I am a creative. What I do is alchemy. It is a mystery. I do not so much do it, as let it be done through me.

I am a creative. Not all creative people like this label. Not all see themselves this way. Some creative people see science in what they do. That is their truth, and I respect it. Maybe I even envy them, a little. But my process is different—my being is different.

Apologizing and qualifying in advance is a distraction. That’s what my brain does to sabotage me. I set it aside for now. I can come back later to apologize and qualify. After I’ve said what I came to say. Which is hard enough. 

Except when it is easy and flows like a river of wine.

Sometimes it does come that way. Sometimes what I need to create comes in an instant. I have learned not to say it at that moment, because if you admit that sometimes the idea just comes and it is the best idea and you know it is the best idea, they think you don’t work hard enough.

Sometimes I work and work and work until the idea comes. Sometimes it comes instantly and I don’t tell anyone for three days. Sometimes I’m so excited by the idea that came instantly that I blurt it out, can’t help myself. Like a boy who found a prize in his Cracker Jacks. Sometimes I get away with this. Sometimes other people agree: yes, that is the best idea. Most times they don’t and I regret having  given way to enthusiasm. 

Enthusiasm is best saved for the meeting where it will make a difference. Not the casual get-together that precedes that meeting by two other meetings. Nobody knows why we have all these meetings. We keep saying we’re doing away with them, but then just finding other ways to have them. Sometimes they are even good. But other times they are a distraction from the actual work. The proportion between when meetings are useful, and when they are a pitiful distraction, varies, depending on what you do and where you do it. And who you are and how you do it. Again I digress. I am a creative. That is the theme.

Sometimes many hours of hard and patient work produce something that is barely serviceable. Sometimes I have to accept that and move on to the next project.

Don’t ask about process. I am a creative.

I am a creative. I don’t control my dreams. And I don’t control my best ideas.

I can hammer away, surround myself with facts or images, and sometimes that works. I can go for a walk, and sometimes that works. I can be making dinner and there’s a Eureka having nothing to do with sizzling oil and bubbling pots. Often I know what to do the instant I wake up. And then, almost as often, as I become conscious and part of the world again, the idea that would have saved me turns to vanishing dust in a mindless wind of oblivion. For creativity, I believe, comes from that other world. The one we enter in dreams, and perhaps, before birth and after death. But that’s for poets to wonder, and I am not a poet. I am a creative. And it’s for theologians to mass armies about in their creative world that they insist is real. But that is another digression. And a depressing one. Maybe on a much more important topic than whether I am a creative or not. But still a digression from what I came here to say.

Sometimes the process is avoidance. And agony. You know the cliché about the tortured artist? It’s true, even when the artist (and let’s put that noun in quotes) is trying to write a soft drink jingle, a callback in a tired sitcom, a budget request.

Some people who hate being called creative may be closeted creatives, but that’s between them and their gods. No offense meant. Your truth is true, too. But mine is for me. 

Creatives recognize creatives.

Creatives recognize creatives like queers recognize queers, like real rappers recognize real rappers, like cons know cons. Creatives feel massive respect for creatives. We love, honor, emulate, and practically deify the great ones. To deify any human is, of course, a tragic mistake. We have been warned. We know better. We know people are just people. They squabble, they are lonely, they regret their most important decisions, they are poor and hungry, they can be cruel, they can be just as stupid as we can, because, like us, they are clay. But. But. But they make this amazing thing. They birth something that did not exist before them, and could not exist without them. They are the mothers of ideas. And I suppose, since it’s just lying there, I have to add that they are the mothers of invention. Ba dum bum! OK, that’s done. Continue.

Creatives belittle our own small achievements, because we compare them to those of the great ones. Beautiful animation! Well, I’m no Miyazaki. Now THAT is greatness. That is greatness straight from the mind of God. This half-starved little thing that I made? It more or less fell off the back of the turnip truck. And the turnips weren’t even fresh.

Creatives knows that, at best, they are Salieri. Even the creatives who are Mozart believe that. 

I am a creative. I haven’t worked in advertising in 30 years, but in my nightmares, it’s my former creative directors who judge me. And they are right to do so. I am too lazy, too facile, and when it really counts, my mind goes blank. There is no pill for creative dysfunction.

I am a creative. Every deadline I make is an adventure that makes Indiana Jones look like a pensioner snoring in a deck chair. The longer I remain a creative, the faster I am when I do my work and the longer I brood and walk in circles and stare blankly before I do that work. 

I am still 10 times faster than people who are not creative, or people who have only been creative a short while, or people who have only been professionally creative a short while. It’s just that, before I work 10 times as fast as they do, I spend twice as long as they do putting the work off. I am that confident in my ability to do a great job when I put my mind to it. I am that addicted to the adrenaline rush of postponement. I am still that afraid of the jump.

I am not an artist.

I am a creative. Not an artist. Though I dreamed, as a lad, of someday being that. Some of us belittle our gifts and dislike ourselves because we are not Michelangelos and Warhols. That is narcissism—but at least we aren’t in politics.

I am a creative. Though I believe in reason and science, I decide by intuition and impulse. And live with what follows—the catastrophes as well as the triumphs. 

I am a creative. Every word I’ve said here will annoy other creatives, who see things differently. Ask two creatives a question, get three opinions. Our disagreement, our passion about it, and our commitment to our own truth are, at least to me, the proofs that we are creatives, no matter how we may feel about it.

I am a creative. I lament my lack of taste in the areas about which I know very little, which is to say almost all areas of human knowledge. And I trust my taste above all other things in the areas closest to my heart, or perhaps, more accurately, to my obsessions. Without my obsessions, I would probably have to spend my time looking life in the eye, and almost none of us can do that for long. Not honestly. Not really. Because much in life, if you really look at it, is unbearable.

I am a creative. I believe, as a parent believes, that when I am gone, some small good part of me will carry on in the mind of at least one other person.

Working saves me from worrying about work.

I am a creative. I live in dread of my small gift suddenly going away.

I am a creative. I am too busy making the next thing to spend too much time deeply considering that almost nothing I make will come anywhere near the greatness I comically aspire to.

I am a creative. I believe in the ultimate mystery of process. I believe in it so much, I am even fool enough to publish an essay I dictated into a tiny machine and didn’t take time to review or revise. I won’t do this often, I promise. But I did it just now, because, as afraid as I might be of your seeing through my pitiful gestures toward the beautiful, I was even more afraid of forgetting what I came to say. 

There. I think I’ve said it. 

In reading Joe Dolson’s recent piece on the intersection of AI and accessibility, I absolutely appreciated the skepticism that he has for AI in general as well as for the ways that many have been using it. In fact, I’m very skeptical of AI myself, despite my role at Microsoft as an accessibility innovation strategist who helps run the AI for Accessibility grant program. As with any tool, AI can be used in very constructive, inclusive, and accessible ways; and it can also be used in destructive, exclusive, and harmful ones. And there are a ton of uses somewhere in the mediocre middle as well.

I’d like you to consider this a “yes… and” piece to complement Joe’s post. I’m not trying to refute any of what he’s saying but rather provide some visibility to projects and opportunities where AI can make meaningful differences for people with disabilities. To be clear, I’m not saying that there aren’t real risks or pressing issues with AI that need to be addressed—there are, and we’ve needed to address them, like, yesterday—but I want to take a little time to talk about what’s possible in hopes that we’ll get there one day.

Alternative text

Joe’s piece spends a lot of time talking about computer-vision models generating alternative text. He highlights a ton of valid issues with the current state of things. And while computer-vision models continue to improve in the quality and richness of detail in their descriptions, their results aren’t great. As he rightly points out, the current state of image analysis is pretty poor—especially for certain image types—in large part because current AI systems examine images in isolation rather than within the contexts that they’re in (which is a consequence of having separate “foundation” models for text analysis and image analysis). Today’s models aren’t trained to distinguish between images that are contextually relevant (that should probably have descriptions) and those that are purely decorative (which might not need a description) either. Still, I still think there’s potential in this space.

As Joe mentions, human-in-the-loop authoring of alt text should absolutely be a thing. And if AI can pop in to offer a starting point for alt text—even if that starting point might be a prompt saying What is this BS? That’s not right at all… Let me try to offer a starting point—I think that’s a win.

Taking things a step further, if we can specifically train a model to analyze image usage in context, it could help us more quickly identify which images are likely to be decorative and which ones likely require a description. That will help reinforce which contexts call for image descriptions and it’ll improve authors’ efficiency toward making their pages more accessible.

While complex images—like graphs and charts—are challenging to describe in any sort of succinct way (even for humans), the image example shared in the GPT4 announcement points to an interesting opportunity as well. Let’s suppose that you came across a chart whose description was simply the title of the chart and the kind of visualization it was, such as: Pie chart comparing smartphone usage to feature phone usage among US households making under $30,000 a year. (That would be a pretty awful alt text for a chart since that would tend to leave many questions about the data unanswered, but then again, let’s suppose that that was the description that was in place.) If your browser knew that that image was a pie chart (because an onboard model concluded this), imagine a world where users could ask questions like these about the graphic:

• Do more people use smartphones or feature phones?
• How many more?
• Is there a group of people that don’t fall into either of these buckets?
• How many is that?

Setting aside the realities of large language model (LLM) hallucinations—where a model just makes up plausible-sounding “facts”—for a moment, the opportunity to learn more about images and data in this way could be revolutionary for blind and low-vision folks as well as for people with various forms of color blindness, cognitive disabilities, and so on. It could also be useful in educational contexts to help people who can see these charts, as is, to understand the data in the charts.

Taking things a step further: What if you could ask your browser to simplify a complex chart? What if you could ask it to isolate a single line on a line graph? What if you could ask your browser to transpose the colors of the different lines to work better for form of color blindness you have? What if you could ask it to swap colors for patterns? Given these tools’ chat-based interfaces and our existing ability to manipulate images in today’s AI tools, that seems like a possibility.

Now imagine a purpose-built model that could extract the information from that chart and convert it to another format. For example, perhaps it could turn that pie chart (or better yet, a series of pie charts) into more accessible (and useful) formats, like spreadsheets. That would be amazing!

Matching algorithms

Safiya Umoja Noble absolutely hit the nail on the head when she titled her book Algorithms of Oppression. While her book was focused on the ways that search engines reinforce racism, I think that it’s equally true that all computer models have the potential to amplify conflict, bias, and intolerance. Whether it’s Twitter always showing you the latest tweet from a bored billionaire, YouTube sending us into a Q-hole, or Instagram warping our ideas of what natural bodies look like, we know that poorly authored and maintained algorithms are incredibly harmful. A lot of this stems from a lack of diversity among the people who shape and build them. When these platforms are built with inclusively baked in, however, there’s real potential for algorithm development to help people with disabilities.

Take Mentra, for example. They are an employment network for neurodivergent people. They use an algorithm to match job seekers with potential employers based on over 75 data points. On the job-seeker side of things, it considers each candidate’s strengths, their necessary and preferred workplace accommodations, environmental sensitivities, and so on. On the employer side, it considers each work environment, communication factors related to each job, and the like. As a company run by neurodivergent folks, Mentra made the decision to flip the script when it came to typical employment sites. They use their algorithm to propose available candidates to companies, who can then connect with job seekers that they are interested in; reducing the emotional and physical labor on the job-seeker side of things.

When more people with disabilities are involved in the creation of algorithms, that can reduce the chances that these algorithms will inflict harm on their communities. That’s why diverse teams are so important.

Imagine that a social media company’s recommendation engine was tuned to analyze who you’re following and if it was tuned to prioritize follow recommendations for people who talked about similar things but who were different in some key ways from your existing sphere of influence. For example, if you were to follow a bunch of nondisabled white male academics who talk about AI, it could suggest that you follow academics who are disabled or aren’t white or aren’t male who also talk about AI. If you took its recommendations, perhaps you’d get a more holistic and nuanced understanding of what’s happening in the AI field. These same systems should also use their understanding of biases about particular communities—including, for instance, the disability community—to make sure that they aren’t recommending any of their users follow accounts that perpetuate biases against (or, worse, spewing hate toward) those groups.

Other ways that AI can helps people with disabilities

If I weren’t trying to put this together between other tasks, I’m sure that I could go on and on, providing all kinds of examples of how AI could be used to help people with disabilities, but I’m going to make this last section into a bit of a lightning round. In no particular order:

• Voice preservation. You may have seen the VALL-E paper or Apple’s Global Accessibility Awareness Day announcement or you may be familiar with the voice-preservation offerings from Microsoft, Acapela, or others. It’s possible to train an AI model to replicate your voice, which can be a tremendous boon for people who have ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) or motor-neuron disease or other medical conditions that can lead to an inability to talk. This is, of course, the same tech that can also be used to create audio deepfakes, so it’s something that we need to approach responsibly, but the tech has truly transformative potential.
• Voice recognition. Researchers like those in the Speech Accessibility Project are paying people with disabilities for their help in collecting recordings of people with atypical speech. As I type, they are actively recruiting people with Parkinson’s and related conditions, and they have plans to expand this to other conditions as the project progresses. This research will result in more inclusive data sets that will let more people with disabilities use voice assistants, dictation software, and voice-response services as well as control their computers and other devices more easily, using only their voice.
• Text transformation. The current generation of LLMs is quite capable of adjusting existing text content without injecting hallucinations. This is hugely empowering for people with cognitive disabilities who may benefit from text summaries or simplified versions of text or even text that’s prepped for Bionic Reading.

The importance of diverse teams and data

We need to recognize that our differences matter. Our lived experiences are influenced by the intersections of the identities that we exist in. These lived experiences—with all their complexities (and joys and pain)—are valuable inputs to the software, services, and societies that we shape. Our differences need to be represented in the data that we use to train new models, and the folks who contribute that valuable information need to be compensated for sharing it with us. Inclusive data sets yield more robust models that foster more equitable outcomes.

Want a model that doesn’t demean or patronize or objectify people with disabilities? Make sure that you have content about disabilities that’s authored by people with a range of disabilities, and make sure that that’s well represented in the training data.

Want a model that doesn’t use ableist language? You may be able to use existing data sets to build a filter that can intercept and remediate ableist language before it reaches readers. That being said, when it comes to sensitivity reading, AI models won’t be replacing human copy editors anytime soon. 

Want a coding copilot that gives you accessible recommendations from the jump? Train it on code that you know to be accessible.

I have no doubt that AI can and will harm people… today, tomorrow, and well into the future. But I also believe that we can acknowledge that and, with an eye towards accessibility (and, more broadly, inclusion), make thoughtful, considerate, and intentional changes in our approaches to AI that will reduce harm over time as well. Today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Many thanks to Kartik Sawhney for helping me with the development of this piece, Ashley Bischoff for her invaluable editorial assistance, and, of course, Joe Dolson for the prompt.

I offer a single bit of advice to friends and family when they become new parents: When you start to think that you’ve got everything figured out, everything will change. Just as you start to get the hang of feedings, diapers, and regular naps, it’s time for solid food, potty training, and overnight sleeping. When you figure those out, it’s time for preschool and rare naps. The cycle goes on and on.

The same applies for those of us working in design and development these days. Having worked on the web for almost three decades at this point, I’ve seen the regular wax and wane of ideas, techniques, and technologies. Each time that we as developers and designers get into a regular rhythm, some new idea or technology comes along to shake things up and remake our world.

How we got here

I built my first website in the mid-’90s. Design and development on the web back then was a free-for-all, with few established norms. For any layout aside from a single column, we used table elements, often with empty cells containing a single pixel spacer GIF to add empty space. We styled text with numerous font tags, nesting the tags every time we wanted to vary the font style. And we had only three or four typefaces to choose from: Arial, Courier, or Times New Roman. When Verdana and Georgia came out in 1996, we rejoiced because our options had nearly doubled. The only safe colors to choose from were the 216 “web safe” colors known to work across platforms. The few interactive elements (like contact forms, guest books, and counters) were mostly powered by CGI scripts (predominantly written in Perl at the time). Achieving any kind of unique look involved a pile of hacks all the way down. Interaction was often limited to specific pages in a site.

The birth of web standards

At the turn of the century, a new cycle started. Crufty code littered with table layouts and font tags waned, and a push for web standards waxed. Newer technologies like CSS got more widespread adoption by browsers makers, developers, and designers. This shift toward standards didn’t happen accidentally or overnight. It took active engagement between the W3C and browser vendors and heavy evangelism from folks like the Web Standards Project to build standards. A List Apart and books like Designing with Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman played key roles in teaching developers and designers why standards are important, how to implement them, and how to sell them to their organizations. And approaches like progressive enhancement introduced the idea that content should be available for all browsers—with additional enhancements available for more advanced browsers. Meanwhile, sites like the CSS Zen Garden showcased just how powerful and versatile CSS can be when combined with a solid semantic HTML structure.

Server-side languages like PHP, Java, and .NET overtook Perl as the predominant back-end processors, and the cgi-bin was tossed in the trash bin. With these better server-side tools came the first era of web applications, starting with content-management systems (particularly in the blogging space with tools like Blogger, Grey Matter, Movable Type, and WordPress). In the mid-2000s, AJAX opened doors for asynchronous interaction between the front end and back end. Suddenly, pages could update their content without needing to reload. A crop of JavaScript frameworks like Prototype, YUI, and jQuery arose to help developers build more reliable client-side interaction across browsers that had wildly varying levels of standards support. Techniques like image replacement let crafty designers and developers display fonts of their choosing. And technologies like Flash made it possible to add animations, games, and even more interactivity.

These new technologies, standards, and techniques reinvigorated the industry in many ways. Web design flourished as designers and developers explored more diverse styles and layouts. But we still relied on tons of hacks. Early CSS was a huge improvement over table-based layouts when it came to basic layout and text styling, but its limitations at the time meant that designers and developers still relied heavily on images for complex shapes (such as rounded or angled corners) and tiled backgrounds for the appearance of full-length columns (among other hacks). Complicated layouts required all manner of nested floats or absolute positioning (or both). Flash and image replacement for custom fonts was a great start toward varying the typefaces from the big five, but both hacks introduced accessibility and performance problems. And JavaScript libraries made it easy for anyone to add a dash of interaction to pages, although at the cost of doubling or even quadrupling the download size of simple websites.

The web as software platform

The symbiosis between the front end and back end continued to improve, and that led to the current era of modern web applications. Between expanded server-side programming languages (which kept growing to include Ruby, Python, Go, and others) and newer front-end tools like React, Vue, and Angular, we could build fully capable software on the web. Alongside these tools came others, including collaborative version control, build automation, and shared package libraries. What was once primarily an environment for linked documents became a realm of infinite possibilities.

At the same time, mobile devices became more capable, and they gave us internet access in our pockets. Mobile apps and responsive design opened up opportunities for new interactions anywhere and any time.

This combination of capable mobile devices and powerful development tools contributed to the waxing of social media and other centralized tools for people to connect and consume. As it became easier and more common to connect with others directly on Twitter, Facebook, and even Slack, the desire for hosted personal sites waned. Social media offered connections on a global scale, with both the good and bad that that entails.

Want a much more extensive history of how we got here, with some other takes on ways that we can improve? Jeremy Keith wrote “Of Time and the Web.” Or check out the “Web Design History Timeline” at the Web Design Museum. Neal Agarwal also has a fun tour through “Internet Artifacts.”

Where we are now

In the last couple of years, it’s felt like we’ve begun to reach another major inflection point. As social-media platforms fracture and wane, there’s been a growing interest in owning our own content again. There are many different ways to make a website, from the tried-and-true classic of hosting plain HTML files to static site generators to content management systems of all flavors. The fracturing of social media also comes with a cost: we lose crucial infrastructure for discovery and connection. Webmentions, RSS, ActivityPub, and other tools of the IndieWeb can help with this, but they’re still relatively underimplemented and hard to use for the less nerdy. We can build amazing personal websites and add to them regularly, but without discovery and connection, it can sometimes feel like we may as well be shouting into the void.

Browser support for CSS, JavaScript, and other standards like web components has accelerated, especially through efforts like Interop. New technologies gain support across the board in a fraction of the time that they used to. I often learn about a new feature and check its browser support only to find that its coverage is already above 80 percent. Nowadays, the barrier to using newer techniques often isn’t browser support but simply the limits of how quickly designers and developers can learn what’s available and how to adopt it.

Today, with a few commands and a couple of lines of code, we can prototype almost any idea. All the tools that we now have available make it easier than ever to start something new. But the upfront cost that these frameworks may save in initial delivery eventually comes due as upgrading and maintaining them becomes a part of our technical debt.

If we rely on third-party frameworks, adopting new standards can sometimes take longer since we may have to wait for those frameworks to adopt those standards. These frameworks—which used to let us adopt new techniques sooner—have now become hindrances instead. These same frameworks often come with performance costs too, forcing users to wait for scripts to load before they can read or interact with pages. And when scripts fail (whether through poor code, network issues, or other environmental factors), there’s often no alternative, leaving users with blank or broken pages.

Where do we go from here?

Today’s hacks help to shape tomorrow’s standards. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with embracing hacks—for now—to move the present forward. Problems only arise when we’re unwilling to admit that they’re hacks or we hesitate to replace them. So what can we do to create the future we want for the web?

Build for the long haul. Optimize for performance, for accessibility, and for the user. Weigh the costs of those developer-friendly tools. They may make your job a little easier today, but how do they affect everything else? What’s the cost to users? To future developers? To standards adoption? Sometimes the convenience may be worth it. Sometimes it’s just a hack that you’ve grown accustomed to. And sometimes it’s holding you back from even better options.

Start from standards. Standards continue to evolve over time, but browsers have done a remarkably good job of continuing to support older standards. The same isn’t always true of third-party frameworks. Sites built with even the hackiest of HTML from the ’90s still work just fine today. The same can’t always be said of sites built with frameworks even after just a couple years.

Design with care. Whether your craft is code, pixels, or processes, consider the impacts of each decision. The convenience of many a modern tool comes at the cost of not always understanding the underlying decisions that have led to its design and not always considering the impact that those decisions can have. Rather than rushing headlong to “move fast and break things,” use the time saved by modern tools to consider more carefully and design with deliberation.

Always be learning. If you’re always learning, you’re also growing. Sometimes it may be hard to pinpoint what’s worth learning and what’s just today’s hack. You might end up focusing on something that won’t matter next year, even if you were to focus solely on learning standards. (Remember XHTML?) But constant learning opens up new connections in your brain, and the hacks that you learn one day may help to inform different experiments another day.

Play, experiment, and be weird! This web that we’ve built is the ultimate experiment. It’s the single largest human endeavor in history, and yet each of us can create our own pocket within it. Be courageous and try new things. Build a playground for ideas. Make goofy experiments in your own mad science lab. Start your own small business. There has never been a more empowering place to be creative, take risks, and explore what we’re capable of.

Share and amplify. As you experiment, play, and learn, share what’s worked for you. Write on your own website, post on whichever social media site you prefer, or shout it from a TikTok. Write something for A List Apart! But take the time to amplify others too: find new voices, learn from them, and share what they’ve taught you.

Go forth and make

As designers and developers for the web (and beyond), we’re responsible for building the future every day, whether that may take the shape of personal websites, social media tools used by billions, or anything in between. Let’s imbue our values into the things that we create, and let’s make the web a better place for everyone. Create that thing that only you are uniquely qualified to make. Then share it, make it better, make it again, or make something new. Learn. Make. Share. Grow. Rinse and repeat. Every time you think that you’ve mastered the web, everything will change.

Picture this. You’ve joined a squad at your company that’s designing new product features with an emphasis on automation or AI. Or your company has just implemented a personalization engine. Either way, you’re designing with data. Now what? When it comes to designing for personalization, there are many cautionary tales, no overnight successes, and few guides for the perplexed. 

Between the fantasy of getting it right and the fear of it going wrong—like when we encounter “persofails” in the vein of a company repeatedly imploring everyday consumers to buy additional toilet seats—the personalization gap is real. It’s an especially confounding place to be a digital professional without a map, a compass, or a plan.

For those of you venturing into personalization, there’s no Lonely Planet and few tour guides because effective personalization is so specific to each organization’s talent, technology, and market position. 

But you can ensure that your team has packed its bags sensibly.

There’s a DIY formula to increase your chances for success. At minimum, you’ll defuse your boss’s irrational exuberance. Before the party you’ll need to effectively prepare.

We call it prepersonalization.

Behind the music

Consider Spotify’s DJ feature, which debuted this past year.

We’re used to seeing the polished final result of a personalization feature. Before the year-end award, the making-of backstory, or the behind-the-scenes victory lap, a personalized feature had to be conceived, budgeted, and prioritized. Before any personalization feature goes live in your product or service, it lives amid a backlog of worthy ideas for expressing customer experiences more dynamically.

So how do you know where to place your personalization bets? How do you design consistent interactions that won’t trip up users or—worse—breed mistrust? We’ve found that for many budgeted programs to justify their ongoing investments, they first needed one or more workshops to convene key stakeholders and internal customers of the technology. Make yours count.

​From Big Tech to fledgling startups, we’ve seen the same evolution up close with our clients. In our experiences with working on small and large personalization efforts, a program’s ultimate track record—and its ability to weather tough questions, work steadily toward shared answers, and organize its design and technology efforts—turns on how effectively these prepersonalization activities play out.

Time and again, we’ve seen effective workshops separate future success stories from unsuccessful efforts, saving countless time, resources, and collective well-being in the process.

A personalization practice involves a multiyear effort of testing and feature development. It’s not a switch-flip moment in your tech stack. It’s best managed as a backlog that often evolves through three steps: 

1. customer experience optimization (CXO, also known as A/B testing or experimentation)
2. always-on automations (whether rules-based or machine-generated)
3. mature features or standalone product development (such as Spotify’s DJ experience)

This is why we created our progressive personalization framework and why we’re field-testing an accompanying deck of cards: we believe that there’s a base grammar, a set of “nouns and verbs” that your organization can use to design experiences that are customized, personalized, or automated. You won’t need these cards. But we strongly recommend that you create something similar, whether that might be digital or physical.

Set your kitchen timer

How long does it take to cook up a prepersonalization workshop? The surrounding assessment activities that we recommend including can (and often do) span weeks. For the core workshop, we recommend aiming for two to three days. Here’s a summary of our broader approach along with details on the essential first-day activities.

The full arc of the wider workshop is threefold:

1. Kickstart: This sets the terms of engagement as you focus on the opportunity as well as the readiness and drive of your team and your leadership. .
2. Plan your work: This is the heart of the card-based workshop activities where you specify a plan of attack and the scope of work.
3. Work your plan: This phase is all about creating a competitive environment for team participants to individually pitch their own pilots that each contain a proof-of-concept project, its business case, and its operating model.

Give yourself at least a day, split into two large time blocks, to power through a concentrated version of those first two phases.

Kickstart: Whet your appetite

We call the first lesson the “landscape of connected experience.” It explores the personalization possibilities in your organization. A connected experience, in our parlance, is any UX requiring the orchestration of multiple systems of record on the backend. This could be a content-management system combined with a marketing-automation platform. It could be a digital-asset manager combined with a customer-data platform.

Spark conversation by naming consumer examples and business-to-business examples of connected experience interactions that you admire, find familiar, or even dislike. This should cover a representative range of personalization patterns, including automated app-based interactions (such as onboarding sequences or wizards), notifications, and recommenders. We have a catalog of these in the cards. Here’s a list of 142 different interactions to jog your thinking.

This is all about setting the table. What are the possible paths for the practice in your organization? If you want a broader view, here’s a long-form primer and a strategic framework.

Assess each example that you discuss for its complexity and the level of effort that you estimate that it would take for your team to deliver that feature (or something similar). In our cards, we divide connected experiences into five levels: functions, features, experiences, complete products, and portfolios. Size your own build here. This will help to focus the conversation on the merits of ongoing investment as well as the gap between what you deliver today and what you want to deliver in the future.

Next, have your team plot each idea on the following 2×2 grid, which lays out the four enduring arguments for a personalized experience. This is critical because it emphasizes how personalization can not only help your external customers but also affect your own ways of working. It’s also a reminder (which is why we used the word argument earlier) of the broader effort beyond these tactical interventions.

Each team member should vote on where they see your product or service putting its emphasis. Naturally, you can’t prioritize all of them. The intention here is to flesh out how different departments may view their own upsides to the effort, which can vary from one to the next. Documenting your desired outcomes lets you know how the team internally aligns across representatives from different departments or functional areas.

The third and final kickstart activity is about naming your personalization gap. Is your customer journey well documented? Will data and privacy compliance be too big of a challenge? Do you have content metadata needs that you have to address? (We’re pretty sure that you do: it’s just a matter of recognizing the relative size of that need and its remedy.) In our cards, we’ve noted a number of program risks, including common team dispositions. Our Detractor card, for example, lists six stakeholder behaviors that hinder progress.

Effectively collaborating and managing expectations is critical to your success. Consider the potential barriers to your future progress. Press the participants to name specific steps to overcome or mitigate those barriers in your organization. As studies have shown, personalization efforts face many common barriers.

At this point, you’ve hopefully discussed sample interactions, emphasized a key area of benefit, and flagged key gaps? Good—you’re ready to continue.

Hit that test kitchen

Next, let’s look at what you’ll need to bring your personalization recipes to life. Personalization engines, which are robust software suites for automating and expressing dynamic content, can intimidate new customers. Their capabilities are sweeping and powerful, and they present broad options for how your organization can conduct its activities. This presents the question: Where do you begin when you’re configuring a connected experience?

What’s important here is to avoid treating the installed software like it were a dream kitchen from some fantasy remodeling project (as one of our client executives memorably put it). These software engines are more like test kitchens where your team can begin devising, tasting, and refining the snacks and meals that will become a part of your personalization program’s regularly evolving menu.

The ultimate menu of the prioritized backlog will come together over the course of the workshop. And creating “dishes” is the way that you’ll have individual team stakeholders construct personalized interactions that serve their needs or the needs of others.

The dishes will come from recipes, and those recipes have set ingredients.

Verify your ingredients

Like a good product manager, you’ll make sure—andyou’ll validate with the right stakeholders present—that you have all the ingredients on hand to cook up your desired interaction (or that you can work out what needs to be added to your pantry). These ingredients include the audience that you’re targeting, content and design elements, the context for the interaction, and your measure for how it’ll come together. 

This isn’t just about discovering requirements. Documenting your personalizations as a series of if-then statements lets the team: 

1. compare findings toward a unified approach for developing features, not unlike when artists paint with the same palette; 
2. specify a consistent set of interactions that users find uniform or familiar; 
3. and develop parity across performance measurements and key performance indicators too. 

This helps you streamline your designs and your technical efforts while you deliver a shared palette of core motifs of your personalized or automated experience.

Compose your recipe

What ingredients are important to you? Think of a who-what-when-why construct: 

• Who are your key audience segments or groups?
• What kind of content will you give them, in what design elements, and under what circumstances?
• And for which business and user benefits?

We first developed these cards and card categories five years ago. We regularly play-test their fit with conference audiences and clients. And we still encounter new possibilities. But they all follow an underlying who-what-when-why logic.

Here are three examples for a subscription-based reading app, which you can generally follow along with right to left in the cards in the accompanying photo below. 

1. Nurture personalization: When a guest or an unknown visitor interacts with  a product title, a banner or alert bar appears that makes it easier for them to encounter a related title they may want to read, saving them time.
2. Welcome automation: When there’s a newly registered user, an email is generated to call out the breadth of the content catalog and to make them a happier subscriber.
3. Winback automation: Before their subscription lapses or after a recent failed renewal, a user is sent an email that gives them a promotional offer to suggest that they reconsider renewing or to remind them to renew.

A useful preworkshop activity may be to think through a first draft of what these cards might be for your organization, although we’ve also found that this process sometimes flows best through cocreating the recipes themselves. Start with a set of blank cards, and begin labeling and grouping them through the design process, eventually distilling them to a refined subset of highly useful candidate cards.

You can think of the later stages of the workshop as moving from recipes toward a cookbook in focus—like a more nuanced customer-journey mapping. Individual “cooks” will pitch their recipes to the team, using a common jobs-to-be-done format so that measurability and results are baked in, and from there, the resulting collection will be prioritized for finished design and delivery to production.

Better kitchens require better architecture

Simplifying a customer experience is a complicated effort for those who are inside delivering it. Beware anyone who says otherwise. With that being said,  “Complicated problems can be hard to solve, but they are addressable with rules and recipes.”

When personalization becomes a laugh line, it’s because a team is overfitting: they aren’t designing with their best data. Like a sparse pantry, every organization has metadata debt to go along with its technical debt, and this creates a drag on personalization effectiveness. Your AI’s output quality, for example, is indeed limited by your IA. Spotify’s poster-child prowess today was unfathomable before they acquired a seemingly modest metadata startup that now powers its underlying information architecture.

You can definitely stand the heat…

Personalization technology opens a doorway into a confounding ocean of possible designs. Only a disciplined and highly collaborative approach will bring about the necessary focus and intention to succeed. So banish the dream kitchen. Instead, hit the test kitchen to save time, preserve job satisfaction and security, and safely dispense with the fanciful ideas that originate upstairs of the doers in your organization. There are meals to serve and mouths to feed.

This workshop framework gives you a fighting shot at lasting success as well as sound beginnings. Wiring up your information layer isn’t an overnight affair. But if you use the same cookbook and shared recipes, you’ll have solid footing for success. We designed these activities to make your organization’s needs concrete and clear, long before the hazards pile up.

While there are associated costs toward investing in this kind of technology and product design, your ability to size up and confront your unique situation and your digital capabilities is time well spent. Don’t squander it. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Ever since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated with movies. I loved the characters and the excitement—but most of all the stories. I wanted to be an actor. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on exciting adventures. I even dreamed up ideas for movies that my friends and I could make and star in. But they never went any further. I did, however, end up working in user experience (UX). Now, I realize that there’s an element of theater to UX—I hadn’t really considered it before, but user research is storytelling. And to get the most out of user research, you need to tell a good story where you bring stakeholders—the product team and decision makers—along and get them interested in learning more.

Think of your favorite movie. More than likely it follows a three-act structure that’s commonly seen in storytelling: the setup, the conflict, and the resolution. The first act shows what exists today, and it helps you get to know the characters and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two introduces the conflict, where the action is. Here, problems grow or get worse. And the third and final act is the resolution. This is where the issues are resolved and the characters learn and change. I believe that this structure is also a great way to think about user research, and I think that it can be especially helpful in explaining user research to others.

Use storytelling as a structure to do research

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see research as being expendable. If budgets or timelines are tight, research tends to be one of the first things to go. Instead of investing in research, some product managers rely on designers or—worse—their own opinion to make the “right” choices for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get teams some of the way, but that approach can so easily miss out on solving users’ real problems. To remain user-centered, this is something we should avoid. User research elevates design. It keeps it on track, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay ahead of your competitors.

In the three-act structure, each act corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is critical to telling the whole story. Let’s look at the different acts and how they align with user research.

Act one: setup

The setup is all about understanding the background, and that’s where foundational research comes in. Foundational research (also called generative, discovery, or initial research) helps you understand users and identify their problems. You’re learning about what exists today, the challenges users have, and how the challenges affect them—just like in the movies. To do foundational research, you can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies (or both!), which can help you start to identify problems as well as opportunities. It doesn’t need to be a huge investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about minimum viable ethnography, which can be as simple as spending 15 minutes with a user and asking them one thing: “‘Walk me through your day yesterday.’ That’s it. Present that one request. Shut up and listen to them for 15 minutes. Do your damndest to keep yourself and your interests out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography.” According to Hall, “[This] will probably prove quite illuminating. In the highly unlikely case that you didn’t learn anything new or useful, carry on with enhanced confidence in your direction.”  

This makes total sense to me. And I love that this makes user research so accessible. You don’t need to prepare a lot of documentation; you can just recruit participants and do it! This can yield a wealth of information about your users, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their lives. That’s really what act one is all about: understanding where users are coming from. 

Jared Spool talks about the importance of foundational research and how it should form the bulk of your research. If you can draw from any additional user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can supplement what you’ve heard in the foundational studies or even point to areas that need further investigation. Together, all this data paints a clearer picture of the state of things and all its shortcomings. And that’s the beginning of a compelling story. It’s the point in the plot where you realize that the main characters—or the users in this case—are facing challenges that they need to overcome. Like in the movies, this is where you start to build empathy for the characters and root for them to succeed. And hopefully stakeholders are now doing the same. Their sympathy may be with their business, which could be losing money because users can’t complete certain tasks. Or maybe they do empathize with users’ struggles. Either way, act one is your initial hook to get the stakeholders interested and invested.

Once stakeholders begin to understand the value of foundational research, that can open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making process. And that can guide product teams toward being more user-centered. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. Storytelling is the key to this process, and knowing how to tell a good story is the only way to get stakeholders to really care about doing more research. 

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution (such as a design) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. Like act two in a movie, more issues will crop up along the way. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act. 

Usability tests should typically include around five participants according to Jakob Nielsen, who found that that number of users can usually identify most of the problems: “As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.” 

There are parallels with storytelling here too; if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may get lost. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about the research. This can help convey the issues that need to be addressed while also highlighting the value of doing the research in the first place.

Researchers have run usability tests in person for decades, but you can also conduct usability tests remotely using tools like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You can think of in-person usability tests like going to a play and remote sessions as more like watching a movie. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. You also get real-time reactions—including surprise, agreement, disagreement, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors’ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If in-person usability testing is like watching a play—staged and controlled—then conducting usability testing in the field is like immersive theater where any two sessions might be very different from one another. You can take usability testing into the field by creating a replica of the space where users interact with the product and then conduct your research there. Or you can go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. As researchers, you have less control over how these sessions go, but this can sometimes help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests provide another level of detail that’s often missing from remote usability tests. 

That’s not to say that the “movies”—remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. And they open the doors to a much wider geographical pool of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working. 

The benefit of usability testing, whether remote or in person, is that you get to see real users interact with the designs in real time, and you can ask them questions to understand their thought processes and grasp of the solution. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. Act two is the heart of the story—where the excitement is—but there can be surprises too. This is equally true of usability tests. Often, participants will say unexpected things, which change the way that you look at things—and these twists in the story can move things in new directions. 

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. In fact, if the designs that you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a solid understanding of your users (foundational research), there’s not much to be gained by doing usability testing in the first place. That’s because you’re narrowing the focus of what you’re getting feedback on, without understanding the users’ needs. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. It’s only feedback on a particular design in the context of a usability test.  

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, while you might have set out to solve the right problem, you won’t know whether the thing that you’re building will actually solve that. This illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional research. 

In act two, stakeholders will—hopefully—get to watch the story unfold in the user sessions, which creates the conflict and tension in the current design by surfacing their highs and lows. And in turn, this can help motivate stakeholders to address the issues that come up.

Act three: resolution

While the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can propel stakeholders into action, the third part is about resolving the problems from the first two acts. While it’s important to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stick around for the final act. That means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the whole team to hear users’ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. And it lets the UX research and design teams clarify, suggest alternatives, or give more context behind their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

This act is mostly told in voiceover with some audience participation. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. “The most effective presenters use the same techniques as great storytellers: By reminding people of the status quo and then revealing the path to a better way, they set up a conflict that needs to be resolved,” writes Duarte. “That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently.”

This type of structure aligns well with research results, and particularly results from usability tests. It provides evidence for “what is”—the problems that you’ve identified. And “what could be”—your recommendations on how to address them. And so on and so forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick mockups of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage gives stakeholders the next steps and hopefully the momentum to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. All the elements of a good story are there in the three-act structure of user research: 

• Act one: You meet the protagonists (the users) and the antagonists (the problems affecting users). This is the beginning of the plot. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. The output of these methods can include personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards.

• Act two: Next, there’s character development. There’s conflict and tension as the protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.

• Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. In act three, researchers may use methods including presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures. 

The researcher has multiple roles: they’re the storyteller, the director, and the producer. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters (in the research). And the stakeholders are the audience. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users’ stories through research. By the end, the stakeholders should walk away with a purpose and an eagerness to resolve the product’s ills. 

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. Ultimately, user research is a win-win for everyone, and you just need to get stakeholders interested in how the story ends.

Real life couples playing big screen lovers has been a fascination for audiences since the days of Fairbanks and Pickford, Tracy and Hepburn, Cruise and Kidman. How much of what we are watching is indicative of the real-life dynamic between these two performers? Do they love like that, lean on the other’s shoulder in the […]

The post Together: Alison Brie and Dave Franco Really Are a Horror Power Couple appeared first on Den of Geek.

Another San Diego Comic-Con is in the books. Going into what amounts to Nerd Culture Mecca last week, some margins of social media and the ceaseless online commentariat pondered whether this would be a quieter year without a Marvel or a DC Studios film slate. However, one glance at the euphoric reception Peacemaker alone received Saturday evening (as well as, ahem, on the cover of our own July issue of Den of Geek magazine), suggests there was nothing quiet at all about 135,000 fans, cosplayers, and general pop culture enthusiasts descending onto Southern California.

During the course of the convention, Den of Geek hosted a murderer’s row of talent from the worlds of film, television, comics, and more at our SDCC studio, as well as got out on the field to check out panels, activations, and events. Below is a round up of all the sights seen and memories made.

Den of Geek Studio

Alien: Earth

Alien is not only one of the most important science fiction franchises in history, it’s also one of the most cinematic. Beginning with Ridley Scott’s iconic 1979 film, each and every story about H.R. Giger’s terrifying xenomorph has proven to be a perfect fit for the feature-length film format. Alien movies are tense games of cat-and-mouse that end with the cat killing every mouse save for Sigourney Weaver. How, possibly, could that approach translate to episodic television? According to the folks behind FX’s Alien: Earth, it’s all pretty easy as long as you find the right personnel to pilot your Weyland-Yutani vessel. 

“The experience of this speaks to the experience of Noah [Hawley],” Scott Free Productions producer David. W. Zucker says of the Alien: Earth showrunner. “He’s really in rarefied air when it comes to creators. The topic of this title has come up a lot of times over the years, but through Noah, we’re able to deliver something that’s really beyond our wildest imagination.”

As the creator of the Fargo TV series and the equally heady take on X-Men mythos with Legion for FX, Hawley indeed has a penchant for unique adaptation. He explains his approach to these projects as a sentimental exercise: “I start with feelings. ‘What did I feel about the original movie?’ I don’t go back and rewatch it. I just try to remember what stuck with me about the first two films. And then my goal is to recreate those feelings in you by telling you a totally different story.”

Joining Hawley and Zucker in the Den of Geek studio were the cast of Alien: Earth—Timothy Olyphant (Kirsh), Babou Ceesay (Morrow), Alex Lawther (Hermit), Samuel Blenkin (Boy Kavalier), and Sydney Chandler (Wendy)—the last of whom plays a first for the franchise: a child’s mind in the body of an android, aka a “hybrid.”

“Kids are great acting teachers,” Chandler says. “Noah really allowed me to find comfort and take the freedom to explore and fail and try again and succeed. It was play. For pre-production we did musical chairs and then learned how to kill people on set.” – Alec Bojalad

Anne Rice’s Talamasca: The Secret Order

Building on Anne Rice’s Immortal Universe is Talamasca: The Secret Order, a show that’s billed as a supernatural spy thriller. The Talamasca is a centuries‑old secret society tasked with tracking and containing witches, vampires, werewolves, and other paranormal beings in present‑day society. Fortunately for us, the cast and showrunners who came to our studio were very forthcoming about what we could expect when the show premieres in October.

“It’s nice to have Anne’s work as a backstop and to know that she created this organization and talks about it a decent amount,” says co-showrunner John Lee Hancock. “But we don’t have to follow the strict plot construction of anything regarding a Talamasca book. All the actors here play characters that are original characters.”

Nicholas Denton’s character enters the secret world of the Talamasca and brings the viewers with him. “I play Guy Anatole who’s a figure who gives the audience a perspective on what’s going on,” he says. “He’s a skeptic. He’s gone through a lot in his life, and at this point when we meet him, he’s kind of gotten it all together only to have it taken away from him by the Talamasca.”– Michael Ahr

Batman Azteca

The Batman character has seen no shortage of reprisals, homages, and renditions since his creation in the 1930s. Come September, the newest version will be Batman Azteca: Choque de Imperios (Aztec Batman: Clash of Empires). The animated Mexican-American film takes the iconic characters of the Batman universe and, with the film being set during the Aztec Empire, gives them a historical and cultural spin.  

“For a lot of us growing up learning about the Aztec culture and also being Batman fans, having the opportunity to combine the two was a unique and excellent opportunity,” the film’s director Juan Meza-León says. Combining the two worlds required lots of research within the realms of Aztec history and the Batman universe, and also came with a fair amount of responsibility for the voice of Batman, Horacio García Rojas. 

“I love representation, but I don’t want to be a token in a big production,” he says. “I want to represent my own culture in my own context, and that’s Aztec Batman.” – Sophia Rooksberry

Butterfly

In a spy thriller, a protagonist’s greatest fear is the discovery of his weaknesses. In the case of David Jung, the hardened former U.S. intelligence operative portrayed by Daniel Dae Kim in the upcoming series Butterfly, that weakness is his family. Kim, along with costars Reina Hardesty and Piper Perabo, stopped by the Den of Geek studio to dive into the complicated family dynamics of their show, and the ways in which it sets Butterfly apart from the extensive catalog of onscreen spy stories. 

“In the beginning of our show, you meet Rebecca in the middle of a mission, something she is very used to doing … I am pursuing a target and then I find out that it is my dad who I thought died 9 years before, and so then my whole world turns upside down,” Hardesty said. 

The resulting storyline follows a father and daughter as they rediscover their relationship while running from the dangerous organization that created them both, orchestrated by Juno (Perabo). The show balances themes of family and drama with the classic staples of a spy thriller, from car chases to shootouts to hand-to-hand combat scenes that Jason Bourne would marvel at.    

“I grew up watching people like James Bond and Jason Bourne, but on the other hand, I never saw anyone that looked like me do this in America,” Kim said. “It was a little bit of taking what I could from the characters I know and loved and trying to make it my own and trying to create a new archetype.” 

Adapted from the graphic novel of the same name, Butterfly maintains originality as an adaptation, an installment of a beloved genre and a platform for AAPI representation. Visit Prime Video on Aug. 13 to dive into the subversive and emotional world. – SR 

David Dastmalchian

David Dastmalchian had been coming to comic-cons, San Diego or otherwise, as a fan for far longer than he’s been a guest up on the stage. In fact, when he enters our studio space he can be faintly nostalgic about the times he would see other folks dressed up as Thomas Schiff, a minor but memorable character he played in his first film, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. He also can be proudly affectionate of those that are slightly more recent cuts, like cosplayers spotted as Polka-Dot Man from The Sucide Squad or Jack Delroy in the new cult classic Late Night with the Devil.

Yet when we talked with the actor and comic book author last week, Dastmalchian might’ve been proudest of how genre and the things he loves can be used as a way to talk about the personal elements of life. Take for instance Through, Dastmalchian’s new graphic novel as a writer, and which is illustrated by Cat Staggs. “Sometimes you just sit at the campfire with a cool idea, and you’re like, ‘Ooh, I’m going to creep people out. Ooh, I got a journey I want to take people on.’ … I just thought it was a cool story, it didn’t hit me until halfway through scripting how personal it was.”

That journey involves a woman falling through the ice above Lake Michigan on a cold Chicago day, seemingly on purpose, only to discover she was saved by an elderly and dying stranger, who might have been following her all her life. It will reveal one side of Dastmalchian’s personality when it releases in 2026, but there are many others, informing projects that run the gamut from Murderbot to the highly anticipated Street Fighter where Dastmalchian will next be seen playing the villainous M. Bison.

“I am deep in the process right now,” Dastmalchian says of the physical training it takes to become the greatest villain in fighting game history. “I can’t say much other than how it’s so amazing, and I love getting to start building and preparing.”

Keep an eye on Den of Geek for more of our conversation with Dastmalchian, from Through to Street Fighter, and everything in between. – David Crow

Defiant 

We had the privilege of speaking with the passionate and creative team behind the graphic novel Defiant:The Story of Robert Smalls. The novel, based on a true story, explores the journey of a man who broke free from slavery, stole a Confederate ship, and sailed to freedom during the Civil War. He later became the first Black naval captain in American history along with many historically significant accolades down the line. It is, in other words, fertile ground for a visual work of art dreamed up by storyteller Rob Edwards, as well as the subject of an upcoming new film from the production company Legion M.

“A story like this needs to be told in a dynamic way,” Edwards says after stopping by the studio. Throughout this conversation, it was clear that something was very different from most big-time epic history stories being told through an IP like this. This has a dedication to community and truth. 

As Legion M founder Chris Cooper explains, “We’re the largest fan-owned company for developing and producing films right now with crowdfunding being the very thing to help bring this story to light.” Fan input also extends to creative decisions such as casting and directing. Adds Cooper, “Legion M is a studio for fans, by fans. So I’d love to hear what the people think… All of us have had conversations with your favorite actors, your favorite actresses, [and] your favorite directors [about involvement].”

This project holds value not only for its importance in American history but also as a piece of culture that could’ve been left to time but instead has been revitalized and given a platform to be told and celebrated as it deserves.

Marvin Jones III, producer of the live-action adaptation, says, “It’s always been important to tell stories or be a part of stories that have an impact, especially for Black people in our community from a fictitious standpoint, from a superhero standpoint. Robert Smalls is a real-life superhero, especially for us as a people and our culture.” – Caleb Miller

Digman!: Andy Samberg Reveals Favorite Lonely Island Sketches

The timing of Digman! creators Andy Samberg and Neil Campbell’s visit to the Den of Geek studio at San Diego Comic-Con 2025 could not have been more auspicious. Not only had season 2 of the pair’s animated archaeology comedy premiered the night before on Comedy Central, it was preceded by the debut of a very particular episode of South Park. You know which one… So was the duo looking forward to the panel they were set to share with South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that night?

“I’m looking forward to it now! Ask me again after,” Samberg said with a nervous laugh. “When we got told that we would have them as our lead-in, there’s nothing better.”

“That’s truly my favorite comedy,” Campbell added. “I’ve watched every episode, every special. Those guys, in a way they’re underappreciated for their influence on the world of comedy. It was awesome to get to come on afterwards.”

Samberg and Campbell were able to set aside their South Park nerves to discuss the surprisingly deep lore of Digman!, in which Samberg puts his Nicolas Cage impression to good use, playing a dubiously heroic archaeologist trying to save the world from the Unclechrist and Auntiechrist. Samberg also provided a rundown of some of his favorite “SNL Digital Shorts” that he and Lonely Island collaborators Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone created during their time on NBC’s comedy flagship. 

“I have a bunch of them that I’m very fond of,” Samberg said. “I really like ‘Jack Sparrow.’ I feel like that one kind of encapsulates everything that we do. I really like the one we did called ‘Great Day’ where I’m on Commerce Street and just gacked out of my mind. There’s one I did from last season with Jake Semanski and Jonah Hill called ‘Tennis Balls.’ That’s one that makes me laugh so hard. It was Jonah’s idea ‘cause there was actually a science video online of a guy who’s like, ‘This is what happens when you get hit in the nuts with a tennis ball.’ We took it and ran very far with it.” – AB

Gen V

The world of superheroes in training at Godolkin University is at the core of Gen V, but the cast members that visited our studio concede that the scope continues to widen the more synergy it has with The Boys, the series it spins off from. Jaz Sinclair, who plays Marie Moreau in the series, says they’re picking up right where things ended in the main show.

“The whole tone of our season is based on where The Boys leaves off,” she says. “Homelander has taken over, and we get to see how that directly affects the whole world and also the university itself… we have our new dean and the posters you see and things.”

Hamish Linklater, who plays Dean Cypher, is very cryptic about how his new character will be tied into the decidedly more contentious atmosphere. “I think the name says it all… he’s a cypher,” the actor says mysteriously. When asked about his superpower, Linklater preferred to leave it a mystery for Gen V fans to discover for themselves. Luckily they’ll only have to wait until the Sept. 17 premiere date to find out. – MA

Jason Universe

What exactly is a Jason universe you might ask? Well, at least in one filmmaker’s opinion, it is a whole interconnected, multimedia brand of everything we’ve ever loved about Friday the 13th and its bedeviled camp grounds. “It’s games, it’s movies, it’s figures, it’s collectibles, it’s all that stuff we’ve been craving for years now,” says Mike P. Nelson, who in addition to being a lifelong fan of Jason Voorhees is also the man tasked with bringing the hockey-masked killer back to live-action for the first time in decades via Jason Universe’s new short film, “Sweet Revenge.”

The short’s trailer gained an extraordinarily positive reaction at SDCC and fulfilled a dream for Nelson, who grew up perusing video store horror sections as a child in the same way an art critic might appreciate the walls of the MoMA. He also got to be the first filmmaker to work with a newly redesigned Jason courtesy of genre legend Greg Nicotero. “It’s just about capturing that vibe of what Jason sort of was. To me, Final Chapter was scripture. That was the movie that informed the ‘80s horror film. It was the look, the feel. It was sweaty, it was dirty, and for me creating a new Jason, I wanted to revisit that.”

While Nelson is coy as to whether “Sweet Revenge” could lead to a feature, or for that matter if it will literally crossover with other elements of the so-called Jason Universe like Peacock and A24’s Crystal Lake series, Nelson adds, “If down the road, those things collide, all the cooler.”  – DC

Heroes & Villains 

Releasing two highly anticipated merchandise drops at SDCC for Star Wars and Fantastic Four, Heroes & Villains stands out among other fan-merchandise brands that work with IPs for its wearable, streetwear-inspired look that is very specific to style and feel. We got the chance to sit down with Doug Johnson, the creative director of Bioworld Merchandising, which houses Heroes & Villains, to talk about the two collections and what specific characters and callbacks influenced their creations. 

Specificity and planting easter eggs for devoted fans are key. Take its recent collection, inspired entirely by Star Wars’ Rebel Pathfinders, who were formed within the Rebel Alliance during the Clone Wars, hand-picked and tasked with crucial operations by the Alliance High Command. Johnson was inspired by the Rebels’ color pallette, pulling from earth tones like teal, mustard, taupe, and olive. The collection’s contrast is of course the Galactic Empire, which Heroes & Villains opts for a more techie, clean look with black and red in its designs, drawing from the Inferno Squadron from the 2017 video game, Star Wars Battlefront II. 

“What we like to do is look back at what’s the story that brought us to that point and tell the comic side of that, or the true lore behind why this particular release is happening and have those touch points with our fans,” Johnson says. 

To celebrate Marvel’s first family, and the recent release of The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Heroes & Villains also debuted jackets, shirts, bags, and hats inspired by the origins of the story and characters behind the new film. The collection blends futuristic and clean designs that feel true to the IP while also not abandoning Heroes & Villains’ quintessential streetwear and vintage look, appealing to both fans and franchise owners. While Star Wars has a little bit more to work with in terms of lore and characters, both collections are focused on creating wearable fashion for devoted fans.  

“We try to stay current with content and find unique ways to develop  products that speak to that truth, versus just marketing a slap of assets that you get from a style guide,” Johnson says. – Darcie Zudell

Interview with the Vampire

Back in 2024, Interview with the Vampire showrunner Rolin Jones stepped into Den of Geek Studio at San Diego Comic-Con with all the pep and vigor of a creative who had just completed a pitch-perfect two-season TV adaptation of Anne Rice’s classic first Vampire Chronicles novel. In 2025, having just begun production on the third season of the show, now styled The Vampire Lestat, Jones was equally as excited but a little more measured about crafting Lestat de Lioncourt’s big moment. 

“I was cocky and confident that this was gonna be easy and awesome. And it’s been uh…the hardest season of TV I’ve ever done. Without a doubt,” Jones says. “It’s gotten very personal. A lot of personal writing has begun to dump into the show. There’s a lot of people that are on this very risky, weird, little journey with me. They are entering it with a lot of confidence and a lot of enthusiasm. We’re doing something kind of wild.”

Any adaptation of Rice’s second novel The Vampire Lestat is bound to be pretty wild. The narrative switches over from the taciturn Louis de Pointe du Lac (played by Jacob Anderson in the series) to the decadent Lestat (Sam Reid) as he enters his rock star era. Thankfully, the show’s composer is up to the task of producing some bangers. 

“I started my [rock & roll] education long, long ago,” Daniel Hart says. “This is where I have been heading since I was a little kid – since my brother brought home Led Zeppelin IV. I feel right at home. It is a thrill and a great challenge to do something this ambitious. Inspirations run the gamut from Howlin’ Wolf to Chappel Roan and everything in-between.” – AB

Lilo & Stitch

It’s been over 23 years of riding the Hawaiian rollercoaster with some of Disney’s most beloved characters from the 2002 original animated film, Lilo & Stitch, and after a prolific opening weekend for the cast of the new live-action movie, stars Tia Carrere (Mrs. Kekoa, and the original voice of Nani), Maia Kealoha (Lilo) and Sydney Agudong (Nani) are celebrating the new film breaking several box-office records at SDCC. 

In the studio, we learned that this was the first SDCC that Kealoha ever attended, who was only six-years-old when the 2025 movie was filmed. Her breakout role as the misunderstood young girl being raised by her sister was her first time onscreen acting. And she’s been very pleased with the reaction to the live-action film. 

“It’s been amazing,” Kealoha says. “And I’m so excited that our movie is [worth] a billion dollars.”

The film was also significant for the young actress Agudong, who revealed that she was a huge Lilo & Stitch fan growing up. Her past experiences in theater helped prepare her for long days on set and returning to do it all again the next morning. Agudong also reveals when she was cast as Nani, her first instinct was to talk with the OG, Carrere, about stepping into a role she’s previously played. 

“I was so happy that Sydney invited me in,” Carrere says. “I just had to say, ‘Girl, you are a warrior. You are fierce, and you have everything within you.’ We grow into our power as women, and sometimes we need to be reminded of that by other women.” 

The film has been out since late May and has been subjected to public discourse by devoted fans who are emotionally attached to the original source material. One significant change from the original script was the ending of the 2025 film, which (spoiler alert) involved Nani leaving for college to study marine biology, leaving Lilo under the custody of their neighbors Tūtū and David. Sure, people had mixed opinions about the switch up, but what about the women who depicted the character? 

“I loved it,” Carrere says. “It’s a reality that—coming from Hawaii—you have to leave the island to achieve and bring back that knowledge.” 

Agudong adds, “I think we’re both on the same page.” She further echoes how the change made the story feel more real and spoke to the experiences of other mixed families in Hawaii. Plus in the new movie, Nani has a portal that she can use to see Lilo at any time, so as Carrere points out, it’s a non-issue.

“We’re also exposing the fact that hanai family is just as important as blood-related family,” Agudong says. “Everybody can belong. You can choose your family in that way.” – DZ

The Long Walk

Very rarely does San Diego Comic-Con feel the need to censor anything that comes by the hallowed grounds of Hall H. In fact, there is no other instance where the cavernous room’s big screens went black right before something as heinous as the summary execution of a teenager was carried out off-screen (although folks reportedly could still hear it). Yet that is what happened during a tense presentation of Francis Lawrence’s adaptation of The Long Walk, an adaptation of the first novel Stephen King ever completed as a writer.

“Comic-Con deemed the event too intense to show in its full entirety,” actor Garrett Wareing says when stopping by our studio after the panel. “So they censored some of the footage, and it was quite exciting to watch the fan reactions and to hear their reactions to what we’re seeing now.” There were gasps, groans, and perhaps an uneasy sense of creeping dread.

Screenwriter J.T. Mollner, however, notes that is both the power and appeal of something as potent as King’s dystopian paterfamilias to stories like The Hunger Games and Battle Royale.

“You know when I was a kid, and I was 12 or 13 and I couldn’t get in a movie because [it] was too rough for people my age, it made me want to see it immediately,” Mollner smiles. “So the beauty of this movie, in my opinion, is the way Francis handled the brutality, the intensity, the terror, it’s all shown honestly. It would be obscene to not show it honestly, but it never feels gratuitous. And I think that’s a fine line and a great balance, and Francis went all the way.” – DC

Nacelleverse/Toys that Made Us 

It wouldn’t be San Diego Comic-Con without a visit with collector extraordinaire Brian Volk-Weiss, the man behind the Nacelle Company and the hit Netflix documentary series The Toys That Made Us, which Volk-Weiss assured us would be delivering its fourth season in 2026 with a fifth and final run in 2027.

Among the many items we talked about were the Nacelleverse lineup of Star Trek toys, which Volk-Weiss acknowledges feature some very niche Starfleet characters like Captain Jellico from The Next Generation or Tuvix from Voyager.

“I just knew if we started with Kirk and Spock and Picard and Data, the community would be like, ‘Eh, okay’,” Volk-Weiss says. Instead he wanted to “send a message to the community that we are Trekkies too and we’re doing the ones you all wanted.”

With Nacelleverse toys making the transition to comics, Volk-Weiss was excited about Wild West C.O.W. Boys of Moo Mesa making the transition for its first issue from Oni Press. “For the first time ever, we’re gonna have two comic books running simultaneously. So C.O.W. Boys of Moo Mesa and Biker Mice from Mars are running concurrently.” – MA

Peacemaker Season 2

The opening credits to every episode of Peacemaker season 1 asked a simple question: “Do you really wanna, do you really wanna taste it?” Starring John Cena as the titular maker of peace, this DC Universe era-straddling HBO Max series liked to have a good time, as evidenced by its jaunty hair metal dance number to “Do You Wanna Taste It?” by Wigwam. 

Now season 2 has some more questions to answer. As showrunner and DC Studios co-CEO James Gunn told Den of Geek magazine, Peacemaker’s second season will provide a certain amount of clarity for the new DC Universe’s timeline. No previous Cena-starring effort like The Suicide Squad or Peacemaker season 1 can be considered canon until season 2 blesses it. Thankfully, this batch of Peacemaker episodes gets a lot of those clarifications out of the way early so it can get right back to dancing. When stars Cena (Peacemaker), Jennifer Holland (Emilia Harcourt), Frank Grillo (Rick Flag Sr.), Sol Rodríguez (Sasha Bordeaux), Steve Agee (John Economos), and Freddie Stroma (Adrian “Vigilante” Chase) visited the studio, they revealed just how seriously Gunn takes that musical sequence. 

“You don’t see James Gunn getting angry often but… he wasn’t happy halfway through the day,” Grillo says.

“It was actually two days [of shooting],” Holland clarifies. 

Once the episodes actually begin, Chris Smith a.k.a. Peacemaker will have a lot more than dancing to be concerned with. After all, does this kinder, gentler DC universe still have room for someone as violent as Peacemaker? 

“In Peacemaker’s mind he’s doing what he’s doing for the greater good. So it’s a shock to his system when people don’t accept him,” Cena says. Surely, the Justice Gang can find use for a marksman. – AB

Resident Alien

After nearly five years, the producers of Resident Alien have confirmed that the recently released season 4 will be the sci-fi comedy show’s last installment. As a part of their victory lap, members of the cast visited the Den of Geek studio to reflect on the recent season and the series as a whole.  

“Our show, despite not being renewed, is a complete story,” says actor Corey Reynolds. “So whether or not you are someone who is familiar with our show now, or if you want to jump on board after we aren’t renewed, you will get a beginning, a middle, and an end. We don’t just leave you hanging.”

In addition to discussing the longevity of a show with such reliable qualities, the cast reflected on specific moments in season 4 that wrap up each character’s storyline nicely, even if not in the way it was planned. 

“In season 4, she [Asta] is just learning how to love herself now,” says actor Sara Tomko about her character’s final arc. “She’s such a nurturer and she has been people pleasing and peacekeeping, trying to save the world like no big deal. Now all the people she loves are looking at her and they’re saying, ‘What about you now?’ and that’s real love, that’s real friendship.” – SR

Revival

As a show about a town where people suddenly return from the dead and try to return to their normal lives, Revival could be seen as somewhat derivative, but its first season is proving that the ensemble cast and compelling mystery make it a one-of-a-kind series. Showrunners Aaron B. Koontz and Luke Boyce joined the cast in our studio, and they spoke about how they approached the show’s brilliant storytelling.

“I’m a big believer in setup and payoff,” says Koontz. “We just wanted to make a show that we liked, and I like things that aren’t spoonfed. I like things that make me lean forward and ask questions and try to figure it out.”

Melanie Scrofano is in Revival’s lead role as small town cop Dana Cypress, and her character’s struggles feel completely realistic, including an episode where a bullet leaves her incapacitated at a time when she needs to be mobile.

“That was a real challenge to be bedridden and have this dialogue that’s really high stakes and have to do it in a bed,” she admits. “But it was a really fun challenge.” We’re anxious to see where things go in the Revival season 1 finale in August! – MA

Roddenberry and Does It Fly?

Since launching in 2024, co-hosts Tamara Krinsky and Hakeem Oluseyi have been dissecting some of the most beloved fandoms with scientific eyes on their podcast Does it Fly? Krinsky and Oluseyi, along with Kelsey Goldberg, who also serves as an executive producer of Does it Fly?, and Trevor Roth, the chief operating officer of Roddenberry Entertainment, visited our studio at SDCC to discuss the evolution of the podcast in just a little over a year, and how Krinsky’s love of pop culture and Oluseyi’s science education background join forces in unexpected ways to create Does it Fly? 

Goldberg shared that she was excited when the show expanded its range of genres and topics beyond purely sci-fi—recently, the podcast examined the logic of Superman’s sun-powered abilities and evolution in How to Train Your Dragon. 

“It was an absolute joy the moment we discovered we can go outside of strict sci-fi, and I can start to look at fantasy or horror,” Goldberg says. “I got a little evil, but I think the audience benefits from it.” 

Krinsky and Oluseyi’s friendship and appreciation toward what they’re discussing shines through every episode of Does it Fly? For Oluseyi, finding a co-host like Krinsky was a dream come true as he never really thought he’d find someone to share his passions with in this capacity. 

“I’m from Mississippi, and nobody was into what I was into,” Oluseyi says. “They would always say things like, ‘Man, ain’t nobody into that shit you’re into.’ Well, guess what? I found somebody who’s into that shit I’m into!”

Roth expressed his appreciation of the fandom, and voiced that the podcast’s mission was not only to analyze characters and stories but to examine them without tearing them down or dismissing devoted fans. 

“Sometimes we say, ‘We’re putting something on trial,’ but we’re putting something on trial in the nicest way possible,” Roth says. “We’re not here to cut anything down. We know that the things we’re talking about are beloved by someone, including us, much of the time, and because of that, we want to revel in whatever joy that it brings.” – DZ

Ron Moore

Ronald D. Moore is on a real tear these days with two of his most successful shows, Outlander and For All Mankind, both receiving highly anticipated spinoffs (Blood of My Blood and Star City respectively), so we were anxious to speak with him in-studio about his secret to making both a successful hit series and a companion show to explore. 

“It’s always in the back of my mind: what could this be?” Moore says. “Because you’re always playing around with what’s the potential for the story. How big is the story? How many seasons is it? Can you expand the universe into something else? But it’s really a back of the head kind of thing.”

We also asked Moore about his progress on the God of War adaptation, and whether it might follow Kratos and Atreus. “As someone who’s new to this world, I was really impressed with the depth of what you’re talking about,” he tells us. “It’s such a rich environment… it’s been really fun to dive into this world.” -MA

Shin Godzilla

Shin Godzilla was something of a game-changer for the Big G when it hit theaters nearly 10 years ago in Japan. After decades of sequels, team-ups, and crossovers, the monster that once looked like a walking metaphor for nuclear armageddon had become cute and cuddly. In fact, looking back at the impact Shin had on the culture, co-director Shinji Higuchi tells us in our SDCC studio that they were adamant to go out of their way and avoid making a “Godzilla is going to fight against something” movie.

Instead they crafted a bitter parable for bureaucratic inaction and paralysis in the face of existential crisis, something Japanese audiences were eminently familiar with following the Fukushima nuclear meltdown disaster of 2011. And yet, even so, Higuchi admits that he and his co-director Hideaki Anno were surprised when they learned that they’d inadvertently invented the cuddliest looking Godzilla ever: you know the one with the big, googily eyes.

“It’s evolution, it’s not growth,” Higuchi says of Godzilla’s ever-mutating appearance. “There’s a difference. So I wanted to really follow an almost Darwinism [form] of evolution.” Thus to represent the midway point between the sea creature at the beginning of the movie and the more iconic reptilian visage that ends it, he and Anno settled on an image they thought would be chilling, not charming.

“Director Anno doesn’t like fish and doesn’t like meat,” Higuchi reveals. “So director Anno hates when you go to a fish market and you see the eyes, the way they look at you. So that was what we decided. ‘Let’s give him those eyes!’ But Anno is kind of confused, because he thought he made the scariest creature imaginable, but all the kids love it and everyone says it’s super cute. So there is this gap.” Merchandising windfalls have started from less. – DC

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 

After countless spinoffs, movies, comics, and other projects, Star Trek is finally boldly going where many rootless Gen Xers go: back to school. No, Gene Roddenberry’s sunny vision of a collaborative sci-fi future isn’t going to grad school to get its masters; it’s going all the way back to Starfleet Academy in the fittingly titled Star Trek: Starfleet Academy. 

Den of Geek was joined by a supersized roster of Starfleet cadets and producers to discuss the project, including Holly Hunter (Nahla Ake), Robert Picardo (the Doctor), Noga Landau (executive producer), Alex Kurtzman (executive producer, co-showrunner), Sandro Rosta (Caleb Mir), Bella Shepard (Genesis Lythe) , Kerrice Brooks (Sam), George Hawkins (Darem Reymi), and Karim Diane (Jay-Den Kraag).

“It was very intentional to set it in the 32nd century,” Landau says. “Because it’s a time of rebuilding and it’s a time when the pressures of the rebuilding really falls on the shoulders of the younger generation. There’s a lot with these kids going on that other generations haven’t had to face.” 

Kurtzman elaborates on why the time was finally right for a series featuring young Starfleet cadets after so many previous rumors and false starts. 

“It feels like this generation in particular is facing so many deep challenges. Everybody is trying to figure out ‘how do we get back to hope?’ I think that’s where Roddenberry comes in. I always feel like Star Trek is a compass that points us toward our better angels and the people we want to be.”

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy is set to premiere to Paramount+ in 2026. – AB

Star Trek Strange New Worlds 

When Paramount’s freshly-installed Star Trek czar Alex Kurtzman invited Akiva Goldsman to work on the first modern Trek spinoff Star Trek: Discovery, Goldsman ran a simple Google search to get what the series was all about. It immediately led him astray. 

“I discovered that it was a show about Pike and Number One… at least according to the internet. Then I got there and discovered it had zero to do with any of that,” Goldsman says. 

That initial internet research, however, planted the seed for the spinoff that would become Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, arguably the most creatively successful Trek endeavor of its era. Now with the show in its third season (and with two more final seasons on the way) Goldsman, producer Henry Alonso Myers, and castmembers Rebecca Romijn (Number One), Christina Chong (La’An Noonien-Singh), Ethan Peck (Spock), Paul Wesley (James T. Kirk), and Jess Bush (Christine Chapel) stopped by the studio to talk about season 3 and the show’s ultimate legacy. 

“What we’ve done so far exceeds anything I’d ever imagined,” Goldsman says. “I hoped we’d get the original Star Trek values back because God knows we need them in times like this. I had no idea that we would be gifted with this extraordinary cast. They are more than collaborators, they are authors. If we’re lucky and if we stick the landing we’ll have added a significant piece to the canon of Star Trek.”

Before the end comes, however, season 3 finds Strange New Worlds being its goofy, ambitious self, including a fourth episode that pays homage to The Original Series and Star Trek parodies in more ways than one. 

“That was the most fun episode I think I have filmed,” Chong says. “When I got to see all these guys as their different characters, it was just incredible. La’An has been really uptight. Season 3 I had an opportunity to lighten her up. She’s exploring her passions, full stop.” – AB

Todd McFarlane 

Todd McFarlane’s King Spawn is about to hit issue 50 later this year. It’s a benchmark and milestone for the creator of Hell’s monarch, a character he created in 1992. That’s also the same year McFarlane co-founded Image Comics, where he remains president. Still, that’s a modest run when compared to mainline Spawn’s 350 and counting issues. Yet the way McFarlane tells it in our studio, it is the character’s longevity which is the secret to his success.

“At some point over time, and I don’t care which business it is, you’ll have high and low points,” McFarlane says. “But what’s going to matter is that the brand, that word that you’re putting out there, just never goes away. It’s always there. Attrition of the same thing over and over. Has Spawn had highs and lows? Of course it has. What it has [though] is it’s been there nonstop for over 30 years. That’s the secret sauce.”

McFarlane also confides that his biggest issue with many creators today, even at Image Comics, is that they wrap up a story they personally created after five or six issues. 

“You get big sales in the first five and then they start to flatten and paper down,” the comic maestro notes. “And the thought is ‘I can stop and go start another book and get good sales for these next five of those.’ The answer economically is yes, in the short term, but I’m telling you, long-term I keep saying get to issue 50. Every book that Image Comics has done that has gotten 50 or more issues has gotten outside the bubble. And the bubble by definition is comic books and us in the geek [community]. The choir. The choir’s always coming, but how do you get it now out to T-shirts, hats, toys, video games, movies, TV shows? Outside so your neighbor may have heard of the work?”

Here’s to 50 more issues, King. – DC

Tony Hale

Tony Hale is quite simply one of the most successful comedic actors of this TV generation. After embodying motherboy Buster Bluth on Fox and Netflix’s beloved Arrested Development for five seasons, Hale would go on to win Emmy gold as President Meyer’s bagman Gary Walsh on HBO’s acidic satire, Veep. Now Hale is producing and starring in Sketch, a film he excitedly calls a combination of Inside Out and Jurassic Park. 

“It took eight years to get made,” Hale says. “My buddy Seth Worley had the idea and wrote the script. We just went back and forth for a few years. I play a single dad who is worried because his daughter keeps drawing these crazy pictures that end up coming to life. It’s a really fun family adventure with a beautiful theme of processing feelings.”

In addition to teasing the madcap adventure to come in Sketch, Hale was kind enough to go deep on his career, discussing his time on Arrested Development, Veep, Community, Toy Story 4, Inside Out 2, and even his brief Marvel and Star Wars voice acting forays. One theme that emerged is that you might just remember Hale’s best roles better than he does. 

“One of my favorite things is when people come up and are like, ‘I love this joke,’ and I’m like, ‘Please tell me it because I’ve completely forgotten.’ The only one I remember, because it’s my favorite, is Tobias joining Blue Man Group because he thinks it’s a support group for depressed men. That was the level of comedy you were working with.”

Next time you see Tony Hale out and about, please remind him of some more great Arrested Development gags. – AB

The Toxic Avenger

Writer-director Macon Blair and the stars of The Toxic Avenger remake, including Peter Dinklage, stopped by to chat about their new superhero movie—err, make that “super-human” movie. Yep, as producer Lloyd Kaufman, who co-wrote and co-directed the original Toxic Avenger, tells us, he has advised both Blair and Ahoy Comics to knock off using the term “superhero” while running with ol’ Toxie.

“[It’s] a super-human movie,” Kaufman insists. “You get a lawyer’s letter because Warners and Marvel co-own the word ‘superhero.’ When Toxic Avenger was a Marvel comic book, he was a superhero, but as soon as Warners dumped the Toxic Avenger remake, then suddenly we got a lawyer’s letter to no longer use ‘superhero.’ So it’s a super-human hero… That’s how you do things in the movie business.”

We should note that Marvel and DC have since lost their attempt to trademark the word ‘superhero’ in court, but the fact that Toxie has to stay DIY about even his job description—and even as the star of a glitzy (if still gory) new Legendary Pictures remake—is pretty on brand for a superhero who got dunked in toxic sludge. Watch the above video to see the rest of our discussion, including why Dinklage is not under the extensive Toxie makeup post-transformation. – DC

Twisted Metal Season 2

The first season of Twisted Metal on Peacock offered just about everything fans of the long-running vehicular combat video game series could have hoped for. In addition to Anthony Mackie’s anonymous hero John Doe, the season introduced many characters, vehicles, locations, and even the iconic fiery harlequin Sweet Tooth from the mythos. The only thing missing, however, was the all-important demolition derby itself. That is now set to arrive in Twisted Metal season 2 thanks to the introduction of another important game character: the mysterious Calypso, played by Anthony Carrigan (Barry, Superman). 

“He’s just kind of your basic, run-of-the-mill MC of a vehicular death match. Go with the old standards,” Carrigan says. 

Joining Carrigan to tease the season to come were Mackie (John Doe), Joe Seanoa (Sweet Tooth), Stephanie Beatriz (Quiet), and showrunner Michael Jonathan Smith. 

“First of all, New San Francisco is a wonderful place,” Mackie says of John Doe’s initial season 2 digs. “If you get a chance, go check it out. I discovered carpaccio in New San Francisco. It’s quite nice. We discover John there having a wonderful time and trying to move forward without his right hand…” 

“His right hand,” Beatriz interrupts with a masturbatory hand motion.  A brief moment of sincerity immediately followed up by a dick joke? Hard to imagine a more fitting representation of Twisted Metal than that. – AB

Upper Deck and Rush of Ikorr

We got the chance to speak with Travis Rhea, head of Upper Deck about Rush of Ikorr, and what Upper Deck has coming now and for the near future. 

The new trading card game dropped earlier this year, with Rush of Ikorr relying on strategy as you compete in epic mythological battles with up to 3v3 PvP. As Rhea explains, “Last year we released NeoPets TCG; this year, Rush of Ikorr. Rush of Ikorr is really a game changer. It’s a homegrown IP for us and has some pretty cool differences that you don’t see in the TCG world.” We touched on its unique qualities, including how the game encourages 2v2 and 3v3 play. But the style of play isn’t the only thing that separates it.

Says Rhea, “We tapped into stuff people were already excited about and somewhat familiar with.” This references the various cultures and sets of mythology the creative team researched for the creation of this game’s lore, which helps it to have a unique style in the TCG space. What is so great is that this is a return to form for Upper Deck, with Rhea stating, “We’ve been here before; we have a legacy on this side of the business. We did Yu-Gi-Oh!, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty…we’ve been in that world. It’s just we took a break from it for a while… back to TCG’s is really in our DNA.” – CM

The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon

The folks behind The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon stepped into the studio triumphant, having just announced at the preceding panel that their Walking Dead spinoff would receive a supersized fourth and final season. Producers Scott Gimple, Greg Nicotero, and David Zabel; and producers and stars Norman Reedus and Melissa McBride were happy to tease the ending to come.

“The French part of this show was always envisioned as a two-season story,” Zabel says. “And then starting this season we have three and four. By the end of that, Carol and Daryl’s European adventure would have a really good conclusion and open up whatever comes next.”

Following two full seasons of fighting the dead in France, Daryl (Reedus) and Carol (McBridge) head west (in a very roundabout way that includes a trip through the “Chunnel”) to take in some post-apocalyptic sightseeing on their long journey home. 

“There’s a real passion in Spain,” Reedus says. “It’s like a Western. There’s a real Spanish fire to the cast and crew. You feel the passion in the show. We tried really hard not to make an American show and plop it down in Europe. We tried not to fake the funk. We didn’t want everyone in France to have a beret on and a poodle and eat brie. In Spain we were authentic as well.” – AB

Yaeji

One of the many draws of SDCC 2025 was the highly anticipated Crunchyroll Anime FanFest, two free days of live music, ranging from Japanese alternative bands to anime-inspired hip-hop groups. On the second day, Brooklyn-based DJ Yaeji performed a set on the Crunchyroll stage before stopping by the studio. 

“It was definitely different,” Yaeji said about her FanFest set. “I prepared for it specially on the side. I wanted to play only anime edits and get deep if I can, so it wasn’t like a usual set I would play at all.” 

Yaeji’s usual sets are platforms for her bilingual lyricism and dual lofi/electronic sounds. According to the DJ, the purpose behind writing lyrics in both Korean and English has changed for her over the years. 

“In the beginning, I just sang in Korean because I wanted my friends to not know what I was singing about, and then I discovered that Korean sounds really texturally interesting, so it was more of an instrument,” the musician says. “Now, I find it to be helpful expressing in both languages … and also communicating via sounds and the sonics.” 

Although Yaeji doesn’t point to one specific artist as her primary influence, she has resonated with icons of hip-hop and pop throughout her life. However, she has most notably found inspiration within mediums she shares in common with many SDCC attendees. 

“Sometimes I would find random indie music through a blog probably, but I was always on the internet,” Yaeji tells us. “I think the more influential ones are actually probably from video games or anime openings and endings that I listened to throughout my teens.” – SR 

Panels

Coyote vs. Acme Panel

Bright and early in Hall H, Looney Tunes fans at very long last got to watch never-before-seen clips from the long-awaited Coyote vs. Acme, the movie that Warner Bros. Discovery—I mean, Acme!—didn’t want you to see. The panel was hosted by comedian Paul Scheer and featured director Dave Green, cast members Will Forte, Eric Bauza, Martha Kelly, and surprise appearances by Wile E. Coyote himself, plus P. J. Byrne in-character as Acme’s legal rep. We saw three clips, including six minutes of footage and the film’s first official trailer. Byrne handed out fake cease and desist papers and had the panel removed by unpaid Acme interns.

These bits referenced WBD’s decision to shelve the completed film in 2023 as part of a $30 million tax write-off, which sparked immense fan outrage. Ketchup Entertainment later picked up the film for $50 million. The panel also revealed that Coyote vs. Acme is set for global release on Aug. 28, 2026. The film’s plot is based on a 1990 The New Yorker article by Ian Frazier, and imagines Wile E. Coyote finally suing Acme after years of injuries from their defective products.

“While [Wile E. Coyote] is the star of the movie, he is not the hero of this movie. Because I think what Paul [Scheer] and I, and everyone you’re going to meet on this panel today would say, is that the real hero of this movie is all you guys sitting in those seats,” Will Forte says at the panel. “Like Wile E. Coyote, you guys were underdogs who fought against a major corporation, and because you never gave up, this movie is now going to come out in a global wide release.” – DZ

George Lucas and the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art Panel 

In the discussion of geek culture’s biggest influences, few names loom as large as George Lucas. This year, the creator of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones universes, founder of Lucasfilm, and veritable godfather of science fiction made his first appearance at SDCC for a panel titled “Sneak Peek of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art Panel.”

Over the course of 50 years, Lucas has collected over 40,000 pieces of narrative art. Many of those artworks will soon be on display at the museum in Los Angeles, founded by Lucas and his wife, Mellody Hobson. 

“It’s more about a connection, an emotional connection with the work, not how much it cost or what celebrity did it,” Lucas said about the artwork he collects. “It’s more a personal thing, and I don’t think it’s anything that anybody else can tell you… if you have an emotional connection, then it’s art.” 

Sitting next to Lucas were director and museum board member Guillermo del Toro, artist and designer Doug Chiang, and musician and panel moderator Queen Latifah. Each member of the panel has their own connection to Lucas’ work, as well as their own passion behind narrative art. 

“Many of the pieces we have celebrate freedom or anarchy,” del Toro said. “… Comics have a lot of social conscience, before or around the same time as movies and so forth. You have graffiti, you have many of the popular mimeographed forms of art that do that, they are not dominated… What is important for me or what is magical, [the museum] is not a man and his collection, it is a lineage of images… We are in a critical moment in which one of the things they like to disappear is the past, and this is memorializing a popular, vociferous, expressive, eloquent moment in our visual past that belongs to all of us.” 

The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art is scheduled to open in 2026 and will feature original works from the Star Wars universe, along with original Peanuts sketches, an original Flash Gordon comic strip, the first Iron Man cover and much more. – SR 

Gundam Wing

The flowing locks of unkempt ‘90s nostalgia were on full display when the anime heartthrobs of Heero Yuy, Duo Maxwell, Quatre Winner, and the rest of the Gundam Wing pilots took a long overdue encore at the convention center on Thursday night. Before thousands of cheering fans, actors Mark Hildreth, Scott McNeil, and Brad Swaile–who voiced Heero, Duo, and Quatre in the beloved 2000 English dub of Gundam Wing—took a bow and recited some of the fans’ favorite lines while reminiscing about how best to vocalize imminent annihilation at the hands of a Gundam.

The biggest piece of news out of the panel was definitely a modern tribute video to Gundam Wing’s 30th anniversary with dazzling hand-drawn imagery that set the mind aflutter with possibilities. Gundam executive producer Naohiro Ogata was on hand to also tease folks to “keep watching” if they liked the above video (which might just be fan-baiting the dream of a Wing sequel). However, for attendees in the room, the highlight might be one fan asking for Hildreth to tear up a hand-delivered invitation to his birthday party with the same coldness that Heero infamously displayed to Relena Peacecraft in the first episode of Wing… Hildreth even made sure to throw the torn scraps so that the paper could catch the air-conditioning, like a feather in the wind. – DC

Peacemaker Panel

Touching down at the Peacemaker panel in Hall H at San Diego Comic-Con, we were graced with the presence of the crew behind Peacemaker, including actors John Cena, Jennifer Holland, Freddie Stroma, Steve Agee, Sol Rodriguez, Frank Grillo, Tim Meadows, and writer-director James Gunn. 

Not only did they answer questions and speak on their characters’ motivations coming into the next season, but we also got a few clips of the new season 2 coming to HBO Max on Aug. 21, including a comedic “bird blindness” bit with Steve Agee’s John Economos and Tim Meadows’ new ARGUS agent character, “Langston Fleury,” as well as a hard-hitting action scene featuring Jennifer Holland’s Emilia Harcourt giving out haymakers and head kicks in a biker bar.

James explained to the audience that coming into season 2, Peacemaker feels shunned from the superhero community, his love interest, and the things he wants from life in general. With Gunn speaking to where we find peacemaker: “He’s dealing with the demons he sort of uncovered from the first season and trying to deal with them and the world is not accepting him the way he is.” But once his father’s inter-dimensional storage door, aka the Quantum Unfolding Chamber, comes into play, Chris has a chance to see if the grass is greener on the other side in this parallel world. – CM

Percy Jackson and the Olympians Panel 

The mythological world of Percy Jackson & the Olympians has seen many iterations, from the original book series by Rick Riordan to the film adaptations in the 2010s to a spinoff series to, most recently, a TV rendition. The first season aired in 2023 and after a year and a half of patient waiting, members of the cast and production team offered fans a sneak peak at Season Two in the first Hall H panel of SDCC 2025. 

“We like to say it (Season Two) is supersized,” executive producer and writer Dan Shotz said. “Season Two is epic, it is so huge what we were able to build … We are out at sea, we are on a 175-foot ironclad ship, we are on cruise ships, we are in chariot races, we are fighting incredible monsters … It is so massive and we cannot wait for you guys to see what we do.” 

Season Two will dig deeper into Riordan’s written world, this time following the story of the series’ second installment: The Sea of Monsters. Cast members like Walker Scobell (Percy), Leah Jeffries (Annabeth) and Dior Goodjohn (Clarisse) all spoke to the experience of returning to a film set that has become a home to them and how Season Two allowed them to open up to their characters in a way viewers will not want to miss. The panel ended with a video message from Riordan, in which he announced the official release date of Season Two – Dec. 10 on Disney+ – and the casting of two vital characters set to appear in Season Three: Levi Chrisopulos as Nico di Angelo and Olive Abercrombie as his sister, Bianca. – SR

Predator: Badlands Panel

Disney and 20th Century Studios have a lot of confidence in Predator: Badlands, and for good reason. It was, after all, only three years ago when they brought Dan Trachtenberg’s previous live-action movie in the Predator universe, the Hulu exclusive Prey, to SDCC. There the historical period piece set during the 18th century and in Comanche Nation tore the roof off of a nearby theater. So seeing Trachtenberg back, now in Hall H alongside stars Elle Fanning and Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi and moderator Kevin Smith, amounted to something of a victory lap. Except this win had a whole other movie to wow attendees.

While Trachtenberg didn’t bring his full Predator follow-up to San Diego in 2025 (it’s still being made), he and Disney confidently unveiled the first 15 minutes of Badlands, including portions of action sequences and special effects that are unfinished. They were right to be bullish, the sequence, which amounts to an extended prologue set on the Predators’ homeworld, reveals just how much of Schuster-Koloamatangi’s protagonist, a Predator named Dek, truly is the main character of the future-set movie (a first in the Predator franchise). His story is given vaguely Shakespearean heft as he must battle against the expectations of his clan and a murderous father.

Our full impression of the first 15 minutes can be found here, but rest assured that there is much yet to be revealed, including the full extent of Elle Fanning’s role as a pair of Weyland-Yutani synthetics that Dek discovers on a hostile alien world where there is an apex predator so ferocious that even the alien race which hunts Arnold Schwarzenegger for sport fears it. What that creature looks like has yet to be glimpsed–or just how much fun Fanning will have playing dual roles (Smith teased she portrays two very different kinds of robots)—but suffice to say the future looks bright for pop culture’s most beloved ugly MFer. – DC

Tron: Ares

Disney also brought Tron: Ares to SDCC this year with perhaps the most spectacular light show Hall H has ever witnessed. Heralded by several red-hued programs and neon-crimson beams piercing the darkness, an all-star cast, including Jeff Bridges (and for better or worse Jared Leto) took the stage to discuss the legacy of Tron, the future of technology, and just how awesome it is to walk on a Disney soundstage made to rebirth “the Grid.”

Still, the most tantalizing tease offered fans was an extended glimpse and listen at the original score written by Nine Inch Nails for the movie. Following in the footsteps of Daft Punk’s iconic score from Tron: Legacy (2010), all of NIN has reassembled to write and perform on a soundtrack that includes literal vocal tracks and new NIN songs. In fact, a killer music video was even fired up for Hall H attendees. Trust us, it’s amazing, as some naughty social media posts have proven with leaks like the one above. – DC

Events 

Avatar Party 

Earth, fire, water, air… the four nations were more than represented at the Nickelodeon x Den of Geek Avatar the Last Airbender 20th anniversary party in San Diego, celebrating the massively popular animated series and its ever-expanding world, with some of the cast and crew that made it special. including voice actors Jack De Sena, Jennie Kwan, Olivia Hack, Dante Basco, Zach Tyler Eisen, Michaela Jill Murphy, and Dee Bradley Baker, as well as co-creators Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.

The party was a lively time with signature mixed drinks from each of the four nations and plenty of food to boot, including a beautifully crafted sushi bar made out of ice in the water tribe section, and a large charcuterie platter within the mini earth kingdom, while servers handed out a vast amount of food and treats like vegetarian spring rolls, cabbage dumplings, hand-cut potato chips, bao buns, and countless other Avatar-themed snacks. We were also happily entertained with the exciting sounds of DJ Dante, aka Dante Basco, pleasing the crowd with a set list signature to his swagger while at the DJ booth, Basco actually brought up his fellow Avatar castmates one by one, on stage by name and character name, to exclaim, “We just want to say thank you guys so much for 20 years, just being in support of the show and changing all of our lives… ours and yours.” 

And he wasn’t the only one with words for the audience; co-creators Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko came up on stage to lend some words, with DiMartino stating, “We have Den of Geek to thank for that, for throwing, to my knowledge, the first actual really awesome, really fun party… Thank you, Den of Geek.” Konietzko added, “Here we are, we’ll keep going as long as we can go.” –CM

DC Comics x eBay Live

Den of Geek was honored to host the culmination event of our Summer of Superman charity auctions live at San Diego Comic-Con. Partnering with eBay and DC Comics, we brought you all-new and original Superman artwork from seasoned comics veterans like Rafael Albuquerque, Cully Hamner, Scott Koblish, Joe Prado, Ian Churchill, John Timms, Eddy Barrows, Daniel Sampere, Clayton Henry, Tony S. Daniel, Dan Jurgens, Kenneth Rocafort, and Ivan Reis.

The event was hosted by Sam Stone and Rosie Knight, with guest appearances from comic creatives Jurgens, Hamner, Phillip Kennedy Johnson, and Tom King, as well as Peacemaker actor Steve Agee joining in on the fun. Fans and fellow geeks came out in droves to support the cause, helping raise over $7,000 for the BINC Foundation. BINC’s mission is to support the emergent financial, medical, and mental health service needs of comic and book shop owners and workers across the country, who have guided fellow comic enthusiasts along the way.-CM

Op Games 

The Op Games Party  came alive with shared laughter, the cheerful clink of glasses and a nostalgic soundtrack featuring ‘90s icons like Madonna and New Radicals, which captured the electric, feel-good vibes of the night. Tables buzzed with excitement as fans and first-timers alike dove into classic titles like Telestrations and Blank Slate. Founded in 1994, The Op Games, formally known as USAopoly, is celebrating over 30 years of bringing families and friends together over fun, easy-to-learn party games. The Op has built a legacy of laughter and connection with original fan favorites and licensed games from renowned brands like Disney, Marvel, Sanrio, and Nickelodeon. Partygoers who wanted to game rotated from table to table, speed-dating-style, sampling four of the company’s best-selling and most fast-paced games. Tasty hors d’oeuvres, beer, wine and specialty drinks at the open bar were restocked throughout the night as the over 400 guests that attended passed through the Andaz Hotel on the first night of San Diego Comic-Con.

At one table, each player would alternate between sketching and guessing to see how wildly their original phrase transforms by the end of the round while playing Telestrations. Others raced against the timer to shout out answers that fit a category without repeating letters during multiple intense rounds of Tapple. Attempting to read the room but not be too obvious, others tried to match one word with another player to complete a phrase in many hilarious rounds of Blank Slate. One of the most popular and competitive games of the night had to be Flip 7, which earned the 2025 Golden Geek Award for Party Game of the Year. People roared during this fast-paced, push-your-luck card game where players race to play numbered cards in sequence, which involves flipping and swapping cards to outwit opponents and be the first to clear their hand. Guests arrived in full cosplay, their best 90s fashion, in groups and solo, but no matter how they showed up, everyone found something to enjoy.

“My mission, and The Ops mission, is to bring people together, where we can all play these games and actually experience them in a real world situation that you can replicate at home and show to your friends,” Adam Minton, associate director of marketing at The Op Games, says. “We want nothing more than joy, laughter, lifetime memories, and doing events like these with cool people in a cool atmosphere.” – DZ

Mission Brewing Party 

No SDCC is complete without stopping downtown at Mission Brewing, and with the Comic-Con crowd still buzzing from the recent release of Superman (2025), what better way to celebrate than with a super happy hour?

In collaboration with Mission Brewing, Upper Deck and Den of Geek, the brewery hosted two live podcast tapings. The podcast Power-Up discussed Upper Deck’s Rush of Ikorr card games, and Roddenberry Entertainment’s Does it Fly and iHeartRadio’s X-Ray Vision teamed up to chat about the Man of Steel himself. 

The first 50 guests received a pack of Upper Deck Fleer Brilliants Superman trading cards, and the first 150 snagged a free Mission x Den of Geek custom pint. The vibes were good as people unwinded with tailor-made canned Den of Geek lagers, deliciously refreshing pale ales made just for the event. – DZ

The post Everything We Saw At San Diego Comic-Con 2025 appeared first on Den of Geek.

Feedback, in whichever form it takes, and whatever it may be called, is one of the most effective soft skills that we have at our disposal to collaboratively get our designs to a better place while growing our own skills and perspectives.

Feedback is also one of the most underestimated tools, and often by assuming that we’re already good at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Poor feedback can create confusion in projects, bring down morale, and affect trust and team collaboration over the long term. Quality feedback can be a transformative force. 

Practicing our skills is surely a good way to improve, but the learning gets even faster when it’s paired with a good foundation that channels and focuses the practice. What are some foundational aspects of giving good feedback? And how can feedback be adjusted for remote and distributed work environments? 

On the web, we can identify a long tradition of asynchronous feedback: from the early days of open source, code was shared and discussed on mailing lists. Today, developers engage on pull requests, designers comment in their favorite design tools, project managers and scrum masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

Design critique is often the name used for a type of feedback that’s provided to make our work better, collaboratively. So it shares a lot of the principles with feedback in general, but it also has some differences.

The content

The foundation of every good critique is the feedback’s content, so that’s where we need to start. There are many models that you can use to shape your content. The one that I personally like best—because it’s clear and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

While this equation is generally used to give feedback to people, it also fits really well in a design critique because it ultimately answers some of the core questions that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some feedback about some design work that spans multiple screens, like an onboarding flow: there are some pages shown, a flow blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You spot something that could be improved. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

Here is a comment that could be given as a part of some feedback, and it might look reasonable at a first glance: it seems to superficially fulfill the elements in the equation. But does it?

Not sure about the buttons’ styles and hierarchy—it feels off. Can you change them?

Observation for design feedback doesn’t just mean pointing out which part of the interface your feedback refers to, but it also refers to offering a perspective that’s as specific as possible. Are you providing the user’s perspective? Your expert perspective? A business perspective? The project manager’s perspective? A first-time user’s perspective?

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back.

Impact is about the why. Just pointing out a UI element might sometimes be enough if the issue may be obvious, but more often than not, you should add an explanation of what you’re pointing out.

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow.

The question approach is meant to provide open guidance by eliciting the critical thinking in the designer receiving the feedback. Notably, in Lara’s equation she provides a second approach: request, which instead provides guidance toward a specific solution. While that’s a viable option for feedback in general, for design critiques, in my experience, defaulting to the question approach usually reaches the best solutions because designers are generally more comfortable in being given an open space to explore.

The difference between the two can be exemplified with, for the question approach:

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Would it make sense to unify them?

Or, for the request approach:

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same pair of forward and back buttons.

At this point in some situations, it might be useful to integrate with an extra why: why you consider the given suggestion to be better.

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. A while ago, I was putting a lot of effort into improving my feedback: I did rounds of anonymous feedback, and I reviewed feedback with other people. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. To my shock, my next round of feedback from one specific person wasn’t that great. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. But now in this other team, there was one person who instead preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

One comment that I heard come up a few times is that this kind of feedback is quite long, and it doesn’t seem very efficient. No… but also yes. Let’s explore both sides.

No, this style of feedback is actually efficient because the length here is a byproduct of clarity, and spending time giving this kind of feedback can provide exactly enough information for a good fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just, “Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons.” The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just apply the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without the why, the designer might imagine that the change is about consistency… but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

Yes, this style of feedback is not always efficient because the points in some comments don’t always need to be exhaustive, sometimes because certain changes may be obvious (“The font used doesn’t follow our guidelines”) and sometimes because the team may have a lot of internal knowledge such that some of the whys may be implied.

So the equation above isn’t meant to suggest a strict template for feedback but a mnemonic to reflect and improve the practice. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

The tone

Well-grounded content is the foundation of feedback, but that’s not really enough. The soft skills of the person who’s providing the critique can multiply the likelihood that the feedback will be well received and understood. Tone alone can make the difference between content that’s rejected or welcomed, and it’s been demonstrated that only positive feedback creates sustained change in people.

Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the required soft skills in a formula that mirrors the one for content: the receptivity equation.

Respectful feedback comes across as grounded, solid, and constructive. It’s the kind of feedback that, whether it’s positive or negative, is perceived as useful and fair.

Timing refers to when the feedback happens. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. Questioning the entire high-level information architecture of a new feature when it’s about to ship might still be relevant if that questioning highlights a major blocker that nobody saw, but it’s way more likely that those concerns will have to wait for a later rework. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Late iteration? Polishing work in progress? These all have different needs. The right timing will make it more likely that your feedback will be well received.

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That means checking before we write to see whether what we have in mind will truly help the person and make the project better overall. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but that can happen, and that’s okay. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I be more constructive?

Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There might be many reasons for this: sometimes certain words might trigger specific reactions; sometimes nonnative speakers might not understand all the nuances of some sentences; sometimes our brains might just be different and we might perceive the world differently—neurodiversity must be taken into consideration. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

A few years back, I was asking for some feedback on how I give feedback. I received some good advice but also a comment that surprised me. They pointed out that when I wrote “Oh, […],” I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intent! I felt really bad, and I just realized that I provided feedback to them for months, and every time I might have made them feel stupid. I was horrified… but also thankful. I made a quick fix: I added “oh” in my list of replaced words (your choice between: macOS’s text replacement, aText, TextExpander, or others) so that when I typed “oh,” it was instantly deleted. 

Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. It’s important to remember here that a positive attitude doesn’t mean going light on the feedback—it just means that even when you provide hard, difficult, or challenging feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. I found that the best, most insightful moments for me have happened when I’ve shared a comment and I’ve asked someone who I highly trusted, “How does this sound?,” “How can I do it better,” and even “How would you have written it?”—and I’ve learned a lot by seeing the two versions side by side.

The format

Asynchronous feedback also has a major inherent advantage: we can take more time to refine what we’ve written to make sure that it fulfills two main goals: the clarity of communication and the actionability of the suggestions.

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to do this, and of course context matters, but let’s try to think about some elements that may be useful to consider.

In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. Specifically, this means describing where you’re coming from: do you have a deep knowledge of the project, or is this the first time that you’re seeing it? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s perspective are you taking when providing your feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

Providing context is helpful even if you’re sharing feedback within a team that already has some information on the project. And context is absolutely essential when giving cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be indirectly related to my work, and if I had no knowledge about how the project arrived at that point, I would say so, highlighting my take as external.

We often focus on the negatives, trying to outline all the things that could be done better. That’s of course important, but it’s just as important—if not more—to focus on the positives, especially if you saw progress from the previous iteration. This might seem superfluous, but it’s important to keep in mind that design is a discipline where there are hundreds of possible solutions for every problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. As a bonus, positive feedback can also help reduce impostor syndrome.

There’s one powerful approach that combines both context and a focus on the positives: frame how the design is better than the status quo (compared to a previous iteration, competitors, or benchmarks) and why, and then on that foundation, you can add what could be improved. This is powerful because there’s a big difference between a critique that’s for a design that’s already in good shape and a critique that’s for a design that isn’t quite there yet.

Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s “This button isn’t well aligned” versus “You haven’t aligned this button well.” This is very easy to change in your writing by reviewing it just before sending.

In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. For longer pieces of feedback, you might also consider splitting it into sections or even across multiple comments. Of course, adding screenshots or signifying markers of the specific part of the interface you’re referring to can also be especially useful.

One approach that I’ve personally used effectively in some contexts is to enhance the bullet points with four markers using emojis. So a red square 🟥 means that it’s something that I consider blocking; a yellow diamond 🔶 is something that I can be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that it should be changed; and a green circle 🟢 is a detailed, positive confirmation. I also use a blue spiral 🌀 for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. But I’d use this approach only on teams where I’ve already established a good level of trust because if it happens that I have to deliver a lot of red squares, the impact could be quite demoralizing, and I’d reframe how I’d communicate that a bit.

Let’s see how this would work by reusing the example that we used earlier as the first bullet point in this list:

• 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
• 🟢 Overall—I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
• 🟢 Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area; the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
•  🟥  Button Style—Using the green accent in this context creates the impression that it’s a positive action because green is usually perceived as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
• 🔶Tiles—Given the number of items on the page, and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles shouldn’t be using the Subtitle 1 style but the Subtitle 2 style. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
• 🌀 Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the thinking in using that?

What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? In general, I find these difficult to use because they hide discussions and they’re harder to track, but in the right context, they can be very effective. Just make sure that each of the comments is separate so that it’s easier to match each discussion to a single task, similar to the idea of splitting mentioned above.

One final note: say the obvious. Sometimes we might feel that something is obviously good or obviously wrong, and so we don’t say it. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it—that’s okay. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

There’s another advantage of asynchronous feedback: written feedback automatically tracks decisions. Especially in large projects, “Why did we do this?” could be a question that pops up from time to time, and there’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved. 

Content, tone, and format. Each one of these subjects provides a useful model, but working to improve eight areas—observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability—is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others) and start there. Then the second, then the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.

“Any comment?” is probably one of the worst ways to ask for feedback. It’s vague and open ended, and it doesn’t provide any indication of what we’re looking for. Getting good feedback starts earlier than we might expect: it starts with the request. 

It might seem counterintuitive to start the process of receiving feedback with a question, but that makes sense if we realize that getting feedback can be thought of as a form of design research. In the same way that we wouldn’t do any research without the right questions to get the insights that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to craft sharp questions.

Design critique is not a one-shot process. Sure, any good feedback workflow continues until the project is finished, but this is particularly true for design because design work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each level needs its own set of questions.

And finally, as with any good research, we need to review what we got back, get to the core of its insights, and take action. Question, iteration, and review. Let’s look at each of those.

The question

Being open to feedback is essential, but we need to be precise about what we’re looking for. Just saying “Any comment?”, “What do you think?”, or “I’d love to get your opinion” at the end of a presentation—whether it’s in person, over video, or through a written post—is likely to get a number of varied opinions or, even worse, get everyone to follow the direction of the first person who speaks up. And then… we get frustrated because vague questions like those can turn a high-level flows review into people instead commenting on the borders of buttons. Which might be a hearty topic, so it might be hard at that point to redirect the team to the subject that you had wanted to focus on.

But how do we get into this situation? It’s a mix of factors. One is that we don’t usually consider asking as a part of the feedback process. Another is how natural it is to just leave the question implied, expecting the others to be on the same page. Another is that in nonprofessional discussions, there’s often no need to be that precise. In short, we tend to underestimate the importance of the questions, so we don’t work on improving them.

The act of asking good questions guides and focuses the critique. It’s also a form of consent: it makes it clear that you’re open to comments and what kind of comments you’d like to get. It puts people in the right mental state, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to give feedback.

There isn’t a single best way to ask for feedback. It just needs to be specific, and specificity can take many shapes. A model for design critique that I’ve found particularly useful in my coaching is the one of stage versus depth.

“Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our case, the design process. In progressing from user research to the final design, the kind of feedback evolves. But within a single step, one might still review whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a proper translation of the amassed feedback into updated designs as the project has evolved. A starting point for potential questions could derive from the layers of user experience. What do you want to know: Project objectives? User needs? Functionality? Content? Interaction design? Information architecture? UI design? Navigation design? Visual design? Branding?

Here’re a few example questions that are precise and to the point that refer to different layers:

• Functionality: Is automating account creation desirable?
• Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
• Information architecture: We have two competing bits of information on this page. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
• UI design: What are your thoughts on the error counter at the top of the page that makes sure that you see the next error, even if the error is out of the viewport? 
• Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Are there any suggestions to address this?
• Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

The other axis of specificity is about how deep you’d like to go on what’s being presented. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially useful from one iteration to the next where it’s important to highlight the parts that have changed.

There are other things that we can consider when we want to achieve more specific—and more effective—questions.

A simple trick is to remove generic qualifiers from your questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and “cool.” For example, asking, “When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good?” might look specific, but you can spot the “good” qualifier, and convert it to an even better question: “When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is?”

Sometimes we actually do want broad feedback. That’s rare, but it can happen. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or maybe just say, “At first glance, what do you think?” so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

Sometimes the project is particularly expansive, and some areas may have already been explored in detail. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. It’s not something that I’d recommend in general, but I’ve found it useful to avoid falling again into rabbit holes of the sort that might lead to further refinement but aren’t what’s most important right now.

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will welcome the clarity and efficiency that comes from focusing only on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Yet a lot of design tools with inline commenting tend to show changes as a single fluid stream in the same file, and those types of design tools make conversations disappear once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and compel designs to always show the latest version—unless these would-be helpful features were to be manually turned off. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That’s probably not the best way to approach design critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive here: that could work for some teams.

The asynchronous design-critique approach that I find most effective is to create explicit checkpoints for discussion. I’m going to use the term iteration post for this. It refers to a write-up or presentation of the design iteration followed by a discussion thread of some kind. Any platform that can accommodate this structure can use this. By the way, when I refer to a “write-up or presentation,” I’m including video recordings or other media too: as long as it’s asynchronous, it works.

Using iteration posts has many advantages:

• It creates a rhythm in the design work so that the designer can review feedback from each iteration and prepare for the next.
• It makes decisions visible for future review, and conversations are likewise always available.
• It creates a record of how the design changed over time.
• Depending on the tool, it might also make it easier to collect feedback and act on it.

These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. And other feedback approaches (such as live critique, pair designing, or inline comments) can build from there.

I don’t think there’s a standard format for iteration posts. But there are a few high-level elements that make sense to include as a baseline:

1. The goal
2. The design
3. The list of changes
4. The questions

Each project is likely to have a goal, and hopefully it’s something that’s already been summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, such as the client brief, the product manager’s outline, or the project owner’s request. So this is something that I’d repeat in every iteration post—literally copy and pasting it. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. If I want to know about the latest design, the latest iteration post will have all that I need.

This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. So having posts that repeat information is actually very effective toward making sure that everyone is on the same page.

The design is then the actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other kind of design work that’s been done. In short, it’s any design artifact. For the final stages of work, I prefer the term blueprint to emphasize that I’ll be showing full flows instead of individual screens to make it easier to understand the bigger picture. 

It can also be useful to label the artifacts with clear titles because that can make it easier to refer to them. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not too different from organizing a good live presentation. 

For an efficient discussion, you should also include a bullet list of the changes from the previous iteration to let people focus on what’s new, which can be especially useful for larger pieces of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, could become a challenge.

And finally, as noted earlier, it’s essential that you include a list of the questions to drive the design critique in the direction you want. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

Not all iterations are the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then later, the iterations start settling on a solution and refining it until the design process reaches its end and the feature ships.

I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft—just a concept to get a conversation going—or it could be a cumulative list of each feature that was added over the course of each iteration until the full picture is done.

Over time, I also started using specific labels for incremental iterations: i1, i2, i3, and so on. This might look like a minor labelling tip, but it can help in multiple ways:

• Unique—It’s a clear unique marker. Within each project, one can easily say, “This was discussed in i4,” and everyone knows where they can go to review things.
• Unassuming—It works like versions (such as v1, v2, and v3) but in contrast, versions create the impression of something that’s big, exhaustive, and complete. Iterations must be able to be exploratory, incomplete, partial.
• Future proof—It resolves the “final” naming problem that you can run into with versions. No more files named “final final complete no-really-its-done.” Within each project, the largest number always represents the latest iteration.

To mark when a design is complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits still in need of attention and in turn more iterations needed, the wording release candidate (RC) could be used to describe it: “with i8, we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC.”

The review

What usually happens during a design critique is an open discussion, with a back and forth between people that can be very productive. This approach is particularly effective during live, synchronous feedback. But when we work asynchronously, it’s more effective to use a different approach: we can shift to a user-research mindset. Written feedback from teammates, stakeholders, or others can be treated as if it were the result of user interviews and surveys, and we can analyze it accordingly.

This shift has some major benefits that make asynchronous feedback particularly effective, especially around these friction points:

1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
2. It reduces the frustration from swoop-by comments.
3. It lessens our personal stake.

The first friction point is feeling a pressure to reply to every single comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s just a few of them, it’s easy, and it doesn’t feel like a problem. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the person who’s replying is a stakeholder or someone directly involved in the project who we feel that we need to listen to. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. Sometimes replying to all comments can be effective, but if we treat a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t have to reply to every comment, and in asynchronous spaces, there are alternatives:

• One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design evolves and we post a follow-up iteration, that’s the reply. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement. 
• Another is to briefly reply to acknowledge each comment, such as “Understood. Thank you,” “Good points—I’ll review,” or “Thanks. I’ll include these in the next iteration.” In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of “Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon!”
• Another is to provide a quick summary of the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

The second friction point is the swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from someone outside the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements—or of the previous iterations’ discussions. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments often trigger the simple thought “We’ve already discussed this…”, and it can be frustrating to have to repeat the same reply over and over.

Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. If, however, replying to a previously litigated point might be useful, a short reply with a link to the previous discussion for extra details is usually enough. Remember, alignment comes from repetition, so it’s okay to repeat things sometimes!

Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: they might point out something that still isn’t clear, and they also have the potential to stand in for the point of view of a user who’s seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

The third friction point is the personal stake we could have with the design, which could make us feel defensive if the review were to feel more like a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego (because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there). And ultimately, treating everything in aggregated form allows us to better prioritize our work.

Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You have to analyze it and make a decision that you can justify, but sometimes “no” is the right answer. 

As the designer leading the project, you’re in charge of that decision. Ultimately, everyone has their specialty, and as the designer, you’re the one who has the most knowledge and the most context to make the right decision. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.