CEO at Idealogic.Design

Seasoned professional in UI/UX and Product Design with over 10 years of experience, specializing in crafting intuitive user experiences and innovative product solutions. Experienced across diverse industries including Fintech, Blockchain, Aviation, Social Media, AI, Real Estate, and Education, delivering impactful, user-centered designs. 

Skilled in solving complex challenges with strategic design thinking, enhancing user satisfaction, and driving business growth. A proactive and adaptable approach is emphasized, focusing on comprehensive problem-solving and service design. 

Extensive industry knowledge and attention to metrics contribute to organizational success, ensuring that every design project not only meets but exceeds expectations. As a Senior Product Designer, UX/UI insights are integrated with strategic business goals to deliver high-quality, impactful products, continuously improving design delivery and maintenance for users.

Viktor Zhytomyrskyi

One of my favorite parts of designing interfaces is when the correct solution feels… a bit illegal 😅

Because if you follow pure “logic”, you end up with UIs that look clean on paper… and fail the second a real person touches them.

Hover hints are a perfect example. If they appear instantly, they become clutter. If they wait a beat, they become information.

So you add a tiny delay. Slightly less “responsive”. Way more humane.
Same story with menus + submenus. The “logical” version says: hover changes the moment your cursor leaves the item.

But humans don’t move in straight lines. They move diagonally. They hesitate. They overshoot.

So you add an invisible safe zone that “forgives” the path to the submenu. It looks out of logic. And it feels amazing.

When you design submenus, do you go with (A) hover+intent, (B) click-to-open, or (C) both, depending on density?

The original idea is by Siyam Afroz from this Linkedin post -  https://lnkd.in/gSu6zDPY

#uxdesign #productdesign #interactiondesign #uidesign #menu #submenu #uxui #userexperience

Senior Product Designer | UI/UX Designer | UX Researcher @ HP

The hardest part of a design system isn’t building it.

It’s staying creative inside it.

At first, design systems feel like freedom.

Everything is cleaner.
Faster.
More consistent.
Buttons are ready.
Spacing is defined.
Patterns are documented.

Then one day, you get a genuinely good idea. Something that would actually make the experience better for the user. And suddenly the design system becomes that pink character from the meme standing behind you like:

“Yeah… but we don’t have a component for that.”

That’s where the real struggle starts. Because now you have to choose:

Do I force the idea into the existing system and lose what made it good? Do I create a new pattern and make the system heavier?
Or do I spend the next hour trying to convince everyone that this is not “breaking consistency,” it’s solving a real problem?

I think a lot of designers live in that tension. A design system should give you structure. But it shouldn’t take away judgment. It should speed up the obvious things so designers have more energy for the non-obvious ones. Because real products are messy.

Users don’t behave like component libraries. Edge cases don’t care about your token setup. And the best solutions are not always the most reusable ones on the first try.

The strongest design systems I’ve seen were not rigid.
They had principles.
They had logic.

But they also had room to grow.

That’s the balance I’m always chasing:
Enough consistency to scale,
Enough flexibility to still design something smart.

What’s harder on your team right now: keeping consistency or keeping flexibility?

#uxdesign #productdesign #designsystems #uidesign #uxcommunity #designthinking #figma #productdesigner #uxstrategy

The more “simple” a product feels, the more terrifying the logic behind it usually is.

A lot of design education teaches us how to design interfaces. Modern product work forces us to design systems. That gap gets bigger every year.
This Slack notification map is a great example of why. Because on paper, the problem is tiny: decide whether to notify the user. But real products never operate on paper. They operate in context. And context multiplies everything.

The message type matters.
The device matters.
User preferences matter. 
Timing matters. 
Subscription state matters. 
Presence matters. 
Overrides matter. 
History matters. 
Priority matters.

So the challenge is no longer just: what should the UI look like? It becomes:
What logic deserves to exist behind the UI? 
How do we keep that logic understandable? 
How do we keep it from collapsing under exceptions? 
How do we make it feel human instead of robotic? 
How do we make users trust it?

That last one is huge.

Because in modern products, trust is often designed through behavior, not visuals. A product that shows the right thing at the right moment feels smart. A product that interrupts at the wrong moment feels selfish. A product that ignores context feels broken. And users are incredibly sensitive to that.
So when products get more complex, I don’t think designers just need “better UX skills.”

I think we need stronger decision design. Stronger systems thinking. Better collaboration with PMs and engineers. More comfort with flows, logic trees, states, and rules.

Because the most important design choice might not be what appears on screen.

It might be whether something appears at all.

#ProductDesign #UXDesign #UX #UIDesign #SystemsThinking #InteractionDesign #DesignSystems #ProductStrategy #UserExperience #DesignLeadership

The name “edge case” is kind of misleading. Because for a lot of users, those are normal cases.

They skip steps. 
They tap too fast. 
They close the app and come back.
They’re on an old device. 
Their Wi-Fi is dying. 
The data is messy.

And in production, it goes from “very nice” to “why are people stuck here?” real fast.

I don’t even think edge cases are “extra work” anymore. They are the work. Because users don’t remember the moment when everything went right. They remember the moment when things went weird… and the UI either helped them or abandoned them.

Do you have a “we didn’t think of that” edge case story?

#UXDesign #UIDesign #ProductDesign #UserExperience #EdgeCases #InteractionDesign #Usability #UXResearch

One of my favorite UI feelings is when you don’t have to look - like volume buttons, or a good swipe-back gesture. A good radial menu hits that same nerve. You’re choosing by direction, not by reading.

And that matters because reading is slow. Attention is expensive, especially on a phone. That’s why I think radial menus belong in normal interfaces more than we admit - they’re perfect for those “I know what I want, just let me do it” moments.

Whenever you’re using one hand, on the move, or half-distracted, lists feel heavy. A small wheel feels like a shortcut that shows up right where you already are.

Meetings are a perfect example: mute, camera, share, react. You shouldn’t have to open a panel to do any of that. Same with photo cleanup (favorite, delete, move, share) and docs (comment, highlight, copy, link).

If you keep the wheel small and consistent, it becomes almost eyes-free. Your hand learns the map and stops asking your brain for permission. A few details make it feel premium too: big hit areas, a tiny haptic “tick” as you move between actions, and a soft first-time hint so people discover it - then it disappears.

I’m not saying every menu should be a circle. But for those 4–8 high-frequency actions, radial feels like the shortest path from intent to action.

Do you keep “delete” on the first wheel, hide it behind a second step, or ban it from the wheel completely?

#ProductDesign #UXDesign #InteractionDesign #MobileDesign #UXPatterns #MicroInteractions #UserExperience #InterfaceDesign

taplio