UX/design publishing & feedback convention
How to share UX & design proposals and guidelines on feedback convention
This document outlines the guidelines on our tools (e.g. Miro, Zeplin, GitHub) across the different disciplines and the different status of a project.
Table of content
- Project status
- What tools do we use?
- Publishing on Miro and Zeplin
- Giving feedback
- 30:60:90 Method
- Google Drive folder structure
Status can be used so that people know you are looking for feedback that reflects that status, e.g. ‘exploration’ (asking for feedback on UX and scoping, including implementation constraints and feasibility).
- Work on specs
- Definition phase
- Conceptual work
- User interviews
- Core engineers and stakeholders sync
- Personas, user stories
- Use cases, scenarios
- First iterations of sketches/wireframes
- Wireframes (iteration 1, 2 etc)
- Final UX proposal (last wireframe to conclude UX)
- Visual design (iteration 1, 2 etc)
- Final visual design
- Feedback on the visual
- This is ready to be implemented
- Highlight implementation specs, annotation
What tools do we use?
We should work more on documents/specs and/or Miro to discuss things first, back and forth with engineers to discuss sketches about scope before moving to Zeplin for further feedback.
Docs and Specs
Spec docs with core engineers are also very important for the definition of the feature and to start a conversation around API, user stories and functionality.
Miro is very valuable especially during the definition phase. You might want to consider starting in Miro during the definition and the initial stage of the project with core engineers instead of Zeplin.
When ready for wireframes and visual design it can then move to Zeplin. Use tags and naming convention in a way that reflects the status of the project.
Publishing on Miro and Zeplin
- To group all the projects we use the main section on Zeplin, which groups things on a cycle and product level. It should be named [CycleYY.MM Product]
Example: “20.04 Snap”
- Name your projects this way, using the year and the month of the cycle the project refers to: [CycleYY.MM][product] - [Project name]
Example: “20.04 Snap - Progressive release”
- Name your sections and your artboards so they make sense to others. And to you, in 6 months time.
- Others need to know the phase, what they’re looking at and what kind of thing it is: “[Project status] - [Design name][iteration]”
“UX - User flow sharpies sketch” “UX - Initial sketches homepage” “UX - Homepage wireframes V1” “UX - Homepage wireframes V2” “UX - Homepage wireframes V3” “Visual - Homepage V1” “Visual - Homepage V2”
- Try to upload new screens into new sections when the changes are enough to justify a new iteration of the work, let’s not replace screens (except for quick fixes and typos) when working on a new version of the iteration.
A project should reflect the current status using the status option on Zeplin.
Links to specs docs epics
Put links to specs, docs or issues/epics in the description field, so people can find their way back to the spec and to the associated cards.
Inviting people to projects
- Consider you can invite people at different times. You want to focus more on getting feedback on functionality, user experience, visual? It doesn’t mean to invite these disciplines only, but to be clear on the status/phase of the project.
- Remember you can always use firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com to share and ask for feedback.
- We should not resolve comments, let’s keep track of comments whenever possible.
- When a comment is addressed and completed we can then add ‘done’ to keep record of when things are closed, instead of resolving the comment.
- Uploading new screens on different sessions will let comments stay where they originally were added: try to upload new screens into new sections when the changes are enough to justify a new iteration of the work. Let’s not replace screens (except for quick fixes and typos) when working on a new version of the iteration.
Motivations behind creating this practice: time zones, semantic gap, hard to categorise the feedback, need a way to receive feedback that we can work with and understand the motivation behind the feedback.
Start your comment with
1. “+1” or “I like…”
The purpose is to highlight what is agreed or what fits the requirements.
- For components that you like and that we should keep it.
- Good to go, agreed and signed off (in relation to the context the comment is on)
*When on Zeplin, use the green tag for this
2. “I wish… because” or “I think… because”
- The purpose is to get to the point and provide explanation/reasoning behind it.
*When on Zeplin, use the yellow tag for this
This could include components you think:
- Can be improved
- Would like to propose an alternative behaviour
- Would like to patternized
- Needs clarification (express which part is confusing)
Examples: “I wish this component has x, because for z users this can be confused with another component.” “I wish this was clearer because when I’m going through this component, I’m thinking x…y…z….” “I think this component should stand out more because the user may miss it” “I think you’ve used the wrong logo/colour/icon because X website uses another one”
- When you don’t want to express an opinion, but would like to share information, caveat, or references that I might have missed or overlooked in the prototype/wireframe.
*When on Zeplin, use the purple tag for this
Examples: “[INFO] we use a very similar component elsewhere, please have a look at this…” “[INFO] the API cannot return this information right now, we don’t have an endpoint, needs further discussions and planning in order to implement this” “[INFO] we have a pattern that fits this use case”
4. “What if…” or “I wonder…”
- The purpose is to propose an alternative solution (what would be good). Depending on the stage of the project this could be on a discovery, UX, visual or implementation level. The ideal comment would also add reasoning to the proposal, or add “because…” if your comment needs elaborating or add context on what could be improved.
*When on Zeplin, use the blue tag for this
Examples: “What if we add x colour to this? I think it will be easier to capture our users’ attention.” “What if we optimise this with a ‘clear all’ function? This way users could start from scratch” “I wonder if this exploration includes the use cases discussed, because I don’t see when users can do X”
When do we comment?
Peer review metaphor
- Soliciting feedback from our peers (other designers) should be more about asking “what haven’t I thought of”, rather than “do you approve of my solution” - and more akin to a peer review than a critique.
As feedback-givers we should think twice before pressing “post” on an item of feedback and ask ourselves “does this comment further the goal of improving the end-user’s experience?”
There should be a level of mutual respect and trust, sufficient that comments are left (and read) with the best possible intentions and aimed solely at improving the end-user experience.
As design professionals we should feel empowered to consider feedback and then incorporate or disregard it as we see fit. Of course, we shouldn’t dismiss all feedback but we should aim to strike a balance.
- If there are comments which are more fundamental about the feature, we should ping each other as opposed to leaving comments as this would lead to more confusion.
Does it need a comment?
- Wonder whether it needs to be a comment at all, or if the matter requires a quick chat or a deeper understanding cross-discipline. Add comments that use the feedback convention above to help the author understand your comments.
The 30:60:90 method is a way to set expectations for your design/feedback. A designer may include this number on their section names to define which stage this design is in.
30% A rough idea
At 30% is a rough concept that may or may not be a viable solution to solve a user / business problem. At 30% the designer has not put much time, effort and thought into the concept. It is easy to pivot or throw this away. At this stage I’m looking for: Ideas, tips or impressions on the idea
- Whether or not this is something we should do
- If this is the right direction
- How to move the concept forward
- Go / no go of this idea
60% A first draft of a set concept
At 60% we have a first draft of the concept. We’ve spent a lot of time and effort to get to this point, so we don’t want to be changing direction drastically unless there is a very good reason to do so (which we should have figured out at the 30% stage). At this stage I’m looking for:
- Whether the 30% critique was addressed adequately
- Visual / graphic feedback
- Feedback on interactive components
- Ways to expand the concept
90% A last check before development
At 90% we are about to hand over to development. By now, we should have tested the design with real users and made updates to address any usability issues found. There should be no drastic changes at this point. This is a final check where we want to be focusing on the minutiae:
- Was 60% critique addressed
- Nitty gritty grammar
- Finalizing copy
Google Drive folder structure
For our Google Drive Web & Design team shared drive we use the following folder structure:
Inside the product folder, e.g. _JAAS
- Cycle: e.g. 20.10
- Name of the Master Epic / Roadmap Item: e.g. Layout hierarchy views
- Number of the issue on GitHub: e.g. #1189
Folder structure inside:
- 0 Briefs, Specs & Proposals
- A - Discovery
- B - UX
- C - Visual Design
- D - Prototype
- E - User Testing
- F - Build
- G - QA