This is my thought exactly. It seems to come in cycles, but every so often designers notice how far to one side design has gone towards usability and away from "art" and they suddenly feel like they aren't creative people anymore. But for me it's such a selfish spin on why you're designing, because ultimately your main goal should always be to help the user to accomplish their task, and that really shouldn't be compromised just because a designer wants to try some new layout or pattern that essentially discriminates against users who aren't super savvy and can't pick up quickly on things that aren't standard and discoverable. And then there's accessibility, which doesn't get a mention in this article. What you don't see in a lot of these "outside of the box" designs is a framework that doesn't support screen readers or alternative navigation methods in a logical manner because the markup has to be non-standard to match the non-standard layout, making the experiences completely unusable for people with different levels of access.

I feel like this makes a lot of assumptions about how everyone is executing the Design Sprint methodology. In reference to coming up with solutions for multiple personas or features, the author writes, "To add additional content, you'll have to do several Design Sprints." That's a self-imposed limitation, really. You could organize your sprint such that one group tackles one persona, and another group tackles another, and so on. This even helps for internally validating between the groups on top of validating with users on the last day. There are examples of sprints being run with dozens of participants, allowing them to tackle the gamut of use cases while all benefiting from being on the same page when it comes to initial research, focus, and stakeholder buy-in. Ultimately, it's a framework that's meant to be flexible, not exhaustive. Don't have a "style guide" for visual execution? Not a problem. The goal is to come up with validated solutions quickly and cheaply, not design and build a launch-ready product. Knowing that going in, of course it doesn't suit your needs if your need is to have final designs done in a week.

Just a heads up, a lot of the text on this page is inaccessible. The yellow green headline on the blue background is below minimum contrast. Same for all white text on that blue color.

Ha, it's true, that's basically what I've come down to, but it gets harder when you're designing for a brand. If their illustration guidelines are something like grayscale with pops of color, how do I make sure their illustrations will show up on screen, ya know?

Completely. It looks more like a lifestyle blog than it does an attempt to share design work. You can't even see the work most of the time and every shot becomes exactly the same. I'm not sure as a designer why I'd want to follow that Instagram.

Echoing some people's feedback, it is a ludicrous amount of copy to expect any visitor to read. There's no way to quickly digest the content here, it would take me ages to get through, and that's just not really the user expectation for marketing pages. People expect an elevator pitch with quick bullets. You don't even have the price point until the user scrolls for ages, and then for some reason you have even more content, despite already having a course offering section above. Also, to some people's point, I wouldn't want to pay for courses about "unleashing my design superpowers" from a page that looks like no designer ever touched it.

My question right off the bat is, when and where did these 6 companies refer to hiring for diversity as lowering the bar? With no citation, I'm really not buying the assertion. According to Comparably, three of the mentioned companies rank in the top ten for tech companies in gender equality and/or racial diversity.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/10/these-10-tech-companies-are-doing-the-best-at-diversity-according-to-comparably/