Exactly! When I'm doing research, I design it all so that it's analytical and not literal.

So, if I'm doing a sketching session with people about a pet care app, I have them draw a fantasy physical space that would allow them to provide amazing care for their pets. Then break it down -- are there people there? Is it big or small? Outside or indoors? Etc etc.

You end up getting super interesting elements that could be turned into digital features. Like someone says that in their space, there's a group of friendly pet owners they can talk to. That leads me to realize we should create and test a social component in our app.

I still have other designers complain that sessions like this don't help them directly inform what to make.

But it's like, so you wanted random people to design an app for you? lmao

It's our job to find creative ways to address people's needs. That's literally what good design is.

It doesn't come from a random idea that seems cool, and it doesn't come from directly copying interfaces and features that already exist elsewhere (which is what most people are limited by in terms of ideation).

It's sad that so many people in tech don't think about core needs. It should be the basis of all our work.

I'm a product design & strategy lead (agency-side), and it's actually unique to get a client who is open to being told "you shouldn't make this."

Or even a client who is open to having us find out why we should make something, what it should do, how it should work etc before actually going to make it.

It's truly incredible how most major companies just decide to make something out of thin air pretty much. I'm working with a major airline right now who has never done any kind of strategy or discovery.

I do actually think Google tends to be pretty good at quickly and seamlessly scrapping things that don't have a high use rate. I've also been hired by them to do *just* discovery work, so I think they're way better than most.

But yeah. It's wild out there. It seems logical that making a new product would start with the question, "what do people want? What problems can we solve?" But most of the time, it does not.

Edit to add: I know Ford's famous quote of, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."

But before anyone says that sometimes tech needs inform people about what they want, it doesn't. I'd argue that Ford did exactly that -- made a faster horse. It's still what people wanted.

My mom died in 2015, and for some reason I found I could only cry while walking around on the streets or on the train.

I’d get home and stop crying. I guess it felt kind of boring or pointless to sit and cry at home.

I hate the idea of people noticing me upset, but absolutely love crying while walking around for some reason.

>Love to know what that is

What *what* is?

And the success of what exactly? The success of regulating corporations?

A regulated market.

A free market is not a static thing. We don’t have a 100% free market right now. It’s a gradient.

Imo, free markets can get quite ugly without enough regulation. For instance, right now many hospitals are shutting down their pediatric wards because they just aren’t as profitable as adult medicine.

Our healthcare system in general is a good example.

Aside from that, wealth inequality is just getting bad. Sure, we can let it get worse until it leads to a revolution where a ton of people die and cities burn, but we could also just tax the ultra rich or even have a maximum wage like we did pre-Reagan.

Anyway, that’s what I mean.

That would mean regulating corporations which is something we don’t do in Ronald Reagan’s beautiful free market America

Edit to clarify: Prisons are businesses. Also corporations are the ones using prison labor. So, good luck telling them that they have to essentially use their prison labor for something specific.