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

421–430 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#421

Post by idle_zealot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #399
idle_zealot wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating the problem with using AI for everything. You used to have to either care enough to do the design yourself or find someone who cared and specialized in that to do it for you. Now you quickly and cheaply fill in the parts you don't per…

> You used to have to either care enough to do the design yourself or find someone who cared and specialized in that to do it for you. You think most UI/UX designers, or the artists creating slop for content marketing spam factories for the past decades, cared? Some, maybe. Most probably had higher ambitions, but are doing what actually pays their bills. It's similar to software developers. Most of those being paid t…

I think the more you industrialize a process, the more those involved become cogs (or get replaced with actual or metaphorical cogs in a machine). This is fine, even desirable, for anything we can produce en masse and apply quality control to. I do not mind that my rivets and screws are not artisanal. We figured out how to make a useful and reliable widget and can churn them out on an industrial scale no problem. I do not see the value in doing the same with software. We already get mass-production for free because the product is bytes. Why are we industrializing the process of making millions of variations of the same thing? Surely the effort would be better spent finding the "screw" of software, perfecting it, and making it trivial for users to accomplish whatever task they want without having to generate the gaps between with untested code. I want modularity and better design, not automated design.

Re: Claude Design

#422

Post by whatever1616 »

gpt5 wrote: post #48
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…

> The best design is original, groundbreaking and often counterintuitive Designing a user inteface involves thousands of small decisions. When trading off pros/cons for each of these decisions, in 99% of the cases, the right answer is ‘optimize familiarity. That’s why Android and iOS look the same, and why the small differences between them are where contention happen. If you adopt existing patterns, your users would…

When you aim for familiarity you also make the assumption that someone else's judgement and opinion was and is the correct one, when you question the assumed only then can you make meaningful improvements. See the iphone which was totally different to the "standard" phones of its time.

Re: Claude Design

#423

Post by pilgrim0 »

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?

Balancing requirements to achieve something you care about is doing design. I take that by “design” here you mean perhaps a particular interface or media, and you reckon that such element is not critical to your solution. If that’s the case then there’s no conflict at all. By reaching that conclusion you isolated what’s important and are correctly applying energy where it matters. This happens a lot in design, where producing or perfecting media interfaces is not necessary.

Re: Claude Design

#424

Post by leptons »

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.

I find it intellectually exhausting to describe to a machine what I want, when I could build something better in the same amount of time, and it isn't for lack of understanding how the LLM works.

It takes a lot of cajoling to get an LLM to produce a result I want to use. It takes no cajoling for me to do it myself.

The only time "AI" helps is in domains that I am unfamiliar with, and even then it's more miss than hit.

Re: Claude Design

#425

Post by dannyw »

npilk wrote: post #62
ej88 wrote: post #7

This is cool! Seems like Claude is actually building almost like a layered Figma wireframe that you can do fine grained adjustments afterwards (e.g. adjust font size). Interesting that Canva provided a quote of support. I'm not familiar with the differentiation, but it seems like this will directly siphon customers from Canva, right?

There's an "export to Canva" button in Claude Design, so perhaps they're hoping this will be another entry point for new users, or that they'll be able to "lock in" as the default design software for Claude users.

(I lead AI Products at Canva :)

Our mission is to empower the world to design, and we believe in making Canva available in every place where ideas begin. Being the most interoperable platform creates mutually better products, more value for community, and more value and growth for our company.

We've been working closely with Anthropic for many years, and we see this as complementary. Our MCP, integrations, and plugins have already introduced millions of new users to the full power of Canva, and we're excited to continue doubling down here.

Re: Claude Design

#426

Post by florakel »

For me it was the missing piece when working with Claude Code. I am a PM by formation so neither do I know how to design nor do I know how to code but I am pretty good at describing what I want and why. I just played with Claude Design for a while and it made it really easy to explore different solutions, reorganize the interface, adjust little detail with the "comment" function, move buttons around, etc. Then export to Claude code including the design system, and I spend way less time writing a spec and can focus more on corner cases and the ugly details. 2 years ago I still had to hire a freelance designer and a developer for small projects, now for the fraction of the cost I am totally independent and can iterate as much as I want. We always mention that "the design is not unique" or "the software architecture is not clean and the code to verbose" - I get it I managed Series C startup product teams before I got sick of the VC shit show. Now I am working mostly with lifestyle businesses and SMBs that have the ambition to be profitable - and average is good enough for them. They gain access to custom designed software for specific use cases which was completely out of reach for them 3 years ago. Custom solutions meant working with mediocre, overpriced agencies creating "solutions" with Wordpress. Anything I can do with the Claude stack is on higher level at a fraction of the cost. And as long as it works and looks good those business don't give a ** about unique design and scalable software engineering.

Re: Claude Design

#427

Post by senordevnyc »

ossa-ma wrote: post #152
ctoth wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ... This is simply not true. I use a screen reader. I am using it right now. I can confirm that AI-generated code, by default, is far, far more accessible, cares far more about keyboard nav, about DOM order, about using the right semantic HTML, about the things that I care about than your average human-designed slop. And no, it doesn't just add ARIA to everything as is so typical by poor practitioners.

I think we're arguing two different points. You're arguing about implementation, AI is great at this given the existing defaults and the right prompting. AI was trained on 30+ years of accessibility standards that a minority of great humans fought to establish as a familiar practice. I'm arguing about invention. It is extremely unlikely that AI will be the one to invent the next accessibility paradigm, because that r…

It is extremely unlikely that AI will be the one to invent the next accessibility paradigm, because that requires deviating from the training distribution, which it CAN'T DO.

What is it about our own architecture that lets us innovate beyond our training distribution?

Re: Claude Design

#428

Post by lo_zamoyski »

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.

> I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues.

It is a truism that the majority of effort and time a software dev spends is allocated toward boilerplate, plumbing, and other tedious and intellectually uninteresting drudgery. LLMs can alleviate much of that, and if used wisely, function as a tool for aiding the understanding of principles, which is ultimately what knowledge concerns, and not absorbing the mind in ephemeral and essentially arbitrary fluff. In fact, the occupation hazard is that you'll become so absorbed in some bit of minutia, you'll forget the context you were operating in. You'll forget what the point of it all was.

Life is short. While knowing how to calculate mentally and/or with pen and paper is good for mastering principles and basic facility (the same is true of programming, btw), no one is clamoring to go back to the days before the calculator. There's a reason physicists would outsource the numerical bullshit to teams of human computers.

Re: Claude Design

#429

Post by gretch »

eric_cc wrote: post #323
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.

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?

Presumably you care about the quality of your marketing. Otherwise why do it at all. Worst case scenario, your marketing turns people off to your music, who would have otherwise been listeners.

Actually there’s some interesting problems here because a huge part of music marketing is in a visual medium, like a poster or album cover. It is literally impossible to include a clip of your sound.

So you should be really interested in how to capture the “vibe” of your music in a visual medium.

But if you don’t care at all whether ppl actually listen to your music, then yeah you don’t have to deep dive.

Post reply on HN