The classic adage is “good design speaks for itself.” Which would mean that if something’s as good of an idea as you think it is, a client will instantly see that it’s good too, right?

Here at Viget, we’re always working with new and different clients. Each with their own challenges and sensibilities. But after ten years of client work, I can’t help but notice a pattern emerge when we’re trying to get approval on especially cool, unconventional parts of a design.

So let’s break down some of those patterns to hopefully better understand why clients hesitate, and what strategies we’ve been using lately to help get the work we’re excited about approved.

Imagine this: the parallax homepage with elements that move around in surprising ways or a unique navigation menu that conceptually reinforces a site’s message. The way the content cards on a page will, like, be literal cards that will shuffle and move around. Basically, any design that feels like an exciting, novel challenge, will need the client to “get it.” And that often turns out to be the biggest challenge of all.

There are plenty of practical reasons cool designs get shot down. A client is usually more than one stakeholder, and more than the team of people you’re working with directly. On any project, there’s an amount of telephone you end up playing. Or, there’s always the classic foes: budgets and deadlines. Any idea should fit in those predetermined constraints. But as a project goes along, budgets and deadlines find a way to get tighter than you planned.

But innovative designs and interactions can seem especially scary for clients to approve. There’s three fears that often pop up on projects:

The fear of change. 

Maybe the client expected something simple, a light refresh. Something that doesn’t challenge their design expectations or require more time and effort to understand. And on our side, maybe we didn’t sufficiently ease them into our way of thinking and open them up to why we think something bigger and bolder is the right solution for them. Baby steps, y’all.

The fear of the unknown. 

Or, less dramatically, a lack of understanding of the medium. In the past, we have struggled with how to present an interactive, animated design to a client before it’s actually built. Looking at a site that does something conceptually similar as an example can be tough. It’s asking a lot of a client’s imagination to show them a site about boots that has a cool spinning animation and get meaningful feedback about how a spinning animation would work on their site about after-school tutoring. Or maybe we’ve created static designs, then talked around what we envision happening. Again, what seems so clear in our minds as professionals entrenched in this stuff every day can be tough for someone outside the tech world to clearly understand.

The fear of losing control. 

We’re all about learning from past mistakes. So lets say, after dealing with that fear of the unknown on a project, next time you go in the opposite direction. You invest time up front creating something polished. Maybe you even get the developer to build a prototype that moves and looks like the real thing. You’ve taken all the vague mystery out of the process, so a client will be thrilled, right? Surprise, probably not! Most clients are working with you because they want to conquer the noble quest that is their redesign together. When we jump straight to showing something that looks polished, even if it’s not really, it can feel like we jumped ahead without keeping them involved. Like we took away their input. They can also feel demotivated to give good, meaningful feedback on a polished prototype because it looks “done.”

So what to do? Lately we have found low-fidelity prototypes to be a great tool for combating these fears and better communicating our ideas.

What are low-fidelity prototypes?

Low fidelity prototypes are a tool that designers can create quickly to illustrate an idea, without sinking time into making it pixel-perfect. Some recent examples of prototypes we've created include a clickable Figma or Invision prototype put together with Whimsical wireframes:

A rough animation created in Principle illustrating less programatic animation:

And even creating an animated storyboard in Photoshop:

They’re rough enough that there’s no way they could be confused for a final product. But customized so that a client can immediately understand what they’re looking at and what they need to respond to. Low-fidelity prototypes hit a sweet spot that addresses those client fears head on.

That fear of change? A lo-fi prototype starts rough and small, so it can ease a client into a dramatic change without overwhelming them. It’s just a first step. It gives them time to react and warm up to something that’ll ultimately be a big change.

It also cuts out the fear of the unknown. Seeing something moving around, even if it’s rough, can be so much more clear than talking ourselves in circles about how we think it will move, and hoping the client can imagine it. The feature is no longer an enigma cloaked in mystery and big talk, but something tangible they can point at and ask concrete questions about.

And finally, a lo-fi prototype doesn’t threaten a client’s sense of control. Low-fidelity means it’s clearly still a work in progress! It’s just an early step in the creative process, and therefore communicates that we’re still in the middle of that process together. There’s still plenty of room for their ideas and feedback.

Lo-fi prototypes: client-tested, internal team-approved

There are a lot of reasons to love lo-fi prototypes internally, too!

They’re quick and easy. 

We can whip up multiple ideas within a few hours, without sinking the time into getting our hearts set on any one thing. In an agency setting especially, time is limited, so the faster we can get an idea out of our own heads, the better.

They’re great to share with developers. 

Ideally, the whole team is working together simultaneously, collaborating every step of the way. Realistically, a developer often doesn’t have time during a project’s early design phase. Lo-fi prototypes are concrete enough that a developer can quickly tell if building an idea will be within scope. It helps us catch impractical ideas early and helps us all collaborate to create something that’s both cool and feasible.

Stay tuned for posts in the near future diving into some of our favorite processes for creating lo-fi prototypes!

Viget has helped organizations design and develop award-winning websites and digital products for 20 years. In that time, we’ve been lucky to create long-term relationships with clients like Puma, the World Wildlife Fund, and Privia Health, and, throughout our time working together, we’ve come to understand each others’ unique terminology. But that isn’t always the case when we begin work with new clients, and in a constantly-evolving industry, we know that new terminology appears almost daily and organizations have unique definitions for deliverables and processes.

Kicking off a project always initiates a flurry of activity. There are contracts to sign, team members to introduce, and new platforms to learn. It’s an exciting time, and we know clients are anxious to get underway. Amidst all the activity, though, there is a need to define and create a shared lexicon to ensure both teams understand the project deliverables and process that will take us from kickoff to launch.

Below, we’ve rounded up a few terms for each of our disciplines that often require additional explanation. Note: our definitions of these terms may differ slightly from the industry standard, but highlight our interpretation and use of them on a daily basis.

User Experience

Research

In UX, there is a proliferation of terms that are often used interchangeably and mean almost-but-subtly-not the same thing. Viget uses the term research to specifically mean user research — learning more about the users of our products, particularly how they think and behave — in order to make stronger recommendations and better designs. This can be accomplished through different methodologies, depending on the needs of the project, and can include moderated usability testing, stakeholder interviews, audience research, surveys, and more. Learn more about the subtleties of UX research vocabulary in our post on “Speaking the Same Language About Research”.

Wireframes

We use wireframes to show the priority and organization of content on the screen, to give a sense of what elements will get a stronger visual treatment, and to detail how users will get to other parts of the site. Wireframes are a key component of website design — think of them as the skeleton or blueprint of a page — but we know that clients often feel uninspired after reviewing pages built with gray boxes. In fact, we’ve even written about how to improve wireframe presentations. We remind clients that visual designers will step in later to add polish through color, graphics, and typography, but agreeing on the foundation of the page is an important and necessary first step.

Prototypes

During the design process, it’s helpful for us to show clients how certain pieces of functionality or animations will work once the site is developed. We can mimic interactivity or test a technical proof of concept by using a clickable prototype, relying on tools like Figma, Invision, or Principle. Our prototypes can be used to illustrate a concept to internal stakeholders, but shouldn’t be seen as a final approach. Often, these concepts will require additional work to prepare them for developer handoff, which means that prototypes quickly become outdated. Read more about how and when we use prototypes.

Navigation Testing (Treejack Testing)

Following an information architecture presentation, we will sometimes recommend that clients conduct navigation testing. When testing, we present a participant with the proposed navigation and ask them to perform specific tasks in order to see if they will be able to locate the information specified within the site’s new organization. These tests generally focus on two aspects of the navigation: the structure of the navigation system itself, and the language used within the system. Treejack is an online navigation testing tool that we like to employ when conducting navigation tests, so we’ll often interchange the terms “navigation testing” with “treejack testing”.

Learn more about Viget’s approach to user experience and research. 

In my last post, I defined terms used by our UX team that are often confused or have multiple meanings across the industry. Today, I’ll share our definitions for processes and deliverables used by our design and strategy teams.

Creative

Brand Strategy

In our experience, we’ve found that the term brand strategy is used to cover a myriad of processes, documents, and deliverables. To us, a brand strategy defines how an organization communicates who they are, what they do and why in a clear and compelling way. Over the years, we’ve developed an approach to brand strategy work that emphasizes rigorous research, hands-on collaboration, and the definition of problems and goals. We work with clients to align on a brand strategy concept and, depending on the client and their goals, our final deliverables can range to include strategy definition, audience-specific messaging, identity details, brand elements, applications, and more. Take a look at the brand strategy work we’ve done for Fiscalnote, Swiftdine, and Armstrong Tire.

Content Strategy

A content strategy goes far beyond the words on a website or in an app. A strong content strategy dictates the substance, structure, and governance of the information an organization uses to communicate to its audience. It guides creating, organizing, and maintaining content so that companies can communicate who they are, what they do, and why efficiently and effectively. We’ve worked with organizations like the Washington Speakers Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, the NFL Players Association, and the Wildlife Conservation Society to refine and enhance their content strategies.

Still confused about the difference between brand and content strategy? Check out our flowchart.

Style Guide vs. Brand Guidelines

We often find the depth or fidelity of brand guidelines and style guides can vary greatly, and the terms can often be confused. When we create brand guidelines, they tend to be large documents that include in-depth recommendations about how a company should communicate their brand. Sections like “promise”, “vision”, “mission”, “values”, “tone”, etc. accompany details about how the brand’s logo, colors and fonts should be used in a variety of scenarios. Style guides, on the other hand, are typically pared down documents that contain specific guidance for organizations’ logos, colors and fonts, and don’t always include usage examples.

Design System

One question we get from clients often during a redesign or rebrand is, “How can I make sure people across my organization are adhering to our new designs?” This is where a design system comes into play. Design systems can range from the basic — e.g., a systematic approach to creating shared components for a single website — all the way to the complex —e.g., architecting a cross-product design system that can scale to accommodate hundreds of different products within a company. By assembling elements like color, typography, imagery, messaging, voice and tone, and interaction patterns in a central repository, organizations are able to scale products and marketing confidently and efficiently. When a design system is translated into code, we refer to that as a parts kit, which helps enforce consistency and improve workflow.

Comps or Mocks

When reviewing RFPs or going through the nitty-gritty of contracts with clients, we often see the terms mocks or comps used interchangeably to refer to the static design of pages or screens. Internally, we think of a mock-up as a static image file that illustrates proof-of-concept, just a step beyond a wireframe. A comp represents a design that is “high fidelity” and closer to what the final website will look like, though importantly, is not an exact replica. This is likely what clients will share with internal stakeholders to get approval on the website direction and what our front-end developers will use to begin building-out the site (in other words, converting the static design files into dynamic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code).

If you're interested in joining our team of creative thinkers and visual storytellers who bring these concepts to life for our clients, we’re hiring in Washington, D.C. Durham, Boulder and Chattanooga. Tune in next week as we decipher the terms we use most often when talking about development.

Video conference tools are an indispensable part of the Plague Times. Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and their compatriots are keeping us close and connected in a physically distanced world.

As tech-savvy folks with years of cross-office collaboration, we’ve laughed at the sketches and memes about vidconf mishaps. We practice good Zoomiquette, including muting ourselves when we’re not talking.

Yet even we can’t escape one vidconf pitfall. (There but for the grace of Zoom go I.) On nearly every vidconf, someone starts to talk, and then someone else says: “Oop, you’re muted.” And, inevitably: “Oop, you’re still muted.”

That’s right: we’re trying to follow Zoomiquette by muting, but then we forget or struggle to unmute when we do want to talk.

In this post, I’ll share my theories for why the You’re Muted Problems are so pervasive, using Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom as examples. Spoiler alert: While I hope this will help you be more mindful of the problem, I can’t offer a good solution. It still happens to me. All. The. Time.

Skip the why and go straight to the vidconf app keyboard shortcuts you should memorize right now.

Why we don't realize we’re muted before talking

Why does this keep happening?!?

Simply put: UX and design decisions make it harder to remember that you’re muted before you start to talk.

Here’s a common scenario: You haven’t talked for a bit, so you haven’t interacted with the Zoom screen for a few seconds. Then you start to talk — and that’s when someone tells you, “You’re muted.”

We forget so easily in these scenarios because when our mouse has been idle for a few seconds, the apps hide or downplay the UI elements that tell us we’re muted.

Zoom and Teams are the worst offenders:

• Zoom hides both the toolbar with the main in-app controls (the big mute button) and the mute status indicator on your video pane thumbnail.
• Teams hides the toolbar, and doesn't show a mute status indicator on your video thumbnail in the first place.

Meet is only slightly better:

• Meet hides the toolbar, and shows only a small mute status icon in your video thumbnail.

Even when our mouse is active, the apps’ subtle approach to muted state UI can make it easy to forget that we’re muted:

Teams is the worst offender:

• The mute button is an icon rather than words.
• The muted-state icon's styling could be confused with unmuted state: Teams does not follow the common pattern of using red to denote muted state.
• The mute button is not differentiated in visual hierarchy from all the other controls.
• As mentioned above, Teams never shows a secondary mute status indicator.

Zoom is a bit better, but still makes it pretty easy to forget that you’re muted:

• Pros:
  • Zoom is the only app to use words on the mute button, in this case to denote the button action (rather than the muted state).
  • The muted-state icon’s styling (red line) is less likely to be confused with the unmuted-state icon.
• Cons:
  • The mute button’s placement (bottom left corner of the page) is easy to overlook.
  • The mute button is not differentiated in visual hierarchy from the other toolbar buttons — and Zoom has a lot of toolbar buttons, especially when logged in as host.
  • The secondary mute status indicator is a small icon.
  • The mute button’s muted-state icon is styled slightly differently from the secondary mute status indicator.
• Potential Cons:
  • While words denote the button action, only an icon denotes the muted state.

Meet is probably the clearest of the three apps, but still has pitfalls:

• Pros:
  • The mute button is visually prominent in the UI: It’s clearly differentiated in the visual hierarchy relative to other controls (styled as a primary button); is a large button; and is placed closer to the center of the controls bar.
  • The muted-state icon’s styling (red fill) is less likely to be confused with the unmuted-state icon.
• Cons:
  • Uses only an icon rather than words to denote the muted state.
• Unrelated Con:
  • While the mute button is visually prominent, it’s also placed next to the hang-up button. So in Meet’s active state you might be less likely to forget you’re muted … but more likely to accidentally hang up when trying to unmute. 😬
    

I know modern app design leans toward minimalism. There’s often good rationale to use icons rather than words, or to de-emphasize controls and indicators when not in use.

But again: This happens on basically every call! Often multiple times per call!! And we’re supposed to be tech-savvy!!! Imagine what it’s like for the tens of millions of vidconf newbs.

I would argue that “knowing your muted state” has turned out to be a major vidconf user need. At this point, it’s certainly worth rethinking UX patterns for.

Why we keep unsuccessfully unmuting once we realize we’re muted

So we can blame the You’re Muted Problem on UX and design. But what causes the You’re Still Muted Problem? Once we know we’re muted, why do we sometimes fail to unmute before talking again?

This one is more complicated — and definitely more speculative. To start making sense of this scenario, here’s the sequence I’m guessing most commonly plays out (I did this a couple times before I became aware of it):

The crucial part is when the person tries to unmute by pressing the keyboard Volume On/Off key.

If that’s in fact what’s happening (again, this is just a hypothesis), I’m guessing they did that because when someone says “You’re muted” or “I can’t hear you,” our subconscious thought process is: “Oh, Audio is Off. Press the keyboard key that I usually press when I want to change Audio Off to Audio On.”

There are two traps in this reflexive thought process:

First, the keyboard volume keys control the speaker volume, not the microphone volume. (More specifically, they control the system sound output settings, rather than the system sound input settings or the vidconf app’s sound input settings.)

In fact, there isn’t a keyboard key to control the microphone volume. You can’t unmute your mic via a dedicated keyboard key, the way that you can turn the speaker volume on/off via a keyboard key while watching a movie or listening to music.

Second, I think we reflexively press the keyboard key anyway because our mental model of the keyboard audio keys is just: Audio. Not microphone vs. speaker.

This fuzzy mental model makes sense: There’s only one set of keyboard keys related to audio, so why would I think to distinguish between microphone and speaker? 

So my best guess is hardware design causes the You’re Still Muted Problem. After all, keyboard designs are from a pre-Zoom era, when the average person rarely used the computer’s microphone.

If that is the cause, one potential solution is for hardware manufacturers to start including dedicated keys to control microphone volume:

Video conference keyboard shortcuts you should memorize right now

Let me know if you have other theories for the You’re Still Muted Problem!

In the meantime, the best alternative is to learn all of the vidconf app keyboard shortcuts for muting/unmuting:

• Meet
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + D
  • Windows: Control + D
• Teams
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + Shift + M
  • Windows: Ctrl + Shift + M
• Zoom
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + Shift + A
  • Windows: Alt + A
  • Hold Spacebar: Temporarily unmute

Other vidconf apps not included in my analysis:

• Cisco Webex Meetings
  • Mac: Ctrl + Alt + M
  • Windows: Ctrl + Shift + M
• GoToMeeting
  • Mac: No keyboard shortcut?
  • Windows: Ctrl + Alt + A

Bonus protip from Jackson Fox: If you use multiple vidconf apps, pick a keyboard shortcut that you like and manually change each app’s mute/unmute shortcut to that. Then you only have to remember one shortcut!

The classic adage is “good design speaks for itself.” Which would mean that if something’s as good of an idea as you think it is, a client will instantly see that it’s good too, right?

Here at Viget, we’re always working with new and different clients. Each with their own challenges and sensibilities. But after ten years of client work, I can’t help but notice a pattern emerge when we’re trying to get approval on especially cool, unconventional parts of a design.

So let’s break down some of those patterns to hopefully better understand why clients hesitate, and what strategies we’ve been using lately to help get the work we’re excited about approved.

Imagine this: the parallax homepage with elements that move around in surprising ways or a unique navigation menu that conceptually reinforces a site’s message. The way the content cards on a page will, like, be literal cards that will shuffle and move around. Basically, any design that feels like an exciting, novel challenge, will need the client to “get it.” And that often turns out to be the biggest challenge of all.

There are plenty of practical reasons cool designs get shot down. A client is usually more than one stakeholder, and more than the team of people you’re working with directly. On any project, there’s an amount of telephone you end up playing. Or, there’s always the classic foes: budgets and deadlines. Any idea should fit in those predetermined constraints. But as a project goes along, budgets and deadlines find a way to get tighter than you planned.

But innovative designs and interactions can seem especially scary for clients to approve. There’s three fears that often pop up on projects:

The fear of change. 

Maybe the client expected something simple, a light refresh. Something that doesn’t challenge their design expectations or require more time and effort to understand. And on our side, maybe we didn’t sufficiently ease them into our way of thinking and open them up to why we think something bigger and bolder is the right solution for them. Baby steps, y’all.

The fear of the unknown. 

Or, less dramatically, a lack of understanding of the medium. In the past, we have struggled with how to present an interactive, animated design to a client before it’s actually built. Looking at a site that does something conceptually similar as an example can be tough. It’s asking a lot of a client’s imagination to show them a site about boots that has a cool spinning animation and get meaningful feedback about how a spinning animation would work on their site about after-school tutoring. Or maybe we’ve created static designs, then talked around what we envision happening. Again, what seems so clear in our minds as professionals entrenched in this stuff every day can be tough for someone outside the tech world to clearly understand.

The fear of losing control. 

We’re all about learning from past mistakes. So lets say, after dealing with that fear of the unknown on a project, next time you go in the opposite direction. You invest time up front creating something polished. Maybe you even get the developer to build a prototype that moves and looks like the real thing. You’ve taken all the vague mystery out of the process, so a client will be thrilled, right? Surprise, probably not! Most clients are working with you because they want to conquer the noble quest that is their redesign together. When we jump straight to showing something that looks polished, even if it’s not really, it can feel like we jumped ahead without keeping them involved. Like we took away their input. They can also feel demotivated to give good, meaningful feedback on a polished prototype because it looks “done.”

So what to do? Lately we have found low-fidelity prototypes to be a great tool for combating these fears and better communicating our ideas.

What are low-fidelity prototypes?

Low fidelity prototypes are a tool that designers can create quickly to illustrate an idea, without sinking time into making it pixel-perfect. Some recent examples of prototypes we've created include a clickable Figma or Invision prototype put together with Whimsical wireframes:

A rough animation created in Principle illustrating less programatic animation:

And even creating an animated storyboard in Photoshop:

They’re rough enough that there’s no way they could be confused for a final product. But customized so that a client can immediately understand what they’re looking at and what they need to respond to. Low-fidelity prototypes hit a sweet spot that addresses those client fears head on.

That fear of change? A lo-fi prototype starts rough and small, so it can ease a client into a dramatic change without overwhelming them. It’s just a first step. It gives them time to react and warm up to something that’ll ultimately be a big change.

It also cuts out the fear of the unknown. Seeing something moving around, even if it’s rough, can be so much more clear than talking ourselves in circles about how we think it will move, and hoping the client can imagine it. The feature is no longer an enigma cloaked in mystery and big talk, but something tangible they can point at and ask concrete questions about.

And finally, a lo-fi prototype doesn’t threaten a client’s sense of control. Low-fidelity means it’s clearly still a work in progress! It’s just an early step in the creative process, and therefore communicates that we’re still in the middle of that process together. There’s still plenty of room for their ideas and feedback.

Lo-fi prototypes: client-tested, internal team-approved

There are a lot of reasons to love lo-fi prototypes internally, too!

They’re quick and easy. 

We can whip up multiple ideas within a few hours, without sinking the time into getting our hearts set on any one thing. In an agency setting especially, time is limited, so the faster we can get an idea out of our own heads, the better.

They’re great to share with developers. 

Ideally, the whole team is working together simultaneously, collaborating every step of the way. Realistically, a developer often doesn’t have time during a project’s early design phase. Lo-fi prototypes are concrete enough that a developer can quickly tell if building an idea will be within scope. It helps us catch impractical ideas early and helps us all collaborate to create something that’s both cool and feasible.

Stay tuned for posts in the near future diving into some of our favorite processes for creating lo-fi prototypes!

Viget has helped organizations design and develop award-winning websites and digital products for 20 years. In that time, we’ve been lucky to create long-term relationships with clients like Puma, the World Wildlife Fund, and Privia Health, and, throughout our time working together, we’ve come to understand each others’ unique terminology. But that isn’t always the case when we begin work with new clients, and in a constantly-evolving industry, we know that new terminology appears almost daily and organizations have unique definitions for deliverables and processes.

Kicking off a project always initiates a flurry of activity. There are contracts to sign, team members to introduce, and new platforms to learn. It’s an exciting time, and we know clients are anxious to get underway. Amidst all the activity, though, there is a need to define and create a shared lexicon to ensure both teams understand the project deliverables and process that will take us from kickoff to launch.

Below, we’ve rounded up a few terms for each of our disciplines that often require additional explanation. Note: our definitions of these terms may differ slightly from the industry standard, but highlight our interpretation and use of them on a daily basis.

User Experience

Research

In UX, there is a proliferation of terms that are often used interchangeably and mean almost-but-subtly-not the same thing. Viget uses the term research to specifically mean user research — learning more about the users of our products, particularly how they think and behave — in order to make stronger recommendations and better designs. This can be accomplished through different methodologies, depending on the needs of the project, and can include moderated usability testing, stakeholder interviews, audience research, surveys, and more. Learn more about the subtleties of UX research vocabulary in our post on “Speaking the Same Language About Research”.

Wireframes

We use wireframes to show the priority and organization of content on the screen, to give a sense of what elements will get a stronger visual treatment, and to detail how users will get to other parts of the site. Wireframes are a key component of website design — think of them as the skeleton or blueprint of a page — but we know that clients often feel uninspired after reviewing pages built with gray boxes. In fact, we’ve even written about how to improve wireframe presentations. We remind clients that visual designers will step in later to add polish through color, graphics, and typography, but agreeing on the foundation of the page is an important and necessary first step.

Prototypes

During the design process, it’s helpful for us to show clients how certain pieces of functionality or animations will work once the site is developed. We can mimic interactivity or test a technical proof of concept by using a clickable prototype, relying on tools like Figma, Invision, or Principle. Our prototypes can be used to illustrate a concept to internal stakeholders, but shouldn’t be seen as a final approach. Often, these concepts will require additional work to prepare them for developer handoff, which means that prototypes quickly become outdated. Read more about how and when we use prototypes.

Navigation Testing (Treejack Testing)

Following an information architecture presentation, we will sometimes recommend that clients conduct navigation testing. When testing, we present a participant with the proposed navigation and ask them to perform specific tasks in order to see if they will be able to locate the information specified within the site’s new organization. These tests generally focus on two aspects of the navigation: the structure of the navigation system itself, and the language used within the system. Treejack is an online navigation testing tool that we like to employ when conducting navigation tests, so we’ll often interchange the terms “navigation testing” with “treejack testing”.

Learn more about Viget’s approach to user experience and research. 

In my last post, I defined terms used by our UX team that are often confused or have multiple meanings across the industry. Today, I’ll share our definitions for processes and deliverables used by our design and strategy teams.

Creative

Brand Strategy

In our experience, we’ve found that the term brand strategy is used to cover a myriad of processes, documents, and deliverables. To us, a brand strategy defines how an organization communicates who they are, what they do and why in a clear and compelling way. Over the years, we’ve developed an approach to brand strategy work that emphasizes rigorous research, hands-on collaboration, and the definition of problems and goals. We work with clients to align on a brand strategy concept and, depending on the client and their goals, our final deliverables can range to include strategy definition, audience-specific messaging, identity details, brand elements, applications, and more. Take a look at the brand strategy work we’ve done for Fiscalnote, Swiftdine, and Armstrong Tire.

Content Strategy

A content strategy goes far beyond the words on a website or in an app. A strong content strategy dictates the substance, structure, and governance of the information an organization uses to communicate to its audience. It guides creating, organizing, and maintaining content so that companies can communicate who they are, what they do, and why efficiently and effectively. We’ve worked with organizations like the Washington Speakers Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, the NFL Players Association, and the Wildlife Conservation Society to refine and enhance their content strategies.

Still confused about the difference between brand and content strategy? Check out our flowchart.

Style Guide vs. Brand Guidelines

We often find the depth or fidelity of brand guidelines and style guides can vary greatly, and the terms can often be confused. When we create brand guidelines, they tend to be large documents that include in-depth recommendations about how a company should communicate their brand. Sections like “promise”, “vision”, “mission”, “values”, “tone”, etc. accompany details about how the brand’s logo, colors and fonts should be used in a variety of scenarios. Style guides, on the other hand, are typically pared down documents that contain specific guidance for organizations’ logos, colors and fonts, and don’t always include usage examples.

Design System

One question we get from clients often during a redesign or rebrand is, “How can I make sure people across my organization are adhering to our new designs?” This is where a design system comes into play. Design systems can range from the basic — e.g., a systematic approach to creating shared components for a single website — all the way to the complex —e.g., architecting a cross-product design system that can scale to accommodate hundreds of different products within a company. By assembling elements like color, typography, imagery, messaging, voice and tone, and interaction patterns in a central repository, organizations are able to scale products and marketing confidently and efficiently. When a design system is translated into code, we refer to that as a parts kit, which helps enforce consistency and improve workflow.

Comps or Mocks

When reviewing RFPs or going through the nitty-gritty of contracts with clients, we often see the terms mocks or comps used interchangeably to refer to the static design of pages or screens. Internally, we think of a mock-up as a static image file that illustrates proof-of-concept, just a step beyond a wireframe. A comp represents a design that is “high fidelity” and closer to what the final website will look like, though importantly, is not an exact replica. This is likely what clients will share with internal stakeholders to get approval on the website direction and what our front-end developers will use to begin building-out the site (in other words, converting the static design files into dynamic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code).

If you're interested in joining our team of creative thinkers and visual storytellers who bring these concepts to life for our clients, we’re hiring in Washington, D.C. Durham, Boulder and Chattanooga. Tune in next week as we decipher the terms we use most often when talking about development.

Video conference tools are an indispensable part of the Plague Times. Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and their compatriots are keeping us close and connected in a physically distanced world.

As tech-savvy folks with years of cross-office collaboration, we’ve laughed at the sketches and memes about vidconf mishaps. We practice good Zoomiquette, including muting ourselves when we’re not talking.

Yet even we can’t escape one vidconf pitfall. (There but for the grace of Zoom go I.) On nearly every vidconf, someone starts to talk, and then someone else says: “Oop, you’re muted.” And, inevitably: “Oop, you’re still muted.”

That’s right: we’re trying to follow Zoomiquette by muting, but then we forget or struggle to unmute when we do want to talk.

In this post, I’ll share my theories for why the You’re Muted Problems are so pervasive, using Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom as examples. Spoiler alert: While I hope this will help you be more mindful of the problem, I can’t offer a good solution. It still happens to me. All. The. Time.

Skip the why and go straight to the vidconf app keyboard shortcuts you should memorize right now.

Why we don't realize we’re muted before talking

Why does this keep happening?!?

Simply put: UX and design decisions make it harder to remember that you’re muted before you start to talk.

Here’s a common scenario: You haven’t talked for a bit, so you haven’t interacted with the Zoom screen for a few seconds. Then you start to talk — and that’s when someone tells you, “You’re muted.”

We forget so easily in these scenarios because when our mouse has been idle for a few seconds, the apps hide or downplay the UI elements that tell us we’re muted.

Zoom and Teams are the worst offenders:

• Zoom hides both the toolbar with the main in-app controls (the big mute button) and the mute status indicator on your video pane thumbnail.
• Teams hides the toolbar, and doesn't show a mute status indicator on your video thumbnail in the first place.

Meet is only slightly better:

• Meet hides the toolbar, and shows only a small mute status icon in your video thumbnail.

Even when our mouse is active, the apps’ subtle approach to muted state UI can make it easy to forget that we’re muted:

Teams is the worst offender:

• The mute button is an icon rather than words.
• The muted-state icon's styling could be confused with unmuted state: Teams does not follow the common pattern of using red to denote muted state.
• The mute button is not differentiated in visual hierarchy from all the other controls.
• As mentioned above, Teams never shows a secondary mute status indicator.

Zoom is a bit better, but still makes it pretty easy to forget that you’re muted:

• Pros:
  • Zoom is the only app to use words on the mute button, in this case to denote the button action (rather than the muted state).
  • The muted-state icon’s styling (red line) is less likely to be confused with the unmuted-state icon.
• Cons:
  • The mute button’s placement (bottom left corner of the page) is easy to overlook.
  • The mute button is not differentiated in visual hierarchy from the other toolbar buttons — and Zoom has a lot of toolbar buttons, especially when logged in as host.
  • The secondary mute status indicator is a small icon.
  • The mute button’s muted-state icon is styled slightly differently from the secondary mute status indicator.
• Potential Cons:
  • While words denote the button action, only an icon denotes the muted state.

Meet is probably the clearest of the three apps, but still has pitfalls:

• Pros:
  • The mute button is visually prominent in the UI: It’s clearly differentiated in the visual hierarchy relative to other controls (styled as a primary button); is a large button; and is placed closer to the center of the controls bar.
  • The muted-state icon’s styling (red fill) is less likely to be confused with the unmuted-state icon.
• Cons:
  • Uses only an icon rather than words to denote the muted state.
• Unrelated Con:
  • While the mute button is visually prominent, it’s also placed next to the hang-up button. So in Meet’s active state you might be less likely to forget you’re muted … but more likely to accidentally hang up when trying to unmute. 😬
    

I know modern app design leans toward minimalism. There’s often good rationale to use icons rather than words, or to de-emphasize controls and indicators when not in use.

But again: This happens on basically every call! Often multiple times per call!! And we’re supposed to be tech-savvy!!! Imagine what it’s like for the tens of millions of vidconf newbs.

I would argue that “knowing your muted state” has turned out to be a major vidconf user need. At this point, it’s certainly worth rethinking UX patterns for.

Why we keep unsuccessfully unmuting once we realize we’re muted

So we can blame the You’re Muted Problem on UX and design. But what causes the You’re Still Muted Problem? Once we know we’re muted, why do we sometimes fail to unmute before talking again?

This one is more complicated — and definitely more speculative. To start making sense of this scenario, here’s the sequence I’m guessing most commonly plays out (I did this a couple times before I became aware of it):

The crucial part is when the person tries to unmute by pressing the keyboard Volume On/Off key.

If that’s in fact what’s happening (again, this is just a hypothesis), I’m guessing they did that because when someone says “You’re muted” or “I can’t hear you,” our subconscious thought process is: “Oh, Audio is Off. Press the keyboard key that I usually press when I want to change Audio Off to Audio On.”

There are two traps in this reflexive thought process:

First, the keyboard volume keys control the speaker volume, not the microphone volume. (More specifically, they control the system sound output settings, rather than the system sound input settings or the vidconf app’s sound input settings.)

In fact, there isn’t a keyboard key to control the microphone volume. You can’t unmute your mic via a dedicated keyboard key, the way that you can turn the speaker volume on/off via a keyboard key while watching a movie or listening to music.

Second, I think we reflexively press the keyboard key anyway because our mental model of the keyboard audio keys is just: Audio. Not microphone vs. speaker.

This fuzzy mental model makes sense: There’s only one set of keyboard keys related to audio, so why would I think to distinguish between microphone and speaker? 

So my best guess is hardware design causes the You’re Still Muted Problem. After all, keyboard designs are from a pre-Zoom era, when the average person rarely used the computer’s microphone.

If that is the cause, one potential solution is for hardware manufacturers to start including dedicated keys to control microphone volume:

Video conference keyboard shortcuts you should memorize right now

Let me know if you have other theories for the You’re Still Muted Problem!

In the meantime, the best alternative is to learn all of the vidconf app keyboard shortcuts for muting/unmuting:

• Meet
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + D
  • Windows: Control + D
• Teams
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + Shift + M
  • Windows: Ctrl + Shift + M
• Zoom
  • Mac: Command(⌘) + Shift + A
  • Windows: Alt + A
  • Hold Spacebar: Temporarily unmute

Other vidconf apps not included in my analysis:

• Cisco Webex Meetings
  • Mac: Ctrl + Alt + M
  • Windows: Ctrl + Shift + M
• GoToMeeting
  • Mac: No keyboard shortcut?
  • Windows: Ctrl + Alt + A

Bonus protip from Jackson Fox: If you use multiple vidconf apps, pick a keyboard shortcut that you like and manually change each app’s mute/unmute shortcut to that. Then you only have to remember one shortcut!