#i find it odd how i always preach that other people's feelings are valid but i can never seem to apply that same advice to myself. hm.

[steakout-05]

ok genuine question: does experiencing noticeable back pain that happens often, actively hinders me and usually makes me need to sit down when doing painting, crafting, standing over a table or cleaning my room constitute as a physical disability?

this question might sound a bit silly considering that if i have to sit down in the first place then yeah it probably is disabling me, but a part of me is doubting myself, because i can otherwise function "normally" (don't like using that word but i can't think of another right now) and sometimes the amount of back pain i have fluctuates. sometimes it hurts like a bitch, sometimes it's barely noticeable. another part of me is just generally curious to see what some people think about this topic.

[bellamygateoldblog]

THE 100 7X07 LIVEBLOG

Warning: Long. I’m sorry. I was excited.

• First thought, I'm being forced to watch without subtitles & and it might just be me but these actors are impossible to understand on the first listen.

• "The shepherd teaches us that winning the last war brings upon the final evolution of a species" so....aliens? ALIE? Ascending into a 'higher' form of existence meaning either life after death (ALIE style) or these people want to become Gods?

• They "believe in transcendence" so i must be on the right lines.

• Bardo have "different plans" for the two killers. Void!Echo might be cominggggg.

• "Death is life" / "may we meet again" / "death is not the end" — "winning the last war brings upon the final evolution of a species"???? I’ve connected the dots.

• I'm sorry but all this hyper-focus on Clarke and being "The Key to everything" is kinda embarassing me, like 😳 it's just so odd. That this alien cult from another part of the galaxy/universe is fixated on this random teenager born on a space station around Earth. I know, I know it's to do with Becca's tech, but it's still very much sounding like the "super important special protagonist" trope which I hate and until that detail about the code/tech is revealed it will continue to make me rme. LMAO.

• "Rise and shine errand boy" OK MA.

• Indra is out looking for their friends which confirms LGBT wrath squad literally told nobody they were leaving, and since Gaia was kidnapped, there's no news from them at all.

• Emori trying desperately to help Murphy stay out of hell. At first I thought she was reassuring him, but she was explaining why he needs to do these “errands,” because she believes in his ‘vision’ of hell last season.

• "besides [Murphy's] worshipped me for years."

• Memori is the inverse of Bellarke. There, I said it.

• "You don't know me very well-" / "i know you went into that tavern to save a child at great risk to yourself..." is the pretty much the exact same scene as Murphy's with Luna in s4: "you don't know me very well" / "I know you stole medicine to save [a child]..."

• Luna's spirit followed them across the galaxy/universe this season.

• I don't know anything about chess but the fear on Murphy's face when Slim Sheidy moved his Queen makes me think Emori is in danger this season for as long as he's still alive.

• Echo indirectly preaching "love is strength"

• "You don't talk about yourself much and you're a shapeshifter"

• Dude maybe Echo really is getting an arc this season.

• "Bellamy this isn't real" implies she's had to shut “this” down before, and that there's been something between them for a while. And Bellamy literally shut her up with a kiss, telling her and us that she’s being silly. Also, Echo was the one putting it off.

• Tall girlfriend short boyfriend rights!

• The shot of the ring becoming Echo's eye. Oh my GOD.

• "I know you're in pain Echo, I feel it" what a dumb fuck thing to say LMAO what gave it away?????? The way I'm crying right now in front of you??????

• "I'm the monster from Hope's bedtime stories"

• Octavia:

• WE'RE VOCALISING THE PARALLEL NOW HUH?!

• Octavia is telling EVERYONE else what we already knew. The parallel was NEVER to Finn. It was to Octavia. After Lincoln died. TELL EM.

• "I wish I hugged him instead"

• Octecho Murphamy parallel oh jesus.

• Octavia is like "no Murphy Echo! I'm not letting you go until you admit you're not useless! it's not your fault!"

• Octavia telling Echo love is the answer, love is what she needs, not death or violence. Love is strength. Here we go bitches.

• "YOU'RE MY FAMILY TOO"

• !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “YOU’RE ONE OF THE HUNDRED”

• Am i actually right with all these Echo theories i’ve had? I’m feeling so validated.

• It’s a shame none of these scenes will be edited and made into gifsets by fandom the way other Clarke/bellarke/anti-Echo-centred ones have been them with their none-existent Finn ‘parallel’ lmaooooo, because nobody cares for Echo and Octavia.

• Everyone is yelling for Echo. I feel that.

• Diyoza is checking her nails. I feel that too.

• "THAT'S DISHES YOUNG LADY" ajaksjajsjskasjsjdkskdjdj

• I'm so sad we're back in Sanctum😔😔😔

• Emori is fr pregnant.

• Are we really doing a sexism thing, here with Shiedheda and Murphy? I thought those things didn't exist anymore?🤔

• "how you respond to the loss of your Queen will tell me which you are (a leader or a follower)" — I'm going to be unhappy if Emori dies just so Murphy can become a "leader" by the end. Don’t. Especially not after this conversation about “not liking women very much.”

• Well there goes that theory of Hope favouring Murphy from the stories because she was told he was similar to her father. Sigh.

• "I like you John, you amuse me" is a pretty good way of summarising how his character has been used this season.

• "Everyone I ever loved was killed fighting in wars. Some that didn't need to be fought"

• "I LIKE OUR CHANCES" callback.

• Men who?

• "Violence and rage will only destroy your soul"

• “Revenge is a game with no winners” motherly advice vs “They loved people too. Where does it end?” / “it doesn’t end here. I don’t believe in karma” motherly advice.

• These quotes are making me nervous about void!Echo. I hope she gets brought back from the dark eventually. Or makes the dark her bitch.

• This Diyoza-Hope scene looks paralleled to the Octecho one! Thus Echo also wants to "go back to the way things were."

• "They took my mommy away" — Like ‘they’ took Octavia's and Echo's. Two other warrior women in the same group. Clarke dealt with the loss of hers. Madi with the loss of hers. There’s Gaia and Indra’s strained relationship. Emori + being cast out by her parents. The child sacrifices. Murphy + Sheidheda’s mother throwing him in the conclave meaning he doesn’t like women. Is this season about mommy issues?

• A little confused why he’s talking about Lexa as if she directly stole his legacy. Wasn’t he in power when Indra was a child?

• Octavia is laying there staring at a blank book.

• I'm dying at Octavia monologing, completely oblivious to Echo cutting her face with broken glass behind her. LMAO. She's become so accustomed to Echo's whimpering she's not even phased anymore.

• Dying again at Echo out of nowhere just going DO YOU KNOW WHY AZGEDA WARRIORS SCAR THEIR OWN FACES?

• Octavia, again:

• "We do it to symbolize that the pain is over. The wound is healed."

• That's such a good explanation. And here begins Echo's healing journey. As her wounds heal over the next few episodes so will she. And by the end her scars will symbolise that journey.

• Here Echo goes again being the smartest person in the room, always. "We're not prisoners, we're recruits."

• Tasya is making me super uncomfortable with the jittery, eery way Echo is moving around. I love it.

• The way Echo casually saunters out of the fucking room with not a single care in the world oh she knowsssss. AJDKSHFJSF

• Echo leading again!!! Making the decisions. Octavia following after her (literally) and backing her.

• "This is how my people show they're ready to go to war" — making everyone extremely uncomfortable and I love that for her. Also, "my people."

• Embracing her Azgeda-ness.

• Octavia understanding and jumping in to aid Echo's plan combined with the close-up of Echo's determined abliet slightly unhinged expression makes me believe Echo is leaning into her "spy" along with her Azgeda and going undercover, making them believe she's on their side when she's not. But there's still a part of me thinking Echo is spiraling and is going to war out of habit and because she feels she has nowhere else to go/ "no home." Aka, the detail to finish off the S7 O/E parallels: "this is who I am" / "I'm here for the war."

• Furthermore, her scarring herself could be a callback to Octavia telling Ilian to help her feel something.

• I love this season a lot.

• Back in Sanctum again😒

• How does a chess game take all fucking DAY?

• OH 🙂 That's how.

• Yeah it makes absolutely no sense Raven would ask about Octavia before Echo.

• Raven looking at Clarke when finding out Bellamy's dead as if she isn't the only one there who's his actual family, who spent 6 entire years with him + more. Raven Clarke-Prop Reyes strikes again.

• Clarke's like *sad confusion*

• The scene of Clarke finding out about Bellamy's death didn't feel so much about her as it did "well what does this mean for them now?"

• "From the ashes we will rise" becomes "from the ashes, through the bridge, the shepherd will rise" Gotta say, not as catchy.

• "please call me Bill" - No. No Bill. Only Cadogan.

• We're going back to Earth this season aren't we?

[orionsangel86]

So, after a long conversation with super-powerful-queen-slaynna, whom you can thank for me sending this message, so like... if you like it good, if you don't blame them, I do want to apologize for assuming you were saying people can't talk about Destiel, its shippers and how much they dislike it in their group chats. That's what the post came off to me, as if you were policing what people could and couldn't say in these GC about Destiel. Slaynna made me realiza that you meant your post as a 1/2

warning to Destiel shippers who might wander into them. I understand this, because whenever a Destiel shipper follows me, I make it a point to warn them my blog might not be a positive space for them precisely to avoid this sort of unplesant interactions. It also came off as you were invalidating and dismissing the bad experiences people might have had with misbehaving Destiel shippers, which I'm sure you're nice enough NOT to do. My beef is really not with you, or Tink, or any other Destiel 2/?

meta writer, my beef is with shippers who are genuinely hateful and do hateful things. You simply came off as you didn't believe there are Destiel shippers who do these things at all. That say, I won't apologize for venting to like-minded people about my utter dislike for the ship, because we do in fact do that. But I don't think it's fair you walked in on us at that point and extrapolated that's all we do. BTW there is in fact an Anti-Destiel GC and the irony is, if you had walked into that 3/4

one 24hrs earlier, you would have in fact found people gushing about Megstiel and Sastiel, LMAO. 4/4

...

Okay, I’ll give you pointers for being bold enough to come explain this in my ask box, and I commend @super-powerful-queen-slayyna for reaching out to try to calm the stormy seas. I am most likely not going to make any further comments on that post anyway because it has blown out of control and has escalated into a full blown ship war post which I never wanted when I sent it. It’s now Destiel shippers and my friends trying to defend me or people blatantly calling me names and using unnecessary language which I am not even going to acknowledge or give the time of day as I don’t go in for that sort of childish name calling (unless you count my use of the word bronly but some things I think even we can agree are a necessary evil).

My post was a response to my own hurt and irritation at coming across two GCs, one for Sastiel, and one for Megstiel, which were both recommended to me by Tumblr, which were not tagged as anti-Destiel that I could see, that appeared on the surface to simply be places for people to discuss and squee over those ships. In both GCs I saw nothing but hate and lies and other upsetting comments about Destiel and Destiel shippers. It was extremely disheartening to see that in what on the surface appeared to be safe spaces. Because here’s the thing, these shipper GCs should be safe spaces. I have friends that are multishippers, that like Sastiel (and even the odd few who like Megstiel even though admittedly I don’t anymore.) There are plenty of other people out there in fandom that might like all three ships (I’d imagine those people simply want Cas to have all the love in which case SAME). 

To get one point very clear, I don’t actually care if people hate Destiel. I’m not going to preach to anyone about Destiel unless someone comes to me directly or comes scrolling my blog. I always tag Destiel so anyone who uses Tumblr blacklist should be able to avoid my blog completely. I would never intentionally go looking in an anti Destiel chat group. I’ve seen it all before anyway and it’s the same old arguments that really don’t affect my shipping preferences or my beliefs. 

What annoyed me was that those GCs were not anti Destiel chats. They were Megstiel and Sastiel chats. They were places where impressionable young Megstiel and Sastiel shippers could come across, who have zero feelings towards Destiel, and find themselves being told a bunch of lies and nasty crap about Destiel shippers and the ship. They are places where Destiel shippers who like to ship those other ships too might come across and suddenly find themselves isolated and alienated, which only perpetuates retaliation from those Destiel shippers and potentially causes the hate that you stress is so virulent among Destiel shippers to begin with.

My post was a warning for multishippers who are also Destiel shippers or at least Destiel friendly, that those GCs were being used to spread hate about Destiel. It was also an FYI to the people in those GCs that their hatred was very much public, in case they weren’t aware. I tagged the ships because I wanted people who ship Megstiel and Sastiel to see it, especially if they are Destiel friendly, because yeah, I’d want them to avoid those GCs.

Yes I then got snarky. I claimed that this does kinda prove a point because no Destiel GC that I’ve seen includes a bunch of hate and nastiness aimed at other ships. Sure, there is a high chance that there are hateful Destiel shippers out there. There are certainly a lot of bitter people on Twitter who piss me off when they scream queerbaiting at the writers so yes, of course there are bad eggs. I was shocked that from what I saw, there was no squee or shared theories or excitement about the ships, just page after page of hate aimed at Destiel shippers. So yes, perhaps I happened upon both convos right when those topics cropped up (which would be rather coincidental) and perhaps I had just missed the topics that I was interested in checking out - the theories, the meta, the spec... That’s what I was interested in. Since these GCs are a way to keep a finger on the pulse of what the fandom might be thinking in terms of the show and shipping and I was curious. Believe it or not I actually like to keep an open mind even though Megstiel is something that gives me a bad taste in my mouth ever since I sat myself down and truly thought about it. 

I generalised. I know I shouldn’t have done that, but those GC convos pissed me off. I don’t know a single Destiel shipper who would spend hours of their day just ranting about how awful Megstiel shippers are and how much they hate the pairing. I HAVE debated with friends about the suspected infiltration of the Megstiel ship by Bronlies who are using Meg to get Cas out of the way and to be spiteful towards Destiel shippers. This IS something that has been happening in recent years and I think even you admitted that in one of your replies to my post.

I also wasn’t trying to invalidate your experience with hate. I would never do that. The one thing I will say about anon hate in particular is that you don’t know who it is coming from. I occasionally get anon hate but I certainly don’t immediately assume it’s a w*ncest shipper just because I can’t stand w*ncest. Getting a message in your ask box that says “go kill yourself” is horrible, believe me, I know. But if that’s all it is, you can’t assume the sender was a shipper at all. Unless the message was “I ship Destiel and you can go kill yourself” you just can’t assume. If you have had actual Destiel shippers come and attack and threaten you and send you those messages directly then 1. I am so so sorry because no one deserves that kind of abuse, and 2. I hope you exposed them if you could. Because if there is one thing I have learnt about the Destiel shippers in MY circles, it’s that we find that kind of behaviour completely unacceptable and we WILL call it out from our own side if we see it. 

The reason I have such a high opinion of Destiel shippers being the “nice” people in fandom is simply because I have never seen that kind of behaviour from them. I interact with a lot of people. I have seen Destiel shippers get overly passionate, I have seen them get upset and angry when people lash out at them. I have seen them turn bitter and negative and go off on rants about the show. I have seen them dog pile on an anti’s post to provide evidence against a false claim “Kripke said he’s straight” and I thought it was a bit much... but it wasn’t hate. It was a reaction to years and years and years of being laughed at, called delusional, mocked and ridiculed by all other sides within the fandom. Destiel shippers are desperate for validation. They are desperate to disprove the lies. If people actually listened to us, or read the countless posts that have been written clearly providing evidence and sources to disprove every lie and false claim against Destiel perhaps we wouldn’t be so defensive. That’s what happens when you’ve been gaslighted for 11 years. 

But regardless, I’m not here to get involved in shipping wars. You’ll continue going on hating Destiel, and I will continue going on and, well, not hating, but very much disliking Megstiel in canon (though I have read some very sweet Destiel fics where Meg is Cas’s best friend and enjoyed the characterisations there.) 

My post was never to gatekeep and stop you from ranting about Destiel. Rant away to your hearts content. As I said above I really don’t care if people hate it. All I ask, is that you keep that kind of content in places that are clearly labelled as anti Destiel. So that should a Destiel shipper want to check out a Sastiel or a Megstiel GC, they can do, without feeling completely unwelcome and hated on just for enjoying Dean and Cas’s relationship as well. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask. All it takes is one tag right? Create your Megstiel GC and by all means rant about Destiel in it, but please just tag it as Anti Destiel.

Thank you for reaching out to me and explaining your side of things. I do appreciate it. 

[laraslandlockedblues]

Ok actually I know the tags on my gif post I just did said I wasn’t sure when I’d be back, but I’m feeling strangely articulate tonight so here we go. Long-winded under the cut.

TL;DR - Real life is (and will continue to be) a busy bitch, a writer’s ego is a fragile thing, and my Lightning Struck series (Cullen/Evelyn) can now be considered on indefinite hiatus.

Hi! Yes, I’m alive and well and I really do appreciate the messages asking if I was all right and checking on me. You’re all too sweet and kind, and I’m so grateful for each and every one of you. Keep that in mind as this ramble continues, please.

This has been a weird year already, and it’s only March. Normally I’d be like “IT’S ALREADY MARCH?!” but no, this year...It’s only March. That’s how I’ve been feeling.

January started off with a weird mood for me. Over the holidays I had the usual  family stress and blahness that comes with adulthood, but a few fandom things happened too that put me into a rather...difficult headspace, shall we say. For one thing, I will say I’ve noticed I’m not the only one who’s pointed out that it feels like the fandom is dying. And it is. Which is sad. I feel like I only just got here - I’ve played DA for years but I only really started to interact with its fandom in late 2017, so for me it was still all fresh and new and exciting. Seeing that die down, compounded with the Tumblr wank, especially, was really disappointing.

As a creator, too, it was hard not to take that personally. It was hard not to take people moving on to other fandoms and interests and things as an indictment on my work. Rational brain knew that that was the problem, rational me knew that we were all just moving on because other things were catching our interest. It’s natural. But dumb, idiot writer brain was struggling with the fact that I was feeling like I was screaming into the void.

What bothered me more was that I even cared. I never once wanted to care about that. I always preach writing for oneself, and that’s why I write. But I hated  the fact that for a time I’d gotten so much feedback that I noticed its absence when it died down a little. And that’s not anyone’s fault, I’m not begging for comments or feedback, seriously. Again, rational me was shrugging and still wanted to write for me because it was fun and I enjoy it, but the fragile writer ego we all carry around inside us took a hit and began to doubt.

It stopped being fun. Especially because it wasn’t necessarily a total lack of feedback - it was, for me, a lack of feedback on what I was actually, currently working on. Over the holidays for some reason I began to get comments on WIPs that I hadn’t updated in ages - asking me for updates. Now, everyone has their own opinion on those sorts of comments, so this is only my own, and take it with a grain of salt and everything I just mentioned above.

It sucked. It absolutely, 100% sucked. Seeing the email notification that I got a comment would bring me so much joy - only to open it to see that it was a comment on something I hadn’t written for in a long time asking me when I’d feel like providing more content for that fic again. I began to feel like fic was a transaction and I was piling up debts. I started to feel like I owed fandom and readers what they wanted, instead of doing this for the reason I started in the first place - for myself.

I know that Rylen is niche. I know that fics that have very little to do with canon are niche. I know that Abby isn’t always super likable. I know that John is off-putting because he’s such a morally ambiguous OC who has nothing to do with DA and makes really shit decisions. I know all of that, and I’ve never expected any of those fics to get any sort of response, so the fact that they’ve gotten the response that they have still blows my mind and makes me insanely, insanely happy. And so I hated that I felt ungrateful, and that I was doubting my work, and that writing and fandom was beginning to feel like a labor and not something I loved.

The more I noticed I was struggling with working on updates, the more I started to think a break might be in order. When some RL stuff finally cropped up, the fact that I was sort of forced into a break was a blessing in disguise, to be honest. I leaned into the skid and let myself step back to reevaluate why I do this and what I want to get out of it. I fell into a new fandom and worked on random pieces of writing for it, which I threw into the voids of ao3 on a second account and only shared for myself and a few friends who were also falling into that fandom with me. I rediscovered the joy of writing and not caring what response I get. I reignited my love of crafting a story a certain way because I wanted to and not because I thought it was where anyone else thought it should go.

I remembered why I love writing in the first place - for myself.

And with that, I finally began to let go of some things, and let myself mull over decisions I’d been putting off or avoiding. I shrugged off the stress of expectation and “owing” anyone my time or effort, and I’m finally back to enjoying myself and my writing, free of doubt.

With that, I have some news, good and bad. The bad news first - my Cullen muse has left the building. I have waited, and hoped, and tried, but at some point he walked out the door and he hasn’t made an appearance since. That isn’t to say that I don’t still love his character or content about him, but personally, I can no longer write his POV or romance. The ability to do so has eluded me for months now, but I’ve accepted this sad truth at long last. Unless he’s trading banter with Rylen or Abby, his muse is no longer whispering in my ear. And that makes me sad, and for all I know he’ll reemerge some day, ready to help me write again. For now, though, that isn’t possible. Which does, unfortunately, mean that my Cullen/Evelyn WIPs are currently either abandoned or on an indefinite hiatus (I’ve tagged them appropriately on ao3 if you’re curious). If I do manage to return to them, I expect to only focus on Moments Passed and Miss Grey. As for what I’ll do about Beautiful Disaster...I’m not quite certain yet.

It did also mean that I was able to let go of something that had bothered me for a while as well. I’m almost positive no one noticed since it’s been kind of off radar for a while, but - my fic What Are the Odds has been orphaned. I’m still proud of it as a fic, but it came with a lot of baggage and my Cullen/Evelyn pairing was just ever so slightly OOC to the point that comments on it made me cringe. I’m a firm believer in not deleting, and so off to the fandom as an orphaned work it went, to be enjoyed without me having to be aware of it at all.

Now, the good news is - I do 100% still plan on writing Abby/Rylen. Their muses are still there and whispering to me, and I definitely want to continue working on the WIPs I have for them. At the moment After Rain might be slow to update (need to figure out how I’m navigating some canon plot to get me from point A to B to C to D and on). But I plan on trying to finish it as well as the others that I have for them. Abby/Ry live on, because I absolutely love them so much, and the idea of writing for them is back to bringing me joy.

I cannot make guarantees on update speed for the foreseeable future, possibly for the rest of the year. Currently RL continues to be a shitshow, as I was reminded today, and writing more than a sentence here or there has been difficult. In a few months I will also be moving, and once at my new destination I actually have a Big Project (a writing one I hope to be able to share here, if people are still around/Tumblr is still a thing) that I intend to make my full time focus. My goal has always been to be a writer, and while fanfic has been an amazing way to explore my writing style/storytelling/character voice, I have plans to get published. I’ll have a better opportunity to put those plans into realistic action later this year, which I’m actually really, insanely excited about.

If you have made it this far, THANK YOU. I love this fandom, and I’ve met so many wonderful, lovely, supportive, talented people in it and I have missed you all dearly during my time away. In no way was this a call out post directed at anyone in particular, and in no way was this a “woe is me, please give me attention” cry for help. I’ve just had a lot of thoughts and feelings during this break, and I actually wanted to sort of vocalize them because: 1) wow I already feel better after doing so, and 2) to let other writers know it’s 100% valid to need to take a break or occasionally get in your head about needing validation/feedback/wonder why we do this when it just feels like screaming into a fathomless void. It’s natural and normal and totally human, and if you’re feeling that way, find someone supportive to help you through and take a step back. Everything will be waiting there for you when you’re ready for it. And remember - do it for yourself because it’s something you enjoy.

xx

[hikariobsessions]

I think I kind of agree with you, I'm not too fond of the sassy mc in ikesen, but she'll grow on me eventually maybe. It kind of makes me sad that people think reserved or shy characters can't be written well or be strong without being sassy/rude or without being annoying. I always see them being written as if being shy/pure is their only trait. I've met shy people in real life who are very enjoyable to be around once they open up to someone. (You don't need to reply to this by the way)

I can’t say how much this kind of ask/discussion is making me smile right now. Thank you for this (*^^*) – if you want, you can dm me and we can discuss this in a little bit more detail~ More opinions from me under the cut – but you don’t need to read it if this topic is already driving you insane (as it is me) because of how it blew up into this odd, unpleasant thing that really didn’t need to be. But I suppose, it’s Tumblr nonetheless… 

Don’t let one opinion stop you from enjoying the stuff you really admire. THIS OPINION IS JUST ME. Ignore or barrel through the commentaries, that’s up to you.

But it’s there as food for thought. For myself, and just as an answer to this asker who has been the only person so far that has responded to my call for civility when it comes to these rants. 

Again, thank you so, so much (*^^*)

[RANT] Just another one to get stuff off my chest ^^;; We all know how this goes right?

I can understand why people like the ENG MC. And here’s the thing, they’re not WRONG to like her for whatever reason they have. It’s FINE.

I’m just running my mouth with my own opinions because first of all this is my blog - LET’S JUST GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY IN CASE NO ONE HAS NOTICED. 

But also, just as someone in the minority of these opinions, I take it upon myself to try and elaborate on my own point of view because I feel like I owe it to the people who like/maybe even love this particular character, to not just give them hate and criticism, but rather a valid argument for my own views.

But so far no one has given me any fair observations/criticisms of the writing that points me in a different way of looking at and appreciating the writing in the IkeSen ENG App for what it is, flaws and all. People are just going “it’s good writing/dialogue” and I’m just like…why do you think that way? PLEASE ELABORATE. 

I am literally someone who wants my opinions challenged because I don’t want to hate on this game. Far from it. Why would anyone want to download something just to do that?

Furthermore, I don’t tag the company’s social media in my rants in particular because they are just that – RANTS. I call the localization team out on several things, definitely, but whether they change their writing is up to them.

Ever since I entered this fandom, I already knew I was in the minority when it came to opinions of the MC, just by looking through Tumblr for IkeSen content. 

But honestly, I want a more substantial reason as to why people think the writing is good apart from the fact that the MC is different (sassy, witty etc.) from other examples of MCs in otome. 

Because as you said, hun, there are other people out there who can be really shy and reserved but have their own strengths as a person/character. And they can also be rude and judgmental at their worst. This is just human. 

And you’re right, it’s a shame that they are sometimes only “written as if being shy/pure is their only trait” – that in itself is BAD WRITING.

The only bad female character, if you ask me (and you did), is one who’s flat. One who isn’t realistic. One who has no agency of her own, who only exists to define other characters (usually men).

Here’s the thing about being a damsel in distress…it’s only bad if that’s all she is. If the character’s defining characteristic is being a damsel in distress, that’s bad. - Mad Lori

I can’t stop quoting Mad Lori enough about this :’)I don’t need to tell anyone that this goes for “sassiness” as well right?? So how about this? About “progression” in the sense that women don’t have to be “strong” in order to be good, well-written characters. And they don’t have to possess a specific trait, such as ‘sassy’ just to be said - “strong” character. That they find their own strength by choosing to love, overcoming their own flaws but more importantly being someone with their own agency to achieve self-determination in the world that they’re in – but also remain down-to-earth, shy, outspoken or otherwise. 

This was never taken from the Japanese MC as a character in the JP App. This is why I remain so confused as to why the English team decided to change her.PORTRAY CHARACTERS AS HUMAN. Not as this thing trying for a convoluted cultural ideal which has its own flaws. 

This is coming from someone, who in turn watches stuff like Orange is the New Black (just watch a trailer for it (if you haven’t heard of this show) and maybe you can get why I’m referring to it). 

It’s a show which has an amazing amount of diversity in terms of its portrayal of women. But what’s good about it, is that those portrayals aren’t so much black or white, shy or sassy, strong or weak – they all have their strengths and weaknesses that make them complex and are motivated by their individual character traits and flaws as well as possessing their own agency.

In any case, the only reason, or at least the MAJOR reason I was completely turned off by the ENG MC is that in the writing, they try SOOO hard to make a point that this particular MC is different from the rest. That she is witty. That she is sassy. Oh, and look just how “strong” she is, by thinking up all these snarky comments/comebacks against the guys, even when they’re not being dickheads!! 

To me, that’s the only reason they decided to change her from the original Japanese MC (correct me if I’m wrong, PLEASE) – shoving these sentiments of “a strong woman” into this particular character just to……..what? Reach a “diverse” audience?? How diverse are we talking about exactly? 

If you can’t even look at a type of character that is shy, insecure and reserved as part of that diversity – and admiring how she becomes an exception to her own trope – you’re just kidding yourself.  And this change isn’t even the core of my problem with the writing.

Look I get that people can be frustrated because of the lack of representation of different kinds of MC and that’s a fair frustration to have. But let’s not back ourselves into a corner of thinking that women need to be portrayed as this one thing in order to be “well-written”:

Sherlock Holmes gets to be brilliant, solitary, abrasive, Bohemian, whimsical, brave, sad, manipulative, neurotic, vain, untidy, fastidious, artistic, courteous, rude, a polymath genius. Female characters get to be Strong. -Sophia McDougall, Quote take from here.

To me, this entire push to have this “sassy” MC in the ENG App is the writer or perhaps the business, literally shoving their own rant/agenda onto my face (or rather their “market research” let’s say). 

Having that happen to you as an audience/reader is seriously disengaging from the story. What I’ve seen them do, is blatantly spoon-feed information about the traits of the characters and tell audiences what to think or feel about them, instead of letting readers figure these out for themselves. 

They are literally “talking” to the reader, and that severely takes me out of the world of the story. For example, they use thought-bubbles of the MC to monologue about (Oh, how I used to be such an independent woman, but now I’m in the Sengoku…) — From my perspective, THAT IS SERIOUSLY BAD WRITING. And hence, why I think she’s not a well-written character. Not because of how they changed her to be outspoken and/or sassy, but rather their execution of conveying that in the stories.

“Show, don’t tell” anyone?? Nothing bad about applying a common writing technique preached by almost every writing mentor out there.

The thing is audiences aren’t stupid, but more often than not - when they're paying attention - they know when they’re being called “stupid”.

I have nothing against the localization team trying to change this particular MC into having a ‘sassy’ personality. My problem is that they don’t write it well. 

There’s nothing substantial added to the story by changing the MC that actually makes the development of their relationship (MC and any Warlord) stronger from the stories in the JP App. It’s possible to have done it but unfortunately no, not in this version. If anything the ‘decorative’ nature of what the English team has done with the character to “reach” audiences just made the MC unbearably annoying (to me).

But, equally bad is that everything that they’re doing, which shouldn’t be evident while reading the stories, is showing:

i.e. aiming for a goal of wanting the MC to be different, and using her thought-bubbles to deliver expository commentaries; instead of letting her stand on her own two feet as a character through her actions. 

 –  they should at least BE SUBTLE about it and make sure that they have that self-awareness as to why they’re doing it. And not just because you want to gain popularity amongst audiences who are sick of a trope. This is what I mean when I say I don’t like different for the sake of being different. It’s just sensationalist, immature and completely distracting from the actual story and relationships we’re supposed to be admiring. To quote the great screenwriting guru, Robert McKee:

Just as children break things for fun or throw tantrums to force attention on themselves, too many filmmakers [in this case writers too] use infantile gimmicks on screen to shout, “Look what I can do!” A mature artist never calls attention to himself, and a wise artist never does anything merely because it breaks convention. - Robert McKee

But, hey, like with anything else — this is just me, with my blog, voicing my opinion~ If you’ve read this, again:

Thank you so much for putting up with these rants ^^

Peace out guys, and stay kind ^_^ - Hikari

[a--musings]

The escapism.

July 11, 2019. I find it both confusing and peculiar that people just can’t seem to be alone with themselves and with their feelings. I’ve observed so many people, as of late, so quick to silence their thoughts and distract themselves from themselves by doing whatever they can to escape. Perhaps I never noticed it during the school year, when the stress of class and mandatory events is enough to mask the hidden fears of aloneness. But the idle mind is a dangerous threat to some, and I’ve been unintentionally watching it all happen in front of me, just by silent observation of my surroundings. There is just so much need to turn away from oneself and look outward for company. But solitude and loneliness are completely different things, as I’ve preached before. I don’t think many people are cognizant of this.

Are you really having fun going on meaningless and boring dates just to have some stranger sit across from you, just to have SOMEONE there? Is sitting on the same beach next to the same people every single day for hours actually that fun for you? Do you actually want to go to the same dirty bars to get drinks spilled on you by drunk sweaty assholes who slur their hot breath in your ear? Are these low quality experiences even worth much to you? I sometimes want to ask. I don’t mean to offend or place judgment at all. People should have all the power and freedom in the world to go on and spend their time in whatever way they want. Who am I to tell you what’s best for you? We are each our own individual with our own unique perspectives and experiences shaping our existence and our personal desires. But there’s a very clear function behind why people do things they very unequivocally do not really want to do, beyond the obvious external validation and need to feel liked and praised.  It’s a strange dependency for something—anything, almost in an addictive way. Like a desperate grasp to cling on to whatever is there, just to have something near. It doesn’t matter how meaningless and utterly non-contributory something is to their lives. Just as long as it’s there. Just as long as they don’t have to be with themselves to cope with the dissatisfaction or discomfort of their reality.

It’s reflected in the string of 15 texts I get from a friend when I look away from my phone for an hour, just because she’s home alone. It’s a random 2-hour long phone call from another friend to talk about nothing, simply because he can’t seem to have no one to interact with. It’s the cries of FOMO, for which I actually (and shockingly) have to console people. It’s the nagging complaints in my ear and actual hurt when I tell someone I’m too tired or too busy to hang out. It’s watching friends, clearly too exhausted by each other to enjoy each other’s company, try to force interactions just to entertain one another. It’s the need to swipe on all the latest dating apps just to have someone to look at, and to send flirtatious messages of meaningless nothings. It’s the odd way that many of my friends will clutch for dear life to their phones, incapable of falling asleep if it isn’t in their hands while they drift off, or as soon as they waken. It’s the (almost offensive) times I sit right next to a person, and they are still hypnotized by their phones because my presence is not enough to fulfill their needs. It is the constant stimulation, the search for the deafening noise to drown out the haunting anxieties. It’s the escape from unpleasant realities and dissatisfaction with the here and now. It’s how we, culturally, survive our daily hells and our immense cognitive stress. Do we not recognize our need for noise? For company? Do we not recognize our fear of solitude?

Not too long ago, I was the same way. I would call my sister or my most supportive friend P whenever I encountered an uncomfortable, anxious thought just to run away from it--ultimately, finding ways to run away from myself. If they didn’t pick up the phone, I would keep running to the next person, and the next, and the next in desperate attempts to avoid feeling the discomfort and the pain of whatever was irking my soul. I couldn’t handle it. I couldn’t just simply feel the feelings or think the thoughts. It was painful—unbearably so. When I finally effortfully chose to make myself alone, I forced myself to grin and bear it. I forced myself to feel it all. I suffered, but I experienced self-compassion, and my perspective began to change. I am not saying I am above people who need absolute escapism as a mechanism of survival; it does not make me any better than. After all, such a defense mechanism is sometimes healthy, and I still do it myself. As humans capable of deep, deep suffering, we need moments that will take us away to just breathe. But to what extent? And at what cost? Learning to rely less on searching for distraction has made me feel at ease and at peace way more often throughout my day. I don’t need to constantly create other realms of reality. I don’t feel the mental of exhaustion of continuously looking for ways to run. I can simply exist in this one and ride the dynamic waves of human experience, and I can cope just fine on my own. Life is complicated, but beautiful because of its variety. I would never watch a movie that solely highlighted the idyllic ease of every character’s lives. It is the complexity that makes life interesting, worthy. In the same way, I choose to watch all moments of my own life, rather than cutting corners by burying the low points with the highlight reels. I will strive to be open to all experiences and allowing myself to accept every heartbreak, every disappointment, and every hidden pain to just come and go..

If I were to give myself advice a year ago, it would be this: find a way to be alone and just exist. Find solace, comfort, and peace in just that, and deal with every aspect of life. Allow yourself to engage in the opportunity of human experience. Face the issues. Feel okay with feeling like shit, but give yourself time to figure it out. Rid yourself from the need to avoid and escape yourself. Rid yourself of the need to run to something—anything. If you find the need to always withdraw from your world, change your perspective. Change your story. If not, you might miss out on yourself.

—a.

[intothewideopenspaces]

Not quite my first sermon, but close enough

Last Sunday, I preached for the second time at my placement church. The reading was Mary annointing Jesus' feet at Bethany (John 12:1-11) - a lot less straightforward to preach on than the reading for my first sermon, which was Jesus' temptation in the desert, but at the same time it felt a bit easier to explore. I think this was because I tend to be biased towards thoughts and can easily overlook feelings - the temptation of Jesus was a reading I could come at with my thoughts, whereas this reading challenged me to sit with and unpick the feelings in the scene. This did mean I spent about a week with no idea of what to preach about, but once I got going, the challenge to engage with feelings hopefully helped this sermon be a bit deeper and more balanced.

Anyway, you can be the judge of that for yourself - here's a copy of my sermon for anyone who's interested in reading it! (Feedback always welcome)

—————

May I speak in the name of God, creator, redeemer, sustainer. Amen.

So today’s gospel reading - the anointing of Jesus. I’ve always had the sense with this passage, that there’s something beautiful going on here, but I’ve never quite understood what. Whenever I’ve tried to picture it, tried to understand what it is about it that’s beautiful, I just get caught on the fact that to me, pouring perfumed oil on someone's feet and wiping them with your hair is a bit weird. It’s not something that happens in our culture. Maybe you’re the same - after all, none of us are familiar with the culture of Jesus' time. So what is going on here?

Well, we're told that Jesus is at a dinner party - that’s a familiar enough setting for us! It’s held at the house of someone called Simon the Leper - who, given his description as a leper, is probably a bit of an outcast, this isn’t high society we're talking about. Jesus is surrounded by his friends and disciples, most of whom were people who society looked down on and shunned. Probably none of them were very rich themselves, certainly some of them were quite poor. And Mary comes along, with this jar of expensive perfume, worth about a year's wages. And she opens it and she pours the perfume on Jesus' feet, then wipes them with her own hair. If we put aside what might be our first reaction of thinking that this sounds odd or awkward, I think we can recognise it as wonderfully outrageous - Mary is breaking so many social rules and conventions, and in a society where women were expected to be meek and mild, unassuming, and generally keep out of the way, Mary bursts in to centre stage with reckless abandon and extravagance. Why?

To understand Mary's action, I want to challenge us all to put ourselves into her place. You’ve known this man, Jesus, for some time. You know there’s something significant about him. You’ve spent hours listening to him teach. When your brother died you couldn’t bear to see him and when he asked to see you, you spoke out of your pain, and you said to him 'if you were here, my brother would not have died'. He didn’t argue, he didn’t reason with you, he didn’t even defend himself. He wept with you. He shared your grief. And then, a miracle! He visited your brother's tomb, told him to come out, and there was your brother, alive again after four days. Utter joy at seeing your brother turned to utter awe at this man who raised him from the dead - do you dare believe that this man is the promised messiah? Whoever he is, there’s something about God in him, and you can barely believe he cares about you. Why would he? You’re just you, unremarkable, ordinary - he's the Lord! How else can you respond to his extravagant, unbelievable love for you, than by giving all you have, placing yourself at his feet and blessing him in any way you possibly can? What do the judgemental stares and pious outrage around you matter when you’re worshipping, yes worshipping this man who you believe might just be God?

But then Judas breaks the moment of Mary's worship, he's angry about this apparent waste. He points out that the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor - a whole year's wages could have done a lot of good. John's gospel accuses him of saying this because he was a thief, but the point remains. Jesus doesn’t require us to spend lots of money worshipping him - so why did he defend Mary's extravagance over giving money to the poor?

Jesus' line of reason might sound harsh - there'll always be poor people, help them some other time. I’m not here for long, so worship me while you still have the chance. But I think if we look at it a bit more carefully, it makes sense. Jesus isn’t denying the good of helping the poor. In fact, the word worship comes from the word worth - to worship is to affirm worth in another, praising or glorifying them because you recognise their overwhelming worthiness. If we take this understanding of worship as affirming worth, then I think that selling the perfume and giving the money to the poor would equally be a valid way of worshipping Jesus - affirming his worth by showing his teachings as worthwhile enough to follow. What I think Jesus is affirming is the uniqueness of Mary's action. He's not saying that Mary anointing him is the only way she could ever worship him, or intrinsically better than another way. I think what he’s saying is that Mary is in a unique position, historically, socially, relationally, where she is drawn to worship him in this way, and this unique way she is able to worship could be understood as her personal vocation of worship - she is called to worship in this way because of who she is. Sure, someone else could equally anoint Jesus' feet - in fact in Luke's gospel there is an account of a similar event where a different woman anoints Jesus' feet with perfume. But it is only Mary who can worship him in this way, at this moment in time, for this purpose - anointing him with perfume less than a week before the Passover, in order to prepare him for burial. This was the unique way Mary was called to worship Jesus.

And that is not to say that her act of worship was better than someone else's act of worship. We, living in Cornwall in the 21st century, cannot anoint Jesus' feet with perfume to prepare him for burial. That is not the way we are uniquely called to worship him. There are many ways we might worship God - perhaps by worshipping here together on a Sunday morning, or maybe by showing God’s commands to be worthwhile by striving to follow them - loving our neighbour, acting to defend the oppressed in society, fulfilling the needs of the world around us. We might worship God by caring for the world God created and thereby deeming it worthy. We might worship by demonstrating God's love to a friend, by listening and by caring. We might worship by praying with God. All these things and more are things which affirm and uphold God’s worth, and so they are worship, and so they are good.

And I believe there is a way that each one of us can uniquely worship, as Mary did by anointing Jesus' feet. Not necessarily some way of worshipping that no-one else has ever done before - it is not the action which is unique, but the fact that it is us who do it. Each of us, with our individual personalities, experiences, minds, hearts, using all those things which God loves, each of us, can worship in a particular way which is made unique by our doing it. So how do we find this unique way we are called to worship? Mary didn’t spend years listing all the ways she might worship Jesus and try to decide which best fitted her personality, her abilities, or her context. Worship was the only thing she could do in that moment. Perhaps it is by copying Mary, by worshipping simply as we can, worshipping in the way we have to as we experience God's reckless love for us, that we discern the way that we are uniquely called to worship. Maybe it is by worshipping and watching for God's love being visible that we find where we can affirm God's worth, find where we can experience God's worth. Maybe it is by worshipping as only we can, using everything about ourselves that God has created and that God loves, that we can most authentically give worth to God. And I believe it is in those moments that we can most truly know the worth that God so lovingly affirms in us.

[catholiccom-blog]

Workplace Witnesses

My wife didn’t want a new cell phone. But hers was old, and the battery wouldn’t hold a charge. So Kathi and I found ourselves trudging into the wireless store at the end of a long day, instructed in detail by our savvy daughter about an incentive offer from our carrier, which model of phone to buy, and how much it would all cost.

“What brings you in tonight?” the friendly young salesman asked. We told him and described the phone and promotion our daughter had recommended.

“I haven’t heard of that,” he said. “Let me talk to my manager.” He headed off into a back room, reappearing several minutes later.

“My manager says we don’t have that promotion,” he said, “but we have something better.” He described a complicated plan featuring payment terms for a phone and an increased data allowance. “But there’s a credit toward the phone, so you basically get it for free.”

Kathi and I glanced at one another. At this point in the day, my brain was pretty close to mush. I asked him to explain it again, more slowly.

This time a red flag went up.

“So we get the phone at a net cost of zero, but then we’re paying extra for data every month?” I asked.

We didn’t need extra data. We needed a new phone.

We thanked him and left. That night, I ordered the phone online and got the promotional deal our daughter had recommended. It had turned into more of an ordeal than we expected, but at least now I’m able to reach my wife on the go.

Workplace witnesses

Have you ever experienced a situation like that, when you’re being sold something you’re not even shopping for? That’s how many people feel about being evangelized in the workplace. When it happens, like our experience at the wireless store, there’s a strong tendency to head for the exit.

Look around and you’ll see an almost palpable fear of being proselytized (defined by dictionary.com as “to convert or attempt to convert”). I’ve been on the receiving end from people of several different faiths and ideologies. After all, there is no shortage of people in our workplaces who are certain about the validity of their beliefs and opinions. So how should Christian evangelization (“to preach the gospel to”) be different?  

The situation is even more complex when we take into account the state of our culture and the forces of secularization that seek to silence religion. In many ways, the secular workplace represents the front lines of the culture wars.

However, with challenge comes opportunity. The secular workplace also represents the front lines for the New Evangelization.

Reframing the opportunity

By setting a bold example of leading with mercy rather than judgment, Pope Francis has done a marvelous job showing us how the gospel penetrates human hearts even in hostile environments. Could it be that part of the visceral distaste people often have for mixing work and religion is due to a flawed approach on our part? Too often we act like it’s up to us to convert people.

It’s not. That’s above our pay grade. Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. We just plant the seeds—and this is accomplished most convincingly through our actions.

In addition, if we’re too quick to judge others based on our beliefs, might that not alienate us from others and preclude us from having an opportunity to evangelize in a manner worthy of our baptism?

Think of the life of Jesus. The gospels provide us with numerous accounts of Jesus interacting—even hanging out with—prostitutes, tax collectors, and other assorted sinners. He did this in a most radical way for his time, incurring wonder and even wrath from onlookers. Yet the essence of his invitation to each individual is the same as to all of us today: Follow me.

One thing to keep in mind as we interact with others at work is that they don’t necessarily share our frame of reference. If they’re adverse to the idea of religion, perhaps there’s a reason for that. Have they been hurt by religion? Perhaps they experience shame or guilt stemming from events or circumstances in their lives. Might there be structural impediments, such as multiple marriages? Perhaps they’re cohabiting, or have experienced the pain of an abortion, or can’t imagine what their spouse might say about their interest in the Church.

If we follow the pope’s lead, we are more apt to listen than speak. We are less prone to render judgment as to have hearts of mercy. We are more likely to recognize life—and conversion—as a process rather than an event. Even if a coworker was enthralled by our breathtakingly cogent arguments for the existence of God and wanted to enroll in RCIA immediately, don’t you think it might take time for his life to comport more closely with the Faith?

Strategic planning

Part of the challenge of the New Evangelization is to present the gospel message with renewed clarity in a way that resonates in today’s environment. Beating people over the head with a copy of the Catechism won’t do it—and could very well get us fired. There are better ways . . . but beware. They demand that we be more faithful Christians.

Here are a few specific ideas to consider of the type that shouldn’t get us sideways with the human resources department even in the most secular environments. Of course, I hope and pray we never get to the point where free speech is curtailed to the point of not being able to discuss religion in public, including the workplace. But our actions are the key to our words having credibility.  

Be a friend

Years ago I worked with a guy named Stan who had grown up Christian but abandoned his faith in favor of Buddhism. It was an odd relationship. Stan delighted in giving me a hard time about being Catholic, and we had many spirited conversations. Here’s the thing, though—Stan was a great guy, and I instinctively liked him. Despite our religious differences, we had much in common.

No matter what the background or disposition of a coworker, an “apostolate of friendship” is always possible. Despite Stan’s intransigence with regard to the Faith, we shared a genuine friendship. This can be true even in cases where the relationships are more challenging and less instinctive.

Once again, in considering the gospels, Jesus befriended (much to the discomfort of his disciples and others) all kinds of people, including those of lower societal strata. Children. A Samaritan woman. Tax collectors. Pharisees. Prostitutes. He took an interest in them and desired what was best for them, regardless of whether they followed him or not.

Pope Francis made waves in the press when he insisted that all people are redeemed. He didn’t mean all are saved, of course, but it’s important to realize that this attitude reflects our Lord’s actions and his desire to offer the gift of eternal life to all.

There is no “us versus them”—we’re all sinners deeply in need of mercy. The radically unique Christian message includes the fact that every soul is of equal and immeasurable value in the eyes of God. So if our Lord was a friend to all, shouldn’t we be also?  

Be humble

Speaking of Pope Francis, one of his most endearing traits is his humility. In fact, humility is a foundational virtue, one that allows us to focus on others rather than ourselves and, even more important, to facilitate proper worship of God.

Think about the countless scriptural references to humility. James 4:6 tells us, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” This isn’t hard to square with our own experiences. Have you ever been turned off by the arrogant attitude of someone you’ve just met? But encountering humble people has the opposite impact—we are attracted to them, in the best sense.

I have been privileged to know leaders of organizations with a global scope whom you could imagine might have an arrogant streak. Yet one such woman (let’s call her Nancy), who is perhaps among the smartest people I know, is also among the most gracious. Despite Nancy’s prodigious intelligence, she displays a remarkable attribute: rather than pontificating, she asks questions. In the process, she demonstrates great kindness and takes a sincere interest in everyone she meets.

These habits have an astonishing impact on others. When you’re engaged in a conversation with Nancy, you feel honored and have a sense that your opinion truly matters to her. You feel esteemed to have such a formidable intellect asking what you think. I wonder if that’s how some people felt when they spoke to Jesus.

In the workplace, humility is also helpful when we consider how often we find ourselves working in teams. By their very nature, teams consist of people, all equipped with various strengths and weaknesses. You’ve heard of (or experienced) political environments, right? That’s where teams play off of one another’s weaknesses for personal gain.

Thankfully, the opposite is also true: In good teams, we play off one another’s strengths. That requires recognizing one another’s strengths. That requires humility.

In the end, humility is a kind of secret weapon of the Christian faith. It’s good for us. It’s good for our human relationships. It’s good for our divine relationship. It’s good, by extension, for our workplaces.

Be hopeful

Scripture is chock-full of exhortations to hope, such as Romans 15:13: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” It’s a fundamental part of the gospel message, not to mention one of the three theological virtues.

Hope is attractive, particularly as so many people around us struggle in this area. Who doesn’t, right? So what does hope look like when it’s applied to our work lives?

First, doing our best at work, striving for excellence, is a manifestation of hope. If we do even the smallest things out of love for God, placing our hope in him, we know it’s pleasing to him. It can also be a practical stress reducer, since we have given our best but recognize that we’re not in control of all the outcomes in our lives. God is.

Recognizing that grace builds on nature, we do our best, offer up our work to the Lord, asking for his blessing on our humble efforts, and give thanks for the results. Even when the results aren’t what we hoped for. When that’s the case, we keep giving our best. Even in failure, we can place our hope in him and even maintain a spirit of joy.

How do we do this? Well, think about the crucifixion for a second. At the time, this appeared to be the extinguishment of all hope, at least from the perspective of Christ’s disciples. Yet with the Resurrection, that perspective changed. That’s the beauty of embracing a spirit of Christian hope. Even when things seem to be at their worst, we can have faith that the Lord still holds us in his hands.

Joy in tribulation

One of my favorite stories in Scripture is in Acts 5. The apostles are hauled in front of the Sanhedrin, accused of preaching the gospel. For their troubles they were flogged. Flogged! Then Scripture tells us the most astonishing thing.

They left rejoicing.

Rejoicing! Can you imagine? “Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worth to suffer dishonor for the name” (Acts 5:41). It’s incredible. The way the apostles accepted hardship offers a huge challenge—and opportunity—for us today.

It’s not likely that we’ll be flogged in our workplace anytime soon (although I’ve certainly witnessed verbal floggings here and there). At the same time, there are lots of opportunities for us to accept the smaller hardships with grace and good humor. Coffee spill on our white shirt? Friction with a coworker? Problem on a big project? Our handling of difficulties speaks to others without us speaking about faith at all.

There’s an even bigger opportunity. When it comes to fertile ground for the gospel, there is perhaps no greater example than that of an individual going through serious problems in his life. This is where we are able to be Christ in the life of someone who needs it. Not for manipulative purposes, of course, but out of sincere respect, compassion, and love.

Honor freewill

As the parents of eight children, my wife and I once had four teenagers at home simultaneously. Along with keeping up with a gigantic food bill every month, I really struggled with the concept of freewill. Couldn’t God have provided an exemption for teens?

Of course, this was an opportunity for my sanctification, even though it sure was tough at the time. Despite challenges to parental authority, lack of respect, and various other obstacles, I began to see how freewill is a necessary component of conversion. This culminated in a re-reading of John chapter 6, where Jesus allowed people to walk away when he began speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He didn’t chase after them. He honored their freewill. Perhaps some of them reconsidered later; we don’t know.    

The scriptural admonishment not to judge makes all the sense in the world when we apply it to the judgment that is uniquely God’s job: that of judging hearts. Of course, we are able to see actions and see that they can be good or evil. That’s why we have laws against ax murderers but think it’s good to help the poor.

Our coworkers also have the benefit of freewill. This is why we should never seek to manipulate. Rather, we should have a radical respect for the conscience and freedom of others, even when their consciences aren’t properly formed. They’re not stupid; they have unique personal experiences, and the path to challenge them positively is through what my friend Dan Burke calls the “apologetics of extraordinary love.” In other words, to reach them we must love them, and then “love becomes the bridge over which truth can pass.” Love first, then truth.

The model Christ left for us was one of service. We are meant, like him, “not to be served but to serve” (Mark 10:45). When we have a heart for service, we recognize the importance of loving others in practical, everyday terms. This is how positive relationships are built and provide us with credibility that our own freewill is being used in an efficacious manner.

Plant seeds

We plant seeds in hearts first by who we are, then by what we’re fired up about, by what we don’t care about, by what we do, and by what we don’t do. Remember, planting seeds is our job. We can challenge people here and there when necessary, but this shouldn’t be our lead strategy.

Instead, one of the best things we can do, once we’ve done everything we can to act in accordance with the gospel message, is to embrace that “gift of self” so often cited by St. John Paul II. We give ourselves to others through the sacrifice of time, talents, and treasure. In the workplace, so often the right gift is that of time.

Tell your story

If the Faith changes us, we have a story to tell. Among the privileges of my professional life is hearing the stories of the many converts and “reverts” to the faith on The Journey Home TV program each week at the Coming Home Network. These stories are potent; they resonate in ways only the Holy Spirit can provoke.

Our stories are important. We can share mistakes we’ve made, triumphs, perspectives on how to handle situations, encouragement . . . the possibilities are endless. Of course, this involves words. Thankfully, even if our lives and actions haven’t been perfect, we can still build others up with words—even sharing our mistakes when necessary.

Head for the entrance

It’s important to remember that most of us probably won’t undergo a martyr’s death. The way we’ll exercise the above virtues will be most notable, and perhaps most powerful, in the little everyday things that aren’t noteworthy or powerful. We will always be reliant on the power of the Holy Spirit to change hearts, and that’s the bottom line. We can encourage others to head for the entrance rather than the exit.

A friend of mine once said that his goal was to be successful and to never know it. By trusting in the Lord and leaving the heavy lifting of evangelization to the Holy Spirit, we’ll learn to be better workers—and better Catholics.

[cezulian]

I'm still trying to figure out how to handle slavery and racism in this John Laurens book I'm doing. Because the thing is, I'm writing this book to represent a man in history who was a homosexual with internalized homophobia living in an age where people were regularly subjected to harsh and terrible punishment for such a thing, ranging from abuse and humiliation at the hands of the public in the pillory to a long prison sentence to execution (Thomas Jefferson, local asshole, was even trying to institute castration as a punishment for homosexuality when it was possible at least. No one cared about women or what they did in private at the time because of course). The point of it is to examine the search for identity in the age of enlightenment that many soldiers of the revolution dealt with, the nature of the Revolutionary War as not an act of revolution itself but an unfortunate product of it, the dangers of stunted under-evolved attitudes towards things such as homosexuality despite the enlightenments willingness to acknowledge it openly as an aspect of classical mythology/history that is portrayed in a positive or otherwise neutral light in the works they so admired, the idea of heroism vs. the dark reality of trying to achieve it, and that absolute heroism, IE being able to save absolutely every poor soul one comes across, is an unrealistic concept in most circumstances because there will always be an institution that is bigger than us in every respect who are actively working against us. John Laurens was very, very, very against slavery and racism and its a factor of his personality that is extremely important because he was a white man from South Carolina whose father was one of the biggest slave traders in the 13 colonies, and in a time where your father's approval of you as a person was based on your ability to imitate him as closely as possible, and for a person whose entire sense of self-worth hinged on his father's approval for most of his life, this distinction of belief was and is a very big deal. The problem is that I cannot, in good conscience, portray Laurens's anti-slavery/anti-racism sentiments in any way I can think of because I do not want black people to be once again pushed to the background of a historical narrative about the white man trying to save them. Its a disgusting and horrible trope that needs to disappear in all fiction, and the fact that this is not fiction but rather an in-between form of storytelling does not change a thing. Laurens himself did not have a white savior complex, although I believe its apparent in a lot of his correspondence that he did experience some serious white guilt, but his reasoning seemed to ultimately boil down to his strong sense of justice and equality. I do not want to erase this part of his life, because the point of it is to portray historical events that are already erased from history and to erase part of history while preaching about not erasing parts of history is just hypocritical storytelling (take notes, "Hamilton"). But at the same time, any and all mention of slavery in the narrative would be by a more privileged third party who actually benefits from the institution and as a black woman, a writer, a history nerd, and what I consider a generally decent-minded person, I refuse to do that to these very real people in history who suffered very real atrocities every single day for YEARS while I continue to prattle on about this rich southern white man who looked out his window at the black men and women tilling away at the fields from the comfort of his plantation estate bedroom and said "That troubles me". But then again, I have no idea what else to do because it WAS such a big deal in his life and a large contributing factor to his establishing an identity. He went to congress several times during his life to try and rally support from higher-ups to give slaves the chance to fight in the war and in exchange they will receive a country worth fighting for, AKA, their freedom and the freedom of their families (which, trust me, I know didn't assure any slave of being able to find work as a free person especially in the south and absolutely did not guarantee them smooth sailing and stability from then on were it to happen. I mean, 200+ years later and we're still fuckin workin on that). In the end, nothing he proposed went through and his final thoughts on the matter before dying (killing himself) were basically "I am beyond pissed that I can't do anything but I'm not suffering nearly as much as the slaves are and that is bullshit because everyone should do their own work like back in the fuckin day and no one should benefit off of the suffering of others but here I am fetishizing how my own helplessness pales in comparison to that of others who I promise you are not saying 'poor white people who feel bad because our lives are harder than theirs'. Unfortunately I think the only thing I can do at this point is make sure that any slave my dad hands over to me is treated kindly and respectfully because others would most definitely treat them horribly and being not horrible is apparently the most I can do. Guilt consumes me, I hate myself, fuck the government, I'm a puppet in someone else's show no matter how hard I try." The common excuse given by those who create "white savior" type characters or storylines is often something like "well oppressed groups can never be heard on their own and sometimes it takes a privileged person in a position of power who believes in them to get their message on the right track" and frankly, that's just bullshit and its lazy writing and all it does is make the message of the piece come off as "#NotAllWhitePeople" instead of the much more desired "look at the accomplishments of these POC against all odds". I don't want a #NotAllWhitePeople narrative, especially when most of the damn thing is about LGBT issues and erasure as well as the deeply flawed societal construct of masculinity! And classism! And mental illness! And when is mental illness an excuse for shitty behavior and when is it not! And emotional abuse! And the horrors of war! And idealism of self! And the interesting, complex philosophies of those subjects in the 18th century all over the world during a time where the world was changing and changing fast and in such a way where every single person was affected by it! I don't want to write about the racism of that time because I cannot for the life of me think of a way to portray it with the immense weight with which it no doubt existed and continues to exist on the shoulders of a nation built by those it oppresses, but I don't want to not write about it out of respect for the very people affected by it and out of respect for myself as a WOC who would not even be able to write about ANYTHING if it weren't for all that my ancestors suffered, and out of respect for historical accuracy as a whole! And honestly, I usually try and keep race and LGBT issues separate from one another when I go on about one or the other unless I'm talking about the white LGBT community thinking it can adopt certain colloquialisms of ebonics because they perceive themselves as being oppressed in the exact same way or if I'm talking about how same-sex relationships between black men or black women get omitted from fiction or media representation because the black community often has some kind of issue with not equating especially the former type of LGBT relationship/identity with weakness, whiteness, or a general rejection of one's blackness. But this is a point where the two are forced to overlap one way or another and in such a way where I cannot edit it till it represents both with absolute equality because its all based on very real events. In fact, if John Laurens hadn't been a real person in history at all and I could write this book as 100% historical fiction, I'd probably write it with the same themes an ideas but with a black male main character dealing with his homosexuality or bisexuality at a time when the aforesaid perception of such a thing was viewed as weakness, heightened by the fact that he and people like him were made to feel weak every day of their lives. But the reason I'm writing about John Laurens is that I am drawn to his story and the fact that it was all real, and I am profoundly disappointed in how he has been portrayed in what little works we have about him, whether it be in biographies where even the idea that he was gay is fervently denied and all those who think otherwise of him condescended to with the exigency of establishing a law, a frenetically romantic and saccharine sweet fiction of his life written with obvious passion but a lack of substance and accuracy, or in a broadway musical where his identity as an LGBT person and desperate denial of that identity all while being in a same-sex relationship with the main character who was a very positive and consistently validating force in his life who despite being essentially the only significant relationship of that nature present in his life was a constant source of self-doubt for him and a major player in his eventual suicide (which would have only served to further enforce the theme of the musical being that the main character had experienced so much death in his life and all of people who were extremely important to him as well as the theme of telling the story of history we so often gloss over had the storyline actually been explored) is under-utilized and instead chooses to examine a totally unnecessary apocryphal hyperbolic fiction of a heterosexual romantic subplot that didn't even happen the way its portrayed, means nothing to anyone, adds nothing to the theme of the show except that which could have easily been represented by a distinct lack of such a subplot, and ultimately disappears by act 2 without reaching any semblance of a, pardon the pun, "satisfying" resolution which it could be argued was the point but again a point that could have been easily characterized by a character who was dead before the closing number of act 1. I desperately, DESPERATELY want his story to be told, and I feel that a great many people could benefit from it, especially since internalized homophobia is a frequently ignored or barely touched upon aspect of LGBT literature and LGBT people, especially LGBT youth, need to be told that hey you are not the only people like them who have ever felt this way because here is a super real person from before your great grandparents were even born who is widely considered a war hero and was a major player in the forming of an entire nation but was just as afraid of himself as you are and was unfortunately brought down by a society with negative ideas not so unlike the society with the same or similar kinds of ideas that challenge you on a lifestyle that is none of their business, but if he managed to achieve greatness to the point of still being talked about 200+ years later despite the limitations placed on him by the commonplace regression of human thought experienced by his contemporaries who favored preserving certain outdated conservative ideas of absolute compliance in spite of one's natural inclinations over compassion in an age where compassion, free discussion of ideas, and as much philosophical variance one could possibly live in accordance to without becoming wishy-washy were considered the level of excellence which all human beings could aspire to embody, imagine what greatness and level of excellence you can acquire and personify, all the things you can achieve today in an imperfect but highly evolved age where your generation is only becoming more and more eager to offset intolerance and bigotry with the pursuit of better understanding, where now more than ever do people like you have a voice and now more than ever are others willing to fight for you if that voice is attempted to be silenced by the adamantly hateful, the world is just as hungry for justice and change as it was at the dawn of the Revolution its extraordinary and so are you and so, so many people believe in you. But the same amount of black youth need to be told that their greatness is not inevitably hinged on someone born into greater privilege than them in the eyes of society stepping in and denying them individual agency over their own advancement out of what may or may not be good intentions on their part, and that with great ambition comes an even greater struggle when you are viewed as less-than, but you do not need to wait on someone with a better standing in the eyes of your oppressors to clear the road ahead because if you truly aim to reach the peak of your achievements then you already possess the strength it takes to overcome the initial and unfortunately ever-constant obstacle of the real less-thans considering your self-aware knowledge of what you know you are capable of attaining in your life not worth their effort. Black youth need to be assured that they are enough for themselves. Anyways, all ADD ravings aside, this is honestly the only thing holding me back from not sitting tge fuck down and just WRITING the damn thing. I've for real got rough drafts of like 60% of the non-racial narrative and 0% of the racial narrative because all I can think of are wrong ways to go about this. If you somehow managed to read this whole thing and think you can help, PLEASE do. I'm clearly going to have to do more research on how to write about a white person fighting against racism without making it seem like a big huge self-righteous "UMMM YOU'RE WELCOME" from white folks to black folks, and especially learn how to do so without feeling like I'm betraying my roots to the point of my great great great great great granddaddy's ghost waiting for me in my dreams to ream me the fuck out. And I'm literally losing sleep over this dilemma too so I'd better get my shit together.

[repwincostl4m0a2]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[grgedoors02142]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[rtscrndr53704]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[chpatdoorsl3z0a1]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[porchenclose10019]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[repwinpril9y0a1]

Mastering the Design Approval Process

Being a designer means channeling your soul into bringing something new into the world… only to have a group of strangers tear it — and your self worth — apart. Critiques are an unwavering part of any designer’s life and are easily the worst part of the job. Formally educated designers leave the womb of university thinking it will be easier once they’re out in the “real world,” only to find out it’s actually more difficult. In school, at least feedback is given with a firm understanding of design principles and the project at hand.

Now you have to present your designs to clients, bosses, and colleagues. You might have the odd project where you’re working with someone as knowledgeable on design as you, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, you can expect the life to be sucked out of you while you try and persuade your critics to abandon their preconceived notions of “good design.”

There’s good news: it doesn’t have to be this way. Sure, design critiques will never be easy… but they don’t have to be a bloodbath.

After fifteen years of making mistakes during the critique process I’ve come across three common reasons things don’t go as planned; I’ve even discovered ways to prevent it. What are those reasons you ask?

The design gets evaluated by personal preferences

Failing to establish yourself as the expert

You’ve actually missed the mark

The harsh reality is it’s likely your fault when things go wrong.

Enough preamble. Let’s talk about how you can save your soul.

Design is evaluated by personal preferences

“I don’t like the color purple.” Awesome… actually, neither do I… but your customers love it. The all too prevalent “personal preference” derails many design critiques sending them spiraling out of control into a fiery crash in the ditch. Nothing strikes more fear into my heart than hearing someone say “I can’t design myself, but I know what looks good.” Everyone has their own taste in music, fashion, colors, and style, but none of those tastes are relevant to the design at hand. You know something is wrong when you hear the phrase “I like.”

“I like” precedes a personal preference—not what could be most effective to the audience. I forbid my students from using it in the classroom because what you like, what I like, and what your audience likes is not the same. We’re not talking about what you’d hang on your wall. We’re talking about what will improve your business.

The “right design” is the concept that performs best, which isn’t always the one you like the most. There are hundreds of instances where less attractive designs actually perform better. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir.

The question is, how do you get your critics out of their own head? The answer: by reframing the discussion.

Reframe the Discussion

The words you use and questions you ask have a profound effect on the responses you get. “What do you think?” elicits a different response than “Does this align our objectives?” But let me take a step back. Before you even ask for feedback set some boundaries. Make your audience respond from the perspective of the target audience. Tell them that instead of starting with “I think” to start with “John Smith would / wouldn’t…” (Presumably John Smith would be one of your personas—more on this later.)

Once you’ve established the rules ask questions such as:

How does this align with our objectives?

Does this accommodate our users and their needs?

Does this accurately represent the brand voice?

Education might be the first step, but it’s rarely effective on it’s own. Evaluating design from the perspective of others takes practice. Lots of it. You’ve had years of experience, your critics likely have none. So what’s a designer to do? Present your reasoning.

Document and Present  Your Design Research

The best design is informed by research. Through research the designer acquires a vivid picture of who this is intended for, the desired outcome and surrounding landscape.  It’s much easier to justify color schemes when you have data to back up your decisions. While there are dozens of valid research techniques, we’ve found personas to be particularly effective in this situation.

For those unfamiliar, personas are fictional representations of your intended audience. You bring them to life by giving them a name, head shot, and enough demographic and psychographic details so it feels as though you could have a conversation with them. Now instead of talking about the all-too-nebulous “target audience” you can have a fruitful conversation about good ol’ Martha Melancamp and how this website fits into her retired life filled with family time, reading, and frequent travel.

With personas in hand you can politely say, “Yes, I agree purple is the worst color to grace this planet…but what does Martha think?”

With these two techniques you should cut down on the amount of irrelevant feedback. The next common issue is deals with establishing expertise.

Failing to Establish Yourself as the Expert

You and I both know that design is a rigorous, system-driven process backed by principles, theory, convention, and research. Many don’t… and guess what, it’s your job to know that, not theirs. Your critics have no idea you’ve thought through every detail, weighed pros and cons, and ultimately landed at hundreds if not thousands of informed decisions.

Any unjustified suggestion to move, resize, or delete an element is a pretty good sign you’re not being viewed as an expert. You want clients to ask questions when something feels off—not start giving orders. “Why did you place this here?” is good. “Move the sidebar to the other side” is bad.

How do you solve this? Education, explanation, and asking the right questions.

Don’t just talk, educate

The best designers do as much educating as they do designing. Teaching “design think” quashes misinformed feedback and empowers others to solve their own complex problems. Lofty thinking I know, but there are real-world benefits that will make your life much easier. Educating the review team conveys your expertise and communicates everything is backed by research and established conventions.

This is not a one-and-done process, you’ll demonstrate your knowledge throughout the process. That said, much of the groundwork is laid at the beginning during the design discovery process. If for no other reason than it’s much easier to internalize design theory when you don’t have a concept staring you in the face.

When you start the initial design conversations, pretend as if you’re teaching a design course. Talk about best practices, hierarchy, typography, and visual language. Share examples of decisions you make and typical thought process. We go so far as producing a design strategy where we outline all the considerations we’ve identified, goals and their priorities, buyer personas, branding considerations, and key elements. We find the document gets initial buy-in and serves as a reference point to revisit discussions if necessary.

The obvious benefit of this effort is equipping your audience with an informed decision, but there is another hidden benefit. You develop a teacher / student relationship—one where you’re the authority and they’re the pupil.

The next critical step after you’ve crafted your initial concept is to explain the reasons behind your design decisions.

Explain your reasoning

You know, a great way to prevent people from assuming design decisions were arbitrary? Tell them. If your design process involves emailing a concept with the message “let me know what you think?” you’re just asking for trouble. How is someone supposed to know what you were thinking if you don’t tell them? If you’re like me you have an internal dialog during the design process. “This element has too much emphasis; I’m going to make it smaller,” “This color is too strong; I’ll find a more subdued shade,” or “These two pieces of content are related; I’ll group them together.”

You’ve seen every combination that didn’t work. If you don’t capture and communicate your reasoning then it feels arbitrary. The reviewer has no choice but to consider their gut reaction, where does it feel like this should go? I design with a notepad open. Every time I attempt something that doesn’t work I make a note. Every time I land on a solution I make a note. When it’s time to explain the concept I can articulate my intentions.

The most well articulated reasoning won’t help if you’ve simply missed the mark.

Your Design Misses the Mark

Yes, designers are fallible. We misunderstand stakeholders, rush through design research, and let personal biases cloud our thought processes. When it happens don’t let your ego get the best of you. Learn the lesson and move on. So how do you prevent this? Let’s look at the two most common reasons for missing the mark and how to avoid them.

Designing for the Wrong Audience

Other designers are not the target audience (an overwhelming majority of the time.) “Sexy design” is a temptress that will frequently call your name, especially if you’re working on a mundane topic. The delight of praise from your peers won’t feel as sweet when the concept under performs and the client hires a different agency next time around. Admiration is great, but food and shelter is much, much better.

Many of my best performing designs were the ones I personally liked the least.

Designing for yourself isn’t the only audience temptress, you can also be tempted to design for your client. Some clients will show up with a collection of websites they like. You could seek quick approval by imitating their examples, but this will only hurt you both in the long run. When the design under performs the client’s business will suffer and it will be your fault.

Inadequate Design Research

Your solutions are only as strong as your understanding of the situation. Talking to client stakeholders is a good start, but there are many ways to layer on additional insights that will guide your end result. Talk to the target audience, consume the media they consume, watch their behavior online, dig into the analytics and see what they’re doing on the site now.

When in doubt use tools to validate your current direction like the Five Second Test or UserZoom. Testing design concepts eliminates speculation and opinion, giving you data to inform the next design iteration.

Wrapping it Up

Allows critics to better understand what feedback they should be providing by laying the groundwork early. Digging deep into the problem at hand will inform your approach so you don’t miss the mark and creates an opportunity to document critical elements like objectives, KPI’s, personas, etc… You’ll also be able to explain your reasoning using the documentation as justification. Finally, when it’s time to get feedback the right questions will illicit the best responses from both parties.

There’s no guarantee you’ll never have difficulty during the visual design phase, but these steps will make your life and your client’s experience more satisfying and productive.

The post Mastering the Design Approval Process appeared first on Psychology of Web Design | 3.7 Blog.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2o3iAYr

[a--musings]

The unmoved trees.

July 15, 2019. Perhaps I have been much more narrow-minded than I previously believed myself to be.

When I was young and naive, and wildly inexperienced with the dealings of the wide spectrum of human personalities and perspective, I was lost. Thinking back to my childhood self, I was often times bemused (honestly, not too far from who I am today) and incapable of finding someone to which I could relate (again, some things never change). I felt alone, especially with my parents, whose relationship with me was so complex and broken back in those early days. We would fight and scream. I would cry. Years later, they would come to regret the words they said that shattered me as a child—and I would eventually learn to forgive them. But at the time, it hurt. It cut me deeply—just the standard trope of the Asian-American born to foreign immigrants of impossible expectation and nowhere to displace their stress. Our fights were vicious. My household dynamic was tumultuous. I would have never survived it all without my siblings. After every fight, my parents would always come around, offering me gifts or money as tokens of apology—never truly saying the words “I’m sorry,” nor verbally acknowledging the hurt they caused and validating my emotional response as sincere. They just bought me things I never cared for, thinking it was enough to heal the wounds. But it never was, and it hurt me to believe that they didn’t care enough about me to give me a true apology—to just say they never meant it all. The hurt and pain festered for many years, with neither I or my parents aware that apologies were sent and never received.  It wasn’t until I was an adult, able to reconcile by recognizing our drastic differences in culture and communication that I learned that this was their true apology. They both didn’t grow up in households that strongly valued words of affirmation and verbal admission of accountability. I had been angry because they did not appease my needs, but I had been blind to their perspective the whole time as well. I could not be mad at them for not knowing that I needed them to just tell me they were sorry. After all, how would they even know that this is what I needed? This is not what they needed to forgive. I perceived their offerings of objects as the thoughtless, easy way out of owning up to a mistake, but that was never their intention. The way in which they were raised taught them to think nothing of spoken words, and to regards gifts as truly symbolic of love. The way in which I was raised did not. This is where the disconnect began.

And that’s when I realized I have always been close-minded, as all humans are, in my perception of peoples’ wants and needs. I still remember when I was perpetually dissatisfied with life, suffering from feelings of emptiness and a constant longing for something more. And then, a few years ago, I met my dearest friend AW. He was quite odd and eccentric and different…but he helped me realize my natural desire to search for meaning and soul-deep connections in my life. He helped me realize that at my core, I am a very spiritual, philosophical, and ardently sensitive being, seeking belonging and depth. I had been searching for answers to the sources of my lifelong unhappiness, and once I figured it out, I was able to seek out the relationships and more profound experiences that I inherently valued, consisting of open expression and intimacy—things which I repressed. Not only did AW directly point out this quality that he could easily identify in me, but he offered me the deep philosophical human connection that finally made me feel a little bit more complete. He was my spirit guide, and one of my first soulmates who rose me from comatose, inspiring me to help others become cognizant of what was missing from their own existence. I believed it was my responsibility to perpetuate the awakening, like a ripple effect that had to keep reaching others. I was changed, and I wanted to change people too. But then I became a dreamer, an idealist, fantasizing about an ideal world that would be happy and more satisfied if others simply discovered the very same realization. I was suffering a savior complex, believing that I was saving people from their own ignorant bliss and blindness towards this absolute truth. I was convinced humanity was lacking in the same way that I was, and in response, I was offering them the red pill, offering insight and opening their eyes up to seeing truth behind the illusions, and what their bland lives lacked. I was offering them a safe space of openness, sensitivity, and vulnerability, and they could create their most fulfilling lives because of me and my influence.

I had an air of arrogance and self-absorption, unable to consider that people may just value different things than I do. I had no findings or evidence to back my belief. I had those reinforcing moments, when shy and closed-off friends expressed their gratitude for helping them open up, and for the rare, refreshing conversation of actual substance when I asked pondering questions that they have never been asked before. I loved intensely connecting with people and having heartfelt conversations that were pure and authentic and discussed deep things in life. These relationships were insightful, inspiring, and, “you make me feel so much less alone in this world, like someone genuinely cares,” was my favorite thing to hear. But then there were the shocking moments of disinterest, when my gentle coaxing was seen as prying invasiveness and intrusive to some. “I’m not talking about this right now,” one person would snap at me. “Why did you have to make this all philosophical? I just wanted to hang out,” another friend grunted. “You’re too inquisitive. Why are you always probing and trying to learn my secrets?” They want me to probe, I would convince myself. They need me to help them be more vulnerable and open up. They need me to help them feel comfortable with self-expression so we can all share our genuine experiences and relate to one another. They need a place to let out their secret emotions and hidden feelings. They just don’t realize it.

But there were so many times when I tried and tried, and people were aloof and coldly unreceptive to my warmth. Helping other people feel less alone made me feel lonely. It started to become clear: most people were just on a different wavelength and I was failing to get us to align. People did not want to have the conversations that I wanted to have. After too many disheartening moments, I called AW. What was I doing wrong?

“AW, I don’t understand. I just want to help people fill their emptiness created by the mundane aspects of everyday life and superficial, meaningless chatter. But I’m starting to think most people don’t actually care about meaningful relationships, or conversations about anything real. But didn’t you think that this was the one thing that everyone needed to be happy? Didn’t you think that everyone was searching for this?”

“Sure, humans are social creatures,” AW responded. “We need to form relationships for happiness. But there is no objective measurement necessary for a sufficient connection for everyone. Some people are absolutely satisfied with certain fleeting experiences. There are different levels and  forms of happiness. Not everyone is cognizant of it and not everyone has to actively seek it.”

“Are you telling me that not everyone values soul-deep connections, intimacy, and authentic companionship? I thought this is what we needed, as humans, to reach ultimate happiness and self-actualization. I’m offering them a safe space to open up, have pure and honest interactions, and reveal their authentic selves.”

“A,” he laughed. “Don’t go trying to move a tree. Not everyone wants to open up. Our value system system is a product of our experiences. Remember the elephant and the men? Everyone places different weight on different values and virtues. We see things the way we do because our experiences create our perspective. They don’t value you what you do because they simply can’t. Their life experiences didn’t set them up for that.”

“But revealing all of oneself genuinely and entirely lifts the burdens and pains of existence!” I vehemently preached. “We are universally bound by our need to deeply connect with one another and we can only do so by transparency, vulnerability intimacy, and affection!”“

A,” he sighed. “You can’t force people to want what you’re trying to give. You can offer your gift, but only those who seek it will accept it. Give them the opportunity to open up, and gauge if they’re willing to connect with you. But not everyone needs the vulnerability or the depth, and you can’t force your own values on other people. People can achieve happiness and fulfillment in ways that don’t require this. You can’t push them to see things the way you do. They were never shaped to. Don’t try to move a tree.”

He was right. How did I know what someone else needs to be happy? I mistook an idiosyncratic need for a value commonplace to all humanity. But I am not enlightened with the wisdom of what the whole world needs. I am not woke to the absolute truth. I am aware of my own truth and what I uniquely value, and I can’t simply project or impose my values on someone else because I arrogantly assume whatever I desire must be true for all. I had only discovered this truth for me. I need transparency, vulnerability, openness, and authenticity. Why did I believe this applied to everyone else too? Your value system is a product of your life experiences. Not everyone needs deep, meaningful connections and long existential talks about purpose and meaning. But I fallaciously believed everyone held these values; this was supposed to be the common theme that connected all of humanity. 

No. There are plenty of people who can live full and satisfying lives without it, just as I can without deeply buried, limited self-expressions and simpler conversations. There are people out there who prefer casual, superficial levels of experiences and closed, private, guarded expressions of themselves. Superficial does not make it less valuable to everyone. Some people find quality in it. Not everyone needs a deep connection, solely because I do. I can’t assume that every other human is simply unaware. Certainly not. The only guaranteed needs are food and water and an environment that supports our body’s physiological activity. Who we are, what we value, and what we search for is a product of our own experiences. Something about my own life events and my own upbringing made me predisposed to this need to find meaning in everything, but this did not happen for everyone. Why would they find worth in all of this?

So don’t try to move a tree. I must remind myself of this every single day. I find so much joy in loving others by enriching their lives with depth. There are people who need it and there are people who value it. I can merely offer enrichment to those who seek it, because those who seek it probably need it too. But to those who find no value in my offerings? I feel very bad for all of the people I probed and pried open, who I kept pushing to expose themselves in ways they did not want to. It is so very wrong to assume anyone knows what’s best for someone else—to constantly push and try to make someone place worth in what you find worthy, when they inherently do not value the same thing. Some lacked the life experiences to shape the mindset that would motivate them to value and find worth in such things. I have to stop forcing others to accept what I’m trying to give. Once a person shows that they are a tree, I must take them for who they are and stop trying to inspire them to be something else. But to those who who can understand the language I speak, and eagerly await the rare moments of profound interactions—I will always search for you.

—a.