I am a hybrid of product manager and designer, with a strong engineering background—an alumnus of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, TechCrunch, and my own startup, Emu (acquired by Google in 2014).
My multi-disciplinary nature reflects a passion for synthesizing perspectives into a holistic vision; and an ability to pursue that vision pragmatically.
I enjoy beer, books, travel, monkeys, behavioral science, and just about any activity involving a body of water.
Remember chatbots, the Next Big Thing of 2016? According to Sam Lessin, “the 2016 bot paradigm shift is going to be far more disruptive and interesting than the last decade’s move from Web to mobile apps.” But that paradigm shift didn't materialize. What happened?
If consistency is a goal, we must reject intelligence in software, since the very adaptiveness that makes it powerful also makes it unpredictable.
But consistency isn’t the goal.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: There is no success metric for design. You can’t look at your data and see the overall contribution design makes. Nor can you measure the long-term, cumulative impact of design on every metric .
User errors are the bane of a developer’s existence. We’ve all experienced that strange blend of relief and rage when we realize a thorny issue is, in fact, user misunderstanding. But users aren’t clueless. They’re irrational — and we can use that to build better products.
When we say software is “smart,” what do we mean? It’s not just algorithmic sophistication, machine learning, or artificial intelligence. Some of the smartest products achieve their intelligence by brute force; and some of the most sophisticated systems come across as pointless.
Conversation is strong where GUI is weak, and vice versa. Wouldn’t it be great to combine the best of both? After all, that’s what we do in real life. When we talk to each other we also gesture, draw on whiteboards, read from restaurant menus, and so on.