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

591–600 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#591

Post by runarberg »

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #530
runarberg wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, if I had to go to Phoenix, AZ for work and stay at a Marriott hotel, I think I would rather convince my boss that this business trip could be a zoom call, and during that zoom call I notice that participants have all sorts of fun virtual backgrounds, filters, emoji in their statuses etc. Because it turns out, the type who don’t want fun little differences are exactly the types who will gladly go on a busi…

> all sorts of fun virtual backgrounds, filters, emoji in their statuses I don't want more pieces of flair in my life, thanks You generally won't get to know someone well enough to appreciate their unique aspects unless you see them in person at least sometimes, unless that person has the habit of letting their freak flag fly in all circumstances, which has its own downsides.

> I don't want more pieces of flair in my life, thanks

Then don‘t. My boss didn’t require me to put a minimum of 15 pieces of flair in my status, and personally I just put blur on my background... scrap that, I didn’t turn on my camera at all and just used my standard avatar (which I consider fun in fact).

Re: Claude Design

#592

Post by clbrmbr »

stirfish wrote: post #569
teiferer wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonalds. Homogenous everywhere in the world. US, Italy, Japan, Brazil, same stuff. Good pizza in Italy, goos ramen in Japan, grilled Picanha in Brazil, that's why you go there and want it different/original. But in software UI this is often overdone. I want the pizzazz in my audio software in what it produces , not in how the UI looks like.

Counterpoint: winamp was strictly more fun than any other audio software

And all those Delphi programs (ok rn I can only think of the crackz but there must have been others).

What made these Delphi programs so unique in their UIs?

Re: Claude Design

#593

Post by khutorni »

stopachka wrote: post #498
khoury wrote: post #351

To people saying its replacing Lovable. It's still missing the ability to deploy right from the app with a backend ready to go. I'm sure it will get there tho.

Here's a 2-line prompt that gives Claude Design a backend: ``` ---- To get your credentials and learn about InstantDB, fetch this URL: https://instantdb.com/llm-rules/create-app/AGENTS.md ``` Every cURL request to AGENTS.md spins up a new backend and splices in the credentials. I used it to build this multiplayer pelican game: https://349b7470-3747-49e7-8ece-960a45b0b2da.claudeuserconte... Disclaimer: I am the founde…

Curious to see it, but the linked page says "authentication required".

Re: Claude Design

#594

Post by ValentineC »

azan_ wrote: post #549
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. I guess that kind of thinking got us liquid glass - which everyone hates.

> I guess that kind of thinking got us liquid glass - which everyone hates.

Except, ironically enough, enough people involved with both macOS and iOS at Apple didn't hate it enough — until it made it to launch.

Either there's a massive hierarchy issue there, or Apple is starting to suffer from groupthink that negatively affects a lot of their customers' experiences.

Re: Claude Design

#595

Post by xeonmc »

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.

Tailwind is for those who could code but can’t design.

Figma is for those who could design but can’t code.

This is for those who could neither design nor code.

Re: Claude Design

#596

Post by ItsClo688 »

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…

agree that fancy ≠ good. some of the most satisfying tools i've used look like they were designed in 1995.

Re: Claude Design

#597

Post by ItsClo688 »

soraki_soladead wrote: post #136
Fordec wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

the "solving users' problems" framing works for most products but gets complicated for developer tools, where the design is the interaction model. a CLI that gives you typed errors and predictable verbs is design. a confusing API surface that makes you guess is also design, just bad design. the pride question becomes: did you respect the user's mental model?

Re: Claude Design

#598

Post by hackable_sand »

prmph wrote: post #325
Thanemate wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Claude Design

#599

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

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…

That's how I see most of the system design capabilities of Opus. I've been an engineer for 15 years. It's so nice to describe what you want, it gets you in the ballpark, and you can refine and tweak to get it just right. Sometimes it's fun to have it design crazy stuff so you can play out a crazy idea without wasting too much time. I can see how it could easily translate to the visual design space.

Now, if I could only get a model to draw arch diagrams....

Re: Claude Design

#600

Post by ValentineC »

Oras wrote: post #53
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…

Data suggest different outcomes, there was always a way to standardise interfaces, from Twitter bootstrap, all the way to shadcn. Not everyone is looking for unique design, 70% of the web is still using Wordpress. I would say majority prefer familiarity and appreciate uniqueness.

> Not everyone is looking for unique design, 70% of the web is still using Wordpress. I would say majority prefer familiarity and appreciate uniqueness.

Most people using WordPress customise it with many of the thousands of plugins available though, and those plugins create menu items everywhere.

Post reply on HN