Serif, the company behind the popular apps Affinity photo, Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher announced their big 1.9 version release yesterday. All apps, on all platforms, are getting new features and several improvements to start off the new year. The 1.9 version release is available for free.
 

There are some great new features in this release, and it is clear that the Affinity series are aiming to position itself as a competent and financially attractive alternative to Adobe.

Quote

The Affinity apps go from strength to strength with the launch today of version 1.9, bringing new features and significant further improvements.

“We’re introducing more tools and functions which will enable artists, designers, photographers and editors with even the most complex workflows to take advantage of the speed and power of Affinity.”

Here are some highlights from the 1.9 release available now:

Affinity Photo

• liquify adjustments as live, maskable layers.
• substantial improvements to its RAW engine
• new linked layer functionality,
• path text
• a new mode to control the stacking of astrography images

Affinity Designer

• a new contour tool
• ability to place linked images and resources
• reducing file size
• simplifying collaborative working

Affinity Publisher

• IDML import will be noticeably faster
• the new Package feature
• Placed PDFs can now be set to ‘passthrough’

...and much, much more!

All Affinity apps are currently available with 50% discount as an initiative to support the creative community during COVID-19, from affinity.serif.com.

Atomic UX Research. Sounds like something amazing, doesn't it? Something that will fit right into the modular design and development processes in Atomic Design. Unfortunately it is just a fancy name for having a proper documentation strategy for UX Research made up by UX Designers who work in poorly structured workplaces.

When I first read the article "Foundations of atomic research", I had no idea what the person was talking about. Was it a process, a content strategy or maybe even how to present the findings. I looked up the Atomic UX Research further and found the article "What is Atomic UX Research?" and it seemed like it was all about how to organize the documentation of the findings.

I watched the video (added blow) where Daniel Pidcock try to explain this new, revolutionary way to organize data, and I was both amazed and a bit disturbed over the fact that the audience actually seemed to agree with this nonsense. The reason I felt that way is that there is nothing in this new made up word that have anything to do with UX. It's just common sense on how to manage documentation. Any documentation.

Anyone working with research should know that you always connect current research with relevant research that it is related to. It is also standard practice for anyone working with research to add metadata to make the research findable in different situations. Anyone working in UX research, especially towards the web, should know that data get old very fast and loose relevance very fast.

Quote

As it stood, the UX team, BAs and PMs would run experiments, write up what they learned and how they used that knowledge. These were normally produced as PDFs, Google Docs or Slide-decks and then were filed away in Google Drive.

That is not how you work with any form of documentation that is supposed to be alive. If you make UX research then that data is ever-changing as you continue to learn and experiment. This does not warrant a new way of working, you just need to start working the right way. Proper documentation is always a part of research, as is traceability so you can understand where the conclusions come from and how you used it to formulate new theories to be tested.

The Atomic UX Research suggests that you should divide the research into smaller bits and then tag each type with metadata. The idea is that by doing that you can discover other data that is related to your research. If you have hundreds of theories going at once in multiple teams, or you want to bring in similar research on other systems or services then maybe that would be useful.

Then again, if you have that many experiments going, then the volume of data would be immense and you would have no way of knowing what data would be relevant. You would spend a ton of time on matching old experiments that probably will be obsolete as the design have already been updated since it was conducted.

This is the image used to illustrate the four main parts of the Atomic UX Research. Note that the structure start with the Experiment. Now it may be implied, but an experiment should be tied to a theory. What are we trying to prove and why do we think this is worth exploring should be the starting point for all research. While I think this may be implied, for me this is where this theory fails.

By having the theory as the highest level, all experiments fall under that theory. All theories are built on previous learnings so while there is no problem having the information structure dividing the content beyond experiments I think that if you ensure you have your theories in order you would not see many insights related to multiple theories at the same time.

Even if you have an additional level of information for insights you would not have multiple conclusions. The conclusion would be tied to the theory we are working with based on the result of the experiments we run to test that theory. In the event that we make findings not related to the theory we are testing, this would be marked in the conclusions as separate theories to explore at a later date.

My take on the Atomic UX Research approach is that instead of inventing new names, you should start working with research properly. UX Research follow the same basic structure as every other research field. In order for any research to have the desired effect you need to formulate theories, conduct experiments to test that theory, analyze the result and finally take what you have learned and form new theories and of course activities to improve the service or product you are doing UX on.

The result is documented in a searchable tool with metadata and connection to previous theories that support the decision to make further testing of the current theory. You do not need a new methodology for it, just follow the standard research praxis that has worked for many, many years. Doing random exploratory testing is not research. It is exploratory testing/discovery.

Atomic UX Research = UX Research.

Figma has been in the news for designers for a while and it is in many ways praised as the one tool that will save us all. I am still skeptical because to me Figma is a generalist tool, and I am used to working with specialist tools. I will go over the selling points that Figma have listed as to why people make the switch from Sketch to Figma.

On the Figma website they list 3 main selling points for making the switch: Less is more, Faster in the cloud and Better Teamwork. The collaboration aspect has been their biggest selling point so far as far as I am concerned, but let us go over them one by one and see how they appeal to certain groups.

I will look at these selling points from two points of view. The Isolated design team, which would be where most design studios and larger companies with dedicated design teams would fit. The included design team which is where the team is working alongside the requirements and development team members.

Less is more

I could not agree more. Having to juggle multiple tools at once is a bad experience for everyone. The design tool is just one tool and it must connect to the overall flow of the build phases. That means that the design should be connected to the code and the requirements. As far as I know there is no design tool that have that today, so we still need to have that as separate tools.

Abstract for release management

When it comes to both requirements and development, which are the two adjacent disciplines to design, then version management is very important. Abstract is by far the best tool right now for maintaining a controlled version management, which also can follow the same flow as the code. This allows for locking a design, while also continue working on it in a controlled way.

While Figma have a version history built in, it is just that. Version management of single assets with no connection outside the design flow. It is not what is needed for collaboration outside the design discipline, even if it is nice to see who did what when.

InVision for prototyping

I do not do a lot of prototyping and usually the built-in functions in Sketch works fine to illustrate a flow. If I need to do a full prototype I would either use InVision or Axure depending on the situation. Are the functions in Figma as advanced as InVision or Axure? I don't think so, but then again I have not seen any reason to dig into it too much. I doubt it is something that will make or break a decision for a designer.

Zeplin / Avocode for design handover

While design handovers are less common when working with proper pattern libraries, a lot of people still do not have that workflow in their organization. Having tools like Zeplin or Avocode to allow developers to match colors, fonts, margins and paddings becomes important in that case.

For the isolated design teams this is a lifesaver as it reduce the need to communicate with the build team. For the included teams it is simply an additional feature, like a nice-to-have. This is because the included teams will of course collaborate directly with the rest of the team, which makes static information less important.

Overall it is not bad that Figma have the basic tools for prototyping and design handover, quite the opposite. The missing part for me is that they do not have the features to replace Abstract and the features for prototyping and design handover are not exceeding the features of the specialized tools.

I would argue that Figma would best fit small, isolated teams that need a generalist tool over specialized ones or due to cost.

Faster in the cloud

One selling point for Figma is that it works everywhere. This is good news if you are forced to work in an organization that only allow PC computers or if you prefer to work on a Linux for whatever reason. Personally I fail to see the importance of this because you should choose the tools that make you most efficient. If you are limited because the organization prioritize hardware over people, then leave right away. Never work for companies that don't care about its people.

The only reason why this is good for Figma is because they want to bring everyone into Figma and as such it must be available on all systems. It does not make the design process more efficient and collaboration of multiple disciplines inside a design tool is far from problem free.

I would say this is only needed if you have the design handover in the design tool or if your workflow is based on passive collaboration.

Better Teamwork

This is Figma's biggest selling point in my opinion and it is one they promote a lot. Collaboration is an interesting thing though and it clearly means different things to different people. Figma define collaboration as getting passive feedback through comments and the ability to work on the same designs together.

Comments are passive collaboration

The ability to add comments is the very lowest form of collaboration. It is a passive form of communication and while it is nice to not having to email people to get a comment on a design suggestion, it is best suited for isolated teams that do not have access to the people that they need to communicate with.

For included teams this might at best be something you use when you are not working or to get feedback from people that are not part of the build stream that you are working in. Included teams would get far better results directly communicating with developers and stakeholders than asking for comments.

Adding Notes to your design

While it is sometimes useful to add notes in the design, for example during a workshop, I do not see this as a big selling point as I could just as easily get something like Sketch Notebook to do the same thing.

So while we all want better collaboration, I fail to see how passive communication with external sources will be helpful in most situations. Unless you are an isolated team with little to no access to the people you need to collaborate with. Figma has the same type of collaboration like many other tools that also cater to the same working conditions where you work apart from the people you need to collaborate with.

Is this something that is crucial for a modern designer today? In some cases it might be, but for people who work in an agile and included way this would never be an important feature. It should also be noted that Sketch are also adding these type of features in a near future and if they are similar, then this would not be a big selling point in the future.

Design System (not listed as a selling point)

Figma also promote their design system as an important feature, but not as a reason why people move from Sketch to Figma. I bring it up because design systems are used a bit carelessly these days and sometimes seem to be interchangeable with pattern libraries.

In both Sketch and Figma a design system is just design asset management. It is not connected to code in any way, other than that certain values can be seen using the inspect tools in Figma. You would need something like Invision DSM to actually connect code to assets, but usually you will still have a manual step between design and code.

Should you make the switch?

This is the big question, just like it was some years ago when Sketch challenged Adobe. Back then it depended on your workflow and your finances mostly, but also what UI you preferred. To some it was also about small company vs big company or just to have the latest hot tool on the market. Here are some the reasons I see.

Figma is the latest hot tool

There is no denying this fact ever since WordPress announced they would go for Figma as the official tool back in 2018. It is now the talk of the town and many are looking at Figma to replace Sketch. If you are one of those that follow the crowd, then Figma is probably pretty attractive right now for this reason alone.

Many designers still work in isolation

Sadly this is still true, even if designers are slowly moving into the build teams. When you are cut off from the daily interactions of the build teams, then you have no choice but to work with passive communication. Having that inside your design tool is a good option if you are crippled when it comes to good communication. Sketch will get similar features so this may not be the selling point it once was.

One cheaper general tool

Money always define the tools we use and the possibility to reduce cost by using one general tool rather that several specialist tools is not a bad thing. If you rarely use the full features on the specialist tools, or if you are struggling with the cost for multiple tools, then Figma is not a bad alternative. It probably has most of the feature you use every day already built in.

Everyone can use Figma

This is something that should not be underestimated. Many companies suffer from low trust and as such managers have the need to control the work even if they should not. In such situations it is very nice to have a tool that is accessible everywhere and the commenting function is also a big bonus.

The only drawbacks with Figma as I see it, is that it is an isolated design tool and it is not an offline tool. It has no connection to the build flow and it really needs Abstract as a plugin or a similar product that also have design release flows. The fact that it require Internet also put some limits on where I can or can not work. There are of course plugins to both Figma and Sketch that require Internet connection as well, so the limitations are not only in Figma.

My conclusion when it comes to Figma is that for me there is nothing that make me want to make the switch. The tools are roughly the same and when I need it I will bring in another tool to supplement for example prototyping. It does not fit into my workflow of direct communication where design follows the same cadence as development and test. At least not for the moment.

For isolated design teams, or smaller design teams that do not need additional features I would say this is a great fit due to it's acessibility, indirect collaboration features and price.

For included design teams I would still suggest Sketch + Abstract as the most efficient and collaborative way of working.

After some time in beta Sketch 69 was released yesterday and it was a great release indeed. We finally got Color variables, which has been much requested. We also got the first taste of the components view which is a more structured way to manage all your assets. Finally we got a new insert window to make adding your assets into a design so very much easier and intuitive.

Color variable

This is amazing and I like this a lot, espcially combined with the Components view. For people who find it annoying or time consuming to turn your old layers and styles manually, there is a migration tool that you can use. It is called the Color Variables Migrator and it is of curse free to use.

Quote

Whether you’re working on a one-off project, or managing a complex design system, keeping the colors you use consistent and up-to-date is important. And with Color Variables, we’ve made that a lot easier. They work exactly how you’d expect them to — you can apply them wherever you’d normally apply a solid color. And when you make a change to a Color Variable, you’ll see that update reflected automatically across every layer that uses it.

Components view

This, to me, makes working with assets a whole lot easier. I find that this in combination with the new insert window below make it faster and much more intuitive to work with assets now.

Quote

Clicking on the Components View tab in the Toolbar will switch out the Canvas for a whole new view in your document’s window. There, you’ll see a grid with a preview of every Component in your document. From there, we’ve made it easy to organize them into groups, rename them, and even edit them in bulk using the controls in the Inspector. In other words, you no longer need to manually create a page full of text layers for the sole purposes of viewing and editing Text Styles.

Insert Window

This makes working with assets a pure pleasure. No more droplists to go through with barely visible icons. Instead we get a big, well organised window that you open when you need it pressing "C" where your assets are easy to find and you add them with drag and drop. I love it.
 

Quote

 

As the name suggests, the Insert Window is a separate window, built specifically for browsing and inserting Components — from your local document or any Library you have enabled.

When you find what you need, simply drag-and-drop it onto your Canvas. The window hides itself when you do this so you can see the entire Canvas, but you can also pin it to have it reappear automatically.

 

This is one of the best updates this year to Sketch as I see it and I look forward to hearing more on the collaboration features they are working on next.

If you work as a Service Designer or as someone who try to sell Service Design assignments, then you probably have noticed that it is not so easy. You probably have met your fair share of people that have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you have written that off because the job title is still fairly new, but that is not always the case.

Service Design from a UX perspective is still fairly confusing and poorly defined. It's a problem that you hear many definitions of what a UX Service Designer actually do, but there are other problems as well. Let us first look at how UX Service Design is defined.

Quote

Service design practice is the specification and construction of processes that delivers valuable capacities for action to a particular user. Service design practice can be both tangible and intangible and it can involve artifacts or other elements such as communication, environment and behaviors.^[9] Several authors of service design theory including Pierre Eiglier,^[10]Richard Normann,^[11] Nicola Morelli,^[12] emphasize that services come to existence at the same moment they are being provided and used. In contrast, products are created and "exist" before being purchased and used.^[12] While a designer can prescribe the exact configuration of a product, s/he cannot prescribe in the same way the result of the interaction between users and service providers,^[6] nor can s/he prescribe the form and characteristics of any emotional value produced by the service.

Consequently, service design is an activity that, among other things, suggests behavioral patterns or "scripts" to the actors interacting in the service. Understanding how these patterns interweave and support each other are important aspects of the character of design and service.^[13] This allows greater user freedom, and better provider adaptability to the users' behavior.

The 2018 book, This Is Service Design Doing: Applying Service Design Thinking in the Real World, by Adam Lawrence, Jakob Schneider, Marc Stickdorn, and Markus Edgar Hormess, proposes six service design principles:^[23]

1. Human-centered: Consider the experience of all the people affected by the service.^[23]
2. Collaborative: Stakeholders of various backgrounds and functions should be actively engaged in the service design process.^[23]
3. Iterative: Service design is an exploratory, adaptive, and experimental approach, iterating toward implementation.^[23]
4. Sequential: The service should be visualized and orchestrated as a sequence of interrelated actions.^[23]
5. Real: Needs should be researched in reality, ideas prototyped in reality, and intangible values evidenced as physical or digital reality.^[23]
6. Holistic: Services should sustainably address the needs of all stakeholders through the entire service and across the business.^[23]

Together with the most traditional methods used for product design, service design requires methods and tools to control new elements of the design process, such as the time and the interaction between actors. An overview of the methodologies for designing services is proposed by Nicola Morelli in 2006,^[5] who proposes three main directions:

• Identification of the actors involved in the definition of the service by means of appropriate analytical tools
• Definition of possible service scenarios, verifying use cases, and sequences of actions and actors’ roles in order to define the requirements for the service and its logical and organizational structure
• Representation of the service by means of techniques that illustrate all the components of the service, including physical elements, interactions, logical links and temporal sequences

 

This is a fairly fluffy definition of what the UX Service Designer do and as with so much of the design discipline it have no real process, but rather some blocks of activities that are loosely defined. It is no wonder why it is so hard to understand what the UX Service Designer will actually do and how it is different from the regular UX Designer.

As UX Service Designers is supposed to work on a higher level than a UX Designer, you also face the issue that many of the executives and managers you meet comes from a background in ITIL. That means that many you will talk to probably have a certification in ITIL Service Design. Now you will face not just the problem to define exactly what you do and will deliver, but you also need to explain why they would hire you when they have a certification in that same discipline.

The ITIL Service Design is a bit different because as UX Service Design focus on the user experience, ITIL Service Design focus on different things and have a different definition of Service than the standard IT definition.

Quote

 

Service Design identifies service requirements and devises new service offerings as well as changes and improvements to existing ones.

In the ITIL model, a 'Service' is defined as, "A means of delivering value to customers by facilitating outcomes customers want to achieve without the ownership of specific costs and risks."^[2] The meaning is thus highly business-focused and assumes some degree of outsourcing, although this may just be outsourcing from within the functional business unit to some IT services group within the same overall business.^[3]

'Service' in this context should not be confused with the IT meanings of 'service', such as a web service. This is somewhat confused by ITIL also recommending the adoption of service-oriented architecture, as expounded by OASIS.^[4] In most technical contexts, SOA is widely assumed to imply the provision and interconnection of technical services. Although a fashionable buzzword for ITIL to have incorporated, they do not use the term according to its general meaning.

 

This is why when you step into a room filled with experience executives and managers and proclaim that you are a Service Designer, that might not generate the mental image of a UX Service Designer, but that of an ITIL Service Designer. This is not a very good starting position, especially when you talk about user experience and they might wonder how that is relevant to resource management or fund allocations.

My suggestion is therefore to always refer to your profession as a UX Service Designer rather than just Service Designer. It will make sure you at least will not be confused with an ITIL Service Designer.