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

571–580 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#571

Post by enraged_camel »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #551
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…

> It's not replacing designers. Except it is. Plenty of places will say this is all good enough and not hire, or even lay off, the UI/UX person. I've seen this firsthand.

Yeah, agreed. And realistically they are correct. I’d argue that “good enough” is how most things are done.

Re: Claude Design

#572

Post by [deleted] »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #510
ossa-ma wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Design

#573

Post by jakehop »

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…

I get your point _and_ I do empathise with it.

But that said, for a UX'er I believe there should be a bit of shame in just doing the obvious amalgam of whatever 2-3 most popular things that already exist.

If you take on the UX lens, there's a lot of flaws in a lot of popular products, but they are accepted by the market because competition is not perfect. Copying that is not great, and I do think there is a point to be made on how "fine" shouldn't be the goal.

Re: Claude Design

#574

Post by eagerpace »

stingraycharles wrote: post #562
eagerpace wrote: post #561

Very mid. If you have any experience building your own UI kit, this will just slow you down.

I’m quite successful doing UI with a proper design system, variables.css, atoms, molecules and organisms and constantly sticking to that. Claude seems to work well with it. I explore designs in Claude Desktop, and once I’m satisfied, I’ll let Claude desktop handover prompts for Claude Code. Claude Code makes a review harness inside the actual application for each atom, molecule and organism, and I accept each of them…

You have a great process. I'm doing something similar, fine with Tailwind as a base and just build my own components from there. I think this will help entry-level people develop a similar process so perhaps it's great for that.

Re: Claude Design

#575

Post by jameslk »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #551
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…

> It's not replacing designers. Except it is. Plenty of places will say this is all good enough and not hire, or even lay off, the UI/UX person. I've seen this firsthand.

I have seen this as well, except the UI ends up all looking similar, because the harness prompt and training data doesn’t change much

The average becomes the same shade of gray. Familiarity breeds contempt. New types of design will emerge that are expensive to copy, because differentiation drives competition

Re: Claude Design

#576

Post by strobe »

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).

Winamp been really unique, probably because they able to combine that unique design with very practical UX. Even when better players released a lot of users got hard times to switch because of UI, visualizations, skins...

Re: Claude Design

#577

Post by accelbred »

AlienRobot wrote: post #396
thewebguyd wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not all OS's, unfortunately. I'm on the boat that says conforming to Gnome HIG's is a bad idea. Just today I had the disk usage analyzer (baobab) open and I was navigating inside directories so I want to go up a directory and clicked on the " If this app had a traditional menubar and a toolbar this wouldn't have happened. This is a common type of experience I have every time I use a Gnome app. It almost feels like so…

I have the opposite experience. I have no trouble navigating Gnome apps, and now when selecting an application for a task, I'll choose a Gnome or GTK4 one first. Other apps implement odd controls that don't mesh with the rest of the system.

Re: Claude Design

#578

Post by alvah »

motoxpro wrote: post #179
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.

Thats like saying Claude Code is targeted at coders who cant code (which I know some poeple believe)

Isn't it, at least partially?

Re: Claude Design

#579

Post by pedalpete »

mbesto wrote: post #450
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…

> There's no shame in being homogenous and obvious, though. The real world analog is this... The reason people (especially Americans) stay in Marriott property hotels is because they are homogenous. If all I want to do is travel to Phoenix, AZ for work I want to know that the hotel room has the same mattress, desk, TV, customer service, etc. There is real legitimate value to that. So I'll book the Courtyard in Phoeni…

I think this is a fairly limited view of design, that's commonality in branding and somewhat layout.

Real design would be changing how beds, showers, toilets, keys, etc etc work.

Yes there is familiarity in the truly banal, but progress in design happens when we really question how things work.

Re: Claude Design

#580

Post by pxoe »

mbesto wrote: post #450
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…

> There's no shame in being homogenous and obvious, though. The real world analog is this... The reason people (especially Americans) stay in Marriott property hotels is because they are homogenous. If all I want to do is travel to Phoenix, AZ for work I want to know that the hotel room has the same mattress, desk, TV, customer service, etc. There is real legitimate value to that. So I'll book the Courtyard in Phoeni…

Especially americans? The popularity and demand for homogenous american products and services (and other similarly homogenous things from other countries) overseas shows that it's not just "especially americans". What point would that even make? If anything the amount of people and customers of such things worldwide could easily outnumber just the people who live in one country, even as big. Desiring a level of service is not really a "uniquely american" thing. Perhaps there's also some impression that there's some "international homogeneity" that blurs things and makes it seem like it's coming from one place (even though it's a mix), but seemingly "cultural and local" things in other countries can be no less homogenous. Going from one japanese ryokan to another you're gonna experience the same level of homogeneity.
Post reply on HN