David Hoang — Writing

A new MVC is emerging

Sun, 15 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT

For makers of software, Model/View/Controller (MVC) is one of the first concepts you learn. MVC is a design pattern that separates an application into three parts to organize code and make it easier to maintain. The Model handles data and business logic, the View manages the user interface, and the Controller acts as a middleman that processes user input and coordinates between them.

Think of it like a restaurant: the kitchen (Model) prepares the food, the dining room (View) is where customers eat, and the waiter (Controller) takes orders and communicates between the two. This separation allows developers to modify one part without breaking the others.

MVC has guided software architecture for decades—but AI is about to turn it on its head.

Instead of rigid relationships between data, interface, and logic, we're entering a world where intelligent agents dynamically orchestrate distributed systems. Rather than building monolithic apps with centralized databases, we now design decoupled systems where agents respond in real-time using protocols like MCP (Model Context Protocol).

So what happens when Model, View, and Controller all become intelligent?

Before I share my thoughts, I must acknowledge and share Ruben Verborgh's “Paradigm shifts for the decentralized Web.” Verborgh, a professor of Decentralized Web Technology, wrote this back in 2017 and laid out three critical shifts:

End users become data controllers: Users store their data where they want, improving privacy and control.
Apps become views: Apps are no longer single gateways, but interchangeable UI layers over personal data stores.
Interfaces become queries: Distributed data demands declarative, query-driven interfaces, not custom APIs.

Now, with AI in the loop, these shifts feel even more pressing—and they're converging with a reimagining of MVC. Let's explore what the new MVC looks like.

The emerging MVC

The emerging MVC forces software makers to think of system-centric product experiences instead of app-centric. Simply put, the containers are breaking and walled gardens are coming down. Let's look at the new constructs of MVC.

LLMs as Models

During a conversation with Kyle Turman at Anthropic, they said something that stuck with me: "LLMs are grown, not built." That framing changed everything. Unlike traditional models you code and optimize, LLMs are trained, shaped, and continuously refined by their inputs and interactions. They behave less like deterministic engines and more like probabilistic ecosystems. This organic quality changes how we interface with them—and what we expect from "the model."

Apps as Views

In this new world, the app is no longer the destination—it's the interface. Core workflows may still rely on apps, but increasingly, they're just views for interacting with data and agents.

One of the first apps I ever built was Carogram, an Instagram client for the web and iPad using Node.js. Even back then, the trend was clear: apps were wrappers over data that lived elsewhere. Deep linking was a start. Now, we're looking at a future where apps might not store any data at all—just render it, query it, or pass it through.

That was the promise of the decentralized web and blockchain: portability, ownership, and independence from centralized services. It didn't fully land back then. But with AI and protocols like MCP, it may finally find footing.

Agents as Controllers

This is where it gets interesting. If LLMs are the new Models and apps are our Views, AI agents step into the Controller role—except they don't just relay input anymore. They interpret, decide, act, and coordinate across distributed systems. With Model Context Protocols (MCP), agents dynamically handle context switching, planning, and executing across multiple apps and data sources.

They're not just smarter waiters. They're like sous-chefs, sommeliers, and maître d's rolled into one—making judgment calls in real time.

Recap

I won't force a new acronym like LAA (LLMs, Apps, Agents)—but the point is clear: MVC isn't gone, it's evolving.

In this emerging architecture:

Instead of maintaining a codebase, we're managing endpoints, protocols, and interactions
Vendor lock-in becomes a liability, not a moat
Apps need to be interoperable by design, not by exception
AI interfaces act as meta-layers, sitting above and across traditional apps

Software isn't collapsing—it's decoupling. We are moving from app-centric experiences to system-centric ones. And with that comes a chance to rethink how we make, control, and interact with the systems around us.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Career reboot

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Every April I seem to take an unplanned creative spring break. It’s not a sabbatical or a formal PTO strategy—just a self-imposed ritual to step away from the chaos of work and reconnect with what inspires me. I’ve learned that if you’re not in a full-time IC role, making things—especially design—becomes a form of recovery from meeting fatigue and managerial overhead.

This year’s reboot took me to San Diego and Palm Springs, where I spent the week writing, vibe coding, updating my personal site, and binging content—not passively, but actively, taking notes like a student of inspiration. It’s a reminder that creative recovery isn’t idle time; it’s compost for what comes next.

One of the shows I caught up on was Daredevil: Born Again—a reboot of one of my all-time favorite comic book characters. After finishing it, I fell into one of my favorite internet rituals: watching YouTube breakdowns from New Rockstars, Screen Crush, Heavy Spoilers. The algorithm did its thing, and suddenly I was watching clips from the original Daredevil series that aired on Netflix in 2015. Ten years ago. I was living in Capitol Hill, Seattle, designing mobile apps at Black Pixel, deep in my craft.

Pandora’s Box was open. From there, it spiraled into Secret Wars theory videos and MCU reboot rumors. It’s no secret that Marvel is plotting a reset. Though my heart still belongs to the 1984 Secret Wars, the upcoming cinematic version borrows heavily from Jonathan Hickman’s 2015 arc—the one where the multiverse collapses, Doctor Doom ascends, and the patchwork world of Battleworld emerges from the ruins.

As the Marvel multiverse collapses from a series of catastrophic incursions, Doctor Doom seizes godlike power and creates a new patchwork world called Battleworld, where fragments of destroyed realities are stitched together under his rule. Avengers: Secret Wars is set to release in 2027, which is fifteen years after the original Avengers film.

The AI incursion

I was sitting on our couch in Palm Springs, flipping through YouTube clips between the two Coachella weekends—an event I once flew across the country to attend (yes, I was there for Hologram 2Pac). Now, the bands that once headlined my youth are soundtracking ads for minivans and insurance, targeting geriatric millennials like me. I’m 41. Bryan Johnson might argue I’m not getting old, just aging. But let’s be honest—I’m definitely losing my edge. (For the record, the GRS Club cover of that LCD Soundsystem track is still my favorite.)

The hardest part of aging isn’t the number—it’s the creeping sense of irrelevance. That quiet panic when you realize you’re no longer fluent in the tools or jokes shaping the next era. For many of us, the AI incursion feels like that moment. Unlike past hype cycles—remember NFTs?—this one feels different. Real. Fast. Disruptive. Existential.

We’re not just navigating a new wave of tech; we’re dealing with two systemic shocks at once. The AI acceleration is colliding with what feels like the second Great Recession. Around 2023, tech hit a hard reset—blitzscaling gave way to layoffs, cautious capital, and a culture shift. And from that rubble, a new archetype emerged: the vibe coders. A term Andrej Karpathy used to describe the new generation building apps with generative AI—no traditional coding required, just vibes, vision, and a good prompt.

Using generative AI, I had ChatGPT write a satire of Losing My Edge about vibe coders and a millennial trying to keep up with the gen z kids:

I’m losing my edge…to the kids with ring lights and one-shot prompts, the ones who ship from Discord DMs and sleep in Notion.

I remember when we wrote our own auth, when you had to beg Heroku for more dynos.

I remember debugging IE6 in Starbucks on airport Wi-Fi.

I remember when product specs were PDFs, when A/B tests took weeks and no one said “vibes.”

I’m losing my edge…to the locked-in Gen Zs with Arc tabs like trading desks, shipping AI agents at 3AM while I’m still writing the brief.

Tech incursions equalize

Millennials, we’re losing our edge. The experience we once relied on—the war stories of scaling, shipping, and staying late to debug—no longer guarantees relevance. The Ruby on Rails apps we built with Twitter Bootstrap and deployed on Heroku? They can now be replicated in a single-shot prompt with generative AI. Even Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, used Replit to spin up a clone of the platform he originally built. Just because you can mimic something doesn’t mean you’ve matched its scale or impact—but using that as a reason to dismiss what’s happening is a mistake.

As General Eric Shinseki once said: “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”

The upside of these tech incursions is that they act as great equalizers. They flatten the hierarchy. They don’t care how senior you are or how many portfolio pieces you’ve amassed—they care how quickly you can adapt. Whether you’re just starting out or decades into your career, everyone is trying to figure out how to design with AI while designing for AI.

I’ve seen this pattern before. In my 20s, during the mobile incursion, no one had experience designing for a piece of glass you touched with your fingers. I managed to break into tech because I had mastered Photoshop and could craft rich, skeuomorphic interfaces. In a landscape with no established veterans, everyone was new—and that opened doors.

It’s tempting to push back by saying, “But I have decades of experience.” And sure, experience matters. But relevant experience matters more. I remember a graphic design professor from college—someone who had written books, spoken at conferences, and built a career in print. He refused to teach web design, dismissing it as a fad. That mindset didn’t age well.

There are still strengths that tech incursions can’t displace—understanding customers, navigating complexity, leading teams across disciplines. But we can’t ignore how the craft itself is changing. And if you’re a design leader, your job isn’t just to set direction—it’s to stay close enough to the work to guide your team through the shifts. Because when the ground moves, they’ll need you to be steady and skilled.

Career reboot

As my spring break wraps up, I’m not walking away feeling old—I’m walking away with a sense of clarity: it’s time for a career reboot. Two years ago, I called the tech factory reset. Now, I’m giving myself permission to do the same. A reboot doesn’t mean discarding everything. The valuable experiences, the hard-earned instincts—they reinstall quickly. What I am letting go of are the dependencies and assumptions that no longer serve me. The ones that keep you comfortable but slowly make you obsolete.

I don’t need to be recast as the lead in someone else’s Marvel reboot. I want to play a different role: the bridge between generations, helping to pass the torch—not by clinging to the past, but by staying grounded in it while reaching toward what’s next.

To do that, I’m making a few commitments:

Stay healthy and well. Don’t let burnout rob you of clarity or connection. Take care of your mind, body, and the people who matter.
Keep the craft blade sharp. Return to your roots. Lead through craft. Understand the material of this new era—especially AI. As Nikunj Kothari put it: stop bookmarking, start building.
Invest in the next generation. Mentor. Share your playbook. Let their perspective reshape yours, too.

I was an IC running my own studio when The Avengers hit theaters. Now, fifteen years later, I’m an operator and investor as Secret Wars looms. My 20s were shaped by the Mobile Incursion in Seattle. My 30s, the Blitzscaling Era in San Francisco. And now, in my 40s, I’m back in SF, navigating the AI Incursion.

This isn’t the end of an era. It’s the beginning of another. I don’t feel irrelevant—I feel rebooted. And I’m working on the most relevant things of my career.

Let’s get back to work.

Operator Mode

Sun, 15 Sep 2024 00:00:00 GMT

I love Paul Graham’s writing. Hackers and Painters is one of my favorite books of all time. Graham’s thoughts on art and science resonate with me as a designer who studied fine art. The internet broke when the long-time Silicon Valley investor wrote about Founder Mode. There’s been a shift in tech’s factory reset moment during the past few years. The professional management class is getting slashed with the reduction in workforce and the advancement of AI capabilities. Graham’s essay references a talk by Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about Founder Mode vs. Manager Mode.

As always, the internet had a lot of opinions that obviously have to be binary and polarizing towards one direction; classic Silicon Valley hopping on bandwagons. My critique is not Graham’s writing. In fact, he’s right. What’s wild to me is management somehow got conflated to professional management consulting. More accurately, it’s BCG Mode, not Manager Mode. Instead of picking sides, I’m going to propose a different mode.

Operator Mode.

While we talk about founders and C Suite professional managers, the majority of people working at companies are operators. Tech loves adopting words from the military. An operator is someone who…well, operates—plans and executes. Above all else, I consider myself a company operator (who comes from a design background). In this issue, I’ll share how I think of my role helping founders in running their companies.

Operators that add value

In my experience, there are two primary regrets founders have. The first is raising too much money that results in higher demands from the board. After that, it’s building a leadership team from a professional management class. Both result in the founder losing control and getting tucked in a corner as a Chief Strategy Officer or an honorary title.

It sucks to see that happen. Instead, founders are better equipped to find operators that add value to their needs. There are three core areas I believe are most valuable for founders: managers with strong craft, expansive experience, and scaling the mission.

1) Craft-oriented managers

The concept of professional managers is the biggest mistake. A professional manager is perceived as someone who is hands off, focuses on administration of management, and a master bullshitter. Trust me, these people exist and it's true. Let me ask you a question. As a designer, how would you feel as a designer if the person that has authority over your job has a degree in Design Management but has never been a designer? Imagine an army general who has never seen combat, only studying philosophy and tactics. In my opinion, that's not management.

Most direct reports don't expect their manager to be the best designer on the team, but they need to know that at one point they were in their career. In order to grow in your craft—one of the top performance indicators in every career ladder—you need someone who knows the craft to elevate yours.

Founders don't need professional managers. They need strong craftspeople who know how to manage. From first-line manager to executive, the best managers are the ones who are in the role to scale the craft, not something self-serving.

Whether it's being the founding designer or needing to fill gaps with team churn, the craft-oriented manager has no problem rolling up their sleeves.

2) Expansive experience for the company

An operator brings their experience to expand what the startup is capable of. That is the value of bringing someone in. It might be hiring a sales leader to build out a team as the startup expands into the enterprise. Perhaps the company is about to IPO and needs a CFO who has repeated experience in this. The one thing an experienced operator cannot do when joining a startup is live through the past experience of the company’s existence. This is why expansive experience is the biggest value add for startups growing: helping the founder get to where they want to be.

3) Scales the culture

The last one might be the most important. Operator Mode is scaling the culture of the company, not destroying it. When I decide to join a company, I make sure I’m aligned with the culture and values of the company. It’s impossible to align 100%, but I understand it’s part of my job to scale the culture, so I better be on board with it.

When good operators join companies, they transform the culture for the positive. I only join companies where the culture and mission resonates with me deeply because I feel it's my responsibility to help grow it. I'll never have the same influence as the founder, and that's precisely the point. What's important is for them to have other people they trust to scale the culture, not constantly combat it.

My belief is this doesn't mean to blindly execute without question. In fact, the best mission-driven operators will challenge founders on the hardest parts and hold them accountable.

Leading while in Operator Mode

The goal of an experienced operator is to not be a professional manager. The purpose is to help the founder achieve the vision, hopefully with a desired outcome for everyone at the company. It's difficult to achieve both, but that should be the motivation. Let me share three areas I focus on to help founders and why I think they want me in the first place.

Filling founder gaps

Operator Mode is about filling the gaps of the founder, not replacing them. I remember talking to a former colleague at Replit. One of the main reasons we joined was to work with an inspiring founder like Amjad; give him the amplification (but also counter-balances) to be the best founder possible. The goal is not to silence founders but make them better.

The responsibility in Operator Mode is to find areas you can take over for the founder to be more effective. Most pure founders don’t love managing, and they need managers they can entrust to look over the things they care about. I find the duty of an experienced operator to a founder as a crucial one. Founders have been grinding and putting their heart and soul into their company, and now they entrust you with it.

Scaling the entrepreneurial spirit

When it comes to entrepreneurship at scale, there is nobody who personifies that more than Claire Vo. The CPO of LaunchDarkly's philosophy is that she joins companies to help inject innovation. She reminds teams how to work like a startup and not to be a bureaucratic professional management machine. Vo is in the weeds by reviewing designs, getting into the work, and even building Chat PRD on her own time. Having a leader who builds and stays close to the craft is the only way they can help you grow. I still design, craft prototypes, and conduct research. The only difference is they serve a different purpose: to guide, invoke ideas, and stay sharp with the tools.

Operator Mode is leading in executing your craft

Whether a founder, operator, or executive, the goal is leading towards shared outcomes; fulfilling the mission while leading a great exit. Your craft may come in many forms. It might be design or engineering. It might be business growth or recruiting. Good managers know how to right-size process and scaling. Despite their abundant experience, they’ll start with first principles to devise what’s needed, not blindly run a playbook. The balance of craft and management is why I continue loving Operator Mode.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Design Engineering

Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 GMT

In software, engineering and design are infantile in existence compared to other sectors: mechanical, electrical, aerospace, and environmental engineering. Engineering encompasses a broad range of disciplines and involves critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration. Many engineering disciplines have a role called a Design Engineer—a title that has been more popular in software in recent years. Design Engineers tend to work on products and systems that involve adapting and using complex scientific and mathematical techniques. In essence, they work on highly technical challenges that require strong design consideration. Today, we’re seeing Design Engineers become a popular role in software, and this isn’t the first time new roles/practices emerged.

In the early 2000s, the role of a Data Scientist became popular as data became increasingly abundant through the internet, social media, and digital technologies. Though the practice of statistics, analytics, and domain-specific knowledge existed before Data Science, companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon were the pioneers leveraging data analytics to drive decision-making, improving user experiences, and growing the business. At the time, the practice was maturing in adoption and there was a shortage of talent who could do the role. Today it seems rare for any tech company to not have a Data Scientist.

Data Science was transformative in tech in the 2010s. In the age of LLMs, multi-device interfaces, and everything seemingly being programming, Design Engineering will be the transformative practice in the 2020s.

Design Engineering is not simply a rebrand of product design. Whether we like it or not, tech has a tendency to consolidate roles. Interaction Designers, UX Designers, UI Designers, and Visual Designers became Product Designers. Graphic Designers, Illustrators, Communications Designers, and Marketing Designers became Brand Designers.

To say Design Engineering is combining product design and front-end development dilutes the value the practice brings. Like a minestrone, the Arnold Palmer, or Cronut, Design Engineering is a true blend of two conventional roles. Design Engineers have deep knowledge in technological systems while scaling interface quality. They naturally fit in design crit or reviewing code with engineering.

Role, responsibility, and impact

There are three core areas Design Engineering is the top candidate for leading: product architecture, design infrastructure, and 0-1 R&D. These three areas do not encapsulate everything a Design Engineer might do, and the hope is to provide three concrete examples.

Product architecture

It makes sense for a Design Engineer, a role which balances technical systems and end user experiences, to be close to product architecture. In products that are authoring tools (Figma for design, Replit for code, Webflow for websites) it's important to think beyond isolated features but the foundational capabilities of what your product can do. Design Engineers have the right skills to explore aspects such as information architecture of a product and also understand the technical logic of how such things function.

Design infrastructure

Design Engineers are naturals at design infrastructure—the underlying tools and systems to scale design. This might be contributing to component libraries, building internal tools to increase efficiency, or prototyping new patterns and interactions to inform the future of their software.

In many cases, Design Engineers are brought in to prototype experiences that otherwise would be nearly impossible in static mockups in Figma. When you’re dealing with an interaction with a Language Server Protocol (LSP) or a layout engine for a site builder, you have to build the prototype in code.

0-1 R&D

Exploring new product directions can be a need for an early-stage company needing to pivot in direction or an established company looking for new growth opportunities. These initiatives are usually not funded due to the perceived risk of pulling people off teams to do this unproven work. Due to the multidisciplinary skill sets of Design Engineers, they're able to explore this space much more quickly and effectively than other teams.

Org structure

My philosophy on org design is to optimize for the desired results, not the existing org chart. I’ve been at places where Design Engineers reported to me (Design) and others where they report to Engineering. For the sake of Design Engineers, it's important to have a clear reporting line. Creative Technologists (made popular at Airbnb and Uber) in the 2010s have never recovered from the trauma of having unclear expectations and conflicting priorities of multiple orgs.

Design Engineering will revolutionize the 2020s

As we navigate what seems to be a tech paradigm shift with LLMs, AI applications, and multi-device experiences, Design Engineers will be this decade’s Data Scientist. Expect talent to be rare and continued definition of the impact of the role.

My hope is not for designers to simply change their title to Design Engineer on LinkedIn. It’s uncertain if every company needs a Design Engineer. However, I am confident authoring environments or work with complex interactions/data need Design Engineers. Snap, Retool, Replit, Uber, Square, OpenAI, and The Browser Company are a few examples of companies that have Design Engineers on their software teams.

Data was the currency in the web era of social and ad tech. Now it’s trained data (LLMs) presented in multi-device interfaces. When it comes to an emerging function in a paradigm shift in tech, the Design Engineer is the new Data Scientist. Let’s see if that’s true in ten years.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Building your designs

Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:00:00 GMT

At some point in a designer’s career, the age-old question is asked: "Should designers code?" My direct answer for people who design software interfaces is yes. This is a belief I've held my entire career. Despite my stance, I don't like the question. It might be the wrong question to focus on and varies depending on who is asking it. Designers feel like they are doing multiple jobs, so if someone outside our practice provokes the question, it feels like we're being asked to do more without being rewarded for the work.

At its core, design is taking an idea and making it tangible. Building your designs is a continuation and extension of that tangibility. Ignore the question of whether designers should code and look this way:

Designers build.

The fidelities of building Building your designs doesn’t assume production code. Less than 5% of the code I've written in my career made it to production (that’s a good thing), but 100% of it was considered in the software development process.

One of my favorite use cases to build my designs is to quickly navigate through the interface flow. When I used to work on iOS apps, my favorite method of building iOS prototypes was a simple Xcode project using UIStoryboard. Storyboards (as the name implies) made it easy to add interface elements in views and connect the views to have a first look at the experience. I’d compile the project and put it on a test iPhone, hand it to the developers for us to walk through the experience. Low-fidelity builds invoke high-fidelity questions. Even in the first run we could have a clear discussion on trade-offs and upcoming design challenges. I’d take the feedback and update the Product Requirements Doc (yes, designers should write PRDs).

Here is a video demo of the prototype I built. It’s all built in storyboards with a bit of Swift code to detect the logic. It did not take very long to build either! This is an example of how, with a little bit of technical acumen, you can put something very functional together. There are some designers out there who are truly unicorns in the craft—able to design and write code, even at the production level. They’re often called Design Engineers today, and I think they will be the most sought after role this decade.

Building storyboards and UI flows can lead to prototypes, proof of concept, and the insights needed in software implementation.

Comprehension of materials

When bringing a building or structure to life, interior designers work closely with architects—a similar relationship between software designers and engineers. Interior designers do not focus on architecture, but the good ones have intimate knowledge of the considerations and methods of architecture to ensure the design vision can come to life. They may not be the ones building the blueprints, but interior designers understand the engineering design decisions that influence their design.

When a sculptor creates a bronze statue, comprehension of the materials is not only the temperature the alloy needs to be heated to pour into the mold. What is the patina effect over time that might change the look of the sculpture? What is the weight and durability of the output? How will people maintain the piece years down the road? Though software is a different process than creating a physical object, there are similar considerations in the interface implementation and maintainability of the codebase.

Understanding the build materials fosters accessible design. If you care about accessibility, building your designs will make you even more considerate of it. It'll force you to think about the different states and properties of an interface. Running a built interface through a screen reader builds more empathy than a representation of an interface.

Understanding the production line

Building and shipping software is like other product development processes. There is a production cycle that usually can be improved. One added benefit of building your designs is understanding how software is made. There is a slew of steps before you should ship: implementation, quality assurance, systems testing, and more.

Going through this process yourself allows a clear picture on what happens to the design through implementation. You’ll better understand bottlenecks and have a stronger sense of what considerations will need to be made as your design gets pushed through.

Getting acclimated to building

If you’ve never built software with code, getting started can feel intimidating. Fortunately, the code barrier is lowering every day, making it more approachable and accessible to do so. Building is not a process, it's an action of transformation, and it matters less on how you build it.

When learning a new skill, I recommend finding the laziest way possible to build confidence. I used to take screenshots and reproduce them in Photoshop to build up my interface design skills. Here are some ideas to accelerate your comfort with the material of software:

Build your designs in Webflow—no-code to know code. You'll learn front-end primitives as you use it. As you get more comfortable, export the code to Replit and use AI to expand on what you've created
Use Figma's Dev Mode and build it yourself
Practice reconstructing your interface designs in code

As you get more comfortable, you’ll be able to write more code from scratch. Remember, these skills take years to develop so focus on daily progress and small wins.

Building empowers

It’s heartbreaking to see a designer spend all this time working on screens and it never coming to life. Build your designs because you will make your idea tangible—don’t do it for others. It’s not, “designers should do this.” It’s, “I will do this.”

Someone once said to me, "When you build your designs, it expands your influence in decision-making. Why would you opt out of those as a designer?" I think about this a lot. Great software designers think of design from idea to software. We proclaim this a lot yet don't practice it.

Building your designs makes you a better designer.

Designers build.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

40 things I learned in 40 years

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Today, according to the Gregorian Calendar on Earth, I turned 40. If we were living on Mars, I’d be 21! Early in my career, I was always the youngest person on the team or at the company. I always gravitated toward proving that being young didn’t mean you couldn’t tag along with the big kids. In college, I took the advanced painting classes as a freshman to prove this point. Now I often find myself the oldest person and working with colleagues who were born after my favorite films.

To celebrate, I’ll reflect on 40 things I learned in my years on Planet Earth. They’re a combination of professional and personal insights. Though the list is numbered, they are not ranked in a particular order—just as I thought of them. The ordered list helps with counting.

If you work in tech or startups, focus on the craft of your work. Avoid, "the scene." For some, having a startup is a lifestyle and there are always people who want to appear like they are doing stuff but don't care about the work.
It's okay to change and not be the same person you used to be. In fact, it's encouraged.
Don't worry about being single; enjoy it. What people say you'll find love when you're not looking for it is usually true.
When working at fast growth startups, the people you couldn't stand or not get along with were likely under the same pressure you were—hence all the tension. Down the road, most of the people I conflicted with became friends once we were successful (winning cures all).
Throughout my career, I've told every hiring manager that I don't want to have to think about money. This was true entry level to now. Not having to pay the bills and focus on the mission and vision of work is truly a blessing.
Find the soundtrack to your life—a song that follows you wherever you go—driving, traveling, at a coffee shop. Mine is, "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears for Fears.
When applied correctly, Catholic Guilt is a feature, not a bug.
Make room for serendipity in your life.
Put your phone in another room or out of reach of your bedside. Get a proper analog alarm clock. You'll sleep better and stress less.
Live in New York at some point in your life. It's one way to experience the whole world and have your friends come to you.
Unless something unethical is happening, if you're considering leaving, stay a few months longer. The regret of staying longer and it continuing to not improve is much lower than if you leave too soon and things turn around. It can take multiple years to turn something around.
You have only one body in this lifetime (for now), and it doesn't regenerate (for now). Take care of your body, especially your lower back. You'll get to the age where injury occurs because you slept in an awkward position!
Don't cheat on your significant other. Not only is it the wrong thing to do, it also feels like a lot of work to manage it all. If you cheat on someone, don't be surprised if someone does the same to you.
The oppressed often become oppressors.
The quarter life crisis is overrated. If you're worried about your life at 25…stop. Whatever you experience between age 25 to 32 probably does not matter at all.
What annoys you about younger people are likely things that annoyed other people when you were young. Remember that.
It's very possible that losing a pet will be harder on you than losing friends who are human. I don't know how to explain it. Don't be surprised if you feel that way.
A top indicator of relationship success will be if you can successfully share a bathroom together.
Have a personal website and a homepage on the internet. It's your source of truth for your ideas. Growing up along with the internet, I can't tell you how powerful of an idea publishing for yourself online was. We take it for granted. Make a now page and share what you're up to.
The nerds and people teased in high school often turn out to be the cool people. I remember a few friends of mine getting made fun of for listening to Daft Punk.
Friendships don't have to last forever. Some will fade as you grow older. It's okay to let it go and appreciate what you had.
You will meet some people in your life who are your soulmate in an alternate universe. Don't cause an incursion. Appreciate how they are doing in the other reality.
There is no success without a successor. Share your knowledge and wisdom with the future generation. If you're successful, I believe it's your obligation to pay it forward to the ecosystem that made you successful. Mentor someone, fund their work, etc.
The most important parts of work happen between the meetings.
You're going to do something to mess with Gen Z, like how Boomers put razors in the walls of homes instead of having an actual solution. Think about what that is and don't do it.
Book a one-way flight somewhere and figure it out later.
One of the most powerful sayings: Ichi Go Ichi E: One Encounter. One Opportunity. Keep this in mind in every breath you take in life.
Walking conversations are the best activity in the world. Invite an old or new friend, grab coffee (or tea), and take a long walk. You'll get exercise and catch up.
Don't be a creeper.
"I used to be with 'it', but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'it' seems weird and scary. It'll happen to you!" —Grandpa Simpson from The Simpsons
Listen to music the way the artist intended. Put your Spotify playlist aside, pick an album, and listen to it in sequential order. Don't do anything else and give the music your full attention.
The two most boring conversations are about the weather and people talking about which cities are the best.
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."— Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Don't waste your time worrying about Forbes 30 Under 30. Find inspiration from people who found success later in life.
The funniest movie you'll ever see is The Happening. If you haven't seen it, go watch it now.
If you're undecided on what additional language to study, take Spanish.
When you can't afford to travel, read books. They'll take you to places and give you perspective without leaving your house.
"I don't know," is one of the most powerful things you can say.
In your late 20s and 30s, most of your friends gathering will be either at a wedding or funeral. You'll say, "we need to get together more aside from weddings and funerals," but the next time will be a wedding or funeral. Don't let that happen.
Age is not an indicator of wisdom or experience. Because someone is a certain age doesn't mean they give good advice, like me (especially me).

Choosing a company

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

This April, I made a big life change and switched companies after nearly four years at the previous one. Every time I say I’m taking a sabbatical, it never happens. One day, I’ll make sure it happens. I took about a week off before advising with Replit, then ultimately joining the company. Many people ask what made me choose the software creation platform over other opportunities I had, and I’ll share with you my framework for choosing.

"What are you optimizing for?" I've asked this question to every person I've interviewed as a hiring manager for the past seven years. "What are you optimizing for?" helps candidates think bigger about what’s important to them in their next opportunity. Though title and comp are important factors, there are more underlying motivations, sometimes not realized by the candidate in conversations. Recruiters or hiring managers should understand candidate needs and work backwards from there.

Answers from candidates may be surprising. It might be a Software Engineer wanting to move into a Technical Product Manager (TPM) or a Product Designer with the desire to make impact in a different industry. Perhaps it is looking for a different pace/cadence in their work life. Take a look at my own notes of my optimization list.

Early stage company building Design/dev tools, Marketplaces, or Creator Economy This might be my last job as an operator. Make it count. Here’s the kicker—I wrote this list before I joined Webflow, not after I left. My optimization list is something I’ve had clarity for several years and not only after I decided to leave. This artifact helps you guide what you’re looking for. What you optimize for doesn’t show up in job descriptions or aggregators. They emerge in conversation. Once you know what you're optimizing for, stack rank priorities.

The three P's

On the Design MBA Podcast, Lattice SVP of Design Jared Erondu spoke about the decision to join Lattice as a founding designer after doing High Resolution. He mentioned three P's for him: People, Purpose, and Pay. Inspired by Erondu (which we all are), I reflected on my own of what a post-Webflow world looked like for me. My stack ranked three P's were Purpose, Product, and People.

Purpose Kimber Lockhart, my first manager and the person who hired me at One Medical, wrote, "Don't create a sense of urgency, foster a sense of purpose." This mantra stuck with me everywhere else I’ve gone. For me, purpose is your life version of being mission-driven.

Work is a big aspect of my life, and it’s the best environment for me to contribute to something meaningful. Purpose in the workplace can be multi-fold. It could be helping build a product that has a positive impact on the world, helping the company scale effectively, or growing humans on the team. My hope is what I contribute to exceeds my own lifetime.

Product If I can’t be excited about the product, I won’t join the company. The product is the artifact that delivers purpose. Regardless of title, compensation, or any other incentives, I will never work at a company where I don't believe in the product or can’t be enthused by developing it. I have no interest in being a Chief Design Officer at a place where material change can’t be made and the product is shitty. I care more about the product and what can be achieved vs. the notoriety of design leadership royalty.

People At first glance, this may be surprising for some that People is the last one in this stack rank. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about people, but if Purpose and Product aren’t right, it doesn’t matter who I work with. There are many people in my career I’d love to work with again or start something with friends, but if it’s not the right company, it doesn’t matter. That said, it’s usually the case I’m working with people at multiple companies that check all three P’s.

I optimize work for working, not making friends. I’m not looking for a family at the workplace and there to achieve something with a team. Through that, many friendships are formed organically; not optimizing for it, but they happen.

Understanding the signals and anti-goals As you have conversations, identify what signals might tell you if a role is a good fit for you. Signals aren’t red flags and more factors to help you consider making a decision. One person’s red flag might be another person’s green flag. It all depends on what each person is optimizing for. For example, something I optimize for is working at a company where I know it’s a multi-year effort, not because I want to rest and vest, but know it’s going to be a long-term investment. In one of the interviews I had, I mentioned this. The person’s answer was, “Oh, you could be here a year.” That’s when I knew it wasn’t the right fit for me. Again, the opportunity was great and I didn’t view it as a red flag but had the utmost clarity in what I was seeking.

Anti-goals come before signals and are a strong filter before conversations. These aren’t essential, but they help in creating constraints to guide you along the way. A few of the anti-goals I established were:

I do not care about title whatsoever. I’m in a privileged point in my career where it’s no longer important Org size: I’ve led teams 30-40 people before. I knew in a market decimated by layoffs and the rise of AI, orgs would look differently and number of people on the team wouldn’t be a measure of success No repeating of “the same job.” I wanted to make sure wherever I ended up presented a new challenge and opportunity for me to grow as a person. Recap Don't spend all your time career planning, but have an idea of what makes sense for you. Like all the good things in life, they happen organically when you’re not trying too hard to make it happen.

Identify what you're optimizing for Establish a priority framework (Note: they don't have to start with the letter P) Understand signals and anti-goals The reflection I ask people who are considering a job change is, "Are you running towards an opportunity or running away from one?" If the place you work at is a dumpster fire and you need to get a new job immediately, then GTFO. However, if what you're running towards isn't clear and the current role you're at is meeting your needs, then create more time. Having this rubric already established made it obvious what the right choice would be.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Keeping an advisory close

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

The investor update is a crucial email sent by startup founders. Every month or quarter (or whatever cadence), founders send a note to all investors to give them updates on metrics, product roadmap, burn rate, etc. I’ve found them exceptionally informative and they also bring a lot of joy in hearing people’s successes. When it comes to your career or life ambitions, I’m a proponent of assembling a personal board of directors—trusted individuals who can give you guidance as you need. For the last few years, I’ve made an effort to keep them informed and updated on my progress—career advisor updates.

I send an annual update to this group to keep them in the loop. Here's how I think about who belongs on your advisory, why these updates matter, and what to include when you write one.

The advisory roster

Mentors and advisors are crucial supporting characters in your career journey. As you continue moving forward, it’s natural you won’t communicate with them as much as you did. You no longer work with them and people are busy. However, it’s important to foster these relationships along the way. Some ideas of people who might be on your group of advisors:

A former manager
An investor in the startup you worked at
The former colleague you used to work with who you’d like to work with again
Instructors or teachers who made a big impact on your life
Friends who hold you accountable and tell you like it is

The value of sending updates

The best updates are relationship-based vs. not transactional. We've all experienced that icky feeling when someone comes out of the woodwork, wanting to catch up, only to reveal they need a favor from you. This doesn’t feel great. My rule-of-thumb is continually fostering relationships and if there is an ask, it naturally arises.

Email updates to your advisors invoke serendipitous moments. People I’ve managed from years ago on occasion send updates to me when they’re looking for a change. Their message sparks more intention for me to be on the lookout to point them in a direction they might be interested in.

Crafting an update

Let's brainstorm a few places to start if you feel stuck on where to begin.

Start with a personal intro

Start with a human intro and let your advisory know how things are going personally before jumping into business. Update on how life is going and how you’re doing.

Professional wins and challenges from the past year

This is the bulk of the update—a recap you'd give to stakeholders. This advisory group knows you very well and can give you guidance other people cannot. When I write about something I'm struggling with professionally, they tend to come back with a lot of advice that is useful because they know my strengths, weaknesses, and ambitions.

Any requests or asks

They've helped you through your career and likely will continue to do so. For me, it's usually an FYI of something I'm interested in doing and asking them to keep an eye out if there is any serendipitous opportunity. Perhaps it's launching a side project or looking to get into advising.

Share your gratitude

Finally, end it with gratitude—for yourself and them. They've been your backers and don't expect you to thank them. However, it's important to remind them what a spark they've been in your journey. A lot has changed since they were highly involved in your life and it's nice to share where you're developing. I like to mention that I grew in a certain area and how they helped me grow.

A few tips

Though some advisors have become friends, I keep it professional. Here are a few tips and considerations.

Keep it brief: I try to keep my updates to about three paragraphs to keep people in the loop
Don’t spam: You're not growth hacking your advisors. If you're sending from your personal email, BCC everyone to keep it confidential.
Personalize it: There may be instances where you want to add additional context for certain people.

Write a quick update It takes 10 to 15 minutes to draft an email update, select the contacts, and send it. People are busy, and you might not get a reply from your recipients. I guarantee you that they'll read it, and hearing from you will put a smile on their face.

This action to send an update to your advisors might seem obvious to do, but it's often the obvious things we forget to prioritize in life. Send a quick update.

Tech is going through a factory reset moment

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Factory reset: A software restore of an electronic device to its original system state by erasing all of the data, settings, and applications that were previously stored on the device.

Whether we like it or not, tech is having a factory reset moment. This isn’t the first time. It happened in the 90s with the dot-com bubble. Companies that were once the darlings of Wall Street, such as Pets.com, Webvan, and eToys, quickly saw their stock prices plummet as investors lost faith in their ability to turn a profit. For the younger folks, Webvan was basically Instacart before Instacart.

There is never a single reason for this occurrence and multiple factors force tension like tectonic plates on the planet. Let's look at the three reasons I see as forces of nature: continued mass layoffs, the rise of AI, and recovery from the recession.

The first is all the massive layoffs happening at tech companies at various levels. According to layoffs.fyi, 629 tech companies have laid off 185,136 employees in 2023, and we’re not even halfway through the year. Companies are getting absolutely gutted so the market is saturated with talent (for better or worse). Every role I’ve seen posted has thousands of applicants.

The rise of AI is the second force of nature. It seems everyone changed their web3 .xyz domains to .ai overnight. Time will tell how AI plays out in the industry, but right now, it looks like it’s here to stay. Unlike web3, AI has more understandable value props of application: generative content creation, GPTs, and LLMs. Chat GPT looks to be the first threat to search engines. In addition to continued layoffs, companies will continue looking at ways to reduce workforce size through AI.

Finally, we are still recovering from the recession that started in 2020. As I reflect from the gut (I am not an expert), it seems like we are not quite out of it yet.

What have we learned from all this? Though it's sad about people losing their job through a layoff, I do believe tech has become way too bloated. What started with lean teams, raising just enough money for the runway, we over-indexed on company size, growth, and valuations. The recession has been a humbling experience and that can disappear. 2020 and 2021 are what I like to call the Clubhouse Valuation phase in tech. We over-indexed on companies that showed high value in a pandemic without considering what would happen on the road to recovery—a reminder that long-term thinking is crucial. Clubhouse, Peloton, and other companies that optimized for staying at home then dropped in 2022.

Looking at the new bloom At our Palm Springs house, we are lucky to have part of the San Jacinto Mountains be our next-door neighbor. Like many places in California, we saw much rain in February and March. We got a bit of snow and light flooding too! I noticed on our walk how many flowers are on the side of the mountains in a landscape that's usually just rocks.

Going through storms are difficult, but it is also the substance that allows new life to bloom. I truly believe we'll see good coming from these challenges moving forward. In a world where you can get laid off from what you thought was a stable job, there is no difference in the risk of being a full-time employee or starting your own thing. It's a great time to be a contractor and startup founder.

AI is often in the discussion of replacing humans completely and their job. Though it'll require learning new skills, I am optimistic it can empower people to do more of what they want. For example, I strongly believe that brand designers and people in creative will do what product designers do today. As a result, product designers might do what engineers do, and engineers may work on complex tasks. Identify the cause and effect of how these changes affect the ecosystem vs. attempting to find a direct correlation.

The factory reset has already been hit, and it's booting. It's not about good or bad, but figuring out how to move forward. The future path is unwritten, and I can't tell you what the path forward for you is. Perhaps it's time to get out of tech and work on the retirement farm. It might be leaning in on how things are shifting and finding the role and scope you're excited about.

Whenever I have to do a factory reset on my device, it's usually because something is broken or running slow. Despite not wanting to do it, I look forward to starting from scratch and figuring out what the next cycle looks like.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

The fog of war of company onboarding

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

When you start at a new company, onboarding is a crucial phase to get right. The previous three times I’ve onboarded to a new company have been in a leadership role at a company already established. Onboarding is not simply following the artifact your new employer gives you. It’s a two-way street. The higher the role you enter at a new company, the more important it is to onboard to the company well, because you only have one first impression with your new employer and colleagues.

The Fog of War

I describe onboarding as navigating the Fog of War—a game concept. The "Fog of War" in Real-Time Strategy (RTS) games is a game mechanic that conceals portions of the game map from the player until their units explore those areas. This creates an element of uncertainty and strategic depth, as players must scout and gather information about enemy positions and terrain. The concept was first introduced in the game Herzog Zwei, released in 1989. Notable examples of RTS games that have incorporated this mechanic include the Warcraft series, Starcraft, Age of Empires, and my favorite of all-time, Command & Conquer. These games use the Fog of War to enhance the strategic complexity by requiring players to balance exploration, defense, and offense without having complete information about their opponents' actions.

The Fog of War is my metaphor for onboarding to a new company. You start at an empty point, and the onboarding document the company gives you is the game instruction manual. It’s a great resource, but doesn’t have to be the only one you use to play the game. The natural action might be to clear out the entire Fog of War first to get a full landscape of the map. Because you have not uncovered the Fog of War does not mean things aren’t happening. You have to quickly bridge the gap between expanding what you know and anticipating what might happen.

Capturing all the historical context is an impossible task

It’s important to build context as you join a new company. I advise you to do the traditional listening tours, intro 1:1s, and scout the Fog of War to gain as much insight from the people who lived them directly. However, one mistake I see people make is trying to capture the historical context of the company before taking action. One of the reasons you were brought in is the ability to act quickly with precision.

You are unproven regardless of your experience

Regardless of the experience you bring, you’ll remain unproven until you gain your new team’s trust. Whether it’s a new sailor on a fishing vessel, free agent joining a new football club, or a squad member in the military, current teams already have a way of working and previous working experience together. Being the new factor on the team means it’s key to find ways to provide value and execute with the team.

My onboarding plan for every company

Even though most companies provide an onboarding doc when you join, you should come up with your own. It’s not because of lack of confidence that the company can do it, but based on your experience, there are likely things you know you want to learn.

First, my onboarding starts at the first interview. Interviewing at companies is not only a way for them to interview you for the role, but for you to interview if they are a good fit. From the first call with the recruiter and hiring manager, I’m already asking questions about the challenges and opportunities coming in. My favorite question is, “What am I getting myself into?” It’s good for both sides to have honest conversations and it results in better satisfaction on both ends. If a company doesn’t disclose any problems, I’m skeptical of why they need me to join.

Conduct desk research about the company. I will be explicit that I don’t like to reach out to people directly in respect of their time. You can learn quite a bit from online research about the company to map out where you might be impactful. A few examples of what you might research are:

Looking up the backgrounds of the people you’d be working with (don’t be a creeper)
Watch YouTube videos of recent company announcements, and my favorite, creators reviewing the product
Sign up for the product and begin understanding the landscape; develop a POV of where it should go. It’s a red flag for me when interviewers don’t even try the product during their candidacy.

Once you join the company, speed run the Fog of War. Get a good sense of what’s important to learn without having it consume your first several weeks. It’s important to onboard well, but equally as important to make an impact. I often tell my team that I start with a lot of assumptions, which are not decisions, but a method to move quickly. However, I’ll refine the assumptions based on the context I learn, including chatting with them. As a new team member, it’s important to share with them what you’re thinking about or what your point of view is, even if you don’t have a definitive determination yet. You can always update your assumptions based on new information.

To understand the boundaries quickly, I navigate the most important parts of the Fog of War seeking:

The biggest areas of risk that need to be acted on immediately.
People and stakeholders not on the onboarding doc handed to you to be familiar with.
Meeting with people who understand the state of the business. Going directly to the CEO, founders, or execs might not be possible due to their schedule. Seek the data scientists, finance folks, and operations.
Advocates and skeptics of your org and what you might need to address

There is likely a reason you were hired and it’s important to emphasize your external value immediately. We might feel cognizant of not wanting to step on toes and assimilate to the new company. However, you were hired to bring your external skill and perspective. Don’t forget that. Since it’s impossible to turn yourself into a tenured employee of the new company, you gain wins by bringing your external value to them immediately. This might be the institutional knowledge you have in an industry or craft. It could be your skill in building teams. Identify that and push hard in those areas.

Successful onboarding is the company’s onboarding + yours

To be abundantly clear, the onboarding your company provides is extremely valuable. Remember to think of it as the game instruction manual. Bring your own knowledge and experience to the table and onboard yourself. For certain roles or company types, the ability to onboard fast and act is key. To recap, my onboarding method is:

Begin onboarding during the interview process
Speed run the Fog of War to build momentum
Be loud and clear about what external value you bring

You only onboard once (YOOO?). The next time you join a company, design your own onboarding to navigate the Fog of War.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

The four types of software in the future

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

When you think of high-end or boutique design, the fashion industry likely comes to mind before software. Take something like a T-shirt. You can find a $10 version of it on a shelf at Target or spend hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on one at a Louis Vuitton runway show. It might feel weird to think of software at first ponder, but this is where the world is heading. Could you imagine exclusive software? It's very possible in the future. What about software that gets thrown away like a daily-use contact lens? Also possible.

There are forces of nature changing the landscape of software development that are going to change how we make software. With that, the type of software created will have a different shelf life, purpose, and level of quality. Let’s reflect on the forces of nature that are impacting this before covering what I think are four types of software in the future.

Software barrier is lower

I put "easier" in quotes because of the subjectivity (perhaps “approachable” is a more appropriate word). Whether it's no-code or writing lines of code, these two worlds are colliding. This is one of the reasons I joined Replit. If you have an internet browser, you can build software.

More people have access to creating and publishing software than ever, and that's a great thing. I believe the best ideas that will change the world might not come from "the best" developers, but from ambitious individuals who hack something together to take an idea and turn it into something tangible.

Accessible endpoints and models

It's not to say that nobody is ever going to have a database in their software anymore, but there are more reasons to not need one. As the world of software creation shifts with more access to endpoints, APIs, and language models, this might result in more emphasis on client-side apps. Let's take Threads, an Instagram company (a Meta company), which launched this month. There seem to be plans to integrate the Twitter clone with ActivityPub, a decentralized protocol also used by Mastodon.

This essentially means you can weave federated experiences into one. There is a world where you experience the same content but through multiple apps. We are entering the Twitter clone saga with Bluesky, T2 (no relation to Terminator 2: Judgment Day, unfortunately), Posts, Substack Notes, and Threads. If all of these apps used ActivityPub, having unique client-side application experiences doesn't matter. "Apps" as we are accustomed to feel more like views.

Distribution is nearly immediate

In its early days, software distribution looked more like how we delivered physical goods than it does today. When a developer released software, it came in a box along with the floppy disk(s) and instruction manual for you to get started. Deploying software no longer needs to be written on a physical disk and can be nearly immediate. There's going to still be a world relying on platforms to distribute software (such as the Apple App Store or Google Play for iOS and Android apps) but there are now opportunities to go direct with other software built.

The four types of software

The forces of nature above will result in four types of software: Commercial, Boutique, Personal, and Disposable.

Commercial

This category is the majority of what we know today. It's enterprise software, CRMs, and administrative applications we interact with. It's purchased through a subscription or the elusive one-time purchase with a license. Typically, commercial software is provided to you by your employer. Another sub-category is software created by entities for administrative reasons, such as government websites. The category of this software might feel basic—enough to get a job done.

I don't need amazing parallax scrolling and animations when trying to renew my driver's license. I just need to get it done. It just needs to work. This is the same with data entry in a CRM or other tasks most people need to get done at work—a humbling reminder that the majority of humanity doesn't use Figma in their day-to-day (we're a unique bunch).

Boutique

The Louis Vuitton of software is becoming more of a real thing. As software continues to get easier to build at scale, and with everyone being able to do it, the age-old question arises...what happens to the craft? In a world of 3D-printed sculptures, Gianlorenzo Bernini's work at The Vatican lives on. As time passes, there will be Bernini's of software—having a devotion to the craft with incredible attention to detail on experiences. Be not afraid of commercial software getting rid of the craft of indie apps and high-end software. I believe in this future world, people will continue to pay for high-quality software and support the people who create it.

Personal

In the instance where Commercial or Boutique software might not meet your needs, you might make your own. Andrew Davison is an automation expert and certified Zapier partner. In June, Davison posted a tweet about how he built a RSS app with Replit. This is a prime example of personal software. It’s DIY like the hand-knitted sweater; a product achieved through your needs, passion, and own materials.

Disposable

The concept of a disposable object is interesting and can be a great design (if done right). There are disposable cameras, contact lenses, and many others. In fact, the sourdough clam chowder bowl and tostada shell are two of the best examples of great disposable design. What about software that destroys itself when a certain job is done? I see in the future there are certain types of software created by people (or an AI) for a certain purpose and will dispose of it.

Software is the new material

The world is now eating up software evolving to be known as an everyday thing we interact with. I'm personally excited about this future. It offers more choice and optionality in what people want. If you want to use a web browser, you can use a major player like Google Chrome, or a more boutique experience such as Arc from The Browser Company, perhaps making your own to fully customize. The Winampification of software seems to be making a comeback, and that's a good thing. I for one am excited about more personal software to make your own; a world where you can create what you consume and interact with.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

The obsession over craft

Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:00:00 GMT

In conversations about software design (brand, product, content, etc.), the word you constantly hear now is craft.

Recruiters will post they are looking for a designer with a high bar for craft. I empathize with those who feel frustrated about the discourse of a high bar for craft as they often are told it is important with no clear definition of the expectations.

Craft refers to a skill or ability to create something by hand, often involving high precision, artistry, and expertise in using particular tools or materials. Craft emphasizes quality, technique, and a deep understanding of the materials, often with a focus on creating unique or custom items rather than mass-produced goods. In a broader sense, "craft" can also refer to the meticulous process of honing a skill or art form, regardless of whether it's physical (like woodworking, pottery, or metalworking) or intellectual (like writing or product design).

People get annoyed about hearing about craft as they know being a good designer requires other skills to succeed: strong communication skills, a growth mindset, and ability to collaborate. However, I must share the hard truth.

Craft is an unavoidable foundation as a designer.

Not having strong craft foundations as a team member is like a basketball player who understands different plays, communicates well, and is a great teammate, but cannot shoot, pass, or dribble. Let's look at the three areas that craft elevates: culture, artifacts, and trust.

Craft represents culture

Alastair Simpson, VP of Design at Dropbox, recently spoke at Leading Design London about 'Building a culture of craft.' In an interview with Simpson, he reflects:

I believe that design must be a strong cross-functional partner to any and every cross-functional discipline in order to have company and product wide impact. We have to also be product tinkers as well as designers. However, as designers, our number one priority must be our design craft and building products that solve our customers’ problems, and also delight them in moments that matter. We can’t lose sight or focus on the main thing that we are accountable for. The more passion we pour into our craft and creating outcomes we love, the more pride we have in our work. This feeds into the flywheel of culture and enabling a care for craft in everything that our company does.

The saying is, "Culture is defined by the worst behavior you tolerate." I wholeheartedly believe in this statement 100%. This applies to the culture of collaboration, how we respect one another, and to the craft of our work. If junior designers look at the Figma file of a lead designer, and it’s hard to use, that reflects what the team is willing to tolerate. This isn't about using frames/groups or auto layout; it's how what you create is valuable for others. It may sound pedantic until you look at engineering excellence. They would not tolerate inconsistent code or unclear comments.

Leading through the craft is caring about managing the work. Mistakes will happen and the culture of craft is putting the attention and care to fix them.

Well-crafted artifacts represent our work

In Issue 144, I wrote about Creating value with artifacts. Whether we like it or not, design value is contained in well-crafted artifacts. Look at the most important artifacts of our time: The Code of Hammurabi, the Rosetta Stone of Egypt, Terra Cotta Army in China, the Liberty Bell during the American Revolution, and the Autobot Matrix of Leadership from Cybertron. These artifacts are well-crafted and designed because of the story they hold to represent the work.

The digital artifacts we create such as keynote presentations, drawings of interfaces, research insights, and brand guidelines should also withstand the test of time. Design work is deep and intangible: hours of interviews with customers, understanding the codebase and technical feasibility, mapping out how the business works, etc. I understand it is frustrating to be great at these design skills and yet be assessed by the visuals of an artifact.

Jenn Spriggs once told our team a story of her lessons in fashion design that conveys this. Presenting the dress you’re working on with all the buttons facing out consistently allows focus on more important conversations. Getting all the details right gets stakeholders focused on the most important discussions. By creating well-crafted artifacts, we then focus on grander conversations.

Craft is trust

Design is about consistency, and consistency builds trust. If you have a high bar for craft, it increases the trust your teammates have for you. Let’s go back to the basketball example. When a teammate passes the ball to you on offense, your ability to consistently make shots increases trust exponentially. Scaling craft across an entire company is no small feat; a huge transformation. Increasing trustworthy craft means you know the teammate next to you will sweat the details as you should.

In software, excellence is often described as high performance, reliability, and addressing bug fixes. Engineering should not solely be responsible for upholding these standards and needs design, product, and other counterparts to uphold the level of quality together. If forms submitted are successful 99/100 times instead of 100/100, this is the beginning of trust erosion from our customers.

Recap

To be clear, designers with a high bar for craft without the work ethic, ability to respectfully collaborate, and articulate their work are key requirements to be a good designer. My point is not that other skills don’t matter—they do. However, there is a sequence of importance, and craft is first. This is why it’ll inevitably be the first thing you’re evaluated on. Improve on craft and invest the majority of your time in it. The rest will work itself out and unlock greater conversations.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Waiting for AI's pull-to-refresh moment

Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:00:00 GMT

There is a gesture on the iPhone that long-time mobile users are familiar with that has non-native origins. If you open the official Mail app on the inbox view, you can "pull" the interface down and the app will refresh with more emails. This is known as "pull-to-refresh."

What not everyone may know is this interaction was made popular and invented by Loren Brichter, an independent developer who created Tweetie, a Twitter client that would later be acquired by Twitter in 2010. The pull-to-refresh gesture wasn't just a novel interaction—it was a paradigm shift that would become ubiquitous across mobile applications.

The story of pull-to-refresh

In 2008, Loren Brichter was working on Tweetie, what many described as "the Twitter app Apple itself would have made." The challenge was simple: how do you refresh a timeline of tweets in an elegant, intuitive way?

Traditional approaches involved tapping a refresh button, usually located at the top of the screen. But Brichter had a different vision. He noticed that when users scrolled to the top of a list, there was a natural elasticity—the interface would "bounce" back into place. What if that bounce could trigger an action?

The solution was ingenious in its simplicity. Instead of requiring users to scroll to the top, lift their finger, and tap a refresh button, why not make refreshing part of the scroll gesture itself? Users could simply pull down on the timeline, and upon release, new tweets would load automatically.

The anatomy of interface innovation

Pull-to-refresh succeeded because it solved multiple problems simultaneously:

Discoverability: The gesture felt natural and was easily discoverable through normal scrolling behavior.

Efficiency: It eliminated the need for precise button tapping, especially valuable on small touch screens.

Delight: The elastic animation and satisfying "snap" made the interaction enjoyable.

Intuitiveness: It leveraged existing mental models of physical interactions—pulling to retrieve something new.

But perhaps most importantly, it turned a mechanical action into something that felt magical. This wasn't just a functional improvement; it was a fundamental reimagining of how users could interact with dynamic content.

The ubiquity that followed

Today, pull-to-refresh is everywhere. From social media apps to email clients, from news readers to messaging platforms, the gesture has become as fundamental to mobile interaction as the tap or swipe. It's been adopted across iOS, Android, and web applications. What started as one developer's elegant solution to a specific problem became a universal design pattern.

The gesture even earned its own patent (filed by Twitter after they acquired Tweetie), though Brichter himself has suggested that developers shouldn't worry about its enforcement. The fact that such a simple interaction warranted patent protection speaks to its innovation and impact.

AI's interface challenge

So why does this matter for AI? Because we're currently in the midst of another interface revolution, and AI still hasn't found its "pull-to-refresh moment."

Think about how we interact with AI today. Despite the sophisticated capabilities of large language models, we're still largely confined to the text box—typing prompts, waiting for responses, and engaging in turn-based conversation. It's functional, but it's not revolutionary.

The current AI interface paradigm mirrors the early days of mobile apps: lots of buttons, explicit actions, and rigid interaction patterns. Just as mobile apps initially mimicked desktop interfaces before finding their own voice, AI applications are still searching for their native interaction model.

The race to the interface

We're seeing glimpses of what AI's interface evolution might look like:

Voice interfaces that make AI feel more conversational and immediate.
Multimodal interactions that combine text, voice, and visual inputs seamlessly.
Contextual triggers that activate AI based on what you're doing or where you are.
Proactive assistance that anticipates needs rather than waiting for explicit requests.
Gesture-based controls that make AI feel more natural and less mechanical.

But we haven't yet seen the breakthrough that will make AI interactions feel as intuitive and delightful as pull-to-refresh made content refreshing.

What AI's pull-to-refresh moment might look like

The breakthrough won't necessarily be a gesture—it will be a fundamental reimagining of how we interact with intelligent systems. It might be:

A way to naturally "pull" context from your environment without explicitly describing it.
An interaction that makes AI feel less like a chat session and more like thought partnership.
A gesture or pattern that makes AI assistance feel as natural as scrolling through a timeline.
A method that eliminates the cognitive overhead of crafting the perfect prompt.

Just as pull-to-refresh made refreshing content feel effortless, AI's interface breakthrough will make accessing intelligence feel seamless.

The stakes are high

The stakes for getting AI interfaces right are enormous. The company or developer who figures out AI's equivalent of pull-to-refresh won't just create a better user experience—they'll potentially define how humanity interacts with artificial intelligence for years to come.

This isn't just about convenience; it's about accessibility, adoption, and the fundamental relationship between humans and AI. The right interface paradigm could make AI assistance as natural and widespread as pull-to-refresh became for mobile apps.

Waiting for the moment

Loren Brichter's pull-to-refresh gesture succeeded because it solved a real problem in an elegant, intuitive way. It wasn't just a technical innovation—it was a design philosophy that prioritized user experience over technical complexity.

AI's pull-to-refresh moment will likely follow a similar pattern. It won't be the most technically sophisticated approach, but it will be the most human one. It will solve the interface problem we didn't even know we had, making AI interactions feel as natural as pulling down to refresh a timeline.

The question isn't whether this moment will come—it's who will create it, and when. And like pull-to-refresh, when it arrives, it will seem so obvious that we'll wonder how we ever lived without it.

Until then, we wait, experiment, and iterate. Because somewhere, perhaps in a small development studio or a large tech company, someone is working on the gesture, interaction, or paradigm that will define the next era of human-computer interaction.

The race to the interface is on. AI's pull-to-refresh moment is coming.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

IDDE: The infusion of design and dev tools

Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Many millennial designers grew up playing with Microsoft Paint—often the first UI drawing tool they used whether they knew it or not. This was also true for me, but there was another software that inspired me as a kid—Visual Basic 1.0. I thought the visual development environment for BASIC created by Alan Cooper was a design tool. From Visual Basic, to HyperCard, and to Macromedia Dreamweaver, I never cared (or knew) the difference between a design tool and development tool. It was about making something.

2008 to 2015 were formative years as a designer. I immersed myself in as many tools as possible and found ways to subvert them to build something; some of my favorites being Quartz Composer, Xcode, Framer.js, and coding on TextMate 2. Blending design tools with ways to build, I became enamored with the concept of an Integrated Design (and) Development Environment (IDDE).

The traditional IDE is a suite of tools and features needed for you to build and ship software. I never understood why design wasn't a part of it. Funny story: when I interviewed with Apple's Xcode team many years ago, one of the interviewers asked me what wild idea I would propose. "I would buy Sketch 2.0 and make it the new Interface Builder." This probably killed the interview for me.

Today, this vision of design tools and developer tools coming together is becoming more real than ever—not because of my experiences with Visual Basic as an eight year-old, but the way software is made is rapidly changing.

There are forces of nature in play accelerating this change, and it’s more timely than ever. The first is the adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs)—no surprise if you've been following tech trends in the past 12–18 months. I don't think LLMs are a fad or hype cycle but a foundational change. Because of the complexity of these systems, drawing UI isn't sufficient to design for something so dynamic. LLMs are only one example of a dynamic system being a core aspect of software. With innovations like Open Interpreter’s 01, multiple-device interaction is another complex system that drawing software cannot comprehend.

Second, the skill range of designers and engineers is expanding through natural skill building or augmentation with AI workflows. A designer who may not be comfortable with coding can hack something together through natural language. It also means a software engineer who may not like front-end work can get help with AI tools to close the skill gap. Both disciplines are getting more and more comfortable within their traditional workflows. According to Figma, 30% of their users are developers.

Finally, shipping software is getting more seamless, resulting in faster iteration cycles to production. In my early career the most magical dev-ex experience was building apps with Ruby on Rails and deploying to Heroku. Today’s experiences will continue to get better for dev ex (and design ex!) for software creators.

Infusing design and development workflows

The concept of merging design and developer tools sounds great, but infusing the workflows can’t be slapped on. Regardless of how innovative or cool your product is, existing human behaviors and adoption will be the biggest competitor to your product’s success. Remember, the two most opinionated people about workflows on the planet are designers and developers. If the workflows are well considered and evolved, adoption can occur.

I came up with a few thoughts on what matters in an infused workflow and this is not a comprehensive list:

Abstractions are good, but software creators need to access the raw material (I need to be able to pop the hood open to look at the engine)
Access to inputs for real-time feedback is important for any interface manipulation
People break each other's design and code all the time and this often results in manual reconciliation
Presence and communication—the ability to have visibility on how changes impact the work

The IDDE is a software creation platform

It's an exciting time for everyone to participate in software creation. The infusion of design and dev tools is not replacing people, but empowering so many others with software developers being more important than ever.

The IDDE has been something I've been thinking about for more than ten years in my career. I can't think of a greater purpose than building tools that revolutionize the internet. I was motivated by this mission at Webflow and now get to work on it at Replit.

As Linus Pauling said, “The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.” If we can get more people to create software in the world, perhaps one of those people's ideas is the next idea that changes the world.

Design's Seat at the (Cap) Table: Part II

Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:00:00 GMT

In part one, we discussed the value of designers getting involved in angel investing. Let’s talk about the other side of the cap table—why it’s important for an investment round to have a designer be a part of it.

“Let me know how I can be helpful” is a running joke of dudes (it’s always a dude) in Patagonia vests, particularly in Silicon Valley. I truly believe when these words are backed with authentic action, it is so impactful and powerful for founders. Many pre-seed companies need capital to keep their idea alive. There are many reasons to have a designer on your cap table; some more obvious than others.

Design help in the product and brand

Let’s start with the obvious one...design. Unless one of the founders is a designer, there’s a chance that early-stage startups haven’t hired a designer yet. This might sound blasphemous, but the reality is a lot of funding in early startups will go to engineering to build the product. The amount of value a designer can provide to an early-stage startup is immense. Form Capital is a great example of this. They offer actual design work with their portfolios in the form of design sprints and working closely with founders.

Experience and system design

Experience is key and less visible than working on the startup’s product itself. When you make a decision on something, you’re designing an outcome. Early on, many companies are not prioritizing systems due to the need to move fast. Designers, some of the best systems thinkers, can offer consideration and a point of view that allows you to move fast without facing unintended consequences later on.

The area I’ve observed this to be very helpful is thinking about recruiting and hiring, DEI initiatives, and accessibility. These are not things that should be bolted on after you scale but considered from the very beginning. Designers also think a lot about macro-level interaction design, such as journey mapping and user experiences. Recruiting, hiring, and onboarding are some of the most crucial moments as your startup grows, and having a designer think about some of these opportunities adds tremendous value.

Many designers also have experience doing customer research, at least enough to be dangerous. This can help amplify product validation of what to work on next while moving quickly. In a world where research is often first on the chopping block, it’s unlikely a founding team has a researcher, and design can bridge that gap for quite some time.

Helping with hiring your first designer

There is no harder role to fill in design than the founding designer at a startup. An angel investor who is a designer can fill gaps in your startup. Even with a founder as a designer, they can benefit from an experienced advisor to help them navigate. An advisor has a great network of designers that your company can tap into.

These are a few examples of how a designer can help on your cap table. There’s this quote from the sci-fi cartoon Futurama, “When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.” In many ways, I believe this is the value design angel investors bring.

Notes

If you want to learn more, Mike Kruzeniski has a great resource called Design Angels with really comprehensive information.
I highly recommend the book “Angel Investing: The Gust Guide to Making Money and Having Fun Investing in Startups” by David S. Rose as a great primer to angel investing
Thanks to Hareem Mannan for brainstorming this article with me
A huge thanks to those who encouraged me to get into angel investing (you know who you are)

Read Part I: The value add design angel investors bring

Design's Seat at the (Cap) Table: Part I

Tue, 21 Mar 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Until recently, angel investment felt out-of-reach due to my perception of what it took to get started—a lot of capital and deal flow. The vivid dream turned into a reality when Paige Finn Doherty inspired me to make it real by investing in a syndicate she led. The experience was so inclusive it was a rude awakening for me on what’s really needed to get started.

Alumni designers who found success early at Silicon Valley startups formed entities like Designer Fund, Combine VC, and Form Capital. They’ve set the vision on what design can play in the role of venture capital. Despite that, there's still a large opportunity for designers to focus on individual angel investors.

Design continues to struggle to find that proverbial seat at the table on the executive level. We hear about the importance of design, yet we don’t see much representation at the most crucial level. Designers may not have a seat at the table at companies until there are more seats occupied on the cap table of design angel investors to advocate for it from the other side. A design angel investor has a proven track record of what happens when Design is (or isn’t) represented in leadership and strategy.

I’ve dipped my toes in many different roles, and I am a designer at heart. I love solving problems to create elegant software experiences for humans. In the investment world, you might call me an operator, which is a cool word for someone who works at a company. I work at Webflow as an operator leading Design, a practice I’ve done for almost as long as some of the founders I work with have been alive. I also have experience in scaling startups and have been a part of product leadership teams, which brought me closer to how a company operates.

I’m still a neophyte when it comes to angel investing, and there are so many more qualified people who can tell you about angel investing than I can. What I can offer is a fresh perspective of a designer who wanted to invest in founders and startups. I’ll tell you what I tell all founders I invest in: you can get more money from other angel investors, but I can give you other forms of value if I’m on your cap table. I’m deliberately letting people carry me to be involved and gain experience. You won’t see me cutting big checks or leading rounds yet for two simple reasons:

I’m not ready to write big checks based on how much I’m willing to allocate to angel investing
My primary commitment is as an operator, and leading a round is time-consuming

This is what makes micro-investing so appealing. I get to take high risk while keeping it low-key. Let’s not pretend that you don’t need money to invest. What people might not realize is the size of the check, which ranges from $1,000 to $100,000 (or more). I have absolutely no shame in the size of the check I write at this moment.

Though value is typically attributed to the size of the check you commit to, you can add value in so many other ways. Let’s go through a hypothetical situation. If you invest $1,000 in a round as a value add investor when others might be putting in $100,000, then chances are you might feel 100x inferior—I know I did. Investment starts with the check and doesn’t end with it.

An angel investor once told me that the value you can deliver as a value add investor can truly change the trajectory of a startup’s success. As an experienced operator, a quick call or email to advise a group of founders can save them time and money from figuring out themselves. So you might cut a $100,000 check, but you might also provide guidance for a startup to save them hundreds of thousands of dollars. This perspective completely changed how I viewed my tiny investment. A $100,000 check helps only when it converts to value.

The opportunity for designers in venture

Why would designers want to become angel investors? Isn’t that what product managers and engineers with successful exits do? That’s the problem within itself...why not us?

Guiding design decisions

By the time designer joins a company, there is already so much legacy debt. Working with early startups gives us the opportunity to be proactive about problem-solving and having a design advisor can help flag dependencies early on.

Product strategy

Designers talk a lot about how they’d like to have more product influence in the companies they work at. This has resulted in some product designers pivoting into product management. There are other ways aside from a career change to have product influence, and startup advising is a great way to flex your product strategy muscle.

Angel investing is mentorship

Design leader coach Mia Blume (formerly IDEO, Pinterest, and Square) often speaks about how we need sponsorship in design leadership. One way to sponsor is to allocate funds to it. By committing to a check, even at a smaller size, it’s representative of your belief in the founders and their ambitions. If you don’t have the privilege of allocating funds to investments, see how you can get involved such as being an advisor to a startup.

Being an accredited investor before meant you possessed a certain level of capital, but with the Series 65, Series 7, or Series 82 exams are new pathways for accreditation. There’s no better time to get started.

I treat my angel investing the exact same way as I might back a Kickstarter project or invest in publicly traded companies on Robinhood; a way to build a portfolio of bets for things and people I believe in.

Don’t let the size of the check discourage you about the value you bring. It’s more than you probably give yourself credit for. The cap table may be the ultimate seat at the table design needs to enable more representation in companies. Stay tuned for part two of this post to discuss in deeper detail the value of having a design angel on your cap table as an investor and startup founder.

Notes

I highly recommend the book "Angel Investing: The Gust Guide to Making Money and Having Fun Investing in Startups" by David S. Rose as a great primer to angel investing
Thanks to Hareem Mannan for brainstorming this article with me
A huge thanks to those who encouraged me to get into angel investing (you know who you are)

Read Part II: The value add design angel investors bring

The role of taste (and what it means)

Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT

Happy Sunday from Brooklyn, NY. This week, many new memories made were in familiar places in my former neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. I lived in the neighborhood near the promenade overlooking the iconic bridge named after the borough and skyline of Manhattan for four years—a place that still feels like home every time I visit.

In addition to being home to the best Sardinian restaurant in New York, Brooklyn Heights is where Adam Yauch Park is named after the legendary member of the Beastie Boys, MCA. Formerly, Squibb Park, the park was renamed to dedicate Yauch, who died of cancer in 2012 (RIP MCA). Brooklyn Heights is where Yauch grew up, and his mom Frances still lived there at the time I was there. This isn’t an important prelude, but a segue to talk about a man who had a close relationship with the Beastie Boys and many other iconic musicians: Rick Rubin. This week, we’ll talk about Rubin as the proxy of the role of taste in design.

A few weeks ago, 60 Minutes posted their 60 Minutes interview, a sit-down with Anderson Cooper and Rick Rubin, a record producer, and co-founder of Def Jam Records. This interview is in part of the launch of Rubin’s new book, The Creative Act: A Way of Being. The tweet from the 60 Minutes account sparked many thoughts about Rubin, such as, “What does he actually do then?”

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“I have no technical ability. And I know nothing about music.”<br><br>Music producer Rick Rubin says he can barely play any instruments, but says artists come to him because of “the confidence I have in my taste and my ability to express what I feel.” <a href="https://t.co/zLrPYRUjvs">https://t.co/zLrPYRUjvs</a> <a href="https://t.co/KRZWLCpSB2">pic.twitter.com/KRZWLCpSB2</a></p>— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) <a href="https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1614785392456105985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wait, what on Earth does Rubin actually do then? Is he one of those “I have an app idea” guys (it’s always a guy) who needs the talents of product developers who can actually build the app? Surely someone who hasn’t been a designer cannot have design taste because they haven’t spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the Rhode Island School of Design, right? The answer is, Rubin is kind of like all these things, but he’s damn good at his job, which is having great taste, spotting talent, and popularizing it. Rubin represented artists such as the Beastie Boys, Run-DMC, Public Enemy, LL Cool J, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage Against the Machine, and the litany of legends go on.

Let’s talk about taste and the role it plays in creativity and software. “Taste” undefined is vague like those words that generalize without substance, like “cultural fit.” In essence, taste is curating subjectivity in a way that brings objectivity to your vision. It’s the ability to say, “this is dope, and I’ll tell you in a detailed manner why it is.” Taste is being able to articulate why you enjoy the Riot in Belgium’s remix of Chromeo’s Bonafied Lovin’ more than the original.

Everyone has taste, but not all of it is good. In fact, much of it is bad. For example, I could tell you I love Nickelback and listen to it every waking minute of my life (to be clear, I don’t) but that doesn’t mean my taste is good in comparison to the taste of others. Taste also doesn't equate to things you like. I love watching The Expendables or Jean-Claude Van Damme films but would absolutely not equate that to my film curation of great taste.

Taste without credibility doesn’t go far

There was a reason artists like LL Cool J were sending demo tapes to Rick Rubin’s dorm room at NYU to get it in front of him. His taste was respected and trend-setting. There are two ways to get respect for your taste. The first is Rubin's way, where you have such a grasp on what you like that it influences how other people like it. The second is having such a pedigree in the work you've done in your craft that people respect your taste. As a designer and builder, the second one is your greatest power.

Articulating taste

One of my favorite series is Detail by the late, great Kobe Bryant on ESPN. In this series, Bryant breaks down the specific attributes of what makes certain players great—a great comparison of how great taste can be articulated. Saying something is modern or on brand without any articulation of why is not taste. It's saying a very obvious thing with no substance.

Crafting a leadership portfolio

Sun, 08 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT

One of the top questions I get asked is what a portfolio for a manager should look like. Unsurprisingly, the answer is like any design answer: it depends. The ultimate output of a portfolio looks different based on so many factors: whether you're in brand or product, the type of management role, and what you're optimizing for. In this session, we'll look at the goals of a manager’s portfolio, what you are optimizing for, and the core elements of a portfolio. There are a few common artifacts you'll have as a manager: résumé/CV, portfolio deck, and website. The last two might be the combo of your portfolio.

Setting clear portfolio goals

The truth is at some point in your management career you will not need a portfolio! You will be reached out to by recruiters or apply based on your experience and credibility, which is a much harder thing to maintain than a portfolio! You might be optimizing your portfolio for different reasons than looking for a new career opportunity. For example, you might want to get into public speaking at meetups and conferences. The content you show there is going to be much different than what you show in a career portfolio.

A leadership portfolio might not be optimized for looking for work.

What type of role am I looking for?
What size team do I want to take on?
What type of industry/product do I want to work on?
Who do I want to report to?

Questions to ask:

Who is the audience for my portfolio? Is this to attract a potential new role, increase speaking engagements, or network?
What type of leader are you? Do you want to emphasize certain skills? Do you want to eventually lead larger teams? Do you want to stay close to the product and lead that way?

Differences between a portfolio for managers and individual contributors

Depending on the level or the role, you may or may not show the work you directly contributed to. For example, if you're interviewing for a product design manager role at an early startup or at an agency, it's very possible that part of your responsibilities is doing the work. If you're interviewing for a VP of Design role, you won't be showing any pixels you pushed (at least I'd hope not!)

Similarities

Learning about what you're like as a person and working with you
You’ll still have case studies that show business and customer impact

Differences

Your case studies will be more focused on what you put in place to enable teams to do the work
You’ll showcase tools you’ve created, such as 1:1 docs, frameworks, and others
Visualize your process of how you got work done
Though it’s good to show business outcomes as an IC, as a manager, this will be expected in your portfolio

Capturing the content for your portfolio

Building a portfolio takes a lot of time, but you can start capturing data of what you'll put in it as you go along. As a manager, the type of impact you make looks different than when you were an individual contributor (IC). Your IC portfolio is more around your work, process, and craft, and the management portfolio focuses on how you manage towards outcomes leading a group of humans. Keep an Infinite Slide Deck to track your work.

Keep a management journal

Journal your experiences as you’re doing the work. It’ll help you keep track of data and moments you want to share later. Trust me, it’s hard to remember later on. As you keep your journal, capture key metrics you’ll need to remember to tell the story.

Career Management Doc by Jessica Ivins
Hype Doc by David Hoang (inspired by CMD)

Constructing the portfolio

My portfolio is a Keynote deck. You can use anything that can be exported as a PDF you can share. I also highly recommend building a website that will be your digital portfolio. The website can serve as general content and portfolio deck can be more details. You may not want to disclose every single detail of your portfolio online and that's where a website might serve better to speak at things for a high level. It's common for design managers to have absolutely no portfolio published online.

Platform

I recommend having a website and a presentation deck ready to go. The content does not have to match 1:1 but it’s nice to have a website where you can have a general overview and a deep dive slide portfolio.

Elements of your portfolio

About / your leadership story
Career history
Management philosophy

Management approach and frameworks

A few images and slides on your approach to management. This might include your leadership philosophy, what methodologies you subscribe to, etc.

Work

Company and role overview

Summary of your role (Ex: Head of Product Design at Company A leading) growth, product design, and content design.

Hierarchy of portfolio

Company-level
Initiative level
Project level

Include

Visuals of early ideation, decision points, and final outcome (credit who worked on it)
Company goal
Core metrics

Case studies are different for managers. Though you’ll show project work (presumably what you did leading your team), the story you tell is slightly different. The core elements are:

Executive summary: What were the business goal and customer opportunities? What processes and frameworks do you put in place to drive outcomes for your team?
How did you manage towards outcomes?
Success metrics you put in place for your team
What did people on your team do?

Build a web presence

This can be a complement to your slide deck. I recommend managers have a website. Elements to include:

About

The section that includes details about you:

Bio: A manager should have a quick bio to give an overview of a career summary. Keep it about two or three paragraphs
Resume or CV: This can be a downloadable PDF
Philosophy and leadership principles: A nice section to share a bit about your approach and philosophy to leadership. This isn't essential though very nice to have

Writing

I recommend that managers have a blog, whether on their personal website, or Medium. Writing articulates what it’d be like to have you as a manager or your philosophy. A few examples of good ones:

https://nlevin.medium.com/inside-figma-the-product-design-teams-process-3897332d8565

Featured

Work: Case studies and portfolio pieces you might want to include online. Be mindful of the company metrics you share publicly in case it's confidential

By the end of the management cohort, we’ll work on your portfolio, your about page, and one case study of a project you led.

Best practices and tips

There are no one-size-fits-all approach for a leadership portfolio. However, here are some tips to keep in mind as you build your portfolio.

Focus on outcomes and impact

Focus on outcomes and impact; present your work at a level higher than you might be used to. Your portfolio will look more like case studies of your time at the company and with your teams vs. individual projects.

Tell the story of the product you impacted during your tenure: what difference did you make in the customer’s journey with that product? Who did it impact? At what scale?
Tell the story of how you impacted the business during your tenure: did you launch a new product? A new business line? Impact revenue or go-to-market?
Tell the story of how you impacted people during your tenure: did your team grow? Did you branch out to hire new disciplines? Did you set up a career ladder and promote? Who were your successes?
Tell the story of how you influenced cross-functional team members -- both at your peer level and up/down. Did you help them understand the customer better? How did design impact their roles and outcomes?

Show what your team did and give them credit

It’s okay to show the work of your team. In fact, you should. However, make sure you give them credit.

Display your IC work somewhere to de-risk

Even as a manager, people want to know you used to be a good designer! I recommend including a few pieces of content around your work when you were an IC. No need to go in detail and include this as part of your overview.

Share what you learned

Part of what people will expect from leadership portfolios is the lessons you learned along the way. It will be more authentic if you talk about the lessons and address the “What would you have done differently?”

Example narratives you can tell

Organizational excellence: example of how you identified a gap in how your team worked and solved it
Leading through changes: How you led and kept your team resilient during challenging times
Creating effective processes
Teams you’ve built
Initiatives that you led
How you evaluate work
How you ensure design quality at scale

Website examples

Creating value with artifacts

Sun, 16 Oct 2022 00:00:00 GMT

Artifact: An object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest.

Artifacts are powerful objects. They guide, galvanize, and hold history. These are tools that move humanity forward. In building products and companies, digital artifacts are crucial.

What great artifacts do

An artifact is a document, but not all documents are artifacts. I talk to my friend Ha Phan a lot about different ways to make artifacts. The short answer is there is no wrong way to do it. Each one is unique and serves a purpose. Let's reflect on some of the attributes that make an artifact great.

Abstract complexity

Systems and concepts can be hard to interpret. One wrong word and someone might spawn a completely different mental model. That's where a simple artifact can create quick alignment.

Push stories ahead

Have you ever presented in a meeting and people start asking questions before you can finish? I've probably done this myself. Moving the story along allows people to pay attention and follow your tempo. Sharing an artifact can give people something to pay attention to. It could even be a MacGuffin. What's a MacGuffin? If you saw Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker, you asked yourself, "Why are they looking for this random dagger?" That's a MacGuffin—an unnecessary object that moves things forward. The equivalent of a MacGuffin in design storytelling is when you wave the magic wand and ask people to move forward with assumptions. It helps move you to where you want to get to the point. Aspire to create something more than a MacGuffin though. All I'm saying is you can keep it dead simple.

Leave a clear footprint

Artifacts capture and memorialize certain moments. A danger is when artifacts become redundant or misinterpreted without context. Avoid those working docs that are never updated by someone who isn't at the company anymore.

When someone can review and can clearly understand the context of an artifact, you know it's good. It should not require voiceover or verbal context. Otherwise, the artifact is pointless. Guiding artifacts have a nomenclature and visual language that's easy to understand. If you try to be too sophisticated, the barrier to comprehending makes it pointless.

Examples of artifacts

There's no wrong way to make an artifact and there are multiple fidelities. The main purpose is you use them, share them with others, and have them guide you. I'll share a few I've made at One Medical as examples. Though I'd love to share some artifacts that I use today, it's too soon to share them in public!

Drawings

At times, you don't want artifacts to be too prescriptive, especially when you're leading other people. Avoid making artifacts that feel too solution-oriented or prescriptive. I loved sharing low-fidelity sketches with the product designers and researchers on my team to generate ideas. This is a sketch of some of our initial ideas for our virtual therapy platform.

This is one of the development points of my drawing style. Strive for high-fidelity conversation and low-fidelity production.

Maps

I love Alissa Briggs' talk Maps and Markers and refer to this often. Maps help plot where you need to go. A strategy, in its simplest form, is a map that guides you to your goal. This could be someone drawing on the dirt on a hiking trail or putting sticky notes on an ecosystem map. We plotted an ecosystem map with product and clinical leaders in this example. What you see (blurred) were key conversations memorialized in what would be a digital artifact.

Mapping our One Medical Ecosystem (intentionally blurred)

Maps encourage people to refine and build. The act of a map is to start the journey.

Making a vision book

One project I was most proud of at One Medical was a vision book we shared with our board and execs on where the future of the company could go. We created a pitch book, just like one in my agency days. It was really fun to put together and tell a story.

We printed out several copies and shared the narrative with our coworkers and stakeholders. This invited people to participate in a vision vs. it being handed down to them from the mountains. Their markups allowed us to infuse their perspectives in the vision and make it a part of the updated artifact.

Try making artifacts

Don't underestimate the power of making an artifact. If you don't know where to start, make a simple drawing or diagram. Share it with a colleague to see if it's helpful. As you build a conversation around it, it'll prove its value. Finally, making artifacts are fun. I wish you luck in your artifact-making.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Mastery for generalists

Sun, 19 Jun 2022 00:00:00 GMT

When I was on the Product team at One Medical, our clinical and Ops teams were critical partners in how we shipped work. It was common to visit the offices to observe (going to gemba). During my four years at the health tech company, I learned about the various roles on clinical teams: primary care providers, registered nurses, care navigators, specialists, phlebotomists, and many more. In my research work, I spent the majority of the time with primary care providers (generalists).

"Why did you decide to be a generalist instead of a specialist?", I'd ask each provider. What compelled them to general care vs. being a specialist? Primary care physicians experience more burnout and specialists make more money. The truth is you make more money as a specialist, so what would compel someone to general care? The answer was consistent: to have a broader range to care for their patients' health.

The path for specialists is more clear than generalists. If one chooses the generalist path, what does mastery look like? The notion of mastery as a generalist sounds oxymoronic. Let's challenge that and identify how to grow in your craft in a generalist role. In order to master being a generalist, let's reflect on how to know if you are a generalist, the impact they make, and leveling up as generalist practitioners.

You might be a generalist...

If you grew up in the 90s and experiencing lower back pain, you may remember comedian Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck" routine: "If you've been on the television more than five times describing what the tornado sounds like, you might be a redneck." We can remix that and play it back with being a generalist:

If you can't decide if you want to be a product manager, designer, or engineer, you might be a generalist
If you find yourself always wanting to learn new things outside of what you do, you might be a generalist
If you highly enjoy collaborating with every department, you might be a generalist
If you get excited about trying out emerging technology and tools, you might be a generalist
If you get bored by doing one thing, you might be a generalist
If you're comfortable hiring people better than you at everything, you might be a generalist

Generalists are people who love variety, connecting the dots, and curious. In contrast, specialists usually focus and go deeper on a certain practice. I use the clinical metaphor above a lot when describing generalists and specialists. A brain surgeon could conduct a physical if needed the same way a primary care provider could do certain operations in the case of an emergency. However, based on the level of skill and precision, a specialist is more effective. Every designer can contribute to a design system and having a specialist in design systems will merit in more effective outcomes.

Why be a generalist?

"Jack of all trades, master of none" can sound negative—almost implying one isn't good at anything. Do you ever feel like you don't fit into a specialty? Being a generalist allows flexibility and has broader range in what you can do. This is a great skill for early stage startups when wearing multiple hats is common. As the company grows, it'll specialize at scale, and it makes sense. You don't want your generalist co-founder to continue being responsible for people experience or finance and bring in the specialists. What happens to people who when they relinquish the said hats? You're able to freelance and move around more. There might be a new initiative that needs to get spun up. If you're interested in management, many people managers are generalists.

Generalists spark alchemy

In the article "Generalists CEOs Not Specialists Spur Innovation," there is a great excerpt on how generalist spark innovation:

"Under generalist CEOs, companies tend to engage in more 'exploitative' innovation, which involves improving or refining something that already exists, and also more 'exploratory' innovation — that is, engaging in a risky search for radical and transformative innovation. However, the difference between specialist CEOs and generalists is especially pronounced in exploratory innovation."

You don't see many specialist CEOs unless the business does something specific to it. A generalist can start an important initiative and collaborate with specialists to drastically improve it.

Building mastery as a generalist

"Mastery as a generalist" is an oxymoron, but let's embrace the duality. How does one become a better generalist? Great teams need a blend of generalists and specialists.

Be an expert at learning

If there's one specialty a generalist has, it's learning to learn. Build familiarity in a discipline enough to understand the mechanics, develop experience, and when it scales, find a specialist. If you've ever had a manager who understands what you do because they've done it before, they can build more advocacy for the effort of your work. A designer understanding how the software development cycle works can anticipate questions that come up.

Understand every role

I've worked in so many aspects of design: UI Designer, Information Architect, Marketing Designer, Motion Designer, Researcher, or Product Designer, I've worked in dozens of roles. Understanding everyone's roles and responsibilities helps you influence at a higher scale since you have a sense of what everyone is doing. It allows you to give better input and direction.

Build connective skills

Understand how every org works and connecting the dots across them. One of the services I was most passionate at while at One Medical was pediatrics and family practice. Whenever I had a coffee break or free time, I'd make time to connect with people who were passionate about that program and ways to support it. Learn how to synthesize, story tell, and connect to the big picture.

Mastering the generalist path means everyone will be better than you at something, but you're better than everyone at every little thing.

Originally posted on Proof of Concept

Being a generalist does not mean the work is shallow. It's right sizing the amount of up skill needed to get the job done. If the path of a generalist resonates with you, continue diversifying your skill portfolio and extend your range.

Give users choice: Design ecosystems, not paths

Mon, 03 May 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Originally posted on Webflow Blog

User-centered design doesn't actually center the user anymore.

Underneath a benign name, "user-centered" design journeys are just rigid, biased environments where the user doesn't have the freedom of choice. They only have freedom to move along the arbitrary pathways that the designer gives them.

There's a term for what happens when users rebel against these constraints. In urban planning — it's called the "desire path." For example, an urban planner may lay out a nice brick path for pedestrians, but pedestrians don't stay within the path's boundaries. Instead, they depart from the plan and tread through grass, making their own shortcuts that cut corners.

Designers have historically been afraid of this type of unpredictability, but there's a way to design with it in mind.

Enter, ecosystem design. A truly user-centered design journey that allows for a matrix of possible interactions and empowers users to create their own pathways and build for their own communities using their own tools.

User-centered design is not enough — ecosystem design is the future

So, what sets ecosystem design apart from user-centric design? For starters, ecosystem design is a lens for product design that anticipates and welcomes inputs from the user and the other tools they use.

User-centered design assumes users will behave predictably and stay within the bounds of their own design. But users have evolved quickly, and there are too many external and internal factors constantly influencing the choices they make. This means that by the time you tidily map out your user journey, the user will have likely changed their mind or performed an action you haven't anticipated.

By contrast, instead of anticipating user behavior in a point A to point B sequence, ecosystem design anticipates user misbehavior. The user subverts and breaks boundaries naturally as they interact with a product. Ecosystem design recognizes that users don't create in isolation or behave in a straightforward manner, and that as a designer, you're responsible for creating space in your ecosystem for users to choose their own renegade journeys.

No-code takes this one step further. With no-code tools, users now have more agency to "talk back" to designers with their own designs. This growing base of no-code users isn't seeking one fully-designed solution to build in. Instead, they want to design in an ecosystem using integration points between platforms that allow learning and iteration through plugins, tutorials, and shared knowledge. Think how much more useful Airtable is to you as a creator when you integrate it with Zapier.

This makes it absolutely necessary that designers think about not only customer experience but the complete ecosystem experience as well.

Instead of seeing misbehavior as a form of user rebellion, I would like to offer this perspective: when someone off-roads away from the user path you thought you understood, you probably should embrace that direction and even enable it.

Responsibility in ecosystem design

At the heart of ecosystem design is a commitment to uphold the users' ever-evolving needs above your own bias or ego — much like the original goal of user-centered design. Now a designer's commitment must extend to letting users blur the lines between your design and others' because trapping your user within a tiny linear system within one platform is now the least user-centered decision that you could make.

The ecosystem of open-source software was supposed to be the best example of this ideal: A true commons where ideas could be freely shared for the betterment of mankind. However, that commons — to its detriment — has ended up being more code-centric than people-centric. As Don Goodman-Wilson pointed out: "Openness is not an end in itself, but a tool that we can use for good or ill."

Truly user-centered design leaves space for gray areas and for the user to make their own choices you wouldn't have thought of — but it also provides transparent guardrails while recognizing that those guardrails must constantly be reconsidered, too.

If an ecosystem is healthy, it encourages biodiversity. For an ecosystem to survive, you also can't let it be burned down.

Ecosystems are designed for interoperability

While we may compare design teams to sports teams or compare UX design to building roads for users to get from one place to another, it's truly more complicated than that. For myself, design is a big community garden with new members joining every day — bringing their own tools, processes, and perspectives. Even though there might be some rows and planters that provide order, for these gardens to yield fruit, they mostly have to be allowed to grow in whatever direction they need to. Similarly, design should be interoperable, meaning for it to thrive best — its environment should be organic and free-flowing.

At Webflow, having an ecosystem design mindset means we design to enable and encourage that organic flow between our own platform and other tools. In nature, nothing functions in complete isolation. Ecosystems are interdependent, full of symbiotic relationships. Likewise, ecosystem design works toward interoperability, where the whole system functions best and becomes more resilient the more it adapts.

I know this because we live it here every day. Webflow started out as a tool for developers and designers, but has evolved into a tool for other types of users, like marketers. Instead of keeping them out or creating new narrow lanes for these types of users or just solving this design problem with add-ons, we made Webflow into an ecosystem — where every user can make what they want (even if it means working with other tools) without having to be shoved into a box.

Interoperability is a sacrifice. It's hard to let go of controlling your products in order to serve the user's real needs of flexibility and inter-dependability. It's also the most important thing about ecosystem design. If you're truly being user-centered, then you have to connect a tunnel between your platform and others. You have to be vulnerable enough to keep those tunnels open and allow two-way communication between them. You have to be ready to learn where you failed to design for the user and expand your ecosystem to make room for them. You'll need to develop your prediction skills, to read the tracks in the dirt, to better anticipate change, to follow the user's evolution in real time. Keeping the user at the center will always be the right call. Now, you have to give the user the power of choice, too.

Jodorowsky's Product Roadmap

Sat, 23 Jan 2021 00:00:00 GMT

I’ll share two stories you may not have heard of. These are stories of “the greatest film never made” and “the most important dead company in Silicon Valley.” This is a story about what happens when projects with uncompromising visions collide with the production process to make it happen (and keep it alive).

In the 1970s, film director Alejandro Jodorowsky took on what people said was the impossible task: a film adaptation of Dune. If you don’t know who Jodorowsky is, he is a filmmaker known for his avant-garde and wild ideas. Dune is a science fiction novel written by Frank Herbert in 1965 and considered by some critics to be the best science fiction book ever written—the bible of science fiction. A film adaptation was often believed to be impossible due to the epic length and many storylines of the novel.

From the beginning, Jodorowsky had a grand vision, and names such as Salvador Dalí, Mick Jagger, Orson Welles, and Pink Floyd were set to star in the film. He even offered to pay Dalí a fee of $100,000 per hour. Personally, I think that’s a pretty good rate in 1974. Jodorowsky had an uncompromising vision, proclaiming that there would be no script notes, and the film had to be produced 100% aligned with how he imagined it.

In addition to the star power of the on-screen talent, the designers who Jodorowsky recruited might be lesser known to the general public, but perhaps had a larger impact. This design cast included Chris Foss (a well-known science fiction cover artist), Jean Giraud (better known as Moebius in the comic book world), and H.R. Giger. Jodorowsky would lead his team of spiritual warriors who would make Dune come to life on the big screen.

The team of spiritual warriors spent $2 million of the $9.5 million budget on pre-production, with the film being about 14 hours long, and he wanted the film to be 20 hours. No rational production studio would take the risk on Jodorowsky’s massive vision, and the hope of this film actually being produced collapsed. With the project dead, the rights were sold to producer Dino De Laurentiis in 1984 (yes, he’s the grandfather of Giada from The Food Network), who ultimately hired David Lynch to direct. All that was left of Jodorowsky’s Dune was a book of concepts and storyboards the size of a Yellow Pages phone book.

The dream was over.

Jodorowsky’s Dune is a prime example of an uncompromised vision that never made it to reality, and there are many other industries that have similar stories, such as technology and startups. Let’s take a look at another story in Silicon Valley. You may not have heard of General Magic, but you are likely familiar with the iPod, iPhone, and Android phones.

The year was 1989 and Apple Inc. was headed by John Sculley, the former Pepsi CEO who co-founder Steve Jobs hired, and who ultimately fired Jobs. Without Jobs at the helm, the computer company was looking for new product innovation. Apple employee Marc Porat, known for his entrepreneurial spirit and big ideas, convinced Sculley that the future of computing would be a partnership of computer, communications, and consumer electronics companies. Known as the Paradigm project, the initiative lacked traction internally at Apple. Porat took the initiative and spun it out as its own company separate from Apple. General Magic was born. Porat recruited two key Apple engineers, Andy Hertzfeld and Bill Atkinson, to join this ragtag team of magicians to build the future of computing.

General Magic worked on an operating system called Magic Cap designed with mobile computing in mind, which was a wild idea in the early 90s when you still had to call the internet to connect. Magic Cap used the metaphor of rooms as a virtual office you could navigate on your mobile device. General Magic was able to get further in production than Jodorowsky simply by existing and still having money to work on their vision.

As the General Magic team continued to innovate, Apple would release a portable digital assistant called the Apple Newton. This was done with Sculley still as CEO of Apple and without General Magic’s knowledge. The product was a flop. From a vision and execution perspective, if General Magic was Jodorowsky’s Dune, then the Apple Newton was David Lynch’s Dune.

General Magic was able to get further than Jodorowsky’s Dune in terms of tangible results, but they also struggled with compromising on their vision. Somehow, the company was able to IPO in 1995 without an actual product, likely with investors making a bet on the team’s vision that still hadn’t been productionalized. Four years after their IPO, a product was finally rushed to market without major adoption by consumers.

The dream was over.

The greatest film never made and Silicon Valley’s most important dead startup never achieved their visions. Or did they? How is success defined? Is there such a thing as being too ahead of your time, or the vision being too big? Without such big dreams, would we continue to build a faster horse?

Should these two visions have compromised in order to survive? In hindsight, some may argue they should have, but would it have been the same impact?

What remained in the concept art from Jodorowsky’s Dune lived on in a way the film director likely hadn’t hoped for. George Lucas would create a little-known film called Star Wars in 1977. In one of the most iconic opening scenes in film history, it was very reminiscent of Dune’s storyboards for the opening. H.R. Giger, one of Jodorowsky’s artists on Dune, went on to work with Ridley Scott on the sci-fi horror film Alien. Giger brought his work style into the film that let the world know that in space, no one can hear you scream. Ridley Scott was also approached by Dino De Laurentiis about directing Dune (the David Lynch one). Due to a personal tragedy, Scott dropped out and upon returning instead directed a film called Blade Runner, which borrowed work from Moebius for the art direction.

The list of former General Magic employees reads like a hall of fame of tech giants. Tony Fadell went on to invent the iPod, co-invent the iPhone, and start Nest. Megan Smith went on to be a VP at Google. Kevin Lynch went on to create design/code editing software called Dreamweaver and later became a lead engineer on Apple Watch. He’s also the Apple exec often mistaken for Bill Gates due to their resemblance. Andy Hertzfeld invented Google Circles, which led to Google+ (he did useful things too!). Andy Rubin went on to invent the Android operating system, later acquired by Google. He also is a really terrible human being, so we’ll stop there. Even the low-level employees found success after General Magic. Pierre Omidyar left the scrappy startup to start his own company, which he called eBay.

Forty-six years after Jodorowsky first put together his phonebook-sized vision book, acclaimed director Denis Villeneuve would take on the ambitious project of Dune. With films like Prisoners, Sicario, Arrival, and Blade Runner 2049 on his résumé, there is no doubt that the work of Jodorowsky’s concept book inspired Villeneuve.

Tony Fadell was just a college grad when he worked at General Magic and endured a decade of trials and tribulations working at the struggling startup. As Fadell once said in an interview, “I literally had a decade of failure.” Fadell would later go on to invent the iPod, be co-creator of the iPhone, and create the Nest thermostat. It is quite possible the greatest value General Magic shipped was Tony himself.

As someone who works in startups and tech, there are multiple definitions of success and failure. For an investor, success might be scaling to a lucrative IPO for huge returns. For a founder, it might also be that, however, it could also be pursuing an uncompromising vision to change the world. The majority of startups die before their vision is even realized and never make it to market. However, some uncompromising visions often explode like a supernova, spreading their cosmic influence for others to continue the work.

Perhaps the greatest failures at fulfilling a grand vision bore spores of inspiration for others to continue the work for countless generations.