Yeah, moderation here is non-existent now. Sad to see DN digress into a content marketing spam and agency lead gen cesspool. Guess the "community" is still here - so they can shill job postings.

SPAM

SPAM

Wow, killer feature concept and execution. This is sorely needed.

The "redesign" also trashed the sticky header/ nav at the top, which is unsightly. No idea why they even messed with this product, which was fine.

Well, at least with search results now - they stopped forcing Experiences down your throat when conducting a search for a place to stay. Assuming that has mostly to do with little to no demand.

The magazine, editorial style layout - and focus on Online Experiences - feels a bit confusing to me and ham-fisted in there to be honest. I feel like I'd like to see more of a segue into "Online Experiences" - how it works, etc., is this like a "Master Class", etc., etc.,

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Well, what do we mean here when we say "banners are about" marketers or designers - or - designers/ marketers are "responsible" for banners?

The vagary in this set-up sounds like a source of the problem.

There should be a clear delineation of roles, responsibilities and deliverables when doing marketing design and collaborating with marketing stakeholders.

It sounds like the process is broken and designers have no say/ control in the process in some scenarios.

The first step to me is simple. It all starts with a brief that is written by a marketer, which is a subset/ tactic of a marketing strategy. Where does this banner deliverable fit into a campaign? What are the other contingent tasks? Rarely is a banner created that exists in lone isolation.

I don't know how many garbage marketing design briefs, say for banners, I've seen over the years. "Copy" that is a pile of "whimsy and clever" word soup and ill-respective of the limitations of the medium at hand. Image requests with no image acquisition budget. People playing arm-chair decorators with zero regard for brand and communication standards. No strategy for testing and scaling up or down the campaigns and so on.

Thus, you can continue to receive garbage briefs (if at all) or you can drive the process, educate and receive well done marketing design briefs and requirements that you can translate into designs.

If they can't write it clearly, how can they expect you to read tea leaves and "design it". So, get the requirements.

Finally, the actual feedback and iteration process is up to the designers to drive and educate marketing stakeholders in order to set them and everyone up for success. Create a "feedback process" - that is loyal to your brand and design system standards, which effectively neutralizes any deviations.

Some feedback.

This update looks enticing. I tried ProtoPie back when, cool product. Learning a new interactive prototyping tool, implementing it into your processes, particularly with interactive prototyping - is no small task.

Thus, 30 days to try doesn't seem like a long time and I'm sure like many others - there's subscription fatigue. The feature restrictions between Individual and Team seem a bit arbitrary. "Interaction Recipes" would entice me to try as an individual and perhaps eventually upgrade, but it's not an option..

Perhaps individuals and smaller teams really aren't the audience for this product?

I'm not sure "good or bad ux" is the right way to frame it. This is a security issue first and foremost.

I think it's more about locking the account after 4 failed tries, and is this a good and effective security practice?

And if so, what industries and applications should embrace this approach, are there any possible affordances, and in what industries and applications is this overkill?

And, if not, what is a better or smarter approach for user authentication that is secure, more tolerant of user mistakes, and user friendly?

Further, it might depend on the platform. So, for example, there may be authentication methods that are better suited for mobile, which aren't possible on web and vice versa.