Some designers prefer clarity from the start. I’ve always done my best work when there isn’t any yet.

How I work

A good structure shouldn’t need rebuilding every time something shifts. Something gets added, something gets cut, something arrives completely out of nowhere. Good information architecture anticipates — but anticipation alone isn’t enough. The structures I build are meant to absorb change without crumbling, so the work holds up even when the original plan doesn’t.

Getting there requires the right kind of alignment. The right visual artifact at the right stage cuts through ambiguity — a journey map, a flow, a wireframe, a mock. Each one gives a team something concrete to react to instead of something abstract to debate. The conversation stops being about opinion and starts being about the work.

Good structures need good inputs. I translate research into decisions the rest of the team can build against. When formal research isn’t part of the process, stakeholder conversations and business requirements fill that role. The source changes — the standard doesn’t.

Information Architecture

I treat information architecture as a diagnostic before it’s a deliverable — mapping what exists, what’s broken, and what’s missing before deciding what to build. The structure comes first because everything else builds on top of it.

Interaction Design

I turn ambiguous problems into interfaces that hold up under real use — not the demo, the fifth time someone opens it mid-shift with three other things pulling at their attention.