Insights Into the Design Process

Every healthcare design project is unique, but great processes always start with the same foundation: asking questions that reveal what really matters. Here some the questions that guide my work: Understanding the Human Experience Who experiences the most vulnerability in this space? Patients are the obvious answer, but sometimes it's family members hearing difficult news, or staff managing emotional labor hour after hour. Understanding who carries the greatest burden shapes every design decision. What's the hardest conversation that will happen here? If we can design for the worst moment - the devastating diagnosis, the end-of-life discussion, the treatment failure - the space will support all the other moments too. What does someone lose by being here? Control? Privacy? Time with family? Understanding what people sacrifice to be in healthcare helps us design spaces that return dignity wherever possible. Uncovering the Real Workflow What happens in this space that's not in the program? The informal conversations, the moments of teaching, the emotional support between colleagues - these unscripted interactions often matter most. Where do workarounds happen? When staff create their own solutions, they're telling you what the design failed to provide. These workarounds are goldmines of insight. What would make someone's worst day slightly better? Not fix it - just make it more bearable and perhaps hopeful. Sometimes that's a place to cry privately, or a chair positioned to watch for a loved one's return. Challenging Assumptions Who decided this is how it should work? Often the answer is "that's how we've always done it" rather than evidence or user research. This question opens space for innovation. What competing needs exist in this space? The patient who needs quiet versus the family who needs to talk. The staff who need efficiency versus the patient who needs time. Good design doesn't eliminate these tensions - it acknowledges and manages them. Thinking Systemically What happens right before and right after this space? Healthcare is a journey, not isolated moments. Understanding the transitions reveals where design can reduce friction or anxiety. Who isn't in the room when we're planning this? The night shift staff, the patients with cognitive challenges, the families who don't speak English fluently. Their absence from planning doesn't mean they won't use the space. What will break or change first? Every design has vulnerabilities. Identifying them early means we can design for resilience rather than discovering problems after construction. The Question Behind the Questions Ultimately, all these questions point to one fundamental inquiry: How do we create spaces that honor both clinical excellence and human dignity during life's most challenging moments? The answers are never simple, and they're always specific to context. But asking the right questions ensures we're solving the right problems.

𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 This design, with its captivating blend of imagery and text, is a powerful example of visual storytelling. Here’s how the creative process likely unfolded, broken down into clear, easy steps: 1. Conceptualizing the Theme Every design starts with a theme. In this case, the theme revolves around beauty and perception. The quote chosen—"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it"—sets a reflective, thought-provoking tone. 2. Choosing the Color Palette The designer opted for a high-contrast palette: - Black & white: Evokes elegance and timelessness. - Red accent: The bold red draws attention and signifies passion, strength, and beauty. This limited palette ensures focus remains on the central message. 3. Typography Choices The design features: - Bold, capitalized sans-serif font for the quote: This style enhances legibility and adds a modern, assertive feel. - Script font for the word "Design": The elegant, flowing script softens the bold typography and adds an artistic touch, balancing the overall look. 4. Balancing Imagery with Text - Portrait Placement: The face, half-hidden, symbolizes unseen beauty and creates a sense of mystery. - Red Overlay: The red rectangle adds depth and creates a focal point over the portrait. - Circle Element: The red circle overlays the text to guide the eye and highlight critical parts of the message. 5. Alignment and Layout The vertical alignment of the word "QUOTES" and the division of space between the left portrait and right text keep the composition clean and organized. The asymmetry adds visual interest while ensuring balance. 6. Final Touches Minor adjustments—opacity tweaks, shadows, or blending—would be applied to harmonize the elements and avoid visual clutter. Takeaway The design captures attention with its bold minimalism and thoughtful composition. It’s a perfect example of how intentional color, typography, and layout can create visual impact while delivering a meaningful message. Would love to hear your thoughts or questions on the process!

⏰ Design Is Taking Too Long. When Can We Ship? (https://lnkd.in/eGeqRxd2), a very thoughtful overview of how to communicate and defend design process, and how to manage situations when you are expected to deliver faster — by visualizing your work and focusing on primary user benefits first. Neatly put together by Pavel Samsonov. 🤔 Final design hides the complexity of the work behind it. ✅ Design is hard to measure unless you focus on deliverables. ✅ So stakeholders track value in UX deliverables, not process. ✅ More final deliverables arrive faster → faster production time. 🚫 But value of design lies in the quality of the process behind it. ✅ Business value comes from user value, not the other way. ✅ Frame your design process as a way to maximize user value. ✅ Never present deliverables as “finished”: emphasize testing. ✅ Suggest uninterrupted times for hands-down design work. 🚫 No productivity optimization can automate user value. 🚫 There is no “later” phase to patch broken design work. ✅ Suggest to shift priorities or reduce the overall scope. ✅ Calibrate expectations: show what’s needed to be ready. ✅ Visualize the complexity of UX work with event storming. ✅ Report progress proactively: 2-mins videos, once a week. The most impactful ways to explain why design takes time is to visualize it. Not as abstract Double-Diamond or Triple-Diamond diagrams, but as messy, real-world sticky notes on a huge Miro or Figjam board (attached in the comments) — with all the pieces of work needed to get to final deliverables. As designers, we often get defensive, not showing the work until we feel that it’s in a good shape. But personally, I found it remarkably helpful to show design progress to stakeholders early and repeatedly. But: I would never ask for a personal opinion on design, but if they think it actually helps deliver user value. Design is all about well-orchestrated feedback loops. For different audiences — from customers and designers to developers and stakeholders. Cutting corners breaks these feedback loops. The result is poor inputs that lead to poor outcomes — often reversible, but sometimes damaging for years to come. Most importantly: calibrate expectations. We don’t know how our stakeholders work, so we shouldn’t expect that they know and understand design process. The more sincere and vulnerable you are, the more likely you are to get understanding and support, rather than fast turnaround requests. --- ✤ Useful resources: How To Increase Heads-Down Time To Design, by Steve Won (원성준) https://lnkd.in/ewVnxwNb How Can You Find Time To Design?, by José Torre https://lnkd.in/dJrUfUEz Product Design: Too Much Work, Too Little Time, by Tess Gadd https://lnkd.in/e9RFYuCf [continues in comments]

Are you getting the right insights from your design process? Wireframe ≠ mockup ≠ prototype. And if you're mixing them up... You're not just betraying your lack of design understanding. You're committing an even more insidious mistake: you're not getting the right type of insights. Here's what you need to understand about their different: 1. Frequency of use 2. Core purpose 3. Ideal creator 4. Level of effort 5. Quality of insights — WIREFRAMES Wireframes range from low-fidelity to high, but generally are a step below a mockup. They: 1. Should be used frequently 2. Are great for alignment and early feedback 3. May be created by PMs lo-fi ("sketches"), but otherwise are by designers 4. Are relatively low effort 5. Generate mid insights The reality is: a whole lot happens in between a wireframe and a functioning product. So, using them for evaluative research and calling it a day is a mistake. They are good for "low effort, quick insights." — MOCKUPS Mockups are static designs that show what the product will look like, but without any working interactions. They: 1. Should be used often 2. Are ideal for visual feedback and detailed feedback 3. Should be created by experts in design: designers, not PMs 4. Require more effort than wireframes 5. But generate higher quality insights They're useful for getting stakeholder buy-in on the visual direction, but don't confuse them for the real thing. If you really want to harness the power of evaluative research, you haven't gotten to the promise land yet. They're for "mid effort, mid insights." — PROTOTYPES Prototypes are interactive and can range from simple click-throughs to fully functional. They: 1. Should be used occasionally, for big features 2. Are great for user testing and identifying issues before dev 3. Are created by designers, sometimes also with a developer 4. Require significant effort - both to build and maintain 5. Generate very high quality insights However, jumping into a prototype before a mockup can lead to premature judgments on design elements. They excel in usability testing scenarios, providing invaluable insights into user behavior and preferences. They're for "high effort, awesome insights" — Don't let sloppy terminology derail your design process. Use the right tool at the right time. A lot of design stakeholders misuse these terms at the expense of good product work. It's worth learning when to use what.

Over the past few years, I have worked with multiple designers, reviewed over 100 portfolios, and been involved in hiring designers at different levels. And there’s a pattern I’ve noticed in UX case studies and portfolios in general. They almost all look the same. Most designers follow the same formula: Research > Definition > Ideation > Design > Testing (I’m keeping this broad, but you get the idea). And that’s exactly what makes everything feel generic, like a template! It’s as if everyone is copying the same structure and just editing it to fit their own product/project. But things don't work like that in real life! Since 2022, I’ve been telling my students that design is not a linear process. It’s not always Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 in a perfect order. In reality, it’s messy. You might jump from Step 1 to Step 4 or from Step 5 back to Step 2. It’s unpredictable. Trying to force it into a predefined formula strips away the uniqueness of your work. I personally believe that Teams, projects, constraints and circumstances surrounding each body of work is different and that is why each project is unique in it’s own way. So why try fitting it into a structure that is not really made for? Many of us were taught these frameworks in bootcamps, and now we feel like if our work doesn’t fit neatly into that structure, we haven’t done what it takes to be a great designer. But the truth is, the best designers don’t just follow the process; they adapt it. So here’s what you should do in your next case study: 👉🏽 Focus on the Problem, Not Just the Process 👉🏽 Tell a Story, Not Just a Step-by-Step Breakdown 👉🏽 Show Your Decision-Making, Not Just the Outcome 👉🏽 Tie It Back to Business & User Impact Many designers stop at “Here’s my final design.” But what happened after that? Did engagement increase? Did it solve a real user pain point? If you don’t have data, you can still talk about expected impact or learnings from testing. A strong case study connects design decisions to business and user outcomes. Some final thoughts: Your case study isn’t just about showing “perfect” design work; it’s about showing how you think, adapt, and solve problems in real-world situations. I hope this helped someone. Have a productive day! Samuel Lasisi 📸 My daughter looking at Paul Kelly's design on Behance (He has one of the most interesting brand design portfolios I have seen) #design #uxui #uiux #uxdesign #linkedin

In a world obsessed with shortcuts, templates, and AI-generated designs, hand sketching still holds unmatched power. Every strong logo you see today once started as a rough idea on paper — imperfect lines, erased curves, and constant iteration. These sketches remind us that design is not decoration; it’s problem-solving. When you sketch, you think slower — and that’s a good thing. You explore proportions, balance, rhythm, and negative space without distractions. The grid, the construction lines, the shading — they all tell a story of intentional decision-making. This process builds clarity long before colors and effects enter the scene. Notice how each wordmark here has a personality: Some feel playful. Some feel bold and industrial. Some feel organic and fluid. That doesn’t happen by accident. It comes from understanding brand emotion, not just aesthetics. Clients often ask for “something creative.” What they really want is something meaningful — a logo that communicates trust, character, and purpose at a glance. And that clarity comes from groundwork, not filters. In my experience, the best designs are born when we respect the process: ✏️ Think before you design ✏️ Sketch before you finalize ✏️ Build before you beautify Digital tools are powerful, but they should enhance thinking — not replace it. If you’re a designer, don’t skip the basics. If you’re a brand owner, value the process behind the result. Because great branding isn’t about looking good today it’s about making sense for years to come. Design starts with a pencil, but it succeeds with purpose.

Design synthesis is the combination of sense-making (analytical - design research) and proposal-making (generative - design abduction) skills. Although sense- and proposal-making skills are somewhat opposites, they work together to deal with uncertainty and make design decisions that lead to iteratively reframing the situation and the formal proposal (i.e., product, experience, strategy, etc.). One way to understand these skills is to map them out in the design process, as they tend to be used unevenly at different times and different projects. In the first part of the design process, sense-making might be more intense to understand the design situation (i.e., aims, stakeholders, context, factors), but later, it is also relevant if the situation is reframed or if designers are evaluating ideas or prototypes. Typically, sense-making begins more open-ended, using in-depth and qualitative methods and more resources, and ends more specific, using practical quantitative or mixed methods. In the last part of the design process, proposal-making might be more intense as the process matures and designers are getting ready to make a formal proposal (i.e., deliver, ship, deploy), but it is also relevant at the beginning to explore longer-term future possibilities and support potential reframing of the situation. Typically, proposal-making begins more exploratory, with rough ideas and low-fidelity models, and ends more specific, with refined ideas and high-fidelity models.

WHO'S DOING THE THINKING? If your first idea already looks presentation-ready, something important has been skipped. Over-polished work at the beginning is not a sign of mastery. It’s usually a sign of premature certainty, or worse, BORROWED confidence. The software or Pinterest is doing the thinking, and the designer is presenting the result as inevitability. I hesitate and often contradict myself. But, I find that when clarity arrives too early it is not insight. It’s compliance. This is why so much contemporary design feels frictionless and empty. Smooth concepts glide past resistance. RENDERINGS arrive before QUESTIONS. The work looks resolved because it has never been challenged. My doodles are the visible trace of my negotiation with intention, constraint, history, and material reality. Skip that stage, and all you are left with is a polished shell pretending to be an idea. If your process doesn’t look slightly embarrassing in the middle, you probably weren’t thinking.

Engineering Velocity: Reflections on Designing and Building Automotive Body Dies with Minimum Time and Cost After decades in tool engineering, I’ve learned that reducing die lead time comes from eliminating unpredictability across the classic workflow Design, Simulation, Machining, Assembly, and Tryout. When these stages act as a continuous process rather than isolated steps, both time and cost fall naturally. In design, stabilized geometry, controlled radii, and simplified addendum build the foundation for predictable forming. Excessive beads and over-correction might seem safe, but they usually turn into machining hours and extended tryout loops. In simulation, accuracy depends on disciplined inputs material curves, friction, binder pressure. A closed-loop cycle, where compensation updates flow directly into CAD and NC programming, prevents fragmentation and brings the die closer to its real forming behavior before steel is cut. During machining, multi-stage strategies and CAD-driven toolpaths tighten accuracy and cut rework. When the compensated model drives NC directly, machining becomes execution rather than interpretation. In assembly, modular interfaces standardized shoes, pillars, and pockets—reduce adjustment time and make the die’s mechanical behavior more predictable in spotting. Finally, tryout confirms the truth of every upstream decision. Press dynamics and material variability still require refinement, but when the digital preparation is coherent, tryout becomes calibration rather than rescue. Real reductions in time and cost come not from shortcuts, but from continuity when design, simulation, machining, assembly, and tryout reinforce one another with technical discipline and practical insight.

Design is change. When I started leading design in the early 2000s, the focus was mostly on guiding teams through each process step. Since many people didn’t have much design experience, the goal was to move the team through stages of change. Empathy, check.  Wireframing, check. It was a form of creative negotiation. As mobile apps and responsive design became more popular, the approach shifted back to specialization. We began creating systems and organizing workflows to incorporate the components needed to build websites or provide services.  We were fortunate to play a role in this growth phase with Foundation, the most advanced front-end framework at the time. It was an exciting journey. As large companies began developing their frameworks, many of these ideas became widely adopted, ultimately improving user experiences for everyone. We’re now moving into a new phase of design. One that I’m excited about. Many teams that have created design systems and built design organizations have discovered that more than a structured process is required. This often leads to a "production factory" mentality, where the focus on efficiency truly overpowers the need to be user-centric. I've noticed this in discussions with teams where there's a strong desire to maintain control over their areas, even at the expense of user-centered design. The only solution for many companies is to blow it up. Start over. Over the past five years, we evolved our process beyond following a set path. We developed Helio to access targeted audiences, allowing us to shape outcomes through iterative design and continuous research. While the process feels familiar, we integrate continuous audience feedback into every design review to guide our direction. It’s a blend of fast, intuitive design and in-depth research, letting outcomes drive the agenda and facilitating better discussions with stakeholders. It takes courage. You need to be open to failure and willing to navigate some uncertainty. But the teams that adapt will gain the rewards of this approach. Design and business outcomes will improve. There’s a bright design future in front of us. Design is change. #productdesign #productdiscovery #userresearch #uxresearch