Nate Jones's Linkedin Analytics

UX Playbook provides a thorough breakdown of feelings and implications of Duolingo’s recent shift from calling their design group ‘UX’ to ‘Product Experience’, stating that “this shift reignites an ongoing identity crisis in the design world.” “We gave the umbrella name 'UX' a shot. It never stuck. It didn't feel like us. It felt… antiquated,” reports Mig Reyes, VP of Product Experience at Duolingo. The reported primary concern is signaling a shift from a user-focused approach to a product-focused approach with the name. I understand the argument, but we have plenty of datapoints proving that simply adding “user” to a group name or title doesn’t magically center the user in practice. So, why would taking it out jettison the focus on users? It’s not an either-or proposition. A couple of additional thoughts: Context is important – I’ve taken to using Product Experience as a broader term that encompasses the user, buyer, and more. Duolingo is primarily a B2C company, so I suspect that’s why the buyer is not discussed. However, the buyer experience can’t be overlooked in B2B. I think the broader term is more broadly applicable. Identity crisis – Regarding the design world's identity crises, much more blame stems from the ubiquitous practice of combining UX and UI into a single term, UX/UI, than from any potential damage resulting from a product-aligned name. Perhaps the shift will help clarify the distinction between experience design and visual design disciplines. Give the article a read. What are your thoughts?

Use high school chemistry to prioritize your product backlog. The product idea intake process I typically see: Idea > Backlog Then, sometime later, a stressful and overly complex prioritization process attempts to create order from the wasteland of hopes and dreams. Adding in a few simple litmus tests will help cut through the noise. A litmus test, or acid test, is a conclusive test of value. Binary. In or out. Layering in funnels, or stage gates, based on the company and product vision and strategy, strengthens the intake process: Idea > Company Vision/Strategy Filter > Product Vision Filter > Product Strategy Filter > Idea Backlog (for validation) The 3 Litmus Tests: ➙ Company Vision/Strategy Test – Is it right for the company? ➙ Product Vision Test – Would it move the product toward the envisioned end state? ➙ Product Strategy Test – Is it appropriate right now? Is it a problem we’ve chosen to solve near term? A ‘no’ doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. It’s simply not appropriate for the company or product at this time. “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” –Michael Porter A couple of edge cases you may encounter: 🔸 Your vision and strategy aren’t specific enough to serve as a decision framework. It’s a topic for another day, but using this process to initiate a conversation about a better strategy is a great first step. 🔸 There is strong evidence that it's a compelling idea, and now you’re questioning the vision and strategy. Maybe that’s a pivot worth investigating. Using these basic litmus tests during idea intake will reduce backlog clutter and increase execution clarity.

Drowning in dashboards but still second-guessing your product decisions? You’re not the only one. I hear it from founders and product leads all the time: there's no shortage of data, but clarity? That’s a different story. Teams are buried in charts and metrics, but still unsure what to do next. The real trap? Chasing more data when what you actually need is sharper focus. Here’s how to cut through the noise and start turning data into action: 🔸 Pick 3-5 metrics – They don’t have to be the “right” ones, and definitely don’t get hung up on a mystical “North Star” metric. Select metrics you already have that are based on user actions and get as close to user value delivery as possible. 🔸 Dump the dashboards – Your dynamic, widget-laden, tab-infested dashboards must go, at least for now. Be laser-focused on the handful of selected metrics. Think low-tech, simple. 🔸 Tell the story – Don’t just review the numbers; interpret them. Try a weekly team ritual where you ask, “What changed this week, and why does it matter?” It’s not about reporting. It’s about making meaning. 🔸 Balance the numbers with real voices – Metrics show what happened. A customer quote or user frustration can reveal why. Make it a habit to bring one human insight into every discussion. The goal isn’t more data. It’s more clarity—so your team can make bolder, better calls. How do you filter the noise? What’s helped your team stay focused (or what’s still getting in the way)? I’d love to hear.

The comedian Jimmy Carr is an Agile expert. He doesn’t think it’s dead. During an episode of Diary of a CEO, Jimmy Carr commented that he is drawn to comedy and the stage because of the incredibly tight learning loops through direct contact with customers. “It’s an immediate feedback loop…The audience is a genius, they tell me what works.” To be honest, Jimmy never mentioned Agile, but… Jimmy said he does 300 shows a year. He’ll write 10 jokes today and test them on stage tomorrow. He can inspect and adapt what he’s creating every 1.2 days. Astonishing. It doesn’t matter ➥ how brilliant your idea is ➥ or how crisp your strategy is ➥ or how well-tuned your process is If you can’t regularly get product out the door. In Transformed, Marty Cagan discusses three dimensions of the product operating model: 🔸 How you decide which problems to solve (strategy) 🔸 How you solve problems (discovery) 🔸 How you build (delivery) Most work their way from the top down, trying to get the mission, vision, and strategy right first. It’s logical, right? Without learning cycles, the best strategy is useless. That’s why “transformation starts with changing how you build.” (p31) Get on stage, tell some jokes. You’ll learning something. In other words, build something small and put it out there. Can you get to learning cycles of 1.2 days, like Jimmy? What’s holding you back?