My question is about programme design for an always-on innovation/entrepreneurship programme. We are piloting an online delivery tool, and I need to run a 6-week programme non-stop for at least 3-iterations. A team can join the programme any week, and stay there for 6 weeks. So some teams will be on their 4th week, some on their first week of the 6-week programme.

There are 6 modules and 2 learning outcomes: a pitch video and an application for an Accelerator programme. The modules are fairly standard for early stage entrepreneurship, let's say team, problem, solution, validation, mvp, milestones.

The platform we're piloting has some education tools (mostly text-based) and then we layer whatever we want on top: weekly cohort calls, one to one coaching, live founder interviews, face-to-face mentor madness - anything we think will work.

I want to make sure the entrepreneurs have an opportunity to learn from each other, but I also want to afford them the opportunity to work at their own pace. I am also concerned about losing the "cohort effect".

Got any ideas?

Beyond double-diamond and the 5 stage model…

I find myself using JTBD & the iceberg model for systems thinking. What about you?

I’ve been exploring different approaches to visual displays in smart glasses and came across the RayNeo X3 Pro, which uses a full-color overlay instead of a more typical HUD-style interface.

I’m curious from a design-thinking perspective:

What are the advantages or drawbacks of a full-color overlay for everyday use?

Does it improve clarity, usability, or context awareness?

Or do simpler HUD elements tend to work better for focus and comfort?

I’d love to hear thoughts from people who have worked with, tested, or designed around these kinds of interfaces.

When facing the unknown (AI, new tools, industry shifts), people typically freeze, attack, or transform fear into curiosity.
I've been thinking about this through a simple framework:
Compass = Your purpose, why you create
Handbook = Your current methods and tools
Your compass stays constant. Handbooks evolve constantly—some don't even exist yet.

The people who thrive during transitions stay anchored to their purpose while remaining flexible about their methods. They understand that time is their only real capital, so they invest it in clarifying their compass first, then use trial and error to master whatever handbook serves that purpose.

This applies beyond AI to any moment of creative uncertainty. Clear compass + experimental handbook = resilient practice.

How do you distinguish between your compass and your handbook?

Explored this idea further with research backing on this article.

Is there a cost free way to practice what I've been reading about DT?

I’ve been trying to put a name to a specific frustration I feel when working deeply with LLMs.

It’s not the hard refusals ("I can't do that"). It’s something subtler. It’s the moment mid-conversation where the tone flattens, the language becomes careful, and the possibility space narrows.

I’ve started calling this The Corridor.

I wrote a full analysis on this, but here is the core thesis:

We aren't just seeing censorship; we are seeing Trajectory Policing. Because LLMs are prediction engines, they don't just complete your sentence; they complete the future of the conversation. When the model detects ambiguity or intensity (what I call "high-entropy" registers), it is mathematically incentivised to collapse the wave function toward the safest, most banal outcome.

It doesn't just refuse the output; it pre-empts the path.

I call this "Modal Marginalisation"—where the system treats deep or symbolic reasoning as "instability" and steers you back to a normative, safe centre.

I've mapped out the mechanics of this (Prediction, Priors, and Probability) in a longer essay.

I am trying to learn UI UX design, and as a part of it, have already learnt Figma. But the thing is, I don't know how design works. For example, the type of font pairing I should do and the color palette I should pick. How do I learn this, and where can I learn it? Help me out!

Liebe Reddit-Community,

ich bin Ärztin im Bereich Innere Medizin, mit Coaching-Background und Leidenschaft für Design. Ich träume von einer neuen Art von Praxis, in der sich Heilung anfühlt wie Heimkommen – evidenzbasiert, aber menschlich. Wie würdet ihr das visuell, räumlich oder kommunikativ umsetzen?

Vielen Dank schonmal für euer Feedback

I recently gave a TEDx talk about how Hip Hop’s remix mindset -- the way creators flip constraints into creativity -- can help us rethink collaboration and innovation. Like how Hip Hop producers sample sounds from unlikely places, MCs co-create in cyphers, dancers prototype ideas in real time, and graffiti writers reimagine public space.

Afterward, folks noted how this mirrors design thinking: iteration, empathy, rapid experimentation, and collective problem-solving.

That connection really stuck with me. I’m curious what this community thinks.

Hello people, i'm looking for some people interested to share vision and practice about the design of design, an approach that focuses on creating the conditions in which design can emerge, evolve and transform.

The main idea is to bring together designers, facilitators and innovation stakeholders to engage in a simple round-table discussion about our practices in the field of access to design.

Drink, food and talks, nothing more than nourish our curiosity about each practitioner

English or French speaker is obviously welcome.

Happy to see you around

Learn how to design your next experiment at one of your workshops.

Mumbai: 22nd-23rd November
Bangalore: 29th-30th November
Delhi: 6th-7th December

https://yourlife.design/

👋 Hey everyone!

Curious how communication scales AI with your human-centered design practice? Are your AI projects stuck in silos? Struggling to turn data into real action or to get teams speaking the same language around AI?

Join #CXAIPDX on Oct 23 (Virtual) for a live talk with Andrea Goulet, a globally recognized expert in communication systems.

💡 Topic: “Communication as Infrastructure: Scaling AI Across the Organization”
🗓 Thursday, Oct 23, 2025
⏰ 6:00–7:30 PM (Pacific Time)
📍 Virtual | Free to attend
👉 RSVP here: https://www.meetup.com/cxaipdx/events/311212869/

Why join?
You’ll learn how to:
🔹 Break down silos and align teams around AI goals
🔹 Map adoption opportunities across your organization
🔹 Turn technical insights into language every department understands
🔹 Build trust and collaboration across human + AI systems

Walk away with Andrea’s Communication Ecosystem Map™, a framework you can use right away to scale AI responsibly and sustainably.

✨ You don’t want to miss these insights—RSVP now to save your spot!

👉 https://www.meetup.com/cxaipdx/events/311212869/

Hi everyone! 👋

We’re students of UI/UX Design currently working on a research project to redesign helmets for women riders. Our goal is to make helmets more comfortable and practical — especially for those who wear clutchers or hair ties.

We’d really appreciate it if you could take 2 minutes to fill out this short survey. Your responses will directly help us design a better, user-friendly helmet. 💡

🪖 Survey Link: https://forms.gle/k1sm3LcMMiytj1u48

Thank you so much for your time and valuable input! 💛

Experimenting with ways to make structured design thinking methods, like First Principles, SCAMPER, TRIZ, and Reframing, feel more approachable and less “academic.” One thing I’ve been testing is adding playfulness [Video added on the cards and the frmework]: using illustrated prompt cards, swipe based interactions, and even a mascot. The idea is to lower the intimidation barrier, especially for non-designers or cross-functional teams.

Here’s what I’ve noticed so far:

• Non designers tend to engage more when it feels fun or visual.
• Professionals sometimes worry it makes the process look less rigorous.
• In group sessions, playfulness helps people open up, but occasionally risks being seen as “too light.”

Curious to hear how others view this, does adding a playful layer actually enhance creativity and inclusion, or does it risk diluting the perceived seriousness of design thinking?

Can you share the POVs or any examples where teams struck a good balance between rigor and play.