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

711–720 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#711

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pedalpete wrote: post #579
mbesto wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

That's [design] engineering.

Rather than aesthetics/ergonomics. Like writing your own widgets in JS, generally a bad idea.

Re: Claude Design

#712

Post by sergiodlopes »

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…

Yeah. It's kinda funny we read blog posts, or comments complaining about the lack of a good consistent UI and then, complain that on the web "everything is boring because it's homogenous".

If people wanna have fun designing a cool, original website design, go for it. But if we need a fast, easy UI for someone that just needs get the job done, consistency/familiarity is obviously important.

Re: Claude Design

#713

Post by doublesocket »

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…

Am I alone in not wanting banal homogeneity even on a work trip?

Re: Claude Design

#714

Post by luckylion »

ex-aws-dude wrote: post #73
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.

Isn't this something Figma could easily integrate? Then you'd have the best of both worlds

figma has figma make to do these things, and it's much worse. It can only generate react code, even if you ask it not to. claude design worked great on the first attempt for me, miles ahead of what figma make does.

Re: Claude Design

#715

Post by iamflimflam1 »

gck1 wrote: post #563
taylorlapeyre wrote: post #198

It really feels like Anthropic's product area is extremely overextended at this point. If they want to extend themselves horizontally in an unlimited fashion, they will need unlimited focus, and agents can't supply that. Things will fall through the cracks. Why should I believe that Anthropic will care about this product in 2, 3 years? Whereas I firmly believe that Figma will care greatly about its product in that ti…

OpenAI and Anthropic have realized that their entire business is exactly one open weight model drop away from Chinese labs that matches Opus 4.5 performance. They realized they have no product or ground to stand on. Once such model drops and once chip manufacturers catch up with demand, they are dead, if their only product is inference. So OpenAI decided to do weird things like buying up all the hardware that exists…

Exactly this. There are now many great open source coding agents. All we lack is a good model to point them at.

Models are going to commodities - just switch the most affordable.

Longer term, running models locally is going to be increasingly available.

Re: Claude Design

#716

Post by LogicFailsMe »

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…

Now do AI art and music. I think a lot of the same applies there.

Re: Claude Design

#717

Post by wiz21c »

vanviegen wrote: post #692
democracy wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But AI is replacing programmer jobs. AI is taking on a part of those 'million other things' as well, and if you can shrink your organization due to AI use, many of those other things just go away.

The job of the programmer/Designer will be to answer questions about what the program can do/not do and tweak it outside of Claude's abilities. To be able to answer those questions (like: can we do this ? will it fail under pressure ? etc) requires a deep understanding of the programs which you only have if you actually build them (with or without AI).

So, less jobs for sure, but not like 50% less jobs.

Re: Claude Design

#718

Post by EdvinPL »

qingcharles wrote: post #250
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.

This is 100% a response to "Stitch With Google" which has been doing amazing work in this space for a long time now, and is Google's answer to Lovable. https://stitch.withgoogle.com/ I'm now pasting all my Stitch output into Claude Design to see what happens. edit: First impressions are great. It asked me a ton of really great questions about my design aspirations and direction, which were incredibly relevant and ins…

I tried stitch. Overall preplanned sections. Issue is... You can't wellllll stitch! E. G. Take section1 migrate mix with section 2 etc. Good idea - but still a mess!

Re: Claude Design

#720

Post by debesyla »

jjk166 wrote: post #183
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…

> You'll get a competent UI with little effort but nothing truly unique or mind-blowing. 90+% of attempts at making a truly unique or mind-blowing UI produce a mind-blowingly bad UI. For 0.5 seconds of wow factor, you've added substantial unnecessary friction. Outside of art projects where that wow factor is the point, it really should not be attempted, most certainly not by someone without the appropriate skillset.…

But friction can be good, because it makes your offer stand out.

Like haggling in the local market, or trying to "catch" that successful/awesome person that has limited availability.

Friction makes stuff feel valuable. Of course, not absurdly confusing, but just a bit.

Post reply on HN