Chart creators
Select data and check categories, series and ranges.
Goal: accurately express comparisons, change or proportions.
As lead designer for Zoom Sheets, I connected spreadsheet capabilities, AI assistance and onboarding into workflows people can keep using.
After bringing in data, people need to express relationships, establish rules, keep adding information and work with others. I organized core capabilities and AI assistance around this work.
I led the overall experience and design delivery across charts, conditional formatting, onboarding and data validation. I also unified UI styling across Sheets and Paper and drew and built the complete icon library.
User journey
This task framework connects the four features: charts express data, conditional formatting marks business conditions, onboarding starts real work, and data validation supports ongoing input and maintenance.
Interview notes pointed to importing existing data first. Chart feedback exposed mismatches between configuration and rendering. Formatting reviews documented color changes that did not work as expected. Validation analysis found that existing rule ranges could not be edited. I turned these signals into concrete problems and worked with PMs and engineers to define the solution and delivery scope.
People first need to understand which data the chart represents, then adjust its presentation. Both the data and the intended message continue to change after creation.
Select data and check categories, series and ranges.
Goal: accurately express comparisons, change or proportions.
Update ranges, names, axes or styling.
Goal: find the right control and preserve existing work.
User journey
When checking series, users encountered two configured series but only one rendered. Axis labels could not be recolored for dark backgrounds, while long cross-sheet references exceeded the panel space. These issues span data inspection, presentation and maintenance.
How can people understand how data becomes a chart, find the right setting and preserve their previous configuration?
Data organizes types, ranges, categories, series and aggregation. Format organizes titles, axes, legends and styles. Changing the data and changing its presentation become two clear editing tasks.
Represent ranges and names separately. Keep trendlines with their series and separate major and minor grids and ticks. Preserve custom names when the data range changes.
Cartesian charts need axes and multiple series; pie charts center on Category / Values; number charts focus on a key value and comparison. Remove irrelevant settings by type, prioritizing two frequently used non-Cartesian types in this iteration.
Both panels share Data / Format. Their internal controls follow each chart’s data relationships.
Repeated series names and the tooltip are part of the design example.
Long cross-sheet references, localized labels and varied backgrounds affect legibility. I refined display, hints and width with engineers and checked ECharts support. Selecting a chart object to locate its editor remained exploratory.
I owned the configuration framework, core panels, type-specific interactions and detailed design, working with PMs and engineers on scope and implementation constraints.
Color may be visible without its cause being clear. Maintaining an existing spreadsheet requires a path from the result back to the rule.
Select data and define thresholds, dates or combined conditions.
Goal: keep visual business rules current as data changes.
Notice a color, try changing it, then look for its condition and scope.
Goal: locate and update the rule driving the result.
User journey
While organizing feedback and bugs, I found that users applied their usual fill-color behavior without getting the expected change. Removing the toolbar entry also lengthened the path to editing. I grouped the issues around rule awareness, editing paths and capability gaps.
Why did this cell change color, which cells are affected, and where can I edit the rule?
Separate this work from table styles and focus on conditional formatting. Connect creation and management within existing entry constraints. The team jointly prioritized editing scenarios.
I proposed two layers: deterministic candidates for clear conditions and optional AI recommendations for complex expressions, while retaining native creation and editing.
Tips beside cells were close to the result but interfered with continuous reading, so they were dropped. This tradeoff kept explanation and editing needs grounded in the workflow.
Historical structural draft with placeholder copy.
For “mark actual values below their row targets in red,” the condition is =B2<C2. Read B2:C3 and apply to B2:B3. Users need to inspect the source, condition and affected cells before applying or adjusting.
Interactive example
| A | B · Actual | C · Target | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Item A | 82 | 100 |
| 3 | Item B | 112 | 100 |
| 4 | Item C | 91 | 100 |
| 5 | Item D | 106 | 100 |
Illustration: read B2:C3 · apply to B2:B3
I organized fragmented feedback into problems and priorities, proposed deterministic and AI-assisted layers, aligned scope and explanation choices, and confirmed key screens before completing the detailed design.
Some people arrive with a file, some want to explore, and others follow a shared link to collaborate. The first-use experience needs to support these different starting points.
Enter the product, find import and continue organizing or analyzing.
Goal: continue existing work.
Explore demonstrations, then choose how to begin.
Goal: understand the value and take a first action.
View or edit a specific spreadsheet.
Goal: finish the collaboration task; later proposals limit unrelated interruptions.
User journey
Interview notes showed that some people wanted to import existing data first. After understanding a capability, they still needed a route back to their work. Iterations also addressed the primary action, duplicate titles, visual overlap and narrow layouts.
How can new users understand the product’s value and begin from their own work?
The delivered flow moves from welcome to feature introduction to creation. Features can be explored selectively, while the primary action takes ready-to-start users directly to creation.
I personally created five feature animations showing sources, selections, entry points, processing feedback and results, alongside copy, navigation and narrow-screen refinements.
Creation retains blank sheets, import and templates. Bringing import to the home page supports existing files. Later occupation-and-behavior proposals connect task recommendations, opt-in demonstrations and separate practice sheets.
Each shows a separate task. Select a film and play it.
From meeting source to an editable artifact.
Skill entry, action choice and processing feedback.
References, waiting, explanation and accept or reject.
Selection, context menu and sidebar. Response data does not match the prior table; this illustrates entry and feedback only.
Let people select the work they do, then organize relevant tasks. Demonstrations are opt-in and use a separate sheet, preserving the real file. Occupation and proficiency weights are design hypotheses, not validated user segments.
I designed the flow and key screens, personally produced all five animations, and refined copy, visual overlap, navigation and narrow layouts through engineering handoff.
From managing rules in the current sheet to resolving selection and application scope, make it clear which rule changes and which cells are affected.
Define fields, dropdown options and input constraints.
Goal: establish consistent input rules.
Find rules, change conditions, adjust ranges and remove rules.
Goal: make targeted changes without affecting unrelated data.
Select or enter values in an existing table.
Goal: understand valid input and identify errors.
Group the current sheet’s rules in a sidebar, identified by type, condition and range. Separate creation from management; confirm bulk removal and clarify that cell values remain.
Keep type, condition and range together.
Edit a complete rule from the panel; create for the current selection from the grid.
Confirm removing all rules while preserving cell values.
Setting validation may create a rule, override part of one, or edit a complete rule. I separated paths by entry point and selection state to avoid arbitrary prefilled rules or unintended changes outside the selection.
Create a rule for the selected range.
Distinguish changes to the selection from changes to the full rule, including ranges narrowed inside the dialog.
Start without arbitrary rule values; apply the new condition to the chosen range and handle the overwritten portions.
The complete rule is the editing target; handle cells added, removed or overlapping other rules.
I mapped entry points, selections and existing rules into explicit states, designed the management panel and multi-range selector, and aligned overwrite and replacement behavior with product and engineering.
Entry usage did not change for charts, conditional formatting or data validation. After entering configuration, success rates improved, and average operation time fell for charts and formatting.
Relevant to data mapping, configuration organization and type-specific controls.
Relevant to rule understanding and the configuration workflow.
Beyond completing onboarding, track whether new users create files and use AI. The 16% figure is a conversion rate; the other two figures describe growth in creation and usage.
Relevant to completing rule configuration and maintenance.
Chart usage frequency increased 3.1%, with approximately 85% capability alignment with Google Sheets.
| Question | Calculation | Presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Is configuration easier to complete? | Successfully applied configurations / started configurations, deduplicated by attempt_id. Report the difference between rates in percentage points. | Charts +3, conditional formatting +4.5 and data validation +2 percentage points. |
| Are operations faster? | Measure from configuration start to successful application; handle background and idle time separately. Compare averages for consistently defined samples. | Average reductions of 2.2 seconds for charts and 3.1 seconds for conditional formatting. |
| How do entry and onboarding perform? | Examine eligible visits, exposure and opens separately. Measure onboarding conversion across the full onboarding flow. | Entry usage remained unchanged for the three features; full-flow onboarding conversion was 16%. |
My work spanned versions, the overall experience, critical features and shared design foundations. Product scale and business performance came from the team’s collective work.
MAU within one month of launch
Launched in July 2026
Paid-user share and positive-feedback rates exceeded other Zoom Suite product lines, with major-customer recognition and closed deals.
I translated feedback into experience problems the team could discuss, then into configuration structures, states, rules and delivery materials. Shared Sheets / Paper styling and the icon library supported consistency across contexts. Feature outcomes and overall growth are presented separately.
This experience sharpened my focus on what comes after generation: whether people can inspect sources, understand rules, edit the result and hand work to the next collaborator.
The difficulty of converting meeting activity directly into Sheets led me to explore task-specific entry points and reviewable structured outputs. A2A and RSU are independent design and implementation projects.
I led all brand and product experience design at Shimo with a team of three to four designers. AI explorations began with information types and input/output frameworks, keyword assistance and result flow, informing my later focus on tasks, context and maintaining results.
Independent design and implementation · local alpha
For the same meeting source, an internal assistant needs owner emails to assign tasks, while an external collaborator needs only tasks and dates. I designed and implemented permissions, retained fields, processing, output checks and delivery records.
User journey
Retains owner emails to assign local tasks in the synthetic example.
Removes owner fields and handles emails within the defined scope, retaining tasks and dates.
The local alpha demonstrates synchronous A2A messaging, connecting permission checks, recipient views and delivery records.
Independent design and implementation · local prototype
I narrowed the task to cost-basis reconciliation: deterministic rules perform calculations, while the product explains sources, lot matching, checks and limits. The output supports reviewing the process, not just reading a total.
User journey
Implemented cost-basis reconciliation and XLSX export with example cases, organizing matching rationale, source records and checks into a reviewable workbook.
From collaborative design in a complex product to independent implementation, I keep asking whether people can understand what the system has done and continue their work.
Continue exploring
Shimo Forms