Not a process. Not a methodology. The convictions that shape how I make calls.
Conviction beats consensus
Most designers I see hide behind frameworks. They say 'let's user-test it' when they mean 'I don't want to decide.' They say 'design thinking' when they mean 'I'm avoiding having a point of view.'
User research matters. Frameworks matter. But they're inputs. Somewhere along the way someone has to actually make a call, and that someone is supposed to be me. The job isn't to outsource every choice to a process. The job is to have a point of view I can defend, even if it turns out I was wrong.
The same thing happens with accessibility. People say 'make it accessible' like it's a checkbox. Contrast, alt text, done. But that's just paperwork. Accessibility is a way of thinking about who you stopped imagining when you designed the default flow. Treating it as a checklist means you've already designed for the wrong person.
Feeling is a real design output
The problems I find most interesting aren't the ones where you ask 'can the user complete this task.' They're the ones where you ask 'will the user want to come back tomorrow.' Different question, different design moves.
Most products skip past the second question and aim straight for efficient. Efficient is fine. Efficient is boring. The interactions that stick with people are the ones that surprise you, make you grin, feel a little alive. That wow factor isn't fluff, it's a real design constraint and most teams underestimate how hard it is to design for.
If I'm being honest, this is why I got into design in the first place. The technical craft is great. The strategy is fun. But the moment a small interaction makes someone smile is the whole point.
Understanding is articulation
Lately I've been writing my ideas out alongside sketching them. Part of it is because AI can turn a sketch into a working prototype if I describe it well enough. But honestly the bigger reason is that writing the thing down forces me to understand what I'm actually doing.
Ao Ashi (manga, soccer) has this idea that players who can explain their plays in words tend to repeat them. The ones who operate on pure instinct get lucky once and can't do it again. Turns out this isn't just a manga thing. Real football coaches talk about the same idea, they call it programmed instinct. You verbalize the play in training so deeply that your subconscious is running a proven pattern in the moment, not a random gamble.
Design works the same way for me. If I can articulate why I'm making a choice, that reasoning starts to shape my gut. That's also why I treat AI as a thinking partner. I'm not asking it to make the decision for me, I'm asking it to push back so I have to defend my reasoning out loud.
How do you undevelop a bias once you've formed one?
I get attached to a concept early on, even when I tell myself I'm staying open. I notice it later, when someone else points out an obvious alternative I didn't consider. I haven't figured out a reliable way to catch myself in the moment. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's just something to keep watching for.
Still figuring it out
This page is a snapshot, not a manifesto. How I think changes as I change. Check back in six months and I'll probably have rewritten most of this.