• Kevin RabinovichKevin Rabinovich, over 4 years ago

    I (and I think others) would appreciate an obvious disclosure at the beginning, stating clearly: a) that you, the writer, work for Figma and b) whether or not the company being interviewed was in any way influenced / compensated / paid. Otherwise, it can arguably easily come off as if you’re writing this from an unbiased third party’s perspective.

    It’s true that there are other “telltale” signs that this is Figma-endorsed, e.g. the URL, Medium branding, etc. but there are surely other users who wouldn't be familiar with this and, heck, if you have nothing to hide, why not?

    This, in particular, was a red flag for me, as it seemed to be more mentioned nonchalantly rather than appropriately disclosed:

    When Craig’s team started testing new critique methods, he suggested Figma — a tool that’s like Google Docs for design, allowing people to collaborate in design files and share them with a browser link.

    I would've rephrased to:

    Figma —the tool that we built that’s like Google Docs for design—…

    (Note the addition of the trailing em dash that makes the appositive stand out further.)

    Ethics FTW.

    13 points
    • Corey LeeCorey Lee, over 4 years ago

      Seems fine to me the way it is. This is on the Figma blog with a Figma URL and Figma branding and the author's profile clearly says she works at Figma. Unless they paid for the article I don't see why they need to add any additional disclosure. It's probably safe to assume that this is a happy paying customer therefore they agreed to an interview in exchange for mutual promotion of their product. This is very much inline with pretty much every other corporate blog.

      11 points
      • , over 4 years ago

        Thanks Corey! That's how we felt too. Going to take both yours and Kevin's thoughts back to management as we figure out how to frame future case studies.

        0 points
    • , over 4 years ago

      Thanks for the feedback Kevin. This was our first case study so we weren't sure which approach to take. We don't want to mislead the reader or raise ethics flags, so I'll pass on your thoughts to the team to consider for future case studies. And no, we didn't pay Braintree for this :).

      0 points
  • John PJohn P, over 4 years ago

    Out with the hovering Art Director, in with the hovering Art Directors cursor

    7 points
  • Gabbie CastañedaGabbie Castañeda, over 4 years ago

    This is a really efficient way to work, it takes the guessing out of it.

    3 points
  • Andrew C, over 4 years ago

    Neat idea. I guess I'm unsure how everyone splitting off in to their own artboards on the spot and working on them at the same time doesn't become a hot mess when you have 5-6 people in a review. Doesn't this unfairly bias the designer feedback in the room against the non-designer feedback?

    Time boxing, post-it note grouping and other activities have worked well for me to streamline chatter. Seems like an interesting ideas anyway—just bringing up some possible pain points.

    1 point
    • , over 4 years ago

      Yeah the riffing/brainstorming process works better when you're capped to a small design team (3 people). But teams of any size could benefit from being able to duplicate art boards during the critique to show (instead of just tell) the changes they think would help the design. Thanks the feedback!

      0 points