Where the design community meets.
Design Director Joined over 3 years ago
Andrew hasn't posted any stories yet.
This was jokes on jokes lol
This is great. But what I like about it isn’t the specifics of their process. It’s that they took a step back and defined a process that worked for them — pilfering ideas when beneficial and rejecting others that framed work in a way that didn’t fit their goals (saying no to hustle culture).
The one thing I’ll say about Basecamp: Their product doesn’t feel holistically thought out to me. It feels like a Swiss army product full of light features stitched together. I don’t mean that as an insult: for general project mgmt it may be perfect. What about when a dot calendar truly isn’t enough? Not all markets are served by reduced scope features (tho that is ideal). What about something like a billing project that has a real life customer card attached to it — that has effects on the very flow itself?
Could Stripe limit its appetite to 6 week projects end to end? Probably not. They work with 3 week QA cycles (and their work is very good) because a quality end-to-end thoughtful solution touching peoples money needs a bit more diligence. Anyway it’s a good read w great ideas. Just make sure it works for your team.
As a designer I can't help notice how much "design" is relegated to laying things out while an entire interaction model (in the to-do list headers) were detailed out by everyone but an interaction designer.
It’s great the models are diverse but the composited pic of multiple models together on generic backgrounds look awful. That’s not really a leap forward from the salad laughing meme imo
Yeah — I'd argue you can't push the boundaries further until you know where they are and how they work. Outside of movies no one gets much benefit from falling off a cliff.
I don't see why us paying way too much for InVision (me too btw :( ) is on Sketch to solve. They should charge nothing so InVision (a company that is trying to compete with them now) can gouge us?
Figma is more $$$ than Sketch, and has a less forgiving Saas model. I support both, since paying for software you use daily seems the the proper thing to do to me, and both pricing models are quite reasonable.
I don’t actually find the team collaboration feature is actually that useful. Things like their API and connected symbol structure is much more useful.
Honestly I’ll never understand the intense reaction the design community has to paying for software. Do we not expect people to pay for our work, either?
I don’t use Figma but $12 /mos for their featureset is not even close to expensive. Neither is $100 a year for Sketch.
I like this article a lot. It’s well written and full of plausible and reasoned data.
In my experience you only need to test until you hear redundant feedback to find the most common issues. Sometimes 5 is too many. It isn’t that testing more is a negative (as the article mentions the distribution of issues across tests wasn’t always the same even if 85% of issues were found in first 5).
One of the hardest parts about user research IS pipeline - maintaining a viable stream of testers without greedily overburdening them. I don’t feel technology has made that easier. That’s based on my opinion of testing w random recruits. That’s prob ok for mass appeal apps like a chat or note taking app like Notion (maybe?). But I have used a lot of testing software and found there’s always a gap between general testing v. testing direct testing w your actual users. Real users always reward you w more specific feedback. And if they’re your users you can also collect light ethnographic research w them too (show me how you’re doing that [task] today...).
A platform like Maze or a competing service like Usertesting.com would of course push for more testing. Not necessarily wrong, but I think it misses the pipeline dilemma most researchers are always working on: not burning out leads. There are only so many users to go around, especially so in hybrid markets like healthcare or education.
If I have 25 highly highly relevant users to test w. I’m going to do 5 tests of 5 because I know I’ll get more return. Maybe I even had a prototype fail on invision on the first 2 tests? After the first cohort of 5 I’ll adjust my product and see how the results change in the 3rd set, etc. It’s agile. Now add in that I also have 6 other designers, 10 PMs, 3 user researchers, and a team of product marketers all looking to learn from our users... that’s a huge burden on pipeline.
Anyway I highly recommend reading the article. The idea that you don’t need to always limit yourself to 5 testers is a good idea to know about and accurate. But I’m a bit skeptical 20 is the defacto new 5. That’s prob a step too far.
I'd add Prototypes: Timers as well (which in InVision are the only way to accurately displaying transitional states during tests).
I don’t love the reporting of the two main design functions in to Operations. It means product and design are removed somewhat from the chain of command — which has been partly responsible for Apple’s strength in the market (the other is logistic supremacy Cook brought to the org in the late 90s).
I’ll be curious to see if ill-fitted cutting edge tech starts seeping it’s way in to their products at the expense of holistic continuity and aesthetics (like every almost every other tech company in hardware).
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.