One thing Dan didn't mention in the article is that he wrote 3 books about web design before Dribbble's launch: Web Design Solutions (2004), Bulletproof Web Design (2005) and Handcrafted CSS (2009). These books were unique among the first to hit a then-niche market: web designers who cared about quality. This was the perfect set-up to launching a platform for web designers who cared about quality and likely foundational to the early growth of Dribbble.
What launched Dribbble into a high orbit was a combination of three things.
1. It was really well executed. It didn't just look good, it has zero friction in use. The UX was flawless. You'd think "I wonder if I can do this", click where it would logically belong and, lo and behold, that thing was there and it worked exactly as you'd expect. It was, to use pg's qualifier, delightful.
2. It was seeded with top-tier designers from the start whom Dan was able to recruit because he was well-known in respective circles. If I were to try and reproduce this, it won't work no matter who good the site was, simply because I am nobody with no street rep.
3. Invitation-only system that was completely closed to the public in the beginning. All you'd see are "leaked" screenshots on sites like PatternTap from the member of the cool boys club, and they looked spectacular. So when they allowed public in, still with no way to post, the whole thing just took off - it already had the community that was massively appealing and it was flattering to become a part of it. Invites were golden, the hype was over the top.
Regrettably, after it was sold to Tiny/Meta the quality of the site took a nose dive. They keep pushing out questionable "improvements" that clearly aim to improve their engagement stats rather than to be actually useful to the members. They reworked Pro accounts, bloating them with very niche and largely useless features and using that to raise the prices. What used to be an annual $20 no-brainer tip to Dan and Rich for their great job become an obnoxious $60/year subscription. They were getting an earful with every such improvement, so they now disable comments on every new announcement. I really wish Dan was back an the helm. He and Rich showed very unusual levels of restraint and common sense, and they did in fact listen to the people rather their analytics numbers.
> it won't work no matter who good the site was, simply because I am nobody with no street rep.
Sadly this is the case so many times when I read these types of articles with hopes of real insights. There's some mention like "so I was talking to my friend who founded Huge Startup and he was like 'yea, great idea!'. So I built my prototype and sent it off to other person from Hot Unicorn and it just grew organically because of my hard work and smarts!"
That should speak highly, then, of putting in work beforehand to have an initial audience (and indirectly, prove your authority on the topic underlying your product).
Handcrafted CSS had a profound influence on my career as a front-end developer. That said, these days I'm neck deep in JavaScript like so many of us. To more simple times!
This is a great article and while my startup didn't make it past 5 members the advice in here is solid.
On shirts (and swag):
My startup had a mascot at the end and I wish we would have had it upfront and had stickers.
It may seem trite but it's even documented in books like Managing the Unmanageable (or might have been Peopleware) that Apple made shirts for projects. When I worked at NatGeo we made internal swag for our project.
For me personally, living in a world of intangible software, stickers and shirts give me something physical I can hold in my hand. Something I can wear or point to and relate to what I'm doing.
On not knowing what you're doing:
I think the best people I've worked with are very intelligent and curious and do great work for things they don't understand because they ask a ton of questions to learn it which helps lead to epiphanies. It doesn't always shake out that way but with a group of motivated individuals it is so rewarding.
On everything being temporary:
Leaving design / trends aside and looking at our code-- our engineering-- this is absolutely true. For any devops engineers out here reading this: repeatability helps a TON. It's so much easier to migrate from bash scripts to RPM/Deb and from RPM/Deb to Docker. Or from [Puppet|Chef|Ansible|Salt] to [New Flavor Of The Week]. Once it's codified in some way it's so easy to move it forward. Automation == repeatability == freedom.
On people are everything:
Please, please, please don't hire smart jerks. Great, you're smart, you can program in 10 languages and worked at a FANG. If the team doesn't want to sit next to you and work with you on a project I am hoping to shape my life, my future and my family's outcomes 8+ hours a day (even remote) it's going to spoil the whole bunch.
I could go on and on for each section. I loved this article. Y'all will certainly find parts you disagree with but on the whole it is great and very applicable.
Smart jerks are the worst. I work with a few of them and they can really be insufferable.
They interrupt every conversation (IRL or through Rocketchat) because they know absolutely everything about the subject you happend to be talking about. I have started to use the AKSHUALLY meme image in retaliation from time to time.
But what gets me the most is their self-importance. The bragging about the import people they have met, or the presentations they are asked to do. It gets really old really quick.
At Recurse Center, it's the #1 social rule. Some folks have a hard time adjusting, but the environment is materially improved when everyone respects the rule.
1. No well-actually’s
2. No feigned surprise
3. No backseat driving
4. No subtle -isms
While I disagree with the concept of pushing one's beliefs on onto other team members, I think it's good that you guys are upfront about your philosophy. This way people can use this information to decide if they want to be involved with your organization or not. I recently joined a seemingly normal team only to discover a culture packed with unwritten rules and arbitrary taboo, a situation I would have completely avoided if only I had known the reality of the situation.
At a previous job my first week included 4 people telling me they were sorry I had to work with the person I was working with and several more explaining the political undercurrent / power holds.
I think the issue with social rules like the above, is that they seem kind of childish and would make me feel like I am in elementary school.
In the real world, some people are annoying and you should learn how to cope with it instead of having artificial rules to defend against it.
None of the issues in this list are really that offensive or disruptive of the regular work day. If I worked at a place that had these rules, I would quit.
A lot of "smart kids" were basically taught to be that way by incredibly toxic school experiences. It's part of why I walked away from a National Merit Scholarship.
A lot of what they are doing is likely driven by intense loneliness combined with learned self-defense behaviors. Being ugly back is unlikely to really fix anything. It just feeds the toxic cycle of one-upmanship.
Exactly. Social skills can be learned, but often that requires a lot more effort and pain than learning a new programming language or framework. Listening with full attention is the most underrated "best practice" in tech.
The thing about (not) learning social skills is that there isn't instant feedback whether it's working or not. Can't write Selenium routines for people.
I'm adequate at this sometimes, but there are situations where I'm... pretty bad at it. They tend to be where:
(a) somebody is explaining something at either edge of my understanding -- either well-inside (and listening feels like a waste of time because I know this stuff) or well-outside (and listening feels like a waste of time because I don't know enough to get a solid purchase into the stream of communication).
(b) the primary purpose of the conversation is setting expectations or attempting to provide motivation, but it goes on for more than twice the minimum necessary communication
(c) I'm distracted by some unresolved issue I care about more.
(c) is clearly my issue. (a) & (b) are arguably failures of the other party as much as anything I'm doing, but I feel like I could probably get better at responses here.
If anybody has any hints, I might even try to listen. :)
They can be learned to some me extent, but they are harder for some people to learn than others, especially those far off to one side of the spectrum. Actually, it is really easy to tell naturals apart from those who have to consciously study social skills, the latter being much more stilted and systematic than the former. I admit I find it really off putting when interacting with someone with heavily trained social skills (and I’m definitely not a natural). I prefer people to be themselves rather than pretending to be something else.
If it is easy to see through communication that goes against feeling, the result can be unsettling to some listeners; eg what are they hiding? What do they really think?
That’s been my experience when I’ve tried to get help from management. It’s super frustrating because I know managers don’t want to be babysitters but the smart jerk type only really answer to authority.
I really like Dan and have been following his stuff since the mid-2000s, but it's hard to apply this advice generally.
#2 and #3 are only effective if you're Dan Cederholm. He already had a reputation which put him in a very luxurious position to essentially choose his first users and have them actually use it. The same goes for #3 – imagine if all of the "people you want on your platform" got tshirts and postcards from every startup that wanted them?
Don't take it so literally. Can you find 100 people (or a few dozen) in your circles that could be first users of your product? Start with them. If you have trouble gaining traction with those folks, you may have trouble getting others to pay for your product.
The caveat being that you have to make sure the people you're inviting fit somewhere in your customer profile. You can get discouraging feedback if your initial invitees don't fit your product.
I am not as convinced making a t-shirt for your startup as a first thing is a great idea. I think that can actually be an indicator of playing house. But you can do whatever you want.
shirts can be printed on demand for less than $35 at MoQs of 1. Its not a large expense and it builds some camaraderie on a small and newly formed team.
People like symbols and having artifacts from a specific time in their life. Get the tshirts/hoodies, but don't spend more than a couple hours picking a design.
I worked on a musical once where the book writer did photo shoots, logos, and T-shirts before the actual script, and it was a sign of bad things to come. So I agree with you and think this advice is mainly only a thing if you're on the level of Cederholm.
As an aside, I like the idea of ending a response with "But you can do whatever you want." I'm going to end every work email today with that!
It is described as "...because while imitating all the outward forms of starting a startup, they have neglected the one thing that is actually essential, which is to make something people want."
The point about hiring good lawyers and accountants is important. I’ve been misguided in the past project by both lawyers and accountants that didn’t know my type of business very well, but acting like they did.
As a benefit to readers who aren't already familiar with Dribble, or with the author, perhaps he could add a quick introductory sentence to the article saying both who "I" refers to, and also what Dribble is.
Interestingly, neither anywhere appears on the page anywhere, nor above the fold on the "About" page.
PS: Seems like a good article and a very interesting author.
This post will probably be undervalued and overlooked guessing by the slow pace of points and comments, but over the years I have read countless similar ones and to be honest this is the most substantial writeup I have ever encountered. Each point is exactly what matters. The tshirt idea is brilliant. Thanks!
It was a great read and certainly aligns with my take-aways from being at a startup from day 1 as well as joining other startups at early and late stages.
Wow, this is a really great article. My favorite pieces of advice are the last four ones:
> 17. Write, teach, and share what you’re learning
I totally agree. Getting into blogging, and being a part of a blogging community can be a great way to connect with people in your field, and help others along the way.
His piece about funding was very true. If you truly care about the community and slowly evolving things, VC may not be the right approach.
VC money is about scaling fast and colonizing. It may not be for everyone and I'm guessing tons of great products got destroyed because they tried to grow too fast before getting a product market fit.
I "discovered" dribble a little while ago, but I've just realized I think I have been completely unaware of what it really is. I found and use it for helping select color combos.
I basically go to https://dribbble.com/colors/E94F2E with a color I'm pondering about, and just find pleasing combos, click through to their palette. Very cool. I was thinking it would be nice to have a vscode plugin color picker based on this. It's certainly help me make nicer looking things.
I have a project idea that i think is pretty good and think could actually be useful to people and fill a niche, but:
* Nobody close to me I mentioned it to seems really interested.
* I am not 100% sure it would actually work/be useful/generate revenue/...
* I work full time and don't really want to invest my week-ends developing an idea I'm not sure will catch on.
What's the best next step? How do I evaluate my idea's chances?
How can I get feedback without risking it getting stolen (very little chance but it would sting)
It sounds like you should not do it. Bootstrapping startups take commitment to use your free time. Raising money requires you show effort that would take up your free time. Worrying about having your idea stolen shows you haven’t spent much time learning about how this stuff works. Either dive in or go do something else.
Set up a very short timeframe and goal - let´s say, I´m going to make a prototype (or code feature X) this weekend.
Then show it here :) .
The risk of it "getting stolen" exists, of course.. but if you don´t do it it´s exactly the same. If you aren´t convinced, you think someone else will have the time and commitment to do it? Unless they were already planning on it.
My recommendation: go ahead and do it. Maybe you need some structured help, join a hackathon?
Not Dan, but naming these days is hard. You basically have to invent a word to get a .com domain and good SEO.
"Dribbble" is good because you can tell people "the name is 'dribble' with three b's" and people will immediately know how to spell it and their first instinct will be "dribbble.com" and if they search for it, it will be the top search result.
Contrast that with a properly-spelled word like "Dribble." Their app will be nowhere near the top of any search result and people will go to dribble.com which is no-doubt already registered so they'll lose traffic because the domain will have to be something else unintuitive like dribble.io or dribbleapp.com.
" "Dribbble" is good because you can tell people "the name is 'dribble' with three b's" and people will immediately know how to spell it and their first instinct will be "dribbble.com" and if they search for it, it will be the top search result. "
Totally agree with that. great point. I asked his question cause I am considering 3 letters in my startups name and I often use Dribbble as a reference that it can be done. I've done for the exact reason you mentioned. In 2019, getting a .com domain + instagram + twitter handles is really difficult.
I don't think that's moronic. No one should hold it against you if you have to say no to things because you already have a full plate. Saying "no" is healthy. People should do it (politely, of course) more often.
Fully-justified text is also generally harder to read for everyone, but for dyslexic folks especially. On the web, this is exacerbated by browsers' relatively poor support for fine, print-quality type layout.
Studies have found that justified text reduces reading speed by up to 11% as the eye has to do more work to find the next word as they’re irregularly spaced.
I did a quick search and found a PDF [0] (page 8) referencing a study from 1986, but a lot of work has been done on typography and readability over the years. Actually, even though it’s pretty old, that document is full of solid design advice.
I read the article and full disclosure, I don't use Dribbble and am not a member. My thought is that temporarily suspending a user based on report from community members is reasonable. Dribbble looks like a very social/community-centric site, I'd imagine if a rogue member were to post inappropriate content, the community can come together and help moderate. This also mean that if community members feel personally offended and take it the other way, and ding someone like in this instance, the site steps in and make it right. Again, Dribbble unbanned him shortly after. I just feel like it's a non-issue-but that's just my opinion.
50k followers, no new shots since February. This isn't a "rogue account" posting "inappropriate content."
Don't you think it is suspect that his account (no activity in months) is "flagged" on the same day the CEO blocks him on Twitter for legitimate chirps?
The guy was ranting away on twitter about some recently announced changes, attacking the company and the CEO. It doesn't take a conspiracy for both the users to flag him and the CEO to block him in response.
I don't know and I'm not going to try to guess, but I think the simplest answer is the most likely and the simplest answer is that the angry rant elicited strong reactions from multiple people.
This "guy" has been an integral part of the Dribbble community for as long as I can remember, churning out and sharing absolutely incredible work. Just look at his portfolio. Front page material, literally created a new style trend with his desaturated low-poly mini scenes.
Dribbble got from him being a member far more than he got from being on Dribbble. If there's someone who full on deserves the right to criticize the site, that'd be him.
CEO picked a personal fight with one of most visible and respected members. He should've not. It was indeed _petty_.
It's great he has been such a strong contributor to the community, but that doesn't mean people can't object to a twitter rant.
> CEO picked a personal fight
Did he though? That's not evident. Maybe you know differently?
Honestly, I don't really care, but I see one guy ranting in public, throwing around angry insults and accusations without backup and I'm OK if people don't give him what he wants.
So you don't don't think any social network company is good, because they all do this to some extent, some more explicitly than others.
On a different note, maybe I just see this differently.
> “In this specific case, community flags triggered a temporary suspension."
It seems like the comments this user was making did not resonate with users of the site. This is the reality of having a social site: you have to deal with people's actions, decisions, and opinions, however rational or irrational you view them to be. It's the same kind of thing that happens almost anywhere else in any other social situation.
