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

291–300 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#291

Post by throwaway041207 »

tomashertus wrote: post #246
taylorlapeyre wrote: post #198

It really feels like Anthropic's product area is extremely overextended at this point. If they want to extend themselves horizontally in an unlimited fashion, they will need unlimited focus, and agents can't supply that. Things will fall through the cracks. Why should I believe that Anthropic will care about this product in 2, 3 years? Whereas I firmly believe that Figma will care greatly about its product in that ti…

Are they, though? My thinking is that their roadmap is heavily focused on the SDLC and solving problems related to software development, so their model will be optimized for that domain. That leaves room in the market for models that are specialized in other areas of expertise.

Agree. I'm building a software factory at my job right now that leverages Claude Code. It seems like almost daily Anthropic is releasing new products or features on existing products that seem to overlap with the factory I'm building. I still think my project provides a more coherent workflow from a SDLC standpoint, bringing an idea to a ticket, to a prompt, to a plan, and finally coding and creating a PR, but it definitely feels like Anthropic is heading in that direction as well. It'll be interesting if they eventually bring all of this together into a single uber tool.

Re: Claude Design

#292

Post by p_stuart82 »

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…

IMO it doesn't flatten design into one thing. it splits it. cheap obvious work at scale, and a way smaller premium tier for real authorship. the middle is what actually gets crushed.

Re: Claude Design

#293

Post by Thanemate »

jrimbault wrote: post #114
Fordec wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

True, but why would people use yet another lookalike tool over the one they're currently using? Or is the implication that looks don't matter as long as it works? Because if that's the case, Why do we need CSS?

Re: Claude Design

#294

Post by thewebguyd »

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…

Agreed. I only make internal tools where I work, and homogeneity is great here. These apps should be the most boring apps, yet clear, easy to use, and importantly, consistent across the company.

Bootstrap was great for this. You got a clean web interface that was simple, yet didn't have to be completely ugly. Basic and functional. A form to submit POs doesn't have to stand out, be glassy, or have animations. It needs to be easy to parse and stay out of the way.

Re: Claude Design

#295

Post by AstroBen »

conradkay wrote: post #271
nate8bit wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's because it's non-deterministic too. You can't iteratively improve design the same way you can code.

If they wanted couldn't they do something like RLHF? Instead of humans picking the best of 2 text outputs, they pick the best rendered design

I'd be very surprised if they're not already doing this.

Re: Claude Design

#296

Post by mickeyp »

Growtika wrote: post #199

For my agency this won't replace Figma or designers. It's just a really useful tool to express yourself and communicate intent. Before these tools, when a client wanted a specific section built, we'd spend hours hunting references across the web. The output always ended up feeling like a mesh of 2-3 sites, never fully unique. Then we'd burn more time explaining the intent to the client's designers and devs, usually w…

Indeed. Kitbashing is a thing, and it was always a thing. Designers I worked with would spend hours doomscrolling pinterest, google images, etc. looking for their, uh... 'spark' when they were given a briefing.

This is just a really cool way of building.

I'm impressed. I tried Google Stitch but it was slow and useless. Sad, because Gemini has a pretty good creative flair, ironically enough.

Re: Claude Design

#297

Post by mathisfun123 »

pilgrim0 wrote: post #285

On Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Alexander defines design as the rationalization of the forces that define a problem. You’ll won’t find a better definition. But people tend to think design is the synthesis and its results. This misunderstanding of the role of design and the designer is responsible for all the unfit designs we encounter on a daily basis. Anyone equipped with a synthesis tool and feeling empowered to…

> because of the truly marvelous human experiences that they’ll miss

when people wax philosophical/poetical about what is essentially capital production already i'm always so perplexed - do you not realize that you're not doing art/you're not an artisan? your labor is always actively being transformed into a product sold on a market. there are no "marvelous human experiences", there is only production and consumption.

> They’ll be impoverished and confuse output with agency

ironic.

Re: Claude Design

#298

Post by 3sdfs »

recitedropper wrote: post #16
hmokiguess wrote: post #8

Who’s the end user for this? I struggle to relate but then again I also don’t use Figma so I may not be the target demographic I have been doing fine just instructing Claude code to use Tailwind and reference design documents

Seems to me like Anthropic is desperately trying to find as many product-market fits as possible before they IPO. They're reaching a chaotic weekly release cadence--each new product chockful of unclear, overlapping capability with their previous. Combine that with the obvious hackernews manipulation that somehow gets each and every haphazard release instantly to the top, and you can see they're starting to feel some…

Correct they're trying to bamboozle the stock market.

Im looking at this product and thinking - so...? Where's the vision?

Oh there is none. Its about spraying and praying that the hype continues and feeding off analysts who don't really understand most of the firms that they spend all day studying the valuation of.

Re: Claude Design

#299

Post by Bombthecat »

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 is more to design then just buttons and colour... Like menus, options, how, where, when etc.

But I reckon, nobody cares. Just let Claude decide and go with it... Sad state for UX designers / researchers.

Re: Claude Design

#300

Post by 3sdfs »

pembrook wrote: post #225

I disagree with most of the takes here. The reason this will fail has nothing to do with design, designers, or taste. This will fail because it's already a forgotten side project within anthropic, and anthropic also has pretty bad product DNA as a company. Their headcount is already too large and the culture is already set. They grew revenue so fast they speedran the stage at which you could build software product ch…

" the actual AI models and B2B sales."

Maybe they realised its actually a dead-end? Why else would you not double-down and concentrate resources? This would be an amateur error if it turned out to be true.

Post reply on HN