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

411–420 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#411

Post by jjcm »

bauerd wrote: post #336
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…

They are building infrastructure components that they will soon wire together with an orchestration layer. Managed agents, scheduled tasks, workflow webhook automation.

Unifying experiences and tying them together is always harder than net new. It's the GRRM problem - expanding out the universe is easy, wrapping it up on the other hand...

Re: Claude Design

#412

Post by jimbokun »

thewebguyd wrote: post #289
jerf wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when people would vigorously complain that Toolkit X was simply unsuitable for any task because it did not conform to the operating system's standard visual appearance. Now I struggle to even define what an "operating system's standard visual appearance" is. Apple's still the best but not what they used to be on that front even so.

I'll still die on this hill, but I think that the reason there's a computer literacy problem is because we moved away from following OS conventions (when they existed) and into bespoke, branded UIs for everything, and then eventually to web where every site and webapp behaves differently. In the early days, if you learned the OS, those usage patterns and skilled transferred to every app on that OS. They all looked ro…

Notice that several examples in the Claude Design demo video are typing in English things that could be accomplished through UI controls, if the user only knew where to find them.

Re: Claude Design

#413

Post by gfat »

nunodonato wrote: post #231
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…

> Impressive technology, but that old skool artisanal weirdness of yore only becomes more valuable and nostalgic. but does it still exists? Even without AI everyone is utilizating the same css frameworks, same libraries and templates... design is pretty much boring these days. CSS Zen Garden anyone?

The small web still has a unique soul to it. dimden.dev is a good example.

Re: Claude Design

#414

Post by pixel_popping »

ossa-ma wrote: post #30

The more I think about it the more this isn't good for design [EDIT], for a few reasons: - The best design is original, groundbreaking and often counterintuitive. An AI model is incapable of that, it's uninspired, it will absolutely converge to the norm and homogeneity (you see it everywhere now, just scroll on ShowHN and take a look at the UIs) and produce the safest design that appeals to its understanding of the i…

why would an AI model not capable of doing something unique? That's literally false.

Re: Claude Design

#415

Post by voidfunc »

slopinthebag wrote: post #209
voidfunc wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homogenous design is a good thing. The internet isn't nearly homogeneous enough actually. The mid-90s desktop apps got it right and we've been regressing ever since then because web designers are like kids with crayons.

The early web was filled with wacky and unique websites and it's a ubiquitously loved period of the internet.

The web was, the desktop... less so. Not until the late 90's when stuff started to get wacky.

Re: Claude Design

#416

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

monarchwadia wrote: post #334
CaptWillard wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I assure you, working with LLMs is intellectually challenging, and becomes more so as the technology matures.

/s/intellectually/emotionally

Re: Claude Design

#417

Post by jimbokun »

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…

I think many companies need a UX professional to stop developers from deploying bespoke interfaces and forcing them to follow whatever idioms and patterns the users are most familiar with.

Re: Claude Design

#418

Post by siva7 »

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.

If we expect Anthropic not only trying to replace just all software developers with Claude, but also all software product companies with Claude, then i really wanna know why the fuck are we cheering here for Anthropic on Hacker News? What kind of dumb sheep would do this?

Re: Claude Design

#419

Post by mathisfun123 »

jimbokun wrote: post #408
mathisfun123 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So the definition of art is work except you don’t get paid?

[dead]

Re: Claude Design

#420

Post by jimbokun »

rustystump wrote: post #232
soraki_soladead wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is also no pride. Is the pride not in solving the users' problems? > nobody talks about it, treats it with interest, or pays above market rate to work on it. Definitely needs a citation for this one. For so many products the user isn't paying for standout design. They're paying for insight, leverage, velocity, convenience, whatever. The market definitely supports this by paying above market salaries. Good des…

To prove the above person’s point, sap and salesforce have some of the most notoriously bad ux in the market and yes they make bank. Design is much harder for power user tools compared to consumer. There is far more complexity and the expectation often is users must be trained to even use the tool. Design only goes so far.

Those are the kind of domains where LLMs as an interface should kick ass.

Describe the idea of what you want to do, not the inscrutable steps the application requires to get there.

Post reply on HN