Why mobile first is outdated

What really matters is screens, not devices.

For a number of years now, we’ve been hit over the head time and again with “mobile first” and “mobile only”. Those of us building software since before the iPhone have hacked our brains, our processes, our companies, to ensure we start thinking “mobile first” rather than web first. There are books, courses, and conferences about being “mobile first”. But if “mobile” is our future, why are almost all the most successful mobile driven businesses building web apps designed for larger screens? All these mobile businesses have recently built web apps for use on large screens:

Clockwise from top left: Flipboard, Instagram, Waze, Uber

Even the messaging apps have built web apps for large screen, including Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp.

Screens, not devices

There is still much fast paced change regarding what size screen is best suited for different contexts. Not long ago, it was all about phones and tablets and people laughed at the new phablet category. Fast forward to today, and the phablet is the most popular form for a new device (although thankfully we’ve dropped the janky term), and tablet sales are stagnating. The optimal screen size is still a moving target. Not to mention how small screens on wrists might change things again in 12–24 months.

So how should we be thinking about all this? I believe we’ve been looking at “mobile” using the wrong frame of reference. For years I’ve pushed the idea that “mobile” is not about devices, it’s about access to consuming and publishing information. For me, obsessing about specific devices was a bad path (they change too frequently), obsessing about iOS versus Android OS was a bad path (they are both important) and obsessing about phone versus tablet was a bad path (they have merged into one larger category of portable screen and continue to evolve all the time). Information via screens not devices — this is the key idea.

Somewhat ironically, when thinking about product development, the only screen size we can rely on is the big one. Most people sit in front of a giant monitor for a huge chunk of their day. The dominant screen for work is still a large one, and that will likely not ever change. Whether that is a laptop, or a desk monitor.

So if you’re designing and building software to sell to employees or companies, and that includes everything from enterprise software to calendar and to-do apps, you better be thinking about big screens as well as small ones. It’s not just about mobile-first.

In fact, if you’re designing and building an app that has any type of content creation that goes beyond 140 characters or a photo, it’s likely better performed on a large screen. I didn’t write this post on a phone, and it’d be very painful to try on a tablet. I needed my big screen. No two ways about it, large screens are better for many types of input.

Is “mobile-only” a niche type of business?

It’s true that for many consumer services, usage on mobile devices is much higher than desktop devices. What’s not true is that this is a universal pattern. It’s true that for many people their mobile screen is their primary screen most of the time. What’s not true is that this is the only screen that matters. It’s true that our world is being filled with more and more screens. What’s not true is that all these new screens are phones.

So if what matters is screens not devices, then the idea of a “mobile only” business may in fact be a small niche of consumer businesses. As most of these disruptive mobile businesses mature, they realise they need to serve their users when they are in front of larger screens as well as smaller ones, and that happens a lot more frequently than they might have initially thought. Mobile screens may still be their most important and dominant channel, but it is not their only one.

Also consider that other large screens, such as TVs, will evolve and mature and run better web-driven software.

To get a better sense of this, think about how most people go about their day, and the primary screens they access:

The key to thinking through this is the amount of time most of us spend in work, in front of a large screen:

Source: Mary Meeker Internet Trends Report

Is “mobile” secondary for business software?

Many businesses being advised to go all in on mobile screens should consider how often they are accessed while people are in work. Software that people probably shouldn’t, but do, look at on their work computer: news, sports, social, messaging, personal email. The large screen matters.

Now imagine that you actually build software specifically for people to use in work. This may be software for getting work done, such as Google Docs, Intercom, Slack, Basecamp, Trello, etc. The likelihood now is that the larger screen is the most important one. The large screen app is more important than the mobile app. The mobile app plays a different role to the large screen app, and in many cases a supporting role.

“Mobile” service businesses will likely fail

Service businesses pitching themselves as “mobile only” or even “mobile first” (for example mobile marketing services, mobile ad services) are likely setting themselves up for some short term success (as businesses look for mobile “experts” to help them get up to speed) but long term failure. In order to offer a complete service, they will need to track people and behaviour across all screens. The goal of “only advertise to people on phones” is rare, and only exists because of the temporary state we’re in with “mobile only” products. This is really critical to think about, and is why at Intercom we’re building to service web, iOS and Android equally. We track people as they move from screen to screen, giving the complete picture of their digital activity. Only tracking someone on a “mobile device” is an incomplete picture and will result in poor targeting of messages and ads.

Focus on jobs, then screens, but never devices

If “mobile first” is no longer your dogma, then what is? At Intercom our dogma is the Jobs-to-be-Done framework. Focusing on what Jobs your users are trying to do. Servicing those Jobs where they happen. Servicing them with the right depth of product experience: maybe a glance on a watch is best, maybe a 40 inch screen dashboard view is best. Servicing them in a way that takes advantage of the situational context of use — no one is bringing their iMac to the beach, and no-one is writing the board deck on their phone. So think about the screen best suited for input, and the screen best suited for output.

Written by Paul Adams, VP of Product at Intercom. This post first appeared on the Inside Intercom blog.

Intercom is a platform that makes it easy for web and mobile businesses to communicate with their customers, personally and at scale.

Want to read more articles like this?

Next Story — Onboarding never stops
Currently Reading - Onboarding never stops

Onboarding never stops

As your product evolves and changes over time, you’ll invest money and time in new features, big product launches and expensive release cycles. Despite this, the vast majority of new features flop — because they never get used.

Fun fact: when Microsoft asked their users what they wanted added to Office, they found 90% of the requested features were already there. They had just done a terrible job of onboarding the right users on to the right features at the right time.

That’s because when we think about onboarding we usually don’t think beyond signup. In reality, you’re onboarding is just getting started. You haven’t turned users into experts, and they haven’t yet given up all the other products they used before yours.

As we discuss in our new book, Intercom on Onboarding, if you only focus your onboarding efforts on new signups, you’re leaving a massive opportunity on the table — passionate, engaged customers.

For example, let’s say somebody has been using your product for six months. They’re totally engaged and up to speed. But then you release a brand new feature that can make them even better. That’s an onboarding opportunity right there.

Ultimately, the best onboarding retains customers over time by continually showing them how to get the most out of your product.

We recently experienced this when we launched our new feature, Smart Campaigns. We knew it had the potential to improve almost all our customers’ definition of success — personal customer communication at scale. This gave us a significant onboarding opportunity — we could deliver more value to our existing customers.

The challenge was that Smart Campaigns was not an easy concept to understand. If the beta period taught us one thing, it was that a certain amount of hand-holding was required. The easy path would have been to ignore this and send a once off feature announcement email to all our customers. But that meant we risked it becoming a feature only a few customers ever looked at.

That’s why we set out to carefully and consciously onboard existing users to Smart Campaigns. Our approach was to make just enough information available at every turn, but also stay out of the way. Here’s a few ways we did that.

Onboard in context

It’s a common mistake for companies to launch features in products without any context. Your goal should never be “get it launched”. Your goal is “get it used”. That’s why the right time to promote an improvement is not only when someone is in your product, but when they’re in a position to use it.

For Smart Campaigns, we announced the new feature to customers when they arrived in the messaging area of Intercom, via an in-app announcement. That message contained a video with a high-level overview of the feature and instructions to get started. Like all good onboarding messaging, it’s closely modeled on just-in-time information — teach in the moment when specific information is actually useful.

Use educational content to onboard

When explaining new concepts, it’s important to give users a sense of what success looks like. It’s a familiar technique used in onboarding — giving users educational content as a blank slate. Take Trello, for example. Users are given a welcome board with pre-made to-do cards, with each card explaining a different interaction. They use content and the interface to teach you how to use the product

Not only is it a great way of providing a warm and human experience to your product, it encourages action and tees your customers up for success from the word go. This is a far better approach than saying, “Your campaign is empty and that’s all I’m going to say.” You would never say that in person to your customer, so why say it in your product?

When a customer encounters a campaign for the first time, there is an example campaign created when they get there — with best practice tips and links to helpful guides.

Then, when a customer creates a new campaign, and sees a blank campaign for the first time, we signpost them to a guide for creating engaging messages. This is easily dismissed, but it’s helpful content in the right place at the right time for those who need it.

Anticipate the next questions

In education, the more you hold someone’s hand, the less their brain will engage. The same goes for onboarding — if you keep spoonfeeding users solutions, don’t be surprised when they can’t pick up a knife and fork. That’s why it’s better to give information as gradual hints, so new users can more deeply retain what they’ve learned.

One of the best ways to do this is to center information around the intent of the customer. For example, when a customer creates a new campaign, by clicking on the create button they’ve shown intent. With new users interested, now is a good time to start sharing more advanced information like best practice guides. This type of careful consideration really does drive engagement.

Gradually expose features over time

Onboarding users to a new feature requires the same skill as onboarding them to a new product. You wouldn’t welcome new users to your product by asking them to do complex tasks only a pro user would be able to do. So don’t overload users when you’re onboarding them to a new feature either.

Think about a game like Super Mario Bros. At any given point, only the necessary parts of the game are on screen, allowing players to gradually and naturally understand what’s going on around them. As you make progress, only the next piece of relevant information is exposed. Imagine you saw the entire level as soon as you started playing? Front loading your users with information will make sure they never get past the first few hurdles.

For example, Intercom users don’t need to know about our keyboard shortcuts until they’ve been in the inbox for a while and have started to deal with a heavy load of user conversations. It’s certainly not a day one announcement. Similarly they probably don’t care about our bulk data export feature until they’re tracking a bunch of data.

Focus your message on what your users can achieve with this feature and you’ll get their attention.

The best way to tell a customer how to do this stuff is after you’ve gathered evidence that they’re a good candidate to hear about it.

Converting today’s signups into tomorrow’s engaged users

When you’re building software, remember there are hundreds of products competing for the same job. If you’re not continuously showing your customers how to get value out of your product, you’re not encouraging product dependency. You’re leaving the door open for someone else to come in and persuade them their product is more valuable than yours.

That’s why you need to continuously onboard existing customers, bringing people all the way through, and making sure they get as much value as they can.

Written by Ruairí Galavan, Manager of Product Education at Intercom. This post is taken from Intercom on Onboarding, a book all about converting new signups into successful users.

Next Story — Bots vs humans
Currently Reading - Bots vs humans

Bots vs humans

Everyone is talking about the rise of chatbots; but are forgetting that humans are pretty good too.

In recent months we’ve seen Facebook, Kik and Telegram launch bot platforms on top of their messengers, and everyone and anyone declare our bot filled future. But few are asking when and why people might want to talk to bots instead of other people, and if the direction Facebook and others are pointing at is ever going to come to pass.

Much of the excitement around bots focuses on one of two things:

  1. Bots provide a new distribution channel. We’ve all known for some time now that the end of apps and the end of app stores is coming, and many are hitching their wagon to the new bot and messenger distribution paradigm. Build a bot — not an app — and they will come.
  2. Bots allow us to remove expensive humans from customer communication. Many subscribe to the idea that in our new bot world, the humans have been removed.

Both of these lines of thinking are extremely one dimensional, and self serving. Bots on messaging platforms are one potential new distribution channel, but not the only one, as Google’s new streaming apps attest to.

Secondly, if you actually talk to consumers, the people supposedly buying from all these new bots, you’ll quickly find that they actually like talking to people most of the time. How many times have you conversed with a voice system only to find yourself desperately wanting to talk to a person?

Bots and humans are good at different things

To really understand the potential of bots, we need to understand what bots are, and their strengths and weaknesses relative to other ways of doing things. One of those other ways is communicating with humans. And as we’ll soon see, human communication is a formidable foe.

First, let’s take an important step back. A bot is a simple computer program, that makes things happen based on some input. A chatbot is a bot that lives inside a chat product, for example a messaging app. Because messaging platforms like Facebook Messenger have such huge reach (900 million people and counting), when people are talking about bots, they are really talking about chatbots.

So if a chatbot is being heralded as the next major innovation in technology, we need to understand how it performs versus what currently exists in chat products: humans talking to humans. So what are computers good at, and what are humans good at?

Computers are amazing at computation. They can look up data, calculate numbers, and do things like look at millions of fact-based options and return the best one in a matter seconds. Computers are not yet good at understanding human emotion. Not even close. The state of natural language processing means they can’t even understand what we are asking them, nevermind interpret how we feel by reading between the lines. I believe we are at least a decade away, if not much more, from computers being able to accurately interpret human emotion in communication.

Humans on the other hand aren’t great at computation, but are amazing at understanding human emotion. We have empathy. We know how to persuade people to first like, and then love something. We know what it’s like to be frustrated. We know what it’s like to over-deliver in order to make people feel better. We can reason. We can listen. We know when to remain silent, and when to interject. There is no way to deliver effective customer support or marketing, without empathy and emotional intelligence. For the foreseeable future, world-class customer communications will require humans.

People are blindly applying bots to interaction design problems that already have better solutions.

So if bots can’t read between the lines and make us feel better, what are they actually good for? Turns out that with today’s and tomorrow’s technology, they are good for simple, low-level, repetitive questions and tasks. That’s it. If you want to know when your next phone bill is, a bot can tell you. How much it will cost? A bot can tell you. But why you might have been over-charged? Time to talk to a human.

Bots have serious limitations, but it is exciting to think that bots can help in win-win situations. Sometimes we don’t want to talk to a human — we just want a quick answer to a simple question. For example, bots can deal with all the repetitive questions sent to customer support teams, which frees up support staff to answer much higher value queries. The effect of this will be that support teams will shift from being perceived as cost centers, to being seen as increasingly strategic assets to successful companies.

When bots are not the answer

Even though bots will likely play an important role in the future of customer communication by tackling these low-level repetitive tasks, they are not good for every low-level, repetitive question or task. Often a simple form or workflow is better. Most of the problems with bots we see today isn’t just bad design. It’s that bots are the wrong solution to begin with. People are blindly applying bots to interaction design problems that already have better solutions. People are just redesigning terrible logic trees inside messaging apps.

Is a bot responding to a question about the weather (left), really the best solution in the three examples above? A nicely designed card does a much better job (middle — this is a sketch I made), and especially when it’s dynamically inserted into search results (right) as it currently is if you ask Google rather than Poncho.

Humans like talking to humans

All this leads me to conclude with the most important question of all: do customers actually want to talk to bots? In the clearly bounded win-win scenarios I highlighted above I think they might. But the future that Facebook is pointing at is the one that I see least likely to come to fruition.

Facebook’s goal is to make it indistinguishable when you’re talking to a bot versus a human. But people like talking to people. And if there is anything broken about customer communication today, it is that business online is impersonal. Businesses hide behind bad technology, like do-not-reply email, ticket numbers, automated replies, and faceless “contact us” forms.

When you walk into a store you can have your pick of people to talk to for help. When you open your favorite apps there isn’t a human to be found anywhere. Pretending that bots are humans is impersonal. If customers are in conversation with an entity who they think is a person, but then realise through inevitable technical limitations that it is in fact a bot, how do you imagine they will feel? And how could that feeling ever be good for business?

Bots will augment conversations between humans. They will help answer simple questions in win-win scenarios. But thankfully for everyone, they won’t replace humans any time soon.

Written by Paul Adams, VP Product at Intercom. This post first appeared on the Inside Intercom blog, where we regularly share our thoughts on product strategy, design, customer experience, and startups.

Intercom is a platform that makes it easy for web and mobile businesses to communicate with their customers, personally, and at scale.

We love writing about bots and conversational interfaces. Here’s a few more.

Next Story — App rebundling — the next mobile distribution opportunity
Currently Reading - App rebundling — the next mobile distribution opportunity

App rebundling — the next mobile distribution opportunity

Imagine someone trying to sell you a new car without a radio.

Or a new smartphone without a camera.

When it comes to these physical products, we’re buying a bundled set of different technologies. Value is created by pulling once disparate things, together in one place.

For software, the dynamic is different. There are periods when bundling is essential to software products. And there are times when unbundling brings with it greater opportunity. Right now, with the rise of bots and messengers, rebundling software services can create a new wave of distribution opportunities.

Mobile and the great unbundling

Bundling has long been the fuel of technology innovation. iTunes unbundled the music CD into individual tracks rather than albums. Spotify rebundled music into an unlimited plan. Early internet services like Excite and AOL bundled news, email, shopping, and weather. iOS and Android unbundled them again as single-purpose mobile apps.

Facebook epitomises this cycle of unbundling and rebundling. Their initial focus was on providing multiple web services in one package — content, sharing and messaging. But how we use the web changes fast. Smartphones showed us that single purpose apps could be massively successful. Facebook spotted the opportunity early when it started “unbundling the big blue app”.

Mobile unbundling makes sense from a user experience point of view — a bloated web app just doesn’t work on mobile. But it can also make sense from a business perspective. When Facebook unbundled Messenger, they drove distribution to their newer, unbundled app. It gave them another icon on the homescreen, and another draw on users’ time, attention and usage. As Mark Zuckerberg said, unbundling Messenger allowed them to explore “new areas that we didn’t have the room to do before”.

The likes of FedEx, Everlane and Giphy are quickly filling in these new areas in Facebook Messenger. An unbundled mobile app is being “rebundled” with lightweight, contextually relevant, micro-services from third party platforms. When you take a look at what’s happening in the new world of mobile distribution, rebundling services makes a ton of strategic sense for everyone involved.

Let’s explain.

The multi-billion dollar middlemen

Bosch might be best known for selling washing machines and other domestic white goods. Yet 60% of their revenue comes from selling car alarms, car radios, and spark plugs. Bosch have grown their automotive business faster than any other segment — without making a single car.

Sony is well known for building their own smartphones. But double the size of its smartphone business are the third party cameras it provides for Apple. Every iPhone sold earns Sony $20 — each one contains a Sony camera.

The benefits in these relationships are mutual. The “containing” technology gets a simplified manufacturing line, while the small mechanical or electronic devices — widgets — get the scale marketing and distribution of the product they’re embedded in.

In early mobile services, these sorts of relationships simply weren’t possible. But thanks to both deep linking and app extensions, these apps within apps type relationships are on the rise and set to become the norm.

Rebundling — a virtuous exchange

Let’s take a real example, using Facebook, Shopify and Stripe. In the below example, all parties are gaining from having their services live within another.

Shopify offer Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest’s mobile audiences as potential buyers of products. For Shopify, offering the reach of three of the biggest social networks as part of a bundle makes mobile marketing significantly easier for their merchants. The reach of billions of potential customers is already built into their product. For Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest, the benefits are clear too; being part of a bundled offering creates a new distribution channel for their mobile advertising products.

Meanwhile, Stripe offer their payments service to Shopify merchants as “Shopify Payments”. For Shopify, bundling complementary services together gives merchants a much shorter and obvious path for mobile payments. For Stripe, being bundled into Shopify creates a significant global distribution opportunity for their payment services.

Through this symbiotic relationship, Facebook, Shopify and Stripe have created new value for customers, and new distribution opportunities for each other. Online businesses can reach relevant audiences (Facebook), send potential customers to a high quality destination (Shopify), and use transaction data (Stripe) to create relevant targeting for remarketing campaigns back on Facebook. It’s a virtuous cycle of value exchange which continuously reinforces the value of each individual service.

Think big. Start small.

The cyclical nature of bundling means the real value is found not at the end state, but in the process of change. Small changes in technology can tilt the balance in favor of bundling or unbundling. When the balance is still shifting, a window of opportunity opens. Currently the popularity of messaging interfaces and bot platforms are creating this window.

For product builders looking to drive new value, even some small changes to your product roadmap could reap large rewards:

  • Unbundle your product. Create a programmatic interface. It’s the ‘I’ in API. Build it, document it, use it.
  • Rebundle your product with others. Make the first move. Connect your product with others through tight integrations and connected APIs.
  • Create distribution opportunities through partnerships. SaaS marketplaces and bot ecosystems are the new app stores. Make the most of the scale of these products to grow yours.
  • Define new monetisation models. No free tier or free trial? Create one. Complex pricing? Create partner or bundle specific pricing.
  • Retain, learn, and scale. Fight to make new users successful. Learn from them, and scale bundling initiatives to other complementary platforms.

Embedding your product within another might seem like the last thing any product manager would want to do. Being at the mercy of marketplaces might feel counterintuitive. But partnerships and integrations with emerging platforms can reap rewards that far outweigh the risk.

We’re entering a new wave of value creation on mobile — if you don’t consider and execute your rebundling strategy you won’t be able to make the most of it.

Written by Hugh Durkin, Senior Product Manager at Intercom. This post first appeared on the Inside Intercom blog, where we regularly share our thoughts on product strategy, design, customer experience, and startups.

Intercom is a platform that makes it easy for web and mobile businesses to communicate with their customers, personally, and at scale.

We love writing about mobile. Here’s a few more.

Next Story — There’s no hand off in product design
Currently Reading - There’s no hand off in product design

There’s no hand off in product design

What makes or breaks a product team?

Strong design principles are one. A clear, effective roadmap is another. But one of the most important, yet overlooked, aspects of all great product teams, are the relationships between the designers and engineers on your team.

Truly great products are often a combination of two things: a technical breakthrough and a never-before-seen design it enabled.

Yet many designers compartmentalize building a product into two distinct parts — design and development. This distinction is one of the most dangerous traps a product team can fall into. When design is seen as a satellite that orbits engineering, it usually comes crashing back to earth.

Designers trained in isolation

Design education is partly to blame for this. What happened when you handed in your design projects? I’ll bet only the smallest fraction of students ever had a professor bring you to the Computer Science department, sit you down next to another student, and ask you to build what you just handed in.

The same goes for agencies, many of whom lack their own engineering teams. For most projects, design specs are tossed over the back wall for an external team to build. You’ll be lucky if you ever meet them face to face. Luckier still if the product ends up resembling anything close to what you designed.

The problem in both scenarios is the same — they separate design from implementation. In product design, both these things are inextricably linked. A world with terms such as “design freeze” or “hand off” just won’t cut it.

Start by understanding the constraints early

Truly great products are often a combination of two things: a technical breakthrough and a never-before-seen design it enabled. So it’s essential designers understand the possibilities and restraints of the technology they’re working with, before they can properly delve into the design.

Here’s an example. Let’s say you’re designing a native iOS app. Here are some technical questions you might receive from an engineer that can heavily influence your design decisions:

  • Which framework are we going to use to match the spring curve you’ve designed with? If we can’t find a suitable one, maybe you should draw from the default UI view animations instead.
  • How long does it take the API to fetch the data for that list-view? If it’s too long, you’re going to need to do more than place a spinner.
  • The API takes a little too long to load in our user’s avatars. What do we display in the meantime?

Questions such as the above should be asked and addressed as early as possible by talking and sitting with your engineers (product designers at Intercom are placed with engineers from day one). Don’t be put off by what won’t work. The constraints you discover are often advantages in disguise.

Design together

A product designer should be responsible for sharing designs early and often with engineers. That doesn’t mean something neatly packed up and polished. It could be the roughest prototype imaginable.

For a recent project, all our designs were prototyped in Framer and shared with engineering as early as possible. It allowed us to discuss technical feasibility, which third party frameworks to use, and what types of animations were possible. These were all perspectives designers might have never thought of.

In this instance, engineering heavily influenced our design decisions. It’s not just designers that have the capabilities to solve problems. You’re likely working with engineers who have spent thousands of hours solving their own complex problems. Great designers can’t always have the “eureka” moment.

What they can do is frame the problem for their team, and create a design process to extract the best solutions from that team. If you’re splitting your product process between design and engineering, you’re more likely to become protective of “your” area, shutting out potential perspectives and feedback which could lead you to a solution you might not have thought possible.

Build & iterate together

Our process for building product at Intercom starts with discussions between design and engineering, and a collaborative Intermission — a one page brief for the project

High-level product decisions are usually nailed down long before engineering starts. However, in terms of interaction and visual design, details reveal themselves as the product is being built. Instead of handing off pixel-perfect designs to your engineering team, embrace the opportunity to design alongside them as they build.

It means you can design with a clearer, more realistic perspective — based on real data, technical constraints, and an overall sense of how the product feels.

So if something just doesn’t feel right, or the design doesn’t scale with real data, identify if this is a larger design problem which needs to be brought back to first principles, or something that can be tweaked in code.

If the latter, sit side-by-side with your engineer. Communicate often and in person, or you risk details being lost in translation. Just remember communication isn’t about being the hovering art director, telling the engineer to adjust that asset by 1 pixel, or change this color to #f5f5f5.

Designing as you build also allows you to identify opportunities to strengthen your original solution. Designers aren’t infallible. Details are often missed first time around, so use your opportunity to improve the flow, offering alternative forms of feedback.

Some of my favorite animations or interactions have come from talking with engineers and assessing a screen together — asking ourselves “wouldn’t it be better if X did Y”. If these improvements can’t be made right away, talk with your team and assess if they can follow up after release.

Turning design into reality

Being a great designer requires you to be empathetic, not only to users or clients, but to your engineers as well. It’s about involving them in the design process, and understanding the technology that enables your design. It’ll make you a stronger designer, and result in a better product in the long term.

And remember that for a modern product team, what matters is what ships. So embrace those who can turn your ideas into reality.

Written by Brendan Fagan, Product Designer at Intercom. This post first appeared on the Inside Intercom blog, where we regularly share our thoughts on product strategy, design, customer experience, and startups.

Intercom is a platform that makes it easy for web and mobile businesses to communicate with their customers, personally, and at scale.

Hero image credit: Katie Garth

We love writing about building product. Here’s a few more.

Sign up to continue reading what matters most to you

Great stories deserve a great audience

Continue reading