I design instruments for ideas · https://nitter.cf/t.co/vgXYGgctv5 · studio https://nitter.cf/t.co/4rP2yL9HUF · folio https://nitter.cf/t.co/NiI5BQ6SKw

Toronto
Joined August 2021
Create. Curate. Iterate. // Thinkable Desktop Studio A modular tangible thinking space for creative work. Work on ideas without distraction, stay focused and in creative flow. // How it works To start, throw every productivity rule out the window - it destroys the creative process. Creativity and productivity exist on a spectrum and when you do one, it costs you the other. Welcome to the messy middle. Thinkable is a place where you can visualize your thoughts and ideas and then keep them in sight, top of mind, and in reach. Where you can effortlessly iterate, synthesize and collaborate with yourself, while expanding your mind, creative field of view and explore your ideas. // Why should you listen to me? I’ve done a lot of design, both physical and digital. Everything you see at thinkable I’ve crafted - ID / brand / copy / web / product / artwork / photography / film. Judge the work, it’s opinionated. I even spent a year writing a book on the topic (of Tangible Thinking). // coming soon. Sign up for the Kickstarter announcement. Link in bio.
14
5
2
71
58,947
It’s like a set of Russian dolls. @brijanp
ha, this whole thread is such a beautiful concept man, I love the internet, I love Twitter, I love design, whatever it fucking means
3
260
I design graphics. I design physical products. I design furniture. I design digital products. I design space. I’m a designer. And I love Brijan’s passion and take on what he loves.
I'd like to talk shit for a minute... because I think it's worth my time. “Tech/Software/'Product' designers” and graphic designers are two uniquely different types of design. I don't care if you disagree, because it's insignificant to me. Tech design seems to attract people motivated by scale, efficiency, optimization, money, and the business of "building" really horrible shit almost no one wants. Graphic design, at least the kind I’m drawn to, feels more rooted in culture, curiosity, self-expression, visual experimentation, and creating things mean something and that people do want. Obviously, despite my shit talk, neither is inherently better than the other. People are complex, and there’s sometimes some overlap. But I’m drawn to the layers. The weird references, the niche interests, the cultural awareness, the slightly unhinged creative sensibility. I want design to be more than a vehicle for a business objective. I really mostly want to make rad shit. So no, graphic designers aren’t better people. We’re just better designers. ✌️❤️🐺🌭
3
20
1,502
psa The best nail clipper on the planet - the seki edge. iykyk Just needed to get it out there.
4
7
620
my universal framework of design productecture.com
6
485
sanj • thinkable retweeted
I've fallen in love with durable design. Objects that weather with age, and forms that continue to be useful. On the flip side of the coin, is intention. That's the intention of the designer, and the intention of the designed. My take, Intention leads to Durability - Since I have you hear, let me share some other thoughts. I'm sensing a push back to speed, in favour of figuring out why. But I don't think its fast enough to benefit everyone. I'm seeing a mad fragmentation to AI interfaces, where thinking happens everywhere, and there's a constant erosion of original ideas. What I am loving is the art that's being created by designers prompting code. What I'm not loving is the path to distribution or monetization. And that goes for everything I'm seeing get built with AI. Is anything materially different in our lives before the LLMs came? Given what we know now, what should we be shaping?
1
1
135
Consider this playbook for building durable products. A lot of the tenants can be extended to software. thanks for putting this together @ritwikpavan
THE CONSUMER HARDWARE PLAYBOOK. If I were building a consumer hardware startup in 2026 this is how I’d do it. Start with three questions: Can someone understand it in five seconds? Why would they still use it in six months? What happens when a cheaper copy shows up? Getting attention only answers the first. You need to have a convincing answer to the other two before committing capital. Pick the category carefully. Earbuds, phones, and robot vacuums already have strong competitors. When you ask someone to try an unfamiliar brand, the improvement needs to matter enough for them to take that chance. Slightly better specs are a difficult place to start. Here’s my playbook. 1. Build around a routine people already have. You’re giving yourself a harder job when buying the product also means learning an entirely new habit. Start with something people already do and find the part they’d gladly hand over. Matic uses vision to navigate and clean your home. Eight Sleep adjusts temperature around your sleep. Tonal adapts resistance as you train. This is what makes AI interesting in hardware. The device can handle more of the decisions and adjustments someone used to make themselves. But count all the work it creates too. If someone saves ten minutes using it and spends fifteen getting it to cooperate, you still have a product problem. 2. Find out whether strangers will pay before you build. Put together a mockup, a landing page, and the price you actually expect to charge. Then run Meta ads to people who have no connection to you or the company. Be transparent about what’s built, what’s planned, and how refunds work. You can learn a lot without pretending the product is ready to ship. Email signups are a useful start. Refundable reservations tell you more, but you still have to find out how many of those people finish buying. If you spend $20 in ads to get each reservation and only one in four becomes a purchase, you’ve spent $80 in ads per buyer, before other marketing costs. Simultaneously, talk to engineers and manufacturers. A product people want at $199 might be a very different business if you discover it needs to cost $399. Have that conversation while you can still change the design. 3. Win the one liner before focusing on the bill of materials. Try explaining the product to someone, then listen to how they explain it to somebody else. You’ll learn pretty quickly which part they understood and whether they thought it was worth mentioning. If the explanation needs a full read out of the spec sheet, you probably need to work on it. The same message should carry into the demo. Show the robot getting around a messy room or the resistance changing during a workout. Give people a reason to care before asking them to appreciate the engineering. Then test which images and videos actually lead to purchases. An impressive demo is a great starting point, but it still needs to prove itself as an ad. 4. Plan for someone to offer similar hardware for less. Take a capable competitor in China seriously from the beginning. They may have good engineers, good software, and a better cost structure. What would make someone keep choosing you? - Oura builds insights around your health data. - Eight Sleep uses your sleep history and temperature preferences. - Tonal tracks your training progress. - Skylight becomes part of how a family keeps its week organized. These are useful examples because the experience extends beyond the device itself. Still.. “we’ll have more data” needs a better explanation. What gets better because of that data? Does the customer notice? How long would it take someone else to catch up? Build around those answers, along with reliable hardware, useful integrations, and support customers trust. Being first gives you a head start, so use the time to build advantages that last. 5. Raise for the cash cycle. Super important. Most hardware companies fail because they didn't manage their cash properly. Map out when money leaves the business and when you expect it to come back. Factory deposits, R&D, freight, refunds, and the next production order can overlap in ways that make a healthy sales number misleading. You can sell out and still struggle to pay for the next batch. Raise enough to reach a meaningful next milestone, including testing, production, support, and some room for things to go wrong. Debt is a whole separate task. Inventory financing and venture debt can depend on different sources of repayment. Understand exactly what pays back the loan and what happens if that money arrives late. Before signing, run the numbers with slower sales, a delayed shipment, and a batch that needs replacing. Always negotiate net terms with your suppliers. 6. Keep using Meta to learn what makes people buy. Once the product exists, test real demos, customer experiences, offers, and landing pages. Keep looking for the explanation that helps the right customer understand why it’s worth the money. When an early campaign works, check what happens as you spend more and reach beyond the most enthusiastic buyers. Your CAC target has to fit what’s left after manufacturing, shipping, fees, returns, and support, with money left for the team and future R&D. If subscriptions make the numbers work, be honest about retention and what it costs to serve customers. Revenue expected over several years won’t pay a factory invoice due next month. As spending grows, use controlled tests where practical to check how many additional sales the ads actually create. 7. Work with creators whose audience has a reason to care. For training hardware, look for a coach who can explain where it belongs in a real program. For a family calendar, find someone who can show what happened after their household used it for a few weeks. Give them enough time to form an opinion. They may find a use case, objection, or frustration you never thought to include in the brief. Build longer relationships with the creators who bring customers who keep the product, and get permission to use effective demos in paid ads. Count the whole cost, including fees, commissions, free units, and content production. Judge the partnership by the customers it brings in and what you learn from them. 8. Make the first production run earn the next one. Before placing a much larger order, put a small batch from the factory in customers’ hands. There’s a lot to learn between a prototype working on your desk and someone using the product at home without your help. Watch setup problems, failures, returns, continued use, and the time support spends on each customer. Feed those lessons into the next order. Think about repairs while the design is still flexible. Saving a few dollars on a part can get expensive when replacing it means shipping the entire device across the country. By the time you order the next batch, you should have a better understanding of who buys, why they keep using it, what breaks, and what each sale leaves in the bank. Hardware is not for the weak.
113
sanj • thinkable retweeted
Being a multi-dimensional designer has been my biggest flex. Having the skills to craft spatially, physicaly and digitally gives you a greater lattitude in what can design. Once you see intelligence a dimension, everything begins to make sense.
1
1
1
584
I've fallen in love with durable design. Objects that weather with age, and forms that continue to be useful. On the flip side of the coin, is intention. That's the intention of the designer, and the intention of the designed. My take, Intention leads to Durability - Since I have you hear, let me share some other thoughts. I'm sensing a push back to speed, in favour of figuring out why. But I don't think its fast enough to benefit everyone. I'm seeing a mad fragmentation to AI interfaces, where thinking happens everywhere, and there's a constant erosion of original ideas. What I am loving is the art that's being created by designers prompting code. What I'm not loving is the path to distribution or monetization. And that goes for everything I'm seeing get built with AI. Is anything materially different in our lives before the LLMs came? Given what we know now, what should we be shaping?
1
1
135
One of the best views of the city.
Oh my, Toronto is beautiful
1
31
1,248
While everyone's optimizing for speed, I've been learning when to slow down. - We can build anything fast. And as a result, we’re rushing to build things we may not need. We prioritize speed over usefulness. AI has made this worse, not better. Heres how I tackle something new. Every project I start begins in my head before it jumps to paper. When I have a solid point of view I then shift to building a prototype (canvas and/or code). And then I stop. This is where the shift comes. As I start to feel the prototype, I let it push itself through layers of consciousness and memory. I sleep on things, for days. I process and refine things, laterally think about the edges, about its value, its purpose, its form. This is where I craft simplexity. Where I hone in on it’s essence. I mull things over on paper, sketch, do some more prototyping. This takes time, as the product concept takes form. And when I have clarity, I dive in and build more prototypes - but with a really refined point of view, and well thought out opinions. This is where I used to leave things, but now I go further and prototype alphas. This is how ideas are born, nurtured, shaped, and built or abandoned. Not through speed but the opposite - the lack of speed. It’s this pacing that creates clarity. But can this scale organizationally? Yes - but only if you design for it deliberately. You need a dual-track pipeline running in parallel: one stream generating and nurturing ideas, another consumes and ships them. The first moves slowly, by design. The second moves fast, with conviction. The coordination layer between them - knowing when an idea is ready to cross over - is where design leadership lives. That judgment can’t be a rubric or a prompt - it has to be held by someone. Most organizations collapse these two streams into one and wonder why everything feels rushed and half-baked. That’s what design leaders bring. The ones that get this right don’t move slower - they move with more intention. We need systems that are fast. And we need systems that are slow.
1
6
216
You’d think with AI, every surface touched by a human would be flawless. It feels like every product has eroded. I can remember where I’ve left my half-thoughts. I don’t even recall what I read yesterday. Isn’t AI meant to be our saviour? (Hahaha) The first interactive spellcheck was created in 1971, at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. And even after 55 years (in that time the population of the planet doubled) we still make spelling mistakes.
72
Ergonomics of Intelligence Design humanizes technology by adapting it to our needs, rather than expecting us to adapt to it. AI needs ergonomics.
1
1
1
4
641
Amplification of Knowing
30
sanj • thinkable retweeted
We are not slow computers.
1
128
We are not slow computers. - To make ideas that really matter, that are durable, useful, and crafted, we must design intentionally. Creativity and productivity exist on a spectrum. When we do one, it costs the other. Both can exist, but one should drive the other. #wearenotslowcomputers
Is design leadership about to become the bottleneck? We can build anything fast. And as a result, we’re rushing to build things we may not need. We prioritize speed over usefulness. AI has made this worse, not better. Every project I start begins in my head before it jumps to paper. When I have a solid point of view I then shift to building a prototype (canvas and/or code). And then I stop. This is where the shift comes. As I start to feel the prototype, I let it push itself through layers of consciousness and memory. I sleep on things, for days. I process and refine things, laterally think about the edges, about its value, its purpose, its form. This is where I craft simplexity. Where I hone in on it’s essence. I mull things over on paper, sketch, do some more prototyping. This takes time, as the product concept takes form. And when I have clarity, I dive in and build more prototypes - but with a really refined point of view, and well thought out opinions. This is where I used to leave things, but now I go further and prototype alphas. This is how ideas are born, nurtured, shaped, and built or abandoned. Not through speed but the opposite - the lack of speed. It’s this pacing that creates clarity. Can this scale organizationally? Yes - but only if you design for it deliberately. It requires a pipeline running in parallel: one stream generating and nurturing ideas, another consuming and shipping them. The first moves slowly by design. The second moves fast. The coordination layer between them - knowing when an idea is ready to cross over - is where design leadership lives. That judgment can’t be a rubric or a prompt - it has to be held by someone. Most organizations collapse these two streams into one and wonder why everything feels rushed and half-baked. That’s what design leaders bring. The ones that get this right don’t move slower - they move with more intention. We need systems that are fast. And we need systems that are slow.
2
1
3
280
We are not slow computers.
A few years ago, before my mother in law passed away, I was working on a series of launches when one of our competitors released the exact same feature we were building. It felt like they had read our minds. Their implementation and design weren’t great, but seeing someone else ship it first still got to me. She noticed I was feeling down and said, “Don’t worry about it. It doesn’t matter who does it first. What matters is who does the best work. You guys are super talented. You’ll figure it out.” I’ve been thinking about her words a lot lately. We gotta slow down a bit and focus more on ourselves and the work we want to put into the world.
2
58