61–69 of 69 posts
replacing a metrics dashboard with text is one of the choices you could make
I tried having it critique my personal project and the feedback I got feels good. I have 0 design experience, so I think it can only improve things.
Love it when the design tool breaks halfway down the page.
The dark theme is sooo bad for this page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Form UX one is hilarious. It took a streamlined form used to convert and added enormous marketing copy that's more attention grabbing than the form itself. If you look closely they ran the `/simplify` command, haha. The dashboard might even be funnier, though. And this is what the creator chose to demo .
This is the most egregious one in my eyes, too. I've run A/B tests on a few signup forms and without fail it validates the standard practice: the lowest drop-off rate comes from removing every possible obstacle and distraction. I'd bet a few dollars (which is as much as I'll ever bet) that design update would perform worse. The tool is almost intriguing as a _reductio_ of certain design practices. The "after" designs…
They set themselves up for a fall when they named themselves "Impeccable Style" The mix of sans and serif fonts on their website is a mess. There's too much negative space, and it's inconsistent. Too many font sizes, and some that are so tiny they're illegible. In the landing page before/after example, I think the "before" design looks more appealing.
"Great design prompts require design vocabulary. Most people don't have it." Vocabulary is just the surface. Beneath it is an understanding of how to achieve your goals with design. How to make things that are easy to use, accessible, that create a certain impression. Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is of…
I toned down some of the language on the landing page, as it had sometimes too much snake-oil-salesman-energy, should not oversell. I've also toned down fluff, fixed some typography issues. I rushed the landing page and example case studies to get this shipped, whereas the actual skill and commands my colleagues and I have been using effectively on real projects (that I can't screenshot yet), and the open sourcing is a side product. Lesson learned!
I also hear you on the "Popular" $100 tier. That was a side effect of Claude Code trying to make this too "SaaS-y", and I admittedly didn't love it and shouldn't have shipped that language. While it might work for SaaS, this project isn't intended to be SaaS, and just open source for the community in the hopes that it helps somebody the way it helped me, so I toned it down significantly.
Concept seems fun, and I'm expecting we'll see a bunch of those in the next few weeks/months. UX of that specific page seems broken, however, as the container for the explanation of each "function" doesn't scroll along with the rest of the content (stays stuck at the top) and makes it impossible to see.
Author here. That's actually great feedback. I accidentally broke the container scroll with a single line CSS change to fix something else, ugh. Should be fixed now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the most egregious one in my eyes, too. I've run A/B tests on a few signup forms and without fail it validates the standard practice: the lowest drop-off rate comes from removing every possible obstacle and distraction. I'd bet a few dollars (which is as much as I'll ever bet) that design update would perform worse. The tool is almost intriguing as a _reductio_ of certain design practices. The "after" designs…
Author here, fair feedback. These examples were rushed, and didn't come out great. For this particular one, the concept was 'trustworthy, expensive life sciences company" of sorts, but it's still not a great before/after example. Removed for now, and will switch out for better examples soon.