Values
These are guiding behaviors intended to help with decision-making within design work. They aren’t about dictating the finished solution, but rather a way to help rank relative importance along the way. With any prioritization, there is always a sacrifice. Using the format of “this over that” forces us to take a stance on what we value, choosing the cost up front. These are intentionally open-ended to serve as a conversation starter to garner alignment.
Research informed over research-driven
We strive for research to help guide our work, but not dictate it. Push for validation through data, customer research, and experimentation, but don’t blindly settle for results that sacrifice design’s perspective.
Example 1
Data would indicate that removing the photo review step in the visitors kiosk experience would cut down average sign-in time. However, this contradicts what we feel is a better user experience—the ability for a visitor to review and retake their photo. Being research-informed means considering sign-in time as one data point, and a potential indicator of success, rather than the sole dictator.
Example 2
A web experiment concludes that a variation (with a double navigation) converts better than control (single nav). However, this contradicts what we believe is most user-friendly—navigation has the responsibility to help users move around the site easily and without confusion. Being research-informed means considering the conversion experiment as one data point, and a potential indicator of success, rather than the sole dictator.
Familiarity over originality
We emphasize designing consistently, relying on recognizable patterns. Fresh thinking will always be a focus of our workflow, but avoid impeding communication through unnecessary innovation.
Example 1
A new project requires a solution with significant interactivity. While designing a new pattern from scratch could be fun, giving the user too much to discover could lead to unnecessary confusion. Reaching familiarity means utilizing existing platform UX/UI to enhance the usability of your desired outcome.
Example 2
A project has an opportunity to introduce colors to increase differentiation. In isolation this direction is exciting, but this decision has ramifications that impact how our brand is perceived as a whole. Reaching familiarity means utilizing existing patterns to ensure consistency and equity until a broader decision has been made.
Great enough over perfectionism
Perfection is impossible and good enough is simply not enough. We shift the mindset towards great enough—don’t settle just for the sake of getting something shipped, but also don’t spiral endlessly in pursuit of an unattainable goal.
Example 1
An unvalidated, conceptual project has an open-ended timeline. Early solutions look like strong candidates, however there’s still possibilities that could be further explored. Reaching great enough means knowing when you’ve met the bar for success, rather than continuing to iterate with diminishing returns.
Example 2
A project has a short deadline with a fairly dictated solution. Garnering feedback feels futile since design opinions won’t change parameters much. However, the team should be able to rally behind any decision on a unified front. Reaching the minimum of great enough means pushing for that agreed-upon aesthetic bar, rather than executing in a silo or sidestepping feedback for the sake of time.
Reductive over elaborate
Design every element with purpose, striving for hyper-clarity and pushing against excess noise. A mindset of reduction means assuming unnecessary until proven useful.
Example 1
A project has defined spec, but there is a desire to add additional functionality that is believed to improve the design. However, without validating the need, it could end up wasting both design and engineering resources. Reaching reductivity could mean starting with a simple experience allowing user feedback to help guide future iterations.
Example 2
A design contains a lot of visual elements, intending to increase appeal and pique interest. However, when reviewing the work, it’s still critical to take a step back to deconstruct each component. Reaching reductivity means questioning the pertinence of each element to encourage focused communication and remove unnecessary noise.
Quality bars
Different kinds of projects yield different priorities. With these bars, our values are visualized on a scale of importance per project type. They are largely bucketed into two different groups—how long will a given project live, and how big is the audience. These are intentionally open-ended to serve as a conversation starter to garner alignment.
Short longevity, narrow reach
Examples: Web experiments, event branding, MVP experiment, validation projects
Short longevity, wide reach
Examples: Ad campaigns, MVP products, pitch decks
Long longevity, short reach
Examples: Blog images, swag, product feature work
Long longevity, wide reach
Examples: Rebrand, product pages, product feature work, core dashboard projects
Foundations
In addition to these principles, we believe that design needs to be accessible, communicative, and opinionated. Because they are baseline beliefs, it’s up to each individual designer to bring these into their work in a way that’s relevant and applicable.