Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Design

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#111

Post by ilikecakeandpie »

mjr00 wrote: post #55
ljm wrote: post #18

I reckon something like this has only been possible to develop because of how homogenous the internet has become in terms of design ever since the glass effect and drop-shadows took over in Web 2.0 and Twitter Bootstrap entered the scene. You'll get a competent UI with little effort but nothing truly unique or mind-blowing. Impressive technology, but that old skool artisanal weirdness of yore only becomes more valuab…

There's no shame in being homogenous and obvious, though. If I'm building out an internal tool for, say, a hospital lawyer to search through malpractice lawsuits, I want my tool to be the most familiar, obvious, least-surprising UI/UX possible. Just stay out of the way and do what it's supposed to do. The trick is, of course, that the human is still responsible for knowing when homogenous is fine, or when there's rea…

There's a real problem with everything looking the same though. For a consumer product, you lose brand recognition. For a B2B product, you can confuse your users because Tool A and Tool B look exactly the same. You have to look hard at the name, kind of like prescription pill bottles.

Re: Claude Design

#112

Post by weatherfun »

alpb wrote: post #52
albert_e wrote: post #2

is this the Figma/Canva/Powerpoint/Keynote killer?

This largely appears to be a HTML generator at its core, not necessarily what Figma does with layers/canvases etc. There's no collaborative nature to it either. It feels like a lightly designed product that moves claude CLI to their backend, generates the HTMLs and renders them in browser on claude.ai website for you. Sure, it accepts your design system as an input from you or imports from your repo, but you could fe…

The IBM/Microsoft analogy is a classic. It’s always fascinating to watch these 'frenemy' dynamics play out. In these cases, the one who owns the direct interface with the end-user usually wins the long game, while the 'infrastructure' partner risks becoming just another utility. Will be interesting to see if Canva can maintain its identity or just become a shell for Claude's output.

Re: Claude Design

#113

Post by cortesoft »

mikeaskew4 wrote: post #11

Thumbs down. Great design is original thought. AI is wholly incapable of that. Go ahead and roast me.

Sure, great design is original thought.

Is there also a place in the world for not-great-but-good-enough design?

Re: Claude Design

#114

Post by jrimbault »

Fordec wrote: post #92
mjr00 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no shame in being homogenous and obvious, though. If I'm building out an internal tool for, say, a hospital lawyer to search through malpractice lawsuits, I want my tool to be the most familiar, obvious, least-surprising UI/UX possible. Just stay out of the way and do what it's supposed to do. The trick is, of course, that the human is still responsible for knowing when homogenous is fine, or when there's rea…

Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride. Standardized interfaces are as exciting as kettle thermal switches or physical knobs in cars. Useful, probably optimal and will be around for decades to come. Also nobody talks about it, treats it with interest, or pays above market rate to work on it. The value becomes the architecture of the value of the tool, not the interface. There is still value being…

> Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride.

But there's is "pride" in making tools people actually use without issue

Re: Claude Design

#115

Post by enraged_camel »

Fordec wrote: post #92
mjr00 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no shame in being homogenous and obvious, though. If I'm building out an internal tool for, say, a hospital lawyer to search through malpractice lawsuits, I want my tool to be the most familiar, obvious, least-surprising UI/UX possible. Just stay out of the way and do what it's supposed to do. The trick is, of course, that the human is still responsible for knowing when homogenous is fine, or when there's rea…

Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride. Standardized interfaces are as exciting as kettle thermal switches or physical knobs in cars. Useful, probably optimal and will be around for decades to come. Also nobody talks about it, treats it with interest, or pays above market rate to work on it. The value becomes the architecture of the value of the tool, not the interface. There is still value being…

>> Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride.

I disagree completely. The pride should come from the value that is delivered. Specifically, this:

>> Useful, probably optimal and will be around for decades to come.

Is something to be proud of, full stop.

Re: Claude Design

#116

Post by jayd16 »

mpeg wrote: post #104
jayd16 wrote: post #86

So how much of this is fully generated vs AI running through all the knobs on template widgets? Is that globe made from whole cloth or is there a bespoke "telecom globe" widget that it dropped in? Could I ask for mock up of molecules with the same fidelity of knobs, down to nucleus size and such?

It's generated, when you try it you can see this is mostly a harness around claude opus 4.7 that helps it create a good design plan, it also supports asking you questions as it goes along, letting you review and feedback on mockups, etc, but ultimately if you look at what it's generating as it does it – it's just code

"Its just code" is meaningless to me. Is the code its generating using mostly well known widgets with predefined knobs, or is every element completely custom and the knobs are created on the spot with slightly different naming and function every time?

I actually think I would prefer the more boring "it composes well known widgets" because then there's a chance I could just use this to generate a presentation layer and integrate it instead of new blobs of code I need to essentially reverse engineer or remake.

Re: Claude Design

#117

Post by codegeek »

ljm wrote: post #18

I reckon something like this has only been possible to develop because of how homogenous the internet has become in terms of design ever since the glass effect and drop-shadows took over in Web 2.0 and Twitter Bootstrap entered the scene. You'll get a competent UI with little effort but nothing truly unique or mind-blowing. Impressive technology, but that old skool artisanal weirdness of yore only becomes more valuab…

"Twitter Bootstrap". Havent heard that term for years. The OG of CSS frameworks.

Re: Claude Design

#118

Post by rvz »

GenerWork wrote: post #64

If you look at Figmas stock price, it started falling right at 11 AM as this news was released. Anyways, this is 100% a shot at Figma, but also catching Lovable in the crossfire. If anybody from Anthropic is reading this, if you keep developing this with features in Figma and other design tools, you'll have a major hit on your hands.

This tells me that Lovable is certainly not worth $6.6B.

Re: Claude Design

#119

Post by atonse »

coder543 wrote: post #27
atonse wrote: post #20

I've been spending the last two days building a large number of mockups for a new product. Literally the last two days. I'm wondering how i can CONTINUE that in this design thing, can i import something? Because they show it the other way... you can start and edit, and then export to claude code. Until then, I guess it's back to just using CC

From the page: > Import from anywhere. Start from a text prompt, upload images and documents (DOCX, PPTX, XLSX), or point Claude at your codebase. You can also use the web capture tool to grab elements directly from your website so prototypes look like the real product.

Thank you, I should RTFA next time.

Re: Claude Design

#120

Post by chasd00 »

mikeaskew4 wrote: post #11

Thumbs down. Great design is original thought. AI is wholly incapable of that. Go ahead and roast me.

> Great design is original thought

not really, great design in a web application is no surprises.

Post reply on HN