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

631–640 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#631

Post by stingraycharles »

eagerpace wrote: post #574
stingraycharles wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just gave Claude Design a whirl. I'm not impressed, compared to what I was using: it actually seems less structured than what I need.

What I really don't like is that this tool maintains its own "state": I want everything as markdown files in my git repo, not as some arbitrary black box blob inside Anthropic's cloud.

Re: Claude Design

#632

Post by fortzi »

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…

> this won't replace Figma or designers

If every designer takes less time to do their job, you need less designers. There’s no getting around that simple math.

Re: Claude Design

#633

Post by josefrichter »

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…

I'd be curious to hear from you in 3 months whether or not it ended up replacing designers at your agency, and why. Perhaps you could commit to answer?

Re: Claude Design

#634

Post by philwelch »

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…

Used to be more true than it is now. I’ve been in a couple really shitty Marriotts.

Re: Claude Design

#635

Post by democracy »

josefrichter wrote: post #633
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…

I'd be curious to hear from you in 3 months whether or not it ended up replacing designers at your agency, and why. Perhaps you could commit to answer?

You replace designers with who? Who is the magic person (who is not a designer) doing the work? CEO? CTO? I heard these stories when Midjourney started and everyone on gamedev channels where screaming how artists/graphic designers would be irrelevant... I was always puzzlde by who is going to be doing their work if they are gone...

Re: Claude Design

#636

Post by democracy »

fortzi wrote: post #632
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…

> this won't replace Figma or designers If every designer takes less time to do their job, you need less designers. There’s no getting around that simple math.

As if designers spend most of their time actually "designing". Same flaw of thinking with programmers and AI replacing their jobs. As if the main problem (and a major time waster) is actually programming and not dealing with a million of other things.

Re: Claude Design

#637

Post by democracy »

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.

100% this, Figma is more than just a "design" tool. Same as jira is not just a crud app for tasks. It is integrated in pipelines, people's expertise, CVs and CTO's minds. And to bet on AI company building a competitor to Figma - good luck with that. Just a pilot project for PR, nothing more than that. Sora 2.0 basically.

Re: Claude Design

#638

Post by thr0waway001 »

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.

> vibe coders who can't design

That's meeeee.

Re: Claude Design

#639

Post by dbg31415 »

Modern Figma design libraries are one of the best things to happen to product teams in the last 20 years.

Reusable components. Shared styles. Auto layout. Variants. Design tokens. So many useful plugins! Interactive prototypes. Dev mode handoff. Versioned libraries. A single source of truth keeping designers, engineers, and PMs speaking the same language.

It's fucking bliss when you use it right. And best of all, anyone on the team can build with the legos the designers gave us!

Teams finally started treating the design system like infrastructure instead of decoration.

Then Figma Make showed up.

It generates pages that ignore your components, skip your tokens, and treat every screen like a fresh snowflake. Looks fine in the mockup. Lands like a brick on the dev team. Now every page is bespoke and every handoff is a rebuild. Fucking sucks.

We had it all figured out, then we fucked it up.

AI was supposed to accelerate momentum. But it just so completely lacks maturity. AI Tools are dragging teams back to 2010, when every page was a Photoshop file (with way too many layers and shitty names for them) and none of the designers can agree on what radius to assign to their buttons.

Good design systems are a discipline. If your AI tool doesn't respect the library, it's not a designer. It's an intern with a Molotov cocktail waiting to destroy your productivity.

I haven't used Claude Design yet, I'll try it, but I LOVE Figma, and I hate Figma Make. I don't have high hopes for Claude here.

Re: Claude Design

#640

Post by ramakrishna2002 »

pc86 wrote: post #360
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. Respectfully disagree. You should feel pride when you deliver the easiest-to-use system that the hospital lawyer has ever used. When you get them in and out of the system quickly because it's intuitive and has an appropriate architecture.

> You should feel pride when you deliver the easiest-to-use system

If there is no person in the team who prides themselves to deliver interesting/elegant product, then it is very unlikely the product will be interesting/elegant.

I believe this is not something we want to happen, a world with no interesting/elegant products.

Post reply on HN