用设计下大赌注：Shop App 的故事

欢迎来到 Dive Club。我是 Rid，这里是设计师永不停止学习的地方。今天的节目是关于用设计下大赌注需要什么，因为我们有幸邀请到 Katarina Batina，她是 Shop 应用背后的设计总监，在我看来这是当今最优质的消费体验之一。他们做事方式非常不同，而且成功了。所以我们将深入探讨他们如何探索新想法、设计师如何充分利用 AI、如何持续达到这种工艺水准，以及更多内容。让我们开始吧。

Welcome to Dive Club. My name is Rid and this is where designers never stop learning. Today's episode is all about what it takes to make big bets with design because we get to talk to Katarina Batina, who is the design director behind the Shop app, which in my opinion is one of the premium consumer experiences available today. They did things pretty differently and it worked. So, we're going to get into the weeds about how they explore new ideas, how designers are making the most out of AI, what it takes to consistently hit this bar for craft, and a lot more. So, let's dive right in.

我把 Shop 称为 Shopify 内部两个很酷项目的爱情结晶。一个叫 Arrive，老用户会知道那基本上是这款应用的起源故事，它是为了解决一个商家问题：大量支持工单涌入，问“我的包裹在哪”，而作为极度以商家为中心的 Shopify，我们想说“嘿，这个问题我们可以解决”。另一个连接点是当时叫 Shopify Pay 的东西，那是一个不起眼的小复选框，写着“下次你通过 Shopify 结账的在线商店购物时，你的信息会在这里”。那是六七年前的事了。我们把这两个产品合并到 Shop 这个品牌下。顺便说一句，这品牌名字真大胆。除了 Shopify 还有谁敢这么做？我太喜欢了。有时它会带来一些有趣的品牌问题，因为它既是动词、名词、应用，又是一切。合并之后，还有第三个支柱：我们有了这个支付网络。我们正在成为人们购物身份的可信来源。然后还有包裹追踪，即使到今天也是一个深受喜爱的功能。但我们知道显然有一个巨大的机会，成为一个商家真正信任的第一方平台。Toby 一直对以商家为先、由商家主导的购物目的地有着极其强烈的愿景，让买家爱上它。我真的把我们现在的愿景归功于那个非常大胆的提议。

Shop I talk about as a love child of two really cool internal projects at Shopify. One was called Arrive for the OGs in the crowd. Like they'll know that that was kind of the origin story of the app and it was to solve a merchant problem. Actually getting a ton of support tickets into their local cues saying hey where's my package and us as Shopify being extremely merchant wanting to say like hey that's a problem we can solve. The other connection point for Shop was something called Shopify Pay at the time, which was this sneaky little checkbox that just said, 'Hey, next time you come through a Shopify backed online store with the Shopify checkout, your stuff will be here.' Six or seven years ago now. Brought those two products together underneath the banner of Shop. What an audacious brand name, by the way. Like, who has the guts to do that besides Shopify? I love it so much. It creates some funny branding problems sometimes because it's like the verb, the noun, the app, the everything. Bringing those things together, there was this third pillar of like we've got this payments network thing. We're becoming a trusted source for people as their kind of shopping identity. And then we have package tracking which is such a beloved feature even today. But we knew that there was this huge opportunity obviously to become a first-party platform that merchants could really trust. Toby has always had an incredibly strong vision for what a merchant first, merchant-led shopping destination can look like that buyers can fall in love with. I really credit where we are now in our vision to that really audacious prompt.

大多数从事电商或任何现代消费类应用的人，都习惯于找到自己的飞轮然后拼命榨取它。超级数据驱动，极度关注微优化。而我们在 Shop 的旅程中疯狂的是，我们能够用非常粗的笔触去描绘非常大胆的想法。其中一个大胆的想法就是采用完全不同的浏览体验策略，比如我们说“我们希望这是一个你无聊时想来购物的地方”。你想想线下世界中的购物，更浪漫一些。购物是一种娱乐形式，是一种参与文化的方式，而许多在 Shopify 上推出的品牌代表了那个世界最好的一面，对吧？当我思考界面和 Shop 的体验时，我们刻意去想如何做得有点不同。我们如何颂扬那些品牌故事？如何让它们活起来？如何让它们变得极其个性化和引人入胜？通过几次迭代，我们达到了现在所谓的超级信息流。最初有信息流版本一。超级信息流变得极其内容驱动、专注且高度个性化，我们现在正在做下一个迭代。

Most people who work in commerce or really any modern consumer app are so used to being like they found their one flywheel and they are just milking it. Super data-driven, extremely micro optimization focused. And what's been crazy about our journey in Shop is we've been able to paint with very broad strokes against very bold ideas. And one of those bold ideas has been taking a completely different tact with the browsing experience, saying things like, 'We want this to be a place that you come when you're bored and you want to shop.' You think about shopping kind of in a more romantic way in the offline world. Shopping is a form of entertainment. It's a way to engage with culture and so many of the brands that launch on Shopify represent the best of what that world looks like, right? And when I think about the interface and when we think about the experience in Shop, we think about on purpose how to do things a little differently. How do we celebrate those brand stories? How do we bring them to life? And how do we make them extremely personalized and engaging? And through several iterations, we've arrived at what we call today our super feed. There was like feed version one. The super feed became something that was extremely content-driven and focused and highly personalized and we're working on our next iteration right now.

快速插播一条消息，然后我们继续。好的，听好了。Jitter 的最新版本让你可以在 Jitter 内部构建自己的创意工具，制作自定义动画和效果。只需描述你想要的任何东西，Jitter 就会给你自定义参数，你可以用来调整每一个细节，无论是 3D 控制、抖动效果，还是老式 VHS 滤镜。一旦效果达到你想要的，你可以保存它，与团队分享，并在项目中轻松复用。这真的就像输入你的想法一样简单，非常适合像我这样没有丰富动画背景的人。有时我甚至喜欢让 Claude 帮我写提示词。这个功能极大地激发了我的创造力，我迫不及待想看到你的作品。只需访问 dive.club/jitter 即可开始。当你用 AI 做原型时，如果你花时间从实际产品中重新创建样式、组件和布局，那我告诉你，你可能在浪费时间，而且肯定没用对工具。这就是为什么我喜欢向团队推荐 Desen。一键点击，你和团队中的每个人都可以直接在代码库中做原型，而无需打开 IDE。Desen 提取你的设计语言，并给你一个完美的沙盒来探索，没有任何技术障碍。这很重要，你可以连接你的代码库并立即开始原型设计。只需访问 dive.club/desen。那是 dsn。现在回到节目。

Real quick message and then we can jump back into it. Okay, so get this. Jitter's latest release lets you build your own creative tools inside of Jitter to make custom animations and effects. Just describe anything you want and then Jitter will give you custom parameters that you can use to tune every single detail, whether it's 3D control, dithering, or even an old VHS filter. And then once you get the effect where you want it, you can save it, share it with your team, and easily reuse it across projects. And it really is as simple as just typing out your ideas, which is perfect for someone like me that doesn't have this rich background in animation. And sometimes I even like to have Claude help me with the prompts. This feature has blown the roof off of my creativity, and I cannot wait to see what you make. Just head to dive.club/jitter to get started. When you're prototyping with AI, if you're spending time recreating styles, components, and layouts from your actual product, I got news for you. You're probably wasting time and definitely not using the right tool either. That's why I love recommending Desen to Teams. In one click, you and everyone on your team can prototype directly in your codebase without ever opening an IDE. Desen extracts your design language and gives you the perfect sandbox to explore without any of the technical hurdles. It's a pretty big deal and you can connect your codebase and start prototyping today. Just head to dive.club/desen. That's dsn. Now on to the episode.

我想聊聊那些迭代，因为你提到了购物即娱乐，我觉得——我知道我私下跟你说过，我再说一遍，好让它被记录下来。Shop 应用是我唯一一个会无明确意图浏览的应用，这有点危险，你知道，它就像我的“睡不着”应用。

I want to talk a little bit about those iterations because you talked about shopping as entertainment and I feel that like I know that I've said this to you off record. I'm going to say it again just so that it is on record. The Shop app is the only app that I will browse without clear intent which is a little bit dangerous you know it's like the I can't fall asleep app for me.

我知道，最近我常因为人们购物更多而被责怪。

I know I feel get blamed a lot for people shopping more recently.

我知道，我妻子不太喜欢，我们这么说吧。但我想知道，你们做了哪些迭代？你是怎么让这个应用达到让我躺在床上刷的程度？

I know yeah my wife doesn't love it we'll put it that way but I want to know like what are some of those iterations that you've made like how did you get this to the point where I am just kind of laying in bed scrolling through this app.

当然。其中一个最大的张力点就是关于密度的想法。

Absolutely. Well one of the biggest tension points was around the thought of density.

如果我们思考现代消费界面的成功要素，那就是信息密度、意图收集——比如用户是否喜欢产品、一个滚动视图能展示多少产品——所有这些最佳实践造就了我们熟悉的电商界面。但我们做了一个截然不同的决定：如何让体验更像橱窗购物？每个视口都像一个入口，通向特定的品牌故事或产品推荐。相信我，最初讨论我们制作的某些原型时，许多产品经理和数据科学家都感到紧张，说这完全违背了我们对最佳实践的认知。我很幸运能在一个愿意冒险并付诸实践的组织工作。当然，在最初几次迭代中，这并非一帆风顺。我们的推荐算法必须精准，才能支撑这种消费模式。另一个巨大突破是我们如何谨慎而温和地部署 AI，让内容更生动。早期版本的超级信息流非常静态——虽然有丰富的卡片，但有时显得平淡。最近我们加入了视频生成，为信息流注入活力，效果显著。我们还推出了商家帖子功能，让商家能从 Instagram 和 TikTok 等其他平台同步内容，带入电商原生环境，标记产品并直接购买，这极大地活跃了信息流。

So if we think about what makes modern consumption interfaces really successful, it's density of information, collecting intent, you know, are people liking products, how many products can you get into one view scroll, you know, all of these best practices that have led to a lot of the commerce interfaces we're all pretty used to, but we really wanted to make a quite a different decision to say, how do we make this feel more like window shopping, right? So each viewport provides an opportunity to kind of portal into a particular brand story, a particular product recommendation, whatever it may be. And trust me, initial discussions around some of the prototypes that we had created were making a lot of product managers and data scientists a little nervous saying like, wow, this really thwarts um what we understand best practices to look like. And I feel truly lucky to work in an organization that's just like willing to build the thing and take the bet. And certainly in our first couple of iterations of this, it was not at all a slam dunk. Our recommendations algorithm really needed to be on point and able to serve that kind of consumption model. I think one of the other huge unlocks has been how we've been able to very thoughtfully and gently deploy AI to bring more of this content to life. Our first couple of iterations in, you know, what we call today the super feed were very static. It's great to have these rich cards, but ultimately they can feel a little flat at times. And one of the things we've been working on in shipping more recently is bringing a little bit of video generation to just create a little bit of life and interest in the feed. And that's gone a really long way. The other thing that we've recently introduced is merchant post. So merchants actually be able to syndicate content from the other services like Instagram and Tik Tok where they're already producing and showing content. Bringing that into a commerce native environment where they can tag the products. those products can be purchased right there and it's really really bringing our feed to life which is awesome.

你提到了大赌注。其中一个显然是每次只展示一个商家的橱窗式购物。还有其他例子吗？我们可以聊聊，借此了解你们的流程和评估想法的方式。

You talked about big bets. One of them for sure like the window shopping single merchant at a time that feels obvious as one. Are there other ones that come to mind that we could maybe talk about and use as a window into your process and how you even evaluate these ideas.

另一个我们逐步推进的大赌注，与信息流相关，就是我们所谓的 Shop Store。目前，商家使用 Shopify 的终极体验是搭建自己的在线商店——那是他们在互联网上讲述品牌故事的地盘。在线商店的优势在于无限可配置：你可以脱离我们的主框架，构建任何你想要的东西；主题无限可扩展。这一切都是为了最大化商家的创造力。但我们在 Shop 中面临的矛盾是：既要为买家提供统一连贯的浏览体验，又不能限制商家的表达和叙事。很酷的一点是，Luke Deon 一直在做这件事。他帮助生成了 Shop Store 的第一个版本——更准确地说是第二个版本。去年假日购物季，许多用户可能注意到商店突然变得丰富多了：有叙事、有大量视频。我们允许品牌字标突破小头像的限制，以真正的 SVG 形式呈现，显得更丰富、更有归属感。下一步，从数据角度来看，是一个有趣的挑战：让所有在线商店内容在 Shop Store 中感觉原生。Luke 主导的原型设计令人难以置信。在线商店中长期存在的数据结构和数据概念，最初让我们难以想象如何轻松迁移到 Shop。这个项目特别酷的地方在于，看到 Luke 和其他设计师挑战我们曾经认为不可能的事情，而这完全归功于 AI。他能够开发出一套原型，不仅表达想法，还能真正接入真实数据，而不是空谈，这非常了不起。

Another huge bet that we've slowly been teasing out and it's kind of downstream from the feed is really the manifestation of what we call the shop store. So today, the swan song of any merchants's experience using Shopify is getting to build their online store. It is their piece of real estate on the internet to really tell their story. The great thing about the online store is that it is endlessly configurable. You can go headless off of our main frame and build whatever you want. The themes are endlessly extensible. That's the whole point. It's to maximize merchant creativity. The tension that we've had coming into shop is wanting to have a uniform enough experience that there's cohesive browsing for buyers, but also not to limit merchant expression and storytelling. And one of the things that's been really cool, this is something that Luke Deon has been working on. He helped to kind of generate the first version of this shop store or I should really say the second version where suddenly the stores many might have noticed like last kind of holiday shopping season. Um the store suddenly felt a lot richer. The storytelling was there. There was a lot of video. You know we allowed brand word marks to bust out of the like trapped in little avatar and like let them sit as real SVGs that feel rich and feel owned. The next step though and like a fun challenge for us from a data perspective is actually getting all of the online store content to feel native within the shop store. And the prototyping that Luke has been spearheading here has been honestly incredible. There's been longstanding data structures and the way we conceived about data within the online store that initially made it hard to imagine just translating that easily to shop. What's been so cool about this project and this bet in particular is watching Luke and other designers just challenge whatever we thought was possible and it's and it's been because of AI wholeheartedly, right? His ability to develop the set of prototypes that are able to express this idea but actually get into the real data and not just, you know, handwave his way through this has been truly remarkable.

能再深入一层吗？这些原型具体包含什么？你们如何让设计师访问数据和代码库？实际的原型设计是怎样的？我知道很多听众在点头，心想“这正是我们想在组织里推广的”，但过程中有很多小障碍需要克服。

Can we go another level deeper there? Like what are those prototypes consisting of? How are you even giving designers access to this data to the codebase? Like what does that prototyping look like in practice? Because I know a lot of people are nodding along as they're listening. We're like, "Yes, that's what we want to instill in our org." But there's a lot of little hoops and hurdles to get through along the way.

目前最受欢迎的方式是设计师使用类似 Pi 的工具，配合 Claude Code，直接接入生产数据集，拉取数据并开发他们想要的任何体验。以 Luke 的原型为例，感谢开发者体验团队做了大量工作，确保我们安全地处理这些数据，避免意外。他的流程是：与 Claude 深入讨论他想构建的概念哲学，制定计划，然后实际开发。他的原型非常迷人，因为它不仅仅是一个端到端的功能。通常我们谈论原型时，会启动模拟器，构建一个完整的端到端新功能——我们也在做，效果很好。但他做的是创造一个完整的世界来概念化新的产品方向。进入原型后，你会看到整个网格的不同商家店铺。你可以点击配置不同的数据块，这些数据块实际上由在线商店数据提供。他完全使用 Claude Code 完成，并将原型托管在我们内部称为 Quick 的平台上，这样我们可以快速上线并互相分享链接，避免了所有内容都停留在本地的问题。所有内容都托管在内部，可以轻松共享，我对此非常感激。

The favorite setup right now is designers working with a harness like Pi using something like Claude Code, plugging directly into production data sets, being able to pull those down and develop whatever kind of experiences they want. And so in the example of Luke's prototype, a bunch of work has been done uh thankfully to our in our developer experience team to make it safe for us to be playing with this data without all the kinds of unfortunate accidents that could come. And so his process has really been talking a lot to Claude about really philosophically the concept of what he hopes to build, developing a plan and then going back in and actually developing. You know, his prototype is really fascinating because it's not just one endto-end feature. I think a lot of times when we're talking about prototyping, it's I've got, if we're talking about shop, I've got the simulator up and I'm going to build a new feature end to end, which we're doing too and is awesome. What he's really doing is creating a whole world to conceptualize of a new product direction. So when you get in there, you'll see like a whole grid of different merchant storefronts. You're able to click in configure the different data blocks that are actually being fed by the online store data. And he did this exclusively using Claude Code and hosting our prototypes internally in something we call quick, which allows us to like get something up very quickly and send each other links. So we get out of that problem where everything is living locally. Um, everything's hosted and can be shared internally super easily, which I'm very grateful for.

我想深入聊聊 AI 部分，但首先回到我们一直在不同角度触及的话题：指标、质量标准以及 Shop App 核心愿景之间的关系。我确信有时这些大赌注就是能成功。

I want to get into the AI piece, but first I want to return to a thing that we've we've kind of been touching on from different angles, which is this relationship between like metrics and the the quality bar and the core vision of what you want to create with the shop app because I'm sure sometimes these big bets just works.

你知道，图表上升，太棒了，大家都鼓掌。但我想可能没那么容易。所以你与这种张力斗争，因为你知道 Luke 有很棒的愿景和原型，每个人都超级兴奋，但结果却不完全如你所愿。

You know, the graph go up, great, everybody claps. But it's probably not that easy, I would imagine. And so you wrestle with that tension because you know that Luke has this amazing vision, this amazing prototype. Everybody gets super excited, but then the results aren't exactly what you want.

我认为这是我工作中非常重要的一部分，其中一部分是打好基础，比如深入了解我们的业务目标，以及我们的表现如何。这并不是说我和我的同事活在幻想中。实际上，正是对这些事情的深刻认识让我们能够前进。关键之一是在项目或挑战开始时，理解我们对风险的容忍度，并重新设定基线。Toby 非常擅长的一件事是确保我们不会在任何产品点上局部最大化。所以即使我们找到了有效的方法，也要确保我们不会完全陷入局部最优而碰壁。作为一个现有产品，期望第一次尝试就能成功，这对任何产品负责人来说都是不可能的。无论是设计、产品、数据还是工程，这都是一种疯狂的假设，对吧？任何优化过 onboarding 流程的团队都知道，当你决定重新设计时，几乎总是会失败。但关键在于有信心和共识去开始：我们要去击败现有产品，并重新设定一个可能比现状略低的基线。有一个很好的例子，由我们的增长团队 Jess Ericson 领导，Shopify 的注册页面是一个非常固化的东西。它是 Shopify 增长的生命线，所以改动它非常敏感。当时有一种看法：团队设计的一些方案非常漂亮，非常品牌化，但有很多假设说它不会表现那么好，时机不对，不确定等等。果然，我们打好了基础，最终发布了它，结果不仅没有负面影响，反而带来了正面效果。这是一个很棒的故事，我们在内部经常用它来说明：你需要创造基础去承担风险，同时知道你会像对待现有产品一样投入同样多的迭代到下一个产品上。

It's a really important part of my job I think and part of it setting the grounds like having an intimate understanding of what our business goals are and having an intimate understanding of what our performance looks like for us. So it's not to say that I or any of my colleagues live in La La Land. It's actually having an intimate awareness of these things that allow us to move forward. And one of the keys is on the onset of a project or a provocation, understanding what our tolerance for risk is and resetting the baseline. One of the things that Toby's really good at is making sure that we're not locally maximizing at any given point in our product. So even when we find things that work, making sure that we're not just totally locally stuck at ever hitting the ceiling. Being an incumbent and expecting that you're going to do that on the first shot is an impossible place to put any product leader in. You know, be it from design, product, data, engineering, that's kind of an insane assumption, right? Any team who's had to optimize an onboarding flow and that one time you decided to redesign it, like it almost always loses, right? But it's having the confidence and the agreement to begin, like we're actually going out to beat the incumbent and we're going to reset a baseline that inherently might be a little lower than what status quo is today. There's a great example of this that was led by Jess Ericson, our growth team in Shopify where like the Shopify signup page was just this hardened thing. It's the lifeline of growth for Shopify and so touching it, it was just such a sensitive thing and there was this belief that like oh some of the designs that the team were producing were absolutely beautiful, super brand forward and there was just assumptions being thrown at this thing like it's not going to perform as well. It's not the right time. We're not sure. Sure enough, we like set the grounds to be able to ship that and it was not just net neutral, it was net positive. And it was such a great like we've been using that story internally a lot to say like you need to create the grounds to take some risk knowing that you're going to commit just as much iteration into the next thing as you did the the the incumbent product.

我们能谈谈那个打开购物车的交互吗？就是下面有个抽屉的那种。这是个非常新颖的想法，对吧？我觉得我以前在购物应用里没见过。它完全合理。我想后来我在其他应用里也看到过。它背后有指标故事吗？你是怎么下这么大的赌注的？因为天哪，如果你在购物应用里不想破坏一件事，那就是购物车的用户体验，对吧？

Can we talk about the interaction to open up the cart with like the drawer underneath it? That's a super novel idea, right? Like I I don't think that I had seen that in a shopping app before. It makes total sense. I think I've actually seen it in other apps since then. Did that have a metric story around it? Like how do you take that big of a bet? Because it's like gosh, if you're not going to break one thing in a shopping app, it's like the UX of the cart, right?

我知道那是 John Rendle 的杰作。有一件事，我很好奇它是否会成为我们未来的流程，但长期以来支撑 Shop 开发的一件事是我们做的一个有趣的活动，叫做“shoplifting”，大约每年一次。我想说这不只是我的主意，但有时确实是我提出来的：我会有一个“放下铅笔”的时刻。我浏览 Shop，然后觉得我们失去了感觉。我们发布了很多东西，粗糙的边缘开始显现，接缝开始暴露。是时候花两到四周时间，让设计团队在所有界面上大展拳脚了。一小群设计师会问：“我们怎样才能让产品感觉更特别、更令人愉悦、更有趣？”在其中一个“shoplifting”冲刺中，诞生了 John 的“undercart”，我们这么叫它。它已经成为应用的一个标志，说起来很浪漫，尤其是在这个时代，我认为它已经成为我们产品中非常有品牌特色的一部分。看着它发展很疯狂，回到关于超级数据驱动和标准电商体验的话题。老实说，看到其他更大的市场开始从我们在 Shop 的做法中获得灵感，我非常震惊。大多数人可能会对此感到恼火，但我认为这很棒，主要是因为他们的规模比我们大得多。如果他们采用这些想法，那也意味着它们确实有效。举个例子，如果你把我们非常内容驱动的信息流和亚马逊用卡片做的核心发现信息流放在一起对比，还有 Target。显然，他们看到了更多叙事性故事的价值，我为此感到非常自豪，我们能够承担风险，并激励整个行业让购物对每个人都更有趣。

I know that was a John Rendle special. One of the things, and I'll be interested to see if this sticks with us as a process going forward, but one of the things that has underpinned developing Shop over time, is this funny thing we do called shoplifting, which is about once a year, I want to say it doesn't just come from me, but sometimes it really does where I just have this pencils down moment. I'm just scrolling Shop and I'm like, we've lost our touch. We've shipped a lot of stuff. The rough edges are starting to show. The seams are starting to show. It's time for us to have this moment, these two to four weeks where design just goes ham on every surface horizontally. A small group of designers saying, "What would could we do to make our product feel that much more special, that much more delightful and fun to use?" And out of one of those shoplift sprints came John's undercart, as we call it. And it's been such a signature of the app and like as romantic as that is to say, especially in this era, I think it's something that's become like a very branded part of our product. It's been wild to watch, you know, going back to this thing about being super data driven and standard commerce experiences. I've been so floored to watch other much larger marketplaces, if I'm totally honest with you, start to get inspired by what we're doing in Shop. And most people would be annoyed by that. I think it's fantastic largely because I'm like, well, their current scale is like quite a bit larger than ours. And so if they're deploying these ideas, that actually also means that they work. I mean, take for example, if you hold a sidebyside up of um where we landed with our very content driven feed and where Amazon took their core discovery feed with these cards. um target as well. Clearly, they see something in the more storytelling narrative and I that's something I'm really proud of honestly that we're able to take the risk and that that's it's inspiring the rest of the industry to make shopping more interesting for everyone honestly.

好的，我们来谈谈这两到四周的“放下铅笔”时刻，以及它背后的更广泛理念。因为我又回到了一个点：购物应用里的每件事都是可衡量的，对吧？指标在很多方面都是王道，如果你让指标失控，你可能会变成亚马逊，那就是所有道路的终点。那么，对视觉吸引力的重视如何塑造你们团队的工作方式？我们能更深入地谈谈你们工作的这一部分吗？

All right, let's talk about the two to four week periods we have the pencils down moment and and maybe just even the the broader philosophy behind that because again I just keep coming back to how measurable every single thing in a shopping app is, right? Like metrics are king in so many ways and if you let metrics you know run wild you probably get to Amazon right like that's that's where all roads lead. So how does the emphasis on visual appeal shape the way that you as a team operate? Can we go a little bit deeper into that part of the way that you work?

这是我们通过与产品和工程建立真正信任的关系而赢得的。如果我们只是坐在我们酷炫的设计象牙塔里，扔出我们坚信正确的下一个版本，那很难实现。这不是它的运作方式。它仍然在非常小、非常有才华的跨职能团队中发生。但设定的期望是，我们总是努力达到一个不断上升的新标准。我非常感激我的产品搭档，尤其是工程搭档，他们愿意一起踏上这段旅程。而且，在创始人公司里也很有帮助，创始人会设定基调。我从 Toby 那里得到的一些最特别的指示是：“Katarina，我想打开 Shop 看到一些令人愉悦的东西。”很多 CEO 不会这么说，通常他们会说“我希望看到这个 KPI 上升，希望看到这个用户增长水平”。我们都希望这些，但这里有一种真正的指令，要创造高质量的东西，这渗透到我们在 Shopify 所做的一切。

It's something we earn through having really trusted relationships with product and engineering. It would be a very hard thing to accomplish if we just sat in our cool little, you know, design ivory tower and like tossed down the next version of Shop that we just inherently believe is right. That's not how this works. It still happens within extremely small, very talented, cross-functional teams. The expectation that's set though is that we're always trying to reach for a new bar that continually starts to rise. And something that I'm very grateful my product counterpart and particularly my engineering counterpart feel aligned in walking into this journey together and frankly also it really helps to be at a founder company where the founders kind of set the stage right some of the most particular directives I get from Toby are like Katarina I want to open up shop and see something delightful that's not how a lot of like CEOs talk uh you know like it's typically uh you know I I hope to see this KPI go up I hope to see this level of user growth We all hope for those things, but there's just an inherent sense, well, not an inherent sense, like a real real directive to create things of quality, and it permeates everything we do at Shopify.

我并不是说这总是一帆风顺的对话。每天都有关于构建进度的谈判：我们进展如何，是否准备好了，如何确保做出正确的权衡。让同事们懊恼的是，我完全是个“鱼和熊掌都要”的人。我认为产品可以既高性能又美观，同时还能快速交付。

I'm not saying that it's always a smooth conversation. There's negotiations that happen every day about where are we on the build, is it ready, how do we make sure that we're making the right tradeoffs. Much to the chagrin of my colleagues, I'm very much a have a cake and eat it too kind of gal. Like I think it can be performant, beautiful, and that we can ship quickly.

假设 Toby 让你在信息流中注入一些令人愉悦的东西。那么你会尝试哪些类型的东西？在这样的产品中，愉悦感体现在哪里？

Let's say Toby asked you to bring something delightful into the feed. Like what are the types of things that you would even reach for then? Where does delight manifest inside of a product like this?

是的。嗯，我们现在用来实现这些想法的手段已经大不相同了。无论是我们的“shoplift”冲刺，还是每年十二月我们坐下来为 Shop 制定年度愿景和登月计划——那是我们在每年冬季收尾期做的事情，有点像节前的惯例。我认为这正在彻底改变，我稍后可以谈谈。但通常我们思考的就是大胆构想。我会告诉人们，在那段时间里，屏蔽日程，去最近的购物街区，拜访我们的商家在实体零售空间里创造的那些世界。如果你去过 Skims、Tacobas 或 Outdoor Voices 的实体店，你会发现他们构建了一个完整的世界。我深深热爱的是试图在软件中重现那些世界的喜悦和兴奋。这并不容易，但真正推动人们从各种地方寻找灵感。所以它始于应用之外，真正激励人们去我们通常工作范围之外的地方寻找灵感。我认为今天人们用来实现这些想法的工具显然正在发生巨大变化。我们谈到了 Luke 的原型，也谈到了一个奇怪的现象——我认为在构建移动产品的组织中，设计师们正在激烈争论：是坚持使用 React Native，还是回归 Swift 和 Kotlin？我所有还在用 React 的同事，我都跟他们说，React Native 现在还有多大意义呢？Swift 和 Kotlin 正变得越来越清晰易读，没有抽象层。智能体选择用它们来编写，而设计实际上正在推动我们重新考虑对 React Native 的承诺，直接使用 Swift。由此产生的原型设计和工具构建绝对令人惊叹，它以各种方式释放了创造力，看到这些真是太酷了。

Yeah. Well, the things we're reaching for to realize these ideas are wildly different right now. I mean, whether it be our shoplift sprints or, you know, every December we used to sit down and say it's time to generate like a vision and a moonshot for the year for Shop. That's something that we've done every winter closeout period. It's kind of the thing we do before the holidays. I think that is changing entirely and I can talk about that in a sec. But typically what we've thought about is just really dreaming up things. And I would tell people in those moments like block off your calendar, go to your nearest shopping neighborhood, go visit some of our merchants in their real retail spaces where they've created these worlds. I mean, if you've ever been to a Skims retail location or Tacobas or Outdoor Voices, there's a whole world that they build. And like what I've been deeply passionate about is trying to recreate the joy and the excitement of those worlds in software. Not easy to do, but to really push people to find inspiration in all manner of sorts of places. And so it starts, you know, outside of the app and really inspiring people to go find inspiration outside of where we usually work. I think today what people are reaching for to render those ideas obviously is changing greatly. You know, talked a little bit about Luke's prototype, talked a little bit about how oddly enough and I think it's a debate that is raging for a lot of designers in organizations that are building mobile products is whether to stick with React Native or go back to Swift and Kotlin, right? I think all the colleagues I'm DMing right now who are still a React house, I'm like no, if React Native really makes much sense anymore. You know, Swift and Kotlin are becoming much more legible languages. There's no layer of abstraction. Agents choose to write in those things and design is actually now responsible for kind of pushing us in the direction of now reconsidering our commitment to React Native and working directly in Swift. And the prototyping that has come out of that and the tool building has been absolutely phenomenal and it's unlocking creativity in all manner of sorts of ways, which has been so cool to see.

这种推动仅仅是因为设计师通过 Swift 获得了更大的能力来提升上限吗？你看到了这种情况吗？目前 Shop 的设计师有多少人在摆弄 Swift，而不是仅仅做静态原型这种更传统的设计？

And that push is just coming from the fact that designers are more empowered to raise the ceiling with Swift? And is that something that you're like seeing? Like how common is it for designers at Shop right now to be tinkering with Swift versus simply doing like you know static mocks more traditional design?

变化非常快。我认为很多从事移动设计的人都在经历这个转变，但 Figma 一直是主要画布。不过，向其他工具的转变或张力我们早已感受到。许多加入 Shop 的优秀设计师将 Origami 引入了组织。我 12 年前在 Facebook 工作时就知道 Origami。它进入了组织，但并非每个人都使用的工具。学习曲线很高，Origami 是一个非常特殊的软件。但我们最梦幻的想法通常来自使用 Origami 的那部分设计师。很多 Shop 的设计师都在问自己：我该学 Origami 吗？就在那时，工具爆炸式增长，我们能够直接使用代码工作，人们开始说：我可以学 Origami，但我不确定这有多大意义。或者不学，直接写代码。Shopify 在建立原型能力时，为管理后台搭建这样的环境很容易。我们现在有 admin playground，这是大多数设计师现在工作的主要方式。他们可能在 Figma 画布上处理一些事情，然后直接进入 admin playground，用云代码开发想法。我们之前没有建立同样的环境，所以设计师在尝试用 React Native 进入生产代码时遇到了障碍。由于几层抽象和代码库的结构，它不太清晰。所以一些设计师开始转型，用 Swift 构建一个更易用的 Shop 版本。结果令人难以置信，现在很多人觉得可以直接跳进去工作。这就像跳过了 Origami 这个之前的领先工具，直接使用 Swift。这引发了讨论：如果我们希望更多人贡献代码，难道不应该使用最清晰、最原生的编码框架吗？无论是 Web 的 React、iOS 的 Swift 还是 Android 的 Kotlin？这似乎占了上风。至少在 Shopify，这实际上是无意中由设计推动的，基于我们选择的原型工具。这迫使我们与 CTO 和 Toby 坐下来，说我认为是时候重新考虑原生问题了。似乎我们都认同，正如你所说，这完全提升了设计师创造力的上限，看到这些真是太酷了。

It's changed so much so quickly. One of the things that I think a lot of people who are working in mobile design are going through this transition, but Figma's always been a mainstay as the canvas. But this transition or this tension into other tools we've felt for a long time. As many of the talented designers who came to Shop introduced Origami into the organization. I knew Origami from 12 years ago working at Facebook. Like that had been something that came into the organization. Not a tool everybody was reaching for. The learning curve felt high. Origami is a very particular piece of software. But our dreamiest ideas usually came through the subset of designers working in Origami. And a lot of people were asking themselves, other designers in Shop, should I be learning Origami? And it's at that exact moment that like we have this explosion of tools and our ability to work directly in code that people started to say, I mean, I could learn Origami, but I'm not sure that makes a ton of sense. Or I could not. Or I could just be working directly in the code. And one of the first as Shopify was building up its kind of prototyping capabilities. It was really easy for us to spin up that world for the admin. We now have admin playground which is the mainstay of how most the designers work now. Might sort out a few things in the canvas and Figma and then go directly into the admin playground, work with Claude Code and develop their ideas. We didn't quite have the same environment built up. And so designers hit a bit of a wall trying to get into production code working with React Native. It just having a couple of layers of abstraction and the way that the codebase was structured, it wasn't super legible. And so some of our designers started to basically do a transition and build a version of Shop inside of Swift that's a lot easier to work with. And we've had incredible, like just an explosion of people now just feeling like they can jump in and work directly there. And so kind of had this like hop and skip over the previous leader and tool in Origami and now people are just working directly in Swift. That has then led to the discussion, well, if we want more people contributing to the code, shouldn't we be working in the most legible coding frameworks that are native to the platform, whether it be React for web, Swift for iOS, and Kotlin for Android? And that seems to be winning out. And at least in the case of Shopify, that's really been a design-led push unintentionally just based on the prototyping tools that we've picked. And it's forcing us to come to the table with, you know, our CTO and Toby and saying like I think it's time to reconsider the question around native. And seemingly we're all bought in and it's as you said just has completely raised the ceiling on designer creativity, which has been really cool to see.

仅仅因为想让更多非工程师进入代码领域就能影响如此级别的技术决策，这真的很有趣。这在我看来非常有力地说明了未来工作的方向。

The fact that that level of technical decision can actually be influenced by simply wanting to get more non-engineers into the code is really interesting. Like that to me speaks quite loudly about where the future of work is headed.

完全同意。我认为这在组织内部是一股非常具有推动力的力量，对吧？并不是每个人都觉得“酷，听起来不错”。我前几天发过这个，Cleo 一直说未来属于能构建的设计师，我说：“是的，还有那些存在于对技术栈及其运作方式有理念的组织中的设计师。”现在我们角色的一部分就是谈论构建的用户体验，这非常有趣。我不知道，这是我们作为设计师以这种新方式构建的一个有趣的副产品，但我有点喜欢它。

Absolutely. And I think it's a very agitating force within the organization, right? It's not everybody's like, "Cool, sounds great." Posted this the other day, but it's like Cleo keeps saying the future belongs to designers who can build and I'm like, "Yes, and those who exist in organizations that have philosophies about tech stacks and how they work." Like part of our role now is talking about the user experience of building, which is super interesting. I don't know, it's a funny byproduct of us being designers who are trying to build in this new way, but I kind of love it.

这是我经常思考的事情。我有几个朋友在非常传统的银行基础设施或医疗保健类公司工作，他们离你所谓的现代 Web 技术栈相去甚远。结果，设计这个学科本身都出现了分裂。我的日常工作与某些人截然不同——坦率地说，这并非他们的错，他们根本无法接触到真正的代码，因为要跨越的障碍和 hurdles 太多了。环境根本就不是为这个而设的。如果你在 Swift 或移动端工作，但肯定也在做典型的 React、Next、Tailwind 这类东西，那么对于设计师能做什么来说，现在就像一列失控的货运列车。我们角色的形态变化速度远远快于那些无法在这些技术栈中工作的人。

It's something that I think about a lot. I have a few friends that work in very legacy banking infrastructure or healthcare style companies where they're so far from what you would consider a modern web tech stack. As a result, there's this splintering of what the discipline of design even looks like. My day-to-day looks incredibly different from somebody who, frankly, it's not even their fault, there's just no way they can actually work with the real code because there are so many hoops and hurdles to jump through. It's just not set up for that. If you are working in Swift or mobile, but definitely doing the typical React, Next, Tailwind, that kind of thing, it's a runaway freight train right now in terms of what designers can do. The very shape of our roles is moving much more quickly than people who don't have the ability to work in those types of tech stacks.

是的。我的建议是——这在 Shopify 正在发生，但我想它也在各地发生。很容易认为在项目内部或初创公司里做这件事很简单，因为那里没有基础。Shopify 已经超过 20 年了，有很多遗留代码，很多需要考虑的事情，很多关于前端、后端等等的哲学。我发现有些设计师在原则问题上正面交锋，试图直接与工程师争论他们的技术选择，把自己搞得筋疲力尽。我最近给出的建议是：重新专注于让你作为设计师与众不同的东西，那就是设计令人向往的东西。别担心可行性。选择那些能让你以最可信的方式呈现想法的工具。如果这意味着你要在 React 中启动一个 Web 项目，即使你知道你的团队在用 Web 组件或其他什么，也不要让这阻止你的愿景，去做那个东西。你不能把它部署到生产环境并不意味着你失败了。我想 Notion 的 Max 前几天刚谈到这个，他并不真正关心设计师是否部署生产代码，更重要的是他们用这个媒介来完整呈现他们的想法，并与真实数据一起工作。对我来说，那是最有价值的。所以，别担心你的东西现在会不会上线。那个问题会自行解决。我迫不及待，因为谁不想让更多人安全且高性能地贡献代码呢？我想每个人都想要那样。专注于呈现你的想法，因为从历史上看，如果设计师一开始不懂代码，他们能高效地交付代码的时间总共只有 2 小时。突然之间，我们从“我的责任是呈现想法”变成了“我的责任是端到端地构建东西”。这正是很多设计师卡住的地方：“天哪，我尝试合并这个 PR 时测试失败了。”我到了这样一个点：首先，问问自己，试图部署到生产环境是否在合适的范围内？你是想交付一个完整功能，还是只想修复一些东西？如果你想原型一个完整功能，不要试图端到端地完成并部署到生产环境。只需呈现整个想法，然后用它来和工程团队沟通。如果他们能用，那太好了。如果他们能教你下次如何更可用地构建它，那就更好了。但这不是我现在对设计师的期望。我只想看到最好的想法，更多的想法。这就是我们如何构建伟大事物的方式。

Yeah. And my advice is, and this is happening at Shopify, but I think it's happening a little bit everywhere. It's easy to think about doing this inside projects or at startups where there is no basis. Shopify is over 20 years old. There is a lot of legacy code, a lot of things to consider, a lot of philosophies about front ends, backends, all this stuff. I find some designers are exhausting themselves fighting those battles head-to-head on principle, trying to debate with engineers directly about their technology choices. The advice I've been giving more recently is: refocus on what makes you as a designer differentiated, which is designing what's desirable. Don't worry about feasibility. Pick the tools that will allow you to render the idea in the most believable way. If that means you're going to spin up a web project in React, even though you know your team is using web components or whatever they may be using, don't let that stop your vision, go build the thing. The fact that you can't ship it to production doesn't mean that you've failed. I think Max from Notion was just talking about this the other day, not really caring if designers are shipping to production code, that it's more important that they're using the medium to be able to render the fullness of their ideas and to work with real data. That to me is what's most valuable. So, don't worry about whether or not your thing is going to ship to production right now. That problem will start to sort itself out. And I can't wait because who doesn't want more people contributing to code safely and performantly? I think everybody would want that. Focus on rendering your idea because historically, it's been a total of 2 hours that designers could productively ship to code if they didn't know code in the first place. Suddenly we went from 'my responsibility is to render idea' to 'my responsibility is to build the thing end to end.' That's where a lot of designers are actually getting stuck: 'Oh my gosh, my tests are failing as I try to merge this PR.' I get to a point where I'm like, first of all, ask yourself, is it the right scope to be trying to ship to production? Are you trying to ship a full feature or just fix some stuff? If you're trying to prototype a full feature, don't go for the moonshot of end-to-ending this and shipping it to production. Just render the whole idea and then use that as the thing you talk to engineering with. If they can use it, amazing. If they can teach you how to build it more usably next time, even better. But that's not the expectation I'm holding for designers right now. I just want to see the best ideas, more ideas. That's how we build great things.

是的。我现在很多工作都是从让 Claude 创建一个以 SLP playground 斜杠 s 开头的路由开始的。不幸的是，我复制了很多组件并把它们拆开。所以可能有点浪费 token。但它很快成了我流程中的 staple。我把它当作那个有趣的特征工作台。就像以前“你的 Figma 有多有条理？你给图层命名了吗？”一样，我们现在推理东西存储在哪里以及为什么的方式，就是我们在这项工作中创造的新混乱，这很有趣。

Yeah. A lot of my work starts right now with asking Claude to create a route that starts with SLP playground slash s whatever it is. Unfortunately, I duplicate a lot of components and break them apart. So maybe there's a little bit of lost token use there. But it's quickly become a staple of my process. I think of that as the funny signature workbench. It's like the old 'how organized was your Figma? Did you name your layers?' is how we reason about where our stuff is stored and why. That's kind of the new mess we've all created in this work, which is fun.

我曾经是那种非常强迫症的 Figma 用户，你知道的。我真的教过一门关于如何组织 Figma 文件的课程。我在意，并且对什么……有很多想法。所以现在我是那种人：我有一个完整的分支，可能在未来几天内合并，它实际上是我所有 playground 文件的组织层。所有文件都标有日期，并附有 AI 生成的关于我在探索什么的摘要，就像一个大的时间线。我想，一个新的设计师 anyagram 测试……你可能也是一个桌面整洁的人……

I was one of the very OCD Figma people, you know. I literally taught a course about how to organize Figma files. I cared and I had a lot of ideas about what the... So now I'm the kind of person who has a whole branch that I'm actually going to merge in probably in the next couple days, and it's literally the organization layer for all of my playground files. It's all dated with AI-generated synopsis of what I was exploring, and it's like this big timeline. I'm like, a new designer anyagram test... You're probably also a clean desk worker where...

哦，非常整洁，非常整洁，我的桌子现在你看了会直播。

Oh, so clean, so clean my desk right now you'd stream.

有一个我无法停止问自己的问题：如果公司申请与你交谈，而不是反过来呢？这个问题正是全新 Dive 人才网络的基础。而且它正在发挥作用。现在，我正在帮助我所知道的最令人兴奋的初创公司招聘收听本节目的设计师和构建者。所以，如果你好奇外面有什么机会，也许你想加入我的名单，或者你甚至正在寻找你的下一个设计招聘，请访问 dive.club/talent 立即加入。

There's one question that I can't stop asking myself. What if companies applied to talk to you rather than the other way around? And that question is the foundation for the all-new Dive talent network. And it's working. Right now, I'm helping many of the most exciting startups that I know to hire the designers and builders who listen to this show. So, if you're curious what might be out there and maybe you want to get on my list, or maybe you're even looking for your next design hire, head to dive.club/talent to join today.

我想反驳你刚才说的一点。我要戴上我的设计推特怀疑者帽子一会儿。你谈到设计师真的需要忽略可行性，比如，只管做东西，别担心实际把它投入生产。我同意，这有道理。但如果我们再深入一层，我认为你也可以论证，忽略可行性的最纯粹形式实际上是不用代码工作。只是抛出那个以“如果”开头的疯狂想法的快速草图，你根本不知道它是否有意义去构建，甚至是否可能构建。而通过拥抱代码作为媒介，设计师实际上把自己放到了一个更受可行性限制的盒子里，可能限制了一些疯狂的想法，仅仅因为它们实现起来可能更具挑战性。我很好奇你对此有什么看法。

I want to push back on one thing that you said. I'm going to put on my design Twitter skeptic hat for a second here. You talked about how designers really kind of need to ignore feasibility by, you know, just make the thing. Don't worry about actually getting the thing into prod. Which I'm like, yes, that makes sense. But if we take that one level further, I think you could also make the argument that the purest form of ignoring feasibility is actually not working in code. It's just throwing the quick sketch of the crazy idea that starts with 'what if' and you have no idea if it even makes sense to build or if it's even possible to build. And that by embracing code as a medium, designers actually are putting themselves in a little bit more of a feasibility box and potentially capping some of the crazy ideas simply because they might be a little bit more challenging to make real. I'm curious if you have a take on that.

我相信这是 IDEO 在很久以前推广的，但那是他们的创新甜蜜点，对吧？他们谈到了创新需要的三件事。

I believe this was popularized by IDEO a million years ago, but it was like their sweet spot for innovation, right? And they talked about three things that you need to innovate.

Desirability（渴望度），你知道，这是人们想要的东西吗？Feasibility（可行性），我们能构建它吗？Viability（生存力），如果构建出来，它能帮助业务增长和持续吗？我过去谈到过的一件事是，你可以把这些责任映射到我们的工种上，比如设计师负责让产品令人渴望，工程师决定可行性，产品经理判断是否可行。大致来说，有些方面已经不再成立，有些仍然成立。不再成立的是，这些责任不再能清晰地按工种划分。我认为这非常令人兴奋。我认为仍然成立的是，设计应该是渴望度的先锋。我想，如果你把这个说法延伸到品味、编辑、决定什么真正重要，那是一种技能，自计算机发明之前就一直自然地扎根于设计实践中。所以这是设计长期以来一直在做的事情。我认为更多类型的人、更多类型的构建者会开始做这件事。但我倾向于同意你的观点。我想你是在挑战我，但我倾向于同意你，我最讨厌看到的是约束开始驱动设计过程，尤其是现在。我通常给初级设计师的建议和反馈是，他们会在评审或演示时说，“这是我想到的。”而在他们告诉我他们的愿景故事或演示原型之前，他们就说，“我和这个工程师谈过，这个数据不可用。我和那个谈过，”然后我们就陷入了一长串为什么某事不能发生或为什么我看到的版本是妥协版的原因。这一直是个问题，也是我一直在试图纠正的。我担心的是，随着设计师学习新工具爆发，他们会开始根据自己当前的技能集来设计。我认为理论上很重要的一点是，使用像 Pi 或 Claude Code 这样的工具，你应该能够突破这些约束，但并不是每个设计师都对此非常适应。你需要理解一定程度的提示工程。你需要设置好环境。我一直在向设计师强调的一点是，不要丢失你的想法。不要丢失你想法的完整保真度。如果这意味着现在你需要做的第一件事是在 Figma 中画出一些屏幕，在尝试创建原型之前推理你的想法，那很好。这没什么错。但不要让你当前技能集的约束限制可能性的边界。因为那样我们就会错过好想法，而这正是现在重要的。

Desirability, you know, is this a thing people want? Feasibility, can we build it? Viability, is this something that if built can help a business grow and sustain? One of the things that I've talked about in the past is that you could actually map those responsibilities to our crafts, like designers are responsible for making it desirable, engineers determining feasibility, product managers figuring out if it's viable. Roughly speaking, there are things that are no longer true about that and things that are still true. Things that are no longer true about that is that those don't cut cleanly across crafts anymore. And I think that's very exciting. I think what is still true about it is that design should be the tip of the spear for desirability. And I think that's probably the genesis of if you extrapolate that comment out to taste, editing, deciding what actually matters, that's a skill set that has been naturally a home in the design practice since before computers were invented. So that has just been a long-standing thing that design has done. I think more types of people, more types of builders will begin to do this. But I tend to agree with you. I think you were challenging me, but I tend to agree with you that the thing that I hate to see is when constraints start driving the design process, especially now. The advice and feedback I'm typically giving to our more junior designers is they'll show up to a critique or a demo and say, "Here's what I thought about." And before they're telling me a story of what their vision is or walking through their prototype, they're like, "I talked to this engineer, this data isn't available. I talked to, you know," and we're into a grocery shopping list of why something can happen or why what I'm being presented is a very compromised version of the idea. That's always been an issue and always something I'm trying to coach out of people. The thing I worry about with any new kind of tool explosion as designers are learning is that they'll start designing to their local skill set. And I think it's really important in theory, working with tools like a harness like Pi or Claude Code, you should be able to break beyond those constraints, but it's not a format that every designer is super comfortable with. There's a certain level of prompting you have to understand. You have to get your environment set up. And the thing that I keep stressing with designers is don't lose your idea. Do not lose the full fidelity of your idea. If that means right now for you the first thing you need to do to get your brain to map it out is getting some screens in Figma, reasoning about your idea before you try to create a prototype, great. There's nothing wrong with that. But do not let constraints of your own skill sets in this moment constrain what's possible. Because then I think we're just missing out on the good ideas, and that's what's important right now.

我非常喜欢这个说法。它让我想起“品味执行差距”这个短语，我们几乎用它来定义设计工程师带来的价值。即使对我自己来说，这也很困难，因为每次我尝试构建一些东西并推动自己更进一步时，我都能感觉到肌肉在增长，比如前端交互之类的东西。但偶尔我会因为某个愚蠢的状态而卡在实现某个想法上，我就是搞不定。你知道，这更像是工程问题而不是设计问题，你几乎会有点确信，心想，“天哪，我是不是在代码路径上走得太远了？其实我本可以抓住想法的核心，获得下一步所需的东西，也许用更传统的方式，比如在 Figma 中做，就可以了。”

I like that a lot. It reminds me of the phrase "taste execution gap" that we almost used as a way to define what design engineers brought to the table. And even for myself, it's hard because every time that I try to build something and I push myself a little bit further, I can feel the muscle growing of, you know, front end interaction, all this kind of stuff. And yet every once in a while I will get blocked on executing against some piece of an idea because it's some stupid state that I just can't quite figure out. You know, it's like so engineering and not design and you kind of almost have a little bit of conviction where I'm like, "Ah man, did I just go too far in the code path here where actually I could have got enough of the nugget of an idea to get what I need to take the next set of steps and it could have just been like doing things a little bit more traditionally in Figma for instance."

是的。这就是为什么几周前你请来的 Marvin 谈到了 artifact，这个我们构建的新工具，旨在成为分享设计进展的新场所。正是这种多 artifact 方法成为了这个工具必须存在的非常重要的驱动力，这样在工作区中你可以拥有任何类型的资产，对吧？你可以有一个快速的 Origami 原型，把动效过渡做得恰到好处。比如 John Rendle 会提示 undercart 吗？我不知道。但他用 Origami 做了出来，而且很漂亮，成了我们应用中的一个标志。我对此感到兴奋，我们构建了它。你知道，无论是 Figma、网页原型、Swift 原型、Origami 的视频捕捉，还是其他什么，它们都可以被收集在一个思维空间画布中，所有这些资产对于解决这个问题非常有帮助，这样我们就不会在尝试构建想法时陷入死循环。

Yes. That's why the tool you had Marvin on a couple weeks ago and he talked about artifact, this new tool that we built to kind of be the new place to share what's happening in design. It's this multi-artifact approach that actually became a very important driving force for why this thing needed to exist so that in a workspace you can have any sort of asset, right? You can have a quick Origami prototype that gets the motion transition just right. Like would John Rendle have prompted the undercart? I don't know. But he Origamied it and it's beautiful and it's become a signature in our app. I'm thrilled about it and we built it. You know, whether it's Figma, a web prototype, a Swift prototype, a video capture of an Origami, whatever it is that they can all be collected in one thought space canvas of all these assets has been incredibly helpful for this exact thing so that we don't get stuck then trying to build our idea and kind of getting stuck in the death loop if it were.

好吧，所以我们有很多原型在飞来飞去。我们有 artifact。我们还有 Toby，他在谈论他如何希望看到应用中有更多愉悦感。我们有一群才华横溢的设计师，他们正在实验、修补和构建自己的工具。那么我的问题是，你如何确保你不会过度烹饪这个应用，塞满一堆单独看很棒但放在一起却让人不知所措的东西？

All right, so we have a bunch of prototypes flying around. We have artifact. We also have Toby who's talking about how, you know, he wants to see more delight in the app. We have a bunch of talented designers who are just experimenting and tinkering and building their own tools. So my question then is how do you make sure that you don't overcook this app and stuff it full of a bunch of things that in isolation are amazing and yet together you have this overwhelming experience.

编辑最近成了工作的重要部分。真正专注于我们体验中最关键的方面，并对此保持非常严格的纪律。我认为这确实是我们现在正在进行的对话，因为我们考虑 Shop 进入成熟阶段，以及它是什么、能提供什么。这占了很大一部分。哪些原语真正驱动了用户最成功的会话？他们回来做什么？包裹跟踪仍然是一个支柱。信息流是一个支柱，我们试图推动的更多智能体式搜索的创新，这些是我们想要做好的三大主要事情。然后当我们更广泛地考虑 Shop 时，从网络角度来看它需要擅长什么，我们显然还有其他产品套件，人们想到 Shop 时通常不会想到它们，那就是 Shop Pay 和我们的身份层，登录功能，成为 Shop 的身份中心，一切围绕它，确保我们不会越过那条红线，为了做事而做事，确保我们保持纪律。这意味着，我们做的所有有趣的事情，现在产生的想法比我们计划发布的要多得多。而以前，我们只有很少几个非常令人兴奋的想法，我们把所有精力都放在一个箭头上。

Editing has been an important part of the job as of recently. Really focusing in on what is the most critical aspects of our experience and getting really really disciplined about that. I think certainly that's actually a conversation we're having right now as we think about Shop coming into a stage of maturity and what it is and what it can deliver. That's been a really big piece of it. What are the primitives that really drive the most successful sessions for users? What are they coming back to? Package tracking just still really being a mainstay. The feed being a mainstay, the new innovations we're trying to drive in more of an agentic search, like those kind of being the three major things that we want to be great at, and then when we think about more broadly in Shop, what it needs to be good at from a network perspective, we obviously have our other suite of products that people often don't think about when they think about Shop, which is Shop Pay and our identity layer, getting to sign in and kind of being the identity center of Shop and really everything circling around that and making sure that we're not crossing over into that red line of doing things for the sake of doing things and making sure that we're really disciplined. It means that like all of the fun things that we're doing, we're generating way more ideas now than ever than we ever planned to ship. Whereas before we had very few very exciting ideas that we put all our wood behind kind of one arrow.

我认为这正是变化之一，让设计师们接受一个事实：我们不会把所有东西都发布出去。但所有这些都能激发我们或 Shopify 其他部门的灵感，这非常令人兴奋。这是否与你之前提到的“不再在年底做登月赌注”的想法有关？纯粹是速度和大量涌现的想法。你能谈谈这如何改变了你对路线图排序乃至产品策略实践的思考吗？

And I think that's one of the things that's changing and getting designers comfortable with the fact that we're not going to ship everything. But all of these things play a role in inspiring either us or other parts of Shopify, which is super exciting. Is that what ties back to your idea about no longer doing the moonshot bets at the end of the year? Just the pure speed and the amount of ideas that are going out. Can you talk a little bit about how that's shaped the way that you think about roadmap sequencing, the practice of product strategy even?

完全同意。现在我们觉得，一月份坐下来决定明年应用要做什么这种想法简直可笑，因为想法生成的速度太快了。过去通常的做法是：我们先制定设计愿景，然后从中得出第一季度的路线图，再判断哪些想法应该真正塑造我们的路线图，以及需要哪些后端系统来支撑那种体验。好，我们就在第一季度做这些投入。我们在制定路线图时一直是以设计为主导的。而现在，这一切都在以微剂量、每周为单位发生，新的原型不断涌现。我之前提到的 Luke 做的那个原型，他就像个“迷失森林里焦头烂额的设计师”，说“我脑子里全是这些想法”，我觉得这非常令人兴奋。你能用一段快速的异步视频讲一个连贯的故事，让我们传阅看看大家是否感兴趣吗？果然，大家像着了火一样，惊呼“天哪，我们真的发现好东西了”。我们给他配了几个工程师，不考虑现有团队结构和小组，直接说“不，我们就追着这个想法的热度走，看看它有没有潜力，能不能做出来”。所以，正如你所说，变化巨大，我们验证想法的能力现在变得频繁得多、快得多。

Absolutely. Yeah, the idea that we sit down in January and decide what the app's going to be next year is kind of hysterical now given how quickly we can generate ideas. What would end up happening typically is we would make that design vision and the first quarter roadmap would fall out of that and we'd kind of say which of these ideas should really shape our roadmap. What are the backend systems that would need to exist in order to serve that kind of experience. Okay, we're going to make those investments in Q1. We've really been always design-led in how we shape our roadmap. What's happening now is that that's just happening in micro doses week to week where new prototypes are being generated. The one I spoke of earlier from Luke like he made it he was kind of like designer Frazzled of Lost in the Woods like I'm just cooking on all these ideas and I'm like this is very exciting. Can you tell a coherent story in a quick async video that we can pass around and see if people are excited about it? Sure enough people's like hair lit on fire was like oh my gosh we're really on to something here. We zoomed him in a couple of engineers and thinking about existing team structures and squads, it's like no, let's just chase heat on this idea and see if it has legs and see if we can build it out. And so to your point, yeah, it's changed immensely and our ability to just validate ideas is now happening so much more regularly, so much faster.

你关于视频的评论让我想深入另一个话题：显然，“底层抽屉”本身就是一个好主意，对吧？它之所以有效并获得认可，是因为它是一个好主意，而好主意是有程度之分的，对吧？不是每个主意都是 10 分，但有很多好主意值得发布，但现在面临的挑战是，你得让人们兴奋起来。你需要获得认可、支持、热度——就像你用的那个词。那么我的问题是：假设一个设计师加入 Shop 团队，一年后，你期望他们学到什么关于如何为想法制造热度的东西？你看到那些最优秀的设计师，他们总能获得支持，甚至让想法在内部流传，他们用了哪些策略或方法？

Your comment on the video made me want to go down a different rabbit hole, which is obviously something like the bottom drawer is just a good idea, right? That worked and there was buy-in because it's a good idea that exists on a spectrum, right? Not every idea is a 10 out of 10, but there are plenty of good ideas that are worth shipping, but there's now this challenge of like, well, you got to get people excited about it. You got to get there's got to be some buy-in, some support, some heat as the word that you used. So, my question then is let's say a designer joins the shop team. They are now a year into it. What do you expect them to have learned about building excitement for the ideas? And what are some of the tactics or strategies that you see of the best designers that are consistently able to rally support or even just have ideas circulate internally?

我认为在过去的构建世界里，答案可能没那么有争议，就是做一个非常吸引人的原型并讲一个故事。我觉得现在依然如此。只是现在做这件事的能力，说实话，容易多了。

I think the answer in a previous world of building wouldn't have been that controversial, but it was like make a really compelling prototype and tell a story. I think that stands now. I just think that your ability to do that, it's honestly much easier.

是的，它被民主化了。

Yeah, it's democratized.

它被极度民主化了。我认为对于设计师来说，从他们开始工作到 6 个月、再到 12 个月，这个过程容易得多。我现在就有一个例子，这在我们学徒项目之前，当时 Liam Fenel 以驻场设计师的身份加入我们。因为我们没有实习项目，所以我这么叫。他刚毕业，拥有计算机科学学位，想深入钻研设计。他的起步基础是：从小处着手，做小功能，但要让它们绝对精美。所以，他打磨工艺基础，与其他优秀设计师一起工作，技能飞速提升，然后掌握了工具，最终达到了我认为所有优秀设计师都会到达的合理位置——渴望塑造 Shop 的未来战略。尽管有一种短视的焦点，比如“设计师要会写代码”，这很重要且正确，我也完全认同，但我们忽略了这个时代为设计师解锁的另一部分：获取数据的能力，以及以前没有的业务透明度。你知道，我日常工作中最常用的工具之一就是数据门户，我经常和我的工作智能体对话。我以前常说：“哦，我永远不会管理产品，因为我不懂 SQL，不会查询自己的表。”但现在这已经过时了。现在我可以问各种数据问题，了解用户在做什么，什么有效，什么无效。这是帮助我形成全局观、知道该做什么、该设计什么的最有用的工具之一。所以，回到 Liam，他现在入职大约 8 个月，他跟我说他真的很想参与更多战略对话，理解我们为什么做某些选择，为什么认为某个东西应该发布而不是不发布，因为我认为他明白这能让他成为更好的设计师。所以，巨大的转变是：人们来的时候是为了做出色的工艺工作，但离开时却成了优秀的产品思考者。在我看来，这是这个时代最持久的技能之一，因为我们的核心价值正从执行转向塑造人们喜爱的伟大产品。

It's extremely democratized. It's a lot easier, I think, for designers who start, you know, where they are from when they start to 6 months and then 12 months in. I have the story right now with a, you know, this predated our apprenticeship program, but we had Liam Fenel join us as like designer and residence. It was like we didn't have an internship program, so that's what I called it. And he started with us and fresh out of school computer science degree looking to really go deep in design and the starting fundamentals were like start small and small features but make them absolutely beautiful right and so like getting down the craft fundamentals as he's grown incredibly quickly in deepening his skill sets as a designer working alongside other great designers and then adopting the tools he's landed at the logical place I think really great designers always land which is a hunger to shape the strategy of where shop is going. As much as there's a really myopic focus on like designers in code, which is important and true, and I am totally signed on on, we're missing the other part of what this era is unlocking for designers, which is access to data, access to legibility in the business that you didn't have before. You know, one of the tools I lean on most often in my day as I'm talking to my agent at work is the data portal. I used to say like, "Oh, I'd never run product because I don't know SQL and I can't query my own tables." Well, that went out the door. Like now I get I can ask all matter of data questions about what our users are doing, what's working, what's not. And that is one of the most helpful pieces to informing a holistic view on what we should be doing and what we should be designing. And so, you know, back to Liam, he's 8 months in now or so, and he's talking to me about the fact that he really wants to be in more strategic conversations, understand why we're making certain choices, why we think something should ship versus not, because I think he has an understanding that's going to overall make him a better designer. And so, that's the big shift change is people come to do great craft work, but they leave really great product thinkers. And that to me is one of the most enduring skills in this era as we move out of like our central value being execution into being people who can shape great products that people love to use.

好的。那么我们来谈谈那些不像 Shopify 这样创新的公司的设计领导者。他们有点滞后。他们在寻找组织层面的北极星，以跟上所有变化和 AI 解锁的新能力。我注意到两件事：一是 Artifact，我非常相信它，我甚至围绕它创办了一家初创公司。我热爱 Artifact。二是数据门户以及它所解锁的一切，让数据访问民主化。你如何看待内部设计实践的转变？还有其他方面你认为其他公司可以借鉴的吗？

Okay. So then let's talk to a design leader who is not at as innovative of a company as Shopify. There's a little bit of a lagging effect. And they're looking for, you know, what are the north stars that we should point at organizationally to help us keep up with everything that's happening, all of the new capabilities that AI is unlocking. Two things that have stood out to me is you have Artifact, which I'm a big believer. I mean, there's the whole reason I'm building a startup around it. Like, I love Artifact. The second thing is the data portal and everything that that unlocks and democratizing this access to data. Is there anything else about how you've seen the practice of the design shift internally that you think other companies could learn from?

让内部决策过程透明化。我们转录所有会议，并让这些记录可访问。我们通过一个内部工具叫 Vault，让整个内部开发过程透明化，所有项目决策都可以轻松记录。我们有

Making internal decision-making legible. We transcribe all of our meetings. We make those accessible. We make our entire internal development process legible through a homegrown tool called Vault where all decisions made on all projects can be easily documented. We have

哦，非常酷。GSD 搞定。这就像我们主要的方式：这是提案，这是我们决定构建和发布的原型。

Oh, very cool. GSD get done. That's like our main way of saying like here's the proposal, here's the prototype we've decided to build and we've decided to release.

我们现在正在迭代的一个问题是，步骤能不能更少？可能基于流程的变化，但它为我们提供了一种非常清晰的方式，让 Toby 能够从决策角度为决策者提供支持，比如你会进入队列，只看几件进来的事情，然后说“这个应该通过，这个不应该。这应该是一个提案，这个不应该。”我们做出这些决策的能力大大提高了，因为我们有真正高保真的原型可以参考。但所有这些数据都连接了一个 MCP，当我作为产品负责人需要做决策时，我可以直接问我的智能体，它会查询并找到所有之前的决策——我们以前做过这个，这里失败了。所以，让尽可能多的内部决策变得可理解，感觉至关重要。

And one of the things that we're iterating on right now is like are there fewer steps? Probably based on how the process has changed, but it gives us a really clear way both from a decision-making standpoint for Toby to underwrite decision makers and say like you're going to be in the queue to just look at a couple of things coming through and say like yes, this should go, no, it shouldn't. This should be a proposal, this shouldn't. And our ability to make those decisions is so much better because we have real high-fidelity prototypes that we're looking at. But all of that data then has an MCP hooked up to it that as I'm looking to make decisions as a product leader, I can just ask my agent and it will query and find all of these previous decisions, we've actually worked on that before. Here's where it failed. And so making as much internal decision making legible feels critically critically important.

我还认为，无论你在哪个组织，这个时代的优秀设计领导者都必须与业务目标建立极其紧密的关系，并将这种强度与对优秀设计的深刻理解结合起来。这个组合到目前为止对我来说非常有效。我觉得，把深厚的热情和强度带入正在进行的工作中至关重要，这也会让你自己更加深入，因为这最终会成为你的杠杆。当设计师告诉你，他们因为工程限制或数据问题而碰壁时，你作为设计领导者需要能够深入这些对话，并真正富有成效。

I think too just no matter what organization you're in, great design leaders of this era just have to have a deeply intense relationship with what the business is there to do and pair that intensity with a deep relationship with what makes great design. Like this is the combo that has up until this point served me pretty well. Like I just feel like it's so critically important to bring a deep passion and intensity to the work that's happening that you are also really deepened because that is ultimately going to be your leverage. When designers tell you that they're running against a wall of getting something implemented because of an engineering constraint or something in the data, you know, says otherwise, you as a design leader need to be able to zoom into those conversations and be really productive.

回想起来很有趣，因为我想到在我作为设计领导者的职业生涯中，有很多建议我故意选择不听。结果我走到了一个地方，很多那些建议——比如贴近工作、贴近手艺、真正深入了解业务——最终可能是正确的直觉，让你成为一个非常全面的决策者，能够支持你的团队和业务成果。

And it's funny for me to think about that because I think about a lot of the advice I've gotten over my career as a design leader that I purposely chose not to listen to. I ended up in a place where like a lot of that ended up being probably the right intuition about staying close to the work, staying close to the craft, really having a deep understanding of the business, making you like a really well-rounded decision maker that can support your team and support the business outcomes.

从管理角度来看，如果我们继续聊领导力这个话题，我感兴趣的是，你对优秀设计领导力的看法发生了怎样的变化，尤其是在 AI 带来的所有变化中，很多方面个人贡献者（IC）正在产生巨大影响——比如塑造战略或团队运作方式的能力。我的意思是，即使在过去的四个月里，个人贡献者也被赋予了很大的权力。作为领导者，这感觉如何？

From a management standpoint, if we keep on the leadership trail for a second here, something that I'm interested in is how your philosophy around what good design leadership looks like has shifted especially given all of the AI induced changes where in many ways like IC's are having outsized impact like the ability to shape strategy or shape the way that a team operates. I mean there's been so much power afforded to IC's even in the last four months. How what is that like as a leader?

我认为这是很多领导者都在思考的问题，也导致一些人离开领导岗位，回到个人贡献者角色，如果他们一直培养自己的手艺的话。我当然总是首先把自己描述为一名设计师。你知道，当有人问我做什么时，我说设计；然后如果朋友或我妻子在旁边，她会说“你管理 X 个人”。我说，那肯定不是让我在工作中充满活力的部分。让我充满活力的是努力成为一名优秀的设计师，我很幸运能和非常非常有才华的人一起做这件事。他们都比我更有才华，这点我要说清楚。但来自手艺本身非常重要。我认为这部分对我来说没有改变，但行业确实赶上了。

I think it's a question on a lot of leaders' minds and it's also has people leaving leadership to go back to being an IC if they nurtured their craft all this time. I certainly always describe myself as a designer first and foremost. You know when anybody asks me what I'm doing I design and then you know if a friend's around or my wife she's like you like manage x amount of people. I'm like, it's not the certainly not the part that animates me in my job. What I'm animated by is trying to be a great designer and I'm very fortunate that I get to do that alongside really really talented people. All of them are more talented than me, let me be clear. But coming from the craft is just really important. I don't think that part's changed for me, but the industry certainly caught up.

我会说，10 年前我得到的建议是，好像有一条固定的路径：哦，你必须远离手艺。你需要专注于如何开一对一会议。你需要真正发展一整套管理技能，这些技能感觉完全与推动产品前进或帮助设计师更好地设计脱节。这对我来说一直感觉很陌生。10 年后，我们处于一个非常有趣的时期，Brian Chesky 和 Spiegel 等很多人都在谈论这样一个事实：实际上，不，保持贴近手艺非常重要。

I would say 10 years ago is getting advice to say like as if there was like some hardened path like oh you'll have to like step away from the craft. You'll need to focus on the way you run a one-on-one. You'll need to really develop this entire like managerial set of skill sets that felt completely isolated from moving the product forward or like helping designers design better. That always felt really foreign to me. We're at a really interesting time 10 years later where you know Brian Chesky is talking about this and Spiegel a lot of people are talking about the fact that like actually no staying really close to the craft is incredibly important.

我觉得这非常有趣，因为指导建议是：飞得更高，横向工作等等，这些不一定错，但我认为设计师在公司里往往待得久的一个原因是，他们觉得通过我们建立的文化和我的领导方式，他们通过一起工作每天都在成为更好的设计师。我认为如果你对手艺没有深厚的热情，很难产生这种文化。我认为从长远来看，那种日程主要由谈论职业发展的一对一会议驱动的职业经理人会很难。我只是不认为那是主流。那很重要，可以有一定的节奏，但一对一的时间应该围绕工作。让我们进入工作。打开你的原型。进行实时评审，推动工作向前发展，帮助设计师弄清楚如何做出更好的决策。

I find it really interesting because like the guidance is like fly at the higher altitude, work horizontally, all these things that aren't wrong necessarily, but I think one of the reasons why designers in shop tend to stick around a long time is I think they feel that through the culture we've built and through the way I lead that they're becoming better designers every day by getting all to work together. And I think it's really hard to generate that culture if you're not deeply passionate about the craft. I think it'll be a really tough go in the long run for like the professional manager whose calendar is really driven by one-on-one time talking about career development. Like I just don't see that being the mainstay. That's important and it can happen at a certain cadence, but one-on-one time should be about the work. Let's get into the work. Let's open up your prototype. Let's have live critique and you know move this work forward and help designers figure out how to make better decisions.

我认为现在有很多讨论，比如 Cam 几周前谈到放弃评审改用演示，演示和人们正在构建的东西才是我们应该关注的。我认为这肯定很重要，我们也采用了。但我认为设计师的角色仍然在于编辑，对吧？评审。为什么某个方案比另一个好？为什么这个电话会议上每个人都突然说“啊，这太酷了”，而另一些人歪着头，说不出话来，但感觉不对？我们把这些说出来很重要，有机会以任何形式进行评审，无论是异步还是同步。

I think right now there's a lot of discussion around like Cam talked about this a couple of weeks ago ditching critique for demos and demos and people are building that's the thing that we should be looking at. I think that's definitely important and something we've adopted. But I think designer's role is still figuring out like the editing, right? The critique. Why is something better than another solution? Why is everybody on this call suddenly like, 'Ah, this is so cool.' versus cocking their head to side and not really having the words to articulate it, but like no, it's not right. It's really important that we vocalize these things and like have the opportunities to give critique in whatever we call those formats and however they happen, async or sync.

为什么这很重要？嗯，我们构建的材料语言现在变成了文字。我们现在必须给我们的智能体提供评审。大多数时候，我们必须指着东西说：“这不对，原因如下。”设计师用来改进工作的语言越精确，他们在智能体时代就越有利，因为他们可以告诉智能体他们想要修复什么。如果你的语言很宽泛，比如“这感觉不对”，你可能无法一次性搞定。给智能体那样的反馈，当然你周围的设计师也不会变得更好。所以，为这种水平的反馈创造条件，在当下感觉至关重要。

Why is that important? Well, our material language for building is now becoming words. We now have to give critique to our agents. Most the time we have to point at the thing and say, 'This isn't right, and here's why.' The higher fidelity that designers can have in the language they use to make their work better, the better off they're going to be in an agentic era where they can tell agents what they want to have fixed. The broader your language, they're like, 'This doesn't feel right.' You're probably not going to oneshot something. Giving an agent that feedback and certainly designers around you aren't going to get any better. So creating the grounds for that level of feedback to be happening feels critically important in this moment.

回想起来这很明显，但我之前真的没这么想过。你说得对。我现在每天给出的设计反馈比以前多得多。

It's so obvious in retrospect, but I haven't actually thought about it that way. You're right. Like I give so much more design feedback every day now than I previously would have.

而且这仍然感觉像是我在设计，但实际上不是——我在看那些不好的东西，试图弄明白为什么看起来不好，需要做什么才能变得更好，而不是我自己动手移动东西。你退后一步评估自己作品的机会少了很多，而现在我大约每 90 秒就在做这件事。而且我们更愿意去做了——因为我们没有经历之前那种费力拉取东西来画矩形之类的苦差事——所以我们更愿意了。这其实挺有趣的。我和一些人聊过，他们问这到底有没有价值。对我来说，我接受过经典的设计教育，在大学学了平面设计，所以我说话方式还是比较传统。我会谈层次、平衡、对称，这些 30 年前我们常说的好设计核心原则。最近我和一个非常有才华的设计师聊天——注意，是顶尖设计师——他说：“我没有那个背景，现在感觉词穷了。你描述设计改进方式时用的那些词——我该去读什么？怎么重新学习这些概念？”我忍不住笑了。现在很多软件设计师都是自学成才，没有设计背景，这很酷也很棒。但在语言变得如此重要的时代，人们缺乏词汇，这正是他们需要的东西。酷的是，这件事是递归的：我可以推荐一堆书，跟你讲我的设计教育，但你也可以直接问 Claude 或你选的模型，如何更好地描述你正在做的工作和这些概念，这样你在给反馈时就能更有条理。

And it still feels like I'm designing, but actually no, I'm looking at things that are not good and trying to figure out why that does not look good and what needs to happen for it to be better, versus me just being the one that's moving things around. And you have way fewer points where you take a step back and evaluate your own work, whereas now I'm doing it like every 90 seconds. And we're so much more willing to—because we didn't do the hard labor of pulling the thing to make the rectangle or whatever it was that we were doing before—we're so much more willing. And it's actually been really funny. I've been having some conversations with some folks who are like, whether it's valued or not. For me, I had a classic design education and studied graphic design at university, and I still talk in a pretty traditional way. I'll talk about hierarchy, balance, symmetry, all of these core tenets of good design that we used to talk about 30 years ago. And I was talking to somebody recently who's an incredibly talented designer, mind you, like top top designer, who said, 'I didn't come from that background and I feel at a loss for words these days. The way you describe what can be improved in design—what should I go read? How do I re-educate myself in some of these concepts?' And I just kind of giggled. So many software designers now are self-taught, didn't come from any background in design, which is cool and amazing. But at this time where language is becoming so fundamentally important in our process, the lack of words people have is something that they're reaching for. The cool thing though is this whole thing is recursive, because I can recommend you a bunch of books and talk to you about my design education, but you can also just ask Claude or your chosen model about how to better describe the work that you're doing and these concepts, so that you can become more articulate as you give feedback.

在你走之前，我还想问一件事。我想对那个受到启发、想用 AI 加快节奏、做过去四五年职业生涯中传统职责之外的事情，但又不那么清楚的人说。Shopify 有没有其他例子，可以帮助人们更好地理解如何真正利用 AI 这个时机，推动事情前进、实验或推动那些甚至几年前都不可能实现的进展，让其他人能从中获得更具体的灵感，应用到自己的角色中？

One more thing that I want to ask you about before you go. I kind of just want to talk to the person who is feeling inspired to expand their tempo with AI and do things that maybe are outside of the traditional box of responsibilities that they've held for the last four or five years of their career, but it's not super clear. Are there any other examples at Shopify where we could point to, to help people get a better sense of what it looks like to really capitalize on this moment in time with AI and to really push things forward or experiment or move needles that just weren't possible even a couple years ago, that other people could use as more tangible inspiration for their own roles?

我之所以在 Shopify 工作并留了下来——到秋天就快六年了——是因为这个地方从不把我框住。在此之前，我的职业生涯是：先做独立设计师，然后招聘其他设计师并最终管理他们，接着负责产品，然后从第一个初创公司出来，以为自己需要去做产品经理，于是以产品负责人的身份参加面试，结果发现‘这不是我的人。我在干什么？’经历了一场身份危机，然后对自己说：你知道吗，我要重新调整期望。我只去那些允许我发挥全部能力来帮助构建正确产品的地方，而且我只去那样的地方。Shopify 就是其中之一。现在有趣的是，大家都在讨论角色是否在融合。不幸的是，出现了一种零和的愚蠢言论：谁抢了谁的饭碗？我就想，‘天哪，谁在乎？’这完全不是人们应该得出的结论。结论应该是：作为产品负责人，扩展自己能力从未如此容易。所以，我邀请每位设计师做这个练习：想想你遇到过的、让你烦得要死的限制是什么？可能是工程限制，也可能是之前的数据或测试结果说 X 或 Y。记住，数据可以被扭曲。它背后可能有故事。不是故意的，但数据本身是客观的，解读却从来不是客观的，永远是主观的。现在你有能力查询那些数据，拉出来，说：我要看看这个。我要和 Claude 或其他工具聊聊，自己做分析，得出自己对测试结果的理解，然后判断：我们是不是漏掉了什么？我们看待它的方式有偏见吗？想想你过去或现在的项目，当你感到被阻碍，而那个阻碍本质上像是另一个领域的责任时，说：实际上，没什么能阻止我跨过那条河，把自己嵌入那个领域或技能集，或者学习它，这样我就能对这件事得出自己的结论。我希望每个人都在像我这样的地方工作，那里真正鼓励这种行为，而不是被视为威胁或越界。在健康的组织中，我们都应该朝同一个方向跑，你应该拥抱这个机会，去自学或获得自己的背景和理解。Toby 有一句很简单的格言，我最近说得越来越多：弄清楚什么是真的，然后决定怎么做。这就是每个人应该运作的基线。我很喜欢它，因为它非常简单，而且我认为它几乎适用于每个人日常工作中的每一件事。

Part of the reason why I'm at Shopify and have stayed—it'll be almost six years in the fall—is because it was a place that never put me in a box. My career prior to this was marked by being an IC designer, then being the person who would hire other designers and eventually manage them, and then be given the responsibility of running the product and then spinning out of my first startup thinking I needed to go be a product manager and went into interview loops as a product leader and then was like, 'These aren't my people. What am I doing?' and having a total identity crisis and then kind of saying to myself, you know what, I'm going to reshape my expectations here. I am only going to go work at places that allow me to exercise the full spread of my capabilities to help build the right product, and I'm only going to go work at places that allow me to do that. And Shopify is one of those places. What's funny now obviously is there's all of these discussions about how roles are merging or not merging. Unfortunately, there's a very zero-sum silly discourse that's happening now: who's taking whose job? And I'm like, 'Oh my god, who cares?' This is totally not the takeaway that people should have. The takeaway should be it's never been easier to extend what your capabilities are as a product leader. And so, the exercise I invite any designer into is to say, what's a constraint you've run up against that just bothered the hell out of you? It could have been an engineering constraint. It could have been prior data here or testing says X or Y. Keep in mind data can be twisted. It can have a story behind it. Not intentionally, but data itself is objective. The reading of it is never objective. It is always subjective. And so you have an ability now to query that data, pull it back up, and say, I'm going to look at this. I'm going to talk to Claude or whatever and actually do my own analysis and come to my own understanding of what this test said and determine, did we miss something here? Are we biased in the way that we're looking at it? Think about a former project or a project you're in now where you feel like you're being blocked and it inherently feels like a different craft's responsibility that's the blocker. And say, actually there's nothing stopping me from jumping the pond here and embedding myself in that craft or in that skill set or learning it so that I can come to my own conclusions about this thing. I hope that everybody's working at a place like I am where that's actually encouraged and not seen as a threat or stepping on toes. We should all be running in the same direction in our organizations that are healthy, and you should embrace that opportunity to be able to teach yourself or get to your own context and understanding. Toby has a pretty simple adage that I feel like I'm saying more and more these days, which is: figure out what's true and then figure out what to do about it. And that is the baseline under how everyone should be operating. And I just love it because it's really simple and I think it can apply to almost what everybody does in their everyday work.

我想不出比这更鼓舞人心的结尾了。感谢你来做客，Katarina。这非常有趣，我真的很喜欢你多年来分享的工作、Shopify 应用以及团队的一切。能稍微窥见你们如何运作、如何思考，总是件乐事。所以，感谢你今天来。

I can't think of a more inspirational ending point. I appreciate you coming on, Katarina. It's super fun and I'm just a big fan of honestly like the years of your work that you've put out there and Shopify app and everything in the team. It's always a joy to get a little glimpse into how you all operate and what you all think about. So I appreciate you coming on today.

谢谢。很高兴和你在一起。

Thanks. It's great to be with you.