A simple test for whether an AI product is actually agentic, or just an old workflow with AI in the margins.

Every AI product wants to call itself agentic now.

Most of them are not.

They are regular products with a chat box. Or regular products with autofill. Or regular products where the user still clicks through the same old sequence while an AI sits nearby narrating what is happening.

That can still be useful. I am not against assistance. Autofill is useful. Suggestions are useful. A good copilot can make a bad workflow less painful.

But that is not the same thing as an agent.

## The Short Version

The test is simple:

Who is doing the work?

Walk through the flow step by step. At each moment, ask whether the human is operating the system or whether the system is doing the work and bringing the human back in for judgment.

• If the human is typing, comparing, hunting, choosing, uploading, confirming, and correcting while the AI makes suggestions in the margins, you have designed an assistive experience.
• If the AI has already done meaningful work before the human arrives, presents a prepared result, explains what matters, and asks the human to make a small number of real decisions, you are closer to an agentic one.

That distinction sounds obvious until you look at actual product work.

Most AI design still follows the same pattern:

1. Ask the user a bunch of questions.
2. Let AI parse or summarize some of the answers.
3. Show progress while the user keeps moving through the old flow.
4. Generate a recommendation.
5. Ask the user to approve it.

The screen changed.

The labor did not.

The person is still the operator. The AI is just riding along.

The Old Model: Human Works, AI Assists

The old model is familiar because almost every digital product has trained us into it.

The user starts. The user explains what they want. The user moves through the steps. The system may help, but the user remains responsible for driving.

In an AI-assisted version of that model, the product gets smarter around the edges.

In practice, that looks like:

• The form suggests answers.
• The chat interface explains the next step.
• The document parser extracts fields.
• The product says, “I found this for you.”
• Then it hands the person another task.

Better than nothing. Still not agentic.

The tell is task density.

If the product is handing the user a sequence of tasks, the user is still doing the work.

That task pile usually sounds reasonable one step at a time:

• Upload this.
• Review that.
• Compare these.
• Fix this field.
• Choose from this list.
• Read this explanation.
• Confirm this section.
• Move to the next step.

You can make that flow friendlier. You can make it faster. You can use AI to reduce the pain. But the underlying relationship has not changed.

The human is the worker.

The AI is the helper.

That is the model most teams are still designing, even when the roadmap says “agentic.”

If the user still has to drive every step, the product is assisting. It is not yet acting.

The New Model: AI Works, Human Judges

An agentic experience inverts the relationship.

The AI does the work. The human judges it.

That does not mean the AI acts without permission. It does not mean the human disappears. It means the human’s role changes from operator to reviewer, supervisor, approver, or editor.

The product should not open on an empty state asking, “How can I help?”

It should open with evidence that work has already happened.

• Here is the draft.
• Here is what I found.
• Here are the two things I need from you.
• Here is the decision that actually matters.

That is a different product posture.

An assistant gives you a to-do list. An agent brings you a decision.

That sentence is the whole thing.

If your product takes a complex job and turns it into seven slightly easier tasks, it is assisting.

If your product takes a complex job and turns it into one or two meaningful judgments, it is starting to act like an agent.

Bring Decisions, Not Tasks

Most product teams underestimate how much work they are still pushing onto the user because each individual step feels reasonable.

• One upload is reasonable.
• One confirmation is reasonable.
• One educational screen is reasonable.
• One checklist is reasonable.

Then you string them together and suddenly the product that was supposed to feel intelligent still feels like paperwork.

The user’s experience is not “AI helped me.”

It is “I did a lot of work while AI watched.”

The better version is decision-dense and task-sparse.

For example, imagine a financial product that helps someone complete a complicated annual obligation.

The assistive version:

• Asks questions.
• Collects documents.
• Explains progress.
• Fills fields.
• Shows a running estimate.
• Eventually asks the person to review the output.

Again: useful. Also familiar.

The agentic version starts somewhere else.

The agentic version:

• Opens with a prepared draft based on what the system already knows.
• Says what it could verify.
• Says what it could not verify.
• Names the assumptions it made.
• Collapses the settled parts.
• Brings forward the two decisions only the person can make.

Not “complete these seven sections.”

“I prepared this. These two choices change the outcome. Here is the tradeoff. Which one is true?”

That is the shift.

The product is no longer asking the person to assemble the answer. It is asking the person to judge the answer.

The Dangerous Part: Approval Is Not Oversight

This is where the argument gets less comfortable.

Moving work from the human to the AI is powerful. It is also risky.

Because if the human’s new job is approval, then the quality of that approval becomes the whole product.

A bad agentic experience is not one where the AI acts. It is one where the AI acts, the product shows a confident recommendation, and the human clicks approve because that is the easiest path.

That is not oversight.

That is a rubber stamp.

Designers love reducing friction. Usually, that instinct is right. Friction is often where products hide organizational complexity and call it user responsibility.

But in agent-led experiences, some friction is load-bearing.

Use friction by risk:

• Reversible action: let the agent move fast. Give the person a clean undo. Do not bury them in consent screens for low-risk work.
• Consequential action: ask for real judgment. Show what changed. Show what the system assumed. Make the person choose between meaningful options instead of tapping a glowing “looks good” button.
• Irreversible action: the consent gate has to be real.

Money moved. A legal filing submitted. A message sent to a third party. A credit pull. A public action. Anything where undo is a fantasy.

For those moments, speed is not the point.

The point is scoped authorization: this action, this amount, this account, this window, this consequence.

The trick is not to add more friction everywhere. That just trains people to click through it.

The trick is to spend friction precisely.

Trust Is Not the UI. Trust Is the Behavior.

A lot of “trust UI” is theater.

You have seen the pattern:

• Explainability panels.
• Consent stacks.
• Audit logs nobody opens.
• Little badges that say the system is responsible.

Some of those surfaces are necessary. Many are there because they make the team feel better, not because they help the user make a better decision.

Trust is not a screen.

Trust is a behavior.

The real questions are:

• Does the person rely on the system when it is right?
• Do they catch it when it is wrong?

That is the calibration problem.

The risk is not only that people will under-trust AI and abandon useful help. The risk is also that they will over-trust it, especially when the system sounds confident, gives a fluent explanation, and presents a clean next button.

In normal software, over-trust is bad.

In agentic software, over-trust is existential.

Because the human’s whole job has been compressed into judgment.

If judgment decays into reflex, the product has removed the human while pretending to keep them.

Chat Is Usually a Symptom

Chat has a place. It is useful when the user has a specific question, wants to explore a scenario, or needs to correct the system’s understanding.

But chat should not be the default interface for most agentic products.

A blank prompt box pushes initiation back onto the human. It asks the person to know what to ask, how to ask it, and what good output should look like.

That is the old model again.

The product is saying, “Tell me what to do.”

An agentic product should be more opinionated than that.

It should know enough to start.

It should prepare something.

It should bring back one of these:

• A result.
• A plan.
• A proposal.
• A draft.
• A comparison.
• A queue.
• A decision.

Then chat can be the escape hatch.

Not the front door.

The Practical Rubric

When I look at an AI product now, I start with this rubric:

1. Who is doing the work, the human or the AI?
2. Is the human being handed tasks or decisions?
3. Does the product open on a blank prompt or on prepared work?
4. What does the system know, and what is it pretending to know?
5. Where does the human’s judgment actually matter?
6. Could the human catch the AI if it were wrong?
7. Which actions are reversible, consequential, or irreversible?
8. Is consent scaled to the cost of being wrong?
9. Is chat the default because it is right, or because the product has not figured out the workflow?
10. If the agent fails, does the product degrade gracefully or dump the user into a mess?

The first question usually exposes the rest.

If the user is still doing the work, stop calling it agentic.

Call it assisted. Then make the assistance excellent.

If the agent is doing the work, the design problem changes. Now you are designing judgment, supervision, accountability, recovery, and proof.

That is harder than adding AI to a workflow.

It is also the actual work.

What Designers Should Be Doing Now

The next generation of AI product design will not be won by whoever adds the most chat surfaces.

It will be won by teams that can model work clearly.

That means asking sharper questions:

• What has to be done?
• What can the system do ahead of time?
• What should never be automated?
• Where does the human have unique judgment?
• Where is the human just being used as a liability sponge?
• What proof should the agent bring back?
• What should happen when it is wrong?

These are design questions. Not just technical ones.

The interface is the visible part, but the real design object is the relationship between work, judgment, and accountability.

That is why “who’s doing the work?” is such a useful question. It cuts through the demo polish. It gets underneath the chat box, the sparkle icon, the generated summary, the onboarding copy, and the hand-wavy roadmap language.

It tells you what kind of product you are actually making.

If the human is doing the work and AI is helping, design a great assistant.

If the AI is doing the work and the human is approving, design a real supervision system.

Do not confuse the two.

That confusion is where most agentic products will fail.

Not because the AI cannot do anything.

Because the product never decided what the human was still there to do.

I first learned the power of style studies at Cooper, the design consultancy founded by Alan Cooper and known for pioneering human-centered design and Goal-Directed Design. At Cooper, structured visual exploration was a key part of the process — one that shaped the way I approach design today. Since then, through my time at Fitbit, Zillow, and Patreon, style studies have remained at the core of my work. They don’t just turn abstract ideas into cohesive, visually compelling solutions — they help align teams around a shared vision, transforming scattered concepts into a unified design language.

Style studies have long been a core practice in design consultancies — including Cooper’s own. And for good reason: they provide a systematic way to translate brand and product goals into tangible design language.

(New to Experience Workshops or need a refresher? Check out my previous Medium article: How to Run Experience Workshops That Actually Align Teams.)

Step One: Laying the Groundwork with Experience Workshops

A strong visual language starts with clear alignment on how a product should feel. Experience Workshops help teams get on the same page by bringing together designers, stakeholders, and product managers to evaluate images, words, and concepts. The goal? To pinpoint key experience attributes like trustworthy, playful, or modern.

This process takes broad brand and user goals and turns them into something more concrete — guidelines that will drive the visual language moving forward.

Step Two: Exploring Aesthetics Through Style Studies

Once the Experience Workshop sets the foundation, it’s time to explore how that vision translates into actual design elements. This is where style studies come in. They typically focus on:

• Color Palettes — Setting the emotional tone and reinforcing brand identity.

• Typography — Defining personality and readability.

• Iconography & UI Elements — Creating consistency across the experience.

• Imagery & Graphic Treatments — Enhancing storytelling and brand cohesion.

• Texture & Spatial Relationships — Establishing hierarchy and balance.

At this stage, it’s important to keep interaction details out of the equation. The goal is to focus purely on emotional and visual responses without getting caught up in how elements behave.

Example Style Studies: Crafting a Distinct Visual Identity for NPFL

When Cooper worked with the National Pro Fitness League (NPFL), the goal was to develop a bold and dynamic visual identity that matched the league’s high-intensity, team-based fitness competitions. To achieve this, the design team leveraged style studies — a structured exploration of multiple aesthetic directions based on key experience attributes.

By grounding the visual exploration in speed, strength, and strategy, the team ensured that the final design not only reflected the athleticism of the sport but also resonated with both competitors and spectators. Below are some of the style studies created for NPFL, showcasing different ways to express these attributes through color, typography, imagery, and layout.

The Minimalist & Modern approach embraces a sleek, structured aesthetic with clean typography and open layouts. The neutral color palette keeps the interface refined, allowing key data and interactions to stand out without unnecessary visual noise. Geometric shapes and precise grids bring a sense of order and usability, making the interface feel sophisticated and highly functional. This direction conveys a sense of professionalism and clarity, perfect for a league that wants to establish itself as a well-oiled, strategic competition.

In contrast, the Playful & Vibrant style study brings high-energy engagement to the forefront. Bright, saturated colors inject excitement, while expressive typography and layered visuals create a sense of movement and dynamism. The design elements makes the experience feel interactive and immersive, evoking the intensity and exhilaration of fast-paced team-based fitness competition. This direction emphasizes the adrenaline and passion that define NPFL’s brand.

The Human & Professional study takes a more grounded approach, focusing on trust, credibility, and structured design. Muted tones and classic typography give the interface a sense of reliability, while well-organized layouts ensure clarity and ease of use. Athlete imagery plays a more central role, reinforcing a personal connection between the competitors and the audience. This direction highlights effort, teamwork, and expertise, creating a balance between professional sports branding and an athlete-focused experience.

The Bold & Expressive style study pushes the limits of high-impact design with dramatic typography, striking contrast, and large imagery. Diagonal cuts and layered elements create a sense of movement and intensity, reinforcing the raw power and energy behind the sport. A blend of sharp, crisp lines with textured details makes the interface feel dynamic and unmistakable, crafting a strong, differentiated brand presence that demands attention.

Presenting multiple options helps teams make more informed design decisions and align on a direction that serves both business and user needs.

Why Style Studies Matter

From my experience, style studies are essential because they:

✅ Allow teams to explore multiple aesthetic directions before committing.

✅ Create early alignment, reducing unnecessary iterations later.

✅ Surface potential visual conflicts before they become costly problems.

✅ Strengthen brand consistency across products.

Best Practices for Effective Style Studies

Want to get the most out of style studies? Here are some key principles to keep in mind:

• Always check your work against the agreed-upon experience attributes.

• Gather diverse stakeholder feedback to get a holistic perspective.

• Keep it focused — three to five distinct visual directions is ideal.

• Iterate quickly based on what resonates (and what doesn’t).

What to Avoid

Some common pitfalls that can derail the process:

🚨 Locking into a single direction too soon — Exploration is key in this phase.

🚨 Chasing trends over authenticity — Visual choices should align with user needs and strategy, not just what’s trendy.

🚨 Mixing visual and interaction design too early — Keep the focus on aesthetics first.

The Takeaway

When done well, style studies don’t just make products look good — they create a cohesive, scalable design system that enhances brand consistency, user experience, and product differentiation. They take abstract ideas and turn them into a strategic visual language that resonates with both users and stakeholders.

In short? They’re an essential step in crafting designs that don’t just work — but feel right.

In this guide, I’ll walk you through how to plan, facilitate, and make the most of an Experience Workshop, ensuring that your team walks away with clarity, alignment, and momentum. Whether you’re a designer, product manager, or engineer, this framework will help you translate vision into reality.

Why Experience Workshops Matter

Design is about more than just function — it’s about how an experience makes users feel. But that’s often the hardest thing to define.

While research and data tell us what to build, Experience Workshops clarify how it should feel. They give teams a structured way to articulate, visualize, and align on the emotional and sensory qualities of a product.

The Key Benefits

✅ Shared Language: Teams replace vague terms like “fun” or “modern” with concrete, designable attributes.
✅ Better Buy-In: When people contribute to shaping the vision, they’re more invested in executing it.
✅ Cross-Functional Alignment: Designers, engineers, and product managers get on the same page — reducing back-and-forth later.
✅ Smoother Approvals: When stakeholders can see and feel the design direction, decision-making gets easier.

How to Run an Experience Workshop

A well-run workshop is structured but flexible — designed to encourage discussion while keeping everyone focused.

1. Prepping for Success

Materials You’ll Need:

• A large whiteboard or blank wall
• Sticky notes, markers, and pens
• A set of images (screenshots, magazine clippings, mood boards)
• Voting stickers or dots
• A camera or phone to capture results

Room Setup:

• Clear wall space for an Experience Canvas
• Open seating for movement and collaboration
• A well-lit space where people can step back and take it all in

Pro Tip: A great workshop starts with the right environment — one that sparks creative thinking and open discussion.

2. Running the Workshop

Step 1: The Experience Canvas

Start with a blank Experience Canvas — a two-axis chart with opposing attributes (e.g., simple ↔ complex, playful ↔ serious). This visual framework helps map out where the product experience should land.

Step 2: Image Selection

• Lay out a diverse mix of images representing different potential moods and aesthetics.
• Ask participants to select images that feel “right” (or “wrong”) for the experience you’re aiming to create.

Step 3: Voting & Discussion

• Participants use stickers or dots to vote on images that best capture the intended experience.
• Discuss the choices — what emotions do these images evoke? Which themes emerge?

What You’re Looking For: Recurring words like bold, welcoming, modern, trustworthy — these will guide your design direction.

Step 4: Synthesizing Insights

• Group similar themes and call out contradictions (e.g., friendly vs. authoritative).
• Capture key takeaways in a shared document — these will serve as a north star for your design process.

Turning Workshop Insights into Action

Workshops are only valuable if their insights translate into tangible design decisions. Here’s how to make that happen:

1. Define Experience Attributes

🔹 Review the strongest keywords — these become your core design principles.
🔹 Group related terms (e.g., friendly + approachable = welcoming).
🔹 Ensure alignment with brand and user research.

2. Bring It to Life Visually

• Color Palette: Does friendly mean warm tones? Does bold mean high contrast?
• Typography Choices: Serif fonts often feel traditional; sans-serif tends to feel modern and clean.
• Layout & UI Elements: Should the experience feel minimal and structured or dynamic and expressive?

Common Pitfalls — and How to Avoid Them

🚧 Dominant Voices Taking Over → Have participants write down votes before discussion starts.

🚧 Quiet Participants Not Engaging → Use multiple ways to contribute (spoken, written, visual).

🚧 Diverging Opinions Creating Friction → Align the discussion back to user needs and brand goals.

🚧 Lack of Follow-Through → Document the workshop clearly, and assign action items immediately.

Final Thoughts

A well-run Experience Workshop doesn’t just generate ideas — it creates alignment and momentum. When teams actively shape the product’s emotional tone together, execution becomes clearer, decisions happen faster, and the end result resonates more with users.

Key Takeaways:
✅ Structure the workshop to engage all participants.
✅ Use visuals to articulate abstract experience goals.
✅ Document everything — workshops are only valuable if they inform real decisions.

Have you tried running an Experience Workshop? Share your insights and lessons learned in the comments — I’d love to hear your take!

Enjoyed this article?

If this was helpful, clap, share, or drop a comment. Let’s keep the conversation going on how to build products that don’t just function — but feel right.

Creating a cohesive visual language is one of the most challenging yet rewarding aspects of product design. Whether triggered by a rebrand, technological updates, or the need to modernize a stale interface, developing a new visual language requires careful planning, collaboration, and a deep understanding of both user needs and business goals.

Understanding the Foundation

When embarking on the journey to develop a new visual language, the primary objective is often to bridge the gap between product experience and brand identity. This connection serves as the cornerstone for all subsequent design decisions and helps ensure consistency across all touchpoints.

Several factors might catalyze the need for a new visual language:

• A company-wide rebranding initiative
• Outdated product interfaces requiring modernization
• Technical stack updates presenting opportunities for visual refresh
• Shifts toward mobile-first paradigms necessitating design reimagining

The Collaborative Approach

The success of any visual language development relies heavily on early and consistent collaboration. The key is to be open and transparent from the start, bringing in product designers and engineering teams during the initial stages. This inclusive approach ensures that all stakeholders have a voice in the process.

The workshop and style studies methodology I’ll describe next comes from my time at Cooper and is detailed in Alan Cooper’s “About Face 4: The Essentials of Interaction Design.” This proven approach has been successfully used by design teams worldwide to create cohesive visual languages.

Here’s how to structure the collaborative process:

Initial Workshops

Begin with design sessions and whiteboarding exercises where team members can freely share ideas. These sessions are particularly valuable for:

• Capturing diverse perspectives from different team members
• Allowing designers to concept and explore different directions
• Creating alignment between brand leadership and product design teams
• Establishing regular check-ins and review processes

Visual Language Attributes

Through workshops, teams can develop what I call “visual language attributes” — the backbone of how we discuss and implement the visual language. These workshops typically involve:

• Displaying visual references on boards or in FigJam
• Having team members identify elements that do and don’t align with the desired direction
• Encouraging participation from engineers and leaders who might not have formal design training
• Synthesizing feedback into concrete attributes that guide future development

Pushing Boundaries in Style Studies

The style study phase is crucial for exploring the full potential of your visual language. Rather than immediately seeking the “right” answer, this stage is about pushing boundaries and testing limits. Create mood boards and quick visual sketches that:

• Explore different interpretations of the visual language
• Push beyond comfortable boundaries to discover new possibilities
• Present both traditional and unexpected approaches
• Help identify where the true sweet spot lies

Implementation and Validation

Once you’ve aligned on a direction, the next phase involves:

Documentation and Guidelines

• Clearly document the visual language principles
• Establish guidelines for implementation
• Secure buy-in from leadership and brand teams

Archetype Screens

• Apply the visual language to core screen designs
• Use these as validation tools for the overall direction
• Allow engineering teams to assess technical requirements
• Address any remaining questions from the style study phase

Managing Stakeholder Concerns

Pushback from stakeholders is natural, especially when translating visual language into product design. The real challenge isn’t preventing disagreement — it’s creating a process that welcomes and addresses concerns productively.

Early Alignment

Start by identifying key stakeholders across brand, product, engineering, and leadership teams. Schedule regular check-ins during the style study phase when changes are still fluid and less costly to implement. This prevents late-stage feedback that could derail the project timeline.

Leadership Buy-in

Pay special attention to leadership alignment. If the initiative is driven by one leader while others have reservations, those conversations need to happen immediately. Leadership misalignment can cascade through teams and create unnecessary friction.

Balancing Different Needs

Different stakeholders will have competing priorities. Create a framework for evaluating these different perspectives. Document trade-offs and decisions clearly, explaining how they support the overall project goals.

Managing the Feedback Loop

When stakeholders raise concerns:

• Listen actively and document their specific issues
• Identify whether the concern is about the direction itself or its implementation
• Present multiple options that address their concerns while maintaining the integrity of the visual language
• Use prototypes and real examples to demonstrate solutions
• Set clear deadlines for feedback to maintain project momentum

Remember that stakeholder management isn’t just about addressing concerns — it’s about building advocates for the new visual language who will champion its adoption across the organization.

Accessibility Considerations

Accessibility should be a fundamental consideration, not an afterthought. This includes:

• Testing color palettes for accessibility compliance
• Creating flexible systems that maintain brand identity while meeting accessibility standards
• Conducting regular testing throughout development
• Documenting accessibility guidelines for implementation

Measuring Success

Success metrics for visual language implementation are often subjective and require time to evaluate properly. Consider:

• Monitoring user sentiment and engagement metrics
• Allowing several months for proper evaluation
• Gathering feedback from core users and super users
• Tracking specific metrics like bounce rates and conversion rates

Key Takeaways

The development of a successful visual language is an iterative process that requires:

• Strong collaboration across teams
• Clear communication channels
• Regular checkpoints and validation
• Flexibility to refine and grow over time

Remember that the initial release is just the beginning. The visual language will continue to evolve and mature as it’s implemented across different products and platforms. The key to success lies in maintaining open dialogue with stakeholders, staying true to established principles, and remaining responsive to user needs and feedback.

About the Author

This article is based on years of experience in developing and implementing visual languages across various tech products and platforms. The insights shared here reflect real-world challenges and solutions in creating cohesive design systems that serve both user needs and business goals.

Over the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on my career — exploring what truly drives me as a designer and revisiting the moments that brought me the most joy. One thread stands out: my deep and unwavering love for visual design. While user flows, data-driven decision-making, and rapid prototyping are essential in modern product design, there’s something timeless and irreplaceable about the craft of creating captivating visuals that engage and inspire. That spark of creativity has always been at the heart of how I see myself as a designer — and it’s what continues to energize me in a world increasingly centered on product thinking.

Early Career and Dot-Com Bust

My journey began just before the dot-com bubble burst. I landed my first big break at a Colorado agency, but before long, the industry went through a major upheaval. Projects disappeared, layoffs swept through, and nothing felt certain. Back then, my work revolved around brand and marketing design — building boutique websites with short shelf lives, often replaced within months by the next campaign.

When I moved to San Francisco, my perspective expanded. I discovered how vast the world of design could be beyond the brand and marketing silo. Then, in 2007, the launch of the iPhone revolutionized the industry. Suddenly, I was transitioning from crafting flashy microsites to designing user interfaces for mobile apps. The iPhone didn’t just introduce a new device — it redefined how people interacted with software, sparking a hunger for inventive and visually striking digital experiences.

Skeuomorphism’s Creative Peak

In those early days of iOS, skeuomorphism reigned supreme. Rich textures, realistic materials, and intricate details were everywhere, creating interfaces that felt tactile and alive. I even took painting classes to learn how to render marble or leather accurately because those fine details were key to an app’s identity. Back then, you could tell which app someone was using just by glancing at its interface — visual design played a starring role.

This was, in many ways, a golden age for visual design on mobile. From app icons to subtle interactions, aesthetics played a starring role. My skills grew exponentially during this time because every new project felt like a chance to push the boundaries of what we could do on a small touchscreen. I also got to collaborate with a number of brilliant designers, each of whom taught me something new about how visuals drive the overall user experience.

Flat Design’s Simpler Approach

With iOS 7, the shift to flat design marked a turning point. Rich textures and layered visuals gave way to minimal, cleaner designs. Visual design was still important, but the focus moved toward UX, product thinking, and problem-solving. Flat design aligned with a more serious product mindset — it was faster to build, more adaptable, and required less polish.

For visual designers, this meant spending less time crafting intricate icons or textures and more time on the overall flow and structure of the product. I learned a great deal during this phase — how to approach design through a user-centric lens and appreciate the power of clear, intuitive interactions. But I still missed the creative freedom of crafting bold, distinctive visuals that made products stand out.

Visual Design in Systems

One way I kept visual design at the forefront was through design systems. As teams prioritized speed and consistency, design systems became a space where visual designers could make an impact.

Working on a design system allowed me to focus on the visual foundation — defining colors, typography, icons, and motion guidelines that scaled across products. It was incredibly rewarding to see how a small visual tweak could ripple through an entire ecosystem, instantly improving consistency and polish at scale.

For many visual designers, design systems offer a perfect balance: they celebrate the details we love while delivering tangible value to teams. It’s a space where creativity and practicality coexist, and I’ve come to appreciate how design systems can elevate both the brand and the product experience.

Reconnecting With Visual Design

Looking back, I’ve realized that no matter how my roles have evolved, the heart of my work lies in visual design. Crafting strong visuals isn’t just something I enjoy — it’s what energizes me and connects me to the essence of being a designer.

This isn’t about stepping away from broader product responsibilities or turning back the clock. It’s about re-centering the aspects of design that bring me the most fulfillment. Visual design has the power to captivate, communicate, and create memorable experiences. In today’s landscape of increasingly standardized interfaces, embracing bold and thoughtful visuals feels more essential than ever.

Whether it’s refining typography, exploring color palettes, or adding subtle motion details, visual design is still the soul of a product’s identity. It complements UX and strategy, driving engagement and reinforcing brand loyalty. For me, rediscovering my passion for this craft feels like coming home.

What’s next

Over the years, I’ve worn many hats — brand designer, app designer, product designer, and design systems lead. Each role has shaped me, teaching me new skills and perspectives. As I think about the future, I’m excited to lean back into what has always inspired me most: the art and craft of visual design.

Yes, trends will continue to evolve, but at its core, design is about creating something meaningful and resonant. For me, that has always been rooted in visuals.

When I joined Cooper Design in 2011, I discovered pair design, a practice that transformed my approach to projects. Pairing two designers to work closely together enhances both the quality and efficiency of the design process. This method fosters focus and accountability as designers stay on task and prioritize effectively. Pair design allows for real-time validation and feedback, leading to immediate error correction and continuous improvement. Moreover, it promotes cross-functional collaboration, leveraging diverse skills and perspectives to generate innovative solutions and drive project success. Though Cooper Design is now defunct, its legacy and practices, like pair design, continue to influence and guide my work.

Benefits of Pair Design
Pair design offers numerous benefits that enhance both quality and efficiency. This approach fosters focus and accountability, enabling real-time validation and feedback, and promoting cross-functional collaboration.

Collaborative Design
Pair design, practiced at firms like Cooper, involves two designers working in tandem. This collaboration blends different skill sets to create solutions that align with user needs, business goals, and technical constraints. It ensures the final design satisfies all key requirements and avoids costly mistakes and rework.

Preparing for Pair Design
Understanding the key roles and dynamics involved is crucial. Each designer takes on distinct yet interchangeable roles — one generates solutions while the other synthesizes and evaluates them. This dynamic collaboration allows designers to learn from each other and inspire new approaches to challenges.

Kickstarting Your Pair Design
To get started with pair design:

• Find the Right Partner: Seek out someone whose skills complement yours.
• Define the Problem and Outcomes: Clearly state the issue and what you want to achieve.
• Set the Duration: Decide how long your session will last, and plan breaks to avoid burnout.
• Embrace an Open Mindset: Keep an open mind and build on each other’s ideas to stay positive.
• Swap Roles Regularly: Experience the process from different perspectives.
• Run Retrospectives: Look back on what worked and what didn’t to improve next time.

Building Trust in Pairs
Establish clear problem definitions, create a safe space for sharing ideas, and groundwork in high-level user stories. Embrace disagreements and dedicate time to building rapport.

Establishing Effective Design Rhythms
Establish a regular cadence of collaboration and independence. Maintain open communication, leverage diverse skill sets, and allow fluid roles.

Small Teams Boost Efficiency
Smaller teams are more effective for complex product development. Aim for teams of 2–3 people to reduce bureaucracy and foster innovation.

As my career has evolved, moving farther away from my time at Cooper, I often reflect on those days, the incredible people, and the impactful design practices we embraced. I can’t help but see the profound influence pair design has had on my approach to collaborative work. The principles of accountability, real-time feedback, and cross-functional teamwork continue to shape my projects, fostering innovation and excellence. Though Cooper is no longer around, the legacy of its practices, particularly pair design, remains a cornerstone of my professional ethos, continually inspiring me to push the boundaries of creativity and efficiency in every project I undertake.

If you’re interested in the materials that inspired this post, have a look at:

• About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design
• Pairaphors: Explaining Pair Design (Metaphorically) on Medium by Chris Noessel

Unlocking Potential with Pair Design was originally published in Bootcamp on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.