What we talked about
John Weiss, founder of Human Design, joins Federico for a conversation on building brands that move people:not just markets:in an increasingly synthetic, AI-driven world.
He shares the origin of Human Design, founded in 2013 to solve human problems through strategy, design, and storytelling. Over the years, the agency has helped nonprofits, startups, and major brands like Nike, Land O’Lakes, and Twitter uncover clarity, purpose, and emotional resonance.
Show notes
John Weiss founded Human Design because he realized the skills agencies use to help brands sell products could instead be used to solve problems that actually improve people’s lives. The original plan was to build an app, called We Fought Back, meant to help people fighting serious illness build sustained community support, and then shut the agency down. The agency took off instead.
What we covered
- Human Design’s core framework asks three questions about every product or campaign: Do people want it (enough to research and seek it out)? Do they feel it (enough to talk about it and bring others in)? Do they value it (enough to purchase it and integrate it into their life)? These three filters replace aesthetic judgment as the primary test of whether work is good.
- The best creative environments protect time for boredom, wonder, and sitting with a problem, what Weiss calls “working the problem” rather than jumping to the solution. Agencies that operate on short timeframes default to scanning what other brands have done and what is trending in culture, which produces derivative work even when the intent is to be original: you end up exploiting what works rather than exploring something new.
- For the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Weiss’s team built a campaign around the idea that if the Endangered Species Act falls, every species eventually falls, ending with human beings. They recruited celebrities to act as advocates for their species of choice, creating a narrative arc where defending animals and defending people became the same story.
- When Land O’Lakes hired them to be seen as more than a butter company, Weiss’s team pushed back on the brief. Rather than convincing audiences that Land O’Lakes was something other than what they were known for, the answer was to talk about what they actually cared about: the American farmer. The insight that 1% of the global population feeds 100% of us became the foundation of campaigns around wifi access in rural communities, regenerative farming, and food deserts, none of which mentioned butter.
- Weiss teaches User Experience 2 at the University of Colorado and opens every course by telling students not to add a modifier in front of the word “design.” Calling yourself a graphic designer or a UX designer narrows your mindset before you start. His instruction: pick up a pen before you pick up a mouse, and spend time identifying the core problem before you know what the solution will look like.
- The biggest leadership lesson from more than a decade of running Human Design: stop equating decisiveness with leadership. Weiss described how acting fast eight out of ten times looks great, but the two times you were wrong, without pausing to gather information, caused disproportionate damage in money, team churn, and rework. Vision and patience, he argues, are better markers of leadership than speed of decision.
About John
John Weiss is the founder of Human Design, a brand transformation agency based in Boulder, Colorado, which he started in 2013. The agency has worked with organizations ranging from Nike and Land O’Lakes to nonprofits and mission-driven startups, and Weiss teaches advanced user experience design at the University of Colorado Boulder.
- LinkedIn: <linkedin.com/in/johnweiss>
- Website: https://humandesign.com
Episode 79 of the PreVetted Podcast.
Full transcript
Federico Ramallo (00:00) Today we are joined by John Weiss. He’s the founder of Human Design, a brand transformation agency based in Boulder, Colorado. So since launching this agency in 2013, has helped organizations ranging from global brands like Nike and Land O’Lakes to emerging startups and mission-driven nonprofits find clarity.
purpose and emotional resonance in how they show up in the world. John’s work sits in the intersection of strategy, design and storytelling, building brands that move people, not just markets. He has a background spanning design, technology and psychology. So he brings both creative depth and strategic rigor to every challenge, helping brands uncover what’s make them truly human. John.
It’s a pleasure to have you on the show.
John Weiss (00:56) Pleasure to be here. Thank you.
Federico Ramallo (00:58) So can you tell us a little bit about human design and what you and your team do?
John Weiss (01:04) Yeah. So founded in 2013, as you mentioned on this premise that we can move the human race. And for us, what that meant is how could we take the skills of agency expertise that we have traditionally deployed for brands and how can we create experiences or products that elevate the human experience? they, um, you know, can we work with brands that do that was the number one goal. And then when we work with brands around their purpose, can we actually help them?
design products that maybe help people with healthier or save time or provide any sort of human benefit for their user. And it was really this idea that behind every business problem is a human problem. So if you want to drive your business forward, you really need to solve problems for the people you serve. And that’s what we were predicated on.
13 years later, we’re really proud of the work we’ve done. We’ve been able work with nonprofits. We’ve worked with, as you mentioned, bigger clients at Nike and Twitter to midsize clients and everything in between. So we’ve been pretty proud of what we’ve done.
Federico Ramallo (02:07) That’s amazing. Yeah, think that there is a I’m more and more feeling in love of companies that are for profit, but with a mission driven for profit companies. Yeah. And because, yeah, I mean, parties making revenue, so they are sustainable or self sustainable. But there is a mission, social component, social impact component that is
part of what they do and how they want to change the world. And I think that’s fascinating.
John Weiss (02:39) Yeah, that’s right.
Federico Ramallo (02:40) can you describe the values that originated on human design?
John Weiss (02:47) Yeah. So the real values were we wanted to create things that we would say people feel want, or value. So there’s a design agency called IDEO. They’ve been around for about 40 plus years and they really made human centered design popular and their model was around, is it feasible? Is it desirable? Is it viable? And I took that model and tried to make it more human, which is how can we make things that people want?
because if they want it, they’re probably researching it and trying to learn more about it. And then if they feel it, they’re probably talking and sharing and bringing others into the mix. And then if they value it, they’ve probably purchased it and put it in their life. So those are the real values that we drive against everything that we do. Do people want it? Do they feel it? Do they value it? So if we have a brand come to us as an example and they want to launch a campaign and they have predetermined ideas, for us, the vetting is,
Are these ideas something that we believe your audience would actually want? And it’s not just want in terms of purchasing, but is it something that people would want enough to do the research and come out and learn more about it? So those are the guiding principles. Do they want it? Do they feel it? Do they value it? And then on top of that, once we do the work, we want the work to be very simple. So that’s easily understood, quickly understood. We want the work to feel clever in a way that it does not
close the loop for the user. And what I mean by that is, you know, leave some room for curiosity and intrigue. So if we design something, we don’t make it 100 % on the nose. You know, we leave a little room to where they have to figure it out because once they do, they feel like they’re in on the secret. so the guiding principles for the end users, is it delightful? Will it provide some level of surprise? So those are on our end. Yeah.
Federico Ramallo (04:34) Amazing. So what was the moment that led you to create human design? And what was there a non turning back point?
John Weiss (04:44) Yeah, the moment was, ⁓ was working at an agency called Crispin Porter + Bogusky in Boulder, a pretty well known advertising agency. And I really felt like I hit this crux of being a dad with four kids that were getting older and I married my high school sweetheart and I was about 34 years old at the time. And I just hit this idea of, know, I’m really helping brands sell products that might not enhance the human experience.
And it drives revenue and it creates jobs, but the skillsets that we have around storytelling and product, they can really be deployed to make things that actually help people. So that was kind of the impetus initially. And it was really centered around healthcare from the jump. So I wanted to create an app that would help anybody fighting a battle in their life, build sustained support. So you had fighters and backers and the app was called We Fought Back. And I wanted to leave the agency space to build that app.
And I created human design as the agency to help me build that. And once the app would take off, the idea was I would fold human and shut it down. But the agency side just took off. So to your question about, there, when do we hit the no turning back point? It’s probably around year six or seven, because you have quite a bit of employees at the time that are dependent on you. You’re generating revenue. You feel like you’re on a good trajectory.
it feels a little silly to close it down. So we kind of felt like around year six or seven, there was no turning back. you know, it’s, it’s, we’ve survived COVID, we survived. So far we’re surviving AI, but it’s been a good run.
Federico Ramallo (06:24) Right, right. Amazing. Yeah, I once you, I’m running an agency as well as a software development agency. you know, when things started getting, know, bigger teams, commitments, it kind of built this momentum where, you know, you’re feeling, well, I should keep going forward, right? There’s so much things to do. There’s so much, you know, potential, right? Yeah. And in particular for me, had a lot of,
commitment with the people that I have hired on the team because basically they put their lives on the company’s hands, right? And their future is tied to the company’s future. So that adds a lot of, you know, duty to the mix, right?
John Weiss (07:03) Yeah, that’s right. Yep.
Federico Ramallo (07:06) So I mentioned at the beginning that you also studied philosophy, right? That’s interesting. Yeah. A little bit more about that.
John Weiss (07:13) Yeah,
I don’t have any formal degree in it, but I’m a big believer in understanding human beings and philosophy and psychology and how people think and understanding that the things that don’t change will be as important as the things that do change. So the human behaviors and human needs that have not changed and they’ve existed for centuries, understand those are really important. So you know how to create things that
Like I said earlier, people want to feel valued. So I just feel like it’s really important to understand how people tick.
Federico Ramallo (07:49) Yeah, I found very interesting the philosophy and the psychology side of things. mean, as a software engineer, the issue is that I come from a technical background. So basically, I’m a square, if you like, right? For me, things are binary. So I do what they don’t, right? So my journey has been on understanding more how people work, right?
But my approach has been from the technical point of view, right? So it took me a while to figure out how people work. I read a lot about social psychology, which is the, know, because psychology is about the mind is broken, so we have to fix it. Social psychology is about, you know, the mind is working properly. How can we understand it better, right?
John Weiss (08:41) Yeah, it’s a good call out on your part. The difference, the semantic difference is all, it’s key.
Federico Ramallo (08:48) Yeah. Yeah. And, ⁓ but I believe that it’s still biased because it’s, it’s based, the research is based on, ⁓ students in universities in the West coast. So, you know, so far what I’ve been reading represents a lot of the behaviors patterns that I’ve seen, but you know, it’s biased towards that, that portion of, of the audience, right? Yeah.
John Weiss (09:14) Right, yeah. ⁓
Federico Ramallo (09:16) So you often speak about helping people, right? Be human to the fullest. What does that mean to you, you know, in a world that is becoming more digital, automated, less, you know, personal, you know, I would say fake to a certain point, right?
John Weiss (09:32) Yeah Yeah, really especially the AI everything’s becoming synthetic For me, it could be as simple as really making sure that we’re stripping away anything in the design or the product That’s going to be interesting but not relevant, know, it may be interesting at first But it’s just ultimately going to end up being a distraction So how can we simplify the product enough get it down to score function? And if we do that, then when I say help people live
be human to the fullest, could be as simple as helping them save time, reduce stress, reduce friction, give them the ability to have that time back and go do something that’s more meaningful. So that’s my goal is to live to its fullest and help people. Now, when we work with clients, you know, their products are not usually curing cancer or doing something of that big of a nature, but whatever it is that they are providing, can we make it
as useful and usable and fun as possible so that people can enjoy it and then can we give them something extra with it, time back, et cetera.
Federico Ramallo (10:41) Right, right, interesting. Yeah, I like what the word you used, synthetic, right? Everything becomes more synthetic. the social networks that are supposed to bring us together, they’re tearing everybody apart. People are feeling more isolated, right? The more like the cell phones are designed to help us communicate, but we kind of…
become our own bubble, right? So yeah, it’s interesting how it works. And with AI-generated content, it’s hard and hard to make real human connections, right? Yes.
John Weiss (11:19) 100%.
Federico Ramallo (11:21) Yeah. So what separates a good design from a human design?
John Weiss (11:28) Yeah, what would probably separate my mind, it’s a great question because there’s so many good things out there. And it’s that idea of like, as a creative director, as an example in the industry, if you have a talented team, they’re going to present you good work all the time. Let’s say you have 10 ideas presented to you. have to say nine, you have to say no to nine good ideas to find the one great idea.
So when you talk about what separates good design from human design, it’s not a big difference. It’s probably like one or two degrees. But the good to human is really, I think, just kind of seeing around corners and adding things to the design that people may not even know to ask for. But you’re kind of preemptively solving problems for them. So design in general is solving problems. It’s not art. We’re art.
is created for my sake, it’s subjective, you may or may not like my artwork, but it’s something I love doing. Design is I’m designing it for you to solve a problem for you. So what separates good design to human design is really moving beyond just the aesthetic piece of the design where it looks good and it feels good to the useful side of it, where it really does solve that problem. And then ideally you’re solving maybe a secondary problem that wasn’t even on the original brief for the project.
But as you’re designing, you identify, know, this human need also exists and we can also solve for that. So to me, it’s moving beyond aesthetics and it’s moving into useful and usable.
Federico Ramallo (13:05) Right, right. the, always remember this episode of the Simpsons where Homer meets his lost brother who owns a car company and then invites him to design the next car, which basically makes a car with everything in it, right? And you know, the company goes bankrupt because of that, right? But,
in those seasons, Homer was not a buffoon. He was more of a, a good dad with good intentions that made mistakes, right? Eventually became a buffoon, right? But he was truly trying to make a really good product, right? In his mind, right? And so I felt that… ⁓
the product design is full of these good intentions that sometimes, because they don’t focus on understanding what’s a value for the user and putting on their shoes, then they miss the mark, right?
John Weiss (13:59) That’s right. Yep, that’s right.
Federico Ramallo (14:02) So, I mean, can you share us a project with us about, you know, or creativity genuinely move people or create social impact?
John Weiss (14:11) Yeah, so there were two projects. was very overt in terms of moving human race or elevating it. And that was a project we did for IFAW, which is I-F-A-W, International Fund for Animal Welfare. And they’re trying to educate people about the Endangered Species Act and how important that was. And if the U.S. government voted against it, the impact that that would have. So for us, we created a really powerful story.
around the fall, the impact of what would happen if the Endangered Species Act fell. It’s something that we had this idea that if that falls, we all fall, ending with the final species, which is human beings. So we engaged a lot of celebrities to act on behalf of their species of choice. And then we did a campaign and storytelling around acting on behalf of their species.
and then acting on behalf of endangered species. And then a brand example that answers your question around good design is we were hired by Land O’Lakes and they’re known as the butter company. Everybody knows of Land O’Lakes for butter, but what people don’t know is they have four other subsidiaries for their companies that they own under the parent brand. And when they hired us, the brief was we want to be known for being more than just butter.
And typically if you have a good design team, they’re going to take that brief and they’re going to push into the tension. know, the tension is, okay, we’re a hundred year old company and we’re known for butter. And how do we break that tension of we’re actually something other than that? And that would be the answer from a good design company, I think is, you know, people think that we’re this, but we need to tell them we’re this. And our approach was let’s not make it about us. Let’s make it about your purpose and what you actually care about.
What you care about is the American farmer. And what statistics show is that less than 1 % of the American, 1 % of the global population is farmers. So for us, once we understood 1 % of us feeds 100 % of us, that’s the story. So press in on that story that that’s what you’re about is supporting the American farmer. So rather than trying to convince people that you’re not the butter company and instead you’re this company, don’t even talk about that. Just talk about what you care about.
Talk about the impact that you’re driving and talk about how you’re helping the American farmer through the American connection project, bringing wifi high speed internet to rural parts of the community. Doing campaigns called farmers are incredible where you remind people the importance of farming and regenerative farming and soil health and food insecurities and food deserts. So the whole point was don’t reframe yourself as something different than what you’re known for.
just focus on what you do that actually has an impact and drives results. And that was a huge kind of turning point, think, for Land O’Lakes and something that we’re really excited that we did for them.
Federico Ramallo (17:07) Amazing. So what do the best creative environments do differently to unlock originality and bold thinking?
John Weiss (17:16) we got into this earlier. think they really encouraged psychology and philosophy and really understanding human beings at a core level and not just distilling it down to gimmicks or trends or the aesthetics of what we think people would react to quickly. so the best design studio is really focused on what we’d say the timeless work, ⁓ the timely work, right? If a client comes to us and says, we need to do something timely within the next week or two.
That’s really hard to produce something that’s going to stand the test of time. But if you really create an environment in a studio where you’re focused on the timelessness of it, you know, we might have a deadline coming up, but how do we create something that lives beyond the launch or the activation? How do we, how do we create something that actually has lasting impact? And in order to create an environment to facilitate that, you have to allow room for boredom.
for wonder, for gaps in the work, know, where everybody, you’re not filling everybody’s time with work or asking them to be 10 times more productive using AI, but you allow them to sit with the problem and work the problem. Cause a lot of the best work is just working the problem and giving yourself time to work the problem. And if you give yourself that time paired up with a deeper understanding of human psychology and behavior,
think you’re going to produce the best work. If you don’t have that framework, most agencies, what they end up doing is they produce work that’s very derivative of the marketplace. You know, they’re on short timeframes. They go, what has another brand done? What’s the latest campaign that got picked up in culture? You know, what are people talking about in culture? And you start to look at everything that’s currently happening. And even if you want to create something unique, your subconscious is just going to design something derivative
of the existing thing. You you’re just going to be exploiting what works well versus exploring the future. So I think giving yourself time to think and have original thought is really, really key.
Federico Ramallo (19:21) Right, right. The more you pursue that, the more you look like everybody else.
John Weiss (19:28) All right.
Federico Ramallo (19:30) Interesting. creativity requires vulnerability, right? How do you create safety for your team while also challenging them to think bigger and be more creative?
John Weiss (19:42) Yeah, I think the biggest way you do that is just how you respond to the work that they create. So it’s less about how you set the stage before they make anything. And I think it’s more about how do you react to what they make. Because if you, if I hired you and you were a designer and you came on my team and said, Hey, Federico, here’s the environment in which you’re going to work. You know, I’m going to empower you to think this way. I’m going to give you autonomy. I’m going to give you mastery. I’m going to, until you actually experience it.
When I tell you all these things of how we’re going to facilitate good creative work, until you experience it, it’s just knowledge. You just hear it and you know it. But until you experience the environment, meaning you create something and you put it on the table for us to critique. And now we come to the table and we’re critiquing it against the business objectives, know, the KPIs for the client, our own objectives, the project brief, the strategy, who we’re serving.
That’s the moment in which you facilitate really good creative is how you respond to it. So simple things for us is like, if we don’t like the idea, as an example, I might say, I think that we can beat that. And it’s not me saying that’s not good work. It’s me saying, you’ve put something in front of me to react to, I have respect for it, but I think we can beat that. I think we can go one level above it. If we’re talking about ideas and there’s an idea that
you throw out there and I might not like it rather than me saying that’s not going to work. I don’t like it. I can simply say, well, what else can we do? It’s just a nice way. It’s almost a yes and, but it’s a nicer version of yes and because you’re not being disingenuous and agreeing like, yes, that is great. And instead you’re saying, Hey, I hear, I hear you on that. What else can we do? And you just keep kind of pushing the work and what you’re doing is you’re focusing on the future without tearing down the existing work.
And then once you go back to a one-on-one environment with the designer, that’s when you might get a little bit more clear about like, okay, now that we’ve decided what else and we think we could beat that, then you give the creative direction of, are we going to take their existing idea and refine it? Or do we say, hey, since we decided that what else we’ll do is this and it’s pretty different, then you just teach them and you coach them. And all the mistakes that they may have made on the thing that you critiqued.
you can feed that into your guidance for the next thing. But when you’re feeding that guidance and you’re talking about the future, you’re not talking about something that they made. So as an example, if a designer comes to us and the typography is really weak, the color palette’s not on strategy, the grid is really loose, the design grid feels sloppy, doesn’t feel on brand. I could say all those things to them and guide them to the solution.
But if I want to create a safe environment, the better thing would probably be go back to the strategy. If I’m looking at it and it’s way off strategy and it’s so far off, I could simply say, okay, let’s go back to the strategy. And right now it feels like your design, the outcome of it is probably this. And if we go back to the strategy document, the outcome that we need is this. So what else can we do to get to this outcome? And then you just kind of riff with them. And then when you get to the conclusion and they’re going to go back to their desk to design it.
That’s when you can kind of coach them. as a reminder, make sure that it’s on a really tight grid. Make sure that the color palette is on strategy from a type treatment standpoint. You know, make sure that you have a gestalt point that really draws your eye in. And then you have a hierarchy of type and then savvy designers, some designers are back. did you feel like my first design wasn’t that? And then of course you’re not going to lie to him. Like, yeah, you know, your first design missed a few of those things, but now that we talked through it, you got this. So I think it’s just.
The best environments are shaped and created at the moment of critique, not at the moment of blank slate. Because blank slate, you’re asking them to envision something and envision how you’re going to react and what you versus when you have clay on the table that they’ve created and you’re critiquing it. That’s when you show how you’re going to be a creative director and how you’re going to create the space to create.
Federico Ramallo (23:55) Right. The, you know, I just remind me of, know, everybody I’m from Argentina, right? So everybody loves football there, you know, and everybody critiques how the players play, but they’re not there playing the game. So, know, and in retrospect, it’s easy to, to critique something and say why it was wrong. But before it was created, there was nothing and now there’s something right. So
Right. Out of nothing, we have something and whether it hits the mark or doesn’t, but now we have a point of reference. Yeah. You can to say, we can learn that this is not what we need or this is not what we want. And this gives us the tools to go towards the right direction, That’s right. Different direction. So even in the, I wouldn’t call it failure, right? But you know, missing the expectations, there is lessons learned for
for everybody on the team, right? Yeah, exactly right. Interesting. What is the, I think we’re kind of talking about this, but anyway, what is the biggest leadership lesson you’ve learned scaling a creative company from more than a decade?
John Weiss (25:06) Mmm.
The biggest lesson is to just be patient. My personality type. really like to close the loop, so to speak. So I don’t like any loose ends and I want to close the loop really quick. I want to get to an answer and I want to move on to the next thing. The biggest lesson I’ve learned is that there are times where closing the loop might be the best thing to do today or within this week. And there’s other times where it’s really important to leave it open ended for two to three months.
And you know, what are the things that we need to have an answer about right now versus it’s okay to let things play out. Cause the biggest lesson I learned is I used to view decisiveness as leadership and decisiveness to me equaled being a good leader. I’m going to come in, I’m going to decide, I’m going to say this is where we’re going and we’re going that way. And now that’s not good leadership. Good leadership is listening and taking in all the information.
getting the feedback, and then good leadership is having a vision. And that’s it. It’s not about the speed in which the vision is executed. Leadership is about the vision itself. And a lot of times I would mistake the speed at which I would want the vision to be enacted as decisive, quick, great leadership. And the challenge or the problem with that is eight times out of 10, your instincts are probably right. But the two times you weren’t,
How much pain did that cause? How much money, how much churn, how much redo of the work? So biggest lesson I learned is that vision and speed do not need to go hand in hand for you to be successful. You don’t have to worry about decisiveness means we act right now and we’re going that way no matter what, we’ll figure it out. Versus taking a moment to breathe and say, I believe the vision is we’re gonna go there. Now,
how do we get there? We’re be pretty patient because if we’re at the base of a mountain and we say we’re gonna get up there and we start climbing, we’re gonna come across trees that fell down, bridges that are out, we’re gonna have to reroute. But as long as your vision and your goal stays the same, the way that you get there can change, but you just have to be patient. And if you operate like we did early on, where there’s a whole lot of speed and decisiveness and we’re gonna get there right now, it creates this false sense
of certainty and decisiveness to where the negative impact is if a new data point comes in and you have to change direction, but you didn’t change the goal, it almost feels like a failure internally because it slows everything down. And if the premise that you are basing success on is speed and velocity and decisiveness, then if something new comes in and you have to pivot or change a little bit, which is not bad,
then what that can convey for the culture and for your team is, are we not succeeding? You know, because things are slowing down or moving. So for me, the biggest lesson is just be very patient and do not equate decisiveness with leadership. know, vision and patience to me equal leadership more than making a quick decision.
Federico Ramallo (28:22) The size of this would be like driving the bus at full speed ahead. Yes. Over the cliff. Decisively.
John Weiss (28:31) Exactly, Decisively, with all the courage and all the bold thinking that we want to say as an agency. We’re bold thinkers, we’re courageous, and we’re going to drive the bus right over the edge. That’s funny. That’s right.
Federico Ramallo (28:43) Yeah, yeah, let’s burn the bridges, you know. Yeah, yeah, I had those situations as well myself. Now I’m learning more of being the last one to make a comment or an observation to kind of let the team figure it out and become more autonomous, which is easy to say, hard to do, Yeah, yeah. And the…
John Weiss (28:46) Yeah.
Federico Ramallo (29:12) And then people following what you said because you said it because you’re the authority. So you’re the founder. you know better, right? And, you know, you don’t necessarily have all the answers. So having the ability to do introspection, think that’s a great way. And ⁓ you were talking about the vision, right? And I think that the vision is kind of this
pattern, right? That you have where you can say, okay, whatever I have in front of me, the vision helps me make the decision of whether I’m going in the right direction or not, right? And that’s a much more powerful tool because now you’re giving everybody on the team the autonomy to make mistakes, but also make decisions and also raise a flag when there’s something wrong that requires conversation.
John Weiss (30:06) Yeah, that’s right. Yeah.
Federico Ramallo (30:08) Yeah, interesting.
So,
Can, what do you wish more young designers understood early in their careers?
John Weiss (30:18) So I teach a class at the University of Colorado here in Boulder, CU, and it’s called User Experience 2, which is Advanced User Experience. And the very first module, the very first class I teach, I talk about holistic experience design. And the first thing I tell my designers, and this is what I wish all young designers would believe in or try to do, is to not add a modifier to the word design. Now,
It’s important that you have a skill set, but you know, if you’re going to be a graphic designer, a motion designer, interactive designer, a film designer, a digital designer, user experience designer, if you pick any adjective that goes in front of the word design, the risk is that that’s going to be the narrow mindset in which you approach design. You know, I’m a graphic designer, I’m an illustrator, I’m a, versus no, I’m just a designer with capital D.
and I’m going to learn about human behavior, human psychology. I’m going to understand what makes people tick. And I’m going to then be a holistic designer to where the first tool that I don’t pick up, it’s not going to be a mouse or track pad or a computer, but it’s going to be a pencil, pen and paper. That’s going to be me putting down my thoughts where I’m actually identifying what is the core problem that the design is solving.
So before I even know what shape or what look the designer is going to have, I would want a young designer to start there. How do you get your head around the problem that you’re solving? So that you actually start to think about potential solutions with an ultimate design. And that ultimate design will solve the problem. But young designers, myself included when I was younger, the first thing we’d do is we’d go to the tools.
We go to the tools and we start creating shapes and wireframes and we start creating the solution right away versus understanding the real need and the real problem. So what I would tell young designers is the solution will come. But the first thing you should do is view yourself as a holistic designer, sit down, make sure you understand the problem, make sure you understand the people that you serve and what they need and make sure you understand.
and are clear on the outcomes of what you’re trying to design. Then start working the problem because there’s a big difference for young designers of a mindset that I see a lot, which is creating the solution versus working the problem. And for me, the first thing I want to tell designers, you’ve got to work the problem first, not create the solution. The solution comes out of working the problem. So be patient, work the problem, pen, paper.
conversations, talk to shareholders, talk to stakeholders, talk to your audience, get as much information as you can so you make sure you can work the problem correctly versus just creating a solution. That’s probably the thing I’d tell a designer.
Federico Ramallo (33:23) When you were telling the story, was thinking on, I have a friend, he tells a story. So basically he says, so I cannot take credit for this, but he says, I have a hammer. It is a shiny, shiny hammer. And then what he sees are all nails. Because he has a hammer. So, you know, when you’re describing, I’m a graphic designer. Yeah, the graphic is…
technique and means towards design, right? But then if they see work towards graphic designing, then graphic comes first. And then, you know, I am going to apply that technique for everything that I’m going to design, right? Rather than thinking about, what is, I want to fully understand the problem. We want to become maybe not a domain expert, but domain expert enough to be able to design the solution for it, right?
John Weiss (34:13) Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.
Federico Ramallo (34:16) Yeah, right. So you mentioned that you give classes at the University of Colorado, but you’re also mentoring accelerators, right?
John Weiss (34:25) Yes.
Federico Ramallo (34:26) What patterns do you see in the new generations of creatives and founders?
John Weiss (34:32) The biggest pattern right now, unsurprisingly you or probably anybody is just the focus on speed and the focus on designing at speed, which is interesting because being a designer for the longest time, designers wanted to be thought of better and different. And what I mean by that is in the previous cohorts at
accelerators, the teams are really focused on technology as the hero. We need a chief technology officer. We need a tech stack that can scale. And it’s all about the technology to help raise capital. And then designers on the team are like, yes, that’s important, but branding, user experience, design is equally as important. So what’s interesting is
You know a few years ago designers were advocating for the importance of design and giving it time and letting it breathe a little bit doing research and being able to really solve the problem and design solution What’s interesting is we were fighting for that for a long time as designers and then with AI coming in What I see is people giving in very quick to actually we could design at speed Like we could vibe code we could use AI to get the thinking out we could design really quick
and then we could get the prototype faster. And all of that work that for many years was saying, the technology is here and you need to give us enough time in the design to make sure we design it right before we move into technology. All of that work to at least give ourselves the grounding and the freedom to design. We’ve almost given up that ground as designers. We’re now, we are okay with being like this design phase.
We agree with you. We can speed it up by 10 times because we could use AI to generate the ideas, to create the thinking, we could vibe code. So we could get to the tech stack faster. And that might not be wrong in some instances, but what I’m seeing is a lot of startups or teams and accelerators just really be okay with buying into that speed, speed, speed, like get to market as fast as you can.
versus do we have right product, market fit, is a minimal viable product gonna be the right product? Do we have the right requirements? Do we have the right user stories? Do we have the right outcomes to find? Now it’s just like, well, we don’t need to know any of that. We can just go in and we can prompt and say, what if we had an app that did these five things? We could do that all day long. I mean, you and I could get on a whiteboard and whiteboard stuff all day long, but how do we filter through it before we even get
to that stage. So what I’m seeing with a lot of accelerators is that the design phase is getting like shortened and the designers are okay with that. like, it’s okay. Like we’ll do the vibe code and we’ll just make the thing even faster. And I’m not saying that you have to be really slow in design, but there’s something to be said for like what I tell my team is design is never finished. There’s just a deadline. So with AI I worry about
punching prompts and getting something back and then feeling like, ooh, that’s a great idea. That is the idea. Versus if you and I were to riff on stuff, we’d be doing all the stuff I said earlier. Well, what else can we do? I think we can beat that. Let’s come up with a different idea. So in the accelerator space, I see speed being viewed as the most premium aspect versus technology or design or so.
Federico Ramallo (38:06) Right.
And there is a learning through the building, right? Yes. If you press a button and it’s done, right? Right. You didn’t learn.
John Weiss (38:17) That’s right. That’s exactly right.
Federico Ramallo (38:19) Yeah.
Yep. Exactly. So you miss the opportunity not only to learn how to build it, you miss the opportunity to validate and make corrections throughout the process. That’s right. I don’t remember where I saw this, but there is a video that talks about the IBM logo, right? Maybe it’s another company, but basically the…
the letters on the top are not aligned. have a pixel. You saw that? Yeah. Yeah. And, and you know, it’s those rabbit holes that, you know, the host got into that and figured out that, you know, he was able to interview the original designer, right? That he was explained that they did these drawings by hand and then they put a canvas on top of it, right?
John Weiss (38:52) Yes, I saw that.
Federico Ramallo (39:17) And then in that process, that pixel was kind of lost.
John Weiss (39:21) Wow.
That’s cool. I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that origin story. That’s interesting.
Federico Ramallo (39:26) And
yeah, because they put the drawing and then on top they would do, it’s probably canvas, it’s not the right word, but basically they will do a plastic model based on drawing. And then that will make it into another technique that I don’t remember to make it printable, scalable and things like that, right? Similar to Disney drawings, right? That you work on celluloid.
John Weiss (39:37) yeah, yeah.
Federico Ramallo (39:50) and then you put something like that, believe, right? But probably could be wrong. anyway, but basically because they were masking with physical tape, then, you know, they, they, they eat that pixel basically, right? And that rollover, you know, through years and years and generations to the, you know, a vector image of the logo on the official website, right?
So anyway, the reason I’m bringing this up is because we were able to build so many complex machines, right? But because we didn’t have a lot of the space to make mistakes, right? Then we had to make a very decisive, a very thorough design before we start building something, right?
And now those cycles becomes faster and faster. So now it’s more on the break things, move fast kind of thing. But without a vision, then that becomes an issue because you’re just running in circles, right? And you don’t see that coming. Throughout the years, I’ve been having more and more appreciation for the design work because I used to think, well, I make it work.
John Weiss (40:56) Alright.
Federico Ramallo (41:06) I don’t make it pretty because I’m a square engineer. And then the designer comes in and make it pretty, put colors and stuff. Which was a very simplistic and wrong vision of what the designer do, but that was what I thought about. And I’ve been having more and more appreciation because when you have the ⁓ engineer and designer working together, you can merge
the human aspect, can merge what is feasible to do together, with that we can create something amazing.
John Weiss (41:39) That’s right. Yeah. That’s right.
Federico Ramallo (41:42) And yeah, and I’ve seen Vibe coding, people are talking about Vibe coding as if it’s the great thing, which there is some value to it, right?
John Weiss (41:53) I agree. There’s definitely value to it.
Federico Ramallo (41:55) Yeah, I mean, if you’re non-technical and we’re trying to build something, it’s a great tool to show something. Absolutely. people are saying, well, now that we can vibe code, we don’t need engineers, which is not true because the agents cannot build abstractions. That’s right. So the code, it works, but if you want to make a small modification, it breaks everything. Or it breaks another part because it kind of
It loses the context that kind of understand the full scope of the problem. The code that it builds is not easy to modify and understand. For a software engineer to work on that, it was great prototype, let’s just build something real. But I think it’s a great tool to give to the product owners, to…
John Weiss (42:46) Yeah, that’s right.
Federico Ramallo (42:53) to be able to convey their ideas better, right? Or to validate something quickly without the dependencies, right?
John Weiss (42:59) I think you’re spot on, which is vibe coding is great to validate a prototype. Um, a hundred percent agree with you, but it, you know, it being a final thing that goes and lives in the real world, probably not going to happen. But I do love the fact that you can move to validate something pretty quick. You know, it’s just like what a 3D printer can do for you. If you’re making a physical product before you go to manufacturing and you pay a
ton of money and spend a ton of time and resources to manufacture a product, just 3D print it. The 3D printed thing is not going to be the final thing, but it’s a prototype. You print it, you put it on your desk, you see how it works, test it out a little bit, and you’re like, that 3D printed prototype got us there faster, and now we’re going to actually go manufacture it.
Federico Ramallo (43:46) Yes. And the 3D printing is getting better better and better. If you’re doing a small batch, you might be able to get away with not machining it. The use case for that is getting broader and broader. So I think something similar is going to happen with with vibe coding. It’s going to get better. It’s going to allow
you know, a little bit more expand the middle of the use cases. That’s The same with 3D printing, right? Yep. There is a video from Fortnain. He’s a Canadian motorcyclist that he builds a 3D motorcycle, a motorcycle using 3D printed components and talks about, you know, are they strong enough? You know, can I drive this?
right? Are these durable enough? Right. And he goes in detail about that. And basically he says, yes, up to a certain point, because you have to be very careful of how you put the layers together, depending on what you want to strength. So there are some cases where that could work, but if you’re going to do a go-kart to drive on the weekends, right? Or race in the weekends, then maybe there’s some parts you can do with repinting.
Right? Yeah. You know, but a solid steel bracket still going to bit it, right?
So it’s interesting how that goes. And as you mentioned, it’s giving the 3D printing the same as vibe coding. And I didn’t realize I was going to make a comparison with this, they allow a smaller batch of production to our people that don’t have all the experience because now it gets more into the DIY community.
You know, you can buy a 3D printer very cheap and start building stuff. So even if you don’t quite understand what you’re doing, you can start playing with it, right? I think that’s great. Yeah. More empowerment for other people. Yeah.
John Weiss (45:50) totally democratizes it, for sure.
Federico Ramallo (45:53) Yes, yes.
So we’re running out of time. It’s amazing. know, the time flies. But before we wrap it up first, wanted to thank you for joining us today. My pleasure. you. You want to show me last remarks before we wrap it up?
John Weiss (46:12) I really appreciate you having me on. I love what you’re doing. I think these interviews, I find it very helpful. It’s really cool to hear other people’s perspective. And the last thing I would say is I given the marketplace and AI and everything else, there’s a lot of angst maybe between people and services like what we do or you do. And I think it’s just always good reminder to know that we’re just in the AI era. We’ve had different eras before, whether it was…
computers to quantify itself to iPhone and smartphones and then social media. Now we have the AI era and it’s going to be interesting to see how it shakes out and where it kind of lands and how people react and create things that are meaningful. But ⁓ I really appreciate having me on.
Federico Ramallo (47:03) Yeah, yeah. Thank you for being here. mean, my last comment to what you said is I think that AI is coming and it’s changing how we do things for sure on a personal business, product building levels. But I believe that people that we’re going to need people with core competencies more.
in the age of AI, because AI can help you on the how, on the what you need to do, or it can help you on the mechanics, but you have to provide the vision. In order to provide the vision, you have to have the experience and having the core skills. So I think that our experiences, flying without those tools,
and now being able to use them is going to be much more valuable in the future.
John Weiss (47:50) Yeah, agreed. Totally agree.
Federico Ramallo (47:54) So John, thank you for joining us today.
John Weiss (47:55) Yeah, thank you. It’s pleasure. Really appreciate it.