On this episode, we interview Sheryl Cababa, an Executive Creative Director at Artefact in Seattle. Sheryl talks with us about the experience of designing in the Netherlands, how living abroad helped develop an ability to question the systems engrained in our own culture, and how we must consider unintended consequences in our design process.

---

Jp:

Sheryl Cababa thank you so much for being on This is Design School. We greatly appreciate your time.

Sheryl:

Thanks. I’m happy time to be here.

Chad:

How did you discover design? What was the initial spark?

Sheryl:

Yeah. So, I was basically a student in the 90s in political science and in journalism. And, those are actually what might degrees are in. But, I think through my journalism school, which was at Syracuse, I started taking design courses and decided that I wanted to do a thesis in design. So, I went ahead and did that—didn’t have the follow through to actually get a degree. But, came out of that as a working designer are in the journalism industry, and I was working at The Seattle Times initially and just sort of continued doing the design side of things as more or less passion project combined with my interest in technology. So, I was, like, building my own website and what have you. I ended up building an internal website for The Seattle Times because it was the 90s when people didn’t, like, always know how to do that type of thing.

All:

(laugh)

Chad:

They just let you do it?

Sheryl:

Yeah, they just let me do it. So, I was like, “I have an idea. Why don’t I build you guys an intranet?” And, they were like, “Okay. Well, I don’t think there is anyone else here who knows how to do that. So, cool.” So, I found a server where I could host it there and basically hand coded the whole thing. And then, I used that to get a job at Microsoft and sort of my history as a UX designer is, that’s where it started.

Jp:

That’s awesome. Welcome to the 90s, right? It was kind of like a wild west.

Sheryl:

Yeah.

Jp:

If you had a keyboard and a screen, you were a programmer.

Sheryl:

That’s exactly right. So, it was kind of like… I, actually in college, had built… I was writing Haiku about Spam. Spam, like the food. ‘Cause I’m Filipino, so that’s what we eat. And, I had a series of Haiku that I had written about it, and then used that to build a website about my Spam Haiku. So, I learned HTML so I’d be able to do that. It’s, like, such a weird thing. Like, you’re passionate about this one thing and you’re like, “Well, this is maybe a good opportunity to learn how to code.” And, so that’s kind of how it started. I kind of wish I had saved it and it were up there somewhere.

Chad:

I was going to say do you remember one of the Haiku?

Sheryl:

I do not.

All:

(laugh)

Sheryl:

I do not. I have looked for it in my many hard drives many times, and I just, like, cannot find any evidence that that ever existed. But, it did. I promise. Other people know about it.

Jp:

So, Microsoft and then…

Sheryl:

Right. And then, I worked I worked at Microsoft for quite a while, and also Getty Images I kind of dipped in and out of as a UX designer. And then, I moved with my family to the Netherlands and spent 10 years there working for organizations like Philips and then as a design consultant for Adaptive Path and Frog. In 2015, we moved back to Seattle and that’s when I started working at Artifact, which is a local design consultancy here, just in Seattle.

Chad:

Which is where we are now.

Sheryl:

That’s right.

Jp:

Yeah.

Chad:

What was it like working and living abroad?

Sheryl:

Yeah. So, I moved there not for… I actually got a couple of interesting experiences working and living in the Netherlands. So, the first being that I was… The organization I was working for, Getty Images, I started out working there as a remote member of their team. So, I actually got to experience remote work for the first time. The team I was working with was based in London. So, I would go there every few weeks just to work with them. And, I thought that was really interesting. I thought it suited me pretty well and I haven’t really gotten the opportunity to do that formally since. So, that’s one thing I’m a big advocate from afar of, is just like, I think remote work is an interesting path for a lot of people. And then, working at Philips, which is basically… There’s hundreds of designers at Philips. It’s a very design-centric organization. And, I got a lot of experience there of, sort of, finally working in a place where design is taken super seriously as a discipline and practice, and not just like as a side gig. I think if you look at, kind of the late 90s and early 2000s in tech especially, design was kind of just like supplementary to development. And so, working in an organization where it felt truly design led was revelatory, especially in the way that there were many different silos of design disciplines and I wasn’t necessarily considered the generalist that I thought myself to be. So, I was put in sort of the slot of information architect, and I’m like, “This is just, like, one facet of what I do.” But then, ended up being, like, an information architect for the next, like, two years. And, constantly trying to do other things just felt not super accessible because there were specialists in those areas. So, we’re talking about design research. They had an army of design researchers. So, you could sit in on, you know, basically design research sessions, but that’s… You’re never going to lead data collection. So, I thought I learned a lot in that organization, but after that, I went into consulting, which I think is what suits me best because 1) I don’t have a lot of attention span. So, it means I can sort of jump from domain to domain and learn a lot about different spaces. So, it could be healthcare, or education, or consumer technology, and I know that as a design researcher, now, and strategists that I will be able to learn everything that I can possibly absorb about that subject in the time span of like 12 to 16 weeks. And then, I’ll be like, “Okay, what now? Now, I’m about to work on something that has to do with robotic surgery. What can I learn about that?” And, be able to dip into that. And, I think it really suits my, sort of, just kind of have a natural curiosity about things. I don’t… Just that, I know nothing about and trying to get a broad perspective on it.

So, the other week, I was at a conference in Copenhagen and I was invited to a dinner with information security experts. And they were just like, “Oh, there’s going to be seven of them. And, you know, there’s one extra slot.” And, this person who had seen me speak at this conference in Copenhagen was like, “Do you want to come?” And, I’m like, “Yeah! I know nothing about information security. Why not?” (laughs) And, it was like one of the most interesting dinners I’ve ever attended. I felt like it was definitely my community in terms… you know, I run around a lot these days, talking about unintended consequences of technology… These people are the most comfortable about talking about unintended consequences of technology. You can ask them anything. You could be like? “What’s the scariest thing that you think will happen this year?” “Well, the energy system is going to be attacked in a country.” And, they can just, like, kind of talk about it with very even keeled manner, and be like, “So, these are the sort of, like, things that we need to work out to make sure that doesn’t happen. We have to think about machine identification, and…”

Chad:

They have to be, like, three steps ahead of everyone.

Sheryl:

That’s right! Yeah.

Chad:

Because otherwise those things do happen.

Sheryl:

Yeah, that’s exactly right. So, I find that being able to talk to and connect with people that have that kind of deep domain knowledge to be really, just, really super fascinating. And, it allows me to kind of use those things that I learn and think about how they can impact design, and basically the practice of design itself.

Chad:

Are there things, like that, from working and living in the Netherlands, or abroad in general, that you think have shaped your design practice?

Sheryl:

I’ve worked quite a bit in my past, on sort of FinTech and financial services. In fact, many of the years I spent at Microsoft was around personal finance management software, which you wouldn’t think would be super interesting to work on, but I thought it was just, like, amazing to kind of learn about that. And, when I moved to the Netherlands, it’s like, personal banking works completely differently than it does here in the states. Like, no one’s ever heard of a check, transfers are super easy, your bank account number is literally on, like, your business card and your website. And, it’s just, like, everything is electronic transfer. And, I got used to that, came back to the states in 2015, and had to write a check for my kids’ piano lessons. And, I’m like, “I don’t have checks.” I told my bank, I’m like, “Do I still need these?” And they’re just like, “Yeah, you order them and we’ll send them to you.”

All:

(laugh)

Sheryl:

And, I was like, “It’s paper!” And, it was just… It seems so absurd to me, like I had gone back in time.

Jp:

Yeah.

Sheryl:

What’s interesting to me, is that when you have designers who kind of haven’t had that sort of personal experience with another system and how it works, they make all sorts of assumptions about the way things should work. And so, you’re creating solutions that are kind of like, “Well, obviously people will need to take a picture of their checks.” And, it’s just kind of like, “No. Like, these people will never do a transfer with a check.” And, they’re like, “Oh, there’s no checks here?” Like, you don’t get that perspective of, like, systems can fundamentally work differently and even from just like a personal standpoint. And so, I kind of think that exposure to the way government works differently, to the way things, like, the health care system works differently, gives you such important perspectives on what it means to be a designer. And, it gives you, kind of like, that broad perspective that maybe helps protect you from your own biases about the way things should work.

Chad:

Yeah, it’s like breaking down your foundation of your perspective of the world at a whole different level.

Sheryl:

Right. Yeah. I mean, there are things, too, like for example, the things we argue about here from a political standpoint in the US. I talk a lot about how having lived in Europe, there is just like a baseline understanding that certain things are just things we all agree on. We agree that there’s a social safety net, and then they argue about things that sit above that. Here, it’s like, we’re arguing about whether people should even have health care and, to them, that’s absurd, right? This is just, you view health care as a fundamental human right, like that’s the baseline that society sits on, so you can argue about like whatever is kind of above and beyond that, but they have that foundation there. And so, being able to experience that has definitely informed my perspective on what kinds of opinions people come to the table with or, you know, what kind of perspective they come to the table with.

Jp:

Are you seeing that students that are coming out of design school, do you feel that they are prepared to use technology or to grasp technology beyond just the fundamental tool that it is, but as a system process that can be changed, that isn’t just the way it is?

Sheryl:

Yeah. I think it depends on what you’ve studied and where you come to the design practice, right? So, if you’re coming with a strategy lens, that’s very different than designers who are trained to basically execute on decisions that have already been made. I’ve said in the past that I never hire a 22 year old strategist because what kind of, like, life experience do you have? But, I kind of think that there is something to, kind of, deciding where you want to sit in the decision making. Because, if you’re kind of at that design thinking level and being able to, kind of, shape the nature of design that will later be executed from a craft perspective, then that actually is kind of a more powerful place to sit, in terms of the design practice. And so, to aspire to that I think is really important because then, you know, you’ve got, as a designer, you have that coveted seat at the table.

But, I think a lot of times students come out of school with a pretty narrow idea of what it means to be a designer, especially if you’re working at the intersection of design and technology, right? It’s like, “Okay, now it’s my job to, kind of, go to Amazon and be an interaction designer, and I’ll like get experience there. And, maybe I’ll go to Google as an interaction designer and get some experience there.” (laughs) And, I think in some ways, the nature of the design practice is broadening, in terms of design leadership. But then, maybe it’s also narrowing in terms of the actual execution of design. I used to joke when I was at Frog, that I’d be, like, reviewing internship applications and everybody would have these concept videos. And, I’m like, “I can predict what’s going to be going on in this concept video. It’s going to be somebody walking down, like, a beautiful street, they’re going to pull out their mobile phone, and they’re going to start, like, bo-boo-boo-boop. Like, doing something. And, they’re just, like, hip, beautiful person with, like, a beanie on. And, the music is going to be some sort of jaunty, like, little like ukulele music or something.” I had a collection of these and. it’s like, they all had the same story arc. And so, they were all designed for the same people.

All:

(laugh)

Sheryl:

And, I was like, “Okay, we’re maybe narrowing things too much when it comes to what’s expected to be the output of their work.” That said, the craft was amazing. But, I’m just kind of, like, I found myself trying to look for something totally different, even if it were aesthetically bad (laughs), or if it was something that just addresses something totally different. I don’t know.

Chad:

Where there is something unique about the thinking behind it.

Sheryl:

That’s right, yeah.

Chad:

Yeah. Well, I mean, there’s something to be said about design, kind of where it is in the process, and at what level of thinking, right?

Sheryl:

Right.

Chad:

Is it realistic for somebody to think that they can be on that higher level, like, that early on in their career? What if there was a 22 year old that wanted to do strategy? Where do you start? Where would you start in that? Would you would you work your way up and kind of gain that perspective through experience?

Sheryl:

Yeah, I don’t… I mean, I think part of my example of that is, like, that was the wrong perspective to have. And, I kind of think part of that is now having been in consulting for like nearly 10 years, I’m like, you can have young strategist. And, I think maybe something like consultancy is the place to start because it gives you kind of that broad perspective of very, very different client needs, very, very different organizational needs, and you have to be really quick to grok whatever is going on in that organization in order to be able to do problem solving for them. So, I think that kind of exposure early on in your career, whenever designers asked me my advice is, go to consultancy as soon as you can, or agency, and learn as much as possible. And then, you will be a pretty good product designer or design leader in potentially a larger internal design organization if you wanted to go that path and you wanted to basically ship products, or whatever. But, in the beginning, just try to learn a lot from, sort of, the different organizations that you’ll encounter, as well as the different domains. Because they have, like, really super different systematic needs. They have really different types of leadership, especially if you get to work in both let’s say the private sector and the public sector. I think there are many potential paths to being a design leader. But, I think, sort of, broadening your experience base, in terms of your domain knowledge early on, is probably one of the best things that you can do.

Jp:

I’m wondering, could you dive a little bit deeper in how you feel your own process in getting to that leadership role has expanded or contracted? Do you feel that you’re still on a trajectory that allows you more opportunity to… Curious, for lack of a better word.

Sheryl:

Yeah, that’s a good question. I… So, one of the things that happened to me when I was joining Artefact is, you know, I was like interviewing and one of the founders, Gavin, asked me, he was like, “I notice a pattern in, kind of, your career is that you seem to spend two years at a job and then you move on.” And, I was like, “Huh, I never really noticed that.” I’d never even realized that! He was looking at my CV and I was like, “You’re right!” And, what I realized was usually I don’t leave an organization because it’s horrible and I’ve reached a point of, just, hating it and I can’t stand anybody, and it’s just the worst and I have to get out of here. Usually it’s just kind of, like, I think I’ve sort of exhausted what I can learn and there’s something kind of different or interesting out there. I know it’s kind of querying to be, like, saying always be uncomfortable. But, if I feel super comfortable I know something’s wrong, and I’m not, like, learning enough. So, that’s usually my cue to start looking for something new. I think as I have, sort of, progressed in my career I have spent many years in the trenches as basically an interaction designer and a design researcher, kind of, doing that sort of individual contribution work. I think, as I’ve progressed, I’ve become a lot more interested in methods and how to actually, sort of, push my practice of design as well as the practice of designers who I work with. And so, one of the things that I’m doing now, for example, is thinking about designing for outcomes. Because, I think, in terms of the practice of user experience design, we’ve gotten really good at designing for direct benefit. But, often times, we are just… Our practice, in terms, of its methods is just, like, not equipped to think about societal outcomes. So, if you think about direct benefit is, like, Uber is a great experience for customers, right? It’s hard to argue with that. It’s pretty inexpensive, and you get into a car, and it’s like, is convenient as ever. But, if you think about, sort of, the broad societal impact and the impact at scale, you know, you have probably very likely an IPO coming up for them, and will any of those drivers get anything from this? Probably not. I mean, a lot of them don’t even make minimum wage, according to research that’s come out around ride hailing. And, also is creating more congestion in cities. There’s now multiple forms of research that have shown that to be true in different cities like New York and Chicago. So, how can we, as designers, start thinking about that more intentionally? Because we’ve gotten really, really good at, like, thinking about an individual user or how they use that product, but not thinking about, like, what happens with usage at scale. And so, I’m trying to consider like, how can we push the practice into that direction, because we know that so many of these digital products have that unintended impact that we would want to address? Because, I don’t know… I don’t know about you guys, but most designers I know, they’re like, “I want to do design for good.” And so, the idea that we’re contributing to lots of, like, bad outcomes just didn’t sit right with people.

Chad:

Do you think that’s a limitation of Human Centered Design? That, as a process, in the way that’s set up and how you think about it? Because it is centered around the user at such a small level.

Sheryl:

Yeah. I mean, I think it’s a function of user centered design. I think good human centered design takes other stakeholders into account. But, oftentimes that’s not actually what we’re practicing, especially in the digital and technology world, right? Usually it is strictly user centered design that we’re practicing. So, we’re not thinking about the fallout of people who have nothing to do with using our products. We’re thinking about how best to appeal to the person who needs to just, like, order food and have it right now. We’re not considering even other stakeholders, like, in Uber’s case, like, drivers. There’s a lot of collective fallout from that, even if the direct user experience in terms of the actual app for drivers is good.

So, I think it’s a combination of actually considering a broader set of stakeholders, and that includes societal stakeholders, as well as thinking specifically about the outcomes and impact that you want your products and services to have.

Chad:

Are there particular exercises that you do with your team? If I’m a designer in school right now being taught these methods, and often times that video it’s nice and it’s like very succinct, and like, it’s very perfect. It’s following that one user’s journey of how they use this tool. But, like, is there an exercise, or limitation, or kind of a gap in knowledge in education right now about prompting the people to think in that way, or something that they can do to get them thinking more about the larger system or society at that level?

Sheryl:

Right. So, I think in terms of thinking about outcomes first is probably literally working backwards from the outcomes you want and thinking about what the solution could be. I think, in many ways, like there’s no better place to do that than in design school because you don’t have necessarily the strict constraints of the output having to be oriented around a single type of Technology, for example.

So, I might have clients that, you know, we work a lot in emerging technology so there are things, like, AR, right? And, they might come to us and be like, “Okay, it’s… The technology is AR now what do we do?” And, I think, like, if we have the ability to, kind of, think about like what are the outcomes we want first, and think about, sort of, the challenges that we’re trying to address or barriers were trying to address, and then consider what the solution might be. It might have nothing to do potentially with whatever the potential technology is that we’re envisioning as a solution.

So, famously just like that idea of, like, there’s an app for that is like, if somebody comes to you and it’s just like, “Here’s the app to, just, solve homelessness.” I can guarantee, like, there’s other ways of doing whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish without thinking about the app first. I think, yeah, it would be interesting for design students to consider, if you have a prompt about trying to help solve for a certain facet of homelessness, right, to think about what is the actual impact you want on society, and then, kind of, consider what are the things that can contribute to potential systemic change? And then, think about what are the intervention points that would make sense?

So, it might not have anything to do with digital technology in the end. It could be a change to a relationship, like, between case workers and their clients. And, it’s hard to know where it’ll land unless you investigate, like, what it is that you want the outcome to be.

Chad:

What about unintended outcomes?

Sheryl:

Yeah. This is the question…

Sheryl & Chad:

(laugh)

Sheryl:

So, the question I get most from technologists is we can’t anticipate everything, so how do we possibly design for things that we have no idea might happen? Like a million different things could happen. And, kind of, my response that is, “So, basically you do nothing, then? I mean, even if you think something might go wrong you do nothing?” So, I think if there are some really strong contenders, anticipating them and kind of having a plan of responding to it if it does happen is not beyond the pale, right?

So, a good example of this is, I mean… I think it has in the last few months, but… Facebook never goes down. Right? There are more than 2 billion using it?

Jp:

Something like that, yeah.

Sheryl:

It’s like, I don’t even know what the number is now, but they’re still gaining users in many parts of the world, so… And, it’s a it’s a platform that literally never goes down. There are some anticipation of potential unintended consequences that’s happening there that allows them to respond to that. So, could we do the same thing on a human and societal level? Like, could we apply that kind of approach and that kind of thinking to being able to understand how, I don’t know, better understand how hate speech propagates and be able to respond to it? I think we can. But, I think the fundamental problem is when those kinds of solutions fly in the face of your core business model. That’s where you get into trouble and that’s why you don’t have prioritization when it comes to that.

I think, for unintended consequences specifically, like, here at Artefact, we’re creating tools, like we have the Tarot Cards of Tech, and those are specifically questions about potential unintended consequences, right? So, I think if you, as you’re doing product design, or strategy, start asking ourselves those questions things like, What happens when 100 million people use your product? and sort of play out some of those scenarios, you should be able to respond to these things better, theoretically.

Chad:

Yeah.

Jp:

Coming from a small liberal arts school, like PLU where I teach, I think of it as it’s a liberal arts education. It is getting a little bit of everything, whether it be a study in a specific area, or a broad range of areas, or studying away, or fill in the blank.

Sheryl:

Yeah, so one thing that I’ve been working on lately is trying to figure out how to integrate systems thinking into our practice. And so, I think what that means for designers is using it as a method to understand the status quo. Like, what is happening now and was gone wrong, in order to potentially create solutions that would address some of the things that are happening or have happened. So, when I talk about systems thinking, I’m talking about creating maps that show causal loops between things and identifying root cause. I think that’s a good way, potentially, for designers to understand broad societal impact of the things that we’re working on. So, to know that there are other things at play as well, and not just, like, “Oh, when you design something it’s an interaction between a consumer and the company that you’re working for, there other things that are happening along the way that could affect basically, the eventual impact of whatever it is you’re designing.

So, for example, I worked with one of my colleagues last year on sort of the societal impact of social media, and we created a systems map around what that’s meant in order to be able to identify root cause. We took kind of an organic approach to it. And so, we talked to experts and did a lot of secondary research and investigated, kind of, the impact on the media and journalism, the impact on individuals, things like the hyper growth imperative of technology companies, and then, sort of boiled it down to root cause.

And, I think creating causal loops, like, gives you really good practice in understanding what becomes vicious and what doesn’t. And so, I think it’s definitely something that designers can practice in order to understand it’s not just about an individual user journey, like, we’re pretty good at creating experience journeys around someone’s personal interaction with a product. But what, kind of, thinking about things from a systems perspective allows you to do is to look at all these other inputs, whether it’s economic, or political, social, environmental, and apply these things to whatever it is that you’re trying to solve for now, and then pinpoint areas of potential intervention or places where design solutions would be meaningful.

Chad:

Yeah, I remember when I was in grad school and thinking about systems thinking. But, also reading about, like, wicked problems.

Sheryl:

Yes.

Chad:

Systems thinking is the tool to map out a wicked problem as much as possible, then to try and figure out where in that problem you’re choosing to make the intervention, and the potential up and downstream or interrelated consequences of that, or impacts.

Sheryl:

Right.

Chad:

I feel like our conversation turned heavy and deep, right? It’s so interesting, because my experience of you is not a heavy and deep person.

Sheryl:

(laughs)

Chad:

And so, one of my questions was like, obviously you spend a lot of your day thinking about some heavy things in some interesting areas that are widely changing, how do you stay positive?

Sheryl:

I don’t know. I kind of think my perspective is, we can be part of changing the trajectory. And, I don’t… I’m not even trying to be corny saying that. I think that’s why I’m so interested in working in the method space because I think a lot of us are thinking about these things, right? And, it’s really easy to be gloom and doom about all of it. But, I think part of what’s dangerous about, kind of, thinking that way is then you start asking questions like, “Well, if we can’t anticipate everything that will go wrong, why anticipate anything that’ll go wrong?” And, to me, I was like, “No.” I just wanna, like, shake these people’s shoulders and be like, “No, it’s your job to, like, figure it out. That’s actually a really great opportunity.” And, what I find is that a lot of people in our practice, they just don’t know where to begin. They just need a prompt, right? Which is why I like doing things. Like, the tarot cards are literally just prompts. They’re literally just questions. And, the idea is if you start by asking the right questions, that’s a pretty good start. But, I think it’s just literally giving them a starting point. And, I think that kind of keeps me going because I know everybody in this industry has the best of intentions. And so, let’s use that to actually create and shape the world in a way that we want to see it.

Chad:

Yeah, that’s wonderful.

Jp:

We like to conclude each episode of this season with a recommendation list from our guests.

Sheryl:

Oh my god.

Jp:

My recommendation requests are little lighthearted.

Sheryl:

Okay.

Jp:

According to your Artefact profile, you like Kung Fu movies. Can you recommend a couple of good Kung Fu movies to watch?

Sheryl:

Okay. So, I would say, for me the golden years of, kind of, Kung Fu movies was early Jet Li. So, I would say watch the Once Upon a time in China series. So, that’s, like, one, two, maybe not three—kind of corny. One and two, for sure. There’s some amazing fight scenes, including one that happens underneath a stage scaffolding. (laughs) So, it’s like whatever it is, like three feet high, and they’re fighting under there, which is amazing.

And, there is also a movie called Fong Sai-yok, which he was in in the early 90s. Jet Li is my favorite, by the way. Like, his early movies are just incredible. And, in that movie, he has, oh my god, it’s another fight scene in, like, a building scaffolding of bamboo. And, that’s with the mother of, I think, what becomes’s his eventual love interest. And, she is just, like, so bomb. And, it’s amazing. I would definitely recommend those and basically any old… Bruce Lee is like… Those are, like, the classics.

Chad:

What’s something, an article, book, anything, that you’ve read recently that you felt was really impactful, but you feel like hasn’t been read enough.

Sheryl:

I mean, I have one that I feel like is being read pretty widely right now, which is Anand Giridharadas’ Winners Take All. And, it’s about how corporate philanthropy has, kind of, taken over the world and we need to do something about it. I think it was one of those books that, kind of, changed my perspective on how the economy works right now.

I’m trying to think about anything else, I’ve read. I just finished reading Kat Holmes’ Mismatch. Any designer, I think, needs to read that. Basically, it sort of outlines the meaning of inclusive design. And, I think it’s really important for us to not get away from this idea of continuing to be human in our work. I think it’s really easy… Especially because I work, kind of, in the developing methods space. It’s really easy to get into the space of abstracting everything. And, I think that’s really dangerous. And, as long as we stay, like, really tight and connected to people and the problems that we’re solving, trying to solve from a human and people perspective, it’s hard for us to go wrong.

Jp:

I hear you love pens.

Sheryl:

I do. (laughs) Yes.

Jp:

What’s your favorite type of pen do you like?

Sheryl:

I love the PaperMate Flair. I have one right here.

Jp:

Yeah?

Sheryl:

That one is my favorite. I do a lot of sketch notes and it is, like, is the best for that. I also like Muji pens. When I’m looking for something that’s a little, uhh let’s say, like .5 millimeter or .35, I think the Muji pen is really good. So, whenever I’m near a Muji, I’ll just pick up, just stacks.

Yeah, so PaperMate Flair is my jam. But the one thing I don’t like about it is there aren’t refills, so. One thing that’s nice about Muji pens, especially the ones they sell in Japan, are they’re refillable. So, PaperMate Flair, make a refillable pen. I’ll feel like I’m wasting less plastic. But yeah, still my favorite pen.

Jp:

Do you have a recommendation for the best bike to get around Seattle in, especially with all the hills?

Sheryl:

Oh, I am… I am really bad at this question, just because I ride, like, an old steel bike from the 70s. And, basically because it’s an outdoor animal, I don’t really have to take care of it. I have a giant chain lock. I brought this bike from Holland with me and I… Basically, if the hill is steep enough, I’m walking up it. There’s a reason they’re called push bikes.

So, I would say get a nice, like, electric bike if you’re going to want to be biking everywhere up and down the hills in Seattle. If you’re a novice to biking, try to live or work near the Burke Gilman path ’cause it’s flat.

I do love the Lime bikes, though. Those are electric and so they’re pretty zippy. Cars, in Seattle, I think sometimes they seem like they actively want to kill you if you’re a cyclist. (laughs) So, always make eye contact, people, when you’re biking. (laughs)

Jp:

Sheryl, thank you so much for your time. Greatly appreciate it.

Sheryl:

Thank you. This was a lot of fun.

Chad:

Yeah!