Julie Zhuo is VP of Product Design at Facebook. Sometimes we ask questions (for example, why is retention down?). Product-centric, if you take a different Angle and ask a user-centric question (why don’t users use this product?) Think of it from a completely different Angle.

The first rule of designing a valuable product is that it has real use value for its audience. In other words, a real person who has a specific problem or need in some area that can be solved by your work.

This may seem obvious, but when you listen to what designers talk about every day, it doesn’t seem that way.

Designers often use technical terms to express ideas, and we often talk about things in a technical way. Sometimes we do this to describe the problem more accurately, but more often we do it to avoid nonsense.

Such as:

  • How to increase the usage of new features?
  • Why is there no continuity between the two designs?
  • How can we solve the problem of low reuse of this feature?
  • We should make the design simpler;
  • We need to improve the measurement precision, this curve is not perfect.

When they hear that, can they understand that our goal is to create value for them?

Of course, this kind of technical terminology helps us to connect the elements in our mind. This way of mentally connecting concepts can be described as a train of cars flashing past the platform until we reach the platform the user expects.

But in practice, there are two unexpected consequences:


▎ The first is that when you talk to people who don’t know your stuff, they don’t understand what you’re talking about.

For example, as a designer, when I say, “Why aren’t these two features coherent?” The connection I want to make with the discussant is — why do these designs look the same, but when the user clicks on them, one result is A and the other is B? This can confuse users and shut them out of the value of the product we’re designing.

Other people who have the same design concepts as I do often do the same kind of thinking. For example, making a design “minimal” actually means keeping the design focused on what’s important so that users can look at it and know how to use it. To make a design interface “breathable” is to make the product easier and more pleasant to use.

But if you don’t make such conceptual connections between negotiators, you might wonder why consistency, minimalism, and breathability are so important.

Also, these doubts are sometimes true, because consistent design for consistency doesn’t matter. If no one in the world is confused by two products that look the same but get different results when clicked, consistency is not a problem.

A lot of developers or product managers have told me that when they talk about consistency, it’s not controversial. But again, when I say “the goal is to keep users from getting confused,” it’s not controversial either.


▎ The second is that when we use too many technical phrases, we may lose some insight into our real end goal. You only think about business problems, not user problems.

For example, “How can I increase usage of this feature?” That’s not what your users care about.

Faced with this problem, you may start thinking about company-centric solutions, such as how to make the feature more prominent and how to constantly remind users of the feature’s existence.

These strategies only work if the presence or absence of your feature is the main issue. However, if the use of this feature is low, it is more likely because the feature point is of little value to the user. It’s hard to see this without thinking user-centric.


All in all, although how you use your words or tone of voice is a very small thing, I still think it matters. So when you talk about the work you’re doing, pay attention to how and how you talk about it.

If you design for people, use people language.


Here’s an example of how to switch gears.

How do we increase usage of this feature?

=> What would make this feature more valuable for people?

Why aren’t these two things consistent? Let’s make sure our customers aren’t confused by these two things that look similar but behave differently.

The CTR here is really low, likely due to prominence.

=> It’s possible people don’t realize this feature exists, because it’s easy to miss.

We’re seeing too much churn. What can we do to address that?

=> People who’ve tried our product aren’t coming back. Why is that?

This design needs to be more breathable

=> People should find the experience easy and pleasant to read or scan.

We should aspire for this to feel minimal.

=> People should understand at a glance what’s most important and what they should do. They shouldn’t feel overwhelmed by choices.

The curves aren’t good yet. => Our customers aren’t yet finding Our product Useful Enough to come back to. So we need to improve the value we’re providing.

Design for People, Use People Language

My zhihu: @ Aceyclee | my weibo: @ Aceyclee