如何在 Lovable 获得设计师职位

Lovable 现在是全球增长最快的公司之一。那么，他们在扩大设计团队时在寻找什么样的人？我寻找的是最初几秒内的直觉反应，就像我对产品或品牌所做的那样。这就是本质。这是产品工作和品牌工作。你试图将自己展示给一个从未见过你的人。你如何在众多设计候选人中脱颖而出？

Lovable's one of the fastest growing companies in the world right now. So, what are they looking for as they try to scale their design team? I'm looking for a gut reaction in the first few seconds, the same way that I would do with a product or with a brand. That's what this is. It's product work and brand work. You're trying to scale yourself to someone else who's never met you before. How do you stand out in a sea of design candidates?

我们真正在寻找的是高斜率人才。这意味着那些能够端到端完成事情的人，那些展现出极高学习能力的人，那些不让头衔或角色限制自己的人。

We're really looking for high slope individuals. And so, this means people who will just get things done end-to-end. People who show that they have a very high learning aptitude. People who don't let their title or let their role limit them.

欢迎来到 Dive Club。我是 Rid，这里是设计师永不停歇学习的地方。本周的嘉宾是 Lovable 的设计主管 Nad Chishtie。背景是，过去几个月他们一直在从 Dive Talent Network 招聘设计师。所以我们聊了起来，想到了一个主意：如果我们拍一集关于如何在 Lovable 获得设计师职位的节目会怎样？这就是那场对话。它非常实用。我们甚至拆解了一位最近入职设计师的作品集，来分析到底什么有效。那么，我们先听听 Nad 如何看待当前的格局，以及这些格局如何影响了他们在 Lovable 试图招聘的设计师类型。

Welcome to Dive Club. My name is Rid, and this is where designers never stop learning. This week's episode is with Lovable's Head of Design, Nad Chishtie. And for context, over the last couple of months, they've been hiring designers from the Dive Talent Network. So, we got to talking, and we came up with an idea. What if we filmed an episode that was all about how to get hired as a designer at Lovable? And this is that conversation. It's about as practical as it gets. We even break down the portfolio of one of the recent design hires to dissect what exactly is working. So, let's start by hearing from Nad how he views the current landscape and all of the different ways that that's influencing the type of designers that they're trying to hire at Lovable.

我认为我们看到的最普遍趋势是向通才的转变。你知道吗，就在一两年前，通才还是一个真正的贬义词，好像专才和通才是对立的。但我们发现，如今内部最成功的人是那些多维能力极强的人。我的论点很简单：真正聪明的人实际上可以同时做多件事，仅此而已。但我认为我们这个行业确实走错了几条路。我一直在绞尽脑汁，尽可能多地与人交流来评估这一点。我有一个正在形成的论点，很想听听你的看法。

I think the most prevalent trend that we're seeing is this trend towards generalists. And you know, it was only like what? Like maybe a year, 2 years ago where generalists was like, you know, genuine dirty word as if it was like the specialist versus generalist. But we're seeing that like the most successful people, you know, internally today are people that are incredibly multi-dimensional. And like my thesis is really simple. It's really smart people can actually just do multiple things, and that's it. But I think we actually went down a couple of wrong tracks like as an industry pretty much. And like I've been racking my brains and I've been, you know, talking to as many people as I can to try and try and assess this. And I have this kind of forming thesis that I'd love to get your take on as well.

请说。

Please.

是的，有两个比较尖锐的观点。第一个尖锐观点：当 Spotify 推崇跨职能团队时，我们建立了一个需要八到十个人才能做一个决策的系统。你会说：“好的，工程经理、每个平台的相关工程师、设计主管、可能还有研究员、分析师等等。”突然之间，八个人需要协作才能完成一件事。我们知道，从你脸上的笑容我能看出，我们知道这根本不是最优的工作方式。所以，我们在行业里沿着这条跨职能的轨迹走了相当一段时间。另一件事我认为我们做得更无辜，但实际上也有害：出于非常好的意图，我们想培养人才，于是创建了个人贡献者（IC）职级轨道。我们会说：“好的，如果你以 IC3 入职，我们会按照这些维度把你培养到 IC4 和 IC5。”同时，你想从其他公司招聘。结果，A 公司这样设计轨道，B 公司那样设计轨道。你们互相招聘，最终把它们标准化了。但众所周知，你标准化了许多来自不同来源、目标各异的东西。这是通过共识设计的。在某种程度上，这是一场奔向最大公约数的竞赛。所以，又是出于好意，但实际上你给人们画了框框。你说：“好的，你将以专才身份加入，这是你的小格子，你就待在里面，就这样。”所以我们看到的是，我们不需要过度依赖这种专才思维。内部最成功的人是跨领域的。要么他们在多个团队担任过多个角色，要么在较小的成长型公司里身兼多职，但他们在多个领域拥有惊人的直觉和非常好的判断力。他们可以端到端地做事。当有盲点时，他们做两件事之一：要么 AI 可以填补空白，因为 AI 在大多数事情上还算可以，虽然不是很好，但足以让你在几乎任何领域或专业中从零到一。但关键是，他们能端到端地做事，将 AI 作为工作流程的核心部分，并且希望他们知道自己的盲点，从而知道何时与专才合作，将事情从 80 分提升到 100 分。所以我们看到，通才实际上可以做得非常好，这与我们两年前对某个职位“最佳”人选的想法截然不同。

Yeah, like so two kind of spicy takes. Spicy take number one, when Spotify glorified cross-functional squads, we set up this system where you needed like eight to 10 people to make a single decision. You'd be like, "Okay, engineering manager, relevant engineers per platform, design lead, maybe a researcher, maybe an analyst, etc., etc." And suddenly you've got eight people who need to collaborate on absolutely everything to do one thing. And we know, and I can tell from the smile on your face, we know that this is not the optimal way to work whatsoever. And so, you know, we went down this whole cross-functional trajectory, shall we say, in the industry for quite a while. The other thing that I think we did, which was way more innocent, but actually also in some ways damaging, is with really really good intentions, we really wanted to grow people, so we created like IC tracks. And we'd be like, "Okay, if you come in as like an IC3, we're going to grow you towards a four and five in these dimensions in this way, etc., etc." And at the same time, you want to hire from other companies. And so, you end up with company A that designs a track this way, company B that designs a track that way. You want to hire from each other, and you end up kind of normalizing them. But, you know, as anyone knows, you normalize lots of things from lots of sources with different goals. And it's designed by consensus. And you know, in some ways it's kind of a race to what is the common denominator. And so, again, very well-intentioned, but in reality you end up drawing boxes around people. And you say like, "Okay, you're going to come in as a specialist, and here is your pigeonhole that you will just fit into, and then that's that." And so, what we're seeing is that we don't need to lean on too much into this kind of specialist way of thinking. The most successful people internally are incredibly cross-domain. Either they've, you know, held lots of roles in lots of teams, or they've just worn lots of hats at, you know, smaller growing teams, but they've got incredible intuition across multiple domains, really really good judgment. They can run things end-to-end. And when they have blind spots, they do one of two things. Either AI can fill in gaps because AI is kind of okay at most things, not great, but like enough that you can zero to one something in almost any domain or any specialism. But critically, they can run things end-to-end. Use AI as a core part of the workflow, and hopefully also know their blind spots so that they know when to work with specialists to like take something from 80 to 100. And so, we're seeing that generalists actually you can just do really really well, which is like super different to how we thought about the best "quote" "unquote" person for a given job even like 2 years ago.

快速插播一条消息，然后我们继续。如果你还在 Figma 中设计，然后在 Framer 中重建，那你就是在做双倍的工作。有了 Framer 的设计页面，你不再需要在工具之间切换。我为 Dive 网站制作的最后一页，完全是在 Framer 中探索和构建的。你可以在同一个地方进行草图、迭代、结构化和发布到网络。Framer 不仅仅是一个网站构建器，它是你整个工作流程的设计工具。你可以立即在 framer.com 免费开始创建。如果你使用代码 Rid，还可以解锁一个月的 Framer Pro 免费使用。大新闻：动画功能刚刚在 Mobbin 上线。你可以看到世界级应用如何利用动效来引导、愉悦用户并创造无缝体验。这只是 Mobbin 成为你整个设计团队绝对作弊码的又一个原因。我们一直在使用它，我迫不及待地想开始向团队其他成员发送动画创意。所以，今天就去 dive.club/mobbin 看看吧。那是 m o b b i n。好了，现在回到节目。

Real quick message, and then we can jump back into it. If you're still designing in Figma and rebuilding in Framer, then you're doing twice the work. With Framer's design pages, you no longer have to jump between tools. The last page that I made for the Dive website, I explored and built entirely in Framer. You can sketch, iterate, structure, and publish to the web all from the same place. Framer isn't just a site builder. It's a design tool for your entire workflow. And you can start creating today for free at framer.com. And if you use the code Rid, you can unlock a free month of Framer Pro. Big news, animations just launched in Mobbin. So, you can see how world-class apps use motion to guide, delight, and create a seamless experiences. It's just another reason why Mobbin is an absolute cheat code for your entire design team. We use it all the time, and I can't wait to start sending animation ideas to the rest of the team. So, head to dive.club/mobbin to check it out today. That's m o b b i n. Okay, now on to the episode.

如果你在招聘大量通才，你是否会放弃寻找特定组合的人的想法？这如何影响你在整体招聘与个人评估过程中的思考方式？

If you're hiring a lot of generalists, do you kind of just toss out the idea of looking for specific combinations of people? Like how does it influence the way that you're thinking about hiring in aggregate versus more of an individual basis evaluation process?

我们仍然会寻找人们真正想成为世界级专家的领域，以及他们在哪些方面关心成为世界级专才。但在通才方面，我们手册里曾经有一条，现在已经删掉了，因为它太尖锐了。我们过去常说，当别人告诉你你在越界时，你就做对了。哇。

We still look for things like what do people want to be truly world-class at? And like where do they care about being a world-class specialist? But on the general generalist front, like we actually used to have something in our handbook, which we've taken out now because it was too abrasive, but we used to say something in the spirit of you know you're doing your job correctly when someone else tells you that you're stepping on their toes. Wow.

这真的很好，因为它是一种平衡——你知道，刚加入一家公司时，你会有点紧张，不想显得愚蠢，你进来，提出一个想法，让大家讨论，然后，你知道，要花几周的时间集体酝酿才能行动，而不是直接去做然后收集意见。你能更清楚地描述一下端到端做事是什么样的吗？如果你想想我们作为设计师都熟悉的那种传统职责范围，根据你的谈话，在 Lovable，或者随着团队扩张你希望看到更多，设计师可能会做或追求哪些超出这个范围的活动、职责或产出？

And it was so good because it was this counterbalance to, you know, joining a company, you're kind of nervous, you don't want to look dumb, you come in, you spike something, you socialize it, and then, you know, it's weeks of collective energy before like doing something compared to just doing something and then getting opinions on it pretty much. Can we add a little bit more clarity around what it looks like to do something end-to-end? So, if you think about the traditional box of responsibilities that we're all kind of familiar with as designers listening to you talk, what are some of the activities or responsibilities or outputs that a designer might do or pursue that exists outside of that box that you're seeing at Lovable or maybe would hope to see more of as you scale the team?

我认为很多公司都这么说，但我们真的说到做到——作为设计师，你要与用户交谈，可以访问所有数据，你完全有权决定我们何时构建某样东西，或者推动甚至拒绝构建某样东西。你也有权删除东西。所以，如果你做了某件事但没有成功，你也要在功能上线后跟进，等等，并弄清楚问题。所以，我认为这里的设计师做了很多其他团队中产品经理会做的事情。现在，整个公司只有一位产品经理，他们基本上负责搭建公司运营所需的基础设施，并规划整体结构。但在团队内部，只有设计师和工程师结对工作。所以，简而言之，我想，做其他团队中产品经理会做的任何事情，在这里都是对设计师的期望。这就是端到端运作的过程：弄清楚要构建什么，判断什么时候有效，什么时候该删除，并与工程团队紧密合作。

I think a lot of companies say this, but we really really mean it in terms of as a designer, you are talking to the users, you've got access to all the data, you are fully empowered to decide when we build something or pushing or to push back on building something in the first place. You're also fully empowered to delete stuff as well. So, if you do something and it doesn't work out, it's also on you to follow up on that feature after it's rolled out, etc., etc., and figure that out. So, I think designers here do a lot of what product managers would do in other teams. And so, right now we have like we've only got one product manager in the entire company, and they basically work on, you know, setting up the infrastructure needed for the company to be able to operate and, you know, figuring out the overall structure. But within the teams, it's just designers and engineers like pairing on things. And so, the shorthand thing is, I guess, doing anything that a product manager might do in a lot of other teams is just expected of designers here. It's that process of running things end-to-end. So, figuring out what to build, figuring out when stuff is working, figuring out when to remove stuff as well, and just really pairing with engineering.

我认为这也是在接下来的对话中给大家的一个重要视角——我们谈论的是一家正在扩张的初创公司，没有太多遗留基础设施。可能有些听众在那些我不点名的大公司工作，它们存在已久，工作方式根深蒂固，工程-产品铁三角在每个层面都固化。我觉得那很棒。我个人对你描述的内容更感兴趣。有一类设计师听到后会想：“他们就是想让我做更多工作。”而我会说：“不，你实际上能产生真正的影响，做出战略决策，拍板决定。”我认为设计师可能最适合做这些。

And I think that's kind of an important lens to give people for the rest of this conversation, too, is we're very much so talking about a startup that is scaling, that doesn't really have a ton of legacy infrastructure, and there's probably people listening that work at I'm not going to name specific companies, but you know, they've been around a long ways. There's trenches and ways of working that are simply not going to change, you know, the engineering product triad is cemented at every single level. I think that's fantastic. I personally am much more interested in kind of what you're describing. And there's a whole category of designer that would listen to you that hear that as, "Well, they just want me to do more work." And I'm like, "Yeah, no. You like you you get to make real impact. You get to make strategic decisions. You get to make the call." I think designers are probably the best equipped to do that.

是的，100%。我想补充的是，我对自己的方向性判断非常有信心。我们很幸运，因为作为一个团队，我们才成立一年半。所以，正如你所说，我们可以从零开始，没有遗留问题。但我看到越来越多的团队有了这种形态。我尽可能多地和人们交流，尤其是在很棒的线下活动中，试图非正式地了解他们在内部看到的趋势。这在大型公司也是如此。同样，我不会点名，但感觉在大组织内也有办法开辟这种工作方式来真正把事情做成。另一件事是，我们以前就做过。我年纪够大，还记得职业生涯早期，跨职能团队需要专门的数据库管理员。没有 DBA 来考虑 schema 和运行基础设施等，你就无法构建功能。然后，像 DevOps 平台这样的东西变得越来越普遍，你可以把这些职责整合到一个后端工程师身上，然后是一个全栈工程师，等等。现在团队的形态完全不同了。所以这没什么不同。我们以前做过，还会再做。所以我认为这不是必然的，但我非常确信这是一个趋势。

Yeah, 100%. And I think the other thing is that I'll maybe add here is like I'm super confident in what I'm saying like directionally. We're blessed because as a team, we're like a year and a half old. And so, you know, we get to start without, as you said, like no legacy. But I'm seeing more teams with a shape. I'm, you know, I speak to as many people as I can, especially like in person in really great events. And, you know, try to get the people's opinion like off the record like in terms of like what kind of trends they're seeing internally. And this is true in big companies as well. Like the most Again, I won't name names, but it feels like there's a way of carving out this way of working within large orgs to really really get things done. And the other thing is I we've done this before. I'm just about old enough to remember like professionally like when I first started, you needed to have like dedicated database admins in a cross-functional team. Like you couldn't build a feature without having a DBA who would think about the schema and like running the infrastructure and all the rest. And then, you know, things like DevOps platforms become more prevalent, and then that you can it's kind of unify those around a single back-end engineer and then a single full-stack engineer, and so on and so forth. And now the shape of teams are just completely different. And so this is this is no different. We've done this before and we'll do it again. And so I just think it's not inevitable but I'm like super confident in this is like a trend line.

同意，这几乎是我唯一关注的公司类型，甚至包括 Dive Talent Network 以及我想在那里促成的事情。所以我想借此机会，深入探讨你招聘流程和渠道的每一步，尽量让听众觉得实用，因为现实是你在接下来一个季度或半年内会招聘很多设计师。所以让我们帮助人们成功，真正了解在 Lovable 工作需要什么。我们之前在 Twitter、LinkedIn、Reddit 上收集了一些问题，试图获得多样化的输入，有很多问题只是关于你如何寻找设计师，有多少来自推荐 vs 冷申请，以及你如何处理所有这些申请。所以你能先谈谈你招聘设计师时漏斗顶部是什么样的吗？

Same and it's pretty much the only type of company that I've been focusing on even thinking about the Dive Talent Network and what I want to facilitate there. So I kind of want to use this as an opportunity to just go into pretty much every step of your hiring process and pipeline and try to make this as practical as possible for people listening because the reality is you're going to be hiring a lot of designers in the next you know quarter half. So let's set people up for success to really understand what it takes to get a job at Lovable and we did do some sourcing of questions before this on Twitter LinkedIn Reddit try to get a diverse set of inputs and there were a lot of questions simply about just how you're sourcing designers and how many of them come from referrals versus cold applications how you even get through all of those applications. So can you talk to us a little bit just to set the stage about what your top of the funnel looks like when you're hiring designers?

相当混合。显然我们在网上发布信息，然后有人申请。以我们的规模，覆盖面非常广，但找到信号和真正出色的候选人有点挑战。所以我们花了很多时间筛选，但目前这还不是第一大来源，这很有趣。其他对我们非常有效的渠道包括 Dive Talent Network，我们从你那里得到经过筛选的推荐，你对优秀设计有很好的眼光等等。

It's pretty mixed. Obviously we post stuff online and then we get people that apply. That's at our scale like very very high reach but finding the signal and finding the real standout candidates is a bit of a challenge. And so we put a lot of hours into like sifting but at the moment it's not the number one source I'd say actually which is interesting. The other places that have been really good for us have been things like the Dive Talent Network where you know we basically get vetted referrals from you know yourself with an excellent eye for like what good design looks like and all the rest.

嘿，快速插一句，如果你想在 Lovable、11 Labs 以及一些我最喜欢的初创公司获得工作，人才网络是免费加入的。只需访问 dive.club/talent。好了，回到正题。所以这非常成功，另一个很好的渠道是冷联系。团队里很多人实际上只是花时间在线。我是说我们都这样，因为我们很痴迷，我们给任何我们欣赏其作品的人发消息，这完全是作品驱动的。

Hey real quick if you want to get hired at companies like Lovable 11 Labs and some of my favorite startups the talent network is free to join. Just head to dive.club/talent. All right back to it. So that that's been really successful and the other thing that's been really good has been cold outreach. And so a lot of people on the team actually just spend time online. I mean we all do because we're obsessed and we just drop a note to anyone where we love their work and that's very very work driven.

就像你分享的那个微交互非常棒，或者我很喜欢你写的关于这件事的看法之类的，然后我们就直接跟人打招呼，试着聊一聊，看看有没有火花。这除了 Twitter 还有其他来源吗？

It's like it's very much that micro interaction that you shared was incredible or I really love this write up that you did on like your take on this thing or whatever and then we just literally say hello to people and then try and talk to them and see if there's a spark pretty much. Is this coming from anywhere other than Twitter?

Twitter 有时也有 LinkedIn，但很少。Instagram 也开始用了。我们试着稍微走出舒适区，看看我错过了谁，以及我们自己的盲点在哪里。

Twitter is sometimes LinkedIn but that's rare. Also started on Instagram as well. We've tried to get outside of our comfort zone a little bit and just sort of see who I'm missing and what are our own blind spots as well.

我们来聊聊作品集吧。假设有人是冷接触，而你面对一堆作品集，必须快速做决定。那么你可能会看到哪些缺点，让人很快被扔进淘汰堆？

Let's talk about portfolios for a second. Let's assume that someone is going in cold and given the metaphorical stack of portfolios that you have to get through you're having to make some really quick decisions. So what are some of the shortcomings that you might see that get somebody tossed into this discard pile pretty quickly?

有一点是，我认为作为设计师，我们被赋予了一种超能力，那就是我们天生就是大规模信息沟通的专家。所以我们必须弄清楚这个想法的精华是什么，这个成熟的想法是什么，如何通过界面或其他方式将其扩展到数百万人。所以我认为我们可以从整个知识库中借鉴到我们正在进行的对话中。我们知道的关于优化着陆页的一切，比如以毫秒而非秒为单位衡量跳出率等等，所有这些都适用。所以我寻找的是最初几秒内的直觉反应，就像我对产品或品牌所做的那样。这种直觉反应，如果我要解构它，实际上来自于视觉节奏、构图、排版、间距、色彩运用等设计基础。如果你在制作网站或简历，所有这些都应该到位。我想说，处理好基础是第一要务。利用你的超能力，做出让人在几毫秒内就印象深刻的东西。顺便说一句，你会惊讶于有多少人使用奇怪的 Material UI 生成的简历，PDF 格式也很糟糕。不要做那些事。用心去做。如果你要制作一个单一的 PDF 文件，那就把它做好，因为那是我们要看的东西。是的，我真的认为要处理好设计基础，像你在任何产品工作或品牌工作中那样推动自己。这就是它本身。这是产品工作和品牌工作。你是在把自己推销给一个从未见过你的人。

One thing is I think that as designers we are gifted with a superpower which is that literally we're professionals at communicating information at scale. And so we have to figure out what is this gem of an idea, what is this well-formed idea, how do we scale it to millions of people through this interface or whatever. And so I think we can borrow from that entire library of knowledge into this conversation we're having. And so every single thing that we know about optimizing landing pages where we measure bounce rates in milliseconds rather than seconds and so on and so forth, all of it applies. And so I'm looking for a gut reaction in the first few seconds the same way that I would do with a product or with a brand. That gut reaction, if I had to try and deconstruct it, is really coming from the design basics of visual rhythm, composition, typography, spacing, use of color, etc. And if you're putting together a website or a resume, all of that should be on point. I'd say just take care of the basics is thing number one. Just use your superpowers to make something that impresses people within milliseconds of them seeing it. And by the way, you'd be surprised how many people use weird material UI generated resumes with bad PDF formatting and stuff. Don't do any of that. Take the care. If you're going to put together an artifact which is a single PDF, make it a good one because that's what we're going to look at. And yes, I'd say just really take care of the design basics and push yourself the same way you would in any product work or brand work. Like that's what this is. It's product work and brand work. You're trying to scale yourself to someone else who's never met you before.

我很喜欢这一点，这也呼应了我多年来在推特上经常说的：多把自己看作一个产品，把网站看作产品营销的范例，而不是一个作品集。我们把作品集框在一个盒子里，就假设别人会给我们时间。你刚才让我第一次想到，这让我回想起多年前我在 Maven 招聘的经历。当时我们还没完成与 Fuzzco 的品牌设计流程，我就开始招人。我们的网站很烂，紫色的文本，工程师做的，一点都不好。你很快意识到，如果网站是这样，我根本不可能招到有才华的设计师。他们会在 3 秒内离开，说这些人不关心设计，我不干了。如果我们对产品公司有这样的看法，那么我们也必须预料到他们对我们的网站也会有完全相同的反应。

I love that and ties back to something that I've been tweeting a lot over the years which is like just thinking more about yourself as a product and the website as a product marketing example rather than this portfolio. We put portfolio in a box and just assume that people are going to give us the time of day. And what you just made me think of for the first time that takes me back to my experience hiring for Maven years ago and I tried hiring before we had finished this branding process with Fuzzco. And our website was trash. It was like purple inter text. It was made by engineers and none of it was good. And you very quickly realize there is no chance that I'm going to get a talented designer to want to work with me if this is the website. They will bounce in 3 seconds and say these people do not care about design. I'm out. And if we're going to have that perception of product companies then we have to expect them to have that exact same reaction to the first 3 seconds on our website too.

我完全同意。所有关于不要以貌取人的智慧我都懂，但我认为作为一个行业，我们都在实践将视觉设计作为工具。我认为这至关重要，尤其是在竞争如此激烈的情况下。我不知道我是否在筛选数百份申请，缩减到十几个候选名单，然后问自己这十几个人中我真正想推进的是谁，这些细节很重要。另外，我不想陷入兔子洞和细节中，我觉得我说这些甚至是在给自己树靶子。但我也认为这就是为什么纯 UX 设计师几乎也在逆势而行，那些只把自己定位为 UX 设计师的人无法展示这些视觉技能。所以如果你不能展示这些，就很难直观地了解你真正擅长什么，以及你在更通用的环境中如何发挥作用。而且很容易对你的话进行稻草人论证，说那只是像素级别的细节，但我确实认为，作为设计师，你是一个创造性的故事讲述者。你在创造某种数字体验，帮助人们理解，或者将你销售的任何东西定位为独特、突出且值得花时间的。这就是你应该用于自己网站的视角，如果你做不到，就不能只是指着说那只是像素级别的细节。不，这就是设计师的本质。100% 是的，网页和界面是材料，是我们日复一日、每时每刻都在使用的材料，用来构建产品和传达它们。我将用同样的材料来审查你的申请，所以你也尽可能用好这些材料，就是这样。就这么简单。

I completely agree. There's all the wisdom around don't judge a book by its cover but I think as an entire industry we practice using visual design as a tool. I think it's just paramount especially when it's so competitive. I don't know if I'm sifting through literally hundreds of applications and I whittle down to a dozen short list and then I'm asking myself out of this dozen who do I truly want to go move forward with these details matter. And on an aside I don't want to get stuck in a rabbit hole and in the weeds and I feel like I'm putting a target on my back by even offering to say this. But I also think this is why UX designers as in pure UX is also where they're almost trending against it as well where people who identify only as UX designers can't display these visual skills. And so it's really difficult to be intuitive about what you're really great at and how you might function in a more generalist environment if you can't put these things on display. And it's easy to straw man what you're saying as well those are just pixel level details but I do think there is this element of as a designer you're a creative storyteller. You're creating some type of a digital experience that helps people understand or that positions whatever you're selling as unique and standing out and worthy of time. Like that is the lens that you should use for your own website and if you can't do that you can't just point and say well those are pixel level details. No like that's what being a designer is. 100% it's like the web and interfaces are material and they're the material that we work with day in day out hour in hour out to build products and to communicate them. I'm going to use the same materials to review your application so use the materials as well as you can and then that's it. It's that simple.

我想稍后再回到那个点，但也许换个角度，我想谈谈你最近从 Dive Talent Network 招聘的一个人的具体作品集，Matt，我也认识他。他实际上帮了我很多关于 In Flight 主题的 shadow tokens，非常棒。

I want to get back to that point in a second here but maybe to flip the table a little bit I want to talk about a very specific portfolio of someone that you hired recently from the Dive Talent Network Matt who I got to know as well. He helped me with a lot of the shadow tokens actually for theming in In Flight and was just amazing.

是的，他很棒。我就是那样认识他的。

Yeah he was amazing. That was how I met him.

我想屏幕共享他的作品集，我们可以聊聊。因为他显然做对了什么。你在筛选申请时打开这个作品集。跟我说说那些最初的反应。什么突出？什么有效？什么让你好奇？

And I want to just screen share his portfolio and we could talk about it. And cuz he's obviously did something correct. You're sifting through applications you open up this portfolio. Talk to me about some of those initial reactions. What stands out? What's working? What makes you curious?

美学非常干净。这是一个服务于内容的设计，内容也很到位。我记得甚至读完了，那是 20 年的经验以 12,800% 的缩放呈现。

The aesthetic is super clean. And so this is a design that serves the content and the content is on point as well. And so like I remember even reading through and it was the 20 years of experience spent at 12,800% zoom.

我脑子里立刻就浮现出 Adobe 套件和 Photoshop，那个 UI 放大到 12800% 的画面。内容很棒，完全不水，直击要点，信号极强。然后看到你这里，马上就能感受到微交互——做这个的人用了心。就是这么简单，就像你摸到一个产品，会觉得背后的团队用了心一样。我一打开 Matt 的网站就有这种感觉。就算你点进案例研究，作品本身也非常扎实，但我不会逐字阅读。我只是上下扫视，看作品，问自己两个问题：我喜欢这个作品吗？它有没有主观上让我感到愉悦？有没有客观证据表明它达成了某些目标？比如这个作品是在一个有目标的团队里完成的吗？它如何对标那些目标？等等。这就是我寻找的信号。我不太关心过程。

I just have this like I can picture the Adobe suite and Photoshop and just literally the UI like printing 12,800% in my head as soon as I saw that. So the fact that the content is great and it's completely not fluffy it's to the point super high signal. And then seeing you here get over to the micro interactions immediately the person that made this cared. And it's that simple like the same way that if you touch a product you're like okay the team behind this cared. And that's the sense that I got from Matt straight away as soon as I landed on his website. And so even if you click through to the case studies as well on any of these, the work itself is super thorough but I'm not reading every word. So all I'm doing is I'm scanning up and down and I'm looking at the work and I'm asking myself two things. Do I like the work? Like is there something subjectively where it sparks joy for me? And is there any evidence of it fulfilling something objectively as well? And so was this built within a team that had some goals and how did it track against those goals and stuff like that. Those are the two things I'm looking for signal on. I don't really care so much about process.

我正要指出这一点——这一段下面没有任何文字，只有一段话和图片。跟我说说这给你什么感觉。

I was about to say I'm going to call it out here because there is not a single piece of text below this paragraph. It's one paragraph and then images. Talk to me about how that resonates.

我在乎两件事。第一是作品本身——你实际做出来的东西是什么？你给自己设定的标准是什么，这个标准是否显而易见？我在寻找这个。在这个案例里，视觉和交互执行都很到位。我看那些图标，就知道这些不是随便画出来的，对吧？你得坐下来，用心去雕琢。所以作品是第一位的。第二是这个人是否用心？光看网站就知道他确实用心了。但我不需要听“我们从白板上的便利贴开始”之类的过程。我相信你用了某种流程，我们以后聊的时候自然会知道。我宁愿不用从 100 个申请人那里看 100 种不同的过程描述，因为那样我得花 100 倍精力去解读 100 种不同的说法。

There's two things that I care about. One is the work. It's the reality of the work that you're doing. What is the bar that you put on yourself and is that evident? And so I'm looking for that and in this case, the visual and interaction execution is on point. I look at the iconography and I'm like okay, you don't create these icons by accident, right? You have to sit down and they have to be a labor of love. So the work is the first thing and the second is does this person care? It's obvious they do care from the website alone. But I don't need the "we started out with post-its on a whiteboard" and all the rest. I'm going to trust that you used some process and we'll find out more about that later when we talk. I'd much rather not sift through 100 applicants with 100 different ways to explain their process because then I have to spend 100 times more energy trying to interpret 100 different ways to explain it.

我的理解是，你得清楚自己处在流程的哪个阶段。你不是在做硬推销，你只是想让人说“行，我让他们进入下一轮”，然后在后续环节真正了解他们的工作方式和思维方式。

My takeaway there is you just kind of have to understand what part of the process that you're in. You're not doing the hard sell. You're just trying to get someone to say, "Sure, I'll bump them to the next round." and actually figure out how they work and how they think next.

没错。而且我觉得过度解释流程、说得太具体也有风险。因为作为招聘经理，你也在观察软技能的强弱。比如，如果你的作品集只谈定性研究，可能只是因为你拍的照片或截图最多，或者你拿不到高保真素材，结果案例研究就偏了。我会认为那是你个人的偏向，但可能不是我们这次招聘想要的偏向。最好的做法是让作品本身说话。就像产品营销里说的“产品即英雄”，你希望产品照片让产品成为英雄，而不是内部的组件。你也希望用例成为英雄。我认为作品集里，作品应该是英雄，而不是作品背后的流程。展示太多流程可能会传递错误信号。

Exactly. And I'd say also over explaining your process and being explicit about it is also quite risky because as a hiring manager, you're also looking for soft skill strengths and weaknesses. If for example, your portfolio piece only talks about qualitative research because maybe that's just whatever you had the most photographs of or screenshots of or whatever and maybe you just didn't have access to your high fidelity stuff or whatever happens then to meant that your case study is biased or shaped one way. I'm going to assume that that's your individual bias, but maybe that's not the bias that we're looking for in this next hire. It's just best to champion the work. Like in product marketing, you have this phrase of "product as hero". You want your product photography to really make the product the hero rather than the components inside it. And you want the use cases to be the hero. I think for a portfolio, you want the work to be the hero rather than the process behind the work. You can give signal on the wrong things if you show too much process.

嗯，这个观点很有意思。我也想强调一个让我印象深刻的地方，因为我经常同时评估外壳和作品本身。我特别喜欢这个顶部对齐。一切都那么有意图，我觉得“意图”可能是个关键词。我在每个细节层面寻找意图——从顶层叙事到最微小的交互和布局决策。这里对齐得很漂亮，等距内边距，等距内边距，然后这个悬停状态让人感觉“哦，酷”。他真的在意这个，真的花了功夫。我可能并不一定喜欢那种具体风格，但我觉得它很酷，而且我能看出他超越了常规，因为这是他作为数字创意人的表达。我对这个悬停状态和对齐有一种本能反应，这看起来是个小细节，但正是这些东西让人印象深刻。

Yeah, that's an interesting take. I'm going to just highlight one thing that stood out to me, too, because I'm often evaluating the shell as much as the work itself, too. Something that I absolutely loved is this top alignment here. Everything is so intentional and I think that maybe that's a keyword. I'm looking for intentionality at every level of detail. Top level story all the way down to the tiniest little interactions and layout decisions. And here you have beautiful alignment where this is equidistant padding, this is equidistant padding and then this hover state is like, "Oh, cool." He actually cared about that. He really put some effort into that and I might not even love that specific style. I do think it's very cool, but I can tell that he went above and beyond because it was an expression of who he is as a digital creative and that I had a visceral reaction to this hover state and alignment, which might seem like a small detail, but this is the stuff that makes it memorable.

100% 同意。而且为了佐证，我认为如果你把那种意图性带到 5% 的表面——比如你的网站只有你的名字，用漂亮的字体排印加上一个悬停状态，但我能感受到那种意图，那就是一个巨大的绿灯。我会看着它说：“行，值得聊聊。”我觉得你抓住了关键——评估意图。而他就是这么做的。

100%. And to back that up, I think if you brought that level of intentionality to 5% of the surface. Like if your website was literally just your name beautifully set in typography with one hover state, but I get a sense of that intentionality, that's a huge green flag. I'm going to look at that and I'm going to be like, "Okay, it's worth us talking." I think you hit the nail on the head with trying to evaluate intention. Which I think is what he did.

说得好。我还在琢磨你之前说的——你几乎不想给别人留下挑刺的空间。多不一定好。我觉得这是这次对话一个很有意思的收获。看他的网站，他只是在讲述自己的故事。他在呈现自己的文字组合上下了功夫，让那成为亮点，然后就是作品本身，每个小细节都那么精致。内阴影、外阴影、轻微的悬停效果——他本不必做这些，对吧？太棒了。你既展示了作品，又没有给任何人留下可以指摘的地方。

That's a good way of saying, you know, I'm still kind of stuck on what you said about how you almost don't want to create surface area for people to poke holes in. More is not always better. I think that's like a really interesting takeaway from this conversation and so looking at his website, he just tells his story. He sweat the details on this very specific combination of words that he wanted to do to present himself. He made that the star and then this is just work and every little detail is so nice. The inner shadow and the outer shadow, the slight hover of this. He didn't have to make that move, you know? It's wonderful. You're simultaneously putting the work forward while also not giving anybody anything that they could point at to disqualify you.

顺便说一句，如果你正在招聘设计师，想找到像 Matt 这样可能甚至不在求职市场上的人才，我正在让更多公司加入人才网络，你今天就可以申请加入。请访问 dive.club/talent。

Side note, if you're hiring designers and you want to find the best people like Matt who maybe aren't even on the market, I'm giving a few more companies access to the talent network and you can apply today to join. Just head to dive.club/talent.

我还在想另一件事：每次招聘时，我都会问自己，哪些技能和特质是显而易见的——这个人在这方面有极深的功底——而哪些是可以培养的。一个人不必在每个维度上都拿 10 分，但我必须确信他已经在某些方面展示出了实力，并且其他方面是可教的。我认为，只要你在展示的材料中极度注重工艺，你就能证明自己会做这件事。这听起来很简单，但你会惊讶于有多少设计师不注重细节。然后当你和他们交谈时，你会想：‘好吧，我不知道你能达到什么水平，因为你没展示给我看。’我认为不要让别人费劲去猜测你给自己定的水平，或者你认为好的标准是什么。

And the other thing I'm thinking about as well is anytime I'm hiring, I'm asking myself what skills and traits are just evidently on display where you know, this person has this in huge amount of depth versus what is coachable. Somebody doesn't have to be 10 out of 10 on every single dimension, but I have to be confident that they've displayed some stuff and they're coachable in the other stuff. I think by just being extremely craft-forward in the material you put out there, you show that you can do the craft. It sounds so simple, but you'd be surprised how many designers don't sweat the details. Then suddenly you're talking to them and you're like, 'Well, I don't know what level you can get to because you haven't shown me.' I think don't make people work to guess what level you put on yourself or what good looks like to you.

是的，我觉得这点说得很好。老实说，这说明了真正好的悬停状态的力量。作为一个浏览过很多作品集的人，如果我能很快看到一个悬停状态，然后心想：‘哇，真不错。感觉很好。’——他们真的思考了它应该如何移动、应该发生什么，而且没有过度，很明显他们想展示一些东西。你几乎可以用一个非常非常好的悬停状态打动我。

Yeah, I think that is a great point. It speaks to the power of one really good hover state, honestly. Like just having been someone who scrolls through a lot of portfolios, if I can get one hover state quickly where I'm like, 'Whoa, that was pretty good. That felt good.' Like they really thought about how that should move and what should happen and it wasn't over the top and it was clear that they wanted to showcase something there. Like you can almost win me over with one really, really good hover state.

是的，我完全同意。我想我们在分享自己的偏见——我们都对令人难以置信的悬停状态感到兴奋。但如果你不是那种设计师，如果你是一个系统思考型设计师、技术倾向型，或者你纯粹是 UX 或研究员之类的，那就不要拿出糟糕的材料。少即是多。花时间在你的简历上，在排版上，或者其他什么上面，如果需要的话，找一个比你更擅长的人帮忙。但一定要确保你给出的那几样东西是真正好的。我认为这对所有参与者来说都更容易。现实是，也许我们是极端的那一端，但我不认为这与当今我认为最理想的公司里的招聘经理相差太远，这些公司正在像你一样赋予设计师权力，并且打算继续这样做。如果你想吸引这类公司，关键不在于数量。不在于你能在一页上放多少东西。在很多方面，它更关乎平均水平。如果你没有真正好的作品，那也没关系。极简的网站甚至有一种酷劲。如果是这样，那就太好了。那就把写作做深做透。你提到的第一件事是 12800% 的缩放。那是很棒的微文案。非常独特。你知道，那为你加分了。很好。那就注重写作的细节。让它成为你故事的重点。

Yeah, I completely agree. I think we're sharing our own biases in that we both get excited by incredible hover states. But if you're not that kind of designer, if you're a systems thinking designer, technical slant, if you are purely UX or researcher or whatever, then just don't put out bad materials. Just do more with less. Spend time on your resume, on the typesetting there, or whatever it might be, and grab a friend who's better at it than you if you need to. But just make sure that the few things you give are really good. I think it's just way easier for everyone involved. The reality is that maybe we are the extreme end, but I don't think it's too far of a detour from hiring managers at what I would consider the most desirable companies today who are empowering designers to the degree that you are and continue to plan to. If you want to appeal to those types of companies, it's not about quantity. It's not about the sum of what you can put onto a page. It's very much about the average in many ways. If you don't have really good work, that's okay. Ultra simple websites have a certain flex about them even. And if that's the case, great. Go really, really deep on the writing. The first thing that you mentioned was this 12,800% zoom. That's brilliant microcopy. It's really unique. You know, that did something for you. Great. Sweat the details on the writing then. Make that the point of your story.

有没有其他事情，一个可能没有很强工艺背景的设计师可以做的，来传达让他们与众不同的思维方式，而不仅仅是视觉效果？比如，你能看到哪些潜在信号，让你觉得：‘好吧，也许我还没完全被工艺说服，但我会把这个人推到下一轮，至少花更多时间和精力去弄清楚他们是否合适。’

Is there anything else that a designer who maybe doesn't have the really strong craft background could do to communicate the mindset that sets them apart rather than just the visuals? Like what are potential signals that you could see where you're like, 'Okay, maybe I'm not quite sold on the craft yet, but I would bump this person to the next round and at least put more time and effort into figuring out if they're a good fit.'

我认为如果你能正视自己的盲点，并且能沟通你在这些维度上的位置——要么是你意识到的盲点并且你想提升它们，要么是展示你意识到的盲点但你不在乎。比如，你可能永远不会关心我们讨论的任何细节。我认为想办法真正正视这一点，让它成为你叙事的一部分，实际上非常好。我遇到过一些情况，我提升了某些人，因为他们说了这样的话：‘嘿，实际上这听起来很傻，但我的视觉和交互能力其实是我最弱的，因为我一直在处理这些技术上非常有野心的问题，我觉得那些技能有点退化了，我需要花些时间打磨它们。’想办法在你的网站（如果有的话）、简历、作品集或申请中陈述这类事情。同时突出你认为自己的优势所在，以及你认为自己的局限和成长领域。我们也很关注这一点，因为再说一次，我们在寻找高斜率的人。我们不是在寻找今天在每个维度上都得 10 分的人。我们在寻找那些在合适的环境中能够成长、进步和前进的人。

I think if you can own your blind spots and if you can communicate where you think you are on any of these dimensions and either there are blind spots you're aware of and you know that you want to level up in them, or display that there are blind spots you're aware of and you don't care. Like it might be that you're just never going to care about any of the details that we're talking about. I think figuring out how to just really own that so that it's a part of your narrative is actually really good. I've had situations where I have bumped people because they've said things like 'Hey, actually it sounds really silly, but my visual and interaction discipline is actually my weakest because I've been working on these really technically ambitious problems and I feel like those skills have atrophied a bit and I need to spend some time polishing them up.' Just figure out how to state that sort of thing between maybe your website if you have one, or your resume, or your portfolio, or your application. Highlight what you believe your strengths are as well and where you think your limits are and what your growth areas are. We pay a lot of attention to that as well because again, we're looking for high slope people. We're not looking for people who are 10 out of 10 in every single dimension today. We're looking for people who with the right environment can grow and move up and move forward.

我想在这里再深入一点。正视自己盲点的想法让我很感兴趣。假设你处于那种情况：‘我知道我能带来什么。我不会用 6 秒的微交互打动别人。’你会思考或探索什么？你甚至如何着手解决这个问题：我需要快速向别人推销自己，但我不能依赖工艺。

I'm going to push you a little bit deeper there. The idea of owning your blind spots is interesting to me. Hypothetically, if you were in that situation where you're like, 'I know what I bring to the table. I'm not going to win someone over in 6 seconds with a micro interaction.' What would you be thinking about or exploring? How would you even approach the problem of I need to sell myself to someone quickly and I can't lean on craft.

试着移除任何我不自信的表面。所以我可能会把我的网站精简到最低限度，比如只有名字和一个联系按钮之类的。假设你的典型特征是你在系统思维和产品思维方面非常出色。我会在上面放一些好的文章来展示这一点，而不是依赖展示非常强的工艺主导的作品。我会考虑这样的事情。还有什么其他材料能展示你的优势？本质上就是利用它们。可能是写作，也可能是别的。但写作我认为是一个大项。我经常发现自己在别人的网站上，如果他们有博客文章，我会快速浏览。我会看一遍，然后想，好吧，这个人对这件事或那件事有什么看法？即使文章比较旧也没关系。如果我看到一篇 2020 年或 2021 年的博客文章，那完全没问题。但仅仅是看到有人首先从自己的生活中抽出时间和精力去做这件事，这已经是一个绿灯了。其次，如果他们不能依赖工艺，能够更多地探索他们的思维是非常有帮助的。

Try and remove any surface that I'm not confident in. So I'd probably produce my website down to the bare minimum of name with a contact us button or whatever it might be. Let's say your archetype is you're amazing at systems thinking and product thinking. I would get some good writing up there as well that shows that rather than relying on showing really strong craft-led work instead. I'd be thinking about things like that. What other materials would showcase your strengths? Play into them essentially. It might be writing, it could be something else. But writing I'd say is a huge one. I often find myself on someone's website and if they have blog posts I'm going to skim read them. I'm going to look through and be like, okay, what does this person think about this or think about that? It's also okay when the writing's older as well. If I see a blog post from 2020 or 2021, that's completely fine. But just even seeing that somebody's taken the time and energy out of their life to go and do that in the first place, that's already a green flag. Secondly, being able to explore more of their thinking if they can't rely on craft is really helpful.

我真的很喜欢你提到写作这一点，因为对我来说这也是一个完全的绿灯。

I really like that you brought up the writing piece because that's totally a green flag for me, too.

如果我在网站上看到哪怕只有三四个简单的条目，能体现他们的想法，我不一定会每次都读，但这绝对会让我把它归为正面类别，对吧？这显示出一种关心，而不必纠结于视觉细节。

If I see even three or four simple row items on a website that go to their thoughts, I might not read them all the time, but I definitely have that go in a positive category for me, right? Like it shows that's a way of showing that you care without having to sweat visual details.

确实。你会惊讶于有多少人其实对事情没有看法。很多人把设计当成一种度假。比如，你可能参加了一个训练营，因为听说这比之前的职业收入更高；或者你曾在一些知名公司有过辉煌的职业生涯，但因为环境不够苛刻而变得有些懒散。这类人比你以为的要多得多。而这完全不是我们想要的。我们寻找的是有观点、愿意了解自己的盲点、渴望踏上这种疯狂快节奏冒险的人。所以，展示你有自己的观点非常有帮助。

For sure. And you would be surprised at how many people just actually don't have an opinion on things. There's a lot of people where design is a vacation. It's like, okay, maybe you did a boot camp because you heard you can get paid better than your previous profession, or maybe you've been somewhere and had a really well-storied career at companies we all know, but you got a little lazy because it wasn't the most demanding environment. There are more people that fit this shape than you might think in the world in general. And that's completely not what we're looking for. We're looking for people who do have an opinion, who want to learn their blind spots, who want to go on this crazy high-paced adventure. So showing that you have a point of view is really helpful.

你是在专门寻找那些超越设计职业本身的人吗？

Are you specifically looking for people that go beyond design as a vocation?

是的，我想是的。我要坦白我的偏见。我是自学成才的。我共事过的最优秀的人都有极高的学习曲线。他们会说：“我不懂这个，但我会搞明白”，或者“我觉得自己还行，但我想做到世界级水平”。我认为拥有这种内在动力，与受外在因素驱动是完全不同的。

Yeah, I think so. I'm going to show my biases here. I'm self-taught. The best people I've worked with have had an incredibly high learning slope. They've been like, 'I don't understand this, but I'm just going to figure it out,' or 'I think I'm okay at this, but I want to be world class at it.' I think having the intrinsic motivation to do that is completely different from having an extrinsic factor that drives you.

你刚才几次用了“世界级”这个词。能举些例子吗？比如一个设计师说“我要在 X 方面做到世界级”。请填补这个空白，帮助人们理解什么样的追求能吸引像你这样的招聘经理。

You've used this phrase 'world class' a few times now. What are some examples there? A designer who's like, 'I'm going to be world class at X.' Fill in that gap for people to even help them understand the types of pursuits that are attractive to a hiring manager like yourself.

当我面试设计师、判断他们是否适合团队时，我试图弄清楚的是：多年后的成功是什么样子？不是“你未来 30 天能高效工作吗？”而是“你最深层的梦想和渴望是什么？那些可能说出来有点尴尬，但你在中期内想努力实现的事情？”举个例子，在我上一家公司，我管理的一位设计师非常想尝试 VR 和增强现实交互。那是她的梦想。她说：“我真的很想进入这个领域，在未来几年里探索它。我没有时间表，但这对我来说超级有趣。”所以你可以想象，一旦我们有增强现实相关的工作，就交给了她。当我想到“世界级”时，我想到的是：你会在哪里推动自己去做定义行业的工作，让你觉得自己在那项工作中实现了最大价值。所以我寻找的是那种内在驱动力。

What I'm trying to do when I meet designers and try to figure out if they're a good fit for the team is to figure out what success looks like over multiple years. It's not 'can you be productive in the next 30 days?' It's 'what are your deepest dreams and desires, the things that are maybe even a bit embarrassing to say out loud, but that you want to work towards in the medium term?' One example from my last company: there was a designer I was managing who really wanted to experiment with VR and augmented reality interactions. That was her dream. She said, 'I really want to get into this space and explore it over the coming years. I don't have a timeline, but it's super interesting to me.' So you can bet that as soon as we had some work in augmented reality, she got the work. When I think about world class, I think about where are you going to push yourself to do industry-defining work, where you feel like you've maximized what you want to do. So I'm looking for that intrinsic drive.

我认为发现内在驱动力的方式之一是通过副业项目，以及人们自己探索的空白领域。你能谈谈在评估一个人时，你有多看重副业项目吗？你有多在意？上限有多高？比如，如果一个人只有几年在无聊企业公司的工作经历，仅凭副业项目能打动你吗？副业项目能过关吗？这在你评估过程中占什么位置？

I think one of the ways that I find intrinsic drive is through side projects and things that people are exploring more greenfield on their own. Can you talk a little bit about the weight that you attach to side projects when you're looking at someone, evaluating them? How much do you care, how high is the ceiling? Like can someone actually win you over with side projects alone if all they have to show is a handful of years at some really boring enterprise company? Can side projects cut it? How does that fit into your evaluation process?

我非常关注硬技能和软技能。通过副业项目，你完全可以展示硬技能，没有上限——创造出看起来、感觉上、功能上都出色的东西。但软技能更难评估，比如这个人团队合作好吗？他们考虑个人成长吗？这些需要更深入的挖掘。但我要说，我们刚才讨论的关于查看作品集网站和过往工作、试图判断这个人是否用心——我对副业项目投入的权重完全相同。我以完全相同的方式看待它们。很多时候人们甚至走得更远；他们变得狂热，那就更好了，因为我能看到那种内在驱动力是什么样子。这在副业项目中更常见。不过，我认为副业项目有一个大风险：当目标不明确时。如果一个人有 10 个不同的副业项目，看起来像失败的初创公司尝试，我会问自己：“这个人是好设计师还是糟糕的创始人？”所以，给副业项目一个清晰的定位非常重要。如果你有一堆东西只是组件游乐场，那很好——围绕这个来定位。如果你一直在做独立黑客项目，那就坦然承认。但如果你留下一堆奇怪的东西，让人难以找到故事或叙述，那么副业项目可能有点危险。如果你没有很好地定位它们，我会谨慎。

I'm looking at both hard skills and soft skills very closely. With side projects, you can absolutely display hard skills with no ceiling—creating something that looks, feels, and works great. It's a bit harder to assess soft skills, like does this person work well in a team? Do they think about personal growth? Those need a bit more digging. But I'd say the entire conversation we had about looking at a portfolio website and past work, trying to get a sense of whether the person cared when they made it—I put the exact same amount of weight on someone's side projects. I'm looking at them in exactly the same way. A lot of times people go even further; they become fanatical about it, and that's even better because then I get to see what that intrinsic drive looks like. That comes out more often in side projects. I do think there's one big risk with side projects, though: when it's ambiguous what your goals are. If someone has 10 different side projects that look like failed attempts at real startups, I ask myself, 'Is this person a good designer or a bad founder?' So it's really important to frame side projects. If you have a bunch of stuff that's just a component playground, great—frame it around that. If you've been doing indie hacking, own it. But if you leave it open to interpretation with a collection of weird things where it's hard to find a story or narrative, then side projects can be a little dangerous. I'd be cautious if you're not framing them really well.

如果我是听众，我会备受鼓舞。你几乎没有任何借口了。根据你刚才说的，你在哪里工作、你的资历如何都不重要；你有互联网工具，可以做出任何你想要的东西，而你会用评估那些知名公司员工同样的标准来评估这些。这真的很了不起。我甚至要停顿一下，因为这真的很了不起。

If I were listening to that, I'd be so encouraged. You almost don't have an excuse at that point. Based off of what you just said, it doesn't matter where you work, what your seniority is, you have the internet tools, you can make anything you want, and you will evaluate those in the same way as somebody who works at this prestigious company. That's like a really big deal. I'm just pausing even for a second because that's a really big deal.

在我们谈话之前，我一直在问自己，我们真正关心的是什么？我在笔记里写了下来，比如苹果备忘录，通勤时望着窗外。实际上我们关心的只有两件事：工作本身，以及这个人是否在乎。就这些。由此可以衍生出很多方面。所以，在工作方面，我们如何评估；而在一个人是否在乎方面，他们对自己工作过的团队或个人成长的关心程度等等。但这确实是我们想要获得强信号的仅有的两件事。

I was asking myself before we talked, what is it that we really care about? And I wrote down in my notes, like Apple Notes, staring out of the window when commuting back and forth. And it is literally the two things that we care about: the work itself and does this person care? And that's it. There are lots of things that ladder out of that. So, within the work, how we might assess that, and within somebody caring, how much do they care about the teams they've worked in or their own personal growth and stuff like that. But those are literally the only two things we want to try and get really strong signal on.

我认为你可以通过优秀团队中的经验来展示这些，如果没有，也可以通过个人项目来展示。但正如你所说，有很多方式可以展示这些东西。这让我想起了一个我为人才网络物色的具体人选。如果你看他们的领英，并没有什么突出的地方。我觉得他们没有非常高级的头衔。上一份工作他们可能是高级产品设计师，但只做了五六年。我不认识他们待过的任何公司。那些公司的工作还行，但你不知道有多少是受设计系统限制，又有多少是你的上限。然后我点击了一个按钮，跳转到他们的个人项目，他们做了一个乱七八糟的日历待办应用视频，我完全被说服了。就凭这一个他们从头到尾负责的东西，太棒了。他们考虑得很周全，做得非常好。我当时想，我根本不在乎你为其他公司做了什么。那就是你的上限。很好，你被录用了。

I think you can get them with a mixture of experience in really great teams, displaying that, or if you don't have that, displaying that with side projects. But as you said, there are lots of options to get this stuff out on display. It reminds me of somebody very specific I was looking at for the talent network. If you look at their LinkedIn, it wasn't anything that would stand out. I don't think they had very senior titles. I think they were a senior product designer in their last role, but they'd only been doing this for about five or six years. I didn't recognize any of the companies. The work from the companies was fine, but you don't really know how much is constrained by a design system versus how much is your ceiling. Then I clicked this one button that led me to their side project, and they made this video of a mishmash calendar to-do app, and I was completely sold. Just after this one thing that they owned end to end, and it was amazing. They thought through everything, and it was so good. I was like, I don't even care about what you've made for these other companies. That's where your ceiling is. Great, you're in.

是啊，这很鼓舞人心。

Yeah. It's encouraging.

这完全引起了我的共鸣。你让我想起了设计系统评论中的一个反模式。我发现当人们过度使用“我们”这个词时，很难判断。如果你展示一个项目，所有的描述都是“我们做了这个，我们做了那个”，我不知道“我们”是谁。我不知道哪些是你做的，哪些是团队其他成员做的，哪些来自设计系统等等。我认为要非常明确地使用“我”或“团队”或“负责某部分的 designers”，并尽可能清晰地表达，因为这是最难弄清楚的事情之一，尤其是当你与来自优秀公司的设计师交谈时，他们背后有整个公司的基础设施支持。如果你与设计师交谈或查看他们的网站，他们只是说“我们做了这个”，那当然公司做了这个，但你做了什么？这是我在作品集中最讨厌的事情之一。

That completely resonates with me. You reminded me of an anti-pattern with the design system comment. I find it really difficult when people overuse the word 'we'. If you're showing a project and all of your descriptors are 'we did this, we did this', I have no idea who 'we' is. I've got no idea what came from you, what came from the rest of the team, what came from the design system, etc. I think be super predictive around 'I' or 'the team' or 'the designers who were responsible for blah', and really make that as explicit as possible, because it's one of the hardest things to figure out, especially when you speak to designers from really great companies where they've got the entire company's infrastructure behind them. If you're talking to a designer or viewing their website and they're just like 'we did this', it's like, well, of course the company did this, but what did you do? That's one of my pet peeves with portfolios.

我想进入面试流程的其余部分，谈谈各个阶段。我快速问一个问题，把我们推向极端作为例子。你点击一个网站，只有一个人的名字，也许一两行副标题，不多，然后就是一个单一的 feed，是一个充满交互和视觉概念的组件游乐场，没有其他内容。大概有 12 个，看起来不错。他们会通过筛选吗，还是你需要看更多？

I want to move into the rest of the interview process, talk about the stages. I just one really quick hitting question to push us to the extreme as an example. So, you click on a website, it's just someone's name, maybe a line or two of subtext, not that much, and then it's just a single feed, and it's a component playground full of interactions and visual concepts and nothing else. There are maybe 12, and they look good. Are they going to get bumped or do you need to see more?

当然会。如果组件好，那就好。就这么简单。

Hell yeah. If the components are good, then they're good. It's that simple.

好的，明白了。我只是想把它推到极致。所以，你听到了。顺便说一句，我们在这方面有很好的记录，而且我认为这很独特，我们喜欢弱者。我们仍然认为自己是一个弱者。我们内部年龄分布很有趣，至少在工程方面，有很多职业生涯更丰富的人，可能像我一样有些白发，然后还有很多非常聪明的人，从 17、18、19 到 20、21 岁。我们在年龄分布的下端下注。所以，如果你向我们展示工作成果和动力，我们非常乐意交谈，并尝试弄清楚你如何在我们环境中茁壮成长。我们可能比人们想象的更不看重资历和头衔。

Okay. All right. I just wanted to push it all the way. So, you heard it. By the way, we have a good track record here and I think it's specific to us, but we love underdogs. We still think of ourselves as an underdog. We have a really funny age spread internally, at least on the engineering side, where we have a lot of people who are a little bit more storied in their career, maybe they have a few gray hairs like myself, and then we've got a lot of super bright people who are everything from 17 to 18 to 19 to 20 and 21. We take bets on that lower part of that age distribution. So, if you show us the work and you show us the drive, then we're super happy to talk and try and figure out how you might thrive in our environment. We probably value tenure and titles way less than people think.

让我们快进一下。假设你让某人通过了。也许是那个组件游乐场的人，你真正地检查了视觉方面的条件，但基本上其他一切都是一个黑箱。那么，请为我们介绍一下背景，Lovable 的典型面试阶段是什么？

Let's zoom ahead here. Say you bump someone. Maybe it's that person in the component playground where you check the visual box in a real way, but basically everything else is a total black box right now. So, talk us through for context, what are the typical interviewing stages at Lovable?

对我们来说，我们尽量保持精简。我们有一个介绍轮，是非常典型的 hiring manager 谈话。目标是填补我们到目前为止看到的所有空白：简历、作品集、申请等。只是想确保我们对你有最完整的了解。我在这些通话中做的另一件事是，我几乎把一半的时间留给候选人提问。有两个原因。首先，招聘是有缺陷的。这是一个非常不对称的过程。公司可以问几百个问题，而候选人几乎不能问什么。这从根本上是有缺陷的。我们希望人们承诺加入我们多年，所以我认为人们需要充分了解才能做出决定。我们为此留出了很多空间。我根据人们问我的问题获得很多信号。如果他们问非常冷淡、研究不足的问题，或者非常有趣、研究充分的问题，这对我来说是极好的信号。我们基本上把这次介绍聊天视为双向的。

For us, we try to keep things pretty lean. We do an intro round that's a very typical kind of hiring manager talk. The goal is to fill in any blanks across everything we've seen so far: resume, portfolio, application, whatever. Just want to make sure we have the most complete picture of you. The other thing I do in those calls is I reserve almost half of the call for open questions from the candidate side as well. Two reasons for this. Firstly, hiring is broken. It's a very asymmetric process. Companies get to ask hundreds of questions and candidates can almost ask nothing. That's fundamentally broken. We want people to commit to join us for years, so I think people need to be well informed to make that decision. We open up a bunch of space for that. I get so much signal based on what people are asking me. If they're asking very cold, badly researched questions, or very interesting, well-researched questions, that's incredible signal for me. We treat this intro chat as super two-way, essentially.

在你继续之前，也许这个问题太难了，但你能给我们一些例子或指出什么样的问题算好问题，或者哪些类型的问题会给你积极的信号吗？

Before you move on, maybe this is too hard of a question, but are you able to give us any examples or point at what a good question looks like or the types of questions that would give you a positive signal?

对我们正在构建的产品有非常强烈的观点是主要的。这可能意味着你使用过产品并有具体的想法。也可能意味着你了解行业格局和所有竞争对手并有想法，或者你想了解我们某些决策背后的理念。只要有强烈的观点，并且带着见解来——不是指“这是我的观点”那种固执，而是我受过足够的教育，我们将进行高信号的对话，而不是我缺乏教育，导致对话信号非常低。

Having a really strong point of view about the products we're building is the main thing. That might mean you've used the product and have specific thoughts. It might mean you know the landscape and all our competitors and have thoughts, or you want to understand our philosophy behind some decisions. Just having a strong point of view and coming in opinionated — not opinionated in terms of 'here's my opinion', but more so I'm educated enough that we're going to have a high signal conversation, as opposed to I'm uneducated to the point where we'll have a very low signal conversation.

这基本上就是我在寻找的东西。顺便说一句，这并不意味着要做大量研究，而是指了解你将要进入的领域和场合，做好准备。让我们继续流程。其他阶段有哪些？

That's on the most basic level what I'm kind of looking for. And that doesn't mean do loads of research either, by the way. It means just know the space and know the room that you're going to be in pretty much and come in prepared. Keep us going in the process. What are some of the other stages?

是的，然后我们会进行一个我们称之为“过往工作”的环节。我们特意不叫它“作品集环节”。我们想看你最引以为豪的两个项目，仅此而已。我们会给你一些指导，说明我们在寻找什么：我们想了解你所在的团队、成果，以及如果再做一次你会有什么不同做法等等。最好的候选人会关注我们发送的准备工作，并准备好讨论这些内容。最差的候选人则会说：“哦，我有作品集，我就展示我已有的东西。”然后他们带着白板上所有便利贴的照片出现，我们会说：“我们没要求看过程。我们要求看这两三件事，但现在我们不明白这些事。”所以很简单，我们想再次推崇工作本身，这就是我们在那个阶段想了解的。最后一个阶段，如果你是设计工程师，我们会进行一些技术筛选，比如编码挑战，以了解你的能力边界。但最后一个阶段是带薪测试工作。我们把它视为婚前约会，我们会说：“好的，来一天。我们会付钱，这样值得你花时间，然后我们会像对待上班第一天一样对待它。”我们会说：“嘿，我们在做这件事，非常真实的世界。我们会从额外的视角中受益。我们真的希望有人进来告诉我们，比如把这件事翻个底朝天，或者以任何方式完成它。”我们安排一整天紧密合作。这比任何其他练习都能获得更多信号。这对我们帮助很大，根据迄今为止收到的反馈，我们对此感觉很好。

Yeah, then we do what we call a past work round. And very deliberately, we do not call this a portfolio round. And so, we want to see two projects that you're the most proud of that you've made, basically, and that's it. And we give you a little bit of guidance on what it is that we're looking for in terms of we want to understand the team that you worked in. We want to understand the outcome. We want to understand what you'd do differently if you're working on this and things like that. And the best people here, it sounds so simple, the best candidates pay attention to the prep and they come to the calls prepared to talk about what we sent over in the prep. And the worst candidates are like they see this and they're like, "Oh, I've got a portfolio. I'll just show the thing that I already have." And so, they'll turn up with the photograph of all the sticky notes on the whiteboard and we'll be like, "We didn't ask to see the process. We asked to see these two or three things and now we don't understand these two or three things after we started talking to you." And so, again, it's very simple: we want to champion the work again and that's what we want to learn about in that stage. And then the last stage for us is if you're a design engineer, we do some technical screening that's more like some coding challenges to understand where your edges are. But then the last stage for us is we do paid test work. And so, we just treat it as dating before marriage pretty much and we're like, "Okay, come in for a day. We'll pay you so that it's worth your time and then we'll treat it honestly the same way that we would do the first day on the job." And so, we'll be very much like, "Hey, we're working on this thing. It's super real world. We would benefit from extra perspective. We'd actually like somebody to come in and tell us like turn this thing upside down or get this thing over the finish line in whatever way." And we set up a day to work together super closely. Way more signal that we can get from any other exercises whatsoever. That's been a huge help for us and something that we feel really good about given the feedback we get from it so far as well.

好的，我将分别看看这两个阶段。那么，快速回到那个不是作品集评审的环节。我不记得你叫什么了，但反正不是作品集评审。

All right. I'm going to look at both of those stages separately. So, really quickly going back to the not a portfolio review. I can't remember what you called it, but it's not the portfolio review.

过往工作。

Past work.

当有人完成那个练习，而你发现他们不合适时，你通常会指出哪些可能的原因？

When somebody finishes that exercise and you realize they're not a good fit, what are some of the likely reasons that you find yourself pointing to?

常见的陷阱是硬技能方面，比如我们没有看到期望的工作质量。因为我们明确要求展示你最引以为豪的两件作品。如果他们展示的是六年前的东西，我们会想：“真的吗？最近没有其他让你自豪的作品吗？”或者如果他们展示的东西本身就不够有雄心，范围很小，我们就感觉这个人无法从事有雄心的项目或推动自己。或者他们连基本的视觉工艺元素都没做好。这些可能是常见原因。而那些表现非常好的人，他们会关注我们发送的内容，通话结束后我们会想：“等不及让这个人可能为 Lovable 做出贡献了。”这通常是我们总结时讨论的内容。

Common traps would be on the hard skill side like we just haven't seen the quality of work that we hoped to. Because we literally ask people to show us the two pieces of work you're the most proud of. And if they show something that's like 6 years old and we're like, "Really? There's nothing else you're proud of that you've done more recently?" Or if they show something that was maybe just unambitious in the first place. It's actually just quite a small scoped thing and we just don't get a sense that this person can work on ambitious things or they can push themselves. Or they're not executing on the basic visual craft elements and things like this. Those are probably the common reasons. And then the people that work that normally do really, really well here, they pay attention to what we send and we just finished the call like thinking we can't wait for this person to potentially be contributing to Lovable. That's generally what we're talking about in the debriefs.

在超过 50 分钟的谈话中，你一次都没有提到指标、可量化的影响之类的东西。这是有意忽略的吗？你怎么看待这个问题？

Something that you haven't mentioned even once in now over 50 minutes is metrics, quantifiable impact, anything in that category. Is that an intentional absence? How do you think about that?

我认为很多团队的目标设定做得很糟糕。大规模设定目标实际上非常困难。每一本关于 OKR 的书都很烂。你只能通过反复练习来变得更好，而练习只能按季度进行。做得好时，你有自上而下和自下而上的因素，这些需要在中间汇合，你大概要等三个月左右才能知道事情是否有效。这有点像往池塘里扔石头，观察涟漪，然后等待第 20 个涟漪才知道扔得好不好。所以我认为指标很难，因为如果你以正确的方式摆弄，任何指标都可以看起来很好。所以我们不太强调“这个设计将激活率提升了 22%”之类的。我们更看重，姑且这么说，人们所在团队的“血统”。我们重视产品。那些在我们喜欢的产品上工作过，或者在我们钦佩的团队中工作过的人。所以，如果他们在一家我们知道产品文化很强的公司工作过，那就不必纠结于这份工作是否声称将某件事提升了 12% 还是 26%。我们也不知道那些例子中什么算好，对吧？我们没有基线，也不知道什么令人印象深刻。所以我认为目标设定本身就很难，因此衡量指标也很难。

I think a lot of teams do goal setting really badly. It's actually really difficult to set goals at scale. Every single book on OKRs completely sucks. You also get better at it by getting the reps in. You only really get the reps in on a quarterly timescale. Done well, you have top-down factors, bottoms-up factors, and these things need to meet in the middle and you kind of only really understand whether things are working with like 3 months or something. So, it's a bit like throwing a stone into a pond and then you're observing the ripples and then you're waiting for the 20th ripple to know if that was a good throw or not almost. And so, I think metrics are very difficult because you can make any metric look good if you somehow poke around it the right way. And so, we don't put too much emphasis on, "Oh, okay. This design lifted this activation thing by 22% or whatever it might be." We do look at the, for want of a better word, the pedigree of the teams that people have been on. We put weight behind products. People who worked on products that we like or that have worked on teams that we admire in some way. And so, it might be that they've worked at a company where we know that there are parts of their product culture that we think is just strong. And if that's true, then we don't have to obsess over does this piece of work state that it improved this thing by 12% or 26%? We don't know what good looks like in those examples as well, right? We don't have the baseline and we don't know what's impressive. And so, I think goal setting is inherently difficult and therefore measuring metrics is inherently difficult.

好的，那我们把焦点转向工作试用。你谈到了带来新视角的价值。我们能具体说说吗？因为时间不长，你能投入时间的方式不多，能留下印象的角度也不多。你需要有点策略。那么，那些表现出色、让你觉得“当然要雇用他们”的人有什么共同点？我们谈到了工作质量。我想这可能也更偏向软技能的评估过程。那么你在寻找什么？人们可以用什么作为衡量标准或标杆？

Okay, let's zoom forward towards the work trial, then. You talked about the value of just bringing a fresh perspective to the table. Can we just get really specific there because it's not a long amount of time? There's not that many different ways that you can invest your time in that situation. There's not many different angles that you can take in terms of how to make an impression. You kind of have to be strategic a little bit. So, what are the throughlines between the people that just crush it where you're like, "Yeah, hell yeah. Of course we're going to hire them." We talked about the quality of the work. I guess I'm imagining that this is also probably a little bit more soft skill of an evaluation process. So, what are you looking for? What could people use as kind of like a measuring stick or a bar to hit in that type of environment?

所以，我能描述的最简单方式是，有一种非常奇怪的现象，我认为到处都存在，我想请你监督我是否诚实。

So, the easiest way I can describe this is there's this really strange phenomenon that I think is true everywhere and I'm going to ask you to kind of keep me honest.

但当你招聘技术人员，他们入职全职岗位时，通常有一个软着陆过程：比如入职周，跟这八个人聊聊，做这个做那个。大家默认你会花一两周熟悉环境，然后再开始做事。但相比之下，如果你雇一个合同工，你说“嘿，我需要你来做这件事。你的日薪多少？周薪多少？” 两分钟后，他们就开始行动了。我们本质上就在找这样的人。所以我们把流程设置成就像第一天上班，期望你创造结构、创造惯性。我们不会规定一天结束时要看到什么，不会说“嘿，我们希望看到 X 次探索和至少一个高保真原型”之类的。完全没有。我们想了解你的生产力、自主工作能力以及全天的沟通情况。

But when you hire somebody in tech and they're joining for a full-time role, you kind of have this soft landing process of okay, here's your onboarding week, talk to these eight people, do this and do that. And there's this kind of soft expectation that you're going to spend like a week or two just getting your feet on the ground and then do something. But comparatively, if you hire a contractor, and you're like, 'Hey, I need you to come in and do this thing. What's your day rate? What's your week rate?' Minute two, they're like, boom. Like we're going to get going and here we go. And that's what we're looking for essentially. And so, we set it up as if it is your first day and we expect you to create structure and create inertia. And we're not prescriptive over what we want to see at the end of the day. We're not like, 'Hey, we expect to see X number of explorations and at least one high fidelity there so like whatever.' None of that. We want to get a sense of your productivity, your ability to work on things autonomously, and your communication essentially throughout the entire day.

新员工入职具体是什么样子？能说得具体点吗？

What does it look like for a new hire to be created? Can we get specific there?

具体到新员工，我们想了解如果你继续做下去会怎么做。一天结束时我们会做个复盘，你展示今天做了什么。我们想知道：如果这是真实世界，你做的内容有多接近生产就绪？有没有什么东西你觉得今天就能测试，比如坐下来快速搭起来，从那个角度看哪些是可用的？或者如果某人对结果不满意，我们想听到：也许他们走了 10 条错路，但已经想好了明天要做的 20 件事。所以我们寻找的是全天的那种 momentum（势头）。就像这是你第一天上班，然后说“好，明天我们做什么？”

On a new hire specifically, I think we want to understand like what you would do if you were continuing. Like we finish the day with a debrief of like show us what you did today essentially. And we want to understand like okay, if this was the real world, first of all, how production ready is the thing you've worked on? Like is there anything here where you're like, oh, we could even test this today feasibly like if we sat down and just quickly built it, like what's usable from that perspective? Or if somebody's not happy with where they ended up, we want to hear that like okay, maybe they went down 10 different wrong paths, but they have an idea of 20 different things they'd do tomorrow or things like that. And so we're looking for momentum I guess throughout that day. Again, as if it was your first day at work. And like as if it was like okay, cool, like what are we going to do tomorrow?

人们问的一些问题都关于不断变化的工具格局，以及它如何影响你评估候选人的方式，而你在这种变化中显然扮演了重要角色。那么，当你查看过往经验，或者第一天结束后坐下来复盘时，你有多在意工具熟练度以及它跨不同工具的广度？

A few of the questions that people were asking were all about the changing tooling landscape and how that impacts the way that you're evaluating candidates and you've obviously played a big role in that changing landscape. So when you're looking at either past experience or maybe sitting down after that first day to kind of debrief, how much do you care about tool proficiency and how widely it's spread across different tools?

我们并不教条，不会说这个人用过这些工具但没用那些，或者这个人是否用我们偏好的工具。我们不太在意这些。但我会说，我们寻找的是技术乐观主义和 AI 最大化主义的结合。我们希望人们乐于挑战自己，跟上工具的演变。如果有人过来说“嗯，我听说过这些工作流，但我在团队里用不了，因为团队没采用”，他们不主动尝试，那对我们来说就不太好，可能不太合适。但如果有人过来说“嘿，我试过所有这些，这个对我有用，那个没用”，他们有自己的观点，那就非常好。所以我们寻找的是那种愿意推动自己、愿意实验、愿意采纳的态度。坦白说，GPT 爆发已经两年了，现在我们期望人们在核心工作流中使用 AI。如果你不用，那可能有问题。在最基础的层面，甚至记笔记，你都可以挑战自己。

We're not dogmatic about like okay, if this person has used these kinds of tools, but not those ones or whatever or like if this person is using our preferred tools or anything like that. We don't really care about that, but I would say that we look for a mixture of techno-optimism and maybe AI maximalism as well. And so we want people that are excited to challenge themselves on how tools are evolving. And so like if somebody comes in and they're like, yeah, I've kind of heard about these workflows and I like but I just can't use them at you know, in my team because my team hasn't adopted them or whatever and they're just not playing or they're just not pushing themselves, then that's not a great look for us and then probably not the best fit. But if somebody comes in and they're like, oh hey, like I've tried all these things and here's what stuck for me and here's what hasn't stuck for me, they have their own opinion, then that's really really good. So we're looking for more of that willingness to push themselves and willingness to experiment and willingness to adopt. And you know, like now frankly, it's been two years since like GPT kind of exploded. Now I'd say that we're expecting people to be using AI like in their core workflows. Like something's probably wrong if you're not. And at the most basic level, you know, even just note-taking, you could be challenging yourself there or like whatever.

我们再深入一点。有效使用 AI 是什么样子？因为那可以有很多不同的含义，我知道至少有一部分听众会立刻把它理解为“仅通过提示词进行设计”。

Let's go a little bit deeper there. What does it look like to use AI effectively because that can just mean so many different things and I know there's at least some subset of people that are listening that immediately translate that to design by prompting only.

AI 是一种新材料，具有我们以前从未需要担心的所有新因素。我们既设计东西，也使用它。我们既是技术的用户，也是构建者。所以如果你完全不使用 AI，那有点像早期互联网时代，你拒绝数字化。比如你说“不，我知道互联网看起来很有趣，但我还是喜欢纸笔，我的工作流里不用任何数字工具”，那方向就不对了。我们认为我们已经跨越了 AI 的鸿沟，AI 永远不会被放回盒子里。我们永远不会回到非 AI 计算时代。所以我们期望人们使用 AI 产品，理解它们的工作原理，即使他们不每天设计 AI 产品，作为最终用户也要有自己的看法。

AI is this new material that has all these new factors that we've never had to worry about before. We design stuff and we use it both. Like we're users of technology at the same time as building it. And so if you're not using AI in any capacity, it's a little bit like if you were around in the early days of the web and if you were not adopting digital. Like if you were like, no, I know that the internet looks interesting, but I still like this pen and paper thing, but I just don't use anything digital in my workflow and you'd be like, well, directionally that's just not where things are going. We think we've kind of crossed this chasm of AI is never going to be put back into this box. Like we're never going to have non-AI computing. And so we're expecting that people are using AI products and that they understand how they work and they have even just have an opinion of them as an end user even if they're not designing AI products day to day.

我有个很小的个人轶事，但我觉得跟你的话有关。我记得我拿到第一份 W-2 工作，大概 10 年前吧。在那之前我一直做自由职业和自己创业，所以从未作为设计师被评估过。后来招聘经理告诉我为什么录用我：当时有一个带薪的回家作业项目，我用 Principle 做了原型，那时 Principle 刚开始流行。他问我“你为什么用 Principle？你平时也这么工作吗？” 我说“不，我可能不会在这里用 Principle，我只是想借这个机会试试这些新的原型工具。” 我甚至没多想答案。几周后他告诉我，正是那个答案让他录用了我，因为它显示了对技术发展方向的好奇心，而那时高保真原型显然就是下一个趋势。这种好奇心是很难筛选的，或者说最难筛选的东西。所以任何能给出这些好奇心或内在驱动力小信号的事情，都会让你作为候选人更上一层楼。

Even a personal anecdote that is much smaller, but I do think applies to kind of what you're saying is I remember when I got my first W-2 job I don't know, maybe 10 years ago, I'm not sure. Cuz I'd only been doing like freelancing and my own startup up until that point. So I'd never been evaluated by someone as a designer ever. And afterwards, the hiring manager told me why he hired me and it was because in my take-home they had like a paid take-home project, I prototyped it in Principle when Principle first was kind of getting some traction and he asked me like, why'd you like why would you put this in Principle? Like what is this how you would normally work? And I was like, oh no, like I probably wouldn't use Principle here. I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to try some of these new prototyping tools and I didn't even think about the answer. And then weeks later he told me that's why that answer was why we hired you because it showed this like curiosity in where technology is going and at that point it was very clear high-fidelity prototyping is kind of what's next. That curiosity is like what's impossible to screen for with like or the hardest things to screen for rather and so like anything you can do to like give these little signals of the curiosity or the internal drive makes it levels you up like as a candidate I'd say for sure.

我们聊了很多，非常感谢你在这次对话中如此务实。

We covered a lot of ground and I really appreciate how practical you've gotten in this conversation.

为了把这件事敲定，假设有人在一天内表现出色，然后被录用，全职工作，已经过了一两个月左右。我们之前谈过端到端负责的价值，但我想再深入一点，或者谈谈不同方面，真正了解在 Lovable 做一名设计师，成功是什么样的。那么，有没有哪些具体的特质或行为，会让你看到后对录用这个人感到非常非常满意？

To land the plane, let's say someone crushes it in the one day and they are now brought on, they're working full-time. It's been a month or two months or something like that. We talked about the value of owning things end to end, but I wanted to go a little bit deeper or maybe touch on different elements of really just get at what success looks like as a designer at Lovable. So are there specific traits or behaviors that you would want to see that would make you feel really really good about hiring that person?

可能有两件不同的事。第一是这种通才倾向。你知道，就是那种极度多维度、能端到端处理事情的能力。日复一日、周复一周地践行这一点，尤其是当你和那些可能观点不同、但你需要与之合作的极聪明的人一起工作时。我觉得这是第一点，就是真正日复一日、周复一周地看到这方面的证据。应该会有一些成果。通常人们在入职的头一两天就会发布一些东西，所以希望一个月后会有很多不同的事情可以庆祝。所以这是第一点。另一点，我想我会把它概括为深思熟虑。尤其是在生成式 AI 领域，你做一个很小的改动，可能会无意中产生相当大的连锁反应。我们的产品表面非常小，这意味着如果你增加一些表面，它会对产品的整体形态产生相当大的影响。所以你必须小心行事。我们期望用很小的表面做很多事。同样，在核心部分，也就是我们所说的核心循环——你与 AI 协作构建东西——AI 行为的微小变化会对人们能做什么、不能做什么产生非常深远的影响。所以尽管我们试图行动极快，因为我们认为这是最大化学习的方式，但我们希望人们深思熟虑。尤其是设计师，在我们的内部讨论中，设计师常常试图把握“好”的标准。还有如何从品牌层面到产品层面，再到人们与产品的关系，维护完整性和信任。所以，极度深思熟虑，并试图在品牌和产品中推广近乎完整性的东西。如果你在第一个月就做到了这一点，那你也做得非常出色。

There's maybe two different things. So one is this kind of generalist streak. So you know, this ability to be extremely multi-dimensional and to work on things end to end. Living that day to day, week to week, especially when you're working with incredibly smart people who might have differing points of view to you that you need to get alongside, and you know, stuff like that. Living that I'd say is kind of thing number one of like really, you know, seeing evidence of that day in day out, week in week out. There should be a few accomplishments. Normally people ship something within the first day or two of joining and so hopefully like a month in there's like lots of different things to celebrate. So that's one thing. And the other is I think I would just characterize it as thoughtfulness. Especially with gen AI, you can make a small change that has like quite a large ripple effect unintentionally. And so we have actually an incredibly small amount of surface in the product and so that means that if you add some more surface to it, it can have quite an outsized impact on the overall shape of the product. And so you have to do it kind of carefully. Like we expect a small amount of surface to do quite a lot. And then likewise in the core like what we call a core loop of you collaborate with AI to build things, very small changes to the AI's behavior can have like very far-reaching effects in terms of what people can and can't do. And so even though we try to move extraordinarily quickly because we think that's how we maximize our learning, we want people to be like thoughtful. And especially with designers, designers often in our internal conversations are trying to hold like the yardstick for what does good look like. Also like how do we maintain integrity and trust from everything from the brand level to the product level to you know, what is the relationship that people have with our product. And so being incredibly thoughtful and trying to promote almost like integrity throughout both the brand and the product. I think if you're doing that in your first month, you're also doing an incredible job.

我很喜欢。好的，Nad，非常感谢你来做客，揭开了招聘的所有幕后，你描述的一切听起来都很棒。我们会在节目说明中放上招聘页面的链接，感谢你今天来和我们聊天。

I love that. Well, Nad, super appreciate you coming on and pulling back the curtain on all things hiring and everything you're describing sounds amazing. So we're going to link the careers page in the show notes and thank you for coming on and talking with us today.

谢谢邀请。我也很希望听听其他人的看法，你知道，我们有自己的偏见和盲点。我们一直在努力挑战它们。所以如果有其他趋势，或者你听了这个之后觉得我们流程中描述的某些东西从根本上就是有问题的，真心欢迎反馈，我们会继续改进。

Thanks for having me and also would really love just more input on what other people are seeing as well and so you know, we have our own biases, our own blind spots. We're trying to challenge them all of the time. And so if there's other trends or if you've listened to this and you think something's broken like fundamentally broken out of everything that we described in our process, genuinely like input welcome and then we'll continue to evolve.

在你走之前，我想花一分钟给你介绍我最喜欢的产品，因为我经常被问到我的工具栈是什么。Framer 是我建网站的工具，Gen way 是我做研究的方式，Granola 是我在评审时记笔记的工具，Jitter 是我给设计做动画的工具，Lovable 是我用代码实现想法的工具，Mobbin 是我找设计灵感的地方，Paper 是我像创意人一样设计的工具，Raycast 是我每一步的快捷方式。我精心挑选了这些公司，这样我才能全职做这些节目。所以目前支持节目的第一方式就是去看看它们。你可以在 dive.club/partners 找到完整列表。

Before I let you go, I want to take just 1 minute to run you through my favorite products because I'm constantly asked what's in my stack. Framer is how I build websites. Gen way is how I do research. Granola is how I take notes during crit. Jitter is how I animate my designs. Lovable is how I build my ideas in code. Mobbin is how I find design inspiration. Paper is how I design like a creative and Raycast is my shortcut every step of the way. Now I've hand-selected these companies so that I can do these episodes full-time. So by far the number one way to support the show is to check them out. You can find the full list at dive.club/partners.