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

321–330 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#321

Post by zormino »

spyckie2 wrote: post #278
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…

It is officially the 2010 Google era at Anthropic (the era where Google released tons of new products and spread themselves too thin). Anyone remember Google's social media platform??? Google Plus? This is a good era to be in! Its the era of product experimentation. As long as you realize that 90% of the products will not be supported long term if it doesn't contribute to bottom line revenue, then just appreciate it…

You mean you aren't still using Google Duo and Allo? Google Reader? Playing games on your Stadia? I'd be worried about really locking into a specific Anthropic product at this point other than Claude Code

Re: Claude Design

#322

Post by moregrist »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #297
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…

> 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.

The first time I used Mac OS/X, circa 2004-2005, I was blown away by the design and how they managed to expose the power of the underlying Unix-ish kernel without making it hurt for people who didn't want that experience. My SO couldn't have cared less about Terminal.app, but loved the UI. I also loved the UI and appreciated how they took the time to integrate cli tools with it.

I would say it was a marvelous human experience _for me_.

Sure it was the Apple engineers' and designers' labor transformed into a product, but it was a fucking great product and something that I'm sure those teams were very proud of. The same was true with the the iPod and the iPhone.

I work on niche products, so I've never done something as widely appreciated as those examples, but on the products I've worked on, I can easily say that I really enjoy making things that other people want to use, even if it's just an internal tool. I also enjoy getting paid for my labor. I've found that this is often a win-win situation.

Work doesn't have to be exploitive. Products don't have to exploit their users.

Viewing everything through the lens of production and consumption is like viewing the whole world as a big constraint optimization problem: (1) you end up torturing the meaning of words to fit your preconceived ideas, and (2) by doing so you miss hearing what other people are saying.

Re: Claude Design

#323

Post by eric_cc »

bauerd wrote: post #309
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…

This is a really verbose way to say that using generative AI has a detrimental effect on the user because one deprives themselves of the learning experience.

What if you’re a musician and use design as part of your marketing? Why should a musician deep dive design when they really only care about music?

Re: Claude Design

#324

Post by CaptWillard »

nightski wrote: post #316
bauerd wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really verbose way to say that using generative AI has a detrimental effect on the user because one deprives themselves of the learning experience.

Agreed on your take on the parent, although I have to say I feel that AI has had the opposite effect for me. It has only accelerated learning quite significantly. In fact not only is learning more effective/efficient, I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues.

Big difference between gaining knowledge and building/maintaining cognitive skills.

Re: Claude Design

#325

Post by prmph »

Thanemate wrote: post #293
jrimbault wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

the beauty is in the consistency.

why do we build with right angles, straight lines, regular curves, etc? Why not random angles, crooked lines, etc for style and "excitement"?

Why don't we assemble a furniture set from a random assortment of pieces from flea markets? People sense that that is ugly.

Re: Claude Design

#326

Post by AIorNot »

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…

Creativity is a very big part of design, these Gen AI tools allow for stepping through a lot of variations and creative ideas very quickly, even creating working artifacts and protoypes on the fly and iterating rapidly

This speed and variation wins for me. But yes without a designers eye laziness can get lost in slop design too..

To me the value of Gen Ai is an accelerant (not slop factory) for ideation and solutions not a replacement of the human owning the process.. but laziness ususally wins

Re: Claude Design

#327

Post by nekooooo »

eric_cc wrote: post #319
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…

> I feel sorry for anyone that will think using tools equals doing design, because of the truly marvelous human experiences that they’ll miss, and that could never be replaced by the shallow pride of empty achievement. What if you don’t give a shit about design and it’s a means to an end for a project that involves something different that you do care about?

how nihlistic

Re: Claude Design

#328

Post by eric_cc »

Bilal_io wrote: post #109
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.

The folks at Wall Street do not understand this does not replace Figma. Figma is targeted towards designers who create thoughtful design systems and cohesive UIs and who don't code, while this is targeted towards vibe coders who can't design. Two different circles that intersect to some level. But like you said, if anthropic adds the tools in Figma, only then they can can take customers from Figma IMO.

> does not replace Figma

Not entirely but I would use this and not Figma. I am passionate about system design not visual design so I don’t want to waste time in figma.

Re: Claude Design

#329

Post by mathisfun123 »

moregrist wrote: post #322
mathisfun123 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. The first time I used Mac OS/X, circa 2004-2005, I was blown away by the design and how they managed to expose the power of the underlying Unix-ish kernel without making it hurt for people who didn't want that experience. My SO couldn't have cared les…

> Sure it was the Apple engineers' and designers' labor transformed into a product, but it was a fucking great product and something that I'm sure those teams were very proud of. The same was true with the the iPod and the iPhone.

...

> Work doesn't have to be exploitive. Products don't have to exploit their users.

bruh do people have any idea what they're writing as they write it? you're talking about "work doesn't have to be [exploitative]" in the same breath as Apple which is the third largest market cap company in the world and who's well known for exploiting child labor to produce its products. like has this comment "jumped the shark"?

> Viewing everything through the lens of production and consumption

i don't view everything through any lens - i view work through the lens of work (and therefore production/consumption). i very clearly delineated between this lens and at least one other lens (art).

Post reply on HN