Figma: Endgame
#design #figma #ux #uxui #userexperience #productdesign #adobe #avengers
#design #figma #ux #uxui #userexperience #productdesign #adobe #avengers
Claim a handpicked Notion library with the 35 best Post Templates from the 7 best LinkedIn Influencers
Claim 35 Post Templates from the 7 best LinkedIn Influencers
Hang 🤙 Xu
These are the best posts from Hang 🤙 Xu.
5 viral posts with 12,161 likes, 724 comments, and 817 shares.
3 image posts, 1 carousel posts, 0 video posts, 1 text posts.
👉 Go deeper on Hang 🤙 Xu's LinkedIn with the ContentIn Chrome extension 👈
Best Posts by Hang 🤙 Xu on LinkedIn
One of the reasons I came close to quitting design last year was the surprising prevalence of inexperienced Product Managers with senior titles.
These PMs tend to be subject matter experts on the product/industry but lack sufficient transferable product skills. Most fell into PM work from adjacent roles in business development, marketing, project or program management.
As a result of this “natural transition“ they simply do not see the difference between Product Management vs industry knowledge.
Their inability to deliver mission critical P0 product work can be shocking. A thin feature backlog can often masquerade as a product roadmap due to a lack of knowledge in the differences.
Much of the work they assign to UX is targeting an MVP that isn’t actually “Viable” (creates value on its own), but rather partially working (MWP: it does something, anything).
This creates a half-baked feature factory environment that negates the value and foresight of UX. The PM's goal is making something that sorta works quickly, vs something that is engaging and useful.
Conflation also happens with “Product Management” vs “people management”, further exacerbated by having design report into product as well as the widespread belief that “a PM is a mini-CEO”. Instead of partnering with other functions, they see them as subordinates to carry out their instructions.
In order to maintain this illusion of political power and influence, over-leveled PMs closely guard key information and responsibilities.
Information asymmetry is wielded as a career advancement tool; they maintain full control over the customer/user relationship and decides when UX/UR can speak to customers/users.
When access to customers is available, they tend to prioritize access for themselves instead of trained user researchers so that they can ask subjective product-focused questions like “what features do you need to purchase our product?”.
Access to executive stakeholders in regards to strategic and financial goals are also hoarded.
By carefully withholding information, they become the inscrutable “voice of the customer” and “CEO” that others must heed. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man truly is king.
Finally, many of these PMs are unable to maintain basic measurable impact beyond work velocity and superficial sales targets. Thus UX often has no impactful KPIs to connect their design and research work to, further diminishing their impact and influence.
These PMs tend to be subject matter experts on the product/industry but lack sufficient transferable product skills. Most fell into PM work from adjacent roles in business development, marketing, project or program management.
As a result of this “natural transition“ they simply do not see the difference between Product Management vs industry knowledge.
Their inability to deliver mission critical P0 product work can be shocking. A thin feature backlog can often masquerade as a product roadmap due to a lack of knowledge in the differences.
Much of the work they assign to UX is targeting an MVP that isn’t actually “Viable” (creates value on its own), but rather partially working (MWP: it does something, anything).
This creates a half-baked feature factory environment that negates the value and foresight of UX. The PM's goal is making something that sorta works quickly, vs something that is engaging and useful.
Conflation also happens with “Product Management” vs “people management”, further exacerbated by having design report into product as well as the widespread belief that “a PM is a mini-CEO”. Instead of partnering with other functions, they see them as subordinates to carry out their instructions.
In order to maintain this illusion of political power and influence, over-leveled PMs closely guard key information and responsibilities.
Information asymmetry is wielded as a career advancement tool; they maintain full control over the customer/user relationship and decides when UX/UR can speak to customers/users.
When access to customers is available, they tend to prioritize access for themselves instead of trained user researchers so that they can ask subjective product-focused questions like “what features do you need to purchase our product?”.
Access to executive stakeholders in regards to strategic and financial goals are also hoarded.
By carefully withholding information, they become the inscrutable “voice of the customer” and “CEO” that others must heed. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man truly is king.
Finally, many of these PMs are unable to maintain basic measurable impact beyond work velocity and superficial sales targets. Thus UX often has no impactful KPIs to connect their design and research work to, further diminishing their impact and influence.
An important question I often ask to gauge a designer’s skill level is “what problem is this feature or case study solving?”
More experienced designers understand the true underlying problem faced by the user or business, while less experienced ones see the problem as a lack of a feature or functionality.
For example, “the user is not able to customize the dashboard easily” is not a true problem statement, because the urge to build a feature (a customizable dashboard) is disguised as a problem statement.
The “problem” merely exists in the minds and opinions of a stakeholder, which works great for advertising or marketing, but not for UX.
A false problem statement is:
❌ Solution-oriented, self-referencing and meta (The problem is we don’t have X so we must build X)
❌ Often surface level, and similar to feedback from a user or internal stakeholder (”user: I wish there was a way to do X”)
On the other hand, a true problem statement is divorced from any possible solution. It’s often multi-layered and connected to a deeper issue.
A true problem statement is:
✅ Ignorant of the solution. The solution may not be clear or even exist.
✅ Often not opinion based (not what one thinks), and is instead behavioral and action based (what one does).
Here are two problem statements, which one is a fake problem statement and which one is true?
🅰️ “Users take too long to read job postings (3.5 minutes on average) and 67% of job postings are not relevant to the average job seeker”
🅱️ “The user is not able to filter for only the jobs they’re qualified for and must read through a job posting to determine if they’re qualified or not”
If your closest collaborators can’t differentiate a feature from a problem statement, this is indicative of a poor, immature product development process where designers are forced to reframe senior executive directives as a fake problem statement they’re solving through the feature they’ve been told to build.
More experienced designers understand the true underlying problem faced by the user or business, while less experienced ones see the problem as a lack of a feature or functionality.
For example, “the user is not able to customize the dashboard easily” is not a true problem statement, because the urge to build a feature (a customizable dashboard) is disguised as a problem statement.
The “problem” merely exists in the minds and opinions of a stakeholder, which works great for advertising or marketing, but not for UX.
A false problem statement is:
❌ Solution-oriented, self-referencing and meta (The problem is we don’t have X so we must build X)
❌ Often surface level, and similar to feedback from a user or internal stakeholder (”user: I wish there was a way to do X”)
On the other hand, a true problem statement is divorced from any possible solution. It’s often multi-layered and connected to a deeper issue.
A true problem statement is:
✅ Ignorant of the solution. The solution may not be clear or even exist.
✅ Often not opinion based (not what one thinks), and is instead behavioral and action based (what one does).
Here are two problem statements, which one is a fake problem statement and which one is true?
🅰️ “Users take too long to read job postings (3.5 minutes on average) and 67% of job postings are not relevant to the average job seeker”
🅱️ “The user is not able to filter for only the jobs they’re qualified for and must read through a job posting to determine if they’re qualified or not”
If your closest collaborators can’t differentiate a feature from a problem statement, this is indicative of a poor, immature product development process where designers are forced to reframe senior executive directives as a fake problem statement they’re solving through the feature they’ve been told to build.
The biggest mindset shift I've seen with an AI design tool like Magic Patterns is that it reverses the product development process.
Unlike previous methods of building products from simple MVPs to big and complex products, AI design tools go broad and complex first, thus requiring the designer to actively scale it back down.
This reversal means more of the latter stage work such as validation testing is moved to the very front of the queue.
Instead of deciding what to build, designers will make decisions on which features generated by the AI tool to remove. Designers ironically will become de-constructors instead of 'builders'.
If you're in NYC on Wednesday, June 18th, we're going to be digging deep into this completely Figma-less AI design workflow and its wider ramifications at Ramp.
It'll be followed with the biggest design after-party in NYC and ping pong tournament hosted by Mobbin and Optimal.
We've already sold 65% of tickets after only 2 days: https://lnkd.in/eHaucYiv
Unlike previous methods of building products from simple MVPs to big and complex products, AI design tools go broad and complex first, thus requiring the designer to actively scale it back down.
This reversal means more of the latter stage work such as validation testing is moved to the very front of the queue.
Instead of deciding what to build, designers will make decisions on which features generated by the AI tool to remove. Designers ironically will become de-constructors instead of 'builders'.
If you're in NYC on Wednesday, June 18th, we're going to be digging deep into this completely Figma-less AI design workflow and its wider ramifications at Ramp.
It'll be followed with the biggest design after-party in NYC and ping pong tournament hosted by Mobbin and Optimal.
We've already sold 65% of tickets after only 2 days: https://lnkd.in/eHaucYiv
