Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 04/08/2025two things can simultaneously be true: 1) the double diamond is a cliche, oversimplified process 2) pulling new stages for the double diamond out of your ass is not going to improve that process 2223
Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 04/08/2025Eagle-eyed readers may have spotted the key difference between the actual double diamond, and Figma's fever dream: you have to start with DISCOVER, because it is a divergence stage. Then you converge by defining (using what you learned to frame the problem). That's what makes it a fucking diamond! 5180
Pavel @spavel.bsky.social · 04/08/2025I'll accept substituting "develop" with "design" but in the order of the steps Figma's video proposes, you get some kind of perverse bonbon wrapper shape at least, assuming "disrupt" is a divergence stage because it fits the cadence of the diagram, because otherwise it carries no semantic value 2120
Amyville Hoyrror @amyhoy.bsky.social · 04/08/2025now now pavel. we know it’s just a shape bc it’s kewl. 040
partwave∴ @partickle.bsky.social · 07/08/2025>That's what makes it a fucking diamond! ...rodny!media.tenor.comtwo men are sitting next to each other in front of a body of water and talking .ALT: two men are sitting next to each other in front of a body of water and talking . 000
