be an iterative journeyMy father never saw a broken system as just a problem to fixhe viewed it as a way to understand.Hed trace refrigerant lines with fingers much more calloused than mine, listening to the systems complaints like a doctor with a stethoscope.The solution reveals itself if you pay attention, hed say while dismantling compressors. His diagnostic process was never rushed; each step informed the next as he patiently followed the trail of imbalance to itssource.My mother approaches her canvas with the same mindset. She mixes materials as experiments, not commitments to reach a positive outcome. The image emerges through this dialoguea give and take between vision and execution. Her studio walls display works in various stages, visual documentation of solutions still in progress.Understanding takes patience and learning together, which both embraced. Discovery takestime.Both taught me that mastery isnt about knowing answers immediately but embracing the process of discovery. Dads journey through mechanical systems followed physical clues; Moms artistic journey follows intuitive ones.From them, I learned that whether diagnosing a failed condenser or repairing broken statues and furniture that were hundreds or thousands of years old, the best solutions come from respecting the journeyobserving carefully, acting thoughtfully, and understanding that the path itself holds as much value as the destination.Tools are justtoolsA garage full of tools for anyneed.My fathers toolbox was never a point of pride but a means to an end. Hed grab the cheapest crescent wrench if it did the job right, unfazed by brand names or shinychrome.Its not about having every tool, hed say while improvising with a bent coat hanger to clear a drain line. Its about understanding what you need to accomplish.His relationship with tools was purely functionalextensions of his hands that enabled his true expertise: understanding how systems breathe andthrive.My mother approaches her art supplies with the same pragmatic attitude. She mixes paint on scrap cardboard instead of formal palettes and applies it with everything from sable brushes to cut-up credit cards. The medium is just a vehicle for vision, she says while experimenting with coffee grounds for texture in a landscape.And together, they fought over power tools because, to them, craft meant having the right tools for thejob.Both taught me that fixation on tools often masks insufficient knowledge of fundamentals. Dads mastery came from understanding pressure dynamics, not owning specialized gauges; Moms artistry flows from her grasp of composition and structure, not expensive brushes.From them, I learned that whether facing an industrial boiler or a blank canvas, true expertise lies in your approach to the problemhow you think, not what you hold. Tools are just the interface between vision andreality.Jean Neeman, Teapot on the GoKamm Teapot FoundationCraft matters alotMy father approached refrigeration with a craftsmans reverence fordetail.Hed meticulously clean copper lines before soldering, ensuring no contaminants would compromise the system. Shortcuts become long routes, hed say while precisely calculating refrigerant charges to theounce.What others saw as tediousleveling condensing units, torquing bolts to exact specificationshe treated as sacred rituals. His pride wasnt in fixing systems but in building them to outlast him, invisible excellence that hummed quietly behindwalls.My mother brings this same dedication to her paintings and sculptures. The foundation determines everything that follows, she says while grinding pigments for a specific hue that commercial tubes cantprovide.Her practice involves disciplined routinescleaning tools properly, organizing materials meticulouslythat enable creative freedom. She measures success not by completion but by whether each brushstroke meets her exacting standards.Planning, for both of them, was a sacred exercisekey to achieving a level of craft they were proudof.Both taught me that craft transcends the visible result. Dads immaculate joints would be hidden in walls forever; Moms foundational sculpture work disappears beneath subsequent layers. Yet both insisted these unseen elements mattermost.From them, I learned that whether balancing refrigerant pressures or repairing intricate sculptures, mastery comes from respecting the processunderstanding that craft isnt about perfectionism but about honoring the work itself and the people itserves.Share knowledge so we can learntogetherMy father never guarded his refrigeration knowledge like some tradesecret.Hed invite me under industrial units, patiently explaining pressure differentials while his flashlight illuminated frost patterns. Hed create teaching momentsintentionally leaving tools behind so wed have to problem-solve by improvising solutions.His greatest satisfaction came not from fixing complex systems but from witnessing the moment when confusion transformed into understanding on someones face.My mother approaches her conservation work as a collaborative laboratory where knowledge flows freely. She invites co-workers to observe as she stabilizes fragile sculptures, discover the history of paintings, explaining material properties and deterioration mechanics.Art restoration isnt about individual brilliance, she says while demonstrating a sculpture technique. Its about collective wisdom for the original intent of theartist.Her notebooks contain detailed process documentationnot for personal reference but to ensure techniques survive beyond her practice.Both taught me that expertise in isolation diminishes rather than grows; we are meant to share knowledge with others so we can all learn together.Dads mechanical knowledge expanded through conversations with older technicians and curious apprentices alike. Moms conservation skills developed through international workshops and mentoring relationships.From them, I learned that whether troubleshooting circuits or reconstructing ancient artifacts, the most valuable systems we build arent mechanical or artistictheyre the knowledge networks that connect us, allowing collective wisdom to surpass any individuals capabilities.True mastery includes the ability to teach and make. We should all embrace that in ourcareers.Patrick Neeman is the author of uxGPT: Mastering AI Assistants for User Experience Designers and Product Managers. Its live, for sale on Amazon at $9.99. Go take alook.Patrick is a Director of User Experience Design at Workday working on Document Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence. Hes also an advisor for Relevvo, an AI-based software platform that helps sales and marketing leaders target their potential customers. He has been head of design for the last 13 years at places Evisort, Knowable, Icertis, Apptio and Jobvite and has over 20 years experience of the User Experience field.Everything I know about UX I learned from my parents was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

What should you do if the Product team says, stop everything and build this?Continue reading on UX Collective

The best designs dont just happentheyre strategically championedA while ago, someone asked me a question I hear often: How do I avoid office politics?Its a great question, but heres the realityescaping office politics isnt anoption.Its always there, whether you acknowledge it ornot.As designers, were often told to focus on the pixels, the layout, the user experience, and the user research but what about the dynamics we face in the office? The truth is, we cant avoid office politics. Its as inherent as the work we do. In fact, understanding and navigating office politics is one of the most crucial skills we can develop as designers and designleaders.But theres a critical element of our profession that design schools conveniently forget to mention: navigating the complex human dynamics that determine whether our beautiful Figma designs ever see the light ofday.This invisible skillmastering office politicsoften separates good designers from exceptional ones who drive realimpact.Politics and technical constraints are part of the fabric of every workplace, and they manifest in everything from team collaboration to decision-making and even daily interactions.The best leaders understand that unity and shared purpose transcend the complexities of office politics.John F.KennedyThe reality no one wants to acknowledgePolitics and technical constraints are woven into the fabric of every workplace. They manifest in team collaborations, decision-making processes, and even casual conversations at the coffeemachine.Those perfect pixels we pour our hearts into? They rarely ship in their pristine formif they ship atall.So if we cant escape office politics, how do we transform this potential obstacle into a strategic advantage?My personal designconceptDesigning beyond thescreenHere are my five strategies for mastering workplace dynamics:Recognize the human elementMost political behavior isnt maliciousits human. When a product manager seemed to be undermining my design direction, a candid conversation revealed they were under extreme deadline pressure and felt their input was being ignored. Politics often stems from misalignment, not illintent.Build authentic relationships, not transactionsEarly in my career, I mistook networking for superficial conversations over after-work drinks. Ive since learned that genuine relationshipsunderstanding peoples motivations, challenges, and goalscreate magic. When I needed cross-functional support for critical design decisions, these relationships became my most valuableasset.Decode the unspoken language in every roomEvery meeting contains invisible currents of motivationpersonal and professional. I noticed during design critiques that certain team members engaged more deeply when they felt personally connected to the discussion. By reading these dynamics, you can frame conversations that resonate while still championing userneeds.Communicate with strategic precisionIn politically charged environments, how you communicate often matters more than what you communicate. When leading a cross-functional team through disagreements, I focused on clarity and outcomes rather than personalities or emotions. Connect your ideas explicitly to team goals and company objectives to give them stayingpower.Build your political capital intentionallyImpact requires influence, and influence requires visibility. Your political capital is directly tied to your reputation. Let your work speak volumes, but actively cultivate relationships where stakeholders understand your unique value. This isnt about self-promotionits about ensuring your voice is heard when critical decisions aremade.Maria Taneva explains that in large organizations, the lack of interdepartmental collaboration often leads to challenges for UX designers navigating office politics.Interdepartmental collaboration doesnt just magically improveit takes effort. The real work isnt just in the pixels; its in how we communicate, build trust, and create alignment. When designers take the lead in bridging gaps, office politics becomes less of a roadblock and more of an opportunity. At the core, its about bringing people together around a shared vision and making design a connector, not just another function working in isolation.At the end of the day, great collaboration leads to great designand great design only matters if it sees the light ofday.Pixels to product simplifying a portfolio designLeeYungtyngThe career-defining realityThe uncomfortable truth?Creating exceptional designs is only half ourjob.The other half is navigating workplace complexity, leveraging social dynamics, and building relationships that transform designs into shipped products.The most successful designers I know arent just masters of their crafttheyre masters of human connection, communication, and strategic influence.From designer to designleaderWe endlessly discuss Figma techniques and design systems, but rarely address what truly elevates careers from senior designer to design leader: the art of influence, trust-building, and navigating organizational complexity.A flawlessly executed design that never ships has zero impact. It generates no revenue, improves no user experiences, and creates no businessvalue.This mirrors the creator economy, where raw talent without marketing savvy rarely finds its audience.Bruno Torres Boeger explains how accepting and learning to deal with politics can propel you forward in your achievements, but ignoring it can stall yourcareer.The truth about career advancementAs you progress, youll discover your work transcends visual elements. Success is measured by your ability to align business objectives with user needs, foster collaboration, and build momentum withinteams.Put simply: Good design = good business.If youre looking to multiply your impact, develop your emotional intelligence, learn to read organizational dynamics, and proactively build strategic relationships. These soft skills will distinguish you as a leader capable of guiding not just design execution but strategic direction.Unsplash image by ReinhartJulianDance with yourshadowIts not about avoiding office politics; its about learning to dance with this inevitable shadow. Master the how of working with people, and the what of your design work will naturally command attention.By combining design expertise with social intelligence, youll unlock a new dimension in your careerone where youre not just designing great products, but architecting your path to leadership.Youve gotthis.Office Politics: Crossing Swords or Building BridgesWhy dont your colleagues approve your mockups? UX office politics explainedOffice politics: the never-ending struggle for UX designersNavigating politics at workEmotional Intelligence in DesignEmotional intelligence in design: the skill of empathyIm currently a Design Principal & Creative Director at SAP, a spiritual and health enthusiast. I write about design, skills, careers, and systems. Im all ears for your take on anything design or, feel free to connect with me on Linkedin orX.Office politics: the skill they never taught us was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Lack of differentiation and over-optimization are running rampant. Heres what designers can do aboutit.Most experiences are average. Few are excellent.Anyone today can build apps and websites.On the one hand, thats great. We have products for all kinds of problems. On the other hand, the experience leaves much to bedesired.The problems with most productstodayMost products today are mediocre. Im sure you feel this everyday.No matter how great AI and no-code tools are, they are far from replacing the strategic work that goes into creating targeted solutions. The kinds of solutions that turn users into die-hardfans.Instead, most products today are either too generic or make people feel like dollarsigns.Complete lack of personalityVanilla ice cream never tastes bad and a plain black t-shirt will never go out of style. But a bold flavor or fashion-forward respectively they are not. You wont attract any attention with this approach.How I choose TypefacesDanMallWere surrounded by an ocean of vanilla ice cream, the most basic and undifferentiated flavor. Lots of products today use the same palettes, same fonts, and samestyle.Just take a look at https://www.linears.art/, a site that gathers websites inspired by Linears landingpage:Same fonts, layouts, and palettes. linears.artTheyre like vanilla ice cream. And its not just the UI, Ive seen many products become a collection of stitched-together, UX patterns without any consideration for the overall experience or the nuances of the users needs. These superficial solutions leave a lot of room for improvement.[] Tools have lowered the barrier, anyone can create. But when everyone uses the same tools, its vision and craft that make the difference. The demand for work that feels distinct, thoughtful, and human has never been higher.FonsMansIm a designer, and I care about design. Let me tell you what I think good design should beabout.Good design is about knowing the people you design for. What they like, what they want, what they need. Good design reflects the ethos of itsmarket.These vanilla ice cream products, however, are the embodiment of indecision, or worse, the lack of courage to precisely adapt themselves to their customers.The cure for vanilla icecreamYou can design vanilla ice cream products and do okay. But if do your homework, you might learn that your customers like pistachio ice cream because it helps them sleep better at night, and you can whip out a killer pistachio ice cream that delivers at 2 AM, and your service will be a certified banger.Theyll thank the universe for your existence.Short-term, performance metricsThe other way in which most products miss the mark today is their fixation with short-term, short-sighted, performance metrics.Picture this:You visit a website, theres a newsletter popup front and center and a cookie banner. You close both. Theres a hero with meaningless copy Next-gen AI-powered productivity. You ignore it and scroll down. A chatbot on the bottom-right corner named Greg greets you with a generic message. You close it and try to scroll more. You reluctantly sign up to try the product. Turns out it doesnt do what you thought it did and the website isnt clear at all. From that moment on, you will receive 3 daily emails as part of their drip campaign, even if you never want to use the product. You try to unsubscribe several times, but it never works. You go back on the website to try and ask them to remove you from their mailing list. The only form of contact is Greg, the bot. You engage Greg. Its AI-powered, yet it doesnt understand anything you say. You ask to speak with a human, you get a response from Greg. Turns out hes a real boy. He says he removed you from the email list, the change will take 48 hours to be reflected. You thank Greg. 5 minutes later you get a satisfaction survey to rate Greg. He was nice so you fill it out. 30 days later youre still getting theiremailsIn which version of the multiverse does this wackadoodle make sense? How did we end uphere?Ill tell you how: its an obsession with performance metrics.You see, along the way, Gregs company gathered some juicydata:Their website copy and design are engaging, because you scrolled! Except you had to scroll because their dumb hero didnt say anythinguseful.Their website conversion is high, because you signed up! Except you signed up to try and figure out whether the product solved your problem since you couldnt figure that out by reading their ambiguous website.Their drip campaign is a hit, because no one unsubscribes! Except they literally cant because the unsubscribe link isbroken.Their bot is useful, because you engaged with it! Except you had nochoice.Customer support solved your problem! Except theydidnt.From a metrics perspective, this funnel is pure gold. From a user experience perspective, its an automated torture device calledGreg.[] when we set one specific goal, people will tend to optimize for that objective regardless of the consequences. This leads to problems when we neglect other equally important aspects of a situation.Unintended Consequences and Goodharts Law by WillKoehrsenIn other words, its never been easier to build systems that miss the forest for the trees. This obsession with tracking, measuring, and optimizing for conversion often builds twirling monstrosities that dont care about their users. This is also known as the Goodharts law.When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measureGoodharts lawI can hear the marketeers: bUt oUr cOnVeRsIoN MeTrIcS ArE GrEaT AnD We dRiVe sAlEs!!!!Yeah, but what about your brands reputation? What about building a sustainable business? Wouldnt it be great to wow your customers so they tell their friends for free? Imagine a world in which they love your product so much they keep buying from you over andover.Well, that sounds lovely, but marketing attribution is really hard to measure. So its much easier to stick to short-term numbers that we can brag about in front of execs rather than building a loyal userbase:Meet Product Owner Pat, who lives and breathes feature releases. The quarterly metric demands new features, so Pat ensures that they roll out a shiny new update every few weeks, whether the users want it or not. The problem? The products quality begins to falter as features get crammed in without proper testing or alignment with user needs. Bugs abound, and user satisfaction plummetsbut hey, at least the feature release numbers look stellar. The Metric Obsession by MeetVekariaThe irony is that you can actually get a pulse on long-term engagement and brand reputation. You can actually ask to your customers and theyll be happy to tell you what sucks about your product. Your customers would throw Greg under thebus.What can designers do about allthis?A few things, actually.First of all, understand the motivations behind these UX blunders. Whats the business hoping to get out of these superficial metrics? Is that drip campaign driving a large proportion of sales? Great, can we look at the whole campaign and try to make it less annoying? Some newsletters are actually valuable and entertaining to read and keep the audience warm and engaged. Can we aim for something better?Second, and something I mention in almost every article: Know your users. What do their days look like? What annoys them? What are they trying to get done? This knowledge will build up your argumentative capacity to challenge poor design choices. But dont be confrontational. Nobody likes a designer telling them what to do. Instead, use your knowledge about the customer to present enticing possibilities.Third, be bold. The more you know your users, the more youll develop your sensitivity around their needs. This will give you the confidence to create designs that stray away from the average middle and towards the righteous lane. Dont be a vanilla icecream!When the decision-makers point of view on a product is do whatever makes the number go up they are not only tracking trailing indicators, but they are not capable of saying no. And the ability to say no, because this does not take us where we want to go is the key to effective product decisions. Verschlimmbessern by PavelSamsonovIf you made it all the way here, thanks for reading. If you disagree with me, let me know in the comments, Im always up for a gooddebate.Talk soon.Further readingHow I choose TypefacesDanMallExtreme focus on upsellingJuan J.RamirezVerschlimmbessernPavelSamsonovThe Metrics ObsessionMeetVekariaGoodharts lawUnintended Consequences and Goodharts LawWillKoehrsenDigital attribution is dead! Les Binet tells us why marketers need econometrics in 2023 SamuelScottWhy most products today are meh was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Users need more than a sparkle icon and chat-bot to designate embeddedAI.As AI is integrated more and more throughout website and app experiences, its critical to distinguish where AI has been implemented from where it hasnot.Initially, most products introduced AI as a chat-bot where users initiated and facilitated their interaction with AI. Now, products are merging AI into dashboards, tasks, and search functions. Users are no longer initiating their experience with AIits pre-existing.Since users no longer control when they trigger usage of AI, users need to be made aware of when theyre shown AI features or content to determine its validity and quality. Not only that, the European Union AI Act (applicable in 2026) will enforce that users are made aware when they communicate or interact with an AIsystem.This is where design systems come inimplementing specialized visual treatment to consistently separate AI content and features from non-AI content and features.Googles Material design system documentationUnfortunately, only a few open-source design systems have explicit AI components and patterns today. Im hoping more will be incorporated soon, but so far, only GitLabs Pajamas, IBMs Carbon, and Twilios Paste acknowledge AI in their guidelines.Note: I use Design Systems for Figma to benchmark AI components and patterns. I also did not include design systems that only include documentation for AI chat-bots or conversation design since its a more standard interaction pattern; this includes Amazons Cloudscape and Salesforces Lightning.Lets compare and contrast these design system AI components and patterns and see where they can be optimized for better usability.GitLabs PajamasIBMs CarbonTwilios Paste1. GitLabsPajamasPajamas currently doesnt include explicit components or patterns, but it does include interesting documentation about AI-human interactions. The documentation first recommends understanding if the usage of AI will actually benefit the user by identifying when its ethical and beneficial to automate (I.E., high-risk vs. low-risktasks).Next, it recommends being transparent about where AI is usedPajamas does this with its GitLab Duo, an indicator of AI-features, capabilities, and limitations.GitLab Duo is used to indicate where the user can interact with AI in the interfaceSince the GitLab Duo is used for AI-features and interactions (and not any AI content), Pajamas also recommends flagging AI-generated content with <Verb> by AI (I.E., Summarized by AI), as well as a message encouraging users to check the AI-content.GitLab is also working on a framework to practice their guidelines; its currently in-progress, but the general work can be viewed in GitLabs AI UX Patterns. Their goal is to release an AI-pattern library with documentationjust what we need (pleaseee!).GitLabs vision for their AI UX patterns is split into 4 dimensions to help select the right AI pattern: Mode, Approach, Interactivity, andTask.Mode: The emphasis of the AI-human interaction (focused, supportive, or integrated)Approach: What the AI is improving (automate or augmenttasks)Interactivity: How the AI engages with users (proactive or reactive)Task: What the AI system can help the user with (classification, generation, or prediction)For example, their early explorations for AI patterns include low-fidelity mockups of how AI can be integrated in an interface with charts or inline explanations. The patterns clearly mark the usage of AI to help build user understanding and trust with the AIsystem.Lo-fi integrated chart with markers indicating AI, such as predicted data (via GitLabs Vision for AIUX)Lo-fi integrated explainer to fill out a form with AI (via GitLabs Vision for AIUX)VerdictCurrently, GitLabs documentation is conceptual and generalized to how they want the AI UX experience to be like in the future. But it gives a solid framework that most design systems could adoptno matter the industry orproduct.Im hopeful they release more in-depth information about their AI UX patterns soon. I think it could be a great open-source asset to other design systems developing their AI documentation.2. IBMsCarbonOut of the open-source design systems, Carbon has the most robust documentation for AI usage. It includes an AI-dedicated section, Carbon for AI, which encompasses components, patterns, and guidelines to help users recognize AI-generated content and understand how AI is used in theproduct.Carbon for AI builds on top of the existing Carbon componentsadding a blue glow and gradient to highlight instances of AI. So far, there are 12 components with AI variants, such as a modal, data table, and textinput.Carbon for AIs component list with specific AIvariantsThough the AI variants of the components are given a distinct visual treatment, in context, its difficult to distinguish which component is currently active (because they all lookactive).In the below form, AI was used to auto-fill most of the input fields, so these fields use the AI-variants. The AI-variants receive a blue gradient and border even if its in a default statemaking it hard to visually identify which component isactive.The blue gradient and border used on AI-components makes it hard to tell which component isactiveUsers can override inputs made by AI, which will swap the AI-variant for the default-variant of the component. This will cause a revert to AI input action to replace the AI label in the input fieldallowing users to control manual or automated form responses.Carbons revert to AI input function appears when users overrideAI-inputIn addition to the AI-variant, it includes an explicit AI label that can display a popover explaining the details of AI in the particular scenario (Carbon calls this pattern AI explainability). The user can select the AI label and the popover appears beneath the button.Carbons AI label includes an explainer popover for the user to get more details on the usage ofAIVerdictIts exciting to see design system documentation on AI patterns and components thats as well-developed as Carbons. Not only do they have documentation on the general usage of AI, but actually have components and patterns touse.But since the AI-variants of the components make it difficult to distinguish which component is active when used in-context, I think there are usability and accessibility issues. The AI-variants draw too much attention with the color usage, and also look like Carbons focus state (which could impact low-vision users reliant on the focusstate).Carbons AI-variant vs. focus state of the textfield3. TwiliosPasteLastly, Paste offers an Artificial Intelligence section under their Experiences section. Paste includes general documentation on using AI in user experiences, as well as a few components touse.When designing AI features, Paste recommends allowing users to compare AI outcomes to their current experiences, as well as handle potential errors and risks. To mitigate these errors, Paste advocates for giving the user the ability to review and undo outputs, control data sources, and give feedback to the AIsystem.Paste also suggests asking yourself, How would I design this feature if it did the same thing but didnt use AI? when designing a new AI feature. Users dont use products just so they can interact with AItheyre trying to complete tasks and achieve goals as efficiently as possible.Paste includes an AI UI kit with 5 components: artificial intelligence icon, badge, button, progress bar, and skeleton loader. It also includes components specific to their AI chat experience, such as the AI chatlog.Whats most helpful in Pastes documentation is the examples they provide. This includes signposting, generative features, and thechat.For signposting, Paste suggests using the decorative badge with the artificial intelligence icon to indicate a feature is using AI, such as AI recommendations or predictions. The signposting is non-interactive, but resembles a button, so it looks clickable.Pastes signposting example using a badge and AIiconThe generative feature gives users prompts to help them use the AI feature, such as Summarize the data or Recommend the next step. When you select the generative feature, a popover appears below giving the user instructions and what AI model itsusing.Pastes generative feature includes a button with a popover to instruct the user interacting withAILastly, the chat is pretty typical of AI chat-bots known today, and includes references to their conversational principles to develop the AIs personality.Pastes AI chat-bot with an empty state and prompts below the textfieldPaste does have another pattern coming soon with the loading pattern, but well have to wait and see. This pattern will give users a way to control and anticipate the AI output; this includes stopping the output and adapting the state based on how long the AI output willtake.VerdictIm happy to see a mixture of some documentation with real examples we can look at. Though one of the examples is a chat-bot, the other components in the AI UI kit demonstrate how to be transparent when showing AI-usage in an interface.Paste is looking for feedback on their AI UI kitthey have an open Github discussion where you can submit requests.Its surprising how few design systems have released documentation on components and patterns to address AI-driven content and features (at least publicly). For instance, both Google and Microsoft are leaders in the AI industry, but open-source Material and Fluent design systems dont include AI patterns.Since these AI leaders are integrating AI into common products a broader user group interacts with (like Gemini and Copilot), theyre establishing the users mental model that other products need to also adopt. Even Adobes Spectrum, who has integrated AI into many of their products (Adobe Firefly), only has a short blurb acknowledging machine learning and AI when it comes to content and writing aboutpeople.Maybe their AI patterns are still in development? Maybe theyre waiting to get itright?Either way, its valuable and crucial to identify AI features and generated content to users, so they can better understand whats being shown to them, as well as trust the product. Im looking forward to more design system patterns that go beyond the sparkle icon and the chat-bot.Stay tuned!AI transparency in UX: Designing clear AI interactions was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

AI, feedback & the need for greater usercontrol.As of March 2025, we still lack meaningful control over AI-generated outputs. From a user experience point of view, most of the time this is acceptable. However, when using AI tools to help with complex information discovery or nuanced creative tasks, the prompting process quickly becomes convoluted, imprecise and frustrating. Technically, this shouldnt need to be thecase.Every time we revise a prompt, a new cycle of input and output tokens is generated. This is an awkward way of working when you are honing in towards a final output. The back and forth text prompting needed to direct AI tools is inefficient, quickly strays from naturally constructed phrases and previous incorrect responses pollute the attention mechanism.This lack of predictability currently prevents users from gaining an intuitive working knowledge of AI tools, which in turn limits the models capabilities.What If?What if we had customisable UI controls that would allow users to navigate towards a desired output without having to use imprecise languageprompts?Older electronic products had direct mechanical feedback between a users input and a corresponding action. This experience feels distant when using current AI tools. But does this need to be the case? Dieter Rams. World Receiver T 1000 Radio, 1963. BrooklynMuseum.Why Is ThisBetter?This isnt just about convenienceits about creating a more natural way for users to collaborate with AI tools and harness their power. The most efficient way for users to solve problems is to learn by doing. The most natural way is by trial, error and refinement. Rewriting a prompt resets all the input token embeddings which mean that users loose any sense of control when working with AItools.A more sensible approach would be to allow users to move through the AI model space and let them navigate to a desiredoutcome.Wireflow: Enhancing AI prompts with a control panel and concept vectorsliders.Erm, I Still Dont GetItTo illustrate this concept more clearly, lets use an analogy. Imagine a game where the multi-dimensional geometry of an AI model is represented by inter-galactic space. Each time you prompt a spaceship pops up somewhere in this inter-galactic space. You have a destination in mindsay a specific star system that you want to explore. At the moment, the only way to navigate towards your star system is to prompt. Each time you do so, the spaceship teleports to another somewhat random position. You are unsure if your new prompt will appear closer or further away to your destination. Your prompts balloon in length, and your uncertainty increases as each additional word has less impact on the spaceships position.If, on the other hand, you had navigational controls, instead of blindly jumping about the universe, you could increase or decrease various values and more effectively learn which values move you towards your destination.You might find that you need to re-prompt a couple of times first to start closer to your destination. But when youre closing in, being able to navigate through the vector space with sliders is significantly more effective.(But what about prompt weightings? By adding + andto words in a prompt it is possible to change their importance! > This is a useful hack but it isnt intuitive or efficient. With successive, lengthy prompts users are still blindly guessing with new token embeddings.)Whats Needed For A UI ControlPanel?UI controls would need to be inferred from eachprompt.The input embeddings go through many cycles of attention processing, so controls would need to directly alter the prompts final input embedding vectorsprior to the output content generation process.Proposed and existing data flow through an LLM attention head.So, How Could ThisWork?When a prompt is being processed a copy of the final input vector embeddings would need to be stored prior to the output generation. From these copied embeddings it should be possible to infer the most relevant values to provide as controls. It should also be possible to allow users to input their ownvalues.If a user needs to fine-tune an output, they could adjust controls which would shift the token embeddings. These new embeddings would be fed directly into the output generation, skipping the input prompt generation.While Im at the edge of my knowledge of ML models, it seems that mathematically it might be possible to effect a change in the token embeddings by altering the Value V in the equationbelow.This mathematical equation describes the attention head layer within a Large Language Model. Query (Q) relates to the token generation of the input prompt. Key (K) maps the input prompt to the model space. Value (V) is a weighting layer that intentionally guides output generation.Where This Approach WorksBestWorking With Near-Known & Unknown InformationWhen new information can shift a users initial intention. Eg, Travel Planning > If a user wrote an initial prompt for a personalised travel itinerary, they could then shift subjective parameters to tailor the plan without having to re-write longprompts.Content GenerationThe tasks that stand to gain the most are when prompting during the creative process, when its beneficial for the temperature parameter to be higher. Eg, when using image generation tools users either have a conscious target in mind that they are trying to match, or they will discover what feels right as they use the generative tool. Endless prompting harms the creative process and is computationally expensive. Concept vector sliders should expand a users creative flow state rather than frustrate it.Deep Research | Searching Within Complex Vertical DatabasesInterrogating data with nuanced vector based search would be useful for particular scientific experiments that involve large databases. Eg, for research studies attempting to map animal communication, it might be useful to explore the contextual differences in the way animals communicate. The same sound pattern might be being made, but being expressed differently depending on comfort and safety vs threat and danger. Navigating a database with UI sliders that control various embedding vectors and provide feedback analysis on search terms could beuseful.Generative AI: Two Example UseCases1. Writing | Feedback & Modulation ControlBefore making style changes to text, it would be useful for writers to receive feedback. As Im writing this article for example, when Im deep in a writing flow, Im unsure if Im keeping an acceptable level of complexity and tone across sections. Variance of course is ok, but feedback would behelpful.Then when making style changes, users need more precise control. Default commands, such as Apple Intelligences Friendly, Professional, Concise, or Geminis Rephrase, Shorten, Elaborate offer little feedback or control. How Friendly or Professional is the text to begin with? And then when applying the change, how much more Friendly, Professional, Shorter or Longer does the user want it to be? Also, perhaps there are more nuanced stylistic changes that Id like toexplore.An initial mock up of how a simple control panel could function within Google Docs existingUI.So Wait, WhatsNew?FeedbackUsers can quickly review a text based on customisable values.User Interface ControlsFollowing feedback, users can then make informed and confident changes along several nuanced concept vectors at once. Without a multi-step prompt dialogue. Using these concept sliders users can pinpoint a specific intention that might be difficult, or inefficient to describe withwords.Easier Development, Deployment & Modulation of Personal StylesA fully customisable control panel can help users create and deploy a personal style and then modulate it for a givencontext.The impact of document analytics and vector sliders like this would be considerable. Instead of giving full agency to AI to re-write texts, using a copilot to quickly analyse and variably modulate text could help users to be more intentional with their writing and improve their writing skills rather than loosing it toAI.2. Multi-Media Content GenerationCompared to text based LLMs text to media generation tools currently suffer from an even greater lack of traction between intention, prompt and output. This is because they have huge dual model spaces with a text input analysis as well as an output vector space which have to be matched together.As well as media labelling issues and black holes within training data (eg. there are hardly any images of wine glasses that are full to the brim), another significant problem is a UXone.Users lack intuition of how to prompt text-image models effectively. With vector sliders users would have greater certainty in knowing whether a desired outcome is even achievable in the model and not a prompt failure. By removing the uncertainty involved with prompts, users would increasingly enjoy working with generative AI tools and be more effective with less overall prompt attempts. Efficiencies in text prompting can only be beneficial from a business standpoint.Mock up of a text to image generator to shown the usefulness of subjective conceptvectors.Im Almost Lost Again, WhatsNew?Two Step Prompts | Text + Concept Vector SlidersWith a more straightforward initial prompt, users could now make further changes using subjective concept vectors. In the above example atmosphere is added to the image. There is feedback of how atmospheric the images is, which informs a user when changing thisvalue.Control Panels Change the Final Input EmbeddingsThis is crucial. When users decide to make a change they would now be able to carefully fine tune an existing prompt without reshuffling all the vector embeddings.It took over an hour of repeated prompts to Adobe Firefly to get the three images for the above mock-up. Every time I re-prompted Firefly I felt as though I was playing roulette. I was never certain of what any of Fireflys controls or presets were doing. Perhaps its a skill issue, but even after finding an image to use as a firm compositional lock and as a style transfer, I was frustrated with an inability to nudge the image in any meaningful non-random way.It definitely feels that something is going wrong. These models are incredibly powerful, and they should be able to handle incremental changes and nuanced inference. There is obviously a lot of untapped potential with the combination of LLMs and diffusion models.Doing More With Less. Why This Is Worth Pursuing.Part of the problem with prompt engineering is that users have to communicate to an AI that has an unknown exposure to the world. Users dont know what information they need to provide to an AI or how that information should be provided. To make matters worse, models frequently change, and in turn, their sensitivities to words and phraseschange.If users had greater model space control, this would ease some of these tensions. Users could write shorter prompts to establish a baseline which they could re-define with concept vectors. A multi-step user interface means shorter, less perfect, and more efficient prompts with increased fine control of the output for the last mile of accuracy.A two-step process, of prompting and then fine-tuning final input embeddings, should also be more computationally efficient. From a UX perspective it would be more satisfying because this method is in-sync with how we think and workparticularly when working through unknown problems and when needing Generative AI to perform at higher temperatures (hallucinations) for creativework.NotesThe ideas in this article can be seen as part of wider evolving research and discussions surrounding Large Concept Models that are being developed by Meta. Essentially this is an LLM model that is specifically organised around conceptually related terms. This approach should make navigating concepts more predictable and reliable from a user experience interaction. Articles for further reading:- Mehul Guptas Meta Large Concept Models (LCM): End of LLMs?- Vishal Rajpjuts Forget LLMs, Its Time For Large Concept Models (LCMs).I first encountered Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) in 2020, while working alongside Nord Projects on a research project for GoogleAI. This project, which explored subjectivity, style, and inference in images, won an Interaction Award (IxDA).The idea of identifying and working with subjective inference, which Nord Projects explored, has stayed with me ever since. It has influenced the central ideas of this piece and shaped my thinking on how similar concepts could be applied as user controls within LLM and GenAImodels.ReferencesAttention In Transformers, step-by-step Grant Sanderson, (3Blue1Brown Youtube Channel)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlx5fFNoYcLarge Language Models II: Attention, Transformers and LLMsMitul Tiwarihttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/large-language-models-ii-attention-transformers-llms-mitul-tiwari-zg0uf/Attention Is All You NeedAshish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, Illia Polosukhinhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762What Is ChatGPT Doing and Why Does It Work Stephen Wolframhttps://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/KingMan + Woman is Queen; but why?Piotr Migdahttps://p.migdal.pl/blog/2017/01/king-man-woman-queen-whyDont Use Cosine Similarity CarelesslyPiotr Migdahttps://p.migdal.pl/blog/2025/01/dont-use-cosine-similarityOpen sourcing the Embedding Projector: a tool for visualizing high dimensional dataDaniel Smilkov and the Big Picture grouphttps://research.google/blog/open-sourcing-the-embedding-projector-a-tool-for-visualizing-high-dimensional-data/How AI Understands Images (CLIP)Mike Pound, (Computerphile)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcSXcpluDe4www.tomhatton.co.ukNavigating embedding vectors was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

How an adaptive onboarding experience could empower designers and accelerate theirgrowthIllustration byAuthorImagine opening Figma for the first timeyoure eager to start designing, but as soon as the interface loads, youre confronted with a dense array of tools and hidden featureslayers, components, auto layout, prototyping options, and plugins. That initial excitement quickly turns into hesitation.Where do you evenstart?As a university-level instructor teaching design software, I see this struggle often. And its not just Figmathis is a universal challenge for those using professional design tools for the firsttime.Overloaded interfaces can overwhelm, while minimalist UIs can be just as frustrating, with essential features buried in obscure menus. In both cases, the cognitive load shifts from creating to simply figuring out how to navigate the software.But what if onboarding felt less like trial and error and more like guided discovery? Imagine unlocking tools gradually, earning achievements as you master featureslike leveling up in agame.Instead of a blank slate and an overwhelming toolbar, novice designers could follow a structured, gamified learning path that builds confidence while keeping the sense of discovery alive.Figmas Current OnboardingBefore diving into gamification, its worth noting Figmas current onboarding process. It primarily relies on a short introductory tour, fundamental tutorials, in-app tooltips, and, of course, the Figma community. While helpful for some, these methods often fall short for designers seeking a structured learningpath.https://medium.com/media/6eaa2f5c898f5f1f3faadb8dae3cb1ee/hrefDesigners are often left to explore and learn at their own pace, which can lead to frustration when facing complex features. This unstructured approach highlights the potential for a more guided onboarding experience.Gamified Progression for FigmaUsersRather than presenting every tool upfront, what if Figma offered an adaptive UIone that progressively introduces features based on how designers interact with the software?Envision a system integrating:Progressive UI ModeAdvanced tools like Variants and Interactive Components remain hidden until designers opt in or naturally reach a point where they need them, keeping the interface focused.Feature Unlocks by InteractionKey tools like Auto Layout and Components become available as designers successfully work with foundational elements like frames and text, ensuring a smooth learningcurve.Skill Progression & RewardsProgress indicators and achievement badges track mastery of core tools, providing motivation while keeping the experience streamlined. Designers can optionally share milestones with the Figma community or teammates.Guided, Hands-on LearningInteractive challenges and guided prototypes reinforce feature discovery directly within real Figma files, allowing designers to learn bydoing.This wouldnt be a restrictive gamification model. Instead, it would align complexity with a designers skill level, rewarding proficiency with deeper functionality.While progress indicators and achievements arent new in software tools, their value comes from being thoughtfully integrated into the workflow. By aligning feature access with proficiency, Figma can enhance usability, retention, andmastery.A similar, though less gamified, onboarding method is used with production software like AutoCAD (tailored workspaces), Blender (gradual tool introduction through tutorials), and Notion (progressive feature disclosure).Even design tools like Adobe offer customizable workspaces. However, their UIs do not dynamically evolve based on user skill level or achievements.Adobe Illustrator workspace optionsBy combining gamification with progressive feature unlocks, Figma could create a UI that adapts with the designersurfacing tools at the right time to optimize both learning and efficiency.The Power of GamificationResearch shows that gamification boosts engagement, knowledge retention, and learning outcomes through game-like elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards.Some critics warn that gamification, while effective for engagement, can sometimes encourage compulsive behavior, where users become more focused on earning points or badges rather than developing meaningful skills.Nonetheless, many studies indicate that structured learning paths, progressive feature unlocks, and gamification elements help novice users by providing clear guidancemaking skill development more intuitive, and adding an element of enjoyment to the learningprocess.Image source: https://raccoongang.com/blog/designing-efficient-elearning-gamification/While specific, public data on Figmas onboarding satisfaction is limited, anecdotal evidence from online forums and design communities consistently points to the challenges of learning complex features without sufficient guidance.Gamification in Professional PlatformsGamification isnt just for consumer apps such as Duolingo or Fitbitmany professional platforms already use it to encourage learning:Salesforce Trailhead: Interactive modules reward users with badges and skill progressions, while still keeping all features accessible.Microsoft Learn: Structured learning paths use points and achievements to encourage engagement.HubSpot Academy: Certification models guide users through complex tools in a structured manor.These approaches dont restrict access but instead create pathways for users to engage at their ownpace.Image source: https://medium.com/trailhead/what-is-trailhead-79595b07e549Balancing Control and ExplorationOf course, any structured or gamified onboarding system must avoid feeling like a limitation. In my experience teaching design software, some students thrive with step-by-step guidance, while others prefer immediate, unfiltered access.A hybrid approach could strike the right balancean optional, guided learning path with achievements and unlocks for those who want structure, while keeping the full feature set immediately available for those whodont.It is also important to consider edge cases, and ensure that should a user need a hidden feature immediately, that they have a clear path to accessit.Image source: https://www.appsflyer.com/blog/trends-insights/app-gamification/Learning That Feels LikeProgressUltimately, the goal of professional software, especially design tools, isnt to restrict but to empower users at every skill level. A well-designed onboarding system that incorporates gamification and progressive access wouldnt replace organic learning but instead provide supportive scaffolding that users can step away from when they feelready.What do you think? Would a tiered gamification system make Figma more accessible, or do you prefer full access from thestart?When you first started using Figma, how did you learntrial and error, tutorials, or something else?Share your thoughts in the comments!Dont miss out! Join my email list and receive the latestcontent.Should Figma utilize gamification to help designers level up? was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

How do metaphors and analogies work, and what makes a good metaphor?Heres something that has always fascinated me: our understanding of the human body, particularly the brain and nervous system, has been profoundly shaped by the tools and technologies of each era. During the rise of mechanical craftsmanship, we began perceiving the body and brain as hydraulic systems (Descartes, 1600s) and intricate clockwork mechanisms of gears and springs (La Mettrie, 1700s). The industrial revolution brought new perspectives: the telegraph system with its information-carrying electrical wires transformed our view of the nervous system (Helmholtz, 1800s), while the steam engine, with its energy and pressure, became a model for understanding the brain (Freud, 1800s). Perhaps the most striking examples emerged in the 20th century with the rise of electronics and networks. The brain was first envisioned as a telephone exchange switchboard connecting signals (Sherrington, 1930s), and later conceptualized as a computer with input, output, processing and storage (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960s). And this pattern continues: we now talk about the brain through comparisons to the internet and AI neural networks.Our bodies and brains are incredibly complex systems. To comprehend them, we naturally turn to what we already understandthe most sophisticated technologies of our timeand we do so through metaphors and analogies. As designers, we dedicate substantial time to crafting the perfect visual metaphors that make the novel and unexpected feel familiar and approachable. But how do metaphors and analogies work? And what makes a good metaphor?Why we love metaphorsAt its core, metaphors perform a simple yet profound function: they bridge the unfamiliar with the familiar. They connect what lies beyond our grasp to what we already know intimately. And what could be more intimate than our direct experience of the world? One of metaphors most powerful aspects is their ability to bring distant concepts within reach of our humanscale.Source: Eureka, Physics of Particles, Matter and theUniverseOur brains, shaped by millions of years of evolution, excel at perceiving and understanding the world at the scale of our bodies. Research has demonstrated that the further we go away from our human scale the less accurate our perception gets. From the microscopic scales of atoms and nano seconds to the macroscopic scales of galaxies and millions of years, everything outside of our human experience seems complex, abstract, ungraspable. In response, we instinctively map these complex and abstract concepts onto embodied experiences. We are able to think about how time passes via our implicit understanding of how we and other objects move through space. We are able to think about degree of familiarity and intimacy in relationships in terms of physical proximity. Metaphors translate abstract ideas into perceptions. They turn what we can think into what we canfeel.Paper, touch andparrotsLets look at a concrete example. How do you make a complex machine accessible to everyone? In computing, the answer has always been: find the right metaphor.In the early days, computers were complex calculators that only specialists could operate, with users submitting punch cards and waiting hours for results. The breakthrough came in 1970 when Xeroxa photocopier companyestablished PARC, a research center dedicated to explore the paperless future, and tasked it with an ambitious mission: making computers accessible to everyone, even children.The team found their answer in a simple metaphor: paper. They noticed how naturally office workers handled documentsmoving them, stacking them, filing them away. This observation became the foundation for the modern computer interface. They created visual representations of familiar items: a desktop surface, folders, a trash can, files you can pick up and move, and overlapping windows that mimicked papers on a desk. Drawing from research on how children learn through physical manipulation, they designed an interface that felt as natural as arranging items on a desk. They recognized the power of metaphors to rewire ourbrain.The paper metaphor creates clear affordances: when you see a folder, you know you can put things in it; when you see a trash can, you know you can throw things away; when you see a window, you know you can move it around. The metaphor didnt explain the computerit made it immediately clear how to use it. And ironically, paper became the primary metaphor for the paperless world.Xerox Alto, the very first computer using the paper metaphor. Screenshot of Smalltalk GUI, copyrighted 1980. Courtesy ofPARC.Today, as Dan Saffer writes: no one addresses his computer without some metaphoric mediation. This is still true in smartphones, where weve developed a new language of interaction: we pull to refresh, swipe to dismiss, pinch to zoom. The evolution of these metaphors mirrors how our relationship with technology has changed. Weve moved from the paper metaphor to a physics inspired interaction model.This shift from professional to physical metaphors parallels computings journey from office tools to personal devices. While desktop computers still use the paper metaphor, smartphones have adopted a language stripped of most cultural or professional context. By embracing simple physical metaphors, smartphones achieved something remarkable: they made computing accessible to a much wider audience. This suggests how universal metaphors, when well chosen, can help make complex systems accessible.Today, we face this challenge with Generative AI and Large Language Modelssome of the most abstract and complex technologies of our time. Confronted with these new tools, we instinctively reach for familiar frameworks: some define LLMs as sophisticated copying machines (stochastic parrots or blurry JPEG of the web), others envision them as crowds, inscrutable gods, aliens, or even food. These metaphors help bring seemingly magical technologies within our grasp, but each offers a different way of understanding them. When we see AI as a copying machine, we focus on its limitations; when we see it as a crowd, we think about emergence; when we frame it as an alien intelligence, we contemplate its otherness. As Sean Trott observes: our choice of framing is exerting a subtle influence on the direction of our thought.What is the right metaphor?To understand computers, smartphones or LLMs we need the right metaphors. As Steven Jay Gould writes: We often think naively that missing data are the primary impediment to intellectual progress, just find the right fact and all the problems will dissipate, but barriers are often deeper and more abstract than thought. We must have access to the right metaphors, not only to the requisite information. Revolutionary thinkers are not, primarily, gatherers of facts but weavers of new intellectual structures. Beyond technical specifications and capabilities, its the metaphors we choose that will determine how we understand and use these technologies.However, some metaphors we assume to be universal are actually deeply cultural. Lets look at time. English speakers conceptualize time spatially with the past behind us and the future ahead. But Aymara speakers from the Andes use a completely different framework based on visibility rather than direction of movement. For them, The past, visible, thus stands in front of the speaker, while the future, unseeable, looms behind. Their gestures match this perspective: they point forward when discussing the past and backward for thefuture.Other cultures use entirely different spatial metaphors. Yupno speakers in New Guinea conceptualize time in relation to the mountains around them: the future flows uphill while the past flows downhill. Perhaps most surprisingly, researchers found that Tupi-Kawahb speakers in Brazil appear to organize time without using spatial metaphors at all, challenging the assumption that time-space mapping is universal.These examples reveal that metaphors we assume to be universal are often deeply cultural. When creating new metaphors, we should question our assumptions about whats intuitive or universal, recognizing that different metaphors might serve different communities better.Finite and infinite metaphorsLets go back to our brain metaphors. In the late 1800s, while many scientists were embracing mechanical and electrical metaphors for the nervous system, the Spanish neuroscientist Santiago Ramn y Cajal proposed a radically different vision. Having grown up in the Spanish countryside, he saw the brain not as a fixed machine but as a living gardenneurons were trees that could grow and branch, axons were climbing vines, and dendrites were delicate flowers blooming in the cerebral forest. This wasnt just poetic language. Cajal actively rejected the dominant telegraph metaphor of his time, arguing that a rigid network of wires contradicted what he observed: the brains remarkable ability to change and adapt. Its garden metaphor captured something fundamental that mechanical metaphors couldnt: the brains plasticity, its capacity for growth and transformation.Purkinje cell drawn by Cajal from the human cerebellum at the back of the head, which regulates balance for walking and standing. Courtesy of Cajal Institute, Cajal Legacy, Spanish National ResearchCouncilThe brain is neither truly a garden nor a machine (whatever the most advanced machine of our time is). But while the machine metaphor attempts to map a complex unknown (the brain) to a complex known (the machine), the garden metaphor shifts entirely our vision of what a brain is, and I would argue that it also shifts our vision of what a garden is. This gives us another insight into what makes a good metaphor: they dont just map one object to another but rather shift our perspectives on bothobjects.James P. Carse develop this idea in the fascinating Finite and Infinite Games: It is not the role of metaphor to draw our sight to what is there, but to draw our vision toward what is not there and, indeed, cannot be anywhere. Metaphor is horizontal, reminding us that it is ones vision that is limited, and not what one is viewing. This shift in perspective is the reason why some metaphors are so powerful.We need metaphors to expand our thinking, to look at the world in new ways. Much like scientific models, I see metaphors as frameworks through which we perceive and analyze the world. Some metaphors might be models yet to emerge, offering glimpses of new ways to structure our understanding.In conclusion, we often think we use metaphors to explain ideas, but I believe good metaphors dont explain but rather transform how our minds engage with ideas, opening entirely new ways of thinking. When crafting metaphors or communicating complex ideas, our role isnt really to explain what exists, but to cultivate spaces where new understanding canbloom.This text is part of a series reflecting on my practice as a designer working in science communication. You can find my work and get in touch here: https://www.louischarron.io/SourcesFinite and Infinite GamesJames PCarseMetaphors we live byGeorge Lakoff, MarkJohnsenShortcutJohnPollackThe role of metaphor in communication and thoughtPaul H. Thibodeau, Teenie Matlock, Stephen J. Flusberghttps://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lnc3.12327Of Microscopes and Metaphors: visual analogy as a scientific toolMatteo Farinellahttps://matteofarinella.com/Of-Microscopes-and-MetaphorsA History of the GUIJeremy Reimerhttps://arstechnica.com/features/2005/05/gui/The Father of Modern Neuroscience Discovered the Basic Unit of the Nervous SystemBenjamin Ehrlichhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-father-of-modern-neuroscience-discovered-the-basic-unit-of-the-nervous-system/How much does our language shape our thinking?Manvir Singhhttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/30/how-much-does-our-language-shape-our-thinkingThe secret of good metaphors was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Weekly curated resources for designersthinkers andmakers.This is why earning trust is better than building trust. Earning trust prioritizes user needs over arbitrary design choices. And when those trust credits are needed, they become a competitive advantage in uncertain situations.UX, how can I trust you? By DarrenYeoGone are the days of time-consuming research analysis [Sponsored] Speed up your UX workflow by over 80% with Marvins AI-powered research repository. Say goodbye to bottlenecks and auto-generate actionable, shareable insights using Deep Research Analysis and ChatGPT-like prompts. Get started for FREEtoday!Editor picksYour leadership playbook is outdated Bias, blind spots, and broken systems.By MeghanLoganDoes AI dream of synthetic experiences? When AI falls short of real conversation.By gerryduffyWhen empathy becomes the enemy of productivity How UX inflexibility stalls progress and frustrates teams.By Michael F.BuckleyThe UX Collective is an independent design publication that elevates unheard design voices and helps designers think more critically about theirwork.The hardest working font in Manhattan Make methinkArresting reality When we consider the sublime, proportion and scale are what principally come to mind, but this experience of being dwarfed by scale isnt limited to the visual. In music, live performances similarly impress upon the audience a sensation that there is something greater than themselves.Natural information architecture As the neocortex is divided by region (vision, hearing, touch, language, etc.), so too are our mental models, which are stored in cortical columns. This is tacit knowledge. We dont know what we know. Perception is the consensus the columns reach by voting, and the basis for our actions and explicit knowledge.Everything in its place Mise en place is something I try to practice in my life where I can. Its a concept that is very important to me, not only when I cook, but for lots of things that I do. I like to be organised, I love to be organised well ahead of time, otherwise I seem to fixate on what could go wrong, right up until the thing happens.Little gems thisweekUX Research isnt optional: arguing like Socrates will help you prove it By JoeSmileyA study of gatcha games: the UX of the Pokemon TCG Pocket app By DaleyWilhelmHow culture shapes UX: Western vs. Asian product design By KristinaVolchekTools and resourcesUI & UX micro-tips: 8-bit anniversary edition A collection of 36 powerful tips to improve your designs.By MarcAndrewThinking past the cliche of LLMs AI design patterns Can we start acting like Product Designers again?By Matt JedraszczykHyper-personalization: a practical UX guide Leveraging real-time data, AI, and behavioral analytics.By Taras BakusevychSupport the newsletterIf you find our content helpful, heres how you can supportus:Check out this weeks sponsor to support their worktooForward this email to a friend and invite them to subscribeSponsor aneditionTrusting UX, outdated leadership, empathy as a roadblock, UI micro-tips was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A game design examination.The start screen for the first American games, specifically Pokmon Red. Courtesy ofPokmon.Pokmon is a franchise very dear to my heart. With vivid clarity, I remember my mom taking me to Toys R Us in the late 90s to buy my first Pokmon game, a copy of Pokmon Red. What was my very first Pokmon? An easy choice: Charmander, obviously! I look back on those early days with intense fondness. Nowadays, the narrative hasnt changed much. My apartment has Pokmon plush scattered all over. I am an active participant in my local Pokmon Go community. Ive even gotten multiple Pokmon tattoos, firmly cementing my love of the franchise as if the tattoos themselves were the act solidifying my devotion.Ive loved Pokmon long before I became aware of my passion for art and design. The games inhabit a unique space in my life. They exist among a small number of interests that have transcended age, existing for both my inner child and the wiser adult I exist as now. It is precisely this consistency throughout my life that gives the franchise such power in my consciousness. I was there, cheering on the franchise from the very beginning on the original Game Boy with Pokmon Red and Blue (technically only in the States, as the games were released as Red and Green two years prior in their native Japan.) It has been a fantastic journey watching the franchise itself evolve, from game to sequel, from portables to home consoles.Throughout the series natural evolution, an element that has remained consistent is the fan bases outspoken nature. Pokmon fans have a LOT to say. From denouncing new creature designs to criticizing the exclusion of features from newer games, an outside observer would be right to view the fandom as intense, harsh or even toxic. Most of the time, I can empathize with the fanbases points of view, if not fully embrace the zeal with which they communicate them. A big part of the joy of being a Pokmon fan is connecting with the diverse array of people who also call themselves fans.However, with the release of the two most recent generational games in the mainline series (excluding spinoff games or mobile apps) I have arrived at a point, both as a fan and as a designer, where I find myself valuing different choices than what is generally considered good among the community. The eighth generation of games, Pokmon Sword and Pokmon Shield (SwSh) released in November 2019. The ninth generation, Pokmon Scarlet and Pokmon Violet (SV) followed in November 2022. These entries, released in pairs as series tradition, are an interesting case study of what constitutes successful design. What is seen as playable? What do players generally consider to begood?The start screen for the eighth generation, Pokmon Sword, featuring my crazy cool team of champions.Considering the sheer breadth of time Ive amassed into these games and the series as a whole, I see value in comparing the two generations. Far too often, I see conversation denigrating Sword and Shield, two games with fantastic quality of life (QoL) improvements that streamline and ease long-existing issues. Consensus seems to imply these were terrible games, full stop. The critique is even harsher for Scarlet and Violet, though rightfully so. The games aimed for sweeping change but failed when implementing many core design choices. Given my exposure to these games and the general community discourse, I wanted to examine both games to uncover what aspects contribute to successful, intuitive design and add to the conversation.With that intention in mind, I aim to compare the games primarily through their interfaces and key features / functions. I am looking at gameplay design and player interaction more than I am art or sound design. Therefore, I will divide the following examination into four primary categories: general menu and interface, map systems, Pokmon storage, and thePokdex.As Don Norman says, Good design is quiet and hard to notice. Bad design screams out its inadequacy. The interface for a digital product is potentially the most vital aspect to get right. This is no different for video games. As digital products, gamers interact with layered systems and multiple mechanics to progress and interact with a game. As digital products, both SwSh and SV offer fascinating examples of how to design an interface. One game had a lot of conversation around performance and design, whereas the other had a lot of players upset over a change in the status quo. One design was loud, whereas the other was simply controversial.It is safe to admit upfront: I had a much easier time interacting with the systems in SwSh than in SV. The former game offered options and laid out the possible interactions cleanly and consistently. The latter game, well every time I boot up my copy of Scarlet, I must refamiliarize myself with which button controls which action. In fact, the game often requires me to supply conscious effort even when Im not returning after time away. How do I do that again? Playing the game is complicated by the most fundamental player interactions.Upon my initial experience playing Sword, I discovered a recurring pattern of numerous gameplay improvements made by the designers, which updated the overall quality of life (QoL) in various ways. QoL refers to any design decision that makes the game or product more understandable, easier overall, and generally accessible to more players. These are often subtle tweaks, noticeable only from a more macro perspective spanning multiple franchise entries. However, as a longtime player, I noticed them immediately through gameplay, which feels better in any number of different ways.For example, right from the start, the main menu in SwSh offers choice: players can rearrange the eight icons into any order they want. This allows players to decide the icons relative importance and customize the menu to individual playstyles. I specifically placed my most frequently used icons on the far left. Since the menu cursor originates on the left, this reduced the amount of input and time required for me to access these mechanics. Having options helped the game work exceptionally well for me, which extended to every player who chose to customize. No other game in the series offered thisfreedom.The main menu in Pokmon Sword showing the Bag icon being movedleft.To supplement this designs focus on ease of use, every menu screen contains a slim, black bar along the bottom of the screen. This bar contains dynamic lists of possible actions and the corresponding buttons. For players new to the game, this helps teach button mapping and potentially introduce new features to the player. It can also act as a means to refamiliarize players if they have not played recently or to ease the learning curve for less advanced players. Both scenarios make the game easier forplayers.Another fantastic QoL update in SwSh is apparent when saving the game. Players can press a single button from the main menu directly to access saving. In previous games, saving looked like: pausing the game to access the menu, navigating to a save submenu, selecting save, confirming the action followed by a brief pause and some jaunty save music while the action completes. While a save submenu still exists, saving the game has decreased from five to ten seconds to roughly three. Such a minute amount of time is insignificant individually, but these interactions accumulate over time and affect the experience on a holistic level. Repeated poor interactions can sway a products perception toward a more negative overall attitude.Overall, using the menus in SwSh felt intuitive and easy to master. Comparing both games interfaces, SV features an increased use of button mapping (linking actions directly to the press of a button) instead of menu interfaces. I conclude this reliance on buttons accounts for my increased personal difficulty learning and (maybe more crucially) remembering how to play. SV requires the player to memorize more buttons to interact with its gameplay systems. Design guidance generally suggests simplifying actions to give users an easier and more enjoyable experience.The main menu in Pokmon Scarlet showing a distinctly different approach to interface design.Regarding button mapping, I compared both games to understand how each utilizes the Nintendo Switchs face buttons. Unsurprisingly to neither of us, SV had a complete catalog of unique button actions. Out of 16 total buttons, one game uses significantly more than the other Ill let you discern which. For the sake of readability and to more blatantly call out this lousy design practice, the buttons and corresponding actions are isolated in their own sectionbelow.In comparison between the two generations, there is no comparison. SV relies more heavily on the player to remember its feature set and functionality via buttons. SwSh either has fewer features or manages them more efficiently through menus and relevant information displayed within the interface.In another example of requiring more from players, the user flow managing item usage is laid out differently per game. In SV, the player: selects an item, confirms the item, and selects the Pokmon. Including two menu clicks to navigate into the relevant submenu, that is five clicks per item used. In SwSh, the player does the same exact thing. Including the two menu clicks, there are five steps unless the player wants to use more than one instance of an item. If so, the player can immediately use another of the same item. To use one item, 5 clicks; two items, 6 clicks; 7 clicks; 8 clicks; and so on. In SV, the player repeats the entire three steps. From 5 clicks to 8, 11, 14, and soforth.These two distinct pathways suggest a lot regarding each games design process. A lot could be said of the design thinking and even more constructive critique could be applied. However, it is sufficient to declare SV is a more time-consuming, less streamlined process. This difference in what each game asks from players is very apparent when navigating the SV menus. Due to the many features packed into the game, the multitude of submenus to utilize them all, and the games overall state of optimization and visual fidelity, SV offers a slower experience through its menu systems and featureset.Maps are a big part of every Pokmon game because regions are a big part of every Pokmon game. Each new game has its own unique location where the story is set, full of diverse creatures and characters that give each game its unique experience. As the games have evolved, so have themaps.The two newest games have some of the most useful maps to date. Both maps are accessed the same way: through the main menu after two button presses. Both maps now contain a variety of icons to signify in-game content such as raids and fast-travel points. In SwSh, these were more limited. Only fast travel points and the in-game weather patterns are displayed. The SV map expanded the depth of icons, including various raids and other types of dynamic events, their location, and other pertinent info. This was extremely useful, considering how SV fleshed out these mechanics introduced in SwSh. Players save a lot of time by not having to traverse the game map to check the content manually.A small section of the map in Pokmon Scarlet displaying nearby Pokmon, raid icons and the extremely adorable Rotom as a magnifying glass.The latter new addition, the ability to fast-travel from the map itself, was another welcome QoL update introduced in SwSh. This simple change eliminates the need for players to always keep specific Pokmon in their party. Removing this barrier allowed more player experimentation with different Pokmon team / move set compositions and singlehandedly eliminated the frustration felt by players when needing to backtrack steps to gain the means to progress forward. Like other QoL changes, this minor tweak feels long overdue and obvious in hindsight, yet highly welcome as a playermyself.Due to changes fully adopting open-world design (increasing the size of the explorable player area) in SV, I use this game map often. I can sometimes press the correct button on my first attempt, but not always. Two to three button presses generally suffice to remember the correct button. Once the map is open, there are four fixed zoom settings. I often need to switch between these settings to comprehend the map and answer any questions thoroughly. However, switching to the farthest setting will reset your position to the maps middle upon zooming back in. This oversight created a lot of irritation within me when using the map. The cute microanimation of Rotom as you navigate the map is a tiny touch of joy I appreciate, but its not enough to balance out the maps other simple but consistent frustrations.A section of the map from Pokmon Sword. Notice the stylization and ever present black bar at the bottom of the screenshot.In comparison, the SwSh map is significantly simplified. It always displays in the same orientation, unlike the dynamic map in SV which can orient itself in whatever cardinal direction the player is facing. Such stylization choices implemented do not aim for accuracy but readability in service of helping users build an internal mental model. This model allows users to understand the map mentally with less need to consult the map for clarification. This tactic is similar to the design of many subway and train maps: not geographically accurate but conveying critical information, such as stations and transfers, quickly and easily. Despite offering less, the experience is quicker touse.There are perks and quirks to each map design. Each map is generally well-designed and helpful. I wouldnt declare one more successful than the other. They simply save time in different ways. I do not raid very often so the raid icons were rarely valuable. However, seeing what Pokmon are spawning in mass outbreaks at a glance is hugely beneficial. Overall, I appreciate the efficient designs and both maps are miles ahead of their counterparts in previous generations of the franchise.In 1998, Bill designed the then-revolutionary Pokmon Storage System in the original pair of games, a now-common feature and key mechanic of every subsequent game to date. This feature allows players to catch then store Pokmon beyond the series six Pokmon party limit. Thanks,Bill!Both games access this storage similarly through the main menu. In a familiar pattern, SwSh introduced a fantastic QoL update to the series. For the first time, players could access their Pokmon storage from anywhere in the game world. Previously, a player had to navigate to predetermined locations, usually the single Pokmon Center in every town, if they wanted to change the six Pokmon in their party. Now, with a single button press while viewing their Pokmon, players can access this functionality at anytime.The interface for Pokmon storage boxes in SwSh displaying a clean aesthetic and focus on information.Sword and Shield excelled at simplifying preexisting gameplay mechanics to provide fine-tuned gameplay that was some of the most intuitive in the entire series. With a single button press, players can save time and avoid learning specific play habits to facilitate gameplay. Another example of this includes editing your party order. A single press of the Y button allows you to change the Pokmons position; the same pattern is replicated when reorganizing the main menu, as discussed above. This helps users associate this specific button with this specific action more quickly and naturally.This screenshot shows a Pokmon party being rearranged, demonstrating the repeating patterns and inputs used throughout the interface inSwSh.All in all, the storage boxes do not differ much between games in terms of functionality. Both games offer the same options for each Pokmon: move a Pokmon, check its summary or held item, apply markings (a mechanic to help sort and filter) or release them back into the wild. I found differences only in how each game displays this functionality visually. Overall, the relevant information hierarchy feels more correct therefore easier to parse in SwSh storageboxes.The interface for Pokmon storage boxes in SV displaying a visual aesthetic and differences in visual user interface.Take stats as an example. Every Pokmon has unique stats affected by an entire slate of different factors. These become more relevant in competitive play but are still beneficial to players of all skill levels. You can review stats on an individual creature basis in the storage itself. SwSh displays a vertical list with each trait and its corresponding value. SV displays this same information as a visual, hexagonal graph, with the corresponding numerical values oriented around theshape.Overall, I am biased towards the box design in SwSh. Why? I could use more of the functionality without teaching myself how. I understood (and can check) the various methods to select a single or multiple Pokmon. Each unique mode is supplemented by help text in the black bar along the bottom. (Yes, SV has a similar design choice but the implementation is not as extensive and lacks the cohesion SwSh provides through a consistent visual treatment.) I cannot deny that design will always be subjective. My preference does not make it better. However, I can say that I utilized the feature set more fully and consistently within SwSh. Therefore, I would argue that gives it a slight edge in terms of being the more functional design.The Pokdex appears as the final category for this study. Like the Pokmon storage, this game mechanic has been a staple of every game and even the Pokmon anime. It plays a key role in both narratives as the plot device encouraging the main character to venture forth, battle, and catch every Pokmon within the region. As the game declares, Gotta catch em all! (Though technically speaking, as a game wonk myself, that catchphrase has not been used since at least 2002, if not earlier, as catching every Pokmon in a single pair of games has been impossible since the second generation. Fun technical fact!)As mentioned earlier, Pokmon fans are an outspoken group. Before the launch of SwSh, every Pokmon had been available in every game through trading with other generations of games, if not directly within the game itself. SwSh marked the first time the developers chose to limit the number of available creatures. To put it lightly, player reaction was harsh. This negative sentiment affected so much of the conversation preceding the launch of the eighth generation. I would even argue it affected reception post-launch, as players were less willing to see positive qualities through already-solidified preconceptions. The trend of limited Pokdexes continued in the subsequent generation.A series of screenshots demonstrating various screens within the Pokdex interface inSwSh.Despite this similarity, both games feature different takes on the mechanic. SwSh features a traditional take in line with previous games whereas SV offers a more visual approach. Featuring a cute bookshelf aesthetic, each Pokmon is given a vibrant screenshot as its cover. Different game areas are divided into books or sections within the Pokdex. A similar division occurs in SwSh through a more traditional text / icon design. Similarly, each game accesses the dex differently: through the main menu in SwSh and a face button inSV.As a longtime player, I utilize the Pokdex to reference what Pokmon I need to catch and where to find them. Therefore, seeking out a specific creature is a common task. Within the dex, I can move creature by creature one at a time or page by page, moving the entire view of displayed creatures by five to ten at a time. I often search by page, already having a general idea of where to go. In SwSh, I can move from beginning to end in five to six seconds. In SV, the same task takes 25 seconds. This functionality has been present in all previous games. I have no idea why the developers would remove this simple interaction, reducing a consistently viable interaction.A series of screenshots demonstrating various screens within the Pokdex interface inSV.My overall experience with the SV Pokdex was slow and clunky. Before any performance updates, the games first version featured even slower interactions. The game failed to load relevant entries as I scrolled through the dex, increasing time from end to end. While not particularly revolutionary in its design, SwSh feels fast and responsive in contrast. This leads to the design quandary: do we prioritize functionality, ease of use, or visual fidelity?It is pertinent to mention quickly that I considered examining how Pokmon battles compare between games. I was surprised to discover a high degree of parity between the two generations. In fact, both are practically identical in terms of functionality. There are some visual layout tweaks here and there, but the button inputs almost mirror each other down to the exactbutton.I only have one minor issue, which stems from my longtime position as a player: I love seeing stats. As a wonk for details, I missed seeing the more individualized view of how each Pokmon increased in power upon leveling at the end of each battle. SV does away with this in favor of streamlining the speed of battles but the option to toggle this function would be comforting to me as a long-time player.Seeing my Pokmons stats improve, especially after working to skew them in my favor, is very satisfying.Overall, both games have a lot to offer Pokmon fans. In my view, the fan base was far too harsh on Pokmon Sword and Pokmon Shield due to the Pokdex controversy. This prevented many players from being willing to see a game offering the best menus and controls scheme of any game in the series yet. Long-existing issues were suddenly rendered irrelevant due to clever design choices. Personally, I revisit this game often to train my Pokmon via its extremely beginner-friendly mechanics that make an otherwise grind of an experience into a breezy walk in the Pokpark.Whereas SwSh offered fine-tuned gameplay, Pokmon Scarlet and Pokmon Violet offered drastic changes to shake up gameplay mechanics. For the first time, exploration was expansive, offering players freedom of choice in how to complete the game. In making this transition, the developers gambled with many new gameplay ideas. I think many of these were unsuccessful and only made the overall experience more cluttered. These ideas required drastic control scheme changes, complicating the inputs overall. Yes, the menus and mechanics were more challenging to learn. The world felt barren and uninspired. NPCs were lifeless. The visuals failed to hit even the most basic standard for modern games. However, the moment-to-moment gameplay of exploring the (ugly, muddy, unoptimized) world is somehow more fun thanever.From a design perspective, Sword and Shield exist as two excellent additions to the franchise that fans failed to appreciate fully. Scarlet and Violet get unfairly vilified due to their subpar visuals and fans' unrealistic expectations for graphic fidelity. Both generations of games exist during periods of massive transition. I can understand why both sets were rough around the edges. Game development costs, both financial and human, have increased dramatically since the days of Pokmon on the Game Boy. However, as far as design basics are concerned, the principles remain consistent. Understanding user needs and human psychology will always lead to better products. Prioritizing ease of use and adapting to user behavior will always result in happy experiences. Im uncertain how the developers went from creating such a smooth experience to one plagued with so many issues. However, as a long-time fan, I am beyond excited to continue to watch the series evolve, as a fan and a designer, with childlike excitement and the wisdom to look critically.How design affects gaming in two generations of Pokmon was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Its not about the words as much as designing for theirvalues.Photo by David Sager onUnsplashGen Z is redefining onlinedating.I was recently interviewing for a role at one of the big dating apps. Throughout the process, I was asked how I would write to resonate with Gen Z. Id read up on the company and the industry and I knew it was a big concern. Gen Z is frustrated with dating apps and shifting their usage. As the biggest generation and one that includes ages 18 to 28, its a critical audience for dating apps. But there are big challenges to overcome.First, there are the declining marriage and fertility rates worldwide. Then, theres the political divide in the U.S. which has made it harder for men and women to connect. Gen Z is less worried than previous generations about being single and theyre pickier. They want to align with potential partners on a lot of issues before they even meet. Theyre risk averse and have really high standards. Those who use dating apps feel that the quality interactions arent there, or that people arent as committed, so they get tired of looking and give up. At the same time, theres a renewed interest in meeting people in person through hobbies and activities. (The one bright light ofhope!)So how can content design help? Given Gen Zs complicated relationship with dating, maybe the offering also needs tochange.My approach has always been to ask how people are secretly hoping this experience will change their lives. I say secretly because these arent always things people are aware of or would admit to other people. We all go about our lives hoping certain things will happen but also worrying about other things happening. The gap between those things seems particularly large with Gen Z, which means a transformation needs tohappen.The transformation gap that content design can helpbridgeMost transformations happen over time, moment by moment. If Im going to help a dating app create some of those moments, I need to know what people want, show them its possible, and take steps to deliver it. I do that by first uncovering the universal truths that inform their expectations. Then I find out what they value and what theyre concerned about. Then align every experience with those values. For Gen Z especially, it also must be inclusive to everyone. The days of designing for the average user areover.And in the dawn of an AI revolution, why not consider and explore something totally different? These same principles can be used to imagine fresh ways to meet their needs and exceed their expectations.Were all humanbeings.My number one rule of content design is to respect the humanity of my audience. Gen Z, like every other generation, are human beings first. Life experiencessuch as growing up, making a living, and falling in loveare universal. All generations have hopes, overcome challenges, raise children, and face death. Gen Z might have a unique view and experience of these events, and thats the first place tostart.We crave experiences that are profoundly human, genuine, and trustworthy. Were delighted when apps are smart or predictive and know what we want. We love when they integrate into our lives and feel like an extension of what were already thinking or doing. And when they manage to convey the warmth, humor, and realness of a good interaction, we becomefans.I like to think of every UX interaction like helping a good friend in a time of need. Listen when they need to be heard, ask questions when they need help figuring things out, smile and make them laugh when they need cheeringup.I focus on theTruth.In my screenwriting program at UCLA, we were encouraged to write the Truth (with a big T). Lets say youre watching a TV show. Jim and Phil are leaving a Super Bowl party and Jim says his wife died in a car crash on Super Bowl Sunday. She was killed by a drunk driver who eventually went to prison. We got all the relevant info but it doesnt convey how Jim isfeeling.What if Jim and Phil are leaving the same party and we see that Phil has had too much to drink. Phil tries to get behind the wheel of his car to drive home and Jim flies into a rage. Theyre both shocked by his reaction and Jim breaks down and shares how guilty he feels that he wasnt with his wife that day. Its not about the details of what happened, its about the emotional truth behindit.What are the universal truths of dating that transcend age, culture, or religion? Love, connection, safety, and belongingthese are things a dating app should strive to provide. But we also need to address their oppositesloneliness, loss, fear, and anxiety. But its a delicate balance. Can I people find love and connection while dispelling their fears andanxiety?A comparison of using Venmo and Zelle to send money to afriendI look at every experience through that lens to make sure the app is telling the truth. Is there an illusion of safety, or actual safety? Is there a promise of love, or real love? How can I create true connection and foster belonging? What features, interactions, and communications will support those goals? Which ones will detract from it? If I know the core needs of people using an app, I can prioritize those above smaller more granularneeds.Uploading photos, for example, is a critical step to using a dating app. But what concerns might people have? Could uploading photos compromise their safety? Could it make them feel judged, instead of belonging? Could it diminish their chances of finding love? If so, I need to address those realities and think about other paths tosuccess.Its crucial to understand the emotional needs and concerns of an audience and how they think. Then we can find the best ways to fulfill thoseneeds.Most apps areglobal.If an app is available in 140 countries and 60 languages, it needs to be usable by people in a myriad of cultures. Gen Z is only one way to segment an audience, and it may not be as relevant in some places as privacy, safety, or religion.What we say is infinitely more important than how, when it comes to global audiences. I ask myself what questions or concerns people might have. What do they need to know right now? What can I save for later? What shouldnt I save because it would compromise trust, safety, or comprehension? What should I leave out because it raises more questions than it answers? I look for potential dangers or traps that people could fall into and avoid them. Then I ask customer experience to write or add to an article to help people if Ifail.Inclusivity means making sure everyone, regardless of abilities or situation, can access and use the app. Everyone should feel that the app is for them or can easily be tailored to their specific situation. Gen Z has a much bigger awareness of and appreciation for inclusive experiences than previous generations. Even if they dont personally need or use a feature, theyll applaud you for including people. For a consumer app, it could mean designing for a lower level of tech savviness or accessibilityespecially in emerging markets. It might mean providing an offline version so people can keep using it on the subway. Or adding settings to increase font sizes, turn off sounds, or control who seeswhat.Its a big generation.The dating life of an 18-year-old is quite different from a 28-year-old. One is beginning their life as an adult. They dont know what they want yet and arent looking for a serious relationship. The other will have more experience and could be deciding whether to get married or have children. Or they might already have kids, be divorced, and are getting back out there. Are they men, women, straight, gay, bi, cis, trans? Theres a range of needs and emotions to designfor.What they likely have in common are their values. How they see the world and how that view differs from previous generations. From my own observations, Gen Z values transparency, inclusion, and social responsibility. Theyre digital natives whove grown up on social media. What their peers think is important, and their peer group extends beyond friends to influencers on TikTok, YouTube, and Twitch. Their community is global. It includes content creators, influencers, and celebrities who speak out on the issues theyre concerned aboutlike climate change and mentalhealth.Gen Zs global values | GfK Consumer Life, February2023I can use Chat GPT to find out that Gen Z values authenticity, diversity, and creativity. Theyre concerned about work-life balance and financial stability. They embrace technology but worry about screen fatigue and privacy. And they really want to make meaningful connections.If the company making the dating app values those things too, were miles ahead. But its not enough to just say it, those values must be prioritized in the user experience. From my own experiences in tech companies, I know theres often a constant tension between what the company wants and what customers want. When companies put making money above the needs of their customer, they eventually lose those customers. But if you actually change their lives for the better, they will happilypay.Be one with theforce.Values arent constant. Theyre variable and contextual, and not always predictable. To be confident that I can address any situation, I need to understand and feel what my audience is feeling. That means spending time in their mindset. Ill read articles and books, spend time on apps they value, and stay up to date on the trends, conversations, and issues that matter. Ill spend as much time with my audience in person as I canwhether in user testing, focus groups, or the wild. Most importantly, Ill stay curious and open to new information.When working for Dropbox, Facebook, and eBay, I met people all the time who wanted to talk about features I was working on. A few minutes after meeting them, theyd tell me everything about their experiencesgood and bad. Theres nothing like hearing unsolicited feedback from real people! Its timelier and more relevant than any research or journalism on thetopic.Solicited feedback works as well. When I wrote for college students at Chegg, I often conducted tone tests on sensitive topics and tried different approaches and language. I always learned new things about how they thought and felt by hearing their reactions to words Idwritten.Values drive interactions.When connecting with Gen Z, its not about using their slang or referencing popular culturethough that can be fun in moderation. Its about understanding their motivations and concerns, to design meaningful interactions. The words I choose are in service of that. Theyre packed with as much authenticity, humanity, and value as I canprovide.Just as important as language is how the app behaves. The features we choose should be informed by our audiences values and meet their expectations. Keep in mind that people live online and offline, and every interaction they have creates expectations.From what I know so far, Ill prioritize things like direct, real-time feedback, suggestions, and notifications. Ill brainstorm interactive features that let them be creative and express themselves, while enriching their experience. Ill find ways to personalize the experience, so they get exactly what theyre looking for. Ill look for opportunities to instill a belonging and community. Ill focus their time on quality over quantity. Ill build in options to connect on the issues and voices that matter to them. Then Ill add acknowledgment, assurances, and celebration in all the rightplaces.Ask the hard questions.We know Gen Z is pickier, prone to slow dating, and more concerned with their well-being than being coupled up. But they still want meaningful connections. Are dating apps meeting their needs? If not, how should they evolve? Maybe we should think beyond photos as the primary means of attraction. Can we use AI to help mimic how people connect in real life? Is there a way to make it feel less transactional and more organic? Can it be more fun? Can we remove the anxiety? If success is measured by coupling, its statistically doomed to mostly fail. What if the primary outcome is self-discovery, learning who we are, and becoming a better, happierperson?Challenging basic assumptions and asking hard questions is the most important part of product design. We cant be afraid to do it. It helps us focus on what matters. It prevents us from launching features that not only fail to connect but alienate our audience. It opens the door to new ideas and directions.To sum it up, its aboutvalues.Connecting with Gen Z means getting a deep understanding of their values, experiences, and expectations. Its about more than following trends or using cultural references. Its about addressing real needs in a way that aligns with whats important tothem.I focus on universal human truths through their perspective and ask the hard question: Am I creating experiences that will changelives?A content design approach for connecting with Gen Z was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Perspective from a Canadian UXerContinue reading on UX Collective

Good design doesnt necessarily make our world better. We need to elevate our design practice to strategically drive positivechange.Illustration by: Sh8peshifters / Source: https://www.designingtomorrowbook.com/Co-written by Martin Tomitsch and SteveBatyThe world is filled with good design. We have awards for good design. We have museums that mummify good design in display cabinets. We have good design processes, principles, andmethods.Companies that deliver well-designed products are adored, idolised, and copied. Businesses strive for good design to help them flourish in themarket.There is nothing wrong with good design. It can solve problems, give delight, and inspire beautiful thoughts and deeds. But as futurist Bruce Sterlingsays:Good design doesnt necessarily make our worldbetter.Whether you are a designer or work for an organisation that designs things, its time to realise that good design is no longerenough.This is not, of course, a call for bad design. As Sterling goes on to point out, bad design very commonly makes [the world]worse.But good design is not going to solve our planetary crisis.To continue doing good design while the world around us burns is like drinking a glass of champagne and listening to classically trained musicians as the Titanic slides into the freezing ocean. Our planet is heading towards irreversible tipping points akin to the Titanic approaching theiceberg.Design not only has a role to play in changing our course away from planetary ecocide, it has also contributed to the crisis we find ourselves in.As designers, we can no longer afford to ignore the unintended consequences of design decisions that prioritise humans and their needs without accounting for planetary perspectives.How did we gethere?For centuries, organisations have turned to design to help them succeed in the market. Organisations have adopted human-centred design to innovate and deliver products and services that meet the needs of their consumers.If design decisions are based on what people desire, so the mantra goes, the design willsucceed.But what does it mean to succeed in todaysworld?We grab onto metrics and industriously insert our rich data into spreadsheets and presentation slides. Metrics like user satisfaction and customer growth justify time and investment spent on creating more goodthings.It works so well because metrics are facts management can righteously sign off on and use to drive the companys focus for the next quarter. Much of designs role in business is geared towards profit-making and quarterly profit growth, feeding the metricsmachine.If we are able to improve consumer satisfaction, we can grow our users, customers, and sales, leading to more profits. But whats good for the next corporate quarter is not necessarily good for society or ourplanet.The human-centred designdelusionAs designers, we aspire to help people live better lives. The real benefit that we help to create, however, is in the interest of corporations and their shareholders.Are we solving problems for people, or helping fill the pockets of shareholders? (Based on the original diagram for human-centred innovation popularised by Stanford Universitys Hasso Plattner Institute ofDesign)We are deluding ourselves if we still think that companies are investing in human-centred design to make the world a betterplace.We may believe we are acting on behalf of the consumer. But the consumer has become the product and human-centred design a mechanism to monetise them effectively and efficiently.Designers contribute to a game where the goal is growthto make more stuff to sell to morepeople.And the world doesnt need more stuff. According to a study published in Nature, human-made things now outweigh all life on Earth. This includes roads, houses, printing paper, coffee mugs, smartphones, and all the objects that we have produced to support human activity.Every week, we produce new stuff that weighs more than the combined body weight of the worlds human population.Human-made stuff weighs more than all of natural life on Earth (Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-made-stuff-now-outweighs-all-life-on-earth/)Theres no PlanetBYou dont need a doctorate in earth sciences to figure out that this kind of growth cannot be sustained. Our planet isnt able to regenerate itself quickly enough to make up for our rapid consumption of resources.Last year, Earth Overshoot Day fell on August 1st. The day marks the date by which we used up all the ecological resources that the planet generates during the entireyear.To sustain our current lifestyle, we need 1.7 Earths. We are using up the resources of future generations. If the whole world population lived like the United States, we would need 5.1 Earths eachyear.If the whole world population lived like the United States, we would need 5.1 Earths each year (Source: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/how-many-earths-or-countries-do-we-need/)We are starting to experience the consequences of human impact: Global warming is more likely than not to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that rising temperatures caused by human activity will lead to an intensification of multiple and concurrent extreme weatherevents.Its not just physicalstuffIf you are reading this thinking, I dont design physical stuff; Im not contributing to the depletion of Earths resourcesthink again. Even if your work is in the digital sphere or your organisation is providing services with no tangible components, you are almost certainly contributing to the growth of human-made things weighing down ourplanet.The hidden impact of UX design stems from the physical infrastructure that underpins our digital systems and the behavioural patterns driven by design decisions.The website you are designing? It doesnt live in a serene cloud; it sits on a server that is housed in a concrete data centre and requires a significant amount of electricity to keep itrunning.The online shopping service that youve just improved based on user research? It will allow more people to purchase more things more easily, and those things must all be manufactured, stored, shipped, used, maintained, and eventually disposedof.Even digital platforms and services have an impact on the environment and contribute to the stuff weighing down the planet (Source: https://www.designingtomorrowbook.com/)Taking charge of changing thecourseIf the beliefs that underpin current economic thinking and the actions of organisations operating in a liberal market system have set us on this course, we need to shift those beliefs and how organisations operate.For too long, we have designed our world around us ignoring the downstream consequences and the impact of our design decisions on the broader ecosystems.As we are experiencing the effects of our growth-focused economic structures, it almost seems like we have already left it too late to changecourse.Using the metaphor of a bus barrelling towards a cliff, writer Cory Doctorowtweeted:In many ways, its a terrible future. Its too late to build a bridge, or fix the buss brakes, or do anything except yank the wheel. Its gonnahurt.The captain of the Titanic received numerous warnings of ice and icebergs throughout that fateful day. A specific iceberg warning was sent to the ocean liner by another ship exactly two hours before the crash, enough time to change direction and save more than 1,500 lives. By the time the crew spotted the iceberg dead ahead, it was too late to change the direction of the 47,000 tonnes heavyvessel.Leaving the decision to correct our course away from planetary ecocide to the last few minutes risks equally devastating outcomes.As designers working for organisations and clients that steer the ocean liner and influence the trajectory of the bus, we should have started this work decadesago.But we were induced to focus on other issues, distracted by corporations spending millions of dollars fighting the truth, clouding judgement, and influencing leaders so that business-as-usual could continue.A great blessing for corporationsOur attention to helping organisations design things their customers desired has been a great blessing for corporations. Instead of designers holding businesses accountable by uncovering the unintended consequences that their products and services create, they have been kept busy generating customer insights and searching for ways to improve the users experience.Its convenient to have next-day delivery of cheap products and a frictionless online shopping experience. But fast shipping means more delivery vehicles on roads and accelerates greenhouse emissions. To offer products at low costs, they are imported from faraway countries and made from cheap plastics that end up in landfill. What if the team designing Amazons 1-Click feature had considered these unintended consequences 30 yearsago?Our happy ending isnt averting the disaster. Our happy ending is surviving the disaster. writes Doctorow.To survive the disaster, our planet needs designers doing the right thing now, before it is too late to changecourse.We need designers that are like good ancestorsInstead of good designs that win awards we need good designers.Like good ancestors, good designers are able to think long-term and act on behalf of future generations.They are effective collaborators and know how to facilitate the contributions of others and use partnerships to enact positivechange.They are able to envision multiple futures and form networks to advocate for the actions that need to be taken now to stop the bus from plunging into thecanyon.Being a good designer means challenging the status quo and bringing diverse perspectives into the design and decision-making process.To achieve this, we need to expand our tool kits and mindsets, which includes a shift from human-centred to life-centred thinking and a reduction in dominant western perceptions towards plurality.Taking a long-distance perspective to shift our approach to making design decisions (Source: https://www.designingtomorrowbook.com)Making small changes to generate a cumulative impactTaking urgent action is not a revolution; for it to be effective it has to be an evolution. This is not about yanking the wheel. Its about making small changes now to generate a cumulative impact overtime.As a consumer, we have the ability to change our own behaviour. With some luck, we can convince a few others within our circle of influence, like our family and friends, to adopt more sustainable ways ofliving.The actions of designers and decision-makers, however, are amplified, built into thousands or millions of products and interactions. How those products and interactions are designed has knock-on effects on resource consumption, supply chains, consumer behaviours, and corporate agendas.As designers, we have the power to influence the front-row occupants that determine the trajectory of the bus barrelling towards the canyon. We have the tools to gather diverse perspectives and visualise multiple future scenarios and the far-reaching impacts they mayhave.The Titanic was a human-made masterpiece, a celebration of engineering feats and design brilliance. The first-class decks offered a luxurious experience with a spacious restaurant and Turkish baths. It was precisely this focus on perfecting the first-class travel experience that led to short-sighted decisions like reducing the number of lifeboats.The short-sighted decisions organisations around the world continue to make today have an indisputable global-scale impact on the environment, communities, and future generations.To strategically drive change in organisations, we have to realise that our role as designers must go beyond merely designing things.What we help to create has the power to influence the impact organisations bequeath theplanet.How to start practising and thinking like a gooddesignerTo elevate the impact of our design work and drive positive change within organisations, we need to adopt a strategic and holistic viewwhich is what underpins the practice of strategic design.Strategic design, at its core, is committed to the long-term perspectivethe where to go partwhich requires futures thinking and using tools like scenario planning and backcasting to identify potential futures and the initiatives needed to deliberately shift towards those futurestates.We can employ the impact ripple canvas to look for positive and negative big picture impacts, develop a more complete depiction of the entities affected by those impacts with an actant map, and use systems mapping to understand the second- and third-order effects of design decisions.Instead of a business model canvas that solely prioritises the value proposition for customers, we can turn to the triple layered business model canvas to bring social and environmental perspectives into the designprocess.Most importantly, we need to startsmall.In the current global climate, trying to affect any kind of positive change may seem like an insurmountable task. But we can achieve a significant impact over time through implementing small steps, one percent at atime.As designers, we can achieve a significant impact through implementing small change that has a compounding effect overtimeMuch of our design work is directed towards small changes. Yes, a radical transformation is needed to cut emissions and stop the depletion of ecological resources. But transformation starts with small change that compounds and grows exponentially overtime.This is the opportunity for designers and decision-makers to make a difference.This article is adapted from the first chapter of the book Designing Tomorrow.The limits of good design was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Inside what it looks like to build competitive AI solutions todayContinue reading on UX Collective

Does UX design work feel meaningless lately? Youre notalone.Artwork by @JPdoodlingThe bigemptyIf youre a UX Designer and you dont live under a rock, youve probably caught wind of the sense that things in the industry are a little gloomy. What I hear from friends and colleagues is echoed through linkedIn posts, medium articles, and industry forecasts abound: the work just feels a bit meaningless at themoment.Maybe youve found yourself asking why you got into UX in the first place? Maybe you like problem-solving. Maybe you were led here by a passion for design. Maybe youre interested in people, or technology. Maybe it was so you had something to write clever articles about. Maybe you wanted to make a positive impact on a widescale.But what parts of your job feel true to that today? Instead youre burnt out,doing work youre not proud of for reasons that youre not passionate about, and feeling like youre pushing pixels instead of doing stimulating work. When will this all change? Should you get a betterjob?What if there is no betterjob?Do you work for one of a shrinking number of very large corporations, and execute whims that aim to inflate shareholder prices and/or enrich weird billionaires? The compensation is good, and you might enjoy some stability, at least until the company restructures to spend more money onAI.Alternatively, you could roll the dice at a startup, work in a maybe-fun (beer!) but maybe-toxic (sexual harassment!) environment, creating window dressing for some fin-bros half-baked disruptive idea that likely cant achieve profitability without exploiting a subset of people or breaking a law. Maybe itll work out and youll get some stocks. Maybe itwont.If you want the moral high ground, you can go work for a non-profit, maybe a cause that you really believe in, or an arts institution. Youll be poorly paid, but if your six roommates arent too loud you can sleep at night. That is until you realize that your NGOs board is made up of the families and friends of the same aforementioned weird billionaires (who individually could probably afford to solve whatever problem your NGO attempts to fix), and that the non-profits dependance on major donors means that they fundamentally decide what you do and dontdo.What if theres no job atall?Employment circumstances have changed. The labour market generally has slackened, and tech companies across the board have introduced cuts in the past few years. Maybe thats affected you, maybe your LinkedIn page is filling up with folks who are #OpenToWork.In either case, youre either frantically learning about or conveniently ignoring the loudening drumbeat of AI, watching companies pour money into what they wont say but you know is the hope that the technology will advance enough to replace people replace you maybe and thus savemoney.You still need to work to live, what do youdo?Panic? Maybe periodically, when you need to be up early the next morning. But most of the time youre just going to go to work, do what you have to, and then go home and binge-watch yourself into oblivion. La dolcevita!Im paraphrasing these sentiments of course, and obviously drawing on some hyperbolic examples to make my point. But designers arent feeling challenged right now, and thats a concern for both designers and the people who employthem.2023: Designs really badyearDesigners, but for 2023. Artwork by JimDavisIf youre a non-designer reading this, no need to feel too left out. Stuff sucks! The malaise, that feeling that your work doesnt matter? Thats kind of par for the course at the moment if you work in tech. Or maybe anywhere. Maybe not if you make cheese or shoes or something cool likethat.But designers might be feeling the pain rather acutely at the moment. Theres been a dark cloud following design around for the past few years, and well its got an amplifying effect on the bad vibes. At the start of 2024, UX Collectives annual state of UX coined the term late-stage UX,which:is characterized by its market saturation, heavy focus on financial growth, commoditization, automation, and increased financialization. Corporations exert significant influence over the economy and society, and designers can only push so far when advocating for user needs.(Braga & Teixeira)Late-stage UX (what comes after the late stage?) laments the end of the party for UX, and maybe design at large, where a function that once loomed large now had to contend with its own decline in influence.Fast Company writer Robert Fabricant called 2023 The closing of a chapter, for Design. In his article the big design freak-out, he details what amounts to Design losing its seat at thetable.After almost two decades of Apple-inspired upswing that saw design roles elevated into the boardroom, the rise of the Design Thinking practice, and massive demand for talent, the design bubble started to wobble, and then burst fully by the end of 2023. In 2024, Design continued its downward slide.(Fabricant)Today, CDO roles have faded. The design thinking era has ended (good riddance, IMO). Designers are in less demand, and under increasing threat of replacement. More than anything else, businesses have, on the whole, changed their attitude towards design, its value, and the type of work that designers shoulddo.UX Collectives annual State of UX for 2025, leaned further into themalaise:Were handing our design systems to growth teams so they can squeeze every last penny out of customers. Were optimizing our flows for clicks, not clarity. We stopped building tools and started building engagement traps. While in the past UX had a certain aura of care for users, in 2024 we are bluntly following the numbers. In many companies, the pursuit of growth is overshadowing the pursuit of meaning. (Braga & Teixeira)Things were going so well. What happened?From innovators to optimizers tomachinesUX veterans might speak of good old days where design was more free, before the tyranny of the MVP sucked the soul out of the work, and discarded the time and space designers so desperately want to be able to think, reflect, andplay.This photo of Jonathan Ive and David Rubenstein posing with the iMac in 1999 harkens back to an age where companies looked to design to innovate. (AP Photo/Susan Ragan)This occurred in a very specific context, a technological paradigm shift. The explosion of mobile, social, and cloud technologies reshaped the way we all live. The modern tech company emerged. In the innovation stage, design offered immense value to companies looking to distinguish their products and services. Businesses had technology they didnt know how to wield, and so the designer acted as sense-maker, helping to translate capability into tangible, useful, and desirable products and experiences.In an environment where capturing users was competitive, designers became oracles for the voice of the user, protectors of all that was good and right in the world, and confident that they were the ones negotiating business goals with humanneeds.In 2004, Bill Breen (employee #1 at Fast Company)wrote:Most companies understand that a product must be more than the sum total of its functioning partsbecause todays customer first experiences a product through its design. Whether its Jonathan Ives iPod or Tom Fords final collection for Gucci, a product must speak to a customers emotionsand emotions are sparked by design. And so design, when it is done well, is deeply rooted in a corporations culture. It reflects the real idea behind a product and, by extension, behind the company that created it. Design shapes a companys reason for being; it has become an undeniably transformative force in business and society.(Breen)Over the course of time the paradigm aged, and the space for innovation within it shrank. Theres some organic cyclical aspect to this through human history of course. The companies that found success in the space became massive, publicly traded companies (Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft make up 5 of the top ten most valuable companies in the world at the time of writing. Three more in the top ten make semiconductors), and hoovered up smaller companies with great ideas or strong patents. (Daly,2025)Tech CEOs might have chosen hooded sweatshirts over tailored suits, but just like every other company, turning a profit and delivering year-on-year shareholder value was now a must. The seed money, once seemingly being pumped into offices via a pipe in the ceiling, now had to come from things like sales, streams, subscriptions, ads,etc.Designs value has always been less tangible than other disciplines. Theres good evidence that companies that invest in design perform better and deliver more value for investors, but the exact how is still elusive. Looking at design as a line on a spreadsheet, you cant expect that companies who didnt have their own iPhone moments to fully understand what they were payingfor.In a cost conscious environment, with less opportunity for innovation to occur, there was a phase shift towards optimization. Make fewer things, and more money from those things. Spend less time on big ideas (the kind that designers tend to relish). It also demanded speed. Designs double diamond process, once proudly championed in design thinking workshops everywhere, was just too slow. A drawn out discovery process could lose out to a gamble. A few high profile good guesses, and going with your gut, big bets, and (cringe) founder mode started to be thought of as a viable alternative (which it is, provided you ignore all the times it goeswrong).Design Council.orgs Double Diamond. Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver.Defunct?Unsurprisingly, what came along with this change was an ugly side, one where a product gets optimized for monetary gain at the expense of product quality (a process termed Enshittification by journalist Cory Doctorow). Note that the same tech companies that were once progressive, transformative innovators have been increasingly thought of as villainistic for reasons ranging from competition laws, to mental health, to privacy, to worker exploitation, to plain old price-gouging.Enshittification? A Google search for basketball tickets doesnt put an organic result on thescreen.Design always said no. Design always said itll take longer to do well. Design became an impediment to progress, to making more money! Maybe the engineers could just design the thing? The role of designers changed.The COVID-19 Pandemic may have been the last nail in the coffin for designs elevated place in the world. For one, the sudden, widespread, change into remote work may have had accelerationist effects on designs demise by literally taking designers out of the room. Designs work as connective tissue within organizations evaporated. Digitally mediating workshops, getting anywhere with whiteboarding, or simply explaining the full round of a problem became more challenging. Second, if you werent making masks, vaccines, or ventilators, you were in full optimization mode. Companies were either massively surging (like food delivery services), or massively failing (like movie theatres), and regardless everyone found themselves scrambling to simply execute quickly. Design held up its end, and did less discovery, less validation, and ultimately less thinking to feed impatient engineering teams. Thats been the new expectation from that point forward todate.If you got into design because you like thinking, this change has made your work deeply understimulating. Designers used to talk about changing the world: dedicating your best years to increasing conversion on an ecommerce checkout is not exactly aspirational. Its no wonder some folks think an AI could do the job (with fewer eye-rolls, too). The stunned silence in the crowd when Figma demoed its first draft feature at CONFIG 2024 (Where Figmas AI could compose high fidelity wireframes based on a prompt) spoke volumes. For some, AI feels like an existential threat to their work, precisely because it fits into the optimization mode so well for companies.- YouTubeDesigners might be partly to blame in all of this. We might have been too busy taking big jobs, expanding our teams, nodding knowingly in Design Thinking workshops, and congratulating ourselves for making yet another set of icons. Did we save the worldyet?Designing ourselves out of complacencyI sat on writing about this issue for months, because while I could see the problem quite clearly, I didnt have much in the way of a solution (and Im trying to be less negative as a person). Theres no magic bullet here, but perhaps there are a few things we cantry.One of the things designers dont currently do well (not on the whole, anyways) is quantifying the time and effort of our work in terms of the value it brings to an organization. Can you truly say that in six weeks, you delivered something more valuable than you could have in four? How do you actually know? This is something thats going to be crucial for designs future, and it IS going to be uncomfortable. Would you ask Michelangelo to quantify the value of the Sistine Chapel? Maybe not, but Pope Julius DID reportedly threaten to have him thrown off the scaffolding if he didnt finish it ontime.Aligning design time and effort to business metrics and hypotheses might not be what you got into UX for, but it might be what keeps you there. Designers might have to swallow some pride here and sincerely ask themselves if the effort spent designing new components vs. reusing existing ones is actually worth it to the user, and thus to the business. Getting more agile and metric-centred and communicating that value well back to your business iscrucial.Second, there are fields in which the paradigms and patterns are less established. AI is obviously one of them (someone please come up with something better than a chatbot). Id put biotech, robotics, and cybersecurity in the same category. These are spaces that are innovating, not optimizing, and theyll need smart designers to help guide how users can effectively interact with these new tools. Thats a potential pathway to meaningful work, and design ethics are both valuable and necessary to determine how these powerful technologies arewielded.Last, design can still lead from below. Its not unusual for a designer to come to understand a solution to a problem, or even a valuable opportunity via their work. Finding ways to bring those ideas to life in a manner that doesnt require taking weeks at a time away from other priorities IS possible, and its something all design leaders should be carving out space for folks to do. Here design is uniquely equipped to bring good ideas to life (a good idea trapped in a hacked powerpoint slide just doesnt pack the same punch), and to propose and communicate a more cohesive direction for where products can go. Getting back in the room with whoever responds yes to a meeting is a great way of developing a shared vision, and one that brings design back to the table with something ofvalue.The absolute worst thing, in my opinion, is to settle into complacency. Nothing is unchangeable, and if designers treat things as such, then theyre truly just accelerating the demise of their own discipline. The more designers act like lifeless automatons, the easier it is to replace them with lifeless automatons. The issues designers face today cant solve themselves, and if youre waiting around for someone to ask you about all your good ideas, youre going to be waiting a long time. Trying and failing is worth it, if other people are at least considering the value design canbring.For design and company leaders, take note. Design needs a certain degree of idealism to function well. If youre wise, youll do what you can to prevent complacency from infecting your teams, organization, and ultimately your products.Complacency all but guarantees that opportunities will be missed. Innovation and complacency dont work well together. Bored talent leaves, or works on their own thing after hours. Were not even talking about the next big thing maybe rare, and not of much concern if youre a company that just acquires innovation but just the next good idea. John Maeda is right when he says the route of greatest efficiency is rarely the most impactful. It might prevent us from reaching a more creatively meaningful destination. Allowing designers space to do what they do best maximizes their value, making sure the best idea ships, not just the first one. But it also keeps them happy and engaged. If you dont let dogs run off leash sometimes, you get a bunch of sad dogs (no one likes a sad dog). A designers evangelism can be just as contagious as theirapathy.Through the process of writing this I spiralled more than a few times (UX feels meaningless what if everything is meaningless?, etc), because I realized that I really do take meaning from the work that I do. I truly believe that design can positively impact the world, but on the days that it doesnt, I think its important to remember that theres meaning to be found outside of your job. Spend time with loved ones, look at the ocean, pet a cat. Whateverworks.Thanks for reading. Find me on LinkedIn.SourcesBraga & Teixeira. Enter Late Stage UX, UX Trends, 2024. (https://trends.uxdesign.cc/2024)Fabricant, Robert. The big design freak out: A generation of design leaders grapples with their future, Fast Company, 2024. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91027996/the-big-design-freak-out-a-generation-of-design-leaders-grapple-with-their-future)Braga & Teixeira. A love letter about change, UX Trends, 2025. (https://trends.uxdesign.cc/2025_)Breen, Bill. Masters of Design, Fast Company, 2004. (https://www.fastcompany.com/49167/masters-of-design-2004)Daly, Lyle. The largest companies by market cap, February 2024, The Motley Fool, 2024. (https://www.fool.com/research/largest-companies-by-market-cap/#:~:text=Apple%20is%20the%20largest%20company,and%20Amazon%20($2.36%20trillion)._)Sheppard, Sarrazin, Kouyoumjian, & Dore. The Business Value of Design, McKinsey Quarterly, 2018. (https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-business-value-of-design)Design Council. The Double Diamond. (https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/the-double-diamond/)Doctorow, Cory. Tiktoks enshittification, Pluralistic, 2023. (Tiktoks enshittification_)Config 2024: Figma product launch keynote, Youtube, 2024 (Config 2024: Figma product launch keynote_)Clement, Clara. Painters, Sculptors, Artists, Engravers and their works, 1873. (https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Painters_Sculptors_Architects_Engravers/bBNJAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=julius%20scaffolding%20throw&pg=PA149&printsec=frontcover)Monteiro, Mike. A designers Code of Ethics, Dear Design Student, 2017. (https://deardesignstudent.com/a-designers-code-of-ethics-f4a88aca9e95)A crisis of meaning in UX Design was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Here, I compare ChatGPT and DeepSeek approaches to generating a customized diverging data color scheme that includes Mocha Mousse, theContinue reading on UX Collective

Ok, we know growth stems from discomfort but now what? I still dont know what my next step willbeLets face it, growth isnt this linear, magical path we often wish it was. Sure, discomfort pushes us forward, but that doesnt mean we have all the answers now that weve stepped into that uncertain space.Im right there with you. Ive been standing at the edge of whats next? wondering if Ive learned all the lessons, tackled all the demons of discomfort, or if theres some cosmic, obvious next move waiting to slap me in theface.The truth? No, theres no clear-cut next step. And thats exactly why its hard, and thats the point. (Ive read that from some wise human in a book:/)Personal wallpaper conceptLife always gives us what we need, not always what wewant.Ive youre like me, you live a comfortable life and career, yet somehow you feel stuck at the same time. Weird isntit?The world asks us to be comfortable, to have it figured out, to stick to the script. We inhabit a society that conditions us to avoid failure at all costs, a lesson ingrained in us from the moment were young. The education system rewards getting the right answers while punishing mistakes with bad grades, turning the learning process into a game of perfection rather than progress. Parents (often with good intentions) shield their children from failure, stepping in too soon to fix problems. Achievements are praised, but effort is overlooked, reinforcing the belief that success is about results rather than resilience.This mindset carries into adulthood, shaping workplace culture. Employees learn quickly that taking risks can backfire, and that companies celebrate flawless execution but rarely reward bold attempts that dont succeed. Playing it safe becomes the norm, stifling innovation before it even has a chance. The fear of judgment keeps many from trying new things, from sharing imperfect work, and from showing the messy reality ofgrowth.This fear of failure holds people back even in design, where creativity should thrive. Designers stick to best practices, lean on established frameworks, and chase pixel perfection, but rarely are they encouraged to experiment openly, to fail in public, to iterate with uncertainty. The unspoken rule? Dont risk looking like you dont know what youredoing.And yet, thats exactly where real growth happensoutside the polished, predictable, andsafe.It whispers that discomfort is dangerous, that mistakes define us, that we should remain within our safe, predictable boundaries and never venture beyond. For years, I surrendered to this narrativeshy, paralyzed by the fear of failure, ignoring that persistent inner voice urging me toward a greaterpurpose.And it wasnt just in life; it was in my design work, too. I stuck to what was familiar. I relied on tried-and-true methods. I stuck with companies because they offered a steady paycheck over enjoying my work. At a certain point, I feared going back to freelance or joining startups because what if it didnt work? What if it looked ridiculous? What if I failed in front of everyone?Thats the exact moment we usually hit that wall. Your comfort zone is the space (real, or in your mind) that you have carved out for yourself that makes you feelsafe.We usually have two choices: stay where we are or lean into the discomfort andgrow.Personal design for a wallpaper seriesBut heres the ugly truth: comfort kills ambition.The very moment weve crossed over into growth, the rules change. Now, its not about chasing comfort or being seen as a proits about getting comfortable with not knowing what comes next. Its about accepting that your growth doesnt have to look like anyone elses and that sometimes, its a series of small, messy leaps, not grand, calculated steps.So how do we deal withthat?By facing it. Oh boy, is thathard!So how do we deal withthat?Accept that uncertainty is your new bestfriend.When youre feeling that pull to play it safe, recognize it as an invitation to do something bold. The world wont hand you a roadmap. Theres no master plan, no perfect timing. Growth is about making decisions in spite of uncertainty, not waiting for all the stars toalign.2. Rewire your thinking about what it means to arrive.Weve been conditioned to think that one day, well hit this magic Ive made it moment. But the truth is, you dont arrive. You evolve. You keep pushing, shifting, and transforming. Stop waiting for permission to take that next step. Stop expecting that itll all make sense. It wont. But it will be worthit.3. Make discomfort yourally.When you get that feeling of What now? I dont know whats next, instead of freezing, lean into it. This is where your most important next step is hiding. I used to fight that feeling, but now, Ive learned that its my signal to dig deeper, to try something wildly new, or to refine something I thought was already done. Growth doesnt always look like forward movementit often looks like reworking what youve alreadystarted.4. Lead with courage, not certainty.Heres the kicker: You dont need to have every piece of the puzzle figured out to lead. Courage beats certainty every time. Ive watched my most successful colleagues, not because they had all the answers, but because they made bold decisions in the face of the unknown and inspired others to do the same. That is leadership.16 UX and UI Design Tips That Always Deliver GrowthStefIvanovGrowthbeyond learning newtoolsGrowth, especially in the fast-evolving world of design, requires more than just mastering new tools or trends. Its about navigating the uncomfortable spaces of leadership, collaboration, and influence, where discomfort pushes you to stretch beyond the familiar.In design, as in life, growth comes from friction. Its in those moments where you feel completely out of your depth that you evolve. But most of us dont want to go there. We tend to avoid projects that feel too complex. We often resist learning new tools because it makes us feel like a beginner again. And lets face it, that sucks. We cling to what we know instead of exploring what couldbe.In his article Reflections on leadership, growth, and design: Lessons from my journey at xccelerate, Kaleb cardenas Z shares insights from his tenure as Service Design Lead and UX Instructor, highlighting the continuous growth he experienced in theseroles.For a long time, I was no different. Until I wasnt. I havent fully solved it yet, but Im trying hard to have faith in what life throws at me. I intentionally put myself into uncomfortable situations so that I get better at adapting notcoping.My journey of transformation began when I deliberately sought theunknown:Challenging my limits 30 feet underwater, holding mybreathSharing vulnerable content before millions (including haters)Embracing new sports despite initial incompetenceVenturing into unfamiliar territorymoving my family to Mexico, learning a new language, opening a dropshipping store with mykidsTesting my physical and mental boundaries through ancestral medicine, cold exposure, breathwork practices, and rigorous trainingregimenTrying to abandon the safe path and follow my intuitionDoing daily icebathsAnd, just as importantly, I began taking risks in my designcareer:Designing in styles I had no prior experience withStarting having different conversationsPitching bold ideas in rooms where I felt unqualifiedAdopting new design tools forced me back into a beginnermindsetSaying yes to projects before I felt ready (this isbig)Challenging industry norms instead of playing itsafeThese experiences taught me something fundamental: growth is never comfortable. But comfort is a slow death for creativity and innovation.The greatestinsightFear isnt concrete realityits a protective narrative generated by yourego.But heres the paradox: safety and growth cannotcoexist.If evolution is your goal, discomfort must become yourcompass.This is exactly whats shaking many of us right now. The design game has changed and I sometimes dont know where I fit anymore. With the speed at which tech evolves, AI, the great unknown in front of us is challenging us all to rethink our next step andmove.This applies to design just as much as it applies to life. If you want to stand out in your field, stop playing itsafe.Safe ideas are forgettableSafe designs blend into thenoiseSafe careersstagnateSafe gets youknowhereAnd heres what most people dont tell you: advancing in your career isnt just about perfecting your craft. The difference between junior and senior designersor senior and principalisnt just skill. Its soft skills. Its how well you navigate relationships, how you influence decisions, and how you bridge the gap between design, engineering, andproduct.Your pixel-perfect design doesnt matter if you cant get buy-in from developers and PMs to bring it to life. Once I realized that, the gamechanged.The best designers arent just great at designing. Theyre great at leading, persuading, and collaborating. Thats what sets themapart.Personal podcast template Framer design explorationThe formula for transformationThe breakthrough equation is simpler than you mightthink:Self-awareness + Self-compassionSelf-awareness demands brutalhonesty:What patterns keep youtrapped?What truths are you avoiding?Where are you choosing comfort over potential?Self-compassion recognizes that perfection isnt the goal. Growth isnt about self-criticismits about acknowledging your limitations while moving forward regardless.This shift in mindset changed everything for me. Instead of beating myself up for not being as good as other designers, I started asking myself, What can I learn from them? Instead of dreading the feeling of being a beginner again, I started embracing it. Instead of viewing imposter syndrome as a sign to stop, I started seeing it as proof I was in the right placeat the edge of my current abilities, where real growthhappens.Demystifying successStop idealizing others. Those you admire encountered obstacles too. The only meaningful distinction? Persistence through difficulty.The best designers, the most successful creators, the people who make a lasting impactthey dont have some magical talent that others dont. They simply keep pushing past the discomfort that stops most people in theirtracks.Your invitationToday, I challenge you: Step deliberately into discomfort.Dine alone in a crowded restaurant.Embrace the shock of a coldshower.Publish that controversial post youve been holdingback.Experiment with a completely new designstyle.Apply for that dream job, even if you dont feelready.Schedule a 1:1 with a developer or PM and build thatbridge.Do something that accelerates your heartbeat. Because your authentic lifeand your most impactful workbegins precisely where your comfort zoneends.The design game has changed and I dont know where I fit anymore maybe thats exactly it. We dont fit in anymore, and that could be a sign to create our own reality and dare to do that thing weve always putoff.The question is: Will you choosegrowth?Life Begins At the End of Your Comfort Zone. Here's Why.https://positivepsychology.com/comfort-zone/Essential Soft Skills for UX DesignersReflections on Leadership, Growth, and Design: Lessons from My Journey as Chief Experience OfficerLeading Beyond Authority: The Power of Influence in Design LeadershipBreathing techniques | Wim Hof MethodFear is the Usual State of the Ego, But We Can OvercomeGrowth begins where comfort ends. Yes, its easier said than done. was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Has Pokemon given in to the evils of gatcha gaming? Is gatcha gaming evil? What is gatcha gaming?Continue reading on UX Collective

Apples modest new iPhone isnt here to impressits here to give more people access, value, and purpose.Continue reading on UX Collective

User Research (UR) is essential for building great digital productsyet many leaders like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs said its unnecessary. This article reexamines outdated beliefs while making the case for user research using the SocraticMethod.Illustration: JooCasacaUser Research (UR) should be something we all agree on that is critical to building the best digital products. But its not, and it seems to get more contentious every year. Ive had millions of arguments in my career about user research, and Ive actually argued for and againstit.But now that Im older and wiser, Im 100% aligned that user research is critical for product development.You should be performing User Research for all digital productsnew and existingespecially if those products are externally facing with clients, customers, or the general public. Research provides the critical data you need to make informed product decisions around features, usability, and the wants/needs of your target audience.Youre flying blind without doing any research.Lets start by dissecting some old arguments of brilliant innovators who were against doing User Research, and then Ill share my fool proof argument to help educate and prepare you for the inevitable conversation with leaders who will want to remove User Research to move faster and savemoney.Henry Fords argument against user research: revolutionary vs evolutionary productsHenry Ford, the CEO of the Ford Motor Company, guided the production of the Model T car back in 1908 to be the first affordable, easy to operate, and mass-produced car in America. It was an instant success, and Ford often spoke about developing the Model T without research, saying If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said fasterhorses.What he was saying is that most people cant see beyond the products they utilize day-to-day, except the issues they have with them. Customers would likely ask for improvements to existing technology if you ask them about it (i.e. a faster horse) instead of asking for revolutionary new products.Ford Model T and a horse. Generated using AmazonTitan.Fords argument kinda makes sense,right?The problem with Fords argument is that most of us dont work on revolutionary new products that ordinary people would have a hard time imagining, let alone understanding.Most product companies and teams are incrementally improving or evolving current digital products into something slightly better, but rarely working on anything that could be called revolutionary. Ford happened to live in an era where everything was revolutionary, so his argument made more sense when he said it in the early 1900s. There really wasnt any technology prior to that other than the telephone and steam engine, so every invention was considered revolutionary.source: IDEO Human Centered DesignHandbookEven for people who do have incredible jobs that are building extraordinary innovations, there is Design Thinking that will help guide this development with Human Centered Design. They obviously didnt have this back in the early 1900s, but it exists today. And it involves lots of user research.Steve Jobs argument against user research: consumers dont know what theywantThe other argument is the famous Steve Jobs quote that People dont know what they want until you show it to them. Thats why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on thepage.This argument also seems pretty straightforward, and is pretty similar to the evolutionary vs revolutionary argument. But the difference here is that this one, is well, uh, utterlyidiotic.Of course people dont know what you want until you show it tothem!Thats exactly what Agile product development and User Research is for, to quickly show your target audience new product ideas that they hopefully want and need. But to ignore User Research and just launch things into the market blindly is essentially the old Waterfall development method, which left a vast graveyard of failed products in itswake.Most innovation happens within startups, and if you look at the success rate of startups then youll realize why innovation is almost impossible without User Research. The fact is 90% of all startups fail, and the #1 reason is because they fail to identify a market for their product and/orservice!source: CBInsightsThat is, startups dont do enough market or User Research prior to designing, developing, and deploying their product. They dive in, spend a lot of time and money creating a product without talking to users, and then launch it into the market only to watch it fail miserably.The only argument you need for user research: buying ahouseThe best way to win arguments about anything is to help people understand it at theirlevel.For example, its a lot easier to prove how extreme the spending is in Congress by simply comparing the federal budget to that of a typical household budget.source: Congressional BudgetOfficeThis tactic is really valuable, because most of the time youll be arguing with a SVP or VP, or maybe even a product manager (PM) who is trying to speed up the process or save money. So you already have an uphill battle trying to prove the value of research.The argument for User Research is simple, and it makes it even more powerful if you utilize the Socratic method, which is named after the Athenian philosopher Socrates who used simple questions to challenges ideas andbeliefs.Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, X, Neuralink, and Boring Hole) often uses first principles thinkingwhich is a form of the Socratic methodby breaking problems down into fundamental truths and then reasoning up from there. This has helped to propel him to become one of the premier innovators of the 21st century in electric vehicles, space travel, andAI.Heres a simplified view of how to utilize the SocraticMethod:Wonder: Receive what the other person says, listen to their view orpremise.Reflect: Sum up the other persons view and clarify your understanding.Refine & Cross Examine: Ask the person to provide evidence that supports their view. Discover the thoughts, assumptions, and facts underlying their beliefs. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity.Restate: Note the new assumption resulting from yourinquiry.Repeat: Start back at the beginning with the new assumptions.Illustration: JoeSmileyTo help illustrate this, imagine your boss is asking you to remove User Research from a project to save time and money, where youll start by listening to their perspective and determining their assumptions as to why they would prefer to remove User Research.Once youre at Step 3 of the Socratic Method of Redefine and Cross-Examine, youll want to challenge their assumptions that User Research is a waste of time and money. Start by asking your boss if theyve ever lived in house before? Unless youre reading this from the Amazon rain forest, Im hoping that 99% of people youre going to argue with will sayyes.Next, ask them how many houses theyve lived in? Just an estimate is fine. Again, most people will say 23 houses ormore.Continue diving in further, where youll ask them have you ever bought a house before? Most people have bought at least one house, if not a few in their lifetime.source: BankrateThen ask them How did you buy the house? Did you walk up and buy the first house you saw, or did you do some research first on neighborhoods and then look at a lot of houses within a desired neighborhood? Did you use a realtor to help with this research or did you do it all by yourself?And once they admit to getting a realtor, this is where you really dig in Wait, you told me youve lived in houses your entire life and even bought a home before, which means youre a certifiable expert on houses, so why did you pay a lot of money to hire a realtor? Why not walk up to the first one you saw and just buy it? Seems like you wasted a lot of time and money on a realtor when you could have done it yourself, riiiiiight?Hopefully your boss is having an ahamoment.They should understand that while our product design and development team is highly experienced, we still need User Researchers to ensure our products meet customer needs while lowering our risk of developing ineffective and/or unusable features.source: VecteezyMy final key point in the home buying analogy is that many small and mid-sized companies spend the equivalent of a home purchase ($500,000$1,000,000) each sprint on product development salaries and overhead. Larger companies like Google invest billions annually in product development!You wouldnt risk your lifes savings when buying a house, and so why would companies blindly bet millions or billions every sprint on the chance that their product ideas are successful?Its clear that User Research is not up for debateits a foundational practice that ensures digital products are built with purpose, insight, and a clear understanding of your users needs. Dismissing it to save time or money is a short-sighted strategy that ultimately leads to wasted resources and failed products.Ive always loved the Socratic Method because it provides an invaluable tool in advocating for User Research. By guiding skeptics through their own reasoningusing relatable analogies like buying a houseyou can help them realize that research is not an impediment but a catalyst for building better products. Just as no one blindly purchases a home without research and/or a realtor, no company should blindly develop digital products without understanding their users. Always remember the Nielsen Norman formula, UXU = X, where X now means dont doit.source: Neilsen NormanGroupSo the next time someone challenges the need for User Research, dont just argueutilize the Socratic Method to ask questions, lead them to the logical conclusion, and let them see for themselves why research is not optional.Ultimately, the companies that invest in User Research are the ones that create products with real impact while saving time and money in the long run by avoiding unnecessary risks.User Research is not optional: arguing like Socrates will help you prove it was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Nowadays, each time I see AI tools I often see a copy of OpenAI frameworksidebar on the left and chat in the center right. I loveContinue reading on UX Collective

Steps for designers to foster confidence in the age of mistrust.Continue reading on UX Collective

Why learning to mitigate shadow planning matters in the age of AIContinue reading on UX Collective

Every moment, behind the scenes, the products you use are getting better at anticipating your needs and desires. Your Netflix homepage updates in real time, your food delivery app predicts what youre craving, and your fitness app fine-tunes recommendations based on your recent activity.This is hyper-personalizationan advanced approach to personalization that leverages real-time data, artificial intelligence (AI), and behavioral analytics to deliver highly individualized experiences for everyuser.In this article, well explore the different levels of personalization, the data that fuels it, and how to design interfaces that deliver truly individualized experiences at scale. Hyper-personalization is more than a marketing strategyits a fundamental shift in how we design interfaces.The Evolution of PersonalizationAs digital experiences evolve, businesses move from broad segmentation to real-time individualization:Traditional Segmentation (Millions of Users)Users are grouped by static attributes like geography or device type, receiving identical experiences.Cohort-based (500K to 10K Users)Users are dynamically grouped based on behavioral data (e.g., purchase intent), refining personalization.Individual AdaptationOne-to-one personalization, where experiences adjust in real time based on behavior, intent, andcontext.For years, UX designers have relied on personas to design intuitive products. However, modern personalization goes beyond static personas by leveraging real-time behavioral data to dynamically group users into cohorts that evolve overtime.Levels of PersonalizationPersonalization evolves across different levels, increasing in complexity and user engagement while introducing ethical concerns.No PersonalizationA generic experience with no adaptation to user behavior or preferences.Segmented PersonalizationUsers are grouped into broad categories (e.g., demographics, device type), with predefined content and recommendations.Behavioral PersonalizationUser actions, such as browsing history or past interactions, shape recommendations.Contextual PersonalizationReal-time factors like location, time, or device influence content and interface adjustments.Predictive PersonalizationAI anticipates user needs by analyzing past behavior, trends, and inferredintent.Hyper-PersonalizationA 1:1 adaptive experience, where AI continuously refines content, UI, and recommendations in realtime.Emotional/Sentient PersonalizationTheoretical next step, where AI interprets emotions and intent, creating deeply human-like interactions.As personalization advances, so do ethical concernsfrom data privacy to algorithmic transparencyrequiring a balance between user experience and responsible design.Essential Elements of PersonalizationHyper-personalization is built on multiple interconnected components, continuously refining experiences based on user behavior and real-time data:Data Collection & IntegrationAggregates user interactions, preferences, and contextual signals.Segmentation & ProfilingGroups users dynamically based on behavioral and demographic patterns.Predictive AnalyticsUses AI to anticipate user needs before theyact.Real-Time Contextual AdaptationAdjusts experiences based on factors like location, time, andintent.AI & Machine Learning ModelsContinuously optimize recommendations and interactions.Omni-Channel IntegrationEnsures consistency across web, mobile, and physical touchpoints.Dynamic UI PersonalizationInterfaces adapt layout, content, and visuals per user preferences.Feedback MechanismsCaptures explicit (user input) and implicit (behavioral) feedback to refine personalization.Continuous Learning fuels ongoing improvements, ensuring each interaction becomes more relevant overtime.The Critical Role ofDataPersonalization is only as good as the data that fuels it. But not all data carries the same weightsome data types drive meaningful personalization, while others offer only surface-level insights.Behavioral DataTracks user interactions (clicks, searches, purchases) and is the most valuable because it reflects real user intent and adapts to evolving preferences.Preferences & Explicit FeedbackCaptures user-stated interests, likes, and dislikes, allowing direct personalization.Contextual DataUses real-time signals like location, time, and device to tailor experiences dynamically.Demographic InformationIncludes age, gender, and location, forming a foundational layer of personalization.Intent SignalsDetects subtle indicators (e.g., search behavior, abandoned carts) to infer userneeds.Affinity & Relationship DataLooks at social connections and past engagement withbrands.Psychographic DataAnalyzes lifestyle, values, and interests for deeper personalization.Social & Network DataExamines peer influence and shared interests.Event-Based DataAdapts experiences based on key moments (holidays, birthdays, lifeevents).How to Request Data Without LosingTrustIf data is the foundation of hyper-personalization, then how we collect and manage it is just as critical as how we useit. Request Permissions inContextAsk for permissions only when the user engages with a feature that requires it, ensuring relevance and timing.Example: Google Maps requests location access when a user searches for nearby restaurants, rather than at the applaunch. Explain the BenefitClearlyCommunicate why permission is needed and how it enhances the user experience. When users understand the value, they are more likely to opt in.Example: Enable step tracking to get personalized fitness goals based on your daily movement. Offer Alternatives WhenPossibleAlways provide an alternative when users may be hesitant to share certain data. This allows them to engage with the product on their terms, building trust over time.Example: A food delivery app allows users to manually enter their address instead of forcing them to enable GPS location tracking. Dont Request All Permissions atOnceBombarding users with multiple permission requests right at onboarding can feel invasive and reduce trust. Its better to introduce permissions gradually, tied to relevant interactions.Example: A newly installed messaging app immediately asks for access to location, contacts, microphone, and camera before the user even sends a messagewithout explaining why. This creates suspicion and increases opt-outrates.Support explicit preference settingTo deliver hyper-personalized experiences without making assumptions, its crucial to let users define their own preferences. Giving them control from the start builds trust and ensures recommendations align with their actual interests. Ask for Preferences During OnboardingEncourage users to select their interests or preferences when they first sign up. This helps tailor content and recommendations immediately, setting the foundation for a more relevant experience.Example: Spotify prompts new users to select favorite artists, shaping their initial playlist recommendations. Allow Preferences to Evolve OverTimeUsers needs and interests change, so personalization should be adaptable. Provide easy ways for users to update or refine their preferences over time.Example: Flipboard allows users to follow or unfollow topics, ensuring their news feed remains relevant. Use Clear, Understandable LanguageAvoid technical jargon or vague phrasing when asking users to set preferences. Ensure instructions are simple, direct, and highlight the value of customization.Example: Instead of saying, Enable preference-based algorithmic adjustments, use: Select topics you love to see more of what interests you. Dont Overload Users with Too ManyChoicesWhile preference selection is helpful, overwhelming users with too many options can lead to decision fatigue and frustration. Keep the process simple and intuitive.Example: A streaming app asking users to select 30+ categories of content before they can proceed creates friction, making it less likely theyll complete theprocess.Design Modular UI for Scalability and FlexibilityA modular UI approach enables dynamic, personalized experiences while maintaining consistency and scalability. By breaking down interfaces into adaptable components, designers can create layouts that adjust seamlessly to different user needs and contexts. Build Self-Contained, Reusable UIBlocksDesign independent UI components that can be used across multiple sections without requiring significant changes. This keeps the interface flexible while maintaining a unified experience.Example: Amazons homepage uses modular product cards that can be rearranged or swapped based on user preferences and promotions. Implement Dynamic ContentAreasRather than static layouts, design sections that change based on user behavior, preferences, and engagement patterns.Example: Netflix dynamically updates its homepage, showing different content categories, thumbnails, and placements depending on viewinghabits. Use Context-Aware UIElementsAdjust the UI based on user location, device, browsing history, or engagement to provide a more seamless and relevant experience.Example: E-commerce apps display region-specific deals and shipping information based on the users location. Avoid Over-Flexibility Leading to RandomnessWhile adaptability is key, excessive flexibility without structure can lead to a disjointed and confusing user experience. Maintain consistency in navigation and UI hierarchy.Example: An e-commerce site frequently rearranges product categories and filters based on past searches, causing users to lose track of where they originally found specificitems.Leverage Contextual PersonalizationContext plays a crucial role in delivering relevant, timely, and meaningful user experiences. Location-Based PersonalizationTailor experiences based on a users location to provide relevant offerings without feeling intrusive.Example: Starbucks suggests nearby stores and updates available menu items based on regional availability. Time, Routine & SeasonalityAdapt content based on the time of day, seasonal trends, or user routines to maintain relevance.Example: Spotify curates Morning Motivation playlists for early hours and Chill Evenings playlists later in theday. User Role, Journey & ProficiencyPersonalize interfaces based on user experience level or where they are in their journey with a product.Example: Duolingo adjusts difficulty based on user progress, gradually introducing advanced Dont Personalize Based on Sensitive or Private InformationAvoid Using personal health, financial, or lifestyle data in recommendations. ex. Assuming pregnancy, medical conditions, or relationship status based on purchases.Example: Facebook faced backlash for using relationship status to target ads about pregnancy and engagement rings, making some users uncomfortable.Levels of PersonalizationProvide Effective Feedback MechanismsEffective personalization doesnt end at delivering recommendationsit requires continuous learning from user interactions to refine future suggestions. Feedback mechanisms help algorithms assess whether personalized experiences are resonating withusers. Use Explicit & ImplicitFeedbackCombine direct user input (explicit) with passive behavioral signals (implicit) to evaluate personalization accuracy.Example: Instagram lets users hide posts they dont like (explicit), while also tracking time spent on content to adjust future recommendations (implicit). Provide Clear & Accessible FeedbackOptionsMake it easy for users to indicate whether recommendations were relevant or not.Example: YouTube Music's thumbs-up/thumbs-down system refines future content suggestions based on userratings. Show Users That Their FeedbackMattersReinforce that user interactions shape their personalized experience by quickly adapting recommendations.Example: On Instagram, when users report or hide a post, it immediately disappears from their feed, and the platform adjusts future recommendations to show less similarcontent. Dont Make Feedback Feel Like aChoreAvoid interrupting the experience with lengthy surveys or forcing users to take extra steps to refine personalization.Example: A shopping app that requires users to fill out a long form adds friction, making engagement feel like work rather than a seamless experience.Designing for Emotional ConnectionEffective personalization doesnt end at delivering recommendationsit requires continuous learning from user interactions to refine future suggestions. Feedback mechanisms help algorithms assess whether personalized experiences are resonating withusers. Use Emotionally Aware Microcopy & Tone ofVoiceCraft copy that acknowledges user emotions and provides warmth and empathy. A conversational, supportive tone enhances trust and engagement.Example: Duolingos owl encourages users with playful nudges like Youre on fire! Keep up the streak! to make learning feel more personal and rewarding. Implement Emotionally Intelligent FeedbackLoopsCreate systems that respond to user emotions and actions in real-time, making interactions feel reciprocal.Example: AI chatbot Replika adapts its tone based on user sentiment, offering supportive or cheerful responses depending on the context of the conversation. Celebrate Achievements & MilestonesRecognizing progress reinforces positive engagement and keeps users motivated. Small wins create a sense of accomplishment.Example: Fitness apps like Nike Training Club celebrate milestones, such as Youve completed 10 workouts this monthamazing dedication! to keep users motivated. Dont Use Emotion as ManipulationLeveraging emotions to pressure users into decisions erodes trust and creates negative experiences.Example: Duolingo faced criticism for its push notifications that made users feel guilty for missing lessons, with messages like Your streak is in danger! Dont disappoint Duo! While intended to encourage learning, such tactics can create stress rather than motivation, leading some users to disable notifications altogether.AI-driven emotional personalization apps like Replika can be both helpful and risky. They offer companionship, emotional support, and personalized interactions but also raise concerns about over-reliance, data privacy, and potential manipulation. Without ethical safeguards, these apps risk exploiting user emotions rather than supporting them.Why Hyper-Personalization MattersPersonalization is no longer a competitive advantageits an expectation. Research shows that 71% of U.S. consumers now anticipate personalized interactions, while 78% are more likely to recommend brands that deliver them. Companies leveraging personalization effectively see up to 40% more revenue from tailored marketing and product experiences.Beyond consumer expectations, hyper-personalization directly impacts key performance metrics:Higher EngagementUsers interact more with personalized recommendations, leading to increased sessiontimes.Improved ConversionsTargeted content and offers drive higher conversion rates.Stronger Retention & Reduced ChurnPersonalization fosters long-term loyalty.Revenue GrowthCompanies using data-driven personalization report increased revenue per user(ARPU).Despite its clear benefits, the precise ROI of hyper-personalization is difficult to quantify.Limited Transparency: While companies report success, they rarely disclose granular attribution data.Industry Insights: Firms like McKinsey, Accenture, and Forrester highlight major revenue lifts but often rely on broad case studies rather than rawnumbers.Survey Bias: Self-reported studies may overstate success due to sponsor influence or optimism in responses.While exact attribution is complex, one thing is clearbusinesses that invest in hyper-personalization consistently see gains in engagement, conversions, andrevenue.Hyper-personalization: a practical UX guide was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A practical framework for implementing AI as a foundational layer in digitalproductsFigure 1: Conceptual representation of AI as a horizontal enabling layer, illustrating its transformative nature similar to electricity in the 20th century. The bright horizontal line represents the AI layer that powers and connects multiple applications and systems, represented by interconnected nodes. Image generated viaKrea.ai.IntroductionAI is a horizontal enabling layerit can be used to improve everything. It will be in everything,Jeff Bezos declared, comparing AI to the transformative power of electricity.These kinds of horizontal layers like electricity, compute, and now artificial intelligence, they go everywhere. I guarantee you there is not a single application that you can think of that is not going to be made better byAI.Just as electricity revolutionized every industry by becoming a foundational utility, AI is fundamentally reshaping our digital landscape in ways that go far beyond simple automation. At Amazon alone, teams are working on literally a thousand applications internally, demonstrating AIs potential for widespread integration.As UX professionals, were at the forefront of this transformation, tasked with creating interfaces that make these powerful capabilities accessible and meaningful to users. Through an analysis of pioneering applications, we can establish a framework for designing AI-driven products. These examples serve as both a conceptual model and a practical guide for structuring products where AI acts as a foundational layer. Beyond showcasing technological advancement, this analysis provides a systematic approach to identifying AI opportunities within your own products.Case 1: Perplexity AIFrom manual information assembly to intelligent discoveryThe Challenge: Breaking free from traditional searchAI is the first truly new interaction-design paradigm in 60 years, observes Jakob Nielsen, and nowhere is this more evident than in information search.Traditional search engines, despite their sophistication, still required users to master a complex dance: crafting precise queries, scanning multiple results, clicking through various pages, and mentally synthesizing information. This process, while familiar, placed a significant cognitive burden onusers.Figure 2: Traditional search interface. A Google search interface showing the traditional approach where users must manually scan, filter, and synthesize information from multiple sources. Note the cognitive load required to process and connect information.The transformation: Reimagining search withAIPerplexity AI embodies this transformation by fundamentally reimagining how humans interact with information. Instead of users adapting to the systems requirements, the AI adapts to userintent.Figure 3: Perplexity AI Interface. Perplexity AIs interface demonstrates the shift from tool-based search to intelligent discovery. Note how it automatically synthesizes information and presents structured comparisons.How it works: The intelligence layerThe system processes queries through interconnected layers that understand context, verify information in real-time, and present synthesized answers that feel natural and conversational.Figure 4: System architecture diagram. Perplexity AIs information discovery system, showing how natural language queries are processed through multiple AI layers for comprehensive, verified answers. Source:Author.Key Components:Query understanding layer: Processes natural languageinputInformation synthesis layer: Connects and verifies multiplesourcesResponse generation layer: Creates coherent, contextual answersInteraction management layer: Maintains conversation flowImpact on user experienceThe result isnt just a faster search engineits a new paradigm for knowledge discovery that feels more like consulting a knowledgeable colleague than operating a digital tool. Userscan:Ask questions naturally without worrying aboutkeywordsReceive comprehensive, synthesized answersFollow up with contextual questionsVerify sources and facts in real-timeThis transformation shows how AI can fundamentally change core user interactions, moving beyond mere automation to create truly intelligent systems that adapt to human needs rather than requiring humans to adapt tothem.Case 2: NotebookLMFrom document management to knowledge orchestrationThe challenge: Beyond digitalpaperTraditional research and note-taking tools merely digitized the paper experience while maintaining its fundamental limitations. Knowledge workers and researchers faced persistent challenges:Manual information organizationLimited connections between documentsDifficulty maintaining coherent management systemsCognitive overload when processing multiplesourcesFigure 5: Traditional research process. Traditional document management approach showing multiple windows, manual note-taking, and disconnected information sources. Researchers must manually create connections and maintain organization systems. Image generated viaKrea.ai.The transformation: AI as a knowledge partnerNotebookLM transforms this experience by implementing AI as an intelligent collaboration layer. Instead of being a passive repository, thesystem:Actively participates in the knowledge workprocessAutomatically maps relationships between documentsSuggests connections you might havemissedAdapts its organization to your thinkingpatternsFigure 6: NotebookLM Interface. NotebookLMs dynamic workspace showing AI-powered suggestions, automatic relationship mapping, and contextual document organization.How it works: The intelligence layerNotebookLM transforms document management through a three-layer intelligence system. The User interaction layer handles direct user engagement through document uploads, natural queries, and note-taking capabilities. The Knowledge processing layerthe systems coreanalyzes documents, maps connections, and synthesizes information using advanced AI algorithms. Finally, the Intelligent output layer presents this processed information as connected insights, related concepts, and research suggestions, creating a dynamic system that actively enhances the research and learningprocess.Figure 7: Knowledge orchestration system. Visualization of NotebookLMs approach to transforming document management into an intelligent knowledge system. Source:Author.Impact on research and knowledge workThis transformation creates a dynamic workspace that:Feels less like a digital filing cabinet and more like a thinkingpartnerEnhances natural workflow while maintaining flexibilityReduces the cognitive load of organizationFacilitates serendipitous discoveriesNotebookLM represents a fundamental shift in how we interact with information: from passive document management to active collaboration with a system that understands and amplifies our thought processes. This transformation demonstrates how AI can serve as more than just a toolit becomes an intelligent partner in the knowledge work process, while maintaining the users autonomy and enhancing their natural cognitive workflows.Case 3: GenwayAIFrom individual interviews to scalable intelligenceThe challenge: Breaking traditional research boundariesThe traditional UX research process has remained largely unchanged for decades, requiring intensive manual effort at every stage. Researchers face significant limitations:Time-consuming participant recruitmentLimited interview capacityManual analysis of responsesLabor-intensive synthesis offindingsTrade-offs between depth and breadth ofresearchFigure 8: Traditional UX Research Session. A traditional user research session showing researchers conducting a one-on-one interview. This manual approach, while thorough, illustrates the core limitation of traditional UX research: the inability to scale without compromising depth of insights. Image generated viaKrea.ai.The transformation: AI-enabled research atscaleGenway AI revolutionizes this paradigm by implementing AI as a horizontal enabling layer across the entire research workflow. Thesystem:Conducts multiple human-like interviews simultaneouslyProcesses multiple data streams in real-timeAnalyzes responses across voice, text, andvideoSynthesizes insights automatically while maintaining research integrityFigure 9: Genway AI Interface. Genway AIs interface showing parallel interview processing, real-time analysis, and automated insight generation while maintaining human oversight.How it works: The intelligence layerGenway AI operates through a comprehensive three-layer system that transforms traditional user research into a scalable intelligence operation. The Data collection layer captures multiple streams of user input through voice, text, and video channels simultaneously. The AI processing core analyzes this data in real-time, recognizing patterns, performing sentiment analysis, and generating insights. The Research insights layer then delivers both quantitative analysis and qualitative insights, automatically detecting trends and providing strategic recommendations.Figure 10: Research intelligence framework. Visualization of Genway AIs approach to scaling user research, showing how multiple data streams are processed simultaneously through AI analysis layers. Source:Author.Impact on UXresearchThis transformation fundamentally reshapes UX research capabilities through:Scale with depth: Enables simultaneous processing of hundreds of interviews while maintaining the nuanced understanding essential to quality research. The system can process multiple data streams without sacrificing the depth of analysis traditionally associated with one-on-one interviews.Real-time intelligence: Combines immediate insight generation during research sessions with sophisticated pattern recognition across large datasets, enabling researchers to adapt and refine their approach during the researchprocess.Augmented expertise: Creates a balanced synergy between automation and human expertise, where AI handles data processing and pattern identification while researchers focus on strategic interpretation and decision-making.Genway AI demonstrates how artificial intelligence can transform UX research from a linear, resource-constrained process into a dynamic, scalable system that amplifies rather than replaces human research capabilities. This transformation maintains the nuanced understanding essential to user research while dramatically expanding its scope and efficiency.The impact on UX design and future implicationsOur analysis of these groundbreaking applications reveals fundamental patterns reshaping the future of UX design. Just as electricity transformed every industry it touched, AI is creating new paradigms for how we think about and design digital experiences.As Jakob Nielsen observes, the best design for AI will retain some of the old graphical user interface elements, resulting in a hybrid UI, mostly based on user intent. But iterations including tweaks and revisions, specified through GUI commands. This insight reveals a crucial principle for designing AI-powered products: the need to balance revolutionary capabilities with familiar interaction patterns.How AI is reshaping digital experiencesAI isnt simply adding features to existing toolsits fundamentally transforming how we design digital experiences. As Henry Modisett, head of design at Perplexity AI, emphasizes, This technology is just going to be available in everything and everywhere. Itll just be a way to enable some core product experience. Itll make some new software thats amazing, and itll accelerate some old software.This transformation operates on three integrated levels:Understanding user intent, even when expressed imperfectlyManaging complex processing invisiblyAdapting interfaces dynamically to userneedsWe see this already in action through tools like Perplexity AI, which has transformed information search into natural conversation, and NotebookLM, which actively discovers connections across documents that users might miss. These arent merely faster versions of existing toolsthey represent entirely new paradigms for human-computer interaction.Building trust through smartdesignThe key to successful AI integration lies in balancing transparency and user control. Each of our case studies demonstrates this principle in action; Perplexity AI shows its sources in real-time, NotebookLM visualizes its thought process when connecting ideas across documents, and Genway AI maintains transparency in its research data analysis. These implementations showcase different levels of AI involvement while ensuring users maintain meaningful control.This balanced approach manifests through specific designchoices:Verification mechanisms: Users can verify sources directly in Perplexity AI.Selective adoption: NotebookLM allows users to accept or reject AI-suggested connections.Expert oversight: Genway AI enables researchers to validate AI-generated insights.By making AIs role visible and keeping users in control, these systems create the foundation of trust essential for effective human-AI collaboration while maximizing the benefits of AI capabilities.Conclusion: The path forward with AI in UXdesignThe transformation were witnessing in UX design isnt just another technological shiftits a fundamental reimagining of how humans interact with digital products. Were moving from an era of digital tools to one of intelligent systems, where AI acts as a horizontal enabling layer that enhances and transforms every aspect of the user experience.Looking ahead, UX teams need to focus on three key priorities:Designing with intention: Move beyond surface-level AI integration by identifying where AI can most meaningfully transform your users experience, shifting from standalone tools to interconnected intelligent systems.Building trust through transparency: Apply frameworks and design patterns that clearly communicate AIs role and limitations to users, making the intelligence layer visible and understandable.Preserve human autonomy: Ensure users maintain meaningful control and understanding of AI-driven features, creating a symbiotic relationship between human insight and AI capabilities.The future of UX belongs to designers who can strike the right balance between AIs capabilities and human needs. Success will come not from maximizing AI usage, but from thoughtfully integrating it as an intelligence layer that augments human capabilities while preserving what makes us uniquely human: our creativity, empathy, and ability to make nuanced judgments based on context andvalues.The question isnt whether AI will transform your products user experienceits how youll lead that transformation. Every UX team now faces the opportunity to evolve their products from collections of tools into intelligent systems that adapt, learn, and grow with theirusers.Are you ready to reimagine whats possible?The AI layer: transforming UX design from tools to intelligence was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Why Asian UX feels so differentand what we can learn from each other.Continue reading on UX Collective