Feature idea: Card mass as a visual signal

[JD-Shipit]

Hi Fizzy users,
I’ve been thinking about an idea that fits what Fizzy does best:
You shouldn’t have to dig for context.
The board itself should tell you how things stand at a glance.

Right now there’s one important thing that’s hard to see without clicking into cards:
the relative weight or impact of each card.

A board often contains a mix of big rocks and small pebbles.
On a house-build board, “Build the rough structure” and “Connect the taps” are both valid cards, but they are not the same kind of work and they do not have the same impact.

I am not necessarily talking about “size” in terms of time spent, estimates, or S/M/L labels.
Those can be proxies, and I have even suggested time as one option in different topic.
What I really mean is impact or importance, the density of a card.

Example

A tricky bug fix might take the same amount of time as a small new feature.
But the bug affects only a handful of clients, while the feature helps many.
Same “size” by time, completely different impact for the product.

The problem I am trying to solve

When everything looks identical on the board, it is easy to:

• lose sight of what will actually move the project forward
• underestimate how much meaningful work remains
• treat large tasks like small ones
• spend extra time clicking around just to orient yourself

The core problem

We want a lightweight visual signal that communicates card “weight” at a glance,
so the board reads like a landscape, not a list of equal-looking items.

This is not about process, reporting, or turning Fizzy into an estimation system.
It is about board-level clarity, and it has to be visual and obvious on first glance.

Two ideas on how to approach it

I ended up with two concepts that solve the same problem in different ways.

Direction 1: Mass and Gravity (a more experimental approach)

This direction is inspired by physics.

Think in terms of mass and density:

• Objects can have the same size but very different mass
• Mass does not have to make things bigger, but it creates gravitational pull
• At the extreme, a singularity does not grow outward at all. It collapses inward and pulls everything toward it

Cards do not get bigger.
Instead, the board subtly reacts to their mass.

States

Low
Normal work, no special gravitational effect.
The card looks exactly as it does today.
If all cards are Low, the board is unchanged.

High
High mass, big impact, noticeable weight.
The card itself stays flat and unchanged.
The immediate space around it subtly compresses.
A gentle, symmetrical gradient, barely noticeable unless you are scanning.
The card feels heavy, not flashy.

Singularity
A card so important that it bends the local space of the board.
The card slightly collapses inward.
Its edges are gently curved inward.
The surrounding space visually pulls toward its center.
It communicates: “This is the center of gravity right now.”

The signal is unmistakable.

Strengths

• Very distinctive and original
• Communicates importance without changing card size or layout
• Creates a strong mental model: impact as gravitational force and mass

Risks

• More experimental and abstract
• Requires very careful visual tuning to stay subtle and calm
• Needs consideration of light and dark mode, ideally staying monochromatic
• Easier to overdo if not tightly constrained

Few rough visual concepts:

Direction 2: Card Thickness (a more conservative approach)

This direction is more literal and grounded.

Think of cards as physical objects:

• some are thin sheets of paper
• some are thicker cardboard
• some are solid blocks

They all have the same footprint.
They live in the same grid.
They do not move or reorder anything.

They simply carry more visual weight.

States

Pebble (default)
Looks exactly like today’s card.
No added visual weight.

Rock
A subtle base appears under the card.
Feels like a thicker piece of material.
Clearly heavier, but still calm.

Boulder
A more pronounced base.
Feels solid and substantial.
Instantly distinguishable at a glance.

Thicker means more impactful.

In my opinion, this is the more conservative approach, but also very effective.
It communicates the information immediately and adds meaning without asking the user to look for it.

Strengths

• Extremely easy to read
• Very low cognitive load
• Works well on dense boards
• Hard to misuse

Risks

• Less conceptually distinctive than the gravity model

Few rough visual concepts:

What “good” looks like (for both directions)

• The board communicates “big rock vs pebble” without opening cards
• The signal is calm and unobtrusive, no clutter, no rainbow labels
• It is easy to apply and hard to misuse, few choices, no rules
• It works on mixed boards with 20+ cards, readable in seconds
• Turning the feature off returns the board to today’s look
• If no mass or thickness is assigned, nothing changes

Who benefits

Teams

• Quickly spot the few truly impactful pieces of work and make better “what fits” decisions.
• Helps teams align and focus on what actually matters.
• Can even identify the epicenters of a project.

Individuals

• Keep perspective on what is substantial versus what is just a quick finish.
• Helps self-manage the two phases of planning and doing.
• Once planning is done, the board makes it obvious what to focus on.

Wrapping up

I do not have the perfect answer yet for how this should look, but I think the problem is worth solving.

Done well, either of these directions could make Fizzy feel even more unique:
a board you can truly read without clicking around.

If you would like, I am happy to explore either direction further
or help narrow this down.

Thanks for considering this.