Interesting take, but I think it all depends on the use case. We have some cockpit-like screens where our users want to see everything at once. And then other view, which are contextual, presenting the minimum information needed to make a decision. But opportunities to dive deeper if needed.

They aren't design-related. But I think it's important to just be open to anything to find ideas and related things.

Right now:

"Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life," by William Finnegan "All The Light We Cannot See," by Anthony Doerr

Design-related, "A Designer's Research Method"

You made some great points, but I feel like you should really emphasize the design as a stakeholder. For instance, my company doesn't have a CDO. I don't think a C-suite position even is necessary for us. Since we are a massive corporation that offers lots of different products from hardware, software, services, aircraft, spacecraft, etc. But, every project (software or enterprise system) that I've been on, design is a key stakeholder. It's built into our contracts and it's joint feedback from everyone on where to move forward. We have systems engineers, mission engineers, and designers and we all handle similar parts of shaping the project's development. We guide the development on what needs to happen and how it could happen. We have feedback opportunities and make decisions that shape the development of our work.

I guess, I'd never call my company design-driven, but design is a key stakeholder, and our customers' value quality user experience & design practices.

The question should be, isn't if a company is design-driven, (I mean, they're all profit-driven). But, does the company truly understand and value design? Design as a stakeholder and asking a designer are some of the best practices in learning if your work is valued.

Enforcing it industry wide would be difficult, but I think it just starts with conversations, Medium articles, podcasts, since enough people seek that info. Then those people share with their peers that don’t engage.

Risk management will look different and need to be different for each company. We have a process for my projects, but it’s mainly due to our products need to work right away and have rigorous testing.

I think we need to start looking at developing, or adding to, risk management processes for what we create. We need to be cognizant of those risks whether they are benign or not. We all thought Facebook was fairly benign, but now, it can reshape the world. We recognized the power of social media during the Arab Spring, but brushed it off, thinking, hey, this is moving global society in a better direction. Except now it's obvious, it can be used for more nefarious purposes.

I think we need to be wary of the days of rapid development, test, and push to public now. We need to maybe approach it from a Waterfall perspective at times again. I don't mean go away from it, but, just take a little bit more time to evaluate our decisions and the intent of our work.

We should continually evaluate first, second, and third order effects of our decisions, which can be difficult to detect, and take time. But it should be part of our research and evaluation processes.

You started the list, but how can we verify if dark patterns, bias, exclusion, or fatal risks are in our design? Or just if someone can game the algorithm to increase virality of their influence operations/fake news.

Engineering of all kinds goes through a risk mitigation process (or at least should), how can we contribute or take ideas from that? Since an increasing number of us work with increasingly complex and/or impactful systems.

Just wanted to share this, it's a great synopsis of the design problems many teams currently face and principles to work it.

If Figma enterprise can be hosted on our own servers, you've won our business.

Congrats to Figma though!

I'm obviously not Pablo, but I've taken more of a business role lately, in trying to earn new business and interacting with our clients and not just the end-user.

Obviously, this depends on your product, industry, and the beliefs and values of your organization.

The key is framing your story and sharing why usability/design is key.

Point 1: User advocacy should align with business objectives, since happy users = repeat business or continued business. For my organization, we view it from a mission model perspective, which is defining what the bare minimum to accomplish their assigned mission from two perspectives, the end-user and the person providing the funding.

Between user advocacy, use a cost-benefit analysis to determine what's acceptable? Does it cost an tremendous amount of money versus little benefit to the user? Or is it detrimental to the user, and still expensive? If the user abandons using it, or they cannot complete the intended task, or have an extremely painstaking process.

Basically, is there going to be a return on your investment? If no, then sometimes it needs to be cut. Watching those pain points and testing them can be indicators of if there is an ROI.

Point 2: Tradeoff between polish and speed of shipping, this is a tricky one, since it's really dependent on what it needs to accomplish. For my organization, it needs to be close to perfect before shipping most things, since we do very very very costly work. And then take into account, is your organization good at going back with updates? Or no? If you're a B2C startup, get in the market as soon as there's a fringe benefit for your intended user. If you're managing complex space systems, that better be near perfect.

Point 3: It really depends on what you think of your product. I work at a large aerospace company, some people think we're the devil incarnate, but I think we provide national security, science & technology solutions that help keep the world turning and push human society forward (like space telescopes). So, I would say, are you proud of your work? Where do you see if helping people? Ask your friends that don't work at your organization.

You have many stakeholders, your users, your leadership, your coworkers, and/or your shareholders.

I'm lucky enough to still do UX research & design, while combining it with business development and mission engineering.

In any organization, it's about showing results, if you're an NGO/non-profit how many people are you helping? If you're a governmental organization, are you advancing your mission? If you're a for-profit company, are you earning maintaing, creating long-term value, and building new opportunities? And with the growth of social entrepreneurship are you helping people and making money?

Of course Magic Leap finally releases after we purchased several Hololenses.

Eh, you don't really notice it. But when you take the time to look at it again, since it's always mentioned in design forums. You realize, wow, this is pretty stupid.

It's obvious why the decision was made (I mean, there's a speaker, and like 4 cameras right there). But, better integration could've been key.

I expect better from Apple's designers, but it seems like they have been slowly drifting off course.