Ask better, design better

TL;DR

After 10 years in UX/UI, I’ve learnt that the best designs don’t come from better tools, they come from better questions.

I built this scenario-based module in Storyline to help junior designers navigate the ‘messy middle’ of project briefs, using a decade of design experience to inform the narrative flow and feedback logic.

My role: Learning designer, visual designer, storyboarding & scripting, build
Tools: Articulate Storyline 360, Figma
Learner: Junior–mid designers, grads, career-switchers
Delivery: Self-paced; onboarding or just-in-time

The challenge

We’ve all been there: you’re handed a ‘brief’ that’s more of a vague suggestion than a plan. It’s a common pain point for (not only) junior designers, who often feel they have to say ‘yes’ to everything. I wanted to create a safe space where they could practice pushing back constructively, identifying risks, and finding their voice before they’re in the high-stakes environment of a real client meeting.

Learning goals

Identify gaps in creative briefs that introduce delivery risk
Select and prioritise clarifying questions based on project constraints
Evaluate response options to mid-project scope changes
Differentiate between usable vs ambiguous brief components

Success criteria

Success would be measured by learners selecting the correct clarification questions, avoiding reactive responses to scope change, and demonstrating improved brief evaluation in practice.

My role

This project draws on my UX background, applying user-centered design, interaction patterns, and usability principles to a learning context.

Learning designer — scenario design, learning flow, feedback logic
Visual designer — interaction design, visual hierarchy, accessibility
Storyboarding & scripting — UX-informed narrative design
Prototype — Articulate Storyline & Figma

Three storyboard cards laid side by side, each with fields for title, learning purpose, content, and visual notes. — Storyboard used to map scenario flow, branching decisions, and feedback logic before building the interaction.

Module screen showing an inbox mockup with the line “You’re working as a designer, and you’ve been briefed on a new campaign by a new client”. — Onboarding screen sets the scenario with a new campaign brief — introducing context, constraints, and a sense of realism through a familiar workspace.

Process

1. Storyboard + script

I mapped the learning flow in a storyboard. Each section aligned to a practical creative decision point, with interaction types to reinforce behaviour (e.g. multiple choice, checkbox, feedback layers, drag-and-drop).

Each interaction was designed to mirror real project conversations, reinforcing decision-making rather than recall.

2. Visual design

I illustrated a simple visual system to support clarity and a sense of play — hand-drawn textures, a minimal colour palette, and human-style figures to reflect the messiness of real creative work. I wanted the interface to feel like a sketchbook or a whiteboard, human and approachable rather than a stiff corporate portal.

3. Build + test

I built the prototype in Storyline 360, using layers for targeted feedback, grouped states for checkbox logic, and slide triggers for learner flow.

Module screen headed “Nice idea. What do you think you should ask?” with a checklist of clarifying questions held by an illustrated hand. — Checkbox interaction asks learners to select key discovery questions. Simulates early project conversations and reinforces strategic thinking.

Interaction & logic design

This scenario uses simple conditional logic to reflect how real creative brief conversations often unfold; messy, incomplete, and rarely binary. The interactions are designed to let learners follow their instincts first, then adapt feedback based on the quality of the decisions they make.

How the interaction works

A multi-select checkbox interaction mirrors an early discovery conversation with a client
Learners choose which clarification questions they’d ask in that moment
There isn’t a single “correct” choice — selections build an overall picture of how well the brief has been understood

Decision quality & feedback

Learner responses are grouped into outcome types rather than scored explicitly:

Strong responses reflect strategic clarification and reframing
Coaching responses show partial understanding but missed opportunities
Ineffective responses highlight reactive or risky approaches

This allows feedback to focus on decision quality rather than right or wrong answers.

A branching diagram: one decision slide connecting by red lines to three different feedback slides. — Branching logic maps learner decisions to targeted feedback, focusing on reasoning, not just correctness.

Behind-the-scenes logic

Life isn’t a multiple-choice test, so I didn’t want this to be one either. Behind the scenes, I used a clarity_score variable to track the quality of the learner’s curiosity.

Instead of “right/wrong,” the module gives you consequences, just like real life. If you don’t ask about the deadline now, it’ll come back to haunt you in the next scene.

Module screen headed “So, what makes a good brief?” with coloured cards to be dragged into Good brief or Needs clarifying columns. — Final reflection asks learners to sort strong vs unclear brief components. The drag-and-drop interaction reinforces knowledge of what makes a brief usable and actionable.

Reflection & next steps

Building this was a lightbulb moment for me. I realised that my years of testing for edge cases in UX translates perfectly to building branching scenarios in LXD.

My next step? I’m itching to get this in front of some actual junior designers to see where they trip up. I’m a firm believer that design is never “done,” and I’m excited to keep iterating on how we teach the soft skills that make a hard job easier.