Design

Embracing a Spacious Lifestyle within Compact Spaces: The Evolution of Small Apartments and Modular Furniture. Would you live there? The modern living landscape is undergoing a remarkable transformation as small apartments and modular furniture redefine the way we inhabit our spaces. The concept of "living large in a small footprint" has become more than just a catchphrase; it has become a tangible reality reshaping our living experiences. Small apartments, once seen as a compromise, are now celebrated for their efficiency and practicality. As urban centers grow denser, these compact living spaces have evolved to maximize functionality without sacrificing comfort. The ingenious use of design elements, multifunctional furniture, and smart storage solutions enables residents to enjoy a comfortable and enriching lifestyle even within limited square footage. Enter modular furniture, a game-changer that perfectly complements the ethos of small-space living. Modular pieces are designed to adapt, transform, and serve multiple purposes, allowing residents to tailor their environments to their needs. From transforming sofas that become beds to dining tables that expand and contract, modular furniture empowers us to customize our surroundings while optimizing space utilization. This trend is profoundly impacting how we live. It encourages a shift towards intentional living, prompting us to carefully curate our possessions and prioritize what truly matters. The focus is on quality over quantity, leading to more thoughtful consumption patterns and sustainable living choices. Moreover, small apartments and modular furniture are fostering a sense of versatility. The boundaries between spaces are blurring as rooms multitask and evolve with our activities. A dining area can seamlessly transform into a workspace, and a living room can transition into a guest bedroom, all at the push of a button or the rearrangement of a few pieces. Innovations in design and technology are driving this evolution, making small apartments not just viable options but preferred choices for a diverse range of people, from young professionals seeking urban convenience to empty nesters downsizing their living arrangements. The convergence of small apartments and modular furniture is reshaping our understanding of space and how we utilize it. This transformation isn't just about making the most of less; it's about fostering a more deliberate, adaptable, and mindful way of living, where every square foot is an opportunity to express our personality and create a meaningful environment. #innovation via @ ori_living #technology

I have spent hundreds of hours analyzing design systems. One of the things that confused me for many years is how to structure color scales and tokens. I have experimented with multiple structures at different sizes of design systems, and at a high-level recommend the following approach: 1. Primitive Colors Your design system foundations should always start with a full color scale that is based on your brand identity. We call these colors Primitives, and your variable/token collection should look like this: - purple-600 - purple-500 - purple-400 - And so on.. To create a Primitives palette you will want to start from your main brand colors and use a tool like UIColors, Supapalette, Colorbox to expand to the full scale. (links in comments) This is a great foundation to have, as it gives you a set of shades that can be used in different ways, and ensures all of them have consistent hues, saturation and brightness. However, Primitive colors are simply not effective when used directly in your designs: - They create ambiguity - Their names have no contextual meaning - They are often misused due to similarity If you have had the “why are there 20 different shades of gray?” conversation with an engineer, you know what I mean. So let’s see how we can improve that. 2. Semantic Colors This is my default recommendation to all product design teams that don’t have a highly complex design system. What you will want to do here is create a new variable collection named Semantic, which is what’s visible in your design files, and comprises of: - Brand / Action - Text - Link - Border - Icon - Surface / Background - Bias - Data / Charts Each color should point to a primitive value, e.g. - text-primary → gray-800 - text-secondary → gray-600 - text-tertiary → gray-400 This takes a bit of setting up, but creates immense long-term value. A great example of a simple, theme-level Semantic structure is Shopify’s Polaris (link in comments) 3. Component-level Semantic Lastly, if you are working on a design system with a lot of complexity and, ideally, a dedicated design systems team, you might want to add another level of hierarchy and specify colors at a component-level. In this structure, you would want to create color tokens based on how they are used in each component. - input-text-filled → text-primary - input-text-placeholder → text-secondary - input-text-disabled → text-tertiary This eliminates all guesswork, but also increases the complexity exponentially. It does serve a purpose though. As design systems scale, you may find that: - A theme-level semantic structure is too restrictive - There is still some guesswork - Decisions need to be documented. An example of this is Uber’s Base and Adobe’s Spectrum design system, linked in the comments. I’m curious to know, what structure are you using for your design system and what has worked well for you? — If you found this useful, consider reposting ♻️ #uidesign #designsystems #productdesign

Indians want to eat healthy and companies want to make healthier alternatives. But both customers and brands are often confused. Health food is a $30B market in India and we meet atleast 20 companies every week. My last post on Indians eating protein got a lot of attention. So here is a playbook for brands, entrepreneurs & startups making food as nutrition to consider. #1- Sell simplicity, not superiority. Protein is not a luxury, it’s a necessity. Stop marketing it like it’s only for bodybuilders or fitness fanatics. The simpler your message, the broader your audience. #2- Educate, don’t exploit- Most Indians don’t know how much protein , carb or fibre they need, let alone where to get it. Be the brand that empowers with knowledge, not fear. Create tools, guides, or calculators that simplify nutrient requirements for different age groups, lifestyles, and budgets. Education creates trust, and trust builds loyalty. #3- Respect local wisdom- Stop chasing western trends and start celebrating Indian staples. Align your messaging with cultural relevance—it resonates deeper than imported fads. #4- Focus on affordability and accessibility- If your product costs more than an average meal, you’re solving a problem for the few, not the many. Create products that cater to the masses, especially rural and low-income communities. Affordability isn’t just ethical—it’s scalable. #5-Champion the underserved - Protein or carbs isn’t just for athletes or gym-goers. It’s crucial for children, pregnant women, and the elderly and they often are left out of the conversation. Tailor your products and campaigns to serve them, and you’ll stand out as a brand with purpose, not just profits. #6- Break the high-protein Halo - A “high-protein” claim shouldn’t be your only story. Focus on the overall quality of your product—minimal additives, real ingredients, and transparent labeling. If your protein bar has more sugar than a laddoo, you’re part of the problem, not the solution. #7- Decommoditize the narrative - Don’t just sell protein or fibre—sell the idea of a healthier India. Be the brand that shifts the conversation from “how much protein you eat” to “how balanced your diet is.” Make protein part of the bigger picture, not the entire story. #8-Make nutrient consumption a Public Good- Don’t just sell specific nutrient products; create ecosystems that make nutrient accessible and affordable for everyone. Collaborate with local governments to integrate protein-rich foods into public programs like midday meals and ration systems. You’ll build long-term demand while addressing a systemic health challenge." More notes continued in the comment section below.

McKinsey & Company 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝟭𝟱𝟬+ 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗔𝗜 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱: ⬇️ One-off solutions don’t scale. The most successful projects take a different path: They use open, modular architectures that enable speed, reuse, and control. → Designed for reuse → Able to plug in best-in-class capabilities → Free from vendor lock-in This is the reference architecture McKinsey now recommends — optimized to scale what works while staying compliant. It consists of five core components: ⬇️ 𝟭. 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗹: → A secure, compliant “pane of glass” where teams can launch, monitor, and manage GenAI apps. → Preapproved patterns, validated capabilities, shared libraries. → Observability and cost controls built-in. 𝟮. 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 → Services are modular, reusable, and provider-agnostic. → Core functions like RAG, chunking, or prompt routing are shared across apps. → Infra and policy as code, built to evolve fast. 𝟯. 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 → Every prompt and response is logged, audited, and cost-attributed. → Hallucination detection, PII filters, bias audits — enforced by default. → LLMs accessed only through a centralized AI gateway. 4. 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗹-𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 → Centralized logging, analytics, and monitoring across all solutions → Built-in lifecycle governance, FinOps, and Responsible AI enforcement → Secure onboarding of use cases and private data controls → Enables policy adherence across infrastructure, models, and apps 5. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 → Modular setup for user interface, business logic, and orchestration → Integrated agents, prompt engineering, and model APIs → Guardrails, feedback systems, and observability built into the solution → Delivered through the AI Gateway for consistent compliance and scale The message is clear: If your GenAI program is stuck, don’t look at the LLM. Look at your platform. 𝗜 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 — 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 — 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲: https://lnkd.in/dbf74Y9E

The financial case for brand strategy: Why CFOs should care. Branding isn’t just about looking good.* It drives real financial impact (* if done strategically) Yet, many companies still see it as a cost rather than an asset that increases enterprise value, reduces waste, and boosts profitability. Here’s what most businesses get wrong: - They see branding as expense, not an investment. - They focus on short-term lead generation over long-term equity. - They underestimate how much a strong brand lowers acquisition costs, improves pricing, reduces churn and attracts talent. Here’s how: 01 - Brand Strategy Increases Market Value: Brands are intangible, but they drive real financial value. Today, 80–85% of the S&P 500’s market value comes from intangibles like brand equity. Corporate reputation alone is worth $16 trillion globally. Companies with strong brands deliver 2× higher shareholder returns over 20 years than the MSCI World Index. Why? A strong brand builds trust, reduces risk, and increases pricing, partnerships, and M&A leverage. 02 - A Strong Brand Lowers Marketing Costs: Weak brands must pay to be noticed, they have to keep buying attention…spending millions on ads and lead gen. Strong brands generate attention. Tesla, for example, spends $0 on traditional ads, while competitors spend $495 per vehicle sold. Tesla’s brand, combined with a touch of Elon, drives WOM, earned media, and loyalty...saving hundreds of millions in marketing costs. (And yes, I know it works both ways, for better or worse) 03 - Branding Improves Profit Margins & Pricing Power: A strong brand lets you charge premium prices and avoid price wars. Apple sells iPhones at 40%+ gross margins, while competitors struggle, even with similar hardware. Why? Customers aren’t just buying a product, they’re buying into a brand. Data shows: - Consumers pay 11% more for trusted brands. - Brand-loyal customers pay 38% more, even price-sensitive ones pay 14% more. - Without strong branding, companies must compete on price alone. 04 - Strong Brands Retain Customers Longer: Retention is one of the biggest profitability drivers. It costs 5× more to acquire a new customer than to retain one. A 5% increase in retention boosts profits by 25–95%. Brand loyalty reduces churn, increases lifetime value, and creates repeat buyers without ads spend. 05 - Resilient Brands Outperform in Crises: In downturns, weak brands suffer revenue losses and resort to discounting. Strong brands hold their value & recover faster. During 2020, while most businesses struggled, the top 100 most valuable brands grew by +5.9%. A well-built brand acts as financial insulation, stabilising revenue. The Hard Truth: A strong brand isn’t a luxury, it’s a financial strategy. If your CFO still sees branding as a cost center, send them this. Sources: McKinsey, Interbrand, BrandZ, Bain & Company, Nielsen, Kantar, Invesp, Unilever, Tesla, industry reports on brand valuation, CAC, and shareholder returns.

After spending three decades in the aerospace industry, I’ve seen firsthand how crucial it is for different sectors to learn from each other. We no longer can afford to stay stuck in our own bubbles. Take the aerospace industry, for example. They’ve been looking at how car manufacturers automate their factories to improve their own processes. And those racing teams? Their ability to prototype quickly and develop at a breakneck pace is something we can all learn from to speed up our product development. It’s all about breaking down those silos and embracing new ideas from wherever we can find them. When I was leading the Scorpion Jet program, our rapid development – less than two years to develop a new aircraft – caught the attention of a company known for razors and electric shavers. They reached out to us, intrigued by our ability to iterate so quickly, telling me "you developed a new jet faster than we can develop new razors..." They wanted to learn how we managed to streamline our processes. It was quite an unexpected and fascinating experience that underscored the value of looking beyond one’s own industry can lead to significant improvements and efficiencies, even in fields as seemingly unrelated as aerospace and consumer electronics. In today’s fast-paced world, it’s more important than ever for industries to break out of their silos and look to other sectors for fresh ideas and processes. This kind of cross-industry learning not only fosters innovation but also helps stay competitive in a rapidly changing market. For instance, the aerospace industry has been taking cues from car manufacturers to improve factory automation. And the automotive companies are adopting aerospace processes for systems engineering. Meanwhile, both sectors are picking up tips from tech giants like Apple and Google to boost their electronics and software development. And at Siemens, we partner with racing teams. Why? Because their knack for rapid prototyping and fast-paced development is something we can all learn from to speed up our product development cycles. This cross-pollination of ideas is crucial as industries evolve and integrate more advanced technologies. By exploring best practices from other industries, companies can find innovative new ways to improve their processes and products. After all, how can someone think outside the box, if they are only looking in the box? If you are interested in learning more, I suggest checking out this article by my colleagues Todd Tuthill and Nand Kochhar where they take a closer look at how cross-industry learning are key to developing advanced air mobility solutions. https://lnkd.in/dK3U6pJf

🏎️💨 How To Design For Aging Population. One billion people aged 60+ live today, and it’s growing faster than any other age group. Key points to consider for more age-inclusive UX ↓ 🚫 Don’t assume that older adults struggle to use digital. ✅ Most users are healthy, active and have a solid income. 🤔 With age, it’s more difficult to focus on close objects. 🤔 Visuals with a similar contrast are harder to tell apart. 🤔 60 years → need 3× more light to perceive same brightness. 🤔 With age, shades of blue/purple, yellow/green look similar. 🤔 Reduced dexterity causes errors with precise movements. ✅ Add UI controls to resize columns, move cards, drag-n-drop. ✅ Always confirm destructive actions, allow to Undo/restore. 🚫 Avoid disappearing messages as toasts: let people close them. ✅ Baseline: large body copy (16px+), color contrast (WCAG AA). ✅ Prefer plain language, large checkboxes, radios (36px+). ✅ Avoid small floating labels and use static field labels. ✅ Show error messages above the text input, not below. 🚫 Don’t rely on accessibility overlays; they are trouble. Accessibility doesn’t have to be dull or boring. It doesn’t come at the cost of oversimplification — it can be bold and passionate, while understanding and respecting the needs of the different audiences it caters to. If anything, it makes boldness more accessible to more people. Conversations about older audiences tend to come with plenty of assumptions and stereotypes — and very often they are simply inaccurate. We overgeneralize and simplify. For example, just like when designing for children, we need to study vast differences in the age groups of 60–65, 65–70 etc. Just like any other group, older users need a reliable, clear product that helps them feel independent and competent. Bring older adults in your design process to find out what their specific needs are. It’s not just better for that specific target audience — good accessibility is better for everyone. And huge kudos to wonderful people contributing to a topic that is often forgotten and overlooked. 👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾 Useful resources: Wise Case Study: Accessible But Never Boring, by Stephanie S. https://lnkd.in/d-hjj_BF Designing For Older Audiences, by Matthew Stephens https://lnkd.in/dAXZ9mp3 Better Microcopy For Older Adults, by Michal Halperin Ben Zvi (PhD.), Kinneret Yifrah https://lnkd.in/evWGFB6u What You Can Learn From Older Adults, by Becca Selah https://lnkd.in/eZdbgRyA Designing Age-Inclusive Products, by Michal Halperin Ben Zvi (PhD.) https://lnkd.in/eQZJwEgS [continues in the comments below ↓] #ux #accessibility

Consistency isn’t boring. It’s branding. This BIC pen has looked the same since 1955. Same design. Same transparent barrel. Same blue cap. Bic knew it didn’t need to evolve the design of the product. By sticking to what worked, it has become iconic. Most brands don’t have that kind of discipline. They get bored to easily and change too much. If you change too much, you lose consistency and lose recognition. Great branding isn’t about changing everything all the time. And knowing what not to change is equally as important. A solid brand strategy should do two things: 1. Tell you where to stay consistent. 2. Show you where to evolve to stay relevant. Every brand has core brand assets (or codes)… distinctive elements that drive recognition. KFC has the bucket, the Colonel, the colour red and chicken. the LEGO Group has the brick, the yellow minifigure, the red square logo, and imagination. Bic has this pen shape, the blue cap, the orange packaging and the Bic Boy. When you protect those core assets, show up consistently, and then find relevant, creative ways to show up in culture that’s how you win. Not everything needs to change. Know what to keep. That’s the work.

Why do we address Environment before Equipment in designing Microsoft Teams Rooms (MTRs) - and in all meeting and teaching spaces? The fundamental principle of the EASE methodology starts with Environment because room acoustics determine your audio system quality - and not the other way around. So let’s consider Audio - the most important element in hybrid spaces. DSP is great and now essential but it cannot sidestep the laws of physics. The physics are unforgiving: DSP improvements are limited by what the microphone captures initially. Although inconvenient for the aesthetics, a gooseneck microphone positioned 30cm from a speaker’s mouth will outperform ceiling-mounted beamforming arrays with their sophisticated processing, purely because of signal-to-noise ratio advantages. Why does this matter? AVIXA’s task group for our dynamic range standard notes that system noise floor must minimally increase ambient room noise, and maximum linear SPL must meet target levels. Poor room acoustics make both requirements exponentially harder to achieve regardless of processing power. RT60 measurements tell the story: rooms with reverberation times above 0.6 seconds require increasingly complex DSP solutions to achieve the same speech intelligibility that rooms with 0.4-0.5 second RT60 deliver naturally. EASE: Environment, Audio, Screens, Equity. The methodology that makes hybrid workspace design systematic instead of accidental. GJC's methodology for optimal meeting and teaching space design. The EASE methodology principle: Optimize the acoustic foundation first, then specify technology to enhance that foundation rather than fight it. To learn more, please message me or see the link to Greg Jeffreys Consulting Ltd in the Comments section below. This approach facilities: clearer audio with simpler systems; lower complexity and maintenance requirements; better user experiences at lower total cost; future-proof (or resistant!) designs that work with any platform. Room acoustics are your audio system's foundation. Get the foundation right, and everything else becomes easier. What environmental factors do you prioritise before technology specification? #microsoftteamsrooms #avtweeps #EASEmethodology #hybridmeetings #avusergroup #ltsmg #schoms  #avixa

Stuck in an endless loop of client changes? Lost track of what revision this constitutes? Yeah. Been there. Done that. The secret? It's not about saying no. It's about saying yes to the right things upfront. Every project that goes sideways starts the same way: Vague agreements. Fuzzy boundaries. Good intentions. Six weeks later you're bleeding money and everyone's frustrated. Here's my framework after 30 years of running two 8-figure businesses: The SOW is your salvation. Not some boilerplate template. A real document that covers: • Exact deliverables (not "design work" but "3 homepage concepts, 2 rounds of revisions") • Hours of operation ("We respond M-F, 9-5 PST. Weekend requests get Monday responses") • Revision rounds spelled out ("Round 1 includes up to 5 changes. Round 2 includes 3.") • Feedback cycles defined ("48-hour turnaround for client feedback or the project may be delayed or additional fees may be incurred") But here's what most people miss— Don't work on client notes immediately. Client sends 37 pieces of feedback at 11pm Friday? Producer sends conflicting notes from the CEO? Marketing wants one thing, sales wants another? Stop. Collect everything first. Resolve the conflicts. Get on the phone and discuss it with your client to get alignment. Separate the "have to haves" from the "nice to haves". Then present unified changes. "Based on all feedback received, here are the 8 changes we'll implement. This constitutes revision round 2 of 3." Watch how fast the random requests stop. No extra work that goes unappreciated. No more feelings of being taken advantage of. Communicate before the crisis, prevents the crisis from happening. "Just so you know, we're entering round 2. You have one more included. After that, it's $X per additional round." No surprises. No awkward money conversations. No resentment. Scope creep isn't a them problem. It's a you problem. And that's good news, because that means you are in control. They're not trying to take advantage. They just don't know where the boundaries are because you never drew them. Draw the lines early. Communicate them clearly. Everyone wins. What's your most painful scope creep story? What boundary would've prevented it? Small Business Builders #projectmanagement #clientmanagement #businessgrowth