To help keep you up-to-date with the latest news and ideas from the industry, we have compiled the latest articles from industry leaders and corporate blogs. New content is pulled hourly from each blog's RSS feed. The article links will take you directly to the related blog.
A clarifying rubric to help teams align around new ideasNot every work project is cut from the same cloth. There are “big honkin’ bets” that involve bravely stepping into the unknown, and there are tiny tweaks that you wrangle for quick improvements. I’ve worked at Facebook for more than six years now, across four teams — and in the process of building products for over 2.8 billion people, my teams have seen both ends of that spectrum.But sandwiched between those extremes is a vast expanse of projects that are just begging to exist. They’re often far more numerous, and at times we can struggle to understand how we approach them. Over time, I developed a rubric that’s helped foster more clarity and alignment among my collaborators — and it may help your team, too.Before green-lighting any project, there are six questions your team should be able to answer:What’s the context?What’s the “people problem”?What’s our causal hypothesis?What’s our project plan?How will we measure success?What will we do next?My teams have used this process in varying degrees for over three years now, and I’ve ballparked it as something that works well for that sweet spot of projects where you know enough to form some hypotheses before you begin. You won’t always be able to articulate these questions out loud every time, but as long as you and your teammates have them (and their answers) ringing in your heads together, you’re on the right path. I’ll define more as we go, so let’s dig in!Setting the SceneFirst, imagine a scenario with me. See if this rings a bell: Somehow your teammate[s] decide a new project or task is important. There’s a loose scramble to figure out the whos, hows, and whens. It’s only days or weeks later you realize that many of these — plus the all-important whys — had been left curiously ill-defined.Sheerly to make this memorable, let’s sketch an example scenario where you sidle up to your coworker one day to talk through some work, and this conversation unfurls:Coworker: “But . . . so why are you making this decision again?” [Gestures at a point in the product]You: “Well, [other team member] said they wanted it. . . .”Coworker: “What are you testing for here?”You: “I mean, if this works, I guess we’d probably ship it to all our users, so. . . .”Coworker: “Why? What ‘people problem’ are you solving for?”You: “I mean . . . uh . . . it’s just a better experience!”Coworker: “Uh-huh. Well, assuming you have a way to measure success in mind, what happens if it fails?”You: “This hypothetical conversation is way trickier than I anticipated.”The point of dragging your coworker into this is that we often leap into project work without answering why we’re doing it — and what we’ll conquer next. This practice gels around the idea that any project should answer a set of core questions in order to actually allow it to move forward. We do this to ensure the whole team is on board with these goals, because it helps deftly dodge unnecessary “Wait, what?” moments down the line (and even helps cut projects that are revealed to be unnecessary when they don’t have answers).No answers? Your first order of business is getting them.How Do You Define a Project?I’m loosely defining this as a chunk of work that represents a feature, product, tool, or other endeavor that takes more than a day to design, build, and ship. There may be unknowns, but you know enough to form some hypotheses. There’s no right answer here, so use your own judgement: No, I’m not suggesting you need to answer six questions to tweak your button color to “tomato red.”A project isn’t a wholly novel exploration you’re about to kick off, charting new territory. When there are a bunch of unknowns around your project — like kicking off a brand-new idea, big or small, or considering a new audience — you might structure your project around brainstorming and ideating models, like “How Might We” statements instead. Again, use your own judgment!Great, But What Are the Questions?1. What’s the Context?If there’s a larger, company-driven motivation or backstory that’s necessary to understand this project, that’s what this is for. When needed, it can be seen as a sort of preamble to why this became a project. Abstracts like this are optional.2. What’s the People Problem?“People problems,” in Facebook parlance, are needs and issues as they might be articulated by people on the street. They identify progress that people are trying to make in their daily lives and define what’s broken or unsatisfying about their current solutions. Note the difference between these and company problems — which are internal goals, priorities, and challenges that map back to your company mission.The words you use matter. Framing product development in terms of people problems aligns your work with the community you serve. This helps you identify meaningful opportunities for impact, and stay true to your core product values. People problems are not the only problems products must solve to be successful, but they are where success starts. (Good, real live human experience research helps at this stage! Read more info on the People Problem framework here.)3. What’s the Causal Hypothesis?Kicking off a project without a hypothesis (a.k.a., What’s going to happen when you do this thing?) can be a bit like throwing all of your cupboard contents into the oven for dinner. Will these ingredients make bread or a kitchen fire? Who knows!?This isn’t to say every endeavor creates a clear path toward a hypothesis. Hypotheses can also change as you go: Particularly in work with a lot of unknowns, you’re often running experiments just to learn what levers you have to pull.But for projects — or people problems your team understands more than just a giant blank slate — there are a couple of easy templates to follow to create a causal hypothesis:Option 1: “Changing _______ into ______ will [change conversion goal], because: _______.” (This is borrowed from marketing principles; Olivia Williams writes more on how to write a great hypothesis here.)Option 2: “Because [motivation], we’re working to [provide this value] by [building this product].”Examples:Changing the Facebook Events app to include additional “things to do,” such as museums, parks, and restaurants, will increase retention because it involves a wider and more regular-use set of activities to do in the real world with friends. (This example is a broad hypothesis, and would likely need to be broken down into sub-tasks.)Changing the Event post attachment in News Feed to show what friends of yours have already expressed interest will increase event RSVPs, because it makes the event more relevant to people and may indicate the event is higher-quality.4. What’s the Project Plan?Put another (wordy) way, this is your “experimental plan for validating or invalidating your hypothesis.” You’re not just creating a project plan to blindly execute tasks: You’re structuring your time and your work in a way that gives you as much clarity as possible. You can sometimes answer this as you go.Example:— Initial mocks to be created for Android. Carlo to design by Fri 22 July— Team to meet and discuss with leadership during week of Mon 24 July— Final mocks for experiment created by Fri 5 Aug, after leadership review— Engineer (Michelle) freed to build over two-week sprint beginning Mon 8 Aug— First experiment to run by Tue 23 AugAs an evolving piece of your project plan, it’s good practice to always keep everyone abreast of the designs related to this work. If you’re using a task-tracking tool like we do at Facebook, link here to the trail of relevant mock-ups — so there’s a single source of truth for where the project has been (and where it is going). Once things move into the build phase, code diffs can be attached to the task separately.How you arrive at those designs, of course, is a great discussion worthy of its own write-up. The point here is that by clearly communicating where design sits throughout the process (in a place everyone can easily reference, like the “single source of truth” task), there’s less confusion and far less stress about who you need to update individually. Want to know the latest, partner? Go to the task!5. How Will We Measure Success?If you don’t have clear methodology (metrics or otherwise) to follow for success, you waste a titanic amount of time arguing over it later — often after shipping, when more voices enter the fray. Having your entire team define and agree upon this goal from the get-go nullifies a lot of quarrels later. For example, when the latent partner jumps in a week after launch yelling, “This is down on [metric A]!” you can easily point out that your goal was [metric P].*You’ll run into cases when you’re not entirely sure what will happen when you ship something. Especially in those projects where you’re braving a ton of unknowns, that’s okay; but come to an agreement on it with your team, and make an informed decision.Example:Increase retention by at least 20 percent by end of year.*Okay, “easily” is a bit of an overstatement. But, hey, it does give you far greater alignment.6. What Will We Do Next?A glaring oversight for many projects is knowing what you’ll do after it’s out in the wild. What actions will you take once your hypothesis is validated — or invalidated?What if this blows away your metric goals? Will it ship immediately, or will you have to take the data to other teams and discuss its merits in relation to their metric goals? Are you running this merely as an experiment to inform a much more polished project later on? Having your team align on “next steps” is critical to avoid sleepless nights.Similarly, what if this project tanks? Is there a fallback plan? What’s next? Knowing this can be just as important as planning for positive outcomes.Answering this question can be deceptively crucial — and can even inform whether you should do a project. Adding this step became crucial years ago when my team consistently found ourselves working on experiments whose results didn’t point us toward any understood next steps. Figure this out, and it quickly focuses you on other projects, which can give answers.Example:If successful:Roll out initial experiment to 100 percent of people on Android; build and ship iOS and www implementations in the following sprint.If not successful:Reevaluate signals that show relevance for people and do additional design and content iterations.So, Like, How do I Use These?Follow this foolproof plan! (Note: May contain actual fools, but it’s worked well for my team.)Your first option is casual: With small, fast-moving teams, bring up these questions as you’re starting to formulate projects. In many cases, though, documentation is useful; so, using whatever task tool your company uses, here’s a template you can copy and paste into each new project description:1. Context[General internal motivation to understand project, if necessary]2. People Problem[Need or issue as might be articulated by people on the street]3. Causal Hypothesis?Changing _______ into ______ will [change conversion goal], because _______.4. Project Plan— Milestone— Milestone• Design [Links to relevant design documentation]5. How We Will Measure Success[Metric or non-metric goals]6. What We’ll Do Next— If successful:[Action we take]— If not successful:[Action we take]Just like any work rubric, these questions have morphed a bit over time — taking new forms to adapt to how they’ve been used. (I expect in 20 years our new VR-based lives will encourage entirely new practices for us to adopt.) As a result, these may continue to shift, but so far this system has generally allowed my teams to focus intently on the problems that matter — and to articulate goals in a way that we can all understand and agree upon. There have been fewer surprises, fewer randomized tangents, and fewer experiments leading to nowhere.If you were to use this with your team, what would you change? What systems have worked well for you?Thanks to David G. for the inspiration in asking many of these hard questions; and Jasmine F., Jonathon C., Arthur B., Cameron M., and Aaron C. for gut-checking me on how this stood up to light. I fully invite you to build upon this system and suggest ways it could be improved based upon your experience.Six Questions to Structure Great Projects was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Building a platform for support and inclusivityBy Francesco Fogu, Hitomi Hayashi-Branson, and Lauren WongPeople come to Instagram to connect, create, and share with others, and we want them to feel comfortable expressing themselves freely and authentically. As members of the Well-being team, our mission is to help Instagram stay a safe and supportive place for our community. And as content strategists, designers, and researchers focused on Well-being, our job is to understand both the good and bad experiences people may have, so we can amplify the good and support people through the bad. The problems we design for include mental health, where we address issues like self-harm and social comparison; hate speech; and bullying. We’ve spent the better part of a year focusing on bullying because we know how deeply it can affect people’s feelings of self-esteem, well-being, and safety on Instagram. It’s a tough problem to tackle because it comes in many forms: from posting embarrassing photos of someone without their permission, to insulting them or their family, to threatening them with physical harm. What’s even more challenging is that we won’t have all the context, so we may assume people are bullies when they’re actually being bullied themselves. That’s why the solutions we build, and the words we use, need to show care for what they may be going through — without making them feel victimized. As we create solutions for people, we hope to empower them to stop bullying when and where it happens — and to work towards preventing it from happening in the first place.Preventing BullyingChanging Behavior Through EducationOne approach we’re taking is to prevent bullying by giving people the opportunity to play a role in keeping Instagram a safe place for themselves and others. To equip people with the tools they need to do this, we developed a simple warning that nudges them during possible moments of conflict, and asks them to reconsider posting comments that might be mean or offensive. It’s powered by machine learning, which detects comments that are similar to others that have been reported in the past. It pairs simple, friendly language with visual cues to create an educational opportunity during a critical moment: right before sharing. By doing so, it gives those who are on the verge of posting a hurtful comment time to reflect and reconsider. But because we’re intervening at times when people may be behaving emotionally or reactively, we need to consider what they may think or how they may feel at that moment: are they putting down a stranger, or standing up for their family? For this reason, the warning is designed to be subtle, rather than disruptive. We also use non-judgmental language that communicates transparency, education, and control over what happens next.The experience is made up of a behavioral nudge, followed by a moment of pause. We ask people, “Are you sure you want to post this?” and give them 8 seconds to reflect on what they’ve written. If they choose, they can undo their comment to edit it or delete it completely. We also include a visual timer to convey a sense of urgency.Empowering PeopleDesigning Tools to Remediate ConflictWhile we’re taking steps to prevent bullying, we’re also implementing more tools to help people stand up for themselves when it does happen.There are several options people can use to control what they see or who can interact with them, including muting, blocking, or switching to a private account. Most commonly, people block their bully because it stops them from viewing their profile or sending them messages. And because it prevents all interactions between their accounts, this is effective in stopping bullying between strangers. But when it comes to people who know each other and have friends or family in common, this can actually make the situation worse in real life. If the bully notices they’ve been blocked, they may retaliate by encouraging others to make fun of them, or creating a new account to continue harassing them. We wanted to better understand the many ways bullying can manifest on- and offline. Through research, we heard that people experiencing bullying are concerned about three main things:Visibility: They want to be able to keep an eye on the bully, so they can monitor what they’re doing or saying about them. Shutting the bully out of their life isn’t always the best solution, especially if they’re a close friend or relative.Privacy: They want a private action that helps them stop the behavior without the bully finding out.Context: They want a tool that stops or hides bullying where it happens, like in comments or messages.To address these needs, we designed a tool called “restrict.” It enables people to prevent unwanted interactions without having to block or unfollow people they know, empowering them to manage conflict on their own terms.We know people might use this tool at times when they feel vulnerable or powerless, so we support them by explaining that this tool gives them control over the circumstances they’re in. We also know that people experiencing bullying don’t want to feel like victims, so we avoid implying that they need to protect themselves in order to have a safe experience on Instagram. When a bully is restricted, they can’t see when the other person is online or when they’ve read their messages. We added this functionality because we heard in research that people don’t like to give their bullies the satisfaction of a read receipt, but want to be able to see what they’re saying, especially if they’re apologizing. The person experiencing bullying also stops getting notifications about their bully’s comments or messages, and any new comments the bully makes are hidden from others. Restrict not only reduces people’s exposure to potentially negative or hurtful comments, but also gives them a powerful alternative to blocking someone when it isn’t right for the situation they’re in (like when the bully is a friend, acquaintance, or someone else they need to keep an eye on). We added restrict next to options to block, report, or mute in places where people told us bullying happens most, so it’s easy to access when they need it. And we explain that, unlike blocking, restricting someone is a private and undiscoverable action, so they know they can protect themselves without others knowing.The Bottom LineWe may not be able to stop online bullying altogether, but we’re committed to learning how we can best support people through difficult experiences. We’re taking a stand against bullying, and empowering our community with the tools they need to do the same.Using Thoughtful Design to Fight Bullying on Instagram was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Keeping people at the heart of product developmentBy Davina Baum and Jessica MetroAs content strategists, researchers and product designers at Facebook, we aim to create experiences that are clear, consistent and compassionate through both the language and the design. Everything from the tone we use to the controls we provide helps to make products across Facebook that are more thoughtful, more human and better for the people using them.Building for People FirstWe work together to consider the entire user experience, paying close attention to both the product design and the content strategy. The two must coexist in a way that ensures that the products we make actually solve the problems people are facing, that the user experience is intuitive and easy-to-use, and that the visual design feels familiar and engaging. Across Facebook’s family of apps, our teams are dedicated to designing for well-being. We take on topics like suicide prevention, including tools and resources for people at risk and their concerned family and friends; memorialization, to preserve the wishes of people who’ve passed away and support the bereaved; and harassment.A Case StudyAs we learn about how people engage with our products, key insights help guide the decisions we make to launch new products and features, evolve what is already in market, sunset certain features and identify and build teams around new opportunities to create better experiences for people. Back in 2017, our team explored the ways people experience harassment on Facebook, especially through receiving unwanted messages. As a result of these explorations, we built the capability to ignore a conversation in Messenger. Let’s look at the content and product design process through the lens of that product. Our team sees it as a process in four stages — understand, design, gather feedback, build — with some fluidity between each stage as we go.Stage 1: UnderstandWe start each project by doing the work to understand the problem. This helps us recognize people’s needs and uncover opportunities to improve the products we build. The core product team consists of a product manager, data scientist, content strategist, product designers, researchers and engineers. In the case of the work on harassment, the team first aligned on the goal to explore whether our harassment-mitigation tools were serving people’s needs. To understand what people were experiencing, we looked at foundational research insights and survey responses. We also dove into the data to understand behavior at scale and find patterns. To narrow our focus and scope, we condensed all of this information into “people problems,” which are concise explanations of the issues people are facing. The team discussed and debated which ones to address, combining what we knew from existing data and research — as well as engineering constraints — to define the biggest opportunities.People problems and opportunities surfaced during a team sprintLet’s take a step back here, because in many cases, and on our team in particular, “people problems” are serious, real-world problems. A people problem might be, “I want to stop someone I’ve just met online from sending me inappropriate images on Messenger.” These scenarios, reframed as people problems, allow us to abstract and generalize the problem so that it’s solvable — but individuals can’t be abstracted and generalized. So we never lose sight of the people who are facing these problems in the real world — where safety and reputation may be at risk. As a result of our work to understand the problems, we decided that building additional tools to help address harassment over Messenger was the biggest opportunity. Specifically, we heard that the concept of blocking someone on Messenger or Facebook felt extreme for repetitive badgering or for those who knew the harasser in person. While the block feature did not explicitly declare to the person that they’d been blocked, there were indicators that a savvy user might be able to figure out. Even for the person doing the blocking, the action might feel rude. And in cases of harassment, blocking someone on Facebook can prevent you from being able to report them, because they’re hidden from you.Stage 2: DesignWe started to think of our harassment-mitigation tools on Messenger along a spectrum: from muting, which merely turns off notifications, to blocking messages, to blocking on Facebook. But between muting and blocking messages, there was a hole we sought to fill. We wondered, how might the capability to “hide” a conversation work?Spectrum of harassment-mitigation toolsIn broad strokes, we outlined the user experience: The person being hidden could continue to send messages without knowing that their messages were going unseen, and the person hiding the conversation could proceed without being aware of annoying or harassing messages. If the recipient needed to seek out the conversation, they could find it easily and unhide it if necessary. They could also block someone they had hidden. We had extensive conversations about product functionality, from the very specific to the very broad. We discussed questions like:Where would people expect to find the option to hide a conversation?How do we communicate what will happen without overwhelming someone?Where should the balance be between feeling lightweight versus robust and satisfying?What exactly does the person who’s being ignored see?What is the visual affordance to indicate the feature is on or off?Where do we surface the ability to escalate to a block?How will this work across Android, iOS, mobile web, desktop web and all the other platforms we support?Whiteboard wireframes mapping out the flowWhile answering these questions, we sketched out design solutions, starting wide and narrowing to what might have the greatest impact. We created mid-fidelity mocks to get a better sense of how the top solution would fit in the existing product, explored content options in context and visualized the design details. We talked a lot amongst ourselves and with our content and design colleagues to get feedback and ensure that we were thinking deeply from the perspective of people experiencing these problems. To flesh out the interaction design and make our ideas feel like a real product, we eventually created high-fidelity prototypes.High-fidelity interface explorationsStage 3: Gather FeedbackHow could we deepen our understanding of this problem space? We needed to do in-person research. Data plus existing research on harassment got us part of the way to understanding the problem. In order to ensure our solutions truly meet people’s needs, our content strategy and design teams rely heavily on research — and that often takes us away from our offices and into the world. In our case, we’re based in California, so our team planned a trip to India to get a first-hand understanding of how people who live in a culture different than our own experience harassment on Facebook and Messenger. Our team — including two researchers, a product manager, two product designers, a content strategist and an engineer — traveled to Delhi and Ghaziabad, a smaller city near Delhi. We conducted focus groups (grouped by men and women) and in-home interviews, speaking with a wide range of people. To get a sense of how they understand and use the current blocking options, we showed them the existing tools for blocking messages, receiving message requests, or turning on the ability to review the posts you’re tagged in. We then sought their feedback on prototypes for new ideas including the feature to hide conversations and a promotion to raise awareness about message blocking.Early prototypes used for feedback in researchIn doing this research, we wanted to understand both the perspective of someone who’s being harassed or bothered on Messenger, and that of a person who’s repeatedly trying to contact someone. People in our focus groups talked about seeing Facebook as a way to connect with anyone in the world; there’s a real curiosity and interest in meeting new people online. Both men and women said that they accept any and all friend requests, no matter how remote the connection. We also heard from women who told us how easily and often the line can be crossed from friendly hellos to unwanted contact and harassment. We got a strong sense of the pervasive ways that harassment plays out in the real world, in all sorts of interactions. We spoke to participants who said they had experienced a lot of harassment on Facebook, so we knew we’d hear difficult stories. But we also heard strength and courage — as well as a deep familiarity with the tools at hand. Men and women understood the functionality to block both a message as well as a person on Facebook, and they had no issues with blocking someone who was bothering them. “I just blocked him” was a refrain we heard over and over. But we also confirmed that in certain situations, there’s a need to stop hearing from someone who’s sending harassing messages without explicitly blocking them because it could cause serious real-world implications.Unwanted and harassing messages have no place on our platform.This is where the work becomes really, really hard. Harassment affects millions of people every day — well beyond Messenger. We know that a button on Messenger will not take away the memory of a harassment experience, and it won’t mean that something upsetting won’t happen again. Unwanted and harassing messages have no place on our platform. To help combat this behavior, we work to adjust and augment the tools that someone might be using. In the early stages of this project, we had been referring to the functionality as “hide.” We learned on this research trip that people were already familiar with the capability to hide a comment on Facebook, which didn’t align with the idea of hiding an entire conversation with someone on Messenger. So, after much discussion and exploration of options, we shifted our language to “ignore.”Stage 4: BuildAs with any product, we collaborated with our engineering colleagues who were building the back-end functionality and front-end interface. We needed to ensure that the product we designed was technically feasible, while still being intuitive to use. Once we launched the ignore functionality, we ran surveys and analyzed data to understand how it was (and is) performing. We found that it was quickly adopted and coexisted harmoniously with blocking and other harassment-mitigation tools. However, we also needed to account for group messages, so we iterated and did another round of usability research to ensure that the built product was intuitive, valuable and easy to understand.Final prototype for the feature to ignore messagesA Learner’s MindsetAs product designers, content strategists, and researchers, everyone can leverage each other’s skills on the team to deeply understand the problems people are facing, lead the team’s efforts to design solutions for those problems, show prototypes to real people for their feedback, and work collaboratively with engineers to bring the final product experience to life. But our design work does not stop there. Testing, learning, iterating and sometimes making decisions to sunset products and features is all part of the journey to getting it right for the people who use our products. This work has been one step along that journey to determine the best way to help people avoid harassment on Messenger. We’re proud to have the opportunity to continue learning and designing for well-being, keeping people at the center of our work each day.Designing with Compassion was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
By Jake BlakeleyA couple of years ago, I made a silly prototype that let people shoot virtual foam darts at their friends’ faces in augmented reality. Although it was a small and fun project, it was the start of my transition from designing 2D UI products for advertisers to being one of the first handful of product designers helping shape what is now the Spark AR platform. It was exciting to see such a simple experience spark joy in people when they used it. Working at Facebook, I can bring these types of experiences to scale on a platform that enables creators to build and share similar augmented reality experiences with their friends and followers. Two years later, I’m still designing for augmented reality and virtual reality — AR/VR — at Facebook, but now I’m working on Oculus products and learning how to design for all of the ways our brains perceive the world.This transition wasn’t unique to me, and I see it as an industry trend. Based on the number of people reaching out to me recently, it seems more designers than ever are entering the AR/VR space as people realize how transformational this technology is becoming. Let’s take a peek at some key concepts, the general process AR/VR designers at Facebook use and how you can apply it to your own work, as well as how to choose the right tools to use, platforms to build for and how to mind the skill gap to avoid frustration when taking on this new challenge.Key Concepts to Start Your JourneyIt can be quite daunting to look at AR/VR as a completely new space, with a whole new language and concepts, but I often find myself leaning on knowledge from other fields. Architecture taught me about positive and negative space, visual effects taught me how to create spectacle to delight the viewer and, most of all, the games industry taught me how to think about interaction in a 3D environment. Playing video games for 10 hours a week was actually useful for my career — take that, Mom! Let’s start with what underlies all these fields: 3D.The Basics of 3DIn spatial computing, all modeling and interaction is represented on a 3-axis grid along x, y and z. Here are all the components of 3D modeling visualized from smallest to largest:On top of that, we construct the rest of our object by adding textures, materials and shaders. This is one of the key differences many designers struggle with when learning a 3D design tool. Unlike with 2D design tools, we’re not applying an image against a flat screen anymore. It’s a texture, applied to a material, tied to a UV map, rendered by a shader. That sentence probably didn’t make much sense, so let’s break it down with imagery.Say we want to model the “angry reaction” in 3D. We start with a simple sphere model, then unwrap the sphere mesh to create a UV map. Notice how all the edges of the mesh line up to a part of the UV map on the image so it can be realigned later:Next, we take our 2D image of an angry reaction and apply this to a material on a shader. We then apply this material to a sphere mesh. As you can see, the texture wraps around the sphere nicely.When it comes to 3D, shaders are probably the hardest component to wrap your head around but one of the most fundamental. Shaders are the instructions given to your device to tell it how to render an image. This is based on all the inputs we mentioned earlier: materials, mesh, vertices, color and light, among others. This happens in every frame to create an animation.The easiest way to think about this is to think about your favorite 3D video games. You’ve probably seen a game styled more like a cartoon, such as The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, and one styled more realistically, such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. These styles were determined by the shaders used.Here is the “angry reaction” with three different shaders and the material we applied.Just like in the real world, lighting defines the brightness, shadows and other properties of an object and surfaces. Lighting is very important for AR/VR as it creates grounding, believability and also helps guide users.There’s a lot more to 3D, such as rigging, animating and the use of different material types, but this should be enough to help you grasp the basics before diving into a 3D tool.The Tale of Two SpacesIn a 2D app, everything is tied to the screen position. But in AR/VR, there are (mostly) two spaces. The first is screen space, where an object is tied to the screen, like in 2D apps. The second is world space — it’s an object sitting on your desk or placed in your hand. The concept is simple, but the implications are significant.Let’s look at typography as an example. A 12-pixel font in screen space is generally 12 pixels all the time, but if we wanted to put text in world space, it changes size and readability drastically, based on how close the user is to it.https://medium.com/media/00714068ff59da6fd6cc12c281e7abe7/hrefWhat is AR/VR actually?Let’s break down what virtual reality and augmented reality actually are. Although they are quite similar in underlying technology and exist on a spectrum of immersive technology, let’s simplify and discuss them separately so we can understand the constraints of the systems we’re working in.AR is about recognizing and understanding the world as seen by the device’s camera. It superimposes media onto the user’s view, combining the real world and a computer-generated one.Because the system only understands the pixels seen by the camera, it doesn’t interpret the world like people do. Occlusion is an example of an AR constraint. It means the device doesn’t automatically interpret the depth of the world.In this example, the system first has to understand a face. Then we track a mesh to it to occlude — or mask — the crown so the back side doesn’t show through the head.While AR superimposes a new world onto ours, VR transports us into a digital one. It does this through a stereoscopic display and headset tracking to make your head into a virtual camera for a digitally rendered world.The biggest constraint in VR comes from the fact that we’re tricking our eyes and brain into thinking we’re in a virtual world. We need the rules of this world to match our concept of reality.To simplify, when there’s a disconnect between what our body is feeling versus what we’re seeing, user comfort can be impacted. For example, if you make someone fall in VR when their body knows they’re standing up, this can result in reduced comfort due to the disconnect. Here are examples of how to allow movement while maintaining user comfort.From left to right: Teleporting by pointing and pressing a button in Robo Recall. Pushing yourself through space in Echo VR. Using your hands at a distance to pull yourself in To The Top.A design consideration you’ve probably thought about for mobile but that’s exaggerated in VR is designing for the human body. Spatial interfaces use your head and hands to allow you to interact with the world, which is a magical experience and intuitive if done right. However, our bodies have limitations. Looking down, turning around, keeping our arms up — these become tiring over time.There are numerous domain-specific AR/VR languages and concepts that are best learned while experimenting with the many tools on the market. For example if you want to tackle mobile AR, Spark AR will cover many capabilities and best practices, Oculus outlines concepts specific to VR and whatever video tool you are using will likely highlight how to do compositing to put objects in your real-world footage.While the language of AR/VR is evolving, this outlines the basics. Now, let’s dive into what it takes to do the work.Our Team’s AR/VR Design ProcessAR/VR designers at Facebook divide our efforts into three phases: ideation, vision work and prototyping.If you’re a designer, ideation is probably familiar. It’s a quick and iterative way to generate lots of ideas to address a problem and learn rapidly. We use collaborative brainstorming, storyboarding to tell a narrative and — unique to AR/VR — bodystorming. For storyboarding, our team is fond of Procreate for creating digital sketches in 2D and Quill for sketching in 3D. For bodystorming, we use real-world props and activities to act out interactions and narratives. This is especially effective in AR/VR, because you get a spatial feel for objects and scale while iterating much faster than in digital prototyping.Vision work is the second phase and occurs early in our process. It involves gathering our ideation and combining it in a tighter package, usually a video, to share more broadly within the team or cross-functionally. However, we can share a vision in other ways, such as style-boarding to agree on a visual language, or high-fidelity storyboards to discuss steps in great detail. Vision work helps our multidisciplinary team align around a north star, so we can also work fast and sometimes semi-autonomously toward the same solution. The vision may evolve as we learn more through prototyping and research, but it allows us to work in parallel instead of blocking other team functions.For vision work, we generally use 3D modeling and animation apps, such as Cinema 4D, Blender or Maya, to render videos on top of recorded footage.The third phase, prototyping, is the highest fidelity of the three phases and is usually reserved for smaller, more high-touch interactions or project details. Prototypes are also usually the best artifacts to bring into user research, since they allow participants to test our work and give tangible, direct feedback. AR/VR prototyping contains a couple of key differences compared to other disciplines. First, interactions take longer to build, as best practices have yet to be defined completely, and second, there are significantly more variables to consider when designing in 3D than 2D.In this phase, our team usually uses a 3D modeling app — the same ones mentioned above — to create low poly assets for our real-time engines.We generally do interaction prototyping in the same tool we use for the end product so we can test, learn and iterate fast. This usually means using Spark AR Studio for mobile AR, adding interactivity through either visual programming or scripting with code and using Unity or Unreal Engine for HMD-based AR/VR for products like the Oculus Rift. Whether you select Unity or Unreal as your tool of choice is a hotly debated topic, so I’ll leave it up to you to decide.This may seem like a broad skill set, but luckily I didn’t have to become an expert on all phases. Each of my team members has a strong domain expertise that helps raise the rest of the team up. I have a team member who is amazing at motion graphics and visualizing ideas, a coworker and friend who knows shaders and real-time engines inside and out, a teammate who is a master of design processes and practices, and, of course, there’s me. I’m more a generalist and know these skills more broadly but not as deeply in any one category. A multidisciplinary team like ours shows how broad and open the skill sets are for an AR/VR designer. The real magic happens when we apply our different areas of expertise to the challenge and collaborate to find a solution.Now that I’ve shared one approach to designing for AR/VR, let’s dig into some unique learning methods.The Skill Gap and How to Learn EffectivelyWhen I started in AR/VR, my biggest struggle was staying motivated in an emerging technology that had so many unknowns. I was at the point in my product design career where I was adept at iterating quickly on UI, had the confidence to defend my product decisions, had a strong intuition for user needs and felt pretty secure in my career. But when it came to AR/VR, I felt like an impostor. Making the leap to AR/VR was hard when I knew staying in my old role was safe. I had to persevere, and accept that my AR/VR work wasn’t great yet but that someday I would get there. What eventually pushed me to where I am today wasn’t thinking about *what* I learned but *how* I learned.A great framework for understanding the learning process is the four stages of competence, which describes how we learn and the struggles that come with the journey. My friend and coworker Emilia explored this in depth in her article “How to Feel All the Feelings and Still Kick Ass.” The role of conscious incompetence in learning particularly resonates with me. This is the learning stage where you understand enough to grasp how much you don’t actually know. It’s like feeling accomplished when you learn to play “Chopsticks” on the piano, then suddenly realizing how much more you need to learn before you can perform “Für Elise.” This is the stage where most people give up.The biggest favor I did myself was treating learning as play — taking the pressure off by doing small, fun projects. This meant taking grand ideas, such as creating a fully immersive AR shopping experience, and breaking them down into smaller projects. I started with questions like “How do I signal to users that they can place their objects into the world?” or “How do we allow users to manipulate an object?” or even “How do I get a 3D model into the engine?” There’s a ton to learn from small projects like these, especially in an early industry like AR/VR, where patterns aren’t fully cemented. These small projects also helped me realize what excited me the most about AR/VR, what I excelled at and where I had skill gaps. What’s great about this time in our industry is that we’re all learning together, and people are eager to help and mentor. Especially at a place like Facebook, we tap into each other’s unique skills to help ourselves grow. If you’re looking for a helping hand, I’d be more than happy to pass the baton and help you get started. Reach out!Summing It UpIf you’ve made it this far, congrats! This is only a short summary of the foundational concepts of 3D and AR/VR and the processes and tools my team and I find useful. What makes this industry a bit overwhelming is also what makes it so exciting — it’s evolving extremely fast, and there’s always a ton to learn. It’s a long journey, and the skill gap will be frustrating, but remember to start small, find ways to play as you learn and seek out a buddy or mentor to help guide you. If you jump in now, you’ll be years ahead of other designers once spatial computing is ubiquitous.Is there anything else you feel that designers starting in this field should know? Or is there anything you wished you knew early in your AR/VR career?· · ·Thank you to everyone who helped to compile this, and supported me in my design career transition; Matt S., Matt M., Hayden S., Emilia D., James T.!Transitioning to a Career in AR/VR Design was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Facebook Design in conversation with co-authors Fuchsia MacAree and Scott Boms on their book and the importance of listeningFacebook’s Analog Research Lab is a creative studio for design and art-making operated by a team whose projects explore and express ideas, values, and new perspectives in tangible, physical forms through the lens of the company’s cultural zeitgeist. These projects and the dedicated Analog Research Lab studio spaces dotted across Facebook’s global campuses are built on passion and hard work as a reflection of Facebook’s creative spirit. Scott Boms is a designer, printmaker and the Design Lead of Facebook’s Analog Research Lab based in Menlo Park, California. In 2017, Scott partnered with Dublin-based illustrator Fuchsia MacAree, an alumna of the Analog Research Lab’s Designer in Residence program, on a special project about listening. Fuchsia is known for her direct, expressive, and genuinely empathetic illustrations, carefully chosen color palettes, and an intrinsic curiosity about the world.That project ultimately made its way into the world as a book called Being Hear. Created in response to observed behaviors and questions about the effects of technology, it charts a multi-sensory exploration of what it means to be present and our ability to listen to each other and the world in modern times. One year on and at the end of touring the book to Facebook offices around the globe, we caught up with Scott and Fuchsia to learn more about the impact of this project and their creative and editorial process.Q: Let’s start at the beginning. What prompted this project about listening?Scott: Discourse in general was a hot topic at the end of 2016, as it continues to be today, but there was a particular moment that came out of a poignant question asked by a Facebook employee that I’d call the real moment of conception for the project. The question — how do we give people ears to listen? — although direct on one hand was also one that had many layers to it. In other words, it was the perfect prompt for a project like this. Although moments and prompts in a similar vein often come with a sense of urgency, this one took a while to properly unpack. I knew we needed to create something in response or as a reaction to this, but it was clear that quiet observation, research, and reflection were necessary to do so appropriately. That one question prompted many, many more about the nature of listening, how it impacts us in the physical world, as well as how we listen when we interact with each other online and with the tools we create to communicate with each other.Searching for a quiet moment in a crowded, noisy world.From there, I think you could say inspiration came from how we were able to work together, the research rabbit holes we went down, and the sometimes wildly unexpected connections Fuchsia and I collectively drew lines between along the way. Curiosity is what drove us — and is ultimately something we aimed to express within the book itself. Fuchsia: I had been a Designer in Residence in the Dublin office in 2016, and for me this started when Scott asked if I wanted to work on a project with them in the Analog Research Lab in Menlo Park. The idea of spending time on a project all about empathy and awareness was really appealing to me. Many of us work in such fast-paced environments that it’s easy to be constantly busy and to never take a step back to just be silent and listen — both emotionally and literally. In a broader sense, I wanted to make something engaging that wasn’t too prescriptive, something that elevated other people’s voices, but wasn’t too serious. I also wanted it to be something that could exist at home or in work, to be leafed through rather than read cover to cover — something for people to find their own way through.Q: How did you know where or how to start?Fuchsia: I’m a big believer in research through practice, trying things out and learning from the process. Research and drawing overlapped all along the way, and some of this work made the cut. For me, having access to a Risograph machine in the Analog Research Lab was great for this project because I could make little zines as I went. These served as mini deadlines. When something is printed, it becomes final in a way for me, and I find it easier to move on. Geography contributed to the immersive and social experience of the project. We started in California, but I was also in New York and Dublin over the course of the project, all the while working with Scott. I did a lot of reading and deep dives into articles the Facebook community had written. At the same time, I was also sketching and trying out different ideas. Gradually pieces of the book emerged from all this. Scott: The way this project unfolded was unconventional, at least in terms of how I’ve worked in the past. Fuchsia and I needed a way to work together easily and created a shared spreadsheet as a rudimentary editorial tool for collecting and organizing ideas, especially early on. It allowed us to draw connections and ask questions along the way. By the time we had enough material to pull together an edit of the book in the late summer, we were able to do so quickly while also identifying gaps and the other questions we needed to answer.A game of broken telephone succinctly illustrates the struggle of listening—not just to hear, but to understand.The entire process felt conversational in a way. We took the topic of the book to heart in how we worked together. There was a lot of question asking, quiet reflection and—most importantly — listening to each other. We aimed to make something that gently reflects an ideal of the world where the design and content transitions between moments of activity and rest in a natural way — the way conversations naturally ebb and flow. It ultimately became a collection of narratives and illustrative explorations that rewards observation and patience. The simplicity of Fuchsia’s illustration style and minimizing the amount of texture and detail needed to convey an idea intentionally became an expression of that ideal.Q: How did the process of making the book influence the outcome?Scott: I’ve always tried to be patient, quiet and observant in how I work, but working with Fuchsia on this project helped me understand more clearly why that’s important. Part of listening is knowing how and when to ask questions — not necessarily to interrupt someone, but to help drive a conversation in order to actually learn something. We were only in the same place twice while making the book — at the outset during the first two weeks when Fuchsia came out to Menlo Park and later when I was in Dublin, and we assembled the first edit. It meant that most of our interactions were virtual — over email or VC calls. A spotty internet connection can mean awkward delays and unintentionally speaking over each other, which forced us to be more patient, to listen and reflect without feeling like there was an urgency to respond to each other’s thoughts in the moment. This drove how we thought about maintaining the rhythm and pacing throughout the book — not too fast, not too slow, and leaving room for pauses and quiet moments.We asked ourselves, “How might we encourage presence and listening over speed?”Fuchsia: It has made me slow down a little in my process, in a good way. Sometimes I can blindly fire ahead with an idea for a drawing not thinking about whether it’s actually working. To be aware of this and to work in a more considered manner means I can avoid a lot of frustration. I also think that, since making this book, my personal work has changed and become more subtle. I notice quiet moments more now. Working on a book especially feels like you have a duty to make something which can continue in its next life on someone’s table or shelf. It’s going to have a life span well past the time it took to create, so it’s worth putting all you have into it.Q: What was the most surprising discovery you made working on the book?Fuchsia: Something I hadn’t considered before we started was how linked the subject matter and the working process were. A lot of the content in the book is a direct reaction to my experiences. My normal environment of Dublin, the relaxed feeling of California, and the hectic nature of New York all crashed together to affect different parts of the book. I was in these different environments, learning about the world around me and seeing things from a different perspective, while creating work about observing and listening. This is something which relied on my being present in the situation. One couldn’t exist without the other. Another surprising result was that it changed my perspective of my social situations. It made me a little more aware of dynamics, and some of the practical advice in the book helped me in real life situations. A part of the book deals with being an ally and directing questions to a person who is being talked over — I’ve found this a subtle tactic to make a social situation more diplomatic when one person is being very dominant. I’m lucky that my day-to-day work environment is a freelance studio with friends, so I manage to avoid a lot of office politics, but this kind of domination still happens all the time in the pub and at social gatherings, so I still get a taste of it. There were also so many fun, small and surprising bits of research that went into the book. We were thinking about listening in a very literal way, as well as in an emotional way, but the literal examples had an unexpected link back to the meaning behind the book. For example, I found archive footage of elephants in London being given custom-made earmuffs to protect them from the sounds of planes taking off at Heathrow. This made for a fun and strange image, but it also touched on compassion and empathy. I also looked into what sounds were sent into space on the Voyager spacecraft. This started with the fascination that we literally sent a record into space on the off chance an alien would come across it. But of course the real audience for these sounds weren’t aliens, the audience was us. We were trying to sum up our own existence to ourselves. I was especially delighted to find the recorded messages of greetings for extraterrestrials. Broadcast in the most common languages of Earth, they’re sweetly polite and mundane for our first contact with other planets. They almost sound like having a neighbor over for tea. For example the greeting recorded in the Amoy dialect of Chinese reads: “Friends of space, how are you all? Have you eaten yet? Come visit us, if you have time.” Scott: For me, I think the most surprising discovery might be just how important the idea of listening is in general. Listening is something most of us probably don’t think about too often, yet it plays such an important role in how we experience the world. Not listening means missing out on or misinterpreting critical pieces of information that might affect our life, friendships, or job. Think about how sound can heighten a physical or emotional response to an experience — whether in the real world or the digital one. Think about how you might miss hearing an oncoming car while listening to music or a podcast with headphones on. What about the challenge presented by electric vehicles which are even quieter than their gas-powered counterparts? We rely so heavily on our visual experience and perception, yet sound and our ability to listen plays an equally critical role.Q: What’s missing today to allow people to truly listen to each other and not just hear, but understand the things we’re each trying to communicate?Fuchsia: I think it’s a lot about ego going unchecked. The more everyone realizes we’re all small parts of the same big puzzle, the better. All the social movements happening at the moment mean it’s an interesting time to be living, in terms of empathy. We’re all constantly being forced to examine our behavior and privilege with a critical eye, which can only be a good thing.Listening can also mean being an ally to support or stand up for voices not heard as clearly and loudly as others.Scott: Ego absolutely gets in our way when it comes to listening. We too often listen to respond — to provide an answer, a confirmation, or a rebuttal — and in doing so, miss the point entirely. Maybe we’d be better served knowing when to just be quiet. Sometimes bearing witness to another person as a sounding board is what they need — and enough. It also comes down to making space for ourselves to be present. It’s become very easy to treat our days like a game of Tetris, bouncing between appointments and obligations, watching the clock — or deeply entranced by our phones, thinking more about where we need to go next and what we need to say or do rather than being present to absorb and truly understand what’s happening. Without presence, we fail to listen with the intent to understand. And without understanding, we become effectively lost.Q: What does it mean to really listen?Scott: Listening helps ground you. Stopping to sit and listen to the birds, the rain tapping against a window, or even watching cars whiz past outside for just a few minutes is an easy way to combat some of the anxiety and discomfort that comes with the constant acceleration of the world and our ability to understand our place in it, especially in relation to the experience and perspective of others. Fuchsia: It’s easier than ever to feel a low sense of anxiety from all these screens we’re surrounded with. Taking a moment to recalibrate, step away from screens and just be aware of your surroundings can give you a little bit of perspective and take you out of your own head for a moment.Q: Where do you hope Being Hear takes people?Scott: A place of genuine humility and empathy. Real empathy starts with listening to understand, not to respond. Fuchsia: I gave some copies to friends and family and was warmly surprised by the reaction the book received. Some people said it gave them the tools to be much more aware in the workplace and to be more self-reflective. I think illustration is such a wonderful tool to present ideas to people in an approachable way, and hopefully what we put into the book achieves that. — Being Hear features more than 70 curious and delightful original illustrations, essays, and interactive activities that draw from a distinct geographic influence and reflect the journey the authors went on during the book’s creation. Printed copies of Being Hear have been donated to the Design Museum in London, where the proceeds of each purchased copy go to youth-focused design programs. Because of the intentional analog nature of interactive aspects of this work, a digital version will not be made available.Hear, There, and Everywhere was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
The day my mother-in-law put on a virtual reality (VR) headset was the day I realized just how immersive this new technology could be. “I’m on stage! I’m on stage!” She was experiencing the thrill of being on a concert stage for the first time. “Look at me! I’ve never been on stage before, what should I do?” I was seeing how powerful being there could be for someone having a deeply emotional connection. This is what drove me to want to be a content strategist on virtual reality experiences.When I first joined Facebook’s Social AR/VR Experiences team, new paradigms for VR design challenged my role: VR is a fully immersive experience where you can’t simply glance up from a screen. In most VR experiences, you have an avatar and communicate non-verbally with gestures and emotes. Being a UX writer on a product where the audience is fully immersed in the experience and uses very few words can feel like swimming through a stream of ambiguity. It was hard to figure out what content problems there are to solve. To navigate how to guide and orient people in simple, human and straightforward ways through VR experiences, I find myself leaning on my storytelling skills. VR has the power to bring an audience inside the story and connect with the audience on a whole new emotional level — like the feeling my mother-in-law had being “on stage.” This is a new behavior, where the audience is now the participant. For years, our viewing behaviors were limited to watching TV. We’d lean back on a couch and were outside the story as a viewer. Laptops and tablets encouraged us to lean in and interact with content. Chat rooms allowed us to connect with new people and create social experiences, while web pages allowed us to interact with businesses. And now, virtual reality headsets surround us with media and bring the viewer inside the story. VR immerses you in a world that is different from the physical world, and makes you believe you’re there, present in that reality. As content strategists and storytellers, the audience that we’re designing for is now entirely inside the experience. And the real question I have is how do you craft a dynamic narrative when the audience is within and creating their own experience? My first task is to figure out how to guide and orient people. The nature of these experiences is that you, as the viewer, are an active participant in the experience. You decide where to look, where to go and what to read. Since VR is a new medium, without many existing design patterns, I needed to understand how people interact from other experiences where audiences participate, like live theater, location-based visitor tours and first-person video games. From looking at these experiences, I found three paradigms we as VR designers can draw inspiration from to ground our work:1. Bring your audience into the story: Always provide a clear role for your audienceThe nature of live theater is immersive. In most of his plays, Shakespeare would include and address the audience by giving them a role, Sarah Werner writes in her paper: “Hamlet opens with the question, ‘Who’s there?’ The answer is not only Francisco and Bernardo, but also that we (the audience) are always there.” While traditional theater regards the audience as physically present observers, immersive theater pushes the audience further into the performance and uses the entire space as a stage to bring the audience into the play, alongside the cast. The Speakeasy, a long-running immersive theater show in San Francisco, California, brings you into a slice of the 1920s. The audience arrives dressed in flapper-era costumes and is drinking and dancing alongside the actors, who guide you from one room to the next as the scenes play out. You’re truly immersed in the story, the space and the vibe. Immersive theater identifies a clear role for the audience, and you explore the story through that role. Katy Newton and Karin Soukup asked this question in their research: “How do we tell a story for the audience when the audience is present within it?” They identified a core principle that “having a body means being somebody, there is no such thing as a neutral observer.” Your audience always needs to understand where and why they fit into the narrative that you’re telling, which is a core shift from traditional filmmaking where the audience is an observer. As VR content strategists and storytellers, we need to create a clear role for our audience within our experiences. Good UX in VR is making sure that people understand what their role is.2. Use the setting and space to convey a mood: Provide meaning to the space you’re inIn the early 2010s, smartphones enabled people to tell stories in the places where they actually happened. The Westwood Experience by Nokia experimented with connecting a story to unique and powerful real locations. Using mobile devices, they interlaced a narrative throughout Hollywood with parts of the story tied to real locations. Through the device, the audience was able to see buildings transform to how they should look in the story. This type of storytelling technique allows the audience to feel the space come to life and relive history at the site where it happened. Location-based stories allow the audience to explore and discover the environment. The setting in literary storytelling is a powerful way to convey the mood of a story. For example, a cozy house in the woods with a fireplace burning, while raindrops pitter on the roof could make someone feel safe and warm. While a large, industrial-like steel building could make someone feel oppressed and cold. The use of visual and audio cues to further define these environments and influence the narrative is a very important storytelling tool in VR experiences. As VR content strategists and storytellers, we need to think about how the tone of the space impacts the mood of the experience, as well as how to use the space to guide people.3. Ease people into the experience: Let people try things outExploration games invite players to immerse themselves within worlds and further the story line as these interactions happen. Gone Home, a story exploration video game by The Fulbright Company, puts the player in the shoes of Kate who returns home to an empty house after a year of traveling overseas. Kate gets clues about her missing family through everyday interactions that happen in her house. The story unfolds as you pick up scraps of paper, notes, letters, photos, cassette tapes and other bits and pieces around the house. Story exploration video games unfold a story as people interact with objects in the environment. Compared to desktop or mobile phone experiences, VR presents a new paradigm with spatial interactions, and it is important to help people ease into learning how to interact in this new space. Providing thresholds or levels is a design pattern from video games that allows people to try out and learn how to interact in new environments. Using the idea of providing a threshold, you can think about each new interaction as a building block and give your audience one block at a time, so that they can build and understand in a comfortable way. Being able to build on these “blocks” is a good way to lighten the cognitive load that comes with learning how to interact in a virtual space. As VR content strategists and storytellers, we need to find the right moments to help people learn how to interact with the environment and build on those skills. These examples highlight 3 key differences for how we can think about content strategy in VR and start to incorporate these techniques into our work to build meaningful experiences. As VR matures and starts to bring in more content strategists to improve the relevance of content and how people engage with the experience, we can keep these affordances in mind. VR experiences need to be simple, straightforward and human, and we’ll need to guide our teams on how to craft intuitive and natural experiences, as always, even within this new platform. Read more about the Facebook content strategy team’s work in VR in my colleague Brynn’s piece on Medium, “A Content Strategist’s Journey Into Social VR” and check out Facebook.design. Huge thanks to: Carolyn W., Jasmine P., Sara G., and Ali M. for your thoughtful feedback on shaping this piece. Cheryl L. for your artwork and support. Katya K. and Richard E. for your continued input and support in framing VR storytelling. Resources cited in this article:Eckert, S. (2018, September 01). What Is Immersive Theater?Newton, K., & Soukup, K. (2016, April 06). The Storyteller’s Guide to the Virtual Reality Audience.Werner, S. (2017, January 02). “Audiences” in Shakespeare and the Making of Theatre.Designing for Virtual Reality: 3 Tips for Content Strategists was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
My first experience with virtual reality was First Contact: an interactive orientation to Oculus Touch. I put on the headset and my new surroundings snapped into focus. I found myself in a cluttered workshop surrounded by nostalgia-inspiring objects like old computers and game consoles. I spent the next 10 minutes interacting with a friendly robot guide who handed me an assortment of floppy disks. While I had never experienced anything like this before, I knew what to do. I inserted the disks into glowing drives and familiar objects materialized in front of me. I held out my hand for a pixelated butterfly to land on, twirled a noisemaker and launched a toy rocket across the room.Oculus First ContactMy mind was buzzing after I took off the headset. As a content strategist at Facebook, I use language to create clear, consistent and compassionate experiences for the people who use our products. Content strategists often communicate through words displayed on a screen in the form of dialogs, notifications, calls to action and other interface components.What I’d just experienced felt more immersive than any interface I’d encountered before. And, while the experience was a completely new one, it had felt strangely intuitive. It became immediately clear to me that virtual reality represents a new and exciting challenge for content strategists. How do we bring clarity and simplicity to an experience when we move beyond the screen and the interface is all around us?Several months later, I had the opportunity to investigate this question for myself. I worked with the Facebook Spaces team on Facebook’s first social VR app. It’s a virtual environment where people can spend time with their Facebook friends. They can watch videos, capture photos, play games, work on art projects and experience 360 media together. There was a lot to explain and no screen on which to do so. I was going to have to approach this from a different angle.Creating a language systemSocial VR represents a new kind of conversation with the people who use our products. We didn’t want to introduce a lot of text into an immersive experience. We knew we’d have to make the most of the limited opportunities to explain all the features and functionality, like creative tools to make 3D art and media players to experience 360 photos and videos. I felt that the best way to do this was to help people form a clear mental model of the virtual space we’d created by anchoring the experience in simple and familiar concepts. To do this successfully, we needed to make careful decisions about how to label the concepts in this experience.We had a long list of placeholder names and labels for various features. In Content Strategy, one of our core principles is to name things only when it’s absolutely necessary, so I did a quick audit of our list with that in mind. The goal was to choose names that would clearly communicate the purpose and potential of features, and they had to make sense all together. We put together a set of guiding principles to help us identify the names that felt unhelpful, inconsistent or unclear:Avoid names where interactions are intuitive. We decided not to name something if its function or purpose was immediately obvious. For example, when a person was in a virtual space in the app, we didn’t need to explain to them that the surface they were standing on was like a floor — it was intuitive and familiar enough a concept that it needed no explanation.Don’t label design decisions. One important feature of the Spaces app was the ability to show media, like photos, to others in the space. Facebook Spaces supports both regular (2D) photos and 360 photos, and the team had created different designs for each of these. In Spaces, 2D photos look like a flat tile you can grab with your fingers, while 360 photos look like a sphere you can hold in your hand. We’d taken to calling these “photo tiles” and “photospheres” during the product development process, but it felt unnecessarily complicated to have multiple names for what was essentially the same concept. To simplify the experience, we chose to focus on the concept and choose one name (“photo”) rather than name each form.A 360 photo in Facebook SpacesQuestion the use of metaphors. Metaphors can be useful as feature names when they clarify the purpose of an object or the intention of a part of the interface. Prior to the launch of Spaces, we were using a lot of these kinds of names for features to tie features to objects in the physical world. But taken together, placeholder names like polaroid, tool shelf, dressing room, picture frames, props and selfie stick painted a jumbled and confusing picture of the environment we’d created. We needed to make sure that any metaphors we did use were clear and supported people’s understanding of the product. And I felt we shouldn’t close ourselves off to future functionality or localizability by getting too specific with the comparisons we were drawing between real life and this virtual environment. As we started to assign more names to features in Spaces, it felt necessary to clarify additional guidelines around when and how to use metaphorical labels for virtual objects.Governing the use of metaphorsMetaphors are useful as feature names when they clarify the purpose of that feature. They’re a handy way to make a direct comparison between a virtual object and something familiar from the physical world. For example, calling a glowing, blue oval a “table” is a clear and concise way to explain to someone that they can place things on top of it or gather around it, without having to actually say all of that. It seemed wise to use metaphors sparingly, as giving people too many to keep track of could create a confusing experience. I worked with the team to create a set of principles to help us make quick decisions around which metaphors worked and which ones didn’t:Keep them consistent: The metaphors in a product need to make sense together. For example, it’s confusing to mix live theater metaphors with home theater metaphors, or futuristic metaphors with retro analog ones.Make sure they’re relevant: We needed to make sure that metaphors we included could make sense to anyone. This meant avoiding any metaphors that had specific cultural meaning and might not be relatable for people from different locations or backgrounds. In a pre-launch version of Facebook Spaces, people would change the appearance of their avatar in what looked like a room with heavy velvet curtains. Two names that were top contenders for this place were “backstage” and “the dressing room.” These theater-themed metaphors felt problematic for a number of reasons. First, they implied that your space was a place of performance rather than a place where you could spend time with your friends. Second, it was a metaphor that might not make sense to everyone. We eventually decided it was simpler to not to name this part of the experience at all.Maintain flexibility: Because we intended to continue to build more functionality into this new app over time, we needed to choose names that afforded us the flexibility to change functionality as needed. “Projector” was the working name for the feature that you’d use to show photos or videos to other people in your space. The name “projector” drew a comparison between this feature and a specific piece of analog technology. It suggested that this affordance had one specific function: to project images on the walls of the space. This felt problematic because there was a chance that it would eventually do other things, too. We decided against this restrictive metaphor and, instead, focused on explaining how it worked (“Place a video here to display it” or “Show photos and videos to other people in your space”).Testing concepts and labels in conversationWith Spaces, we were giving people a new kind of space in which to have new kinds of conversations. People would talk to each other in real time about what they were experiencing, so the language needed to work in conversation, not just in interface elements. We brainstormed things people might say to each other:“Hey, could you pass me that photo?”“Play that video — just put it down there and it’ll start.”This was a great way to stress test our decisions. It helped us see how a name (or the absence of one) would fit into the conversations people might have in the app.Summarizing the takeawaysHere’s a summary of the guidelines that were useful to our team:Content strategists are often called upon to name and label new features, but we can do a lot more than just assign names to features once a product’s design is complete. A content strategist is uniquely positioned to contribute to the formation of concepts in a new product.Prioritize natural, descriptive language that works in spoken conversation. The stakes are high when you’re naming new concepts and features, especially in an interface that supports actual conversation — you’re giving people the words they’ll use to discuss their experience with each other.While names are necessary sometimes, avoid labeling every design decision or novelty in an experience. In other words, not everything needs a new name. This gets tricky when placeholder names have been attached to features during the product development process. It’s important to discuss which features deserve a name and why, and testing those decisions with examples.Don’t rely too heavily on metaphors as feature names. They’re an easy way to tie a feature to a familiar object or concept from “the real world,” but they can be restrictive or confusing. Choose names that are inclusive and will age well. Make sure you’re thinking holistically about how all of the terms you choose will work together as a cohesive system.Identify the guiding principles that help you make your terminology decisions. This will help others understand the philosophical underpinnings of your decisions and show that they’re not arbitrary. Principles will also help inform future naming decisions and ensure that they’re consistent with your approach.Thanks to Sara Getz and Jasmine Probst for their feedback and support.A Content Strategist’s Journey Into Social VR was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A product design intern’s resource for design students and romanticsIt was the beginning of my first year working towards my MSc in Digital and Interaction design at Politecnico di Milano. After dabbling in a range of industries — I was a cook assistant, au pair, wedding photographer, you name it — I had decided to pursue a design career at any cost. Even sleep. With determination and a beginner’s portfolio, I landed a job at a small digital agency as a UI-UX Designer Junior, where I could experience first-hand what it was like to be a designer in a digital field. Working and studying at the same time gave me more confidence in myself and in my skills. Conscious of the long path ahead of me, I was scared, excited, and supremely aware of the fact that curiosity and commitment can lead to great things.You’ve Got InMailI remember it was a cold January day when I logged into LinkedIn, seeing that I had a new message.Hi Caterina,My name is ****** and I’m a University Recruiter at Facebook in London. We noticed your resume on the LinkedIn platform which led us to take a closer look at your studies and experiences…Me, remembering Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn.Naturally, a string of thoughts entered my mind: “It has to be spam…Oh My God!…Oh My Lord!…Oh My My!”Then, I picked my jaw up off the floor and replied to the recruiter with my portfolio and CV. After reviewing my materials and determining that I might be a strong candidate, the recruiter suggested we set up a phone call to discuss the Facebook Product Design internship and my experience in more depth.Let’s TalkThe phone interview began with the recruiter sharing more about the internship program, Facebook’s company values, and its design approach. After a brief introduction, it was my turn to share more about my work and what fuels my passion for design.At the final stage of the phone screen, the recruiter asked me to present one of my projects in 10 minutes. I thought it was important to select a project that showcased a variety of my skills and, importantly, my design process. I justified my design decisions and explained the reasoning behind all of my choices. I knew that I wasn’t speaking with a designer, so I avoided using design buzzwords and defined my terms in everyday language.I was pleasantly surprised that the recruiter shared immediate feedback and wanted to schedule a portfolio review.When my heart was about to explode.TIP: Selecting topics of conversationWith limited time to make an impression, consider talking about the following:Extra activities (workshops, hackathons, online courses)Personal side projects (podcasts, meet-ups, design communities)Identity as a designer (strongest skills, depth and breadth, passion areas)Design approach (human-centered design, activity-centered design, system design, genius design)Design interests (typography, user interviews, coding)Show and TellI had a 45-minute conversation with a designer. An awesome one, for sure. There weren’t any awkward ice-breakers, phew. With introductions, the designer put me at ease, and I felt comfortable to present my best and authentic self. We walked through two projects together.Time really flew during the interview. I tried to maintain focus and presence in the conversation, while also thinking ahead and making the most of my time. In my case, preparing what I wanted to talk about before the interview helped so much, especially because I am not a native English speaker.At the end of my portfolio review, I had a short five minute break, and then I was asked to do an app critique.Confused by the feeling of getting evaluated by someone so kind and intelligent.TIP: Picking the best projectA lot of students work on several types of projects, but I felt it was important to show digital products (after all, this was Facebook!).Be sure to have enough material to showcase your interaction and visual design skillsExplain your design process carefully to communicate your product thinkingBe ready to have an open conversation with your interviewer. They might ask you to elaborate on a topic or to walk them through how you’d approach hypothetical scenarios like, “what if you had this other piece of data from the research?”Master the CritiqueA new designer and a new 45-minute conversation ensued. An awesome one, as well. I was asked what kind of phone I had and then to download a popular mobile app — in my case, Spotify — to provide a design review of it.At the end of the app critique, we said our goodbyes, and I was told I would hear back from my recruiter within two weeks. AKA the longest two weeks of my life.Me, aware of my massive unfamiliarity with music.TIP: Starting with users, alwaysWho is the primary audience for this app? Secondly, what is the primary problem this app solves for users?TIP: Compiling a list of criteriaWhenever I have to provide an app critique, I always find it useful to write down a list of criteria to reference while I’m speaking.App navigation- information architecture- menu style (hamburger, tab bar, floating button, tabs)- task flowInteraction- animations- channel of interaction- gesturesUX- page / view layout- onboarding / checkout experience- able to do what’s intended / unintended?Business / Scalability- capture new more users- make current users spend more time and money- potential expansion areas (features, countries etc.)Mastering an app critique technique requires time. Try to put some time in every day to review different apps. Try conducting an app critique with your friends. You can define a time limit, share different points of view, and take notes. Read as many app reviews as possible and take a look at the app store’s feedback too—it can be a great stimulus!London CallingAfter six working days, I received an email from my recruiter. She was excited to catch up with me and asked me if I could chat in 15 minutes. At that moment, I was in my old office on the 7th floor of a big skyscraper in the heart of Milan. It was almost 2:00 p.m., and I grabbed my headphones and sprinted out of the office. On my way out of the building, I ran into the CEO of my agency, who was visibly puzzled by the fact that I was running out of the office just after the end of my lunch break. Once I was outside: Milan had never been so noisy. I was in the middle of the city in rush hour with honking, shouting — the works. The recruiter was calling, so I put on my headphones and to my dismay…I couldn’t hear a single word from the phone call.After a couple of days in total darkness, without knowing if I got accepted and being too embarrassed to ask, the recruiter wrote me again to ask me for some personal information about my university course. “It must have been a positive answer then,” I repeated to myself.Three days later — and fittingly on Valentine’s Day — I had the offer I’d been hoping for. I consider it to be one of the happiest moments of my life.The best Valentine’s Day ever.Extra tips and tricksAlways wear your headphones if you’re on the phone or using video conferenceTry to be in a quiet space, where you can really focusAsk thoughtful questions, preparing them in advance if neededShow your passion and your personalityRead articles online about other people’s interview experiencesLook for resources about Facebook DesignIf you’re interested in designing impactful experiences, you should apply to Facebook. This article is a way to share my personal experience, and your interview process may vary.A special thanks to Elisa K., Harriet P., Kat T., Carlo J. and Amy W. for their incredible support.If you are interested about illustration, please leave a comment below.An Unforgettable Valentine’s Day was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
I want to share a talk I gave on the design track at SXSW in early March of this year. This talk was inspired by a deeply held belief that we are at a critical time in my company and our industry’s history, and to propose some ways in which we can rise to the challenges that go along with these amazing products that we’ve built. As technologists, we are all stewards of some of the most powerful communication tools ever created. These tools have generated a lot of good in the world, but their very power requires a deep sense of responsibility and a commitment to making most ethically responsible decisions possible, every day. While this talk was geared towards designers, the core of it is meant for all of us to broaden the aperture with which we view our responsibilities and to encompass both systems effects and societal impact. This is hard, and we will need to continue to invest time and energy into new ways of thinking, working, and assessing our success to get these tough decisions right. I have full confidence that the challenges we are currently navigating will make us and the industry as a whole stronger, more rigorous in how we approach our responsibilities, and better equipped to navigate the inevitable challenges that lie ahead. Note: If you’d prefer to listen instead of read, here’s the audio recording.This past year has not been the easiest year for Facebook. We’ve faced a lot of hard questions and few controversies over issues like election interference, privacy, social media’s effect on well-being, content policy, among others. When it comes to these issues, there are rarely obvious answers or easy fixes. We support an incredibly diverse, global community who do not all share the same ideas about right and what is wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. to say nothing of the same laws.Pop ethics quizLet’s try an ethics puzzle, and don’t worry, it doesn’t involve a runaway trolley. A natural disaster happens. Could be a hurricane, an earthquake, a landslide. Point is: lives are at stake. An international disaster response organization asks Facebook to provide information about people in the affected area: their location and their movements. What do we do? If we share the data, we might be able to help save some lives. But, that’s a lot of data to share about people, their locations, their movement. They might consider it akin to surveillance and a breach of their privacy. I could travel the world, and I would hear different responses from just about any group of people. This probably won’t come as a surprise, but for us, this wasn’t a hypothetical. In March 2017, Peru faced some terrible flooding. Humanitarian organizations engaged with us to see if we could help. We looked at usage trends on our platform and they reflected where people were located, where they were moving and where they were checking in as “safe”. In June of last year, we announced a partnership with UNICEF, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the World Food Program in which we share real-time, but anonymized, aggregated data about people during natural disasters. Working with respected organizations certainly helps some people feel better about the data being shared, but it doesn’t make the privacy concerns go away. It’s a complicated decision with valid points on both sides. That’s just one example. Situations like this arise frequently when you work on products used all over the world. Part of the job is dealing with challenging decisions on the best way to design and deploy new technology. This is true at Facebook, and it was also true when I led design at YouTube, as well as Google Search. I’ve been working in the design and technology for over 20 years, leading design for Google Search, then YouTube, and now at Facebook, and I can tell you that many of these problems aren’t new. But as we’ve learned, with the scale at which we are operating, this work requires a heightened sense of awareness and responsibility. So, I want to talk about that responsibility, and some of the lessons we’ve learned and are still learning. And I also want to talk specifically about how design plays a critical role in all of this. And when I say design, I’m not just talking about design at the surface level, where we make things pleasing and beautiful. I’m talking about the full spectrum of designing useful and usable products end to end, from the initial idea of what we might build to launching it and all the iterations that follow.The intersection of the humanities and technologyAs designers, we sit at the intersection of technology and the humanities. This isn’t a new role for us, even in the modern digital age. Since the beginnings of the study of human-computer interaction back in the late 1970s, designers have been working to understand and ensure that the systems we build are an effective interface for people. And in a world of global, networked, and highly personalized digital products, the stakes for getting things right as designers has gotten a lot, lot higher. Doing right by the people using our products means sometimes asking ourselves hard questions about what we are building in the first place.Able, allowed, shouldDesigners, engineers, and product managers spend a lot of time thinking about what we are able to build. That is, what’s possible, within the limits of our current technology and what we can do with the resources we have. We also spend time thinking about what we are allowed to build. That is, what’s ladders up to our company business objectives, what’s within our policy, and of course, what’s legal. But as an industry, we need to just as much time thinking about what we should build, even though we’re not required to; and in some cases, what we shouldn’t build, even though we’re technically allowed to.“Should we” is the essence of ethically responsible design.As in the case disaster relief, the answers are rarely obvious. If they were, we wouldn’t call them ethical dilemmas. The question of “should we” also gets to the heart of what motivates us.Multiple motivationsThe fact is, companies like Facebook and other large, global platforms often have multiple motivations that drive decisions about what, how, and why we build.A major motivation of ours and most tech companies is innovation. We always want to push the envelope, explore the ways in which science and technology can solve problems and amplify human abilities. Another motivation is profit. Facebook is a public company with a legal obligation to care about being profitable for shareholders. Most of us work for businesses. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a business. And there’s often a third motivation: making a positive contribution to society. I work at Facebook because I believe in technology’s power to be in service of human and societal needs. It’s been true of my work at Google, at YouTube and now at Facebook. Facebook’s mission is to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” I genuinely believe in that mission. That’s why it’s particularly painful for us to see the products we’ve built with this mission in mind used by others to hurt people or society. There’s a tension between these motives to be sure, and if they get out of balance, consequential decisions and unintended outcomes can happen. But the fact is, a well-capitalized business can do a lot of innovative things that are good for the world.We just need to make sure that we keep the long view in mind and are vigilant about making ethical, responsible decisions along the way.Because it’s in the long view of things that these three seemingly competing interests realign.A history of disruptionOf course, we’re not the first technologists to face these questions. Throughout history, whenever new, powerful technologies are invented, they upset existing social norms and systems, and it can be unsettling to live through. From agriculture to the printing press, the rise of industrialization and digitalization — — all of it disrupted existing industries, ideologies and power structures. All of it had unforeseen consequences and its share of doubters. Fun fact: did you know that Socrates warned against writing because people wouldn’t use their memories and that would “create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls.” Now, as a dyslexic, I kinda wish he’d won that battle. But while even dyslexics like me probably agree that writing is a technology we should continue to embrace, we only know that in hindsight. When you are living through disruption, it’s hard to separate change aversion from a well-founded fear of things that might be bad for people and society. And even more challenging, these inventions can simultaneously be both good and bad; it’s all about how they are deployed, used, and managed.What’s new? Speed and ScaleAnd on top of the disruption new technology can cause, there are two things that make Facebook’s current situation materially different than challenges of the past: Scale and Speed. Out of the 7.6 billion people on earth, and the almost 4 billion people estimated to be on the Internet, there are over 2 billion people on Facebook. In 1930, 2 billion roughly was the population of everyone on the planet Earth. The sheer number of people using our products is astounding. While that’s a wonderful thing in many respects, it means our responsibility is that much greater. All this is even more challenging to navigate when things are moving so incredibly fast. Every major technological advancement in the past took generations to reach a mass audience.Understanding the time it took for 100 million people to adopt different products over the course of history.It took print over a century to reach an audience of 100M. Radio did it in 45 years, Television in 20. Facebook & Snapchat reached their first 100M in just 4 years And Instagram & YouTube? Around 28 and 24 months, respectively. Relative to other technologies, we’ve had just a fraction of the time to understand how the interfaces we develop impact people and society. This isn’t an excuse. But it puts a fine point on the challenges we face at keeping pace with the the growth of our own products. But despite the scale and the speed with which these changes are happening, taking into account the impact of new tech on people and society, the good and the bad, must become a more central part of how we as designers approach our work.The Four Quadrants of Design ResponsibilityHere’s a framework for how I’m thinking about this problem. I call it the Four Quadrants of Design Responsibility.The Four Quadrants of Design Responsibility represent a broader view of design’s duties towards people and society.On the X-Axis, you have, from left to right, what we build, at an increasing scale of things, from the pixel to the product to the whole ecosystem in which your product operates. As you move from pixel to ecosystem, constraints, inter-dependencies and complexities grow. And on the Y-Axis, same idea, but the scale is the audience you’re designing for, starting with one individual human and working your way up to all of society. And as the scale grows, the less we can assume about who we are designing for, their motivations, their culture, their needs and wants. As designers, we feel really comfortable in that bottom left quadrant: it’s where we can push our pixels and polish our work to make something really well crafted. And it’s where we can be human-centered, focusing on a particular audience of people that we are intentionally designing for, and a set of tasks that’s we understand is important to them. We feel like we can understand and control things there. You can imagine this as the space of designing a book cover; while you need to make it legible and convey the nature of what the book contains, but it’s a relatively finite design space to operate in. But at the extreme end of the X-axis, we may face unanticipated consequences from network effects. The systems we’re designing are sometimes difficult to model and sometimes we only really see what happens with them when they’re used at scale. Think of a cleaning product that might work exceptionally well for a particular task, but when released into the water system, might have unintended affects on plant and animal life. When you go far out on the Y-axis, designing for the whole world, there’s a whole other set of problems that can arise. For instance, you see how differently Facebook works in different parts of the world, from the way people access the internet, and the kinds of devices they have, to their social norms, political contexts, economic conditions. And as the number of people using your product grows, so does the likelihood that people will use it in unintended ways, which can create both good and bad outcomes. In the digital space, we see this with a product like YouTube being used not only for you and me to capture and share our own personal life moments on video, but also for the Khan Academy to transform ways in which people learn in a highly personalized way through instructional video. Or the ways in which Facebook has been used to organize social change movements like the Women’s March. These uses, by large numbers of people, are impacting how our society functions. Of course, there are less positive examples of these effects: election interference, polarization, or concerns about health and well-being; ways technology might inadvertently cause harm when it scales towards the top of that Y-axis. These quadrants are not a space where design traditionally spends a lot of time. It’s the world of sociology, public health, cultural studies, sustainable design, economics. In a sense, it is a new kind of digital urban planning.Designing for all four quadrants, thinking expansively about the impact of our inventions on people and society, that is the heart of ethically responsible design. In the digital realm there aren’t a lot of examples of products that do a great job of this…yet. It points to both a challenge and a huge opportunity for all us. So where can we look for inspiration? We have to look back in history a bit to see what lessons we can learn.One helluva fish hookThis is one of my favorite design objects.Halibut Hook (USA). Collection of John J. McLean, 1881, Baranof Island, Alaska, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, E45990.It’s a hand carved fish hook, designed by a member of an indigenous tribe in Alaska over 100 years ago. I first saw it at the Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian National design museum in an exhibit about tools crafted by humans throughout history. Whoever made this probably didn’t think of themselves as a designer or inventor, but they were. It may look archaic, but the design is more sophisticated than many of today’s fish hooks, and here’s why: it was designed to only catch halibut of a certain size. It left the small fish for future seasons, and it avoided the larger fish that were too big to haul into the canoe, which is a very practical design consideration. Essentially, it allowed the people of that community to practice sustainable fishing, providing them with many seasons of prosperity. That alone makes it a fascinating, inspiring design artifact.But a second aspect of this halibut hook also captured my imagination: in addition to its ingenious functionality: it also has a beautiful carving that depicts the spirit exchange between the Inuit people and the fish in the sea. This community believed that if they showed respect to the fish that they were looking to catch, more would come back the next season.An object like this operates in all four quadrants because it’s not just concerned with catching a single fish, it’s designed to protect and sustain a broader ecosystem. It’s not designed to just benefit one fisherman, but an entire society of people over time, their spiritual life included. All in all, it’s one hell of a fish hook. So what lessons can we apply from this to something like Facebook? We need to excel at that bottom left quadrant to be sure, but we need to also get even more skilled at anticipating systems effects, protecting the health and well-being of our community, and understanding the impact on society when a much larger and more diverse population is using our products. We haven’t always gotten this right at Facebook. And to be fair, this is really hard to consistently do well. But just because something is hard is not an excuse. We, as a company and as an industry, have to always do our best and always strive to get better at it. While we may be one of the most visible examples of a tech company grappling with these issues, we are not alone. So let’s examine a few themes that have emerged for us and ways we are working through them, in case they might be helpful to you in your own organizations.Designing for misuse casesAs designers, we spend a lot of time thinking about the “use cases” we want to support. But as we’ve learned through some very hard lessons, we need to spend more time planning for “misuse cases.” That is, when people take tools that are meant to do good and do bad things with them. This has been a challenge with every global platform I’ve ever worked on, from Facebook to YouTube to Google, and if you are old enough to remember, Tripod and Angelfire. Our industry — the tech industry — is very optimistic. Optimism is a good thing. Without optimism, most of our products never would have been built in the first place. But optimism at the scale we’re talking about needs to be tempered a bit at times. Ethical design demands we ensure the safety of everyone on our platform and the integrity of the platform itself. Here’s an example involving online abuse. In the last few years, we observed, through qualitative research in India, that some Indian women wanted to upload profile photos but did not feel safe doing so. They were concerned that strangers — bad actors — would download their photos, use the photos to stalk or harass them, even threaten their personal safety and do harm to their family’s reputation.Optional profile picture guard on Android.So, in partnership with safety organizations, we released a bunch of safety features to address these concerns. People in India were given the option to add a profile picture guard. When people added just that visual cue, we found that other people were 75% less likely to copy the picture. And to truly block the bad actors, on the Android platform, we made it so that no one can screen shot your profile picture. This is an example of where we were able to see a misuse case in action on our platform; people using our product to hurt other people. We’ve reacted to this problem effectively, but in the future, we need to get better at anticipating these kinds of issues advance of launch and having these protections in place from the get-go. This is very hard to do at a global scale, and we won’t always get it right, but it is our responsibility to always get better at it.Outside expertiseAnticipating bad actors and, more generally, bad outcomes is complicated; sometimes it requires the help of outside expertise. When we’re operating at the scale of billions and engaging in those complex systemic and societal quadrants, we have to confer with external experts who will give us a fresh, valuable critique of our work and a perspective beyond Silicon Valley.Asking for help is not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of maturity.And it is another foundational tool in ethically responsible design. In our early days, we didn’t always seek outside help to the extent that we could or should have. We’ve learned a lot since then and are increasingly collaborating with outside experts to get things right. Here’s a concrete example: Because people connect with friends and family through our products, Facebook is sometimes in a position to recognize and help people experiencing distress and suicidal ideation. When we were trying to figure if and how we should engage in these situations, we sought outside help, because while we care a lot about the health and well- being of our community, we are not experts in suicide prevention.Using pattern recognition AI to identify suicidal ideation.What resulted was a set of tools co-developed with leading experts in mental health. Now, when we recognize that someone is expressing thoughts of suicide, we provide resources and offer help in connecting them with loved ones and mental health professionals. And we’ve recently started to roll out the use of Artificial Intelligence to help identify suicidal ideation on Facebook Live and connect people to resources to get the help they need in real time. In just the last month, we’ve worked with first responders on over 100 cases based on reports we received from our proactive detection efforts. We also use pattern recognition AI to help accelerate the most concerning reports. We’ve found these accelerated reports are escalated to local authorities twice as quickly as other reports. We are committed to continuing to invest in AI technology such as this example to better serve our community. As someone who has lost two family members to suicide, these efforts are very important to me personally. These relatives didn’t live close to me, and I wish so much that I might have had a chance to understand sooner what they were going through the change the outcome. Of course, this isn’t the only area where we can learn from experts. We’re partnering with journalists in the Facebook Journalism Project to help ensure high quality news on our platform and more sustainable business models for news organizations; we’re engaging with psychologists and other health experts to inform our research about concerns of overuse of social media, and we are engaging with external experts to inform our approach to responsible development of AI and machine learning. I’m grateful to these experts for helping us build products in a way that’s designed to create the best possible outcomes for people and society.Assessing successBut let’s say you get better at anticipating and designing for misuse, and you are consistently seeking the help of outside experts to create better outcomes. You may still not make the right decisions if you don’t have a good way to understand what success looks like. The tech industry uses a lot of metrics. MAU, DAU, ARPU, and more. Facebook is no exception. But, it’s easy to forget when we are looking at dashboards and numbers that metrics are just a proxy for something that’s usually much more complicated than a single number can describe. Figuring out whether your product is good for people and the world is a very complex, nuanced thing. Its easy to fall into the trap of valuing what we can measure instead of measuring what we truly value. When not properly contextualized, metrics can serve as horse blinders, limiting your field of vision and causing you to miss important signals about how your work may be impacting people. Instead of focusing solely on measuring success, we should focus on assessing success, because not everything important can be measured. By the way, this problem is not new and it’s not unique to the tech industry. In 1968, Robert Kennedy gave a campaign speech on the topic of our Gross National Product, or GNP — a metric that measures a given country’s economic growth. And, after describing some awful poverty conditions he had witnessed seen in America, he said:“Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year. But that counts air pollution and cigarette advertising. It counts the destruction of the redwood. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”Nearly 50 years later, in 2015, the UN adopted a set of 17 sustainable development goals to clarify in a much more nuanced way what it means to have a thriving society. While there are still major challenges with operationalizing and achieving these goals, the UN is no longer trying to assess a highly complex issue like societal health with a single number. Figuring out what success means for Facebook has its own challenges, given the size, diversity, and complexity of our community. For a long time, we focused on time spent as one of our key measures of success. And especially when you are first starting out building your product, time spent can serve as a reasonable measure of whether or not you have created something of value. If people spend a lot of time using your product, it is reasonable to assume it’s meeting some kind of need. The problem lies in looking at Time Spent in isolation of the bigger picture. Maximizing for that goal could create unintended bad effects for people and society. Facebook was created to be, first and foremost, a forum for friends and family to connect with one another. Through research and product changes, we’re working to create a service that supports meaningful relationships in the long term — both online and offline — not just passive scrolling. Recently we announced that we are revising our approach to measuring our success and changing one of our core metrics from time spent to Meaningful Social Interactions, prioritizing the kinds of interactions that create the fabric that is our social graph; people talking to each other and sharing with each other about the things that matter most to them. And as we learn, our metrics will continue to evolve.But beyond improving the quantitative metrics, another key way to can get a richer picture of how things are working, a way to capture important things that are not measurable, is by counter-balancing the powerful quantitative data we have with equally compelling qualitative research.Usage data may tell you what people are doing, but it doesn’t tell you why.It’s critical that we get beyond our office walls and listen to real people, from all walks of life in every corner of the world, as to how our products affect their lives.There’s danger in assuming that wisdom only comes from large numbers. Sometimes, the most powerful learnings come from a single person. Here’s a painful example of something incredibly important we learned that never would have come up in our usage logs: Three years ago, we created a “Year in Review” product for Facebook, that used an algorithm to create a video summarizing people’s year on Facebook. Eric Meyer, a member of the Facebook community, told the story, which he titled on his blog, “Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty.” he saw his friends’ videos online, but avoided creating one of his own, knowing the kind of year he just had — a year in which he lost his young daughter. But then, in his newsfeed, he saw a “suggested post” of a video that we created for him. And there it was staring back at him — a photo of his recently deceased daughter. After reading his story, we invited him to Facebook to talk about his experience. His talk deeply influenced the design team and one thing he said was turned into a memorable poster by our Analog Research Lab: “When you say “Edge Case” you’re really just defining the limits of what you care about”.Since then, we have changed our approach to these kinds of experiences, and avoid making assumptions about people, their feelings, or their lives. Just listening and being empathetic to people’s experiences is a critical part of building and designing in an ethically responsible way. It’s harder to scale but that’s no excuse.We aren’t designing for numbers, we are designing for people.With over 2 billion people using our products, it would be irresponsible to NOT use quantitative data to influence our decisions. But ethically responsible design requires us to look broader and more deeply than just spreadsheets. Qualitative research, and indeed, just listening to people with powerful stories to tell about how our technology is impacting them, are critical sources of wisdom, and help us get beyond measuring to truly assessing our impact on people and the world.I’ve shared some of the challenges that our industry and my own company are facing. And while I and many others are carefully considering the impact of what we have created and will create; I want to make one thing very clear: even though we have a lot of work to do in facing these challenges, I don’t regret my role in creating these products.I’ve spent my whole career building tools that democratize systems, tools that have brought unprecedented opportunity to the world to access information, to express ourselves creatively and to get and stay connected to the people you care about most. These are enduring human needs that tech can and should help address. And by doing it at a global scale, we’ve given voice to the most diverse group of people the world has ever heard from. So despite all of these significant challenges, I would not want to go back to a world before these inventions. It’s because I believe they are so valuable that I am committed to making sure we design and deploy them in the most responsible way possible.So how do we do that? We need to design for all four quadrants by:Designing just as much to combat misuse cases as we design for use cases.Seeking outside expertise to handle complex systems and societal effects.And being very deliberate and nuanced in how we assess success.And above all, we must remember that all of us, as designers, as businesses, as an industry, we all have a broad responsibility to ensure that technology is built and deployed in service of humanity and not the other way around.At Facebook, we like to say that this journey is 1% finished. But I am excited and energized by the challenge, and I am hard pressed to think of a more important thing to be focused on as a designer today. There’s a saying, nothing worth doing is easy. And this is definitely, most assuredly, worth doing.Able, Allowed, Should; Navigating Modern Tech Ethics was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Jeff Smith, Product Design Lead, Alex Leavitt, User Experience Researcher, and Grace Jackson, User Experience ResearcherAdded context for articles in News Feed.When scrolling through News Feed, it’s sometimes difficult to judge the credibility of an article. As with all information on the internet, if we’re unfamiliar with an article’s source or subject matter, it can be hard to come to an informed conclusion about its accuracy.As the team designing against misinformation on News Feed, we care a lot about giving people the tools to make informed decisions about which stories to read, trust, and share. Today, we’re announcing the US launch of a feature that gives people more background on both the publisher and the article. We want to share the process behind this product.How It BeganThe genesis of this feature came out of our work on Related Articles. We learned that showing other content related to a story — for example, reporting from a certified third-party fact-checker — acts as a strong signal to help determine the credibility and accuracy of that story. We wanted to enable people to get similar context across a number of situations, especially when they came across an article in News Feed.Early concepts for accessing “Related Articles” on any story in News Feed.Our early concepts let people press and hold an article to see related content on that story; with that initial concept, we wanted to take a research-driven approach to developing the feature further.Sprinting to Understand CredibilityPeople make judgments about a story’s credibility through a wide range of factors. Do they recognize the publisher’s name? How long has the publisher been around? Which of their trusted friends and family also read this source?As we began to explore other ways to design this feature, we surveyed and spoke to people about how they consumed news and other links on Facebook. We read dozens of academic research papers and grounded our explorations in studies about “source credibility.”Source credibility is a concept that started in television and newspaper studies in the 1980s and more recently expanded to online content, showing the shift in audiences’ uses of reporters’ style, facial expressions, and choice of topics to judge news content to the ways in which online social systems can provide additional social signals about news-related information.Understanding perceptions of credibility is complex: factors from publisher familiarity to design features, from message language to individual verification skills, all impact how people determine if an article is high or low quality. We paired our reading on this topic with other research covering how people interpret signals or warnings, how people think about news through political biases such as “selective exposure”, “motivated reasoning”, and more. We also considered recent societal trends like major shifts in perceptions of misinformation (“most Americans believe it is now harder to be well-informed and to determine which news is accurate” Knight Foundation 2018) or trust in the media (“in many countries the underlying drivers of mistrust are as much to do with deep-rooted political polarization and perceived mainstream media bias,” Reuters Institute 2017).What has been studied less frequently are the kinds of information signals that might work for people on Facebook. How might people respond to particular signals within the design of News Feed? What unique objective information is Facebook best positioned to provide?We began to explore these questions through surveys, finding that people encountered difficulty with determining the credibility of information (already-discovered in recent academic research) related in particular to unfamiliar websites and highly partisan content. We then took the next step to explore potential design options through a loose Design Sprint process. Early last year, we gathered a dozen designers and researchers, with whom we collaborated on designing a surface for these new bits of information as well as what that information — segmented into modules — could look like.Examples of the module designs we tested with people in the lab and in the field. Participants would be asked to sort the printed out cards for which would help them ascertain the credibility of an article.After designing a variety of options, we immediately spoke to and validated with Facebook users in our research lab and in the field, looking at differences in ways that people assessed the information (whether they were high- or low-news consumers, politically ambivalent or partisan, and of various demographic backgrounds). In particular, we conducted semi-structured interviews to learn more about people’s news reading and evaluating habits and card sorts to determine which information modules could be most effective.Out of Sight, Out of MindWe know that many people are busy and can be distracted when using Facebook. Many scroll through News Feed on the bus, while taking a break from work, or at home cooking. It’s easy for people to miss details, even important ones. Therefore, a critical challenge with this feature was helping people find the entry point and clearly communicating its value. Early on, we tested a static entry point with a relatable icon (identified through early interviews). However, we found that people frequently missed the button. After later conducting in-depth interviews with eye-tracking, we learned that — when evaluating articles on Facebook — the same three areas overall tended to draw people’s attention (ordered depending on the individual):A) The face of the friend, group, or Page who shared the post, B) Faces (if present) in the article’s preview image, and C) The headline of the article.Given this information, we realized that putting the entry point to this feature near the headline would be a more-effective way to engage than on the upper right corner (as originally conceived). We also learned that people adapted quickly, and they were willing and interested in revisiting this space after the first visit, particularly for sources that they were unfamiliar with.When the entry point button was animated, people were more likely to notice it. In an eye-tracking study, the participant sits in front of an interactive prototype, and software tracks their eye movement across the prototype. In the image above, red dots and lines show where one participant looked. Without the animated expanding entry point (left), many people skipped the (i) button and focused more on the headline. With the animation and additional text (the “glimpse” we created), people redirected their gaze.One of the ways we tested making this space even more discoverable was by adding an animation to the entry point, which would activate after dwelling on an article. The animation drew people’s attention… but it had more potential. We conceived of “glimpsing,” or providing a button that:Would animate to attract attention, andCould also provide additional relevant information.The animation therefore served to draw a person’s attention and dynamically inform people that both 1) the feature existed, and 2) that there was relevant information that they should care about within the pop-up. As we explore more opportunities for the glimpse, we are considering providing additional, quick signals about the article (for instance, if the article is trending).https://medium.com/media/7e3dd06e9a1a9c4b1759cbef392ccac7/hrefGoing GlobalWhile we’re starting with just a US launch of these signals, one of the primary concerns we had with this feature was making sure that it could work across cultures, particularly in places where news literacy differed or news ecosystems and markets were more complicated. While this work started with a diverse set of participants in the US, we took this feature around the world to make sure it could work in a variety of settings. In Western Europe, we found that it could play a key role before critical moments like elections, where people were particularly sensitive to the kinds of information that appeared in their News Feed.People want a quick and easy way to evaluate information in their News Feed, especially something that could replace frequent “look it up on a search engine” behaviors without leaving the Facebook app.More recently, we conducted fieldwork in Southeast Asia, showing how different local news ecosystems, news markets, and audience behaviors in Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Philippines led to different ways in which people approached gathering more information (for instance, relying more on social signals and comments). It was promising to find that in every market, people were excited to have a tool at their immediate disposal to provide more information about how they could understand the quality of any article.Testing this feature with people in Myanmar.As we’ve explored the potential for this feature internationally, we’ve found some interesting insights. People care deeply about being able to trust the news they see on Facebook. People want a quick and easy way to evaluate information in their News Feed, especially something that could replace frequent “look it up on a search engine” behaviors without leaving the Facebook app. People could use it to triangulate across different types of information to evaluate the credibility of an article, aligning with recent work on “lateral reading” in information literacy. Finally, people wanted to gain more opportunities — and more confidence — in being able to determine the credibility of information they encountered on their own, and this was true on any side of the political spectrum in every single country we visited.What We’re Launching NowWith all of these research insights, we’re launching this feature in the US with 4 important credibility signals:Page information: Sometimes people don’t know the source of an article in their News Feed. Showing information about the Page that published the original article lets people get further context on who the publisher is. They can then follow or unfollow the publisher directly from this surface.Wikipedia information: Providing context from external experts or third-party organizations is helpful. Wikipedia is a generally trusted encyclopedia with a robust, community-maintained revision process. It also has global recognition, so is a particularly useful feature internationally. Referencing the Wikipedia section about a publisher within the unit gives users a way of getting quick consensus or history on a publisher. Likewise, in our research, the absence of a Wikipedia page was an important credibility cue for users.Related articles or more from the publisher: People want to compare information from the same source to see what style of language/wording or selection of topics a publisher covers. Similarly, people can compare the reporting of one publisher to others on a particular event. Much like how we use Related Articles in News Feed, this unit give users another angle on a story and a way to pivot into similar content if they’re interested.Share distribution from friends and the Facebook community: Who and how many people share an article — especially when they’re your friends — can be insightful into the background (or bias) of an article. We’ve included the number of shares from across Facebook and which of your friends have shared an article. We’ve also included a map showing where the article was shared to break up an otherwise text-heavy surface and in some cases gives a sense of where the article got the most traction.The final designs and what we launched to the US today.There is a lot more we can do with this feature, and a lot more we need to do to roll this out responsibly in other countries. As we continue talking with more people about credibility and learning more about recent research on signals of trust, our focus will be on improving these information modules and integrating it and additional features, into other parts of Facebook.This work wouldn’t have been possible without the help of Tiffany Yen, Sara Su, Maryanna Rogers, Cat Audi, Earl Carlson, Cassandra Jaime, Megan Yang, Rahul Fernandes, and many others for their contributions to this work.Designing New Ways to Give Context to News Stories was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
For me, the theme of connectivity starts with my personal story of connecting to my family and friends. I left my hometown in Russia when I was still a kid. I had just turned 18 as I boarded the plane to the United States with lots of dreams and hopes and a heavy heart for leaving my family behind.At first, I had to rely on phone calls to stay connected to family and friends back home. I felt lonely and scared, all by myself in a new country thousands miles away from the world I knew and things familiar to me. To stay in touch, I would buy a prepaid phone card at the local convenience store once or twice a week and call my mom. More often that that would have been too expensive, which meant I felt alone most of the time. Once I was more settled, I was able to buy a laptop and I started using Skype for video calls with my family and friends overseas. For the first time in many years we were able to see each other. We would turn on the video and chat for hours on the weekend while doing chores around the house, or sit down and have a cup of tea. It felt like we were actually spending time together despite being so far apart. I remember when my sister had her first baby while I was away, and thanks to Skype, I was able to be part of the event even though I was miles and miles away from my family.My niece Alena when she was bornI believe Virtual Reality (VR) is the next big leap for connecting people and bringing them closer together. It has the power to connect people across time and distances in a new, powerful way. Similar to how Skype changed the world of telecommuting a decade ago, VR will change how we connect once again. Now, I’m a product designer on Facebook Spaces and Social VR, which means I think a lot about how we can bring people closer together through technology.Because the VR ecosystem is still quite small and not everyone has a VR headset, it may seem like connecting people over VR is a “first-world problem.” However, most of our work is dedicated to building for a future in which VR is ubiquitous, and our goal (as announced by Mark Zuckerberg in 2017) is to bring a billion people into Virtual Reality. We’re not merely designing for our current users, but also for future ones. We work to explore the potential of VR to bring people closer together across time and distance, and envision a future where VR will be a way for all of us to connect to each other regardless of the devices we own.Connect and be present across distancesBringing people together is what drove our first VR product — Facebook Spaces. With Facebook Spaces, you can be with your friends and family while feeling like you’re in the same room, even if you’re thousands of miles away from each other. Everyone is represented by an avatar and sits around a virtual table. That’s the core of the experience: people. Nothing is more important in Spaces than the people you’re with.Thanks to the power of technologies like the phone, video chat, and VR, we can now connect to each other even if we are in different parts of the world. But what’s unique about connecting in VR is the sense of presence you get: the feeling you’re actually there, physically present in a non-physical world. When you’re in virtual reality, what your eyes see and what your ears hear is so real, you might believe it is. Neither phone nor video calling has ever given me a feeling of being this present with someone. VR changes that by providing a sense of presence. There are three types of presence possible in VR:Self Presence — “I feel that I am ME in VR”Social Presence — “I feel that I am with other people”Spatial Presence — “I feel like I am here”Self-presence is your physical and emotional representation when you’re in VR. It’s important that you feel like you and that’s a very individual feeling. When designing Facebook Spaces, we experimented with different types of avatar systems and different visual treatments including: animals, realistic 3D scans vs abstract avatars, 3D vs flat eye textures, blocky heads vs friendlier curves, etc. And what we realized, is that if we try to make an avatar look exactly like you, there’s always a risk of falling into the uncanny valley, where the more realistic you make it the more uncomfortable it can feel. In the end, we landed on a charming and inviting style of avatar. They work really well within today’s constraints of VR systems and still allow expressiveness and self representation so my friends and family can recognize me in VR, without falling into the uncanny valley.Avatar ExplorationsSocial presence is a sense of being with others: anytime, anywhere. It’s the feeling of being present with them.We recognize the people we know in real life through small cues, like the way they tilt their head when they’re concerned or their quirky laugh. As humans, we are experts at recognizing body language, gestures and behavior, so if my friend’s avatar in VR suddenly acts in an unexpected or robotic way, it can break the feeling of social presence, of being there together.Some examples of social presence and what effects it are hand gestures, body movement, eye gaze, facial expressions, etc. They need to feel believable to maintain a sense of presence. For example, in VR, as in real life, maintaining eye contact during a conversation makes you feel engaged and connected. It makes you feel present in the space with that person. Since VR headsets today aren’t capable of tracking your eyes, we had to design a way for our avatars to predict where the person might be looking as accurately as we can. For example, if we know that you are engaged in some type of activity like drawing and your head is pointed in the same direction, your gaze will follow your hand as you draw with the marker.We also quickly learned how important hands can be in a social interaction. We’ve found in research that people could recognize their significant other from other people simply through recognizing their hand gestures. And since today’s VR systems are only tracking the hands and the head, we had to simulate the avatar’s torso and arms, so the bodily movements feel believable and you feel that the person in front of you is real or at least as real as you can get in a VR world. Another key element is spatial presence — the feeling that you’re there, no matter where that may be. The environment you design will affect the emotional state of people and the type of social interaction that can happen in that space. When designing a VR environment, one of the first questions I ask myself is “How do we want people feel in that space?” Big vaulted cathedral with high ceilings will give you a sense of awe, or a small damp and dark basement will can make you feel uncomfortable, anxious or even scared.In Spaces we keep the environment neutral and let people be in control of their space. You can use any 360 photo or video available on Facebook to set as an environment in Spaces. This means you can visit places like Tanzania or explore the jungles of Bolivia. You can really choose to be anywhere, whether that’s a place you’d love to visit someday, or a memory you want to relive. And you can show it to your friends and family, even though they might be on the opposite side of the world from you and you can travel to all of these places together.Connect across timeOne of the most powerful aspects of VR is synchronicity: we can be together at the same time. There is something magical about being with your friends and feeling like you’re in the same room, even if you’re thousands of miles apart from each other in the real world. Once you’re together in VR, you can teleport to different places together, play games, watch movies, and more.Unfortunately, face to face interactions in VR often require advance planning and scheduling. Other Social VR products like Altspace solve the need to plan in advance with events. You have planned events on your calendar and you know that if you join at specific time you are bound to meet some new or old in the VR space. You can also now meet members of your community from Facebook Groups in VR. Through groups, you can continue building your relationships and connections in VR around the topic you all care about in a new immersive way. I can host a group for all my classmates from university in Russia or continue working on my passion architectural project with my friends in VR.Another part of connecting across time is asynchronous connections. We can stay connected even though we might not be in VR at the same time. In Spaces, asynchronous connections can happen through selfies, videos and live broadcast that can help you catch up on what friends have been up to on News Feed and stay connected through shared memories. Because of 11 hours time difference, sometimes it’s hard to connect with my family and friends back in Russia, so I can post my experiences in Facebook Spaces to News Feed and they’ll see it when they wake up and connect with me.Post from Facebook SpacesConnect Across Technological BarriersVR is still quite young and not many people have a VR headset yet. So how can we bring the rest of the world into VR? In designing Facebook Spaces, we think about connections being symmetrical and asymmetrical. A symmetrical connection is when two people are in VR in-person. Asymmetrical is when you use a non-immersive device such as your phone tablet or laptop to connect to a friend in VR.Asymmetrical connection empowers anyone to be a part of VR experience. Through the power of asymmetrical connections, everyone can be a first class citizen and take part in VR regardless of the device they are on.None of my family members have a VR headset so when I am in VR it can feel quite lonely. I wish they were there with me. When designing Spaces, we realized that we need to connect you to your friends and family regardless of the device the have. Everyone has a phone so we built a feature so that you can call your friends and family using Messenger video chat. And it feels so much more than just a video — we watch videos, play games and experience things together.Messenger Call in SpacesI can also connect with my friends and invite them to be part of my VR experience by going Live from Facebook Spaces. They can join me from their phones or computers on Facebook, and take part in a conversation through their comments or reactions. And we designed this experience to be engaging on both sides. Once you grab a friend’s comment in VR it becomes a 3D object. We also had an experiment where you can send an emoji, like a smiley face, a heart or a balloon, in a Live comment and it will become a full 3D emoji in VR, which can be very magical.https://medium.com/media/e9876ecb633fc9e2384d2d1d37388939/hrefLooking forward…From phone calls to video to VR, we all look to connect to people we care about. Through connection with other people, we feel more connected to the world around us and feel loved and cared for, and technology should help us come closer together rather than push us apart. With VR and Facebook Spaces, any distance, technology, or time that separate you from people you care about become obsolete. The next generation should feel empowered to explore the planet while still feeling close to those they care about. I look forward to the time I meet my mom, sister and niece in VR no matter where they or I am in the world. We can meet on the weekends and watch a movie together or I can show them pictures from the recent trip I took to Japan. We’ll celebrate our birthdays and create memories that will bring us even closer together.Chatting with my family on Messenger in Facebook SpacesHow VR and Facebook Spaces help us stay connected anytime, anywhere was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
How does a routine meditation practice benefit us as designers? What is it about Facebook that creates an environment that encourages meditation and mindfulness? And how can other companies do the same?“I noticed when I am stressed out I tend to think a lot more narrowly. A lot of mindfulness practice is about taking a step back and resetting your perspective. A more relaxed and open mindset is better for creativity (and having the energy to create), I’ve found.”— Valerie Chao, Product Designer, FacebookA theme with Facebook designers I’ve talked to is that they are hyper-aware of the benefits of meditation not just on their overall mood, but also the effect it has on their work. One of those effects that comes up time and again is improved creativity.In fact, research shows meditation reduces cognitive rigidity and our “tendency to overlook novel and adaptive ways of responding due to past experience.” In less clinical terms, meditation improves creative problem solving and allows us to think outside the box.An unwritten policy at Facebook is no meetings on Wednesdays. What started as a tradition of working late into the night on Tuesday for a software release and then working from home on Wednesday, has turned into a very convenient and creative-inspiring practice. By coming into the office every day, and sitting in meetings most of those days, we form a bit of that “cognitive rigidity.”Much like meditation, having one day a week where you can focus without meetings, or even work from somewhere like a coffee shop gets the creative juices flowing.“As Designers, we’re regularly exposed to feedback from diverse stakeholders. Meditation has helped me be more open and less reactive.”— Jeremy Brautman, Content Strategist, FacebookJeremy went on to say, “As part of a recent project, I was tasked with coming up with new mission statements. It became a running joke that I needed to go to my ‘cave’ to write them. My ‘cave’ is not just a physical quiet space, but it’s also a mental one. That ‘pause’ I get from meditation helped me reflect clearly and then share my work openly, without being defensive.” Speaking of physical quiet spaces, all around the Facebook campus you will find meditation, or quiet rooms. They are non-reservable, meant to be used on a whim, and once the door is closed it is understood that it should not be disturbed. They are a perfect place to sit, breathe, and clear one’s mind.It’s not just specialized conference rooms that create mindful settings, it’s rooftop parks, zen gardens with Adirondack seating, bay-front walking paths and other natural settings that give respite from our taxing, always-on jobs. Meditation teaches us that thoughts are nothing more than electro-chemical bursts in the brain, which have no bearing on us or our reality. Too often we get carried away by our thoughts, reacting to them, often negatively.As Dan Harris, an ABC News correspondent and meditation evangelist, points out, “what mindfulness does is create some space in your head so you can, as the Buddhists say, ‘respond’ rather than simply ‘react.’” This ability to look objectively at our thoughts and our experiences and respond rather than react means as designers we’re less likely to defend our ideas, and more likely to receive and act on feedback.“The Facebook design community has a very meditative approach to solving problems.”— Laurent Nguyen, Art Director, FacebookIn conversations with other designers at Facebook, it was very telling that some folks responded and said that design itself is a meditative practice. Facebook design gives us space and encourages designers to fully understand the problem before considering solutions, let alone designing them.Process aside, Facebook by nature is a very social and connected workplace. A lot of designers, including myself, would self-identify as introverts and therefore require the space and time to disconnect and center ourselves. As previously mentioned, Facebook offers ample outdoor space as well as indoor quiet space.“Facebook has a very strong culture of self-reflection, self-assessment, and self-actualization. The kind of folks we invite to join Facebook are already exhibiting some of these attributes.”— Ruchi Kumar Chand, [former] Product Design Manager, FacebookFacebook’s culture is truly one of continuous assessment and improvement. Every six months we are expected to reflect on and assess our performance and growth and seek the feedback of others. Through this process we learn what impact we have had and what work is personally fulfilling. Facebook is also structured to encourage mobility; the ideal situation is matching passion with projects. After all, we think this will lead to greater investment and results. This process of reflection and self-actualization is actually quite meditative. Meditation is like breaking a bad habit. We live our entire lives allowing our minds to indulge and become carried away with each and every thought we have. And the only way to break a habit is to first identify the trigger. So we begin by observing our thoughts. Soon we are able to reflect and see our thoughts for what they are: just thoughts. This newfound clarity and headspace gives our minds the room to focus entirely on topics that truly matter to us, which opens the door for self-actualization.“Most companies would benefit from investing in more quiet spaces, natural environments, meeting-block-out times, time and space for reflection, intentional project post-mortems, and being okay with taking a mental health break.”— Metro, Product Designer, FacebookThese benefits that Metro pointed out, including the quiet spaces and nature, are just a few of the ways that Facebook has created an environment that encourages meditation. Without them, a company is providing subtle signals that this is only a place to work, and nothing else. But in order to bring one’s “authentic self” to work, work must also be a place to relax. So when it comes to improving ourselves as designers, would we benefit from improved creative problem solving, openness to feedback, and more self-reflection? If so, then perhaps now is a good time to close the laptop, put down the phone, and give meditation a try. Companies like Facebook are encouraging and creating the space for this practice and it is creating a healthier, more vibrant design community.I want to hear from you! Please comment and let me know if mindfulness or meditation has had any effect on you as a designer.Meditation and Design at Facebook was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
By Jeff Smith, Product Designer, Grace Jackson, User Experience Researcher, and Seetha Raj, Content StrategistUpdated treatment for misinformation in News Feed using Related ArticlesScrolling through News Feed, it can be hard to judge what stories are true or false. Should you trust everything that you see, even if it comes from someone whom you don’t know well? If you’ve never heard of an article’s publisher, but the headline looks legitimate, is it?Misinformation comes in many different forms and can cover a wide range of topics. It can take the shape of memes, links, and other forms. And it can range from pop culture to politics or even to critical information during a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis.We know that the vast majority of people don’t want to share “false news.” And we know people want to see accurate information on Facebook, but don’t always know what information or sources to trust—this makes discerning what’s true and what’s false difficult.After a year of testing and learning, we’re making a change to how we alert people when they see false news on Facebook. As the designer, researcher, and content strategist driving this work, we wanted to share the process of how we got here and the challenges that come with designing against misinformation.What We LearnedIn December of last year, we launched a series of changes to identify and reduce the spread of false news in News Feed:We made it easier for people to report stories they think are false newsWe partnered with independent fact-checking organizations that review articles that might be falseWe reduced the distribution of articles disputed by fact-checkersWe launched a collection of features to alert people when fact-checkers have disputed an article, and to let people know if they have shared, or are about to share, false newsDisputed Flags, our previous treatment for misinformation in News FeedOver the last year, we traveled around the world, from Germany to Indonesia, talking with people about their experiences with misinformation. We heard that false news is a major concern everywhere that we’ve been, and even though it is a very small share of what’s shared on Facebook, reducing the spread of false news is one of our top priorities.Our goal throughout this research was to understand not only what misinformation looks like across different contexts, but also how people react to designs that inform them that what they are reading might be false news. To ensure that we heard from people with a variety of different backgrounds, we visited people in their homes, talked with people during their everyday lives, and conducted in-depth interviews and formal usability testing in a lab with people alone, with their friends, or with a bunch of strangers. In conducting this research, we found that there were four ways the original disputed flags experience could be improved:Disputed flags buried critical information: Although the disputed flag alerted someone that fact-checkers disputed the article, it wasn’t easy for people to understand exactly what was false. It required too many clicks, and those additional clicks made it harder for people to see what the fact-checkers had said about the disputed story.Disputed flags could sometimes backfire: We learned that dispelling misinformation is challenging. Just because something is marked as “false” or “disputed” doesn’t necessarily mean we will be able to change someone’s opinion about its accuracy. In fact, some research suggests that strong language or visualizations (like a bright red flag) can backfire and further entrench someone’s beliefs.Disputed flags required at least two fact-checkers: Disputed flags were only applied after two third-party fact-checking organizations determined an article was false because it was a strong visual signal and we wanted to set a high bar for where we applied it. Requiring two false ratings slowed down our ability to provide additional context and often meant that we weren’t able to do so at all. This is particularly problematic in countries with very few fact-checkers, where the volume of potentially false news stories and the limited capacity of the fact-checkers made it difficult for us to get ratings from multiple fact-checkers.Disputed flags only worked for false ratings: Some of our fact-checking partners use a range of ratings. For example, they might use “false,” “partly false,” “unproven,” and “true.” We only applied Disputed Flags to “false” ratings because it was a strong visual signal, but people wanted more context regardless of the rating. There are also the rare circumstances when two fact-checking organizations disagree about the rating for a given article. Giving people all of this information can help them make more informed decisions about what they read, trust, and share.Where we’re goingIn April of this year, we started testing a new version of Related Articles that appears in News Feed before someone clicks on a link to an article. In August, we began surfacing fact-checked articles in this space as well. During these tests, we received positive feedback from people who use Facebook and found that it addresses the limitations above: it makes it easier to get context, it requires only one fact-checker’s review, it works for a range of ratings, and it doesn’t create the negative reaction that strong language or a red flag can have.Updated treatment for misinformation in News FeedAcademic research supports the idea that directly surfacing related stories to correct a post containing misinformation can significantly reduce misperceptions. We’ve seen in our own work that Related Articles makes it easier to access fact-checkers’ articles on Facebook. It enables us to show fact checkers’ stories even when the rating isn’t “false” — if fact-checkers confirm the facts of an article, we now show that, too. Related Articles also enables fact-checked information to be shown when only one fact-checker has reviewed an article. By reducing the number of fact-checkers needed to weigh in on an article, more people can see this crucial information as soon as a single fact-checker has marked something as false. And because many people aren’t always aware of who the fact-checkers are, we’ve placed a prominent badge next to each fact-checker so that people can more quickly identify the source.While we’ve made many changes, we’ve also kept the strongest parts of the previous experience. Just as before, as soon as we learn that an article has been disputed by fact-checkers, we immediately send a notification to those people who previously shared it. When someone shares this content going forward, a short message pops up explaining there’s additional reporting around that story. Using language that is unbiased and non-judgmental helps us to build products that speak to people with diverse perspectives.We’ve kept the strongest parts of the previous experience, including notifications for shared content that later gets flagged by a third-party fact-checkerWhen people scroll through News Feed and see a questionable article posted from a distant contact or an unknown publisher, they should have the context to make informed decisions about whether they should read, trust, or share that story. As some of the people behind this product, designing solutions that support news readers is a responsibility we take seriously. We will continue working hard on these efforts by testing new treatments, improving existing treatments, and collaborating with academic experts on this complicated misinformation problem.Designing Against Misinformation was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Debashish Paul—or “Deb” for those who know him—is a meticulously detailed product designer whose work over the last three years at Facebook has greatly inspired other designers in the company, including myself. He has a knack for storytelling and beautifully crafted presentations as well as producing work rich in narrative in collaboration with partners.As Ryan Lee, who has worked closely with Deb on the Facebook camera and stories products, put it: “Deb is one of the most generative designers I’ve ever worked with. When working through ideas, he brings in the rest of the design team, product managers, researchers, engineering and other cross-functional partners early. He’s able to iterate with them in an open way, free of egos, which leads to well-informed and thoughtful product decisions.”Tanner: You’ve been at Facebook for three years now Deb, what was it like when you joined?Deb: When I joined Facebook I went in having assumptions about how the company works and the different teams and what they all do. I realized on my first day that it’s a very different world once you’re in.There are so many different products and problems to solve at Facebook, so many different teams working on these problems.Tanner: And you weren’t originally from the United States, you moved here not long before joining Facebook right?Deb: Yeah, just one year before I joined Facebook, my wife and I moved to the United States from Bangalore, India, which is right on the other side of the planet. More than the distance and new home, I was struck by the shift in culture as well as some of the fundamentals of design at Facebook. I was new to the valley, and I’ve learned a lot since joining Facebook and how design here is different than where I’ve worked in the past.Tanner: How so?Deb: At Facebook, it’s different, design is at the front of decision making, designers contribute to the strategy. We’re very much a core part of the whole team.Before I joined Facebook, a lot of my experience—and designers I worked with elsewhere—weren’t included in the first phase of the product process. We were always considered as a second or third layer when it came to building things. Problems would be identified by product managers or other higher-ups in the company, decisions were made and only then designers would be asked to create mocks. Also before I joined Facebook, visual design, interaction design, and prototyping were different roles entirely on a design team in my experience. I wasn’t used to a single role for doing it all. My past experience was a stark difference to what things are like here.”At Facebook design is at the front of decision making, designers contribute to the strategy.”The other difference I’ve experienced since joining is I’ve realized how previous companies I worked with were very tool-centric. At Facebook we’re more focused on problem solving, that was one of the big challenges I faced after coming here.Illustrations by Andrew Colin Beck for this article.Tanner: What do you mean by tool-centric? Because even here we’re pretty easily distracted by the newest, shiniest tools.Deb: What I mean is, here at Facebook designers are looking to make a real difference, not just make something just because the tool allows them to do it. The tool-centric approach only helps designers get feedback on screen-based designs and not the design decisions going on behind the scenes. When you focus more on tools you overlook important questions like: “Why are we doing this?” and “Is this the right thing we should be designing?” That was a thing I had to learn when I joined Facebook: to be more problem-focused and less oriented around just what the tools can do.Working on Facebook Business Manager really drove that concept home. I had to focus on the problems real businesses were experiencing and how our technology might help solve those issues.Tanner: How did you make that shift, from being tool-oriented to more problem-focused in your process?Deb: When I was very young I was into films—I always had a knack for film making and loved following the process of which some of my favorite movies were made—and I relate film making to the design process. If you look into how movies were made 50 years ago and how they are made today, the process has changed because of the tools.At the end of the day, we are still telling these amazing stories using motion pictures, but the tools and techniques that are used today have largely evolved.Filmmakers have a lot they don’t have to think about now. They used to have a lot of constraints, now you can shoot with 50 different cameras and 50 different angles and figure out how it all comes together in post-production. The same thing has happened for designing products. The tools still matter, but it’s when things come together that the work really gets done. Products like the Facebook camera make that more clear: you can do a lot in post-production these days even on something like your phone.“The tools still matter, but it’s when things come together that the work really gets done.”Tanner: Yes! I immediately started thinking of collaboration. Collaboration is pretty critical to being able to pull things together, right? You can’t have 50 different cameras shooting things and try to pull it together if the person running the camera isn’t in-sync with the director.Deb: Right, the way I’m trying to connect product design to films is that there’s a huge team working both on screen and behind the scenes. You have all of these mutually exclusive skills that have to come together to tell a story. And each skill is a specialist in their own way, it’s why actors are often given only certain types of roles.Think of the actor who is always the protagonist, an antagonist, the lead, the comic relief—they know how to act the part. The same is true of design, where you have designers who are exceptional at interactions or motion design and others who are a bit better with visuals.As product designers, we all understand how to solve problems with design. I think that this aspect helps us to empathize about how each other role in a project works. And collaboration only works if there is a good amount of empathy; for those you’re building products for and for your co-workers. You have to be able to build up your ability to empathize by putting yourself in their shoes, see the world through their eyes, and feel what they might feel when they encounter the work you’re doing.At the end of the day, the success of the film or design project comes from the individual’s ability to understand and execute on the script they’ve been given. And if the script isn’t written well the actor can’t do their job. Design is the same. The script in our case is the framing of the problem, the “why” of the whole story. If the framing of the problem doesn’t answer some of the core questions, it is not going to work.The only way to get the work done or improve it is by working as a team—each person must do their job well and collaborate as a team. We do that nicely at Facebook, pulling together teams of individuals that compliment each other.“The only way to get the work done or improve it is by working as a team.”Tanner: Totally, I feel like many designers—particularly those just starting out—want to take a problem and hide away with it in order to produce the work, but that usually backfires. They want to shelter their ideas and designs but end up weakening them instead. Like an immune system that hasn’t had a chance to strengthen itself against diseases. Designers who don’t collaborate well end up seeing things from a very limited perspective and that hurts the designs.Deb: It all comes back to diverse, even specialist, perspectives and then learning how to listen well. You should be the expert in something—visual design, interaction, whatever—but if you want to get better you have to learn to listen to the people you work with and even people you meet out during the day. I’d say try to be a designer who is a jack of all trades but a master of just one. The “master” in you will make you valuable for the team and the “jack” will help you empathize with others.It’s like this: when you grow up you have different belief systems than other people, and we all learn from our own life experiences. People have different ways of communicating their own stories, so it’s important for us as designers to focus on the skill of listening and understanding. What is this person telling me? What is the story they’re telling? How does this thing relate to this other thing? Design and collaborating is much more than just communicating outward.Design is about inward absorption as well. I feel there is a great sense of enrichment when you understand common concepts from different point of views. Ultimately, it helps you tell stories that people connect with more.I think you are made up of your own thoughts and perspectives—there isn’t really anything else which shapes you early on in life. But these perspectives and points of view can grow and improve if you become a good listener. Hearing what someone else says can sometimes change your life.“Perspectives and points of view can grow and improve if you become a good listener.”Tanner: But it’s difficult to learn how to listen. Particularly if you want to really own the design work. You don’t want to get some feedback or hear something that might make the design change, and so you either don’t try to share the work or you don’t try executing on an idea.Deb: Right. This all comes from a lesson from my childhood. I remember traveling to a city for a sporting event when I was young, as I was walking around I met a Sadhoo (Hindu devotees with strong beliefs).The Sadhoo told me about his life. I didn’t really understand anything he said but I listened deeply. Things he said have stuck with me. One of the things he told me though I still think about today. It’s funny how when we really listen we can recall things we wouldn’t ever expect to later on.According to this man, on your death bed your entire life will flash in front of you. And the thing you’ll ask yourself is: what did I do in my life? But you won’t think about the things you did right or wrong, what you’ll think about is everything you didn’t do.You’ll think about the opportunities you didn’t take. Things you wish you could have done. And those are the highest points of your life you’ll be reflecting on.The lesson is this: anything you feel like in life should be done, you should try it. Because if you win, you lead. If you lose, you guide. Whether you succeed or you fail at something, you’ll still have something to offer others as a result of simply trying.“The stories we tell and the stories other tell us shape our work, our beliefs, and that’s what shapes us, as designers and people.”Tanner: So good! That quote gave me goosebumps.Deb: Right? It’s a quote from a great Indian philosopher, but I deeply believe in it. No matter the result of what your actions are, you’re still valuable for someone. But only if you’re open to things, and wanting to learn, and listen and experience. You have to stop and open yourself to others’ perspectives, because that’s what will shape you.I wouldn’t be at Facebook if I hadn’t pursued that perspective of just trying, of just applying and seeing what happens.We have these posters at Facebook that say: “Even busy bees stop and smell flowers.” I think often about that saying, and how it’s at the heart of not only the work we do but also our own life experiences. The stories we tell and the stories other tell us shape our work, our beliefs, and that’s what shapes us, as designers and people.Follow Debashish on Medium or Twitter. Illustrations for this article by Andrew Colin Beck.An Interview with Facebook Product Designer Debashish Paul was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
People make their way to content strategy in all kinds of ways. That’s partly because it’s a relatively new discipline, which means people have few preconceived ideas of how content strategists are supposed to work. By experimenting with my own workflow, I’ve found that getting comfortable with design and prototyping tools and learning my way around coding environments has not only helped me be a more effective content strategist, but has also made me a more well-rounded UX practitioner and collaborator. I remember installing the design software Sketch for the first time: I’d offered to take a small, content-oriented project off an overworked designer’s plate. To save time, rather than frame the problem in a slide deck or document, she sent me her Sketch files for a new component so I could make the changes myself. I spent the afternoon fiddling with Sketch — trying to draw arrows, figuring out how to edit and resize text layers, exporting artboards to share with others. Writing words in the mockups themselves felt new and exciting—like the rudiments of actual, tangible progress in how I worked. I was hooked.For me, the most satisfying way to practice content-first design has been to work directly within the designs.As a content strategist at Facebook, I’m tasked with maintaining the conceptual frameworks and voice— simple, straightforward and human — we use to talk to our community so that we create experiences that are clear, consistent and compassionate. Everything from the tone we use to the ways we write, demonstrate, and share our work helps to create experiences that are more thoughtful, more human and better for the people using them. I have a lot of autonomy over how I do that work, though. And over time, I’ve found that some of the best methods for creating content and showing others the value of content strategy are in the tools and processes of designers and engineers, not in text files. I’ll share more about what it means to be an interdisciplinary content strategist, show why it’s worth the effort, and offer some guidance for getting started.Learn to design and prototype ideas on your ownLike most content strategists, when starting a new project, my go-to for a long time was a document or spreadsheet. I’d create nicely organized tables, import screenshots and label my columns just so. I got a lot of satisfaction from making these finely tuned documents and still do.But when these documents were my only deliverable, I spent more time giving feedback and catching up to design and engineering work than actually helping build products. I felt stuck in a reactive posture. This led to a lot of redundant effort too. Designs inevitably changed, rendering my content out of date. While I tried to demonstrate rigor and strategic thinking in these documents, it often felt like I was showing my work for its own sake, rather than providing something others might find useful.Nowadays, instead of starting in a text document, I begin most projects by using the same components and design tools as the designers on my team. When a designer shows me something they’re working on in Sketch, my first request is for them to share their artboards with me. When they build a prototype in Framer or Origami, I ask for the files so I can see how they did it. Over time, gaining proficiency in these tools has helped me iterate on existing design work far more effectively.While I tried to demonstrate rigor and strategic thinking in these documents, it often felt like I was showing my work for its own sake, rather than providing something others might find useful.For example, on a recent project, I learned we could add a new piece of functionality that I’d assumed we wouldn’t have time to implement. After talking with the designer on my team about the right solution, I made changes to the designs and prototype myself. This saved both of us time: she could focus on higher-order problems, and I didn’t need to wait for her to mock up the change and address discrepancies between the content and designs. I took care of it at the source. Lately, I’ve started designing and prototyping basic product flows from scratch, addressing the problems I want to solve from the start. Becoming more self-reliant and learning to bring ideas to life on my own has helped me build richer relationships with designers, too; we operate more cross-functionally, and we understand each other better. The designers on my team place more trust in my opinions about product design, and I find their feedback on content more useful as well. For me, the most satisfying way to practice content-first design has been to work directly within the designs. I still write and maintain text documents, which often work better for quick, smaller content projects, or when I need to show multiple options at once. But when I have an idea I feel especially excited about, designing and prototyping it myself has been far more effective at getting buy-in and garnering interest than any document, proposal or brainstorm I’ve ever put together.Update content yourself and get involved in code reviewsMost product content strategists rely on code — and the engineers who write it — for our work to see the light of day. So it’s worth understanding the coding (and code deployment) process, and even more important to become part of it. For me, working in code is all about owning my writing from concept to draft to publication. Being able to update content on my own is empowering, and it’s become an essential part of how I work.I’d argue that true product literacy requires some form of code literacy. And code is, after all, just another kind of language—every content strategist’s natural medium. But if updating your own content or otherwise working directly in code sounds daunting, I’d suggest you start by gaining literacy in how engineers on your team work — the tools they use and how they iterate on and publish their code. If your team uses the software development platform GitHub, for example, consider learning how to create and merge your own pull requests. Learning new skills for their own sake is usually worthwhile, but learning skills that give you a more holistic perspective of your work are even more valuable. They help make you a more well-rounded collaborator and, because learning how your teammates work is a kind of empathy, you’ll build rapport in the process. Plus, if you know how engineers on your team work, you can insert yourself into their workflow and make their lives easier by removing steps from how they deploy your content. Fewer opportunities for confusion are always better.True product literacy requires some form of code literacy. And code is, after all, just another kind of language — every content strategist’s natural medium.I ask every engineer I work with to include me in their code reviews. Inserting yourself in the code review process helps ensure you’re a part of the conversation until the very end and that your team ships the text you specified. Lots of polishing and finessing tend to happen during implementation, and being in the thick of this process means you’ll find and address issues you’d otherwise miss. I’ve caught typos, found better phrasings at the last minute and prevented translation issues. Engineers appreciate that you’re helping to ship a better experience, too. If you want to dip your toe into developer environments or ship your own code, getting involved in your team’s existing code review process is a great place to start.Make the caseIt takes time to learn these skills, and it can feel daunting to change something fundamental about the way you work. It also helps to have a team that’s open to you taking a less traditional approach. If you’re having trouble getting your team on board, start by looking for small ways you can change how you work right now, rather than making an elaborate case to change a team-wide process.If people are accustomed to you sharing documents with them, start incorporating visual examples of your changes in those documents. Build prototypes and link to them. Ask your team for suggestions on how you provide work to them, or how you can help them be more efficient. If engineers aren’t tagging you in their code reviews, follow them in whatever coding environment they use and look for natural ways to join the conversation. Subscribe to their work streams so you can see what they’re up to. Depending on which coding environment you use, it may be possible to add a rule that automatically subscribes you to code reviews that involve specific engineers or content changes. After a while, engineers on your team will get used to you being around, and will start involving you without anyone feeling like they’ve had to learn and adopt a new process.If you’re trying your hand at updating code and need someone to teach you, or need to make a case for getting the right permissions, try framing it as a way to save engineering time. When you’re fixing typos and tweaking error messages, engineers can focus on tougher problems—and you’re helping fix bugs in the process. I don’t want to diminish the difficulty of changing hearts and minds. The good news, though, is that content strategy is so new, few people have a preconceived idea of how you’re “supposed” to work—you get to decide. So if you’re spending most of your time creating perfectly honed spreadsheets and documents, I’d suggest you put them aside for a while, and try using the same tools and processes as the designers and engineers on your team. Learn to speak their language. You won’t be disappointed.More than Words: Being an Interdisciplinary Content Strategist was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Thoughts on how WhatsApp and Facebook design at scaleI’ve been a product designer at Facebook close to four years. I’ve worked on a variety of teams such as Groups, Sharing, and Privacy. At this time last year, I got an exciting opportunity to begin work on WhatsApp.Going in, I knew designing for WhatsApp was going to be a significantly different experience than designing for Facebook. It’s been more eye-opening than I expected and taught me to approach problems and my work from different angles than I’d previously considered.I’ve learned a lot over the past year and want to share what I’ve observed designing for WhatsApp and Facebook.Strong principlesWhatsApp designs and builds its product with specific principles in mind. These principles are at the core of the decision-making process. Here are some examples of these shared values:The interface should feel native to the device the person is usingThe app should be lightweight and require as little storage as possibleThe interface should be simpleUser actions and animations should be quick to respondFeatures should provide obvious utility so they require little introductionWhereas Facebook uses a high level mission to drive company decisions, WhatsApp uses these principles to focus product conversations so the majority of the design thinking goes into the minutiae of the execution.Usually every Facebook designer I tell this to recoils. They say things like: I would hate that! Who decides the product direction? Does it feel like you aren’t in control? Can you introduce new ideas?WhatsApp’s decision-making is significantly more top-down than Facebook when it comes to roadmapping. I personally find it brings me more focus to the work I’m doing. I influence the product through my designs, which makes sense to me…I’m a designer.That being said, there’s still plenty of space to propose ideas and state my thoughts on roadmap decisions, but I usually don’t need to. The items chosen for the roadmap also adhere to the shared principles.The main learning I discovered is that if your team can find strong design principles to agree on, it will make your team more efficient. The more values you agree on, the more efficient you’ll become and the less communication will be necessary in order to achieve your goals together.When building a product, having a clear problem to solve for people is half the battle. Having a framework on how to judge the proposed solutions helps make the rest of the process more efficient.Status tab on AndroidUtility driving engagement vs. engagement driving utilityWhen working on Facebook, it’s common for a designer to be tasked with introducing a new feature. This is challenging because Facebook has a lot of features already and the people using Facebook aren’t always excited when those features change. Sometimes a new feature takes time to show its value.WhatsApp approaches this problem in a pragmatic way. We try to design and build features which are obviously useful. If the feature needs explanation, it’s not ready.We also don’t tend to specifically think about engagement in the design work. In fact, we avoid using that word. We assume that if we build features that are obviously useful, engagement will naturally follow. We rarely attempt to squeeze additional engagement out of a feature.One could argue that is a naive mentality to have at our scale. On the other hand, I believe this methodology comes through in the product decisions and resonates with people using WhatsApp.For me, the learning here has been that there’s not a single design formula for growing your product. You can help the user to try new things (NUXs, popovers, etc), but you can also passively encourage the user (discovery, word of mouth, etc). Finding ways to respect a person’s intent in these product decisions is beneficial and creates a respectful product experience.Text StatusDesign tools and design skillsOne thing I really miss about working on Facebook’s product is fully benefiting from how amazing the design tools have become. Facebook has a team that is focused solely on creating great tools to make designers’ jobs easier and more efficient.I use Origami pretty much daily for my prototyping and love it, but many other tools that helped me at Facebook are less relevant to the work I do now since WhatsApp doesn’t have a formalized interface kit or use the Facebook Graph API.Maintaining an interface kit for WhatsApp would probably be more work than it’s worth for our small team. We rely heavily on platform native design patterns, so there’s less need for custom standard components. We have shared Sketch documents that act as templates for commonly used patterns, but it’s all very raw compared to the highly structured Facebook and Instagram systems.One thing that caught me by surprise in my work at WhatsApp is that I often have to design iconography, illustrations and export assets by hand. I’ve had no trouble developing my UX skills working on Facebook surfaces, but I hadn’t been challenged many times with my visual design skills because of the talented illustrators and great tools we have for shared iconography. I’ve never considered myself a visual designer, but on a small team you gotta do everything well — and that includes fine visual design details.The learning here is that tools help you do your job more easily, but I encourage you to take a step back every once and while and make sure you can do the work without the help of the tools. At the very least, it helps you keep perspective on how useful the tools are.Photo filtersUnique problemsSome of the product problems I’ve encountered at WhatsApp have been like nothing I’ve ever dealt with before. For example, end-to-end encryption has many challenging side effects. Messages are stored on the user’s own device and WhatsApp doesn’t store users’ messages once they’ve been delivered.This causes behaviors in the user interface that might not make sense for people who don’t understand the underlying technology. For example, when you log into WhatsApp on a new device, you don’t immediately have all of your old messages. That’s because they’re still on your old device — there isn’t a copy on the server.At Facebook, real identity ends up being a fundamental building block of designs. At WhatsApp, we don’t require people to have a profile picture. We don’t require people to use their name! Identity is something I took for granted in my designs at Facebook, but certain problems become a lot more amorphous when you can’t rely on the benefits of identity.Another interesting example is taking literacy for granted. People can send voice memos, photos and videos to each other on WhatsApp communicating without text. One interesting challenge I had was designing the interface for people logging in to WhatsApp. People needed to know they successfully connected their contacts to WhatsApp and where to begin their conversations, but the design had to work well even for those who might not read the text.Chat Search on iOSMove slow and deliberateAt Facebook, you start with a problem. Then you propose a solution to that problem. If that gets the team excited, you test it in research. If it tests well, you start to build it and you take it out for a small test to see if it solves the problem. If it solves the problem well, you build it out to have a rich feature set and release to a wider audience. The process is iterative and it has a lot of checks and balances naturally built in. It’s a mature process and it works well.At WhatsApp, you start with a problem. You work on a spectrum of solutions. You start to whittle it down to the solutions that seem to solve it best and adhere to the principles of the app. You grind on the best solution until you think nothing is wrong with it. Then you keep grinding on the solution until nothing is actually wrong with it. Developers build the solution and you roll it out to everyone in an app update. The process is also iterative to some degree, but mainly in the design portion. There is additional pressure on design to get it right out the gate.Facebook has the value of “Move Fast.” Getting a project going at Facebook can be extremely fast, but the full process of rolling out a product can actually take quite a bit of time. If WhatsApp had a similar motto, it would be “Move Slow and Deliberate.” We take a lot more time up front in the design phase, mainly because we’re more adverse to pivoting in the development phase. When we hand off the design to engineers, we really try to deliver as much of a finished spec and mocks as possible. The advantage of this is it causes less churn in engineering, which engineers appreciate. The potential downside is that engineers can feel less involved in the process of designing the product and might feel more isolated from the product decisions.There are advantages and disadvantages to both of these methods of working, but the real learning for me is that both methods work. Neither one is particularly faster than the other, it’s more a matter of working style preference. The Facebook style allows for more overlap between the roles and the WhatsApp style has a workflow with more focused roles.Status views and Status update on iOSWrapping upI hope some of these thoughts help you think of new ways to work or come up with additional ways to bring value to your team. I feel excited and encouraged to see first hand that different working styles can be used to create great products at scale. It’s just a matter of what works for the people who are doing the work. I believe finding that way of working is very important.I also wrote this in the hopes of raising awareness of WhatsApp Design. We are a growing team and looking for more people to help out. If these values or ways of working sound interesting to you, you should check out our open positions, especially our Product Designer role.WhatsApp Careers - Product DesignerOne Year Designing at WhatsApp was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
It wasn’t until I began working at Facebook that I started to understand the challenge of designing products to solve problems for people.I’ve learned that most of my design work has nothing to do with pixels and everything to do with working as part of a team to solve a problem for people.I was initially drawn to design by the big flashy projects I saw online — the perfect animations, the clever logos, an app redesigned from scratch, etc. It all seemed so exciting. As a child I had big plans of becoming an accountant. I liked the structured rules and responsibility of being a historian of the company’s money. It didn’t seem like an enjoyable career, but that didn’t seem possible until these designers online made me think maybe, just maybe, work could be fun.I should have known at the time, but everything I saw online about design was just the tip of the iceberg. I was observing the end result of a long, thoughtful process.Now I’m at Facebook designing products for 2 billion people. A few years in, here are some of the things that surprised me.1. Your design better solve a real problem for a real personBefore I began designing professionally, I’d spend my nights working on little things like apps and websites, most of which never saw the light of day. They were usually silly ideas (like a dating app that matches people based on their search history), but they allowed me to practice my visual design.At the time, I thought I was doing the work of a product designer. I made screens and flows for these fake apps and figured that was 90% of the job. Another 8% would be emailing them to an engineer saying “please build thx” and the last 2% would be graciously accepting awards for the work.Looking back, I realize that what I was doing was far from a product designer’s job. Before working at Facebook, I didn’t spend any time identifying a problem I was trying to solve or thinking through solutions. I just wanted to make something that was “cool” and maybe get some likes on a site like Dribbble or Behance.The work I do now is grounded in solving real problems for real people. I work closely with my multidisciplinary team to identify problems, generate hypotheses, then create designs that test those hypotheses. This is the work of product design.It’s still easy for me to get excited about design trends, but approaching problems at work with a solution already in mind is a disservice to the people who are experiencing that problem. It reminds me of the saying, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”2. Your best friends are product managers and engineersOkay, they don’t have to be your best friends, but most of the time you spend designing will be partnering with them to solve problems.I used to imagine myself working on a creative factory floor with an army of designers. Together we would discuss the important issues of the day like what gradients are in, how rounded is too rounded, and whether engineers should design.At Facebook there are definitely opportunities to work with other designers. I sit right next to some, but since our designers are embedded on multidisciplinary teams, I’m primarily interacting with product managers and engineers.This works out well because the problems we are solving at this scale require us to understand the nuances involved with making decisions. If we were a centralized team jumping in and out of projects, it would require a lot of time at the beginning of projects to bring people up to speed.Product managers often have the best insight into what the entire team is working on. They see all of the projects and help make sure the team is moving towards the appropriate goal. They are my go-to teammates when I need a second opinion about my designs or need suggestions on which problem I should focus on.Working closely with engineers has made me a better designer. They have a way of pointing out the limits of your design that is frustratingly humbling. For example, I used to overlook the roundtrip time from the phone to the server. In my prototypes, “loading” happened almost instantly. An engineer eventually pointed out the expected loading times in areas without fast data networks and I immediately saw how the experience was significantly different than anticipated.Another important part of working with engineers is understanding the technical impacts of your designs. At Facebook, I try to include engineers early in the design process. That way I get feedback from them on the technical constraints I should consider and hear them out on any ideas they have for solving the problem.Here’s Daren — an engineer I get to collaborate with.I sit next to designers, we have critique twice a week, we regularly discuss design principles and best practices, but my primary partners are not designers. Learning this was an important step in understanding how to solve problems at Facebook.3. You design for people who aren’t like youUnless you are designing a niche product, you will likely have people using your product who are different from you.When I was designing on my own, the projects were silly ideas for myself. If something made sense to me, then I accepted it as good enough and moved on. Every flow made sense to me because I was the one who created it.Most people I’m designing for at Facebook don’t speak my language, don’t live in the same country, and don’t use the same state-of-the-art phone as I do.There’s an entire UX research team at Facebook that helps us understand who we’re building products for so we can break out of our biases. They get real people into research labs to experience new features, talk with people in their homes halfway around the world, and measure the impact of a product change with surveys and other methods.I’ve never seen an engineer move faster to solve a problem than when they are observing a research session and see a real person who can’t complete an essential task or reach their goal because of it.Through research, we test our assumptions with reality and are forced to look at scenarios we didn’t consider on our own. For example, a cute little button might work in English, but how does it work when it’s translated to a longer language like German? Does a slow internet connection change the best design solution? The design might look great on a high-end smartphone, but what about the people using your products on lower-end Android phones? Is the problem you are solving actually a real problem for people?Understanding who you are designing for is something that should happen well before you open Sketch or your design tool of choice. It’s a key piece of information you need before you can even get started.4. Your design will be measured“Metrics” is a word that I’ve seen scare some designers away. It’s easy to hear that word and assume it yanks creative control away from the designer and puts all decision making power into a magical chart with a bad color scheme.When I was designing on my own, I never gave much thought to metrics of any kind because most of what I designed was never trying to solve a real people problem. Considering metrics for making design decisions and measuring whether I was doing impactful work was a new concept to me when I joined Facebook.At Facebook, one of the first things I do when solving a problem is look at any relevant data we have about it. This gives me the foundation I need to understand the problem.Who will be using this feature? How many people will be impacted by the changes? How big of an improvement are we hoping to have?Identifying the metrics that matter — and how you’ll measure them — is a crucial step in design. There is more work to do than we have time to do it and getting answers to these questions can help us prioritize where we focus our attention.At Facebook, we have a saying that “data wins arguments.” If you are a designer working here, that’s a currency you need to deal in if you want to be part of the conversation. However, designers are in a unique position to push the conversation further by connecting the metrics back to people and the problems they have.Changing the conversation can be as simple as asking “Why?” I tend to ask this whenever I see a change in metrics to get my team aligned around understanding what’s changed and why it’s changed.Why did people stop going to your help website? Was it because they are less confused or because they don’t know how to get there?Every company has goals they want to achieve that evolve around people happily using their product. Metrics are a way for you and your team to get signal on whether the designs are helping solve peoples’ problems and moving the company closer to their goals.Your job may not be what you think — mine wasn’tI used to think that a large part of a product designer’s work was to make things look pretty. Since joining Facebook I’ve learned that my fundamental understanding of product design was wrong.Visual design certainly plays a role, but my job is to work with my teammates to understand the problems people are facing, translate those into possible design solutions, and consider the ways to measure if we’ve been successful in solving those problems.Fantasy vs. reality: design lessons learned on the job was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
by Shali Nguyen and Ryan FreitasStarting late last year, we set out to explore how we could make News Feed more readable, conversational, and easier to navigate. As you might imagine, designing for a community that connects two billion people can pose some unique challenges.As managers of two teams of designers that bring News Feed to life each day, we are sensitive to the fact that any changes we make can resonate across the entire Facebook experience. In speaking with people who use Facebook around the world, we’ve heard that they felt News Feed had become cluttered and hard to navigate. Solving this problem meant evolving the News Feed design system, a significant challenge for a highly-optimized product. Small changes, like a few extra pixels of padding or the tint of a button, can have large and unexpected repercussions.https://medium.com/media/40aed7394978004f2dd4a8542a176daf/hrefImproving readability on News FeedOur design and research teams are in continuing dialog with real users, every day. Consistently, our audience lets us know what they care about most:The content itself, such as a shared photoThe person who is sharing the contentHow they can leave feedback (like a comment or reaction) to what they were seeingWith feedback from real users in mind, we took a look at the anatomy of our most common story types. The idea was to break things down into their atomic parts, and make certain the design choices we’d made in the past served the needs of our audience right now.Before: This is what our existing News Feed story formats looked like when we started.We asked ourselves if we were meeting three key objectives:How might we improve News Feed to be easier to read and distinguish key areas of content?How might we make the content itself more engaging and immersive?How might we make it easier to leave feedback?These questions drove our exploration and experimentation in a design sprint, a week of coordinated brainstorming and prototyping of new ideas, across two teams of designers, researchers and content strategists. The sprint artifacts helped shape what became a north star for the future of News Feed.The first iteration of updated story formats from our design sprintWe did a variety of design treatments to find opportunities on improving how each of these content types are displayed:Make the News Feed stories easier to read by improving visual hierarchy, increasing type size and color contrastHelp people better understand and interact with News Feed actions by evolving our iconography and increasing tap target sizesProvide a more engaging content experience by expanding content full-width and reduce unnecessary UI elementsOur design sprints always include an opportunity for research to validate our explorations. With this sprint we made sure to put our work in front of real users to get their reactions.User feedback from our first round of testing.Through several rounds of iteration and testing, we learned that some of our initial design solutions helped to clean up the interface however there were decisions like placing the text on top of photos or removing explicit text labels that caused new legibility concerns. Each round of iteration got us closer to our final designs, with layouts and typography that are easier to consume without sacrificing comprehension.After: Our final round of News Feed story improvements.Making comments more conversational and engagingOur goal is to make it easier to engage in meaningful conversations, make conversation more central to more interactions, and give people more ways to express themselves. Our existing formats were rooted in message board styles, with similarly limited affordances for personal expression. As we started to look at other formats for comments, it was obvious that messaging design paradigms have empowered people to converse better than they could before.Comments before (L) and after (R).Making navigation between News Feed stories easierAnother area that we wanted to improve was how people moved to and from News Feed stories throughout the system. Depending on the content type, we watched people in lab studies open their feed and simply get stuck consuming content. We also saw how people would struggle to find the “back” button because we had been quite inconsistent with our execution on applying consistent affordances over the years.Navigation before (L) and after (R).The team opted for consistent back affordances across all the immersive views in addition to reducing the redundancy between our navigation bar and the title of the story. We also improved the transition from News Feed to story view by making the content expand in place creating a sense of remaining in context. We improved navigational gestures by enabling people to swipe back out into News Feed.https://medium.com/media/dd89d805e790715d32a15a67ce6e814d/hrefWe’re continuing to build on to the system from here and nothing is ever “done” at Facebook. As Facebook designers, we put people at the center of everything we do, so we set out to improve the experience in a meaningful way. This is a unique design challenge because we did not want to just “fiddle at the edges”, but rather make something that billions of people use every day less frustrating. We’ll be continuing to learn, iterate and improve upon our new foundation, but we’re hopeful this is a step towards a better Facebook experience.We’d like to offer launch day congratulations and a big thank you to everyone on the team! This would not have been possible without your tremendous effort and sacrifice. Christopher Welch, Kory Westerhold, Robin Clediere, Brian Frick, Cristobal Castilla, Dan Lebowitz, Crystine Gray, Emily Becklund, Nick Merola, Brittany Lawrence, Kara Fong, Paddy Underwood, Sylvia Lin, Tim Feeley, Davis Fields, Boris Ratchev, Suv Bhadra, Aaron Pang, Adam Bell, Juan Garibay, Jonathan Ballerano, Naren Hazareesingh, Michael Belkin, Zach Ritter, Joshua Wu, SheShe He, Anthony Overstreet, Kai Ding, Brody Larson, Mohammed Abid, Dragan Milisav, James Kao, Mathias Roth, Frank Yan, Patrik Chamelo, Sriram Ramasubramanian, Yohann Richard, Brian Amerige, Ergin Erant, Abhinav Jain, Alan Norbauer, Andrew Truong, Claire Lerner, Eric Guan, Inna Rubio, Jungi Kim, Kaya Tutuncuoglu, Lenino Colobong, Tyler Craft, Yuri Brunets, Wilson Ng, Steven Luscher Also thank you Geoff Teehan, John Evans, Julie Zhuo, Lars Backstrom, Hady ElKheir, John Hegeman, Mark Hull, Adam Mosseri, Tom Alison, Chris Cox and Mark Zuckerberg and the many other people that touched this project for helping support, consult and push to the finish line.Evolving the Facebook News Feed to Serve You Better was originally published in Facebook Design on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
The Industry Buzz section is divided into three major sections, which is then subdivided into smaller sections.
Corporate Blogs which include official blogs from web hosts, registrars, search engines and other related sites.
Magazines & Blogs include interesting websites related to the hosting industry, but not necessarily from official company blogs.
Industry Leaders include personal blogs from important industry leaders, such as employees from Google and WordPress. These blogs sometimes include insights on how industry leaders think, but also may contain topics not related to hosting.