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

311–320 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Design

#311

Post by pjmorris »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #297
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…

> because of the truly marvelous human experiences that they’ll miss when people wax philosophical/poetical about what is essentially capital production already i'm always so perplexed - do you not realize that you're not doing art/you're not an artisan? your labor is always actively being transformed into a product sold on a market. there are no "marvelous human experiences", there is only production and consumption…

Whatever the merits or demerits of 'marvelous human experiences' are from the point of view of production and consumption, the OP's conclusion leaves out the important point that Alexander's 'rationalization of forces that define a problem' produces designs that come closer to solving real-life problems (even in production and consumption) than simply putting attractive lipstick on an economic utility pig. If production isn't solving real human problems, consumers will go elsewhere.

Re: Claude Design

#313

Post by 3sdfs »

taytus wrote: post #304

Anthropic is making the exact same mistake OpenAI did: lack of focus. Release, release, release, all good apps, all full of bugs. This is a massive mess and people aren't talking enough about how bad all of this is.

I think its hilarious.

BUt what it really shows is there's no vision. If you had a vision and coherent strategy you'd concentrate resources - not dilute them across a myriad of projects.

Re: Claude Design

#314

Post by aurareturn »

spyckie2 wrote: post #278
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…

It is officially the 2010 Google era at Anthropic (the era where Google released tons of new products and spread themselves too thin). Anyone remember Google's social media platform??? Google Plus? This is a good era to be in! Its the era of product experimentation. As long as you realize that 90% of the products will not be supported long term if it doesn't contribute to bottom line revenue, then just appreciate it…

Every Anthropic release uses Claude models.

Not every Google product release used Google search. Some of them were completely outside of Google's domain.

Re: Claude Design

#315

Post by taylorlapeyre »

tomashertus wrote: post #246
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…

Are they, though? My thinking is that their roadmap is heavily focused on the SDLC and solving problems related to software development, so their model will be optimized for that domain. That leaves room in the market for models that are specialized in other areas of expertise.

If that is what they are optimizing for, then they are not doing a great job on that either. Their latest model is more expensive and less impressive, their downtime is abysmal by any comparison, their "Dispatch" product is unworkable - conversation threads don't sync properly, the UX is quite bad -, their Desktop app is slow and clunky, Cowork is by all accounts mediocre.

Re: Claude Design

#316

Post by nightski »

bauerd wrote: post #309
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…

This is a really verbose way to say that using generative AI has a detrimental effect on the user because one deprives themselves of the learning experience.

Agreed on your take on the parent, although I have to say I feel that AI has had the opposite effect for me. It has only accelerated learning quite significantly. In fact not only is learning more effective/efficient, I have more time for it because I am not spending nearly as much time tracking down stupid issues.

Re: Claude Design

#317

Post by mathisfun123 »

pjmorris wrote: post #311
mathisfun123 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because of the truly marvelous human experiences that they’ll miss when people wax philosophical/poetical about what is essentially capital production already i'm always so perplexed - do you not realize that you're not doing art/you're not an artisan? your labor is always actively being transformed into a product sold on a market. there are no "marvelous human experiences", there is only production and consumption…

Whatever the merits or demerits of 'marvelous human experiences' are from the point of view of production and consumption, the OP's conclusion leaves out the important point that Alexander's 'rationalization of forces that define a problem' produces designs that come closer to solving real-life problems (even in production and consumption) than simply putting attractive lipstick on an economic utility pig. If product…

> If production isn't solving real human problems, consumers will go elsewhere.

of course but that's well within the scope of the whole paradigm (as opposed to how it is originally phrased it in relation to a loss of "marvelous human experiences"): if i use a bad tool to solve my customer's problems in an unsatisfactory way then my customers will no longer be my customers (assuming the all knowing guiding hand of the free market). so there's no new observation whatsoever in OP.

Re: Claude Design

#318

Post by thevinter »

Bombthecat wrote: post #299
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 is more to design then just buttons and colour... Like menus, options, how, where, when etc. But I reckon, nobody cares. Just let Claude decide and go with it... Sad state for UX designers / researchers.

And no-one is preventing you from caring about those things. I build UIs with Claude a lot and I still spend a lot of the time thinking about the user experience and working with Claude to make an app as intuitive and easy to use as possible.

Re: Claude Design

#319

Post by eric_cc »

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 feel sorry for anyone that will think using tools equals doing design, because of the truly marvelous human experiences that they’ll miss, and that could never be replaced by the shallow pride of empty achievement.

What if you don’t give a shit about design and it’s a means to an end for a project that involves something different that you do care about?

Re: Claude Design

#320

Post by nothinkjustai »

atonse wrote: post #241
nothinkjustai wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would you like to attempt a more good faith interpretation on what I meant, and address that (you can even imagine doing this in front a user/client and iterating in minutes with them, ultimately getting even better outcomes), instead of inventing the most un-generous interpretation of what I said, that I'm just adding AI slop?

I don’t think I can interpret it in better faith. You’re excusing low quality output by calling yourself a “builder” (meaningless term btw), is “slopper” not an accurate term here? How else would you describe somebody who spends 5 minutes prompting an LLM on one of the most important aspects of a product?

Everyone who creates something is a “builder”, that term doesn’t excuse someone from not putting effort in. I don’t care if you aren’t a designer, it’s about the effort you put into your work :)

Post reply on HN