从 IC 到 VP：Polly D'Arcy 谈冒充者综合征与设计领导力

我每天仍然会有冒名顶替综合征，我觉得这说明我一直在接受挑战、不断成长和尝试新事物。这种感觉只是一种焦虑，就是我还不知道答案，不知道要做什么。但在 Wealthsimple 对我来说，一直都是：我不知道接下来会怎样，但我们会一天天去解决。我认为这种态度真的能带你走得很远。

I have imposter syndrome every day, still, and I think that means that I am constantly challenged and growing and taking on new things. That feeling is just anxiety of not knowing the answer yet. I don't know what I'm going to do. But for me at Wealthsimple, it's always been day by day—we're going to figure it out. And I think that attitude can take you really, really far.

欢迎收听 Dive Club，我是 Ridd，这里是设计师永不停步的社区。今天请到的是 Polly D'Arcy，她在短短几年内从 Wealthsimple 的 IC 一路成长为设计主管，最终成为设计副总裁。我们将深入聊一聊她的经历，以及她在设计领导力、工艺、招聘等很多方面学到的东西。让我们从她故事的起点开始。

Welcome to Dive Club. My name is Ridd, and this is where designers never stop learning. Today's episode is with Polly D'Arcy, who over a few short years went from an IC at Wealthsimple all the way to head of design and eventually VP of design. We're going to do a deep dive into her journey and everything she learned along the way about design leadership, craft, hiring, and a lot more. So let's start at the beginning of her story.

我大概七年前加入 Wealthsimple，2019 年，疫情之前，那感觉挺不可思议的。当时我是以 IC 身份加入的，团队只有五个人，算是一个很小的团队，在公司内部仍然是一个中台团队，因为那时候公司大约有 250 到 500 人。我们甚至没有嵌入到产品团队里，就是一群核心成员坐在一起。每天你上班就会处理产品的不同部分，因为那时候产品比现在小得多。

I joined Wealthsimple almost seven years ago, in 2019, before COVID, which seems sort of wild. I joined the team as an IC, and we were only five people. So we were a super small team, still a centralized team within the company, because at the time there were between 250 and 500 people. We weren't even embedded on product teams. We were just this core group that sat together, and every day you showed up to work and worked on a different part of the product, because the product was so much smaller than it is today.

我一直知道自己想带团队。我小时候参加过很多体育运动——不是想说得太老套，但我就是在冰球场上长大的加拿大女孩——所以我经常用体育来打比方。和别人合作、带一个团队，会让我最有能量，也是我真正喜欢做的事。于是我转去做了管理者，当时带了大概三个人。我还在摸索阶段，特别稚嫩，对管理还很陌生，完全不知道自己在干什么。Brett 是 Wealthsimple 的联合创始人兼首席产品官，也是我的老板。在那之后大概六个月，他给了我一个绝佳的机会。他说：‘我真心在你身上看到一些东西，我觉得你应该来带这个设计团队。’我说：‘什么？你确定吗？’我当时觉得他是不是疯了。显然我已经向他展示过自己的潜力，但那一刻真的让人害怕——我不知道该从哪里开始。

I always knew that I wanted to lead a team. I grew up playing a lot of sports—not to be a total cliché, but I'm a Canadian gal who grew up playing hockey—so I often lean on sports analogies. I get most of my energy from working with a team, and that's what I really enjoy doing. So I moved into a manager role, managing about three people. I was just learning the ropes, super green, super new to management, still no idea what I was really doing. Brett, a co-founder at Wealthsimple and our chief product officer, came to me over the next six months with an incredible opportunity. He said, 'I really see something in you. I think you should lead this design team.' I said, 'What? Are you sure?' I thought he was crazy. I had obviously shown him my potential, but it was a scary moment—I had no idea what I was doing or where to start.

回头看，我非常欣赏 Brett 的一点是他教会我：当你看到团队中有潜力的人，你需要给他们机会，支持他们，帮助他们成长。每次你给一个人机会，这都是一场赌注。一半的时间这些赌注会有好结果，另一半的时间可能不会。但我非常喜欢这种做法。当我与人共事、从他们身上获得能量、看到潜力时，我也愿意给他们机会去成长，去承担新的挑战。这就是 Brett 给我的，也是我职业轨迹的起点。我大概已经带这个设计团队四五年了。我记得刚上任时，有人跟我说：‘平静的水面练不出好水手。’这句话在我经历那段困难时期、试图弄清新角色和如何重建团队时，击中了我。你必须经历艰难的部分，如果撑过来了，你会变得更强大、更好，过程中也会学到很多。作为一个比较年轻、从 IC 或基层管理者一路走来的人，我当时真的很需要听到这句话。它能激励我，帮我进入领导力的下一个阶段。我会在个人生活中，也在工作时告诉别人：事情并不总是一帆风顺，但你面对的很多挑战其实都是学习新东西、在角色中成长、变得更强的机会。这也是我想要一直传递给团队的理念，每当他们遇到困难时刻的时候。

Looking back, something I really admire about Brett and what he taught me is that when you see potential in people on your team, you need to give them opportunities, support them, and help them grow. Every time you give someone an opportunity, it's a bet. Half the time those bets play out really well, and half the time they might not. But I really love that approach. When I work with people and I get energy from them and I see that potential, I also want to give them an opportunity to grow and take on something new and challenging. That's what Brett gave me, and it started my trajectory here. I've been leading the design team for four or five years now. When I first came into the role, someone said, 'Smooth waters don't make great sailors.' It hit me in that moment as I was going through a challenging time, figuring out my new role and how we were going to rebuild the team. You have to live through the tough stuff and figure out how to get through it, and if you make it, you come out stronger and better, and you learn so much in the process. As a younger person coming from more of an IC or lower-manager role, I really needed to hear that. It motivated me and helped me get to the next phase of my leadership. It's something I tell people in my personal life when they're going through challenges, but also at work. It's not always easy, but a lot of the challenges you face are really opportunities to learn something new, grow in your role, and get better. I want to instill that in my team all the time whenever they're going through a challenging moment.

说到我们的团队，当时产品其实不怎么好。我们虽然在增长，但产品质量远远没有达到应有的水平。你打开 App 就会看到各种 bug，体验很糟糕，工艺水平完全没跟上。我能感觉到我们自己不用产品。那些做产品的人自己不用，也不去看它。我坚信，如果你作为这个产品的制造者和公司的主人，都不愿意拿自己的钱去用它，那它就不够好。你得来找我们告诉我们哪里不好，但你也得真正愿意投入，采取行动把它做好。如果你自己都不用，凭什么别人会用呢？所以我们的第一个重大文化转变就是围绕‘使用自家产品’（dogfooding），让每个参与开发或销售的人每天都去用产品，并且真正对它着迷。因为只有这样，才能为客户把产品做到极致。我们从设计团队开始，要求大家不仅要每天去看 App，还要拿自己的钱投进去。我们产品的好处是你可以免费开任何账户，放一块钱、放十块钱都可以。我就是希望大家去探索产品、去使用它、去开通每一个新账户、测试每一个新功能，这样他们才能真实体会客户的感受。然后分享反馈，推动你觉得应该改进的地方。在预发环境里测试是一回事，拿自己的真金白银去用是另一回事，因为你会非常深刻地感受到痛点、摩擦和挫败感。

When it came to the team, our product was not very good. We were growing, but the quality was nowhere near where it needed to be. You would open the app and there would be bugs; it was really janky. The craft was not there. You could tell we were not using the product. The people building the product were not using it or looking at it. I really believe that if you, as someone who is a maker and owner of the company building this product, don't want to use it with your own money, it's not good enough. You have to come to us and tell us why, but you also have to buy in and take steps to make it really great. If you're not going to use it, why would anyone else? So the first big cultural shift was all around dogfooding—getting everyone who builds or sells the product to use it every day and become obsessed with it. That was the only way we were going to make it great for our customers. We started with the design team and asked that everybody make sure they are not only literally looking at the app every day, but also putting their own money in it. The beauty of our product is you can open any account for free. You can put in a dollar, you can put in ten bucks. I wanted people to explore the product, use it, open every new account, test every new feature, so they really understood what our customers were experiencing. Then share your feedback and push for what you think should be better. Testing something in staging is one thing, but actually using a product with your own money is another, because you deeply feel the pain points, the friction, and the frustration.

于是人们就会问：“我该怎么确定优先级，该做什么？”那时我们就开始定义质量，以及质量对我们 Wealthsimple 意味着什么，也就是标准是什么。我们做了很多工作，其中之一是画了一张像马斯洛需求层次那样的图，一个质量金字塔，让大家知道先解决什么、从哪里入手。这种共同语言渐渐渗透到整个组织，现在人们能更容易地就“先修什么、从哪里开始”达成共识。

So people were like, “How do I figure out what to prioritize and what to work on?” And that's when we had to start defining quality and what it meant for us at Wealthsimple, like what the bar was. A lot of that is done through — we literally created a visual, like a Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a triangle with the layers of quality, so that people knew what to tackle first and where to start. And that shared language permeates throughout the organization, and now people can more easily align on what's important to fix first and where to begin.

能不能具体说一下？这张图上都有什么？

Can we get really specific for a second? What's on this chart?

金字塔最底层是功能性。你首先要确保这个东西真的能用。这就是我们做产品开发的核心理念。我们非常倾向于尽快把一个东西拿到自己手里开始用。也就是说，我们不能一直在 Figma 里抠像素——在大家都把所有东西搬上云、人人都有云端实习生的时代，这已经显得很落伍了。我们更倾向于先做出一个东西，确保它能跑起来，感受一下它的形态，再决定怎么界定工作量。然后我们要确保它可靠。我们是金融服务产品和公司，客户是否深度信任、能否放心把钱交给 Wealthsimple，这件事极其重要。所以可靠性对我们来说至关重要。这些是我们的根基，必须先做对。第三层是性能。我们要确保产品用起来非常快、没有摩擦——不卡顿、不缓慢、不崩溃。然后再谈如何把体验做好。但只有当根基稳固之后，我们才能真正深入细节、把体验做到卓越。如果顺序反了，很可能就是浪费时间。而且一切并不是线性的，并不是我们打个勾就完了。这只是给大家一个框架和共同语言，让团队在界定工作、判断眼下什么最重要的时候能用来对齐。我觉得这对团队帮助很大。当然它并不完美，差得远。但现在人们可以说：“我觉得我们还不该纠结这个实现细节，因为当务之急是让它足够可靠。”这种取舍对话很有价值。而以前的感觉就像是在对牛弹琴，大家自说自话，根本没有真正一起努力做出一个伟大的东西。

At the bottom of the diagram is functionality. So you have to make sure the thing literally works first. That's really built into the spirit of how we do product development here. We really bias toward getting something into our own hands and using it as quickly as possible. That means we can't be debating pixels in Figma — which already seems pretty archaic, given everyone's clouding everything, everyone has their fleet of cloud interns. We really want to bias toward building something so we can make sure it works, get a feel for the shape of things and how we want to scope the work. And then we need to make sure it's reliable. We're a financial services product and company. It's incredibly important that customers deeply trust and can rely on Wealthsimple when it comes to their money. So reliability is incredibly important to us. Those are the foundations we need to get right. The third layer is performance. We need to make sure the product is incredibly fast and frictionless to use — not lagging, not slow, not crashing. And then it's like, how do we make the experience great? But we can only really dig into those details and make the experience excellent once the foundations are in place. If we do it the other way around, it can be a waste of time. And not everything is this linear. It's not as if we have checkboxes. But this is just a framework and shared language for people to use on their teams when they're scoping the work together and figuring out what's important right now. And I think that has really helped them. It's not always perfect — far from it. But now people can say, “I don't think we should focus on this implementation detail yet because we need to make it really reliable.” That's a helpful trade-off conversation to have. Before, it felt like we were talking to a brick wall, talking past each other and not actually trying to work together to build something really great.

尤其是在一个你们如此看重工艺、强调工艺的组织里，当工艺得到赞颂时，真的很按捺不住想跳过顺序去做那些事。我猜你们内部一定有一些对工艺的赞颂吧？

Especially in an org that I know you all prioritize craft and place great emphasis on that. It's really tempting to do those things out of order when it's celebrated. I'm assuming there is some level of celebration of craft internally.

让 Wealthsimple 成为一个特别的工作和做设计的地方，是因为我们非常非常在意设计，在意客户获得的体验——既有品牌，也有产品体验。我们之所以能增长这么快，是因为我们希望客户感受到：我们在打造产品时投入的用心、对细节的专注，和你打理自己钱财时的用心是一样的。所以如果你打开我们的应用，看到一个 bug，感觉它很粗糙，你就会想：“我不敢把钱交给这些人。”这个框架帮助团队提升了认知，意识到这些 UI 小问题真的很重要，因为日积月累它们就像纸片割伤一样，磨掉信任的电量。人们不会留在 Wealthsimple，或者一开始就不会加入，因为他们听说我们的产品有点粗糙。我们希望你有信心，觉得我们靠得住，但同时也希望有能让你开心的时刻。生活中不必总那么严肃。有些时刻值得庆祝，而我觉得快乐能带来巨大的不同。在我们的应用里，主页最底部有一个 3D 硬币，你可以旋转它，就像指尖陀螺一样。你能做的就是转这个硬币。多少人专门进应用来转这个硬币，大家在 Reddit 上反复说这是他们最喜欢的——简直不可思议。但这就是那种轻松时刻：你打开应用看看行情，最近行情太疯狂了，然后你往下滑，获得这么一个小小的手指陀螺时刻。正是这样的小时刻——先不剧透太多——但我想说，设计将继续在交付卓越产品方面发挥巨大作用。我们仍然需要人类去构思这些极具创意和令人兴奋的点子，深入地与客户建立连接。

What makes Wealthsimple such a special place to work and be a designer is that we deeply, deeply care about design and the experience our customers get — our brand but also our product experience. The reason we've grown so quickly is that we want our customers to feel like the care we put into building our product and the attention we pay to details is the same care you put into managing your money. So if you open our app and see a bug and it feels janky, then you're like, “I don't trust these people with my money.” That framing has really helped the team level up and realize that these small UI bugs really do matter, because over time they're paper cuts that wear down the trust battery. People won't stay with Wealthsimple, or they won't join us in the first place, because they hear that our product is kind of janky. We want you to feel confident and like we have your back, but also there are moments where you can have fun. You don't have to take life that seriously. There are moments to celebrate, and I think joy can make such a big difference. In our app, on the home screen, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, we have a 3D coin that you can spin — it's like a fidget spinner. All you can do is spin this coin. The number of people who come to our app to spin this coin, and people talk about it on Reddit all the time as their favorite thing — it's wild. But it's that moment of levity: you open the app to check the markets, and they've been really wild lately, then you scroll down and have this little fidget spinner moment. It's little moments like this — and not to jump ahead too much — but this is where design will continue to play an outsized role in delivering a really exceptional product. We still need humans to come up with these really creative and exciting ideas, to deeply connect to the customer.

我很高兴你是从金融背景进入这段对话的，而你仍然能加进一个指尖陀螺。如果你是代表某个专业工具产品，这主意也不错，但就不会像现在这么有冲击力——因为我们可是在打造加拿大领先的金融公司，而我们有一个指尖陀螺，人们还喜欢它。所以也许我们可以聊聊那一类机会。你说到了 dogfooding 和定义质量真正强化了根基。我猜想这确实释放了更多空间，让我们想办法提升体验、推动工艺前进。那么这在 Wealthsimple 现在实际是怎样的？

I'm glad that you're entering this conversation from the finance background, and you can still add a fidget spinner. If you were representing some prosumer tool, it would still be a great idea, but it wouldn't hit as hard as, you know, we literally are building the leading finance company in Canada and we have a fidget spinner and people love it. So maybe we could talk about that bucket of opportunities. You talked about dogfooding and defining quality really strengthening the foundation. My assumption is that does unlock a lot more space to find ways to elevate this experience and push the craft forward. So what does that look like in practice at Wealthsimple right now?

这些 AI 工具真正让我兴奋的是——感觉现在大家都在用了——它们真的在帮助我团队里的设计师更好地发挥自己的“尖峰”（spike）。我一直很喜欢听这么多不同的设计负责人，包括你播客上请过的几位，聊他们怎么招人、看重什么、团队怎么构成。很多说法我都有共鸣，我们在这里也是这么运作的。也许在此基础上可以加上另一个视角，就是这种“尖峰”理念。我认为作为设计负责人，你必须真正看见人，理解他们能为团队带来什么独一无二的东西。我们把这叫做“尖峰”。

What's been really exciting about these AI tools — and it feels like everyone's using them at this point — is that they're really helping designers on my team lean into their spike. I've been enjoying hearing all these different design leaders, a few of whom you've had on the podcast, talk about how they hire, what they look for, the makeup of their teams. A lot of that resonates with me, and it's how we operate here too. Maybe another lens on top of that is this 'spike' philosophy. I believe that as a design leader, you have to really see people and understand what they bring to the team that no one else is going to bring. We call that a spike.

我有点希望有个工程师就坐在你旁边做这件事，你知道吗？而在另一个极端，那些把强项定义为非常有创意、非常视觉化、想要花更多时间打磨细节和最后一公里的设计师，他们用 AI 做的事情完全不同。比如，“帮我生成 3D 资产。”“帮我给这些细致的小细节做原型，但不一定要达到生产级。”它只是帮我拓宽思路、去探索。

I kind of wish an engineer was just sitting with you and doing that, you know? On the other end of the spectrum, designers who identify their spike as being very creative, very visual, wanting to spend a lot more time on crafting those details and the last mile—they're using AI to do very different things. Like, “Help me generate 3D assets.” “Help me prototype all these nuanced little details, but it doesn't have to be production ready.” It's just helping me go broad and explore.

我团队里另一位设计师在做消费追踪功能。我们正在解决一个数据可视化的问题。过去，他会觉得必须在 Figma 里设计出一两个或三个选项，花很多时间调整细节，然后发给团队，问哪个数据可视化最好。现在有了 Claude，他搭建了一个仪表盘，把所有可能用到的数据可视化形式都放进去，先用模拟数据，再输入真实数据，就能更快地可视化并做决策。所以，无论你的强项是什么，你完全可以用这些工具。它不只是为了那些试图构建高质量前端，或者把高质量前端代码交付到生产环境的人。

Another designer on my team who's building spend tracking features. We're working through this data visualization problem. Historically, he would feel like he had to design one or three options in Figma, take all the time to fiddle with the details, and then share it back to the team, asking which data visualization is best. With Claude, he's building a dashboard of every possible data visualization they could use, using mock data, then feeding in his real data, and he's able to visualize and make decisions faster. So regardless of your spike, you can absolutely be using these tools. It's not just for people who are trying to build high-quality front end or ship high-quality front-end code to production.

现在团队内真正让人兴奋的是，我们正在尝试找出正确的团队结构——包括规模和组成——在有了新工具之后，角色和界限正在变得模糊。我们以前谈的是“两个披萨团队”。团队的规模，这甚至说不通。当时我们会组 8 到 11 人的团队。我就觉得，他们需要的可不止两个披萨。在加拿大，你们这边的人胃口不小，所以更像是四个披萨团队。但那曾是标准。现在我们讨论的是一支 3 人团队意味着什么。可能是一个设计师加两个工程师，也可能是一个设计师、一个产品经理和一个工程师。我不确定具体的构成是什么，但我认为值得思考的是，我们如何组建更小的团队，让他们坐在一起、带着更强的信念更快行动、真正分担角色和责任，并交付他们真正引以为傲的东西。

What's really exciting within the team right now is trying to figure out the right team structure—both size and composition—given the new tools, and how roles and lines are blurring. We used to talk about two-pizza teams. The size of your team, which doesn't even make sense. We would have teams of eight to eleven. I'm like, they need more than two pizzas. And in Canada, you guys are hungry, so it's like four-pizza teams. But that was the standard. Now we're talking about what it means to have a team of three. Maybe it's a designer and two engineers; maybe it's a designer, a product person, and an engineer. I don't know the exact composition, but I think it's interesting to think about how we can have smaller teams who can sit together, move faster with more conviction, share roles and responsibilities, and deliver something they're really proud of.

而这又回到了一个想法——这就是我一直在反思的：我觉得我之所以能在这里成长和成功，是因为我和产品工程建立了关系，我能学到他们的手艺、他们关心什么、他们怎么工作，以及我们三个人如何能打造一段真正出色的体验。所以我们现在可能正处于这样一个位置：这也许就是每个团队的结构，我们会有更多更小的团队。我还没有答案，但想到这一点以及它会是什么样子，真的非常让人兴奋。

And it kind of comes back to this idea—this is the reflection I was having: I feel like the reason I've been able to grow and succeed here is the relationship I built with product engineering, and how much I've been able to learn about their craft, what they care about, how they do their work, and how the three of us can build a really great experience. So we're now at a place where maybe that is just the structure of every team, and we have more teams with smaller teams. I don't know the answer yet, but it's really exciting to think about that and what that would look like.

而另一个极端可能是，每个人都变成全栈，或者一个人同时负责产品、设计和工程。那会让我有点紧张，因为团队里必须有一个有信念、并推动工作前进的领导者。团队总是能让一切变得更好。和其他人一起工作，来挑战你的假设或思维方式，为那些想法做出贡献——你确实需要这些。我猜有人说现在 Claude 就是那个团队。但我认为你仍然需要人来做这些工作。我见过有人让 Claude 替他们思考，结果就是垃圾进，垃圾出。你仍然需要完成所有的思考和战略规划。

And maybe the other end of the spectrum might be that everyone becomes a full stack, or someone who does product, design, and engineering. That one makes me nervous a little bit, because it's important that we have a leader on a team who has conviction and is driving the work forward. A team will always make everything better. Working with other people to challenge your assumptions or your way of thinking, to contribute to those ideas—you just need that. I guess some people are saying that Claude is that team now. I think you still need a human to do that work. I have seen people ask Claude to do the thinking for them, and it's garbage in, garbage out. You still got to do all the thinking and strategizing.

这也是我一直在反思的一件很有意思的事：速度一直是 Wild Simple 的优势，我们总是倾向于极速前进。但有了这些 AI 工具，人们开始跳过思考，甚至完全跳过设计，这有点危险。必须慢下来才能快起来，这一点仍然成立。你必须在一开始花时间思考你要构建什么，对它有信念，形成强有力的观点，确保自己有信念，然后花所有时间去写提示词或 MD 文件，或者别的什么。但你不能直接让 Claude 替你想产品策略，然后就去交付。有时候确实会看到这种情况。我团队里有人用“slop drop”这个说法，就是有人让 Claude 替他们写 PRD，然后直接把它发给你，你会觉得：“我知道你根本没有思考过那份 PRD。”

And that's also been a really interesting reflection I've been having: speed has always been our advantage at Wild Simple, and we always biased toward moving super quickly. But with these AI tools, people are skipping the thinking and skipping the design altogether, which is kind of dangerous. You have to go slow to go fast. That's still true. You have to spend time in the beginning thinking about what you want to build, having conviction in that, developing a strong point of view, making sure you have conviction, and then spending all of your time writing the prompt or the MD file or whatever it is. But you can't just ask Claude to come up with your product strategy for you and then go ship it. That's what you see sometimes. Someone on my team uses the phrase “slop drop,” where somebody asks Claude to write a PRD for them and then just sends it to you, and you're like, “I know you did not think about that PRD.”

我自己也经常想这个问题，因为我在代码上花的时间多得多。我基本上总是把 Claude 作为主要界面，当需要探索的时候，我会通过 Claude 使用画布。甚至回到你最初的点，比如说到强项——快速插一句：我不擅长平面设计。那不是我的强项，我确实不擅长。我更像是一个产品导向、技术向的人。所以突然间，编程世界在某种程度上把我变成了一个具备产品思维的前端工程师。但当涉及到做一个网站和小图形时，实际上我在给 Tiago 发短信说：“哥们，我该怎么办？那不是我。我不知道怎么做一个图形来表达一个想法，除非它在我那个漂亮的 CSS 盒子里。”所以我会让 Claude 完全不假思索地先给我倒出一堆想法。然后我看着它们说：“哦，4B 很有意思。再来五个类似的。”我一个像素都不用碰，就能得到我想要的设计。它帮助我从以前的 3/10 提高到了 6/10 或 7/10，这很棒。

Thinking about that a lot myself, because I'm spending way more time in code. I basically always use Claude as the dominant interface, and then I'll use the canvas through Claude when I need to explore things. Even going back to your original point, with the spiciness for instance—quick tangent: I'm bad at graphic design. It's not a spike; I'm actually bad at it. I'm a little bit more product-focused and technical. So all of a sudden, the coding world has turned me into a product-minded front-end engineer in some ways. But when it comes to making a website and little graphics, actually I was texting Tiago and was like, “Dude, what do I do here? That's not me. I don't know how to make a graphic to represent an idea that isn't in my nice little CSS box.” So I'll have Claude, with absolutely no thought upfront, just be like, “Can you just dump a bunch of ideas?” Then I'll look at them like, “Oh, 4B is interesting. Let's do five more like that.” And I don't touch a single pixel, and I get a graphic design that I want. It helps me as somebody who was previously a three out of ten get to a six or seven out of ten, which is great.

但从产品的角度来看，对我自己以及可能很多听众来说，我们仍在思考流程前端的深度思考部分到底是什么。因为过去大量深度思考之所以会发生，是因为做事需要时间、存在摩擦，你必须走完所有步骤，你的大脑会自然地进行处理。而现在，我有了一个功能想法，就能直接吐出来，在大概 90 分钟内发给工程师一份非常粗糙的 PR。

From the product standpoint though, for myself and probably a lot of people listening, we're still figuring out what is the deep thinking part of the process up front. Because so much of the deep thinking traditionally happened because it took time and there was friction to do things, and you had to go through all the steps, and your brain is naturally processing through that. Now it's like I have a feature idea, and I can spit that thing out and send an engineer a very sloppy PR in like 90 minutes.

你组织团队的方式，不一定非要把每位设计师都嵌入某个产品团队、各管一摊包办所有。这是我们过去很长一段时间的做法。但我认为“球员兼教练”的模式也行得通——不只是你和你的经理之间，还包括你和其他 IC（个人贡献者）。一位设计师可以负责一个项目，然后在发布前，Thiago 介入帮忙把细节打磨到极致，比如加上非常出彩的动效，在一些细节上玩出花来。这种模式也能成立。没有唯一正确的做法，我会尽量给团队自由去尝试，看哪种模式对你们最有效。尤其是现在有了这些新的 AI 工具和工作方式，过去的经验全都可以推翻。比如 Thiago 所在的团队只有两名工程师，没有产品经理，因为他们不需要。为什么不呢？如果我们不需要产品经理，我就不会加人。如果你在这个团队派不上用场，没关系，换一个更能发挥你价值的项目不好吗？不是每个团队都必须有同样的人员构成和技能组合，这一点对我来说是非常大的解锁，也影响了我怎么设计一个组织。

The way you organize your team doesn't have to be that every designer is embedded on a product team, working on their own thing and doing it all. That's actually how we operated for a long time. But I think having a player-coach model can work—not just with you and your manager, but with you and other ICs on the team. One designer can own a project, and then Thiago comes in at the end to really help them make the details excellent before we ship it—finesse it, add really exciting motion, and have fun with a couple of details. That kind of model works too. There's no one right way to do it. I try to give my team freedom to experiment and see what model works best for them. And especially with these new AI tools and ways of working, all of that gets thrown out the window. Thiago works on a team with two engineers and no product person because they don't need one. Why not? I wouldn't add a product person if we don't need one. If you're not needed on that team, that's okay. Would you be more helpful on a different project? Not every team has to have the same composition of people and skill sets, and that has been a big unlock for me in how I think about designing an org.

听众可能会觉得很有启发，因为本节目里多次出现过一种情绪：“通才当道”，尤其在 AI 领域。我们要通才，我们要通才。而你主张我们要的是在某件事上特别突出的人，这可能是少数派观点，但令人耳目一新。好。

It's probably inspirational for people listening, because a sentiment that has come up multiple times on this show is “power to the generalist”—especially in the AI area. We want generalists, we want generalists. So your take that we actually want people who really spike on one thing is maybe a minority take, which is refreshing. Okay.

我喜欢这个观点，因为有时候我真心为那些职业生涯早期的人感到难过。我们现在说：我们要能端到端掌控一切的通才——对了，你还要会写代码、会做产品，所有人都得身兼数职，而且必须什么都会才能拿到下一份工作。我的看法一直在演变，但我觉得做设计师刚起步时，你必须先做个通才。有人曾对我说，你应该去各种公司、机构、产品公司工作，才能弄清楚自己喜欢什么。道理一样：先做通才，才能找到自己的长板。也就是你能带给团队、别人无法替代、你特别擅长、能从中获得能量并真正投入的事。我真的相信每个人都有长板，你只需要去发现它，它也可能随着时间变化——也许你有两块长板，谁知道呢。比如你说自己是个有产品思维的工程师，那就是长板。一部分是要承认自己不擅长什么：比如“我永远成不了最顶尖的平面设计师，但我很擅长产品策略，而且我特别享受钻研前端、写代码、独立做出东西来。”在我看来，这就是让人脱颖而出的原因，也是我看到真正成功的人所在。

I like that because sometimes I almost feel bad for people earlier in their career. It's like, we want generalists who can own everything end to end—and by the way, you need to be able to code and do product, and we're all going to wear every hat, and you have to wear all of them to get your next job. My opinion is always evolving, but it feels like when you're coming up as a designer, you have to start as a generalist. People used to tell me to work at a bunch of different companies, agencies, and product companies to understand what you like. It's the same idea: start as a generalist so you can identify your spike. What is the thing you'll bring to the team that nobody else can bring, that you're exceptional at, that gives you energy and you can really lean into? I really believe everyone has a spike. You just have to discover what it is, and it may change over time—maybe you have two spikes, I don't know. You mentioned you're a product-minded engineer or whatever. That's a spike. Part of it is admitting what you're not good at. Like, okay, I'm never going to be the best graphic designer. But I'm really good at product strategy, and I'm genuinely excited to dig into frontend and code and build things on my own. That is what sets people apart in my mind, and where I've seen people really succeed.

显然事情并非非黑即白、那么简单。所以我猜想你作为招聘负责人，可能需要决定招谁。一个人有非常有意思的长板和技能组合，但领域经验有限；另一种人则像那位期权交易员，说“这东西我门儿清，我有很多想法，这些年所有错我都犯过了。”当你决定让谁加入团队时，你会怎么权衡这两类设计师？

Obviously nothing is black and white and simple. So I imagine there are situations where you, as the hiring manager, are trying to figure out who to bring on. Someone has a really interesting spike and skill set, but limited domain expertise. Then on the flip side, you have someone like that options trader who says, I know this stuff. I have so many thoughts. I've already made all the mistakes for years. How do you reconcile those two types of designers when deciding who to bring onto the team?

这个问题问得太好了，我们经常聊。我认为随着时间推移，我们已经知道哪些地方需要领域专家，哪些地方专业能力比设计工艺更重要。期权就是个好例子。我们一开始让其他几个人做，后来意识到“我们需要让期权交易员来打造这个体验”，这样才能快速前进、做出真正出色的东西。如果你不是活跃交易者、不能立刻上手，这个领域真的很难进入。但在产品的其他很多部分，我认为你不需要先成为领域专家。比如加密货币：我们正在为加密产品招人，凭我的经验，我不认为设计师必须是个狂热的加密交易员才能做出好的加密体验。这就是我观察到的。我们会认真权衡利弊，判断这个团队在当时需要什么。但没有绝对正确答案，完全取决于产品、现有团队成员，以及你觉得缺什么、需要什么。但你知道吗，这事其实很简单：有时我看到我团队里的负责人组建团队，所有人都擅长同样的事。比如你招了五个设计师，都很擅长系统化思维、技术很强，结果 UX/UI 设计非常无聊。因为他们不是那类有创意的视觉设计师，缺少那种创造力和额外的精致打磨。所以我一眼就能看出：你团队缺这类技能，必须考虑怎么平衡。这就是不断的沟通和来回调整，我们一直在招人，团队也在不断变化。我相信小团队。我想让团队尽量小，因为我看到小团队效率更高。尽管如此，我的设计团队现在约 35 人，这对我来说已经很大了。回到我们想让 app 看起来像出自同一人之手的想法——我认为让人们了解全局至关重要，沟通变得越来越重要。为了快速推进、不被官僚流程、其他团队、或者事事都要获得认同而拖慢，你只能主动做好沟通。

That's such a good question, and we talk about it constantly. I think we've learned over time where we need subject-matter expertise and where that outweighs craft. Options is a good example. We learned over time—we had a couple of other people working on it—and we said, we need an options trader building this experience. That's how we're going to move quickly and build something great. It's a really tough space to onboard into if you're not an active trader and don't immediately get it. But in so many other parts of the product, I don't think you have to be a domain expert. Take crypto: we're hiring folks for the crypto product, and from experience, I don't actually think a designer has to be a degen crypto trader to build a great crypto experience. That's just what I've observed. We're really thoughtful about weighing pros and cons and identifying what we need at that time for that team. There's absolutely no one right answer. It's based on the product, the existing team, the players already on it, and what you feel is missing. But you know, this is very simple: sometimes I've seen leaders on my team build teams where all the players are good at the same things. You hire five designers who are all great systems thinkers and very technical, and as a result, the UX/UI design is very boring. They're not those visual designers who think creatively. They're missing the creativity and the extra polish. So I can immediately say, you're missing this skill set on your team, and you need to think about how to balance it. It's a constant conversation, back and forth. We're always hiring, teams are changing, and so on. I'm a believer in small teams. I want to keep my team as small as possible, because I've seen that smaller teams are more effective. That said, my design team is now about 35 people, which feels huge to me. So coming back to the idea that we want the app to feel designed by one hand—I think it's super important that people are aware of what's going on, and communication becomes increasingly important. To move quickly without being slowed down by bureaucracy, other teams, or needing buy-in, you just have to proactively communicate really well.

所以，我们在设计团队内部设立了一些例行仪式，让大家定期分享手头的工作。每隔一周，一个业务域——我们组织里有四个业务域，比如银行是其中之一——他们会以团队形式把最新工作展示给其余的设计领导团队，包括首席工程师和总监。这纯粹是为了让大家看到进展，然后讨论正在做的事情，因为我们离得很近。我们都在设计同一栋房子，你懂吧？我们有时只是在不同的房间，我不希望感觉我们各自被关在自己的房间里设计，然后出来一看，“天哪，这些房间的风格都不一样，就像不同的室内设计师。”我们必须确保能看到连接整个生态系统的机会，让体验更好。有时你在做的事情相似却又不同，这种可见性真的很有帮助。可能有人会想：“这不能异步完成吗？为什么要线下聚在一起讨论？”因为你们还是需要讨论。是的，我们完全可以在 Slack 上做，但我坚信你们还是需要在一个房间里面对面把问题谈清楚，进行对话。所以每隔一周，每个业务域来展示工作，这给了其他所有领导者了解大家在做什么的机会。我们会讨论工艺，讨论正在出现的模式，比如“X、Y、Z 我们该怎么办？”或者“我喜欢你在这里的做法，我要带回我的团队。”这种交叉授粉非常重要。而且每个设计师也认识团队里的其他领导者。我总体上觉得我的设计团队——现在有 35 个人——我们彼此都很了解，这非常重要，尤其是我们在远程办公。我们也会让同事们线下见面，因为我觉得真正感受到自己是团队一员并保持高效，唯一的办法就是真正认识别人，并和他们共度时光。有时候我组织线下聚会，有人问：“线下聚会的意义是什么？”我说：“就是在一起待着。别想得太复杂。大家在一个房间里待几天，一起构建，互相了解，交流想法。”那总是有成效的，绝不会没成效。而且还有一种期待感。我已经远程工作很久了，所以通常在一个团队里，你可能会有一个季度性的线下聚会。在过去的岗位，我们一年两次全公司聚会，隔一个季度就只产品团队聚。每个人都兴奋起来，你懂吧？你想拿出最好的状态，想发挥创造力。我觉得我们对在那几周里要完成什么、思考什么或进行什么对话的期望总是更高。我最喜欢的一些设计想法都来自线下聚会——百分之百。

And so we have had a couple of rituals in place within the design team, where people are regularly sharing what they're working on. Every other week, a domain—we have four domains within the org, Banking is one example—they come as a team and present the latest work to the rest of the design leadership group, which includes principal engineers and directors. It's purely for visibility and to talk about the stuff they're working on, because we're in such close quarters. We're all designing the same house, you know? We're all sometimes in different rooms, and I don't want it to feel like we're confined in our own rooms, designing there, and then everyone comes out and says, 'Oh god, we have different aesthetics in all these rooms. Like different interior designers.' We have to make sure we're seeing the opportunities to connect the ecosystem and make the experience better. Sometimes you're working on the same things but differently, and having that visibility has really helped. People might think, 'Can you do that async? Why do you have to get together and talk in person?' Because you still have to talk about things. Yes, we could do this on Slack, but I'm a big believer that you still need to get in a room and talk things through with one another, have a conversation. So every other week, each domain presents that work, and it's an opportunity for all the other leaders to know what people are doing. We'll talk about craft, about patterns emerging, and we'll say, 'What do we want to do about X, Y, Z?' or 'I love what you're doing here; I'm going to bring that back to my team.' That cross-pollination is so important. Also, every designer knows every other leader on the team. I generally feel that my design team—now 35 people—we all really know each other, and that is so important, especially because we're remote. We also get people together in person, because I think the only way to really feel part of a team and be productive is to truly know people and spend time with them. Sometimes I have on-sites, and people ask, 'What's the point of the on-site?' I say, 'Just spend time together. Don't overthink it. Get in a room for a couple days, build together, get to know one another, share ideas.' It's always productive—never not productive. There's an anticipation around it too. I've worked remotely for a long time, so typically on a team you have a quarterly offsite. In a past role, we had twice a year the entire company, and in oscillating quarters just the product team. Everybody gets hyped. You want to bring your best, tap into creativity. Expectations are always higher for what we're going to accomplish, think about, or the conversations we'll have in those weeks. A lot of my favorite design ideas have come from offsites—100%.

氛围不一样了，对吧？你进入的状态不同了。

The vibe's different, you know? You're coming into it from a different posture.

是的，回到我之前说的，帮助我成长最快的一点，就是和产品、工程同僚建立关系。我们的老板 Brett 几年前开始组织这种线下聚会，他会把整个产品领导团队聚在一起。我们一起去参加线下活动，一起吃饭。这些年来，所有重要的对话都发生在晚餐时。

Yeah, and going back to this point I made earlier about the thing that helped me grow the most and really quickly was building a relationship with my product and engineering peers. Our boss Brett, a few years ago, started hosting these on-sites where he would bring the entire product leadership team together. We would have these on-sites and go to dinner together. Over the years, all the important conversations are happening at dinner.

我们已经涵盖了很多内容，但我想确保没漏掉什么。因为在过去几年，你确实从零开始形成你的设计领导哲学，对吧？所以如果我们把它想象成一本书，你在里面不断存入一些洞见或领悟，那么有没有我们还没聊到的章节，能够体现你作为设计领导者的特质，以及你在这段上升过程中学到的东西？

We've covered a lot of ground, but I want to make sure we're getting everything here. Because in the last few years, you honestly have been kind of forming your design leadership philosophy from scratch, right? So if we imagine it almost as a book that you are depositing little insights or learnings into, are there chapters that we haven't talked about yet that you think are indicative of who you are as a design leader and some of the things that you've learned on this ascent?

有一件事我经常回想，是 Brett 灌输给我的：你必须雇那些你愿意为其工作的人。当我深入思考我的团队成员时，我实际上想的是：我愿意向这个人汇报吗？你应该能雇到非常强的人才，并相信他们能去把工作做得很好。当你没有这种信任时，那是因为你没有信心，而且他们就是不够强。所以这完全取决于如何在你底下打造一个真正强大的团队，我认为这是成功的关键。这对我是个很大的解锁，花的时间比我想的要长。但这也是我每天都能看到的东西。反思这一点非常重要。

One thing that I keep coming back to that Brett has instilled in me is you have to hire people that you would want to work for. When I think deeply about the people on my team, I actually want to consider whether I would want to report to this person. You should be able to hire really strong talent and trust them to go do the work and do it really well. When you don't have that trust, it's because you don't have the confidence, and they're just not strong enough. It is all about building this really strong team underneath you, I think, to be successful. That was a big unlock for me that took longer than I wanted it to. But it's also something I see every day. Reflecting on that is really important.

你会在哪些信号中寻找这种感觉——哪怕是在作品集演示或与候选人的对话中——能让你达到那种确信的程度，以至于你真的想向他们发出录用通知？也许可以回顾一下你最近雇的设计师。在哪些具体的时间点上，你会想：“好，就是你了。”

What are the signals you would look for—even in a portfolio presentation or a conversation with a candidate—that would get you to that point of conviction where you'd want to make them an offer? Maybe reflect on the last few designers you've hired. What were the specific points in time when you thought, 'Yep, you're a yes now'?

招聘真的很有挑战性，我们也在不断调整招聘流程，以确保在面试时能得到正确的信号。我们有一个作品集面试，每个公司都有——你带着精心准备的演示，有脚本，排练得很充分，可以分享作品。但随着时间的推移，我们发现让人脱离脚本很有帮助，看看他们如何反应，如何随机应变。那会让你更准确地了解与这个人日常工作的感觉。所以我们引入了一个新的面试：应用评论。我们让面试者打开手机上的一个应用——不会提前告诉他们是什么——做一个现场评论。很有趣。我们选了 Spotify；现在可以说出来了，因为我们准备换掉。这个面试非常有用，因为它朝着你能想象的任何方向发展。我们一度不确定：这个面试到底怎样算成功？我们花了一段时间才弄清楚我们在寻找什么，因为每个人对待它的方式都太不一样了。

Hiring is really challenging, and we're constantly adapting our hiring process to make sure we can get the right signals when we're interviewing people. We have a portfolio interview, which every company does—you show up with your buttoned-up presentation, you have a script, you feel rehearsed, and you can share the work. But we've found over time that it's really helpful to get people off script and see how they react and think on their feet. That gives you a much more accurate idea of what it's like to work with this person day to day. So we introduced a new interview: an app review, where we ask you to open an app on your phone—we don't tell you what it is ahead of time—and do a live crit of the app. Fun. We've been choosing Spotify; I can say that now because we're going to change it. This interview has been incredibly helpful because it has gone in every direction you can imagine. There was a point where we asked, 'What even is success in this interview?' It took us a while to figure out what we were looking for, because every person treats it so differently.

这个面试非常开放。但我发现最成功的面试者，是那些真正投入其中、充满热情、想法很多、而且非常有主见的人。他们既能从宏观层面谈，也能深入细节并加以评论。他们在谈论自己热爱的东西和不那么热爱的部分。这确实很难。这是一场让人紧张的面试，有些人会慌乱、卡壳——我完全理解。但最成功的面试者会先停下来，说，好，我想带你们逛一遍这个应用，聊聊我看到的、反应到的，以及真正打动我的东西。我觉得，真正了解一个人的思维方式对我们非常有用。归根结底，我们需要有强烈观点的人。我不希望团队里有任何没有自己观点、不能对一个想法建立信念并推进它的人。每个人都是领导者——这是我们考察每个人的领导力素质，无论你处于什么级别、担任什么角色。还有一件事我很喜欢，而且我发现它总是一个积极信号：在面试过程中，无论是招聘经理面试，甚至是在作品集评审中途，当你正在和他们聊天、有人想深入探讨一个项目时，我们见过有人会说：“我直接打开 Figma 给你看。”然后他们打开自己的 Figma 文件，在里面转来转去——或者说不是转来转去，而是给你展示他们的 Figma 文件，深入挖掘其中的细节。这种未经过度打磨的原始感很特别。它不是脚本化的。他们就像在说：“让我给你看看我的作品实际长什么样，还有我探索过的各种方向。”这让我们更接近与你真实共事的感受，当这样的时刻出现时我很喜欢。因为，是的，我也想在这个过程中了解那个人本身。

It's so open-ended. But I think the most successful versions of that interview have been people who are diving in, are so enthusiastic, have so many ideas, and are really opinionated. They can go high-level and then go into the weeds and comment on those. They're talking about the things they love and the things they don't love. And it's tough. It's an intimidating interview, and some people get flustered and stuck — I totally relate to that. But the most successful versions have been people who take a beat and say, okay, I want to do a tour of this app. I want to talk about all the things I'm reacting to and seeing, and what's resonating with me. I think really getting a feel for how people think has been really helpful to us. Ultimately we want people with really strong opinions. I don't want anyone on my team who doesn't have a strong opinion, who can gain conviction in an idea and move it forward. Everyone is a leader — that's a leadership quality we look for in everybody, regardless of level or role. The other thing I love that people do in the interview process, and that I find is always a positive signal, is when you're having a conversation with them — whether it's a hiring manager interview or even in the middle of a portfolio review. When somebody asks a question and they want to go deeper on a project, we've seen people say, "I'll just open the Figma and show you." They open their Figma and they're walking around in their Figma — or not walking around, but showing you their Figma file and digging into stuff. There's something about the rawness of that. It's not scripted. They're just like, "Let me show you what my work actually looks like, and all the different things that I explored or whatever." That gets us closer to what it would actually be like to work with you, and I love when those moments happen. Because yeah, I just want to get to know the person too in the process.

演示文稿还是合适的切入点吗？比如有人上场——如果有人在开场时就直接打开 Figma。这还算积极信号，还是说显得混乱？好，我也是这么想的。嗯，就是确认一下。

Is the deck still the right launching point? Like if somebody came up — if somebody started the conversation and they just opened up the Figma. Still positive, or now is it messy? Okay, that's what I thought. Yeah, just making sure.

我认为演示文稿是绝对必要的，因为我们希望你在讲述作品时有结构。讲故事非常重要——你要简洁地带领我们走过你的经历和你从事的项目。但我也欣赏那些即兴的时刻。我欣赏坦诚，也想知道实际看起来是什么样子——就像幕后的窥探。你的 Figma 文件实际上是什么样的？我们不会过度关注那个，但我确实发现它始终是一个好的信号。我有一位共事过的招聘经理，他的整套方法基本上就是让人离开脚本，然后让他们能够有效地谈论决策背后的细节。他必须让一部分评估发生在微观层面，而这与讲故事相结合——那就是他评估的两个极端。所以我理解微观层面。

I think presentations are absolutely required because we want you to have structure to how you walk through the work. Storytelling is so important — you know, succinctly walk us through your journey and what you've been working on. But there are these off-the-cuff moments that I appreciate. I appreciate honesty and getting a feel for what it looks like — a peek behind the curtain. What does your Figma file actually look like? We're not over-indexing on that, but it does feel like it's consistently a good signal, I find. I had a hiring manager I worked with, and his entire approach was basically to get someone, like you said, off script, and then have them be able to talk effectively at the minute details behind the decision. He had to have part of the evaluation happen at the microscopic level, and it was that pairing with storytelling — those are the two ends of the spectrum he was evaluating. So I get the microscopic level.

能很快聊聊讲故事这块吗？想象有人正在听，明天就要做作品集展示，他们在寻找一些小技巧——也许你作为招聘经理见过这样的时刻，心想‘哇，这不错。那真的从眼前这一堆作品集展示中脱颖而出了。’

Maybe really quickly can we touch on the storytelling piece? Just imagine somebody is listening and they have a portfolio presentation tomorrow, and they're looking for little tactics — something you've maybe seen as a hiring manager and thought, 'Wow, that was good. That actually stood out from the sea of portfolio presentations that I'm sitting in front of.'

我认为作品集评审和展示的挑战在于找到合适的呈现高度，并取得平衡——我该怎么讲大图景，或者让他们了解大图景，同时又能展示细节？我发现很多人往往会漏掉细节，但我们的评估重点恰恰就是细节。其实很多人在讲故事方面很擅长——这是我在公司的经历，这是我们在解决的问题，这是过程中的步骤，这是结果，这是我们学到的以及它的表现。但正是因此，当有人打开 Figma 时我会很兴奋，因为我想让你给我展示——你能和我们共享手机屏幕，带我们看看你在生产环境中发布的东西，聊聊你喜爱和不喜欢它的哪些方面吗？我们很多时候在 Figma 里设计的并不是最终上线的东西。谈谈那个过程。深入细节，说说你是如何设计这个交互、这个时刻的，以及为什么你在上面花了那么多时间。实际上很多人在展示时只放了静态的 Figma 截图，我觉得在我们现阶段这是不可接受的。我们必须看到原型。我想看这东西的手感，以及你怎么做取舍和决策。有意思的是，没有人——或者说我没见过任何人——真正打开他们正在生产环境里维护的产品，来谈谈他们设计和构建的东西。有点奇怪，对吧？

I think what makes portfolio reviews and presentations so challenging is finding the right altitude to present the work at, and balancing — how do I tell the bigger picture, or how do I give them a sense of the bigger picture, but also show them the details? I find often folks miss out on showing the details, but when we're assessing you, that's what we're assessing. A lot of folks are really great at the storytelling part — here's my journey at this company, here's the problems we've been solving, here are the steps in my process, here's the results, here's what we learned and how it performed. But that's why I get excited about people pulling up Figma, because it's like, I want you to show me — can you share your phone screen with us and walk through the thing you shipped in production, and talk about what you love about it and what you don't love about it? So often what we design in Figma is not actually what makes it to production. Talk about that process. Dig into the details and talk about how you designed this interaction, this moment, and why you spent so much time on it. A lot of people actually show static Figma stuff in their presentations, which I feel is unacceptable at this stage we're at. We've got to see prototypes. I want to see how this feels, and how you make trade-offs and decisions. It's funny to me that nobody — or I haven't seen anybody — actually open the products they've been working on in production and talk about the thing that they designed and built. Kind of strange, eh?

我也不知道我有没有见过这种情况。是啊，但为什么不呢？

I don't know if I've ever seen that either. Yeah, but it's like, why not?

就像，这就是你真正和团队一起设计和构建的东西。没有比展示它、点击它、而且它很好用更酷的了。这是我构建的一个实时演示。我认为那太棒了。我们的评审时间不是无限的，但很多人往往止步于‘然后我们发布了，这是它的表现’。那之后呢？你有没有继续迭代、让它变得更好？五个月后你学到了什么？也许一些人有自己的原因没有机会继续同一个项目，但我们在 Well Simple 做的很多工作就是迭代，在一个体验上不断构建。你随时间学到很多，产品也不断演进。我们内部很喜欢讨论产品的演化，看到它们从哪里起步，变得多棒，以及一开始有多糟。我发现大家通常不讲这种演化。他们只讲线性的故事：然后我们发布了这个东西。但迭代背后有很多张力，也有很多学习和有趣的东西。

Like, this is the thing you literally designed and built with your team. There's no better flex than to show something, click through it, and it's good. This is a live demo of the thing I built. I think that would be huge. We don't have infinite time in these reviews, but folks often stop at “and then we shipped it and this is how it performed.” What happened then? Did you keep iterating on it and making it better? What did you learn five months down the road? Maybe some folks don't have the opportunity to keep working on the same project, but so much of what we do at Well Simple is iterating and building on an experience. You learn so much over time, and it evolves so much. We love internally talking about the evolution of our products, seeing where they started, how great they got, and how shitty they were at the beginning. I find folks aren't usually talking about that evolution. It's just a linear thing: and then we shipped this thing. But there's a lot of tension in the iteration, and a lot of learning and fun stuff that comes out of that, too.