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

501–510 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#501

Post by aniceperson »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #264
Bilal_io wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All Figma has spent the last 2 years doing is trying to get designers to use their Cursor/Claude Code text to code app. Not convinced Figma cares about traditional design craft anymore.

Figma was never needed. they were useful when enterprises allowed people with no coding experience to mandate how ui should look. It is the powerpoint of dumb people that wanted a career in tech. happy to see it dying.

Re: Claude Design

#502

Post by skydhash »

timcarlock wrote: post #398
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 agree, though I'd offer a counter-point to the implied idea that tools like this stifle exploration and creativity. I'm an engineer who also loves design. I've read a lot of the books (including the one referenced), I know some concepts and terminology, and I understand the general process — but I'll never be a professional designer. My knowledge is limited, and I find most design tools so complex they actually get…

The issue is that UI design has different constraints compared to general graphic design, just like product design is not sculplture. Most UI designers only care about the visual aspects while neglecting the interactive aspect.

A whiteboard or a wireframing software would be better, because it lets you focus first on the interactive part. And once that’s solved, the visual part is easier.

Re: Claude Design

#504

Post by ShroudedNight »

bombcar wrote: post #263
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 don't remember people complaining about Winamp being a non-standard UI, but if it were slow then there'd be tons of complaints - and many of the "fancy" UIs were terribly slow (or the programs were, hard for a user to tell the difference).

Quite the opposite, people worked very, very hard to make Winamp even more non-standard via skinning.

Re: Claude Design

#505

Post by docmars »

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.

I think the target market for this is small businesses wanting to throw together quick concepts without needing to hire a contractor necessarily. This smells more like Squarespace and what they did for brochure websites / portfolios than anything else, but perhaps more general purpose.

Re: Claude Design

#506

Post by jbs789 »

bombcar wrote: post #263
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 don't remember people complaining about Winamp being a non-standard UI, but if it were slow then there'd be tons of complaints - and many of the "fancy" UIs were terribly slow (or the programs were, hard for a user to tell the difference).

didn't winamp look like an... amp?

Re: Claude Design

#508

Post by SwellJoe »

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…

If you want to be creative, you should make art. I love art. I think it's a great idea for people to make art.

If you want to make a GUI, it should be familiar. Extremely familiar. It shouldn't invent new ways to interact most of the time.

It is well-known that "intuitive" in UX almost always means "what I'm used to". If you're regularly "innovating" in UI design, you may be making the product harder to use, maybe much harder to use.

It certainly isn't unheard of for new ways to interact with computers to be better than the old, but they are usually tied to new physical aspects of our tools: Touchscreens needed new ways to interact, and maybe there's still some room for creativity there, but not much. The mouse obviously required innovative ideas for several years. But, also, the odds of your wacky new idea being the right way to change how people interact with computers are pretty low, unless you're working at FAANG and have a UX research team and budget to test it.

You can get creative in how it looks, but you cannot get creative in how it works.

Re: Claude Design

#510

Post by rTX5CMRXIfFG »

ossa-ma wrote: post #103
gpt5 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're arguing for familiarity in tactful design, while I agree that for most users this is a good thing, repeatability of existing patterns does create that immediate familiarity. HOWEVER, that familiarity is only a virtue because someone, once, deviated hard enough that their deviation became the new familiar. AI can only optimise toward the current snapshot of "familiar". It cannot produce the next one. If designe…

> someone, once, deviated hard enough that their deviation became the new familiar

That’s not necessarily what happened though. Apple innovated not out of sheer daring but because they also had the best metaphysical paradigm for GUIs that people could also just intuitively grasp. There was a structural correctness to their approach, underlying all the things that we find visually appealing. In the beginning, Google dared and deviated hard from Apple’s design language to establish their own unique identity, but anyone who’s working in the mobile space would Have noticed that Android coalesced into roughly the same patterns over time because of that structural correctness.

Post reply on HN