Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from abdz.do - Have you given up on being inspired?
Bold art direction, UX and web design for GV abduzeedo0501—23 GV, previously known as Google Ventures, recently underwent a rebranding and relaunch of their corporate website with a simpler UX. The new strategy and branding was created by the talented teams at Synchronized Studio and Moniker SF. The new website offers ample scaling opportunities and provides a clear reflection of the company's mission and values. GV's new branding strategy is focused on their mission to partner with entrepreneurs and help them build great companies. The rebranding and relaunch of GV's corporate website did not include a new logo. However, the new website still showcases the company's commitment to partnering with entrepreneurs and helping them build great companies. The new website and UX design, designed and developed by Synchronized Studio and Moniker SF, brings GV's brand to life in a visually stunning and user-friendly way. The clean, modern design with bold typography showcases the company's portfolio, team, news and thought leadership in a way that is easy to navigate and engaging. The site's responsive design ensures that it looks great on all devices, providing a seamless user experience no matter how it's being accessed. The website's ample scaling opportunities are a testament to GV's commitment to helping startups grow and scale. The site's scalable architecture provides the flexibility to grow and evolve as the company grows, making it an ideal platform for showcasing GV's portfolio and thought leadership. In conclusion, GV's rebranding and relaunch of their corporate website is a clear reflection of the company's mission and values. The new visual identity, UX and website, created by Synchronized Studio and Moniker SF, convey a sense of collaboration and partnership, making it the perfect platform for showcasing GV's portfolio and thought leadership. The website's ample scaling opportunities provide the flexibility for the company to grow and evolve, making it a valuable asset for startups looking to scale and succeed. Art direction, UX and web design artifacts Credits Synchronized Studio Moniker SF
3D & motion design spotlight: Abacus - Pathways abduzeedo0421—23 Abacus, Switzerland's leading software development company, is embarking on a new chapter in its journey by collaborating with Hup.Studio to revamp its visual identity. This bold move aims to create an engaging and dynamic visual experience for Abacus' social media platforms, showcasing their innovative spirit and commitment to excellence. In this blog post, we'll explore the creative process behind this captivating 3D and motion design project. Hup.Studio's pitch revolves around the use of spheres in motion on geometric paths. These spheres signify the flow of information and data, essential elements in the world of software development. The design features straight, curved, and angular lines along which the spheres move and interact, forming mesmerizing patterns that capture the viewer's attention. These interactions create seamless looped videos, offering an immersive and continuous visual journey that speaks to Abacus' innovative approach to software development. Hup.Studio's focus on using minimal sets to display the harmony of the composition aligns perfectly with Abacus' reputation for creating streamlined, efficient software solutions. The simplicity of the design allows the viewer to appreciate the elegance of the composition, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the elements within the visual identity. This minimalist approach ensures that the message is conveyed in a singular and straightforward manner, reflecting the core values of Abacus as a software development company. By adopting this new visual identity, Abacus aims to create a lasting impression on their social media platforms. The dynamic and engaging nature of the design is bound to attract attention, drawing in new clients and reinforcing the company's reputation as a premier software development firm in Switzerland. The seamless loops and intriguing patterns invite viewers to explore and engage with Abacus' content, fostering a sense of connection and trust. The collaboration between Abacus and Hup.Studio signifies a groundbreaking approach to visual identity in the software development industry. The captivating design, featuring spheres in motion on geometric paths, demonstrates the synergy between these two creative powerhouses. The minimalist aesthetic and engaging visual experience are sure to leave a lasting impression on Abacus' social media audience, reaffirming their position as Switzerland's premier software development company. Our focus is on using minimal sets to showcase the harmony of the composition in a singular and straightforward way. Video Abacus - Pathways from Hup.Studio on Vimeo. 3D and motion design stills For more information make sure to check out Hup.Studio website or follow them on Behance.
Branding for Ecuador, Pilsener World Edition Qatar 2022 abduzeedo0201—23 The leading beer brand in Ecuador, Pilsener, has a history of over 110 years and is a significant part of the AB InBev portfolio in the region. Known for its association with friendship, tradition, and social gatherings, Pilsener is a staple in the country for events such as football games, festivals, and meals. The aim was to design a special packaging for the Qatar 2022 World Cup that would evoke national pride and excitement for Ecuador's participation in the event. The design takes on a comic book aesthetic to showcase the moments leading up to the goals, capturing the glory and memories that will forever be cherished by passionate fans. Panorama Branding designed 4 cans and bottle labels that reflect 4 different goals in the last 4 world cups, which helped to get Ecuador qualified. Supporting the historic relationship between the brand and the national team as an official sponsor for many decades. The designers worked hand in hand with the client to create a concept that expresses and symbolizes how big Ecuador has always been in its soccer history. With this proposal Panorama Branding wanted to toast the future, remembering the most important feats of the past. Capturing the most important moments of the team in the last 4 soccer world cups and through various matches. Thus, forging a new cry of optimism and using the most iconic moments of our soccer history.
An Introduction to the AI Generative Sneakers by Grant Franck AoiroStudio0123—23 Grant Franck is a 3D artist and design director who has pushed the boundaries of sneaker design with his use of AI generative techniques. His series of AI-generated sneakers showcase the potential of technology to create unique and creative outcomes. Franck's use of AI algorithms allows him to generate an almost infinite number of sneaker designs, each with its own distinct characteristics and features. Ive been using Ai to develop visual narrative and ideas. A kind of visual diary of sorts. 3D Art Grant Franck is a design director and 3D artist based in Cape Town, South Africa. You can follow more of his works via the links below. Personal Site Behance The work showcased is all reserved by Grant Franck
More in design
If you work in software (as a designer, developer, PM, or any adjacent role), you’re probably aware of just how much AI has changed the way code is created. And if you’re an engineer, you’re definitely feeling the downstream impacts of AI’s speed. Way, way more code is being written. But the way we review code hasn’t changed that much. But if you’re not familiar, code review is a step in the software development process where developers look at code before it gets shipped. It’s been a cornerstone of engineering teams’ workflows for almost as long as there have been engineering teams. AI coding has turned code review into a bottleneck; a human can only look at so much code, so reviews have started taking longer, and each engineer’s review backlog is growing exponentially.1 AI code review tools have stepped into the breach, eliciting an earnest grumble from developers: AI reviewing AI-written code is like a student grading their own test. Execs don’t have much sympathy, though. We can move faster, so we should. So teams are stuck in a traffic jam, trying to figure out how to review code faster, without sacrificing quality. I’d like to argue that the source of this problem is more fundamental than speed vs. quality. We’re in this situation because somewhere along the way we swapped one question for another. Code review was always meant as a verification step: does the code produce the outcome we want? But it’s a hard question to answer, so we started asking an easier one instead: is this good code? Let’s go back to the original question. Code review should get better at verifying outcomes — faster, yes, but more accurately, and for the system as a whole, not just single lines of code. What is code worth? The premise of code review is that code can be good or bad, and that bad code can be turned into good code, and that good code is important. This is a sound premise. Bugs are obviously bad for business. But we’ve made an attribute substitution: we decide whether code looks good as a stand-in for whether the software works. Engineers use mental shortcuts to determine the goodness or badness of code. They range from very well-documented patterns (use guard clauses to return early, use pure functions where possible) to vibe-based ‘code smells’ (magic numbers, deep nesting). But these aren’t written in stone. They are debated and re-evaluated constantly. Even if there are inviolable definitions of good code, writing good code isn’t guaranteed to result in valuable software products. Sometimes, it works out that way; before Facebook bought it, WhatsApp kept its codebase lean enough that 35 engineers could serve 450 million users.2 But there are far, far more examples of software succeeding despite being written poorly: Undertale would never have passed a single code review (almost all of its dialog was one giant switch statement), but became one of the most beloved games of the past decade. Good code does not strictly equal good software. Code itself has no intrinsic value. So what are we actually reviewing when we review code? Verifying There’s just no substitute for actually running the code and verifying that it does its job well. I don’t mean unit tests, or even integration tests, but running the code in total, a full end-to-end test. Doing this at scale for large applications is difficult. At an org with hundreds of AI-enabled engineers, you likely have thousands of pull requests a day. Spinning up and breaking down complete copies of your entire application (likely, application cluster) is time- and resource-intensive. Even if you do manage it, verifying under realistic conditions may be completely infeasible (imagine simulating the activity that Stripe handles — 1.75% of global GDP). Which is to say that you won’t know if your code works or not until it’s in users’ hands. Traditional code review has two outcomes: You are confident enough that the code works well enough to ship it You are not confident enough that the code works well enough to ship it Verifying your code under the most realistic scenario possible (i.e., yolo, straight to production) has three: You are sure the code works, and it’s already shipped. Good job! You are sure the code doesn’t work, so you improve the code until it works You don’t know because the system failed in an interesting way. Instead of confidence, you have information, and can use it to improve the system. Verifying a major change by shipping it is risky, but the closer you can get to it, the more your review is actually worth. Feature flags, canary releases, observability and CI/CD — the stuff of modern devops — have all been commoditized to the point where it’s cheap to build in the safeguards that make the yolo approach tractable (even at Stripe scale). Stop reviewing code3 You’re probably doing code review for the wrong reasons. Let AI do the work of making code better: tracing code paths, finding, and fixing obvious issues. And if it’s a student grading their own test, so what? AI can make the code better. People can check if it works. Invest in the tools to verify your code in realistic conditions, deploying it directly to users if possible. Use your own eyes and brain to see it working, or see it not working. Learn from the difference, share what you learn with your team, and build feedback loops that improve the system the more it fails. And eventually the failures will become rare and incredibly interesting. Footnotes & References GitHub saw 1 billion commits in all of 2025; by April 2026 it was seeing 275 million a week. ↩︎ Cade Metz, “Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users,” Wired, September 15, 2015. ↩︎ Of course, there are situations where safety means protecting human lives or massive economic outcomes, and reviewing code is the only safe option. The IRS shouldn’t ship updates to the code it uses to disburse tax refunds without reviewing the code. Waymo shouldn’t ship updates to its self-driving cars’ algorithms without reviewing the code. But you probably aren’t working for the IRS or Waymo. And if you are, get in touch ;) ↩︎
If you think about it, there is *a lot* of software that hasn’t been built across hundreds of industries because our best paid designers and engineers were occupied with building social networks and ad networks. "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make
Weekly curated resources for designers — thinkers and makers.
“Side Two” LP in progress. At 14 songs, it is nearly complete. I expect to release it before the year’s end. The post Another Saturday, Another Song. appeared first on Jeffrey Zeldman Presents.
