product & design

@jasonfried @adamwathan build something remarkable: something worth making a remark about.

Build something remarkable: something worth making a remark about.

Can’t get enough of claude design. I am redesigning everything with it, landing page, onboarding flows, web app, mobile app. All start to look consistent. It takes multiple days to get my design ideas right but by the end it’s so polished and makes you feel something special.

@paulg AI written emails aren’t deserved to be read. That’s why we heavily focus on categorization and sub-categorization and summarization before any email reach an actual human.

never lose sight of the fundamentals: - solving a real pain - easy to understand - reliable, fast, and easy to use - love and care to the details - great storytelling in marketing - finding best ways to get to your customers

@FarokhNotes نوشن جزو معدود شرکتهایی هست که design-led و به نظرم جا داره ۱۰ برابر بزرگتر بشه.

“So the first thing is I start from pain. I, you know, some people start from other directions. I always start from pain. That's what I learned is what are people's pain right now? Or you can see it on the horizon. And it kind of just, it evolved, but it never revolutionized itself. And so it just evolved and that same pain kind of was it, but it gave you enough of a painkiller for the other problem that having this new pain was worth it. They're going to have pain and in not too far away, but how do you solve for that pain? And typically those pains were because when those products were created, either it was unintentional consequence, or it was a limitation of the technology at the time it was created. And so I always kind of start with, okay, where's our current pain and are there new technologies to solve that pain? And like in the thermostat case, in the nest was we could use AI to learn. So it can learn when you're there, when you're away, what your temperatures are like, so you don't have to program it, so you can save you $800 to $1200 a year. So it could pay for itself literally within a year or two. “So that was the big idea. And AI was brought to bear on that old problem and hopefully solve it in a new way. So it starts with the pain, long-time pain, maybe habituated away pain that you have to discover and new technology bonded with that to then bring innovation in, You didn't buy it in Best Buy or somewhere else. So we had to reinvent many different pieces of puzzle to get Nest to be the Nest. It wasn't just the product. It was all the other things, just like the iPod wasn't the iPod or the iPhone wasn't the iPhone. revolution in, and then redefine the space in a way, which is what we did, which is not with just the product, but how you installed it. It was always installed by third-party installers as opposed to yourself. How you bought it, which was you bought it through the installer. It was the iPhone plus the App Store, iPod plus iTunes. So you have to think about the full thing you're trying to build, not just the one piece, even though that's what you might remember. You have to remember it's a system that you're going to innovate with.” -tony fadell

“it's holistic design. It's not, you know, like, because we think the technology, the technology is in service of the customer, not we're going to jam the technology down the customer's throat and they're going to figure out how to use it. There's too much noise. You've got to make it frictionless and you've got to fit it in their world and see from their point of view” -tony fadell

My biggest takeaways from @tfadell: 1. When building a v1 of anything, decisions should generally be opinion-based, not data…

@lennysan Things I loved: calling out - unethical products: addictive social medias & companionship bs - nonsense visions of the next thing after iPhone not having a visual screen - it takes massive craftsmanship & opinionated decisions to build a great product & AI is not even close

@lennysan Things I loved: calling out - unethical products: addictive social medias & companionship bs - nonsense visions of the next thing after iPhone not having a visual screen - it takes massive craftsmanship & opinionated decisions to build a great product & AI is not even close

Things I loved: calling out - unethical products: addictive social medias & companionship bs - nonsense visions of the next thing after iPhone not having a visual screen - it takes massive craftsmanship & opinionated decisions to build a great product & AI is not even close

yes, ideally your product must be the manifestation of your mission.

How Steve Jobs built great things

@hakeemwonders @MaximMatias1 making useful and delightful products.

Design should be useful first, then beautiful.

“I look at others and I look at how they exercise taste. And I think that the common thing I think is iterations with feedback. So it takes a really long time to build up taste in a specific domain. Then you maybe often can extrapolate into other domains with that taste. But if I had to describe what taste actually means, it's you're able to run a virtual machine in your head where given an idea, you can predict for a certain in-group whether they're going to like it or not. You decide what your in-group is and then how good do you get at emulating how they will react to it. And to do that, you just have to do reps.”

Simplicity is not removing things. Simplicity is distilling something so fundamentally that you understand its essence. Great design is about distilling something to its essence.

“to get to product market fit is to just create a six or seven-star experience. But you can't create a six or seven-star experience without going beyond. Go beyond the edge of reality and work backwards. What would the craziest possible way to blow someone's mind, one person's mind, one customer, and maybe try that, and maybe you can't scale that, because that's like an eight-star experience. But you can probably scale a six-star. And the difference between the five and six-star is probably difference between you and a competitor. And if you can find a way to industrialize it and scale it, you might have product market fit in something special.” Brian Chesky

details are the product. - keep talking to users - keep deciding on their behalf - keep reducing the options - keep simplifying the path - keep removing the friction - keep sharpening the words - keep telling better stories - keep perfecting the pixels - keep leading the users - keep shipping, then iterating - keep compounding the small edges iterate toward perfection, knowing you’ll never arrive

Best strategy for building great products: 1. Make something you want yourself and continue improving it till you love it 2. Then recruit the next user manually and improve the product till he loves it and then move on to the next user and repeat

Is it good? Is it useful? Is it exceptional? It takes thousands of reps to get it right.

Builders build. Then they ship. Then they solve what breaks. Launch isn’t the finish line. It’s where reality starts. Great p…

Most tech companies break out product management and product marketing into two separate roles: Product management defines the…

Details are the product. What feels small is what user remembers.

@tim_cook He keeps inspiring the next breed of makers who love to build great products for themselves; once proud of the results, share it with the world.

Taste has always been a core skill.

@IcyCortex noted: 1. don’t rewrite, wrap. respect what already works and layer on top. sometimes the smartest move is to build around it instead of tearing it down. 2. build what you can’t stop thinking about because genuine obsession > product-market fit analysis

@bcherny @peakcooper A small sound (default off) would be nice for when claude code stops and needs approval for something…

@tankots noted: ask users to change one behavior, obsess over their real frustrations, and hire people who can’t sleep when something’s broken.

#design law: alignment alignment creates visual order without explanation. elements that line up feel related and easier to scan. alignment tells the eye where to go next. example: columns in a spreadsheet. if they didn’t align, the data would be unreadable.

#design law: words matter words shape how users think, feel, and act. language is part of the interface, not decoration. clear, simple copy reduces cognitive load. example: “save changes” vs “submit.” same action. one feels human, the other feels like a machine.

#design law: visual metaphors visual metaphors communicate meaning faster than words. they tap into existing mental models & reduce cognitive load. users instantly understand what’s happening without reading. e.g. trash bin icon for delete. no label, meaning is immediate.

there is no map before you've explored the wilderness and no overriding artistic vision on day one. there's just a hard, consistent work of making something a little better each day and being as efficient as possible in your discovery of what it's going to turn out to be. - Sid Meier (computer game designer) i won't ponder for hours whether a feature would be a good idea. i just throw it in the game and find out for sure. if it's clunky, i cut it back out again.

the massive “how to do X in Y software” genre on youtube isn’t a learning trend. it’s a modern #design failure at scale. it’s a design inclusion failure for billions. good design tells you what to do without instructions.

the massive “how to do X in Y software” genre on youtube isn’t a learning trend. it’s a modern #design failure at scale. it’s an inclusive design failure for billions. good design tells you what to do without instructions.

#design law: aesthetic-usability effect beautiful things feel easier to use. even when they aren’t. first impressions buy you patience. beauty creates trust before logic kicks in → higher tolerance for flaws users forgive more when things look good. ugly ui gets judged faster.

#design principle: surpass expectations don’t just solve the problem. elevate the experience. that’s where loyalty is born.

#design law: accessibility make the design easy to see, easy to interact with: easy to tap/swipe/reach, easy to understand & safe to mess up. clarity → access simplicity → inclusion forgiveness → trust accessibility isn’t extra. it’s the baseline of good design.

the wrong goals with great craftsmanship = failure the right goals with imperfect execution = progress #design law: ackoff’s law it’s better to do the right things wrong than the wrong things right. strategy: doing the right thing. execution: doing things right. flawless execution can’t save a bad strategy. direction beats speed: strategy > efficiency you can’t iterate your way out of the wrong direction. execution refines; strategy defines. start with wisdom, then add efficiency. speed is seductive. efficiency feels productive. but neither matters if you’re sprinting the wrong way. strategy is the real productivity hack. innovation dies when teams obsess over doing things “right.” it grows when they focus on doing the right things. make room for imperfect beginnings.

Maker = Engineer × Designer × Marketer • Engineer: builds logic, systems, and scalable tech • Designer: shapes experience, emotion, and visual clarity • Marketer: crafts the story and gets it in front of the right people

Modern Polymath = Code + Taste + Demand-Creation • Code: turning ideas into working reality • Taste: making things beautiful, usable, and elegant • Demand-Creation: telling a story people want to follow

but it is only by remaining as close as possible to the pure function of the object that beauty can be achieved. -james dyson, against the odds

noted: “the best products in consumer-land get there through simplicity.” gemini simplified photoshop. claude code simplified coding. chatgpt simplified google. google simplified search. airbnb simplified travel stays. amazon simplified shopping. netflix simplified entertainment. spotify simplified music discovery. apple simplified computers. uber simplified taxis. tesla simplified cars. shopify simplified online selling. github simplified code collaboration. figma simplified design collaboration slack simplified internal communications. stripe simplified company payments. paypal simplified online payments. robinhood simplified investing/trading. whatsapp simplified messaging. duolingo simplified language learning. discord simplified online communities. medium simplified publishing. canva simplified graphic design. doordash simplified food delivery. dropbox simplified file storage. …

@patrykadas chatbots: “here is a text input and you can do anything you want” james dyson: “people don’t want general purpose. they want high-tech specificity.”

#uxdesign law: short-term memory brain is like a sticky note: it holds a bit new info, it’s not a notebook. if users have to remember too much from one screen to the next, you’re making them work against biology. brain is a tiny scratchpad: ~7 items max, gone in 20–30 seconds🧵 reduce memory load • show relevant info where it’s needed • avoid instructions that disappear after one screen recall is harder than recognition → design for recognition, not memorization prefer recognition over recall • highlight visited links • show recent searches • autocomplete user input • show thumbnails, labels, icons they’ve seen before externalize memory • comparison tables • persistent headers/footers • sticky summaries • breadcrumbs • “recently viewed” lists chunk information • group related items into 3–5 clusters • use whitespace to create mental boundaries • follow miller’s law: fewer, clearer chunks = easier thinking never force users to remember something they saw 10 seconds ago show essential data inline repeat and reinforce • repeat critical instructions at the moment of action • recap choices at the final confirmation step • use progressive disclosure to reveal complexity in layers avoid multi-step tasks that require back-and-forth memory give summaries, previews, or side-by-side layouts. leave “clues” for memory visited link colors states (“completed”, “in progress”) auto-filled fields selected tags make choices visually distinctive colors, icons, grouping. memory is expensive; don’t charge users for it. the best digital products “remember for the user.” the more they must remember, the less they’ll do. reduce memory load → increase completion rates less juggling → more doing design like their memory is a goldfish’s: • show info where the action happens • don’t hide instructions after one screen • keep choices visible, not remembered • summarize, preview, and compare side-by-side • support recognition, not recall the interface is the user’s external brain; make it a good one.

it’s a cognitive state in which decision latency increases as the number or complexity of choices increases. #uxdesign law: analysis paralysis when users freeze because there are too many choices or too much info. more options ≠ more freedom. more options = more stuck it’s when you scroll netflix for 20 minutes and watching nothing. too many movies → zero decisions clothes in the morning: the more outfits you consider, the slower you move. this is why successful people reduce choice (steve jobs, zuckerberg). opinionated design: don’t force the user to be the architect. designers should remove low-value choices. • users delay decisions → they drop off • cognitive load spikes → satisfaction drops • too much freedom feels like work • complexity kills conversion • indecision creates emotional fatigue → users remember the feeling, not the feature reduce competing elements; increase whitespace; guide the eye. • simplify the path • highlight the best choice • hide complexity until it’s needed reduce the number of visible choices show only what’s relevant now. hide the rest behind filters, steps, or progressive disclosure. how to design against paralysis: • start with one clear entry point • offer smart defaults or a “recommended” option • chunk choices into simple categories • reveal complexity only when users ask for it • guide comparisons side-by-side, not in their heads • limit options per screen so the next step feels obvious less noise → more motion help users move, not think definition: too many choices kill decisions implication: overwhelm kills action strategy: subtract, simplify, spotlight

“it takes a genius to make it simple.” this kind of genius is extremely rare. how many things with embedded complexity is simple to use or understand?

#uxdesign law: selective attention users don’t see the whole interface; they see the part that feels relevant to their goal. make what matters obvious. let everything else fade gently into the background. attention is a spotlight; everything outside the beam is background noise. think of your ui like a dark room: give users one clear path lit by a single bright cue. avoid dead zones don’t place key actions: • too far down • in the margins • in clusters of other visually loud elements dead zones = low-attention areas. in design, that means: • remove distractions → reduce noise • highlight the next step → guide the beam • use contrast with intention → don’t decorate • avoid ad-like elements → banner blindness is real • reveal complexity only when needed → progressive disclosure build “attention bridges” use micro-cues between steps: • highlighting the next field • animating the next card slightly • a subtle glow around the next CTA shape the layout around the primary task • top-left or center for essential actions • low-contrast for secondary actions • hide tertiary options behind menus design the “golden path” the user should always know: • what to do now • what happens next • what success looks like remove competing changes avoid simultaneous pop-ups, tooltips, color shifts, or state changes. change blindness kicks in and users miss all of them. deliver the right info at the right time progressive disclosure: reveal complexity only when the user needs it. use motion sparingly but meaningfully subtle animation is a pointer excessive animation is a distraction. competing signals cancel each other if everything screams, nothing is heard. timing matters the same piece of information can be useful at one moment and invisible at another. relevance is contextual, not constant. clarity beats cleverness. relevance beats aesthetics. one signal beats ten whispers.

#uxdesign law: chunking brain loves containers. when information lands in neat boxes, the mind relaxes. chunking is the art of breaking information into small, meaningful groups so users can scan, decide, and move without friction 🧵 don’t show everything at once. show things in meaningful clusters. think of it like a grocery store: without chunking → everything is thrown in one aisle with chunking → dairy here, fruit there, bread at the end clean grouping = faster decisions fewer mistakes = higher trust better structure = better flow how to use chunking in product design: • group related info into clear sections • use whitespace as structure, not decoration • keep 3–7 items per group • build hierarchy with spacing, alignment & labels • chunk long forms into steps, chunk pages into modules • collapse complexity with tabs, accordions & cards good chunking turns: - noise into navigation - order into understanding - chaos into clarity definition: chunking organizes info into manageable, meaningful groups. implication: grouping reduces cognitive load and speeds up comprehension. strategy: use hierarchy, spacing, visual grouping, and limited item sets to make information scannable and predictable. group the world. guide the mind.

noted: - first 30 seconds of using your product should be so good that earns the next 30 seconds. gamma spent three months perfecting just the first 30 seconds of using their product. they made it so compelling that new users would immediately tell their friends. this single change transformed their growth trajectory. - focus on one simple promise, not many features. think of it like throwing eggs to someone: they can catch one, but if you throw five at once, they’ll drop them all. - choose problems you’ll care about for 10 years. ask if this problem matters enough to you personally that you’d dedicate a decade to solving it.

noted: - create understandable products: product design is about helping people *understand* what your product does. users arrive barely interested and confused about what you offer. if they can’t quickly grasp what they’re looking at, they’ll leave. - sell outcomes: nobody wants a hammer; they want something built. new software needs an explanation of both what it is and why people should want it. slack wasn’t selling messaging features; it was selling better team coordination and reduced email chaos. - have lots of small delights: details make users love or hate your product. slack grew largely because people who used it at one company would join a new company and advocate strongly for adopting it. that advocacy came from accumulated small delights, not major features.

#uxdesign law: mental models users bring a “map in their head” of how things should work; shaped by the apps they already use. when your design matches that map, it feels intuitive. when it doesn’t, it feels like walking into a kitchen where the fridge is in the bathroom!🧵 users don’t arrive blank; they arrive with expectations. familiarity isn’t boring; it’s cognitive efficiency. users walk into your product like guests walking into a friend’s house; they expect the light switch to be near the door, the fridge to be in the kitchen, and the bathroom not to require a treasure map! interfaces feel simple not because users are smart, but because their expectations were respected. mental models are those expectations. how to design with mental models: • use familiar patterns before inventing new ones • keep interactions consistent across the product • teach only what’s truly new • don’t break conventions without a good reason • test how users think things work, not how you wish they worked design for the mind they already have, not the one you want them to have. don’t surprise users unless it’s a birthday! don’t make them think about how stuff works. if you must break a rule, give people a friendly heads-up.

#uxdesign law: cognitive dissonance like a door with a push handle only opens when you pull. the door is lying to you, and every lie adds friction. when your ui looks like one thing but acts like another, users feel that tiny “wait… what?” moment; and that’s where trust cracks 🧵 users rely on patterns, habits, and intuition. break those without warning → frustration, confusion, drop-off. design rules to avoid dissonance: • match mental models: if it looks clickable, make it clickable • keep patterns consistent: same component = same behavior • preview consequences: no surprise actions • remove contradictions: visual cues should tell the truth • test expectations: “what do you think will happen?” is your best tool dissonance happens when affordances, patterns, or mental models don’t match the user’s assumptions. your design contradicts what the user believes should happen. surprise is great for delight, terrible for interaction.

@moshhamedani i’m trying to learn how to rethink and rebuild existing products with embedded intelligence in a way that simplifies, delights and saves time. a 10x better experience.

#uxdesign law: cognitive bias our brains take shortcuts to save energy. think of it as the “autopilot” human mode: • what’s first feels important • what’s last feels emotional • what stands out gets attention • what’s default feels “correct” • what’s easy feels “right”🧵 bias shapes what they notice, what they ignore, and what they choose. ux in plain language: → guide the autopilot → don’t let users fly into mountains bias isn’t a bug; it’s the human operating system. definition: the brain cuts corners. implication: users follow the corners you design. strategy: build the path so the shortcuts still lead somewhere good. • simplify choices; fewer forks in the road • make the important thing the obvious thing • place key actions at the edges (first or last) • give users a path that feels inevitable • show progress; people chase closure • choose smart defaults; people stick to them you build the road. users brain brings the shortcuts. make the shortcuts work in your favor.

#uxdesign law: cognitive load every interface charges a “brain tax.” the higher the tax, the faster users bounce. cognitive load = the mental effort required to understand & use a product great ux is lightweight. bad ux is a mental gym🧵 your job is simple: don’t make people think more than they have to. practical principles: • reduce choices → faster decisions • chunk info → easier scanning • use smart defaults → fewer steps • keep hierarchy obvious → eyes know where to go • remove visual noise → clarity beats decoration • show only what’s needed → progressive disclosure make the interface feel lighter than the user’s expectations don’t force: • confirmations for safe actions • tooltips for obvious features • scrolling for primary actions • onboarding walls of text steps, breadcrumbs, or checklists reduce “where am i?” cognitive strain. smart defaults reduce choices: country = derived from ip currency = local date format = local theme = system preference prioritize visually big + bold = important small + subtle = optional shrink the interface remove anything not directly helping progress: “if in doubt, cut it out.” definition: mental effort needed to operate a ui implication: heavy = frustrating strategy: simplify, structure, guide if your ui makes people think, they’ll think about leaving.

#uxdesign method: contextual inquiry contextual inquiry = ux safari 😁 think of yourself as a wildlife photographer. in a studio, animals behave differently; staged, artificial. in the wild, you see truth: instincts, shortcuts, habits, hacks, friction. don’t guess how users work. go watch them in the wild 🧵 context changes everything: interruptions, hacks, shortcuts, tools, habits, pressure. the stuff surveys never reveal. observe → ask in the moment → uncover the “why” behind the “what” shadow users, don’t lecture them; environment is part of the interface example: you watch how people triage emails: tabs everywhere, pinned messages, color codes, multiple inbox hacks → you learn their mental model: “email = tasks, but messy” look for: • workarounds • artifacts (notes, spreadsheets, browser tabs) • friction moments • real priorities • tacit knowledge definition: learn how people work by watching them work. implication: context exposes truth. strategy: observe reality before you redesign it. if you want to understand behavior, sit next to it.

#uxdesign method: ux survey a ux survey is a direct line into the user’s mind — a structured way to capture what they expected, what they felt, and where they struggled. 🧵 think of it like taking your product to the doctor: users describe the symptoms, you diagnose the real problems. to make surveys useful: • set expectations → tell users how long it takes • ask one thing at a time → reduce cognitive load • avoid bias → don’t lead them toward your preferred answer • ease them in → start simple, end deep • mix formats → scales for patterns, free text for stories it’s like dipping a thermometer into the user experience to read the temperature of satisfaction, friction, and confusion. you create a feedback loop that strengthens user trust. when people feel heard, they stay. short surveys = strong insights simple questions = honest answers ask better → design better

#uxdesign method: affinity mapping it’s grouping messy qualitative data into meaningful clusters so patterns can emerge. you collect quotes, behaviors, pain points, tiny user moments; then you group them like a detective pinning clues on a board until the case cracks open 🧵 dump → cluster → label → insight how it works: • capture everything: 1 insight per sticky • cluster by similarity, not perfection • label the story each group tells • extract insights backed by evidence • turn insights → design actions record everything quotes, complaints, screenshots, test failures, delight moments, silent pauses all of it goes on sticky notes. label themes with meaning don’t label “cluster 2”; label “users feel lost after signup” or “people don’t trust the data” cluster based on similarity no rules. follow instinct. if two notes feel related, put them together. let the wall grow its own structure. link insights to design actions examples: • theme: “confusion during onboarding” → add guided steps • theme: “fear of losing progress” → autosave • theme: “too much cognitive load” → reduce choices why it matters: • reveals hidden patterns • aligns teams fast • separates noise from truth • grounds design in real user behavior • transforms data into direction definition: group qualitative data to uncover themes implication: patterns emerge when chaos is visualized strategy: cluster first, interpret later data becomes meaning. meaning becomes design. make the wall speak. let patterns guide decisions.

#uxdesign method: user interview talk to real users and you uncover: • motivations • frictions • hidden habits • emotional peaks • the language they naturally use patterns > assumptions you ask → they talk → you discover reality instead of fiction🧵 user interviews are like debugging the human side of your product. users rarely hand you the truth on a plate; you uncover it layer by layer with good questions you’re not validating your idea. you’re validating their reality. this is a qualitative research method used to gather deep, contextual insights from individuals about their goals, experiences, and decision-making processes related to a product, task, or domain. how to do it right: • start with a clear learning goal • warm up, build trust • ask open questions: “how, why, when, tell me about…” • chase stories, not opinions • dig deeper with “why” and “tell me more” • avoid leading or yes/no questions • summarize to confirm • synthesize into insights, not quotes listening is a design skill. questions are your superpower. users won’t tell you what to build. they’ll show you how they live. your job: translate reality into design. 5 essential user interview questions 1. “tell me about the last time you did this.” 2. “what was the hardest or most annoying part?” 3. “how do you currently solve this problem?” 4. “what would you expect to happen next?” 5. “if you could wave a magic wand and change one thing, what would it be?” pain points are opportunities. users always hack solutions before products exist. look for duct-tape workflows → these inspire the most valuable features. real events reveal real behavior, constraints, emotions, and workarounds.

taste is as rare as unicorn. -edwin land

#uxdesign method: usability testing sit back, shut up, and watch someone struggle with your design so you don’t ship that struggle to thousands. watching real people use your product will humble you fast. what feels “clear” in your head often collapses the moment a user touches it 🧵 it’s simple: • give users real tasks • stay quiet • observe the struggle • fix the root causes • repeat until the flow feels effortless • get out of your bubble • give them a goal, not instructions • let them get confused; confusion is data • the magic isn’t in what they say; it’s in where they hesitate • if 3 users run into the same wall, remove the wall if you guide users, you’re not testing the design; you’re testing your ability to give hints. your job is not to explain. your job is to observe the pain. • ask them to “buy a gift,” “book a flight,” or “find a shortcut” • don’t jump in when they’re stuck (that’s the gold moment) • use screen recording + audio • ask: “what did you expect to happen?” • after each task: “how did that feel?” the goal isn’t to validate your design. it’s to catch blind spots before they become user pain. good design comes from the field, not the figma file. definition: observe real behavior to uncover friction. implication: what users do > what designers assume. strategy: test with real people, watch silently, iterate relentlessly.

#uxdesign method: user personas designing without personas is like cooking without knowing who’s eating. you might get it right; but mostly by luck! designing for everyone = designing for no one user personas = fictional users based on real ones so your team stops designing for “everyone” and starts designing for someone 🧵 → feature choices should map to user goals, not stakeholder wishes anchor decisions in user reality → copywriting should match how your persona actually talks speak the user’s language → reduce cognitive load for the “busy”, provide depth for the “expert” empathize with frustrations → do they multitask? do they skim? do they check things in bursts? design workflows that reflect real behavior personas make empathy operational definition: fictional users built from real data. implication: clarity in decisions, empathy in design. strategy: research → synthesize → design for someone, not everyone. “one size fits all” is the enemy of usability personas turn opinions into evidence, and evidence into direction.

some people say give the customers what they want. but that’s not my approach. my passion had been to build an enduring company that people were motivated to make great products. everything else was secondary. sure, it was great to make a profit, because that’s what allowed you to make great products. but the products, not the profits, were the motivation. our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. people don’t know what they want until you show it to them. i think henry ford said: “if i asked customer what they wanted they would’ve told me faster horses.” that’s why i never relied on market research. our task is to read things that are not yet on the page. -steve jobs

understand the essence. delete. subtract. cut. simplify. stop before the meaning is lost.

@naval noted: understand the essence. delete. subtract. cut. simplify. stop before the meaning is lost.

#uxdesign method: journey mapping users don’t move in straight lines. they move through emotions. a journey map shows every step, high & low between intention → goal think of it like a storyboard of your user’s story 🎬 from “what is this?” → “ugh why?” → “ah, finally!” 🧵 it’s like a movie storyboard of your user’s experience: from curiosity to frustration to relief. you’re not designing screens; you’re designing moments. see the world through the user’s eyes, step by step. every click is a clue, every delay is drama. map steps, emotions, and opportunities: → phases (discover, consider, use, succeed) → feelings (frustration, confusion, delight) → fixes (reduce friction, add reward) y-axis is happiness; track their mood swings through your flow in practice: • capture real user stories (interviews, surveys, analytics) • plot their steps in a timeline (visual map or board) • annotate each step with emotions, thoughts, and obstacles • brainstorm quick wins to smooth pain points • test, iterate, and repeat each touchpoint is a clue; your job is to find where the crime (drop-off) happens definition: map the user’s path, feelings, and touchpoints toward a goal implication: it exposes friction and emotion behind behavior strategy: visualize → empathize → optimize every phase user journey = story arc (setup → conflict → resolution) see pain → feel empathy → design relief every product tells a story. journey mapping helps you design a better one.

noted: build something 10x better than the alternative. 1% better daily till 10x. but make sure you define “better” right.

#uxdesign method: card sorting users already have mental maps. card sorting reveals them. good ux mirrors how people think, not how teams structure their products. it’s a research technique where users organize topics into groups that make sense to them🧵 users showing you how they expect info to be structured. think of it like spilling lego pieces on a table and watching how people sort them. some by color, some by shape, some by what they’ll build; that’s your insight. why it matters • reveals mental models • reduces navigation friction • builds intuitive information architecture how to use it • write key items on cards • ask users to group & label them • observe their reasoning • find recurring patterns don’t architect your interface from the inside out. let users show you their map first. definition: group items to reveal mental models implication: users define intuitive structure strategy: design navigation that matches how they think clarity isn’t invented. it’s uncovered.

#uxdesign law: conceptual model people don’t use systems; they use their idea of how systems work. a conceptual model is that mental shortcut: a story users tell themselves to predict what happens next🧵 when design fits their story → it feels natural when it breaks it → it feels wrong mirror the user’s world: • use familiar metaphors (trash, folder, home) • make cause & effect visible • hide complexity behind simple interactions designers translate invisible logic into visible meaning. make the system feel learned before seen. like the gearshift in a car: you don’t see the engine, but the lever gives you a simple model of control. the goal isn’t to teach users how it works; it’s to make them feel like they already knew. design for what feels obvious, not what’s accurate. definition: users build mental maps of how systems behave. implication: mismatch breaks trust and flow. strategy: align design behavior with familiar mental patterns.

#uxdesign law: constraints constraints narrow choices, prevent mistakes, and guide intuition. they reduce possible actions and help users interpret an interface. think of guardrails on a mountain road; they don’t restrict your freedom, they keep you from driving off a cliff 🧵 good design narrows choices, not imagination. less “what can i do?” more “ah, that makes sense.” constraints come in 4 forms: • physical → can’t drag beyond screen • semantic → plug fits only one way • cultural → red means stop • logical → next button disabled until valid guide with logic: show only context-relevant controls respect culture: use familiar patterns; e.g. left-to-right flow, red for stop remove ambiguity: disable impossible actions; e.g. gray out “next” until form is valid • don’t give users every possible action; give the right ones at the right time. • design systems that make the right action obvious and the wrong ones impossible. • constraints aren’t limits; they’re invisible guides to clarity. • friction can be focus. freedom without boundaries is chaos. smart constraints create flow. definition: boundaries guide behavior. implication: constraints reduce confusion and error. strategy: limit actions to create clarity and confidence. constraints are the rules of a game. without them, there’s no game, just noise. remove chaos. guide flow. freedom through structure.

#uxdesign law: mapping ever tried turning on the wrong stove burner? that’s bad mapping. mapping is how the design “matches” reality. it’s how controls line up with what they actually control. when things are mapped well, your brain doesn’t need a manual; it just knows 🧵 bad mapping breaks intuition. it makes you stop, guess, and learn through pain. turn the wheel right → car goes right swipe up → things go up drag something left → it moves left good mapping feels like muscle memory. it speaks your body’s language before your brain catches up. design like the world already taught your user. if you need a label to explain it, the mapping’s broken; your mapping missed the map. if you must teach, your mapping failed. design so action and reaction are natural dance partners: → placement mirrors outcome → direction matches expectation → movement feels obvious mirror real-world logic: up = increase left = back clockwise = forward the best interfaces don’t explain; they just make sense. it clicks before it’s clicked.

#uxdesign law: feedback users need to know their actions have been seen, understood, and completed. silence = uncertainty → frustration → drop-off feedback closes the loop between action and reaction 🧵 feedback is your ui’s way of saying “i heard you.” without that nod, users feel like they’re shouting into the void. feedback is the ui’s body language. the fastest path to trust is acknowledgment. think of ux feedback like eye contact in conversation; silence or lack of reaction feels rude and confusing. general rules: → always respond to input → show progress when waiting → differentiate success, error, warning → confirm completion clearly it’s not just “done” messages; it’s the subtle ripples, tones, and progress cues that say “you’re in control.” the faster and clearer the feedback, the higher the perceived system reliability. users feel in control only when they see a reaction to their input. the system that talks back earns trust. feedback is ui empathy. definition: feedback shows users their action was received. implication: no feedback creates confusion and doubt. strategy: always acknowledge, show progress, confirm done.

#uxdesign law: signifiers signifiers are cues that tell users where and how to interact with an interface. • underlined text, button → tap me • red dot → something new here • blinking cursor → type here affordances show what’s possible. signifiers make it obvious. 🧵 design signifiers by: → using contrast, motion, or icons to guide attention → pairing visuals with feedback (ripple, click, sound) → keeping signals consistent across your product feedback is part of signification loading spinners, success checkmarks, hover ripples → they confirm the user acted correctly. too many signals = visual noise layer signifiers combine multiple cues: • visual (shape, icon, shadow) • textual (“next”, “send”, “done”) • motion (hover, pulse, vibration) the best ux doesn’t make users think “what can i do?” or “where should i click?” a hidden affordance is a missed opportunity definition: signifiers communicate where action happens. implication: clarity drives confidence. strategy: make affordances perceivable through cues.

#uxdesign law: affordances affordances are possible actions in an interface based on the mental model of the user. affordances make function visible. • a chair affords sitting • a knob affords turning • a link underlined in blue affords clicking 🧵 it’s the invisible expectations of the user from a design. • affordance: the possible action • signifier: the signal that communicates where the action happens a button affords clicking → the shadow, label, or color is the signifier. if affordances are unclear, users hesitate or fail. when affordances are strong, users feel in control and “get it” without needing instructions. visual cues: • use depth (shadows, gradients) to imply pressability • use motion (hover, ripple) to confirm interactivity • use consistent shapes for controls (buttons look like buttons everywhere) hierarchy: • emphasize primary affordances; downplay secondary ones • avoid competing signals (if everything looks clickable, nothing is) feedback: • confirm the action with visual, auditory, or tactile response • affordance without feedback = dead end good design makes function obvious. bad design makes users guess. usability testing: • observe where users try to click, drag, or tap • every “wrong attempt” reveals a failed affordance definition: affordances show what’s possible. implication: clarity drives confidence. strategy: make interactivity look interactive. if users need instructions, affordances have failed.

aim for a major version upgrade; but even a minor or patch upgrade also counts work on your update till it’s 10x better than the status quo before releasing to get to 10x, improve it 1% daily

Jony Ive: “i always understood the beauty of things made by hand. i came to realize what was really important was the care that was put into a great product. what i really despise is when i sense some carelessness in a product.”

#uxdesign law: discoverability if users can’t find it, it doesn’t exist. discoverability = the ease of finding what’s possible in your product. it’s not “findability” (searching for what they already know exists), it’s “discoverability” (revealing what they don’t know yet) 🧵 this defines how quickly users can learn, explore, and grow confident. • what’s possible should be visible. • what’s visible should be understandable. • what’s understandable should invite interaction. • never hide power behind obscurity. • make learning effortless through doing. → undiscovered features don’t exist → visibility is usability → discovery fuels engagement → clarity invites curiosity good discoverability turns users into explorers great discoverability turns exploration into delight highlight new features naturally use contextual nudges (e.g. “new” badge, or pulsing icon for a few days). but remove them once users interact, otherwise they become noise. good discoverability is like a museum where you naturally walk toward new exhibits because lighting and layout guide your eyes. add clear signifiers visual hints that communicate action: • icons with motion cues (arrows, handles, gradients) • microcopy like “try swiping” or “hold to record” • animations showing interaction hints use strong affordances make it obvious what’s clickable, draggable, or tappable. → buttons should look like buttons, not like plain text. → sliders should suggest movement. “if a feature can’t be found, it might as well not exist.” —don norman definition: ability to see what’s possible and how to act. implication: invisible features don’t exist. strategy: make actions obvious, feedback instant, discovery effortless.

#uxdesign law: principle of least effort users take the easiest path. the one requiring the least energy. people don’t do what’s “best.” they do what’s easiest. make the easiest path the right one🧵 they’ll avoid complexity, unnecessary steps, or cognitive load, even if it means suboptimal outcomes. the less effort users spend, the smoother their flow feels. each click, scroll, form field, or unclear message adds friction. friction kills momentum. designers must minimize friction so users can reach their goal with minimal thinking. reduce friction everywhere: • simplify forms (ask only what’s essential) • auto-fill or suggest defaults • remove extra steps between intent and action progressive disclosure: • don’t overload users with info; reveal complexity as needed • examples: accordions, tooltips, expandable sections show, don’t tell: • demonstrate how things work instead of explaining them • example: product tours that highlight elements visually rather than showing walls of text shorten decision paths: • fewer choices → faster action (hick’s law) • use defaults, recommendations, and visual hierarchy to guide users effortlessly design for predictability: • familiar patterns = less cognitive load • consistency across buttons, icons, and layout builds trust and speed keep navigation obvious: • visual clarity, direct labels, and clear next steps • avoid hiding core actions behind deep menus connection to other ux laws: • paradox of the active user → users want to start right away • law of least effort → users want to stay on the easiest path • jakob’s law → familiar patterns reduce learning effort • tesler’s law → every system has complexity; design decides who bears it (user vs. system) we’re wired for efficiency, not perfection. → fewer steps = faster flow → fewer decisions = less friction → familiar patterns = lower cognitive load → defaults & autofill = instant progress → progressive disclosure = clarity without clutter the best designs feel obvious, not because users are smart, but because the interface did the thinking for them. definition: humans choose paths of least resistance. implication: friction kills engagement. strategy: make the easiest path the right one. simplicity isn’t decoration. it’s efficiency disguised as elegance.

#uxdesign law: paradox of the active user users act first, think later → design for that embed learning, don’t explain it. users want to do their task, not learn your system. make the product teach itself. let users learn by action 🧵 embed learning into interaction. don’t ask for attention, guide it. → embed hints in context → reward exploration, not perfection → design forgiving interfaces (undo, autosave) → show cause → effect immediately → reveal features gradually as users need them users never read manuals, they just start using the product. if users skip the manual, the product is the manual. so design has to teach through doing. people don’t read. they click. reduce upfront explanations. think of it like a video game: the tutorial is the first mission, not a pdf. your interface is the manual. design it to teach by doing. definition: users skip learning to act faster. implication: design must teach through use. strategy: make interaction the instruction.

#uxdesign law: continuity our eyes follow smooth paths. when elements line up on a straight line or curve, we treat them as related and headed the same way. rails → clarity → speed 🧵 design with rails: • align related items to the same vertical/horizontal lines • keep actions on the same rail as the content they affect • show progress on one unbroken path (steppers, timelines, bars) break the rail on purpose: • to mark a new section • to show a warning • to make one thing truly stand out • make visual, tab, and reading order the same sequence • animate along existing rails, no teleporting if users’ eyes zig-zag, your layout is wrong. align to relate. definition: aligned elements feel connected. implication: continuity lowers cognitive load and guides action. strategy: build clear rails; break them only with intent.

“marginally better” will not catch on. i would kill the product if by version 3, it still will be in marginal improvement territory. after the demo they showed, i said to myself: “why? why you need to release a product that is only marginally better than what exists? this is the opposite of focus, what steve jobs was repeating to himself, his whole life.”

#uxdesign law: closure (gestalt) we don’t need the whole picture to “see” the whole picture. closure = minds complete what eyes only partly see it compresses ui: fewer pixels, same meaning. it speeds recognition: users don’t need full detail to act🧵 use it to simplify and guide: • peek the next card to invite swipe • clamp text with “… + read more” • skeletons that mirror final layout • partial progress rings to signal momentum • half-open sheets with a visible handle guardrails: • don’t let closure fake completeness (add clear reveals) • pair abstract icons with labels until recognition is high • break lines where data is missing progress ring on streaks: always show a partial arc to imply momentum. reading list: show 1.2 cards horizontally with the next one peeking. bottom sheet for notes: start half open with a visible handle. article preview: clamp summary + “continue reading →”. skeletons shaped like title/cover/note blocks so the layout “reads” pre-load. show ~60–80% of a pattern to let the brain infer the rest. if misinterpretation is risky, prefer explicit over implied. every implied element must have a clear reveal affordance. don’t depend on closure alone. pair with text labels, alt text, or aria-labels. ensure sufficient contrast so implied edges are perceivable. test with cognitive and low-vision users; closure can fail under visual stress. use partial borders/shadows to imply a card without boxing everything. it enables progressive disclosure: tease first, reveal on demand. it’s connect-the-dots for vision; give enough dots and people see the picture. risk: too little context creates wrong guesses or false “done”. definition: the mind completes. implication: hints can replace pixels. strategy: imply with purpose to reduce noise, but never mislead, reveal on demand. make hints honest. make closure safe.

#uxdesign law: accot–zhai steering law people are slower & make more mistakes when they must steer a pointer/finger through long, narrow paths. long skinny corridors (sliders, hover cascades, tight drop zones) create friction. shorten paths. widen lanes. add guardrails.🧵 time grows with length ÷ width are drop zones only the visible box? add 8–16px of invisible padding. are tracks thinner than a fingertip? double them. are any drags longer than ~1–2 thumb lengths? switch to tap or snap. do: • big hit areas & “magnet” margins • snapping and tap-to-jump on sliders • hover close-delays + diagonal safe zones • align targets to edges/corners (ride the rail) • prefer click/step over long drags do submenus demand pixel-perfect straight lines? add tolerance + delay. avoid: • deep cascading hover menus • tiny tracks and micro drop zones • actions that require pixel-perfect steering make paths short and lanes chunky. no tightrope walking. make funnels, not hallways. wide lanes beat steady hands.

#uxdesign law: simon effect we react faster when signals appear where we expect to act. misplaced things cause friction and slower reactions. our brains crave spatial alignment and harmony. design so actions & results live in the same place 🧵 misaligned cues = friction aligned cues = flow practical cues: • keep “add” or “edit” buttons near the content they affect • align “next” on the right, “back” on the left • show feedback where action happens • maintain consistent button positions across screens preserve spatial relationships: actions appear close to what they affect. ever tried to close a pop-up and the “x” was on the left instead of the right? your brain hesitated, right? that’s the simon effect in action. your mental map didn’t match reality. good ux aligns what happens with where it happens. keep direction consistent: left means back, right means forward. reuse patterns: consistency across screens builds spatial muscle memory. avoid context jumps: don’t make the user’s eye travel to unrelated parts of the screen to see results. definition: faster & more accurate responses when action location matches expectation. implication: spatial mismatch increases cognitive load. strategy: design for spatial congruency; align triggers, actions, and feedback. align feedback with the source: animation, color change, or confirmation should appear at the same place as the trigger. make actions feel where they belong.

#uxdesign law: stroop effect our brains slow down and hesitate when design cues send mixed messages. “cancel” shouldn’t be green a “back” arrow shouldn’t point right a “delete” icon shouldn’t look friendly conflicting signals = cognitive friction 🧵 stroop effect isn’t about aesthetics. it’s about cognitive harmony. your goal is to make the user’s first impression match their intended action without friction or doubt. clarity = confidence = speed imagine a traffic light that’s red but labeled “go.” you’d hesitate, maybe even question your instincts that’s exactly what happens when a ui sends mixed cues definition: conflicting cues cause delay implication: inconsistency creates friction strategy: align every signal toward one clear intent to design with clarity: → align visuals with meaning (color, icon, label) → keep consistency across screens → test for hesitation, confusion hides in microseconds clarity is speed. consistency is trust.

@Abmankendrick i love b. the dark and progressive gradient+blur solve most of the readability issue others mentioned. it just feels way better than the other one while not compromising the usability much.

every single interaction that a customer has with your product and your company will either add or subtract from the customer’s respect and impression of you and your brand.

jony ive: “i remember a conversation in which we talked about how do we define our metrics for feeling that we have really succeeded. we both agreed clearly, it is not about share price. is it about the number of computers we sell? no. it all came back to whether we felt really proud of what we collectively had designed and built. were we proud of that?”

#uxdesign law: campbell’s law when a metric becomes a target, it stops being a good metric. when a measure becomes the goal, it corrupts the process it was meant to improve. metrics should inform, not dictate. good design serves people, not percentages 🧵 • design for genuine outcomes, not for inflated dashboards. in ux, this happens when teams chase metrics instead of meaning, optimizing for clicks, signups, or retention instead of clarity, trust, or delight. • reward long-term satisfaction, not short-term spikes. • humanize data: every metric hides a person. instead of “retention rate dropped 5%,” think “users didn’t find enough value to return.” empathy keeps data honest. • mix metrics (quantitative) with meaning (qualitative) • reward the right behavior align incentives with user value. if teams are judged on engagement, they’ll chase clicks. if judged on satisfaction, they’ll design for meaning. • combine quantitative + qualitative metrics tell you what happens, not why. balance analytics with interviews, feedback, and observation. numbers show friction; stories reveal causes. • beware of optimization loops: constant a/b testing without context leads to short-term wins but long-term erosion of trust. don’t let metrics become gods; treat them as guides. • design for outcomes, not metrics if your north star is “increase click-through rate,” you might end up using dark patterns. instead, define human outcomes like “help users find what they need faster.” metrics should reflect success, not drive behavior. definition: when metrics become targets, they get distorted implication: chasing numbers warps behavior and user trust strategy: focus on genuine value → let the metrics follow every metric hides a story. when we forget that, we design for dashboards instead of people. don’t design to move numbers. design to move minds.

his obsessive commitment to create products of style, practicality and great consumer appeal; and his reliance on gut instinct rather than consumer research; and the restless obsession and invention he brought to the company he founded. steve jobs on edvin land steve admires him it’s like steve describes himself.

noted: shipping is designing, coding, QAing, story-telling, teaching, marketing, selling, pivoting, iterating…

#uxdesign law: zeigarnik effect users remember unfinished tasks better than completed ones. our brains crave closure. when sth's left unfinished, a kind of mental "open loop" stays active until it's resolved. that tension drives motivation and attention 🧵 leverage it in design: - show progress: bars, checklists, steps - start with small artificial progress: "30% done" - use gentle reminders: "complete your setup" - tease unfinished content: "continue reading..." general ux guideline: → design with open loops that invite completion → visualize progress to sustain motivation → remind users of what's left to do → close loops with reward or relief keep users itching for closure. open loops create engagement. closure creates satisfaction. definition: incomplete tasks stay in memory longer implication: tension drives motivation strategy: create visible open loops that invite completion

#uxdesign law: von restorff effect users are drawn to what breaks the pattern. our brains are wired to notice contrast in color, shape, motion, size, or placement. difference → attention → memory → action but if everything stands out, nothing stands out 🧵 highlight only what truly matters. the key action, alert, or focal message. use contrast in color, weight, motion, or placement to create intentional standout moments. accessibility awareness: don’t rely on color alone; pair visual distinction with iconography, shape, or label changes so users with visual impairments can still perceive hierarchy limit emphasis to one or two key elements per screen (e.g. the primary call-to-action or the current step in a flow) contextual alignment: make sure the distinct element matches the context: - an alert should “feel” urgent - a success state should “feel” rewarding contrast without purpose creates confusion. cta buttons: highlight the primary action with strong contrast and clear affordance. empty states: make the “start now” button visually distinct to invite first action. pricing tables: emphasize the “recommended” or “most popular” plan by color, scale, or card elevation motion & timing: subtle motion (like a pulse, bounce, or fade-in) can guide attention naturally, but use it sparingly. too much motion desensitizes attention. make what matters different. make difference meaningful. definition: distinct elements are more memorable. implication: use difference to guide attention and recall. strategy: contrast with intention, not decoration.

design is how it works. it’s not enough for design to be aesthetically pleasing. shallow beauty in products doesn’t serve people. product design should strive for depth. for a beauty rooted in what a product does; not merely in how it looks & feels. form should follow function. objects should explain themselves.

google factored out taste from its design process while apple relied on steve’s personal taste.

steve jobs provided his single minded focus on making great products and his vision motivated.

#uxdesign law: tesler’s law every product has a fixed amount of complexity; you can’t delete it, only decide who deals with it. bad ux pushes complexity onto users. great ux absorbs it behind the scenes. simplicity is not free; someone always pays for it 🧵 designers and engineers must carry the cognitive load so users don’t have to. simplicity isn’t the absence of complexity; it’s the management of it. great design hides the hard parts so the user never feels them. don’t oversimplify: stripping away too much can make interfaces abstract or confusing. remove friction, not meaning. decide where complexity lives: every feature or interaction has unavoidable complexity. choose to handle it behind the scenes instead of forcing users to. embrace invisible work: invest engineering effort in automation, smart defaults, and context awareness, so users don’t have to make unnecessary decisions. design for progressive disclosure: show only what’s needed when it’s needed. reveal deeper complexity gradually. front-load intelligence: detect context, remember preferences, predict likely actions balance power and simplicity: advanced users often want more control; give them depth without overwhelming beginners. 1. complexity can’t be removed, only shifted between the system & the user. 2. if the team doesn’t absorb it, the user pays, through confusion, errors & drop-offs. 3. shift complexity into the product: smart defaults, automation, progressive disclosure & clear error handling.

#uxdesign law: serial position effect a cognitive bias where we recall & value what we encounter first & last in a sequence it influences: • how we perceive info hierarchy & what we remember from a product • where we click/act • how we feel at the end of an experience 🧵 what’s first shapes perception, and what’s last shapes emotion. it combines two sub-effects: • primacy effect: items at the beginning are stored in long-term memory because they’re processed first. • recency effect: items at the end are stored in short-term memory because they’re still active in working memory. start and end lists with high-value or actionable items place secondary or routine details in the middle use visual weight (color, contrast, motion) to emphasize these edge items in dashboards or summaries, show “Today’s Top Insight” first and “Reflection/Next Step” last example: a settings menu could begin with “profile & notifications” and end with “log out”; both high-relevance options in navigation bars, anchor high-priority destinations (like “home,” “inbox,” or “profile”) to the edges position primary CTAs (e.g., “save,” “continue,” “submit”) at the start or end of the interface layout, not the middle for long navigation menus, group less critical links in the middle start with your “aha” moment, the product’s core benefit, not a feature tour example: bottom navigation tabs, “home” on the far left, “profile” on the far right end onboarding with a reward, progress milestone, or simple CTA (“you’re all set! let’s go.”) create a memorable experience: • open with clarity: what the product does, what to expect • end with emotion: achievement, reward, delight

#uxdesign law: peak-end rule users don’t remember the sum of an experience; they remember how it felt at its best (the “peak”) and how it ended think of each interaction as a mini movie: onboarding → learning curve → first “aha” → routine use → completion satisfaction design, so the “aha” moment (the peak) and the “you’re done” moment (the end) are the most emotionally charged and visually polished. start with clarity → create a mini win → end with delight you want users to leave every session with a sense of closure, control, or progress - progress bar for start to completion - add a small dopamine trigger: animation, tone, sound, subtle vibration, or micro-copy when the user completes their task

#design obsession is rare. an obsessed design means the product: - is delightful to look at & work with - motivates you to act & accomplish - rewards you for action: progress, status - does the hard work, lets you contribute - minimizes your choices & decisions be obsessed.

working obsessively till he had a solution that was insanely great, is what steve was about.

delete, delight, simplify.

#uxdesign -> postel’s law design resilient systems that anticipate & handle user imperfection gracefully - be flexible: handle variable input - anticipate mistakes - consistent, predictable output - robust feedback loops the more we anticipate, the more resilient the design 🧵 • users make mistakes → your interface should forgive and interpret • systems should output clean, predictable, standard data and responses • empathy + error tolerance = robustness and trust accept multiple input formats and normalize them internally • example: date fields → allow “10/19/25”, “Oct 19 2025”, or “19.10.2025” • example: phone numbers → accept “0049…”, “+49…”, “(0)…”, and auto-format to standard anticipate variability and reduce effort • infer intent from partial input: • “Munic” → “Munich, Germany” • “tmrw” → “Tomorrow” • suggest next logical actions (predictive ux) • prefill or auto-detect context when possible anticipate anything in terms of input, access & capability: • support keyboard navigation, screen readers, and reduced motion • make sure the app works under poor network, low light, or offline conditions • test with edge cases: large text, slow input, older devices • always return data in a consistent format to users and other systems • avoid surprises in responses (both visually and technically) • standardize error messages, success confirmations, and state changes feedback should clarify what’s accepted and what’s not: • when user input fails, explain why and how to fix it • when system acts, show progress or confirmation your frontend may accept flexible input, but backend should always output standardized, validated data: • translate messy input → clean internal schema. example: user types “tomorrow 5” → backend stores 2025-10-20T17:00:00Z ensures your ux performs under real-world messiness: • test with weird user behavior: partial inputs, fast taps, double clicks, network interruptions • perform chaos testing for ui flows, simulate errors & degraded conditions • conduct usability tests with diverse users

#uxdesign law: parkingson’s law reduce the time to complete a task. implement: - defaults - autofill forms - autonomous agents - reduce options/choices - remembering user’s last choices - reduce decisions user have to make - reduce amount of information user sees create artificial short deadlines. any task will inflate till all available time is spent. nothing ever gets done if there is no deadline.

#uxdesign law: pareto principle for many products, roughly 80% of the benefit come from 20% of the features. inputs and outputs are often not evenly distributed. identify and focus the majority of the effort on the areas that will bring the largest benefits to the most users. a large group often contain only a few meaningful contributors that lead to the desired outcome.

#uxdesign law: occam’s razor keep it simple. keep deleting without compromising the main function till no additional items can be removed.

best products that delight me: - iphone, apple watch, macbook air - apple notes app, chatgpt, claude code - standing desk, walking pad, bookshelf - nonfiction books, podcasts, youtube, x - car: black mazda cx-60 plugin hybrid - semi-manual coffee machine these are some of the products that are built with extreme care, with obsession, with passion, with taste. you can feel the creator’s love, elegance, and thoughtfulness. these products were built first and foremost for the benefit of their creators. they were the first true fan, the first audience, the first user, the first judge. they imagined a better version of the world, and then pursued their vision fanatically and lead the world to their way of doing things. the world as we know is made by such designers/engineers/builders/innovators.

#uxdesign laws: elements with proximity, similarly, continuity, closure & connectedness are interpreted/perceived as related. use distance, border, color, size, shape, orientation, movement, background, connected lines, arrows or frames to group elements & create relationships. related elements are perceived to share similar functionality or traits. relatedness helps users quickly and effectively understand and organize information.

#uxdesign law number 4: goal-gradient effect a sense of progress motivates users to complete tasks. the closer you feel you are to completing a task, the faster you work towards reaching it. providing a clear indication of progress (even artificial) towards a goal acts as a motivation for users to complete that task. tendency to reach a goal increases with proximity to the goal.

#uxdesign law number 5: hick’s law for faster decision making reduce the number and complexity of choices. - minimize choices -> less decision time - break complex tasks into smaller steps - provide recommendations to avoid overwhelm - use progressive onboarding to minimize cognitive load - don’t simplify to the point of abstraction

#uxdesign law number 6: jakob’s law try not to reinvent totally new experiences that make users learn new models instead of focusing on their tasks. leverage existing models of how things work that people are already familiar with. almost all new fails. build on what’s already proven. then add sth undeniably good to it. and lastly add sth new that may work. users transfer the expectations they have built around one familiar product to another that appears similar. don’t violate their expectations, much.

#ux law number 2: doherty threahold adjust system feedback time to around 400 ms to keep users’ attention🧵 purposefully adding a delay to a process can increase its perceived value and instill a sense of trust, even when the process itself takes much less time. use animation and progress bars to visually engage people while loading or processing to make wait times tolerable regardless of their accuracy.

#ux law number 3: fitts’ law touch targets should: be large enough, have ample spacing between them, be placed in positions for easy access, for users to accurately & easily select🧵 the convention of making interactive buttons large especially for mobile devices comes from this law. fast movements and small targets result in greater error rates due to the speed-accuracy trade-off. smaller buttons are more difficult and time consuming to click. the distance between a user’s task/attention area and task-related button should be kept as short as possible.

we didn’t build mac for anybody else. we built it for ourselves. we were the group of people who is going to judge whether it was great or not. we weren’t going to go out and do market research. we just wanted to build the best thing we could build. -sj

the definition of quality for a smart email client: 1. immediate clarity: you instantly see what’s important to do and what’s worth knowing effortlessly, without digging. 2. zero clutter: noise is reduced to zero, eliminating information overload and task overwhelm. 3. minimized decisions: choices and options are intentionally limited to prevent decision fatigue and choice paralysis. 4. minimized time: the goal is to minimize time spent in the app, because no sane person wants to spend more time managing emails. 5. beautiful simplicity: great aesthetics and user experience achieved through limited, intentional interaction. keep improving 1% daily on these measures of quality for 8 months and you have a world beating product. something insanely great. cc: @mailoverai

the definition of quality for a smart email client: 1. immediate clarity: you instantly see what’s important to do and what’s worth knowing effortlessly, without digging. 2. zero clutter: noise is reduced to zero, eliminating information overload and task overwhelm. 3. minimized decisions: choices and options are intentionally limited to prevent decision fatigue and choice paralysis. 4. minimized time: the goal is to minimize time spent in the app, because no sane person wants to spend more time managing emails. 5. beautiful simplicity: great aesthetics and user experience achieved through limited, intentional interaction. 6. progressive intelligence: it learns from you and gets better the more you interact with it. keep improving 1% daily on these measures of quality for 8 months and you have a world beating product. something insanely great. cc: @mailoverai

the definition of quality for a smart email client: 1. immediate clarity: you instantly see what’s important to do and what’s worth knowing effortlessly, without digging. 2. zero clutter: noise is reduced to zero, eliminating information overload and task overwhelm. 3. minimized decisions: choices and options are intentionally limited to prevent decision fatigue and choice paralysis. 4. minimized time: the goal is to minimize time spent in the app, because no sane person wants to spend more time managing emails. 5. beautiful simplicity: great aesthetics and user experience achieved through limited, intentional interaction. 6. progressive intelligence: it learns from you and gets better the more you interact with it. keep improving 1% daily on these measures of quality for 8 months and you have a world beating product. 10x better than already existing ones. something insanely great. cc: @mailoverai

product strategy: start with what’s proven. add what’s undeniably better. then add sth new that might work. does it feel better now? repeat.

today’s learnings: ux design: - 400 ms is ideal system feedback time - related buttons to a task must be in a short distance, easy to touch storytelling: - stories: goals and obstacles - identifiable stories persuade: people-like-us do things, behave, and think like this

#ux law number 1: aesthetic-usability effect: better aesthetics leads to better impression which then leads to favorable judgement of how good you are follow one focal point per screen, don’t make the user decide what matters. respect white space, it’s the silence between notes. make it simple, but significant. - easy to understand, visually calm, frictionless. - memorable, emotional, purpose-driven.

design. engineering. storytelling. the ultimate innovator’s skill set.

a pretty package will not sell a poor product.

thinking about premium consumer apps. for example: a premium gmail app would do anything to make you spend less time with emails. a premium whatsapp would make you less reachable, not 24/7 open door policy. a premium instagram would let you include or exclude topics to see.

tech that will: restore your focus. defend your attention. filter what distracts you. reduce what reaches you. fight noise in communications. don’t optimize for clicks/engagement. optimize for clarity, signal, and control.

what is an inbox? an infinite list of items. that sounds like a horrible ux concept. yet 50 years into invention of email, that’s what billions of people need to deal with. inbox is an obsolete concept and needs to go. cc: @mailoverai

a great place to start is by improving a product you hate. if you can make something you love, you can convince other…

1,000 true fans starts with fan #1: you. are you a fan of your own work? build sth you use yourself. share sth you love yourself. sell sth you pay for yourself.

you may have to throw things away and redo them. have the confidence to cut. do not keep something that doesn’t fit just because you’re proud of it, or because it cost you a lot of effort. in some kinds of work it’s good to strip whatever you’re doing to its essence. -pg

easy to add hard to delete adding feels like a win deleting feels like a loss adding is intuitive deleting is counterintuitive adding feeds desire deleting feeds clarity adding seems conservative deleting seems careless adding looks like working deleting looks like wasting

@ShaneAParrish adding feels like a win deleting feels like a loss adding is intuitive deleting is counterintuitive adding feeds desire deleting feeds clarity adding seems conservative deleting seems careless adding looks like working deleting looks like wasting

a great place to start is by improving a product you hate. if you can make something you love, you can convince other people to love it too.

no more ideas to improve your product in a meaningful way? hire a paid critic. ideally someone that is a champion of your product but is a bold critic because doesn’t think your product is good enough.

simple requires deleting but if not done right, it will be worse than complex. example: Tesla removing the turning indicator and making it two button instead. the problem you face is that if you turn the steering wheel you immediately get confused as of which button you should push now!

logical solution: make elevator faster psychological solution: add floor to ceiling mirrors so people are distracted staring at themselves and forget how long they were on the elevator

a novice is easily spotted because he does too much too many ingredients unnecessary movements too much explanation but the master strips things down to essentials he will question and delete

obsessive impractical product-driven enthusiasts build the great products we love cars shops phones appliances

if you think about the greatest products, they've almost always been designed for the benefit of the people who are actually building them. -es

good taste is rare in tech, even with lots of money you often can’t buy it simplicity is hard to maintain in software, because it’s cheap to add one more thing so maintaining simplicity and good taste can become a moat

@andrewchen let me see if i got it right: reinvent the core interaction with a 20% remix (which wasn’t possible before) in way that makes you (the creator) abandon the old product because the new remixed version improves the experience such that it’s hard to go back to the previous state

@andrewchen let me see if i got it right: reinvent the core interaction with a 20% remix (which wasn’t possible before)…

how do you get to great retention? the idea really matters. - if you want a high retention product, you need to pick a category that is high retention already. - you need to pick a product category where you already use an existing product every day. - you're going to build something that directly competes against that. - if you win, then you'll stop using that other product and use your product instead. you might suitably object: "that's going to be really hard to switch somebody over." it is. so then this is where you need to decide to take enough market risk, but just the appropriate amount, where you do something new and different that reinvents that core interaction. but you're probably talking more about a 20% remix rather than an 80%. ideally, you need to be able to describe this to your users in a way that they can understand quickly and viscerally within the first 60 seconds of usage.

maintaining simplicity can be a moat. people pay a premium for fewer buttons, fewer options, and a cleaner design. it requires ruthless focus. saying “no” far more than “yes”. the discipline to resist customer/market pressure to add just one more thing that discipline itself becomes the moat

maintaining simplicity can be a moat. people pay a premium for fewer buttons, fewer options, and a cleaner design. it requires ruthless focus. saying “no” far more than “yes”. the discipline to resist customer/market pressure to add just one more thing that discipline itself becomes the moat we have the example of steve jobs turning simplicity into luxury

a remarkable customer experience starts with heart intuition curiosity play guts taste you’ll not find any of it in a survey -jb

you want to deliver to the world what you would buy if you were on the other end

most people don’t want flexibility (even though they say they do). they want conviction. they want to open something & feel led. to be told… this is how it works. to sense that behind the screen is a person who knows. because life is already a constant torrent of decisions. endless tabs. too many options. swipe left, swipe right, optimize your existence until you forget why you’re living it. so when someone finally builds something with opinion, something sharp, clear, intentional, it’s a relief. like stepping out of the noise & into a place that knows what it is. your job as a builder isn’t to please everyone. it’s to make choices. to take a stand. to lead. that’s why people pay you. not to get another configurable settings panel, but to feel something. great products don’t come from consensus. they come from taste. the courage to say: this is what we believe. this is how it should be. stop hiding behind the user. stop pretending research is leadership. build what you know the world needs. then stand by it. you’re not here to be liked. you’re here to lead. ———- if I didn’t know the author of this piece of writing (this version is modified a bit) I would think this is steve jobs words.

remove friction, obstacle, noise, unease, or fear … and you will be rewarded

if delta of efficiency between before versus after using a product is bigger than 4-5/10 people start shouting at each other to move from inefficient state (not using the product) to the efficient state (using the product) example: inefficient (2/10) -> buying metro tickets at metro stations by standing in a long queue efficient (9/10) -> buying metro tickets online by filling a form delta = 9 - 2 = 7 conclusion: the product idea is likely a good one —- learned this mental model from a @kunalb11 talk some years ago still think about it when evaluating product ideas

simplicity takes genius

make something with a great deal of care and love from the product that you are making to the company that you are building it will be obvious that you actually cared

enzo ferrari would describe his products the way you would describe your lover

the vas majority of the people who will visit your site will be casual visitors. it’s them, you have to design your website for. the people who really care, will find what they want by themselves.

design ability is so hard to measure that you can't even trust the design world's internal standards. you can't assume that someone with a degree in design is any good at design, or that an eminent designer is any better than his peers. if that worked, any company could build products as good as Apple's just by hiring sufficiently qualified designers.

@ralabs_ I think so too. Design is also how it works, not just how it looks.

for building great products you have to do only two things: 1- make every single detail perfect 2- limit the number of details this is perfection through subtraction. perfection is achieved, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away

Focused products win. Focus is constant subtraction of noise. One screen. One button. One main action. What you remove is more important than what you add.

Two interesting points: “I built a thing that first and foremost was useful for myself” “That’s generally how I approach building products: start with a simple thing first” That’s a common pattern among many iconic products, like Apple I, Gmail, Facebook, Slack, Airbnb, and Twitter, which started as simple solutions to their creators’ own problems before becoming mass-market hits.

GOOD communications and GOOD user experiences are so rare that when someone like Steve Jobs does it well, the whole world notices

“List 20 flaws in your product right now and fix one every day… in a 100 days that product might be much much better; in a 1000 days that might be transcendent!” Brilliant idea! I am doing it for the last 6 weeks and the result is grazie…

“List 20 flaws in your product right now and fix one every day… in a 100 days that product might be much much better; in a 1000 days that might be transcendent!” Brilliant idea! I am doing it for the last 6 weeks and the result is grazie… I’m fixing more than 5 daily 10 star experience is truly game changing

Improving user satisfaction is hard. Do that first and improving number of users will be way easier.

- You talk to users to understand their challenges - You distill these discussions and ideate concrete goals to alleviate those challenges - You plan ways to build those goals - You share those plans with colleagues - You test and verify that the result matches your plans and achieves your original goals Structured communication is the bottleneck for building. Knowing what to build, talking to people, gathering requirements, knowing how to build it, knowing why to build it, and ultimately knowing if it has been built correctly and has achieved the intentions that you set out with. Talk-> Understand-> Distill -> Ideate -> Plan -> Share -> Translate -> Test -> Verify The person who communicates best becomes the programmer. If you can communicate, you can program.

Users want decisions made for them when using a product. There are exceptions of course.

@chamath I read your full text and didn’t get what this is. That’s a bad sign for this product.

Airbnb founder Brian Chesky on how to design an amazing user experience “How do you make something for a million peop…

Product visionaries are very rare. Not sure if this is true? How many revolutionary products we started using after Steve Jobs died?

@ShaneAParrish It’s the same as all the doors with a sign on how to use the door: pull, push bad taste, bad design probably created by someone who has no clue about human psychology and no respect for design/art think opposite of Steve Jobs

simple is way harder than the complex you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple —sj i truly felt the truth of this statement while working on @mailover_app

It's even better when you're both a programmer and the target user, because then the cycle of generating new versions and testing them on users can happen inside one head.

seamless, elegant, pleasant. 10x better than the alternatives. That’s what I aim for when building a product. Because that’s what users deserve.

seamless, elegant, pleasant 10x better than the alternatives that’s what I aim for when building a product. because that’s what users deserve

seamless, elegant, pleasant 10x better than the alternatives that’s what I aim for when building a product because that’s what users deserve

Most internet products are built around the 7 Deadly Sins. They’re not built for productivity. They’re built for psychology. The 7 Sins: 🧵 1- Pride → Instagram — vanity metrics, status games 2- Greed → LinkedIn — “just one more opportunity” 3- Lust → Instagram, TikTok, Tinder — endless stimulation & pleasure 4- Envy → Instagram — curated lifestyles that make you compare 5- Gluttony (excess)→ Instagram, YouTube, Netflix — infinite consumption 6- Wrath (rage) → Twitter/X — outrage keeps you engaged 7- Sloth (Idleness) → Candy Crush — passive time sinks, infinite scrolling The wild part? These aren’t bugs. They’re features. They work because they mirror human nature. So if you’re building a product, ask: - Which human impulse am I tapping into? - And is it making people better… or just more addicted? And if you’re just using these platforms: - Know what you’re feeding. Not every appetite deserves a buffet. Credit goes to @reidhoffman that brought the topic to my attention.

It's not enough to have a firm grasp of the industry you're building in. If your product doesn’t speak to core human imp…

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev’s product philosophy: “One screen. One Button. One core action.” The first version of Robinh…

But the other issue with setting is if you select “Since Register” the months underneath doesn’t change. Only the boxes move. For example for me it shows my streaks in Jan 2024 even though I started using the app in Dec 2024. But I know you don’t wanna spend time on this app. For me these small misbehaviors will keep me awake at night when developing something new 🤣 The other thing I like to see is percentage of progress on a goal. For example right now it shows me 5/60 which makes me do a mental calculation for percentage. But I like see instead is “8% (5/60 hours)”

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt on what many of the greatest products have in common "If you think about the greatest…

@tillmusshoff The problem is I would almost never pay for a product I can’t try for free to see if it’s useful first.

@s4n_s6n ساختن محصول آسونه، ساختن محصولی که مردم بخوان سخته 😉. به خاطر همین بهتره محصولی بسازی که خودت میخوای. اینطوری مطمئنی که حداقل یه خواهان داره.

@IcyCortex @felixleezd @ADPList It’s focused on physical products and factory processes. But relevant points that would apply to tech products would be: 1. clarity the most important assumption and facts 2. question the imaginary constraints and assumptions 3. reduce/drop the unnecessary and complexity

Build for one person. I take this simple idea. And I take it very seriously as Charlie Munger famously advised.

I agree. Taste matters in technology. More than ever. I recently went through 32 designer portfolios that applied for redesigning a personal project of mine. The only thing that I was looking for was taste… and I found only one or two designers with different work.