This piece cites my own research on the collapse of entry-level design hiring, but it goes further—arguing that AI didn’t cause the crisis. It exposed one that’s been building for over a decade.

Dolphia, writing for UX Collective:

We told designers they didn’t need technical knowledge. Then we eliminated their jobs when they couldn’t influence technical decisions. That’s not inclusion. That’s malpractice.

The diagnosis is correct. The design industry spent years telling practitioners they didn’t need to understand implementation. And now those same designers can’t evaluate AI-generated output, can’t participate in architecture discussions, can’t advocate effectively when technical decisions are being made.

Dolphia’s evidence is damning. When Figma Sites launched, it generated 210 WCAG accessibility violations on demo sites—and designers couldn’t catch it because they didn’t know what to look for:

The paradox crystalizes: tools marketed as democratization require more technical knowledge than traditional workflows, not less.

Where I’d add nuance: the answer isn’t “designers should learn to code.” It’s that designers need to understand the medium they’re designing for. There’s a difference between writing production code and understanding what code does, between implementing a database schema and knowing why data models influence user workflows.

I’ve been rebuilding my own site with AI assistance for over a year now. I can’t write JavaScript from scratch. But I understand enough about static site generation, database trade-offs, and performance constraints to make informed architectural decisions and direct AI effectively. That’s the kind of technical literacy that matters—not syntax, but systems thinking.

In “From Craft to Curation,” I argued that design value is shifting from execution to direction. Dolphia’s piece is the corollary: you can’t provide direction if you don’t understand what you’re directing.

The data from Lenny’s Newsletter’s AI productivity survey showed PMs ranking prototyping as their #2 use case for AI, ahead of designers. Here’s what that looks like in practice.

Figma is now teaching PMs to build prototypes instead of writing PRDs. Using Figma Make, product managers can go from idea to interactive prototype without waiting on design. Emma Webster writing in Figma’s blog:

By turning early directions into interactive, high-fidelity prototypes, you can more easily explore multiple concepts and take ideas further. Instead of spending time writing documentation that may not capture the nuances of a product, prototypes enable you to show, rather than tell.

The piece walks through how Figma’s own PMs use Make for exploration, validation, and decision-making. One PM prototyped a feature flow and ran five user interviews—all within two days. Another used it to workshop scrolling behavior options that were “almost impossible to describe” in words.

The closing is direct about what this means for roles:

In this new landscape, the PMs who thrive will be those who embrace real-time iteration, moving fluidly across traditional role boundaries.

“Traditional role boundaries” being design’s territory.

This isn’t a threat if designers are already operating upstream—defining what to build, not just how it looks. But if your value proposition is “I make the mockups,” PMs now have tools to do that themselves.

The optimistic case for designers in an AI-driven world is that design becomes strategy—defining what to build, not just how it looks. But are designers actually making that shift?

Noam Segal and Lenny Rachitsky, writing for Lenny’s Newsletter, share results from a survey of 1,750 tech workers. The headline is that AI is “overdelivering”—55% say it exceeded expectations, and most report saving at least half a day per week. But the findings by role tell a different story for designers:

Designers are seeing the fewest benefits. Only 45% report a positive ROI (compared with 78% of founders), and 31% report that AI has fallen below expectations, triple the rate among founders.

Meanwhile, founders are using AI to think—for decision support, product ideation, and strategy. They treat it as a thought partner, not a production tool. And product managers are building prototypes themselves:

Compare prototyping: PMs have it at #2 (19.8%), while designers have it at #4 (13.2%). AI is unlocking skills for PMs outside of their core work, whereas designers aren’t seeing the marginal improvement benefits from AI doing their core work.

The survey found that AI helps designers with work around design—research synthesis, copy, ideation—but visual design ranks #8 at just 3.3%. As Segal puts it:

AI is helping designers with everything around design, but pushing pixels remains stubbornly human.

This is the gap. The strategic future is available, but designers aren’t capturing it at the same rate as other roles. The question is why—and what to do about it.

Previously, I linked to Doug O’Laughlin’s piece arguing that UIs are becoming worthless—that AI agents, not humans, will be the primary consumers of software. It’s a provocative claim, and as a designer, I’ve been chewing on it.

Jeff Veen offers the counterpoint. Veen—a design veteran who cofounded Typekit and led products at Adobe—argues that an agentic future doesn’t diminish design. It clarifies it:

An agentic future elevates design into pure strategy, which is what the best designers have wanted all along. Crafting a great user experience is impossible if the way in which the business expresses its capabilities is muddied, vague or deceptive.

This is a more optimistic take than O’Laughlin’s, but it’s rooted in the same observation: when agents strip applications down to their primitives—APIs, CLI commands, raw capabilities, (plus data structures, I’d argue)—what’s left is the truth of what a business actually does.

Veen’s framing through responsive design is useful. Remember “mobile first”? The constraint of the small screen forced organizations to figure out what actually mattered. Everything else was cruft. Veen again:

We came to realize that responsive design wasn’t just about layouts, it was about forcing organizations to confront what actually mattered.

Agentic workflows do the same thing, but more radically. If your product can only be expressed through its API, there’s no hiding behind a slick dashboard or clever microcopy.

His closing question is great:

If an agent used your product tomorrow, what truths would it uncover about your organization?

For designers, this is the strategic challenge. The interface layer may become ephemeral—generated on the fly, tailored to the user, disposable. But someone still has to define what the product is. That’s design work. It’s just not pixel work.

The rise of micro apps describes what’s happening from the bottom up—regular people building their own tools instead of buying software. But there’s a top-down story too: the structural obsolescence of traditional software companies.

Doug O’Laughlin makes the case using a hardware analogy—the memory hierarchy. AI agents are fast, ephemeral memory (like DRAM), while traditional software companies need to become persistent storage (like NAND, or ROM if you’re old school like me). The implication:

Human-oriented consumption software will likely become obsolete. All horizontal software companies oriented at human-based consumption are obsolete.

That’s a bold claim. O’Laughlin goes further:

Faster workflows, better UIs, and smoother integrations will all become worthless, while persistent information, a la an API, will become extremely valuable.

As a designer, this is where I start paying close attention. The argument is that if AI agents become the primary consumers of software—not humans—then the entire discipline of UI design is in question. O’Laughlin names names:

Figma could be significantly disrupted if UIs, as a concept humans create for other humans, were to disappear.

I’m not ready to declare UIs dead. People still want direct manipulation, visual feedback, and the ability to see what they’re doing. But the shift O’Laughlin describes is real: software’s value is migrating from presentation to data. The interface becomes ephemeral—generated on the fly, tailored to the task—while the source of truth persists.

This is what I was getting at in my HyperCard essay: the tools we build tomorrow won’t look like the apps we buy today. They’ll be temporary, personal, and assembled by AI from underlying APIs and data. The SaaS companies that survive will be the ones who make their data accessible to agents, not the ones with the prettiest dashboards.

Almost a year ago, I linked to Lee Robinson’s essay “Personal Software” and later explored why we need a HyperCard for the AI era. The thesis: people would stop searching the App Store and start building what they need. Disposable tools for personal problems.

That future is arriving. Dominic-Madori Davis, writing for TechCrunch, documents the trend:

It is a new era of app creation that is sometimes called micro apps, personal apps, or fleeting apps because they are intended to be used only by the creator (or the creator plus a select few other people) and only for as long as the creator wants to keep the app. They are not intended for wide distribution or sale.

What I find compelling here is the word “fleeting.” We’ve been conditioned to think of software as permanent infrastructure—something you buy, maintain, and eventually migrate away from. But these micro apps are disposable by design. One founder built a gaming app for his family to play over the holidays, then shut it down when vacation ended. That’s not a failed product. That’s software that did exactly what it needed to do.

Howard University professor Legand L. Burge III frames it well:

It’s similar to how trends on social media appear and then fade away. But now, [it’s] software itself.

The examples in the piece range from practical (an allergy tracker, a parking ticket auto-payer) to whimsical (a “vice tracker” for monitoring weekend hookah consumption). But the one that stuck with me was the software engineer who built his friend a heart palpitation logger so she could show her doctor her symptoms. That’s software as a favor. Software as care.

Christina Melas-Kyriazi from Bain Capital Ventures offers what I think is the most useful framing:

It’s really going to fill the gap between the spreadsheet and a full-fledged product.

This is exactly right. For years, spreadsheets have been the place where non-developers build their own tools—janky, functional, held together with VLOOKUP formulas and conditional formatting. Micro apps are the evolution of that impulse, but with real interfaces and actual logic.

The quality concerns are real—bugs, security flaws, apps that only their creator can debug. But for personal tools that handle personal problems, “good enough for one” is genuinely good enough.

My wife is an obesity medicine and women’s health specialist, so she’s been in my ear talking about ultraprocessed foods for years. That’s why the processed food analogy for AI-generated software resonates. We industrialized agriculture and got abundance, yes—but also obesity, diabetes, and 318 million people still experiencing acute hunger. The problem was never production capacity.

Chris Loy applies this lens to where software is heading:

Industrial systems reliably create economic pressure toward excess, low quality goods. This is not because producers are careless, but because once production is cheap enough, junk is what maximises volume, margin, and reach. The result is not abundance of the best things, but overproduction of the most consumable ones.

Loy introduces the term “disposable software”—software created with no expectation of ownership, maintenance, or long-term understanding. Vibe-coded apps. AI slop. Whatever you want to call it, the economics are different: easy reproducibility means each output has less value, which means volume becomes the only game. Just look in the App Store for any popular category such as todo lists, notetakers, and word puzzles. Or look in r/SaaS and notice the glut of single people building and selling their own products.

Loy goes on to compare this movement with mass-produced fashion as well:

For example, prior to industrialisation, clothing was largely produced by specialised artisans, often coordinated through guilds and manual labour, with resources gathered locally, and the expertise for creating durable fabrics accumulated over years, and frequently passed down in family lines. Industrialisation changed that completely, with raw materials being shipped intercontinentally, fabrics mass produced in factories, clothes assembled by machinery, all leading to today’s world of fast, disposable, exploitative fashion.

Disposable fashion leads to vast overproduction, with estimates that 20–40% (up to 30–60 billion pieces) go unsold. There’s a waste of people’s time, tokens, electricity, and ultimately consumer dollars that AI enables.

The silver lining that Loy observes is in innovation. Entirely human-written code isn’t the answer. It’s doing the necessary research and development to innovate. My take is that’s exactly where designers need to be sitting.

Last December, Cursor announced their visual editor—a way to edit UI directly in the browser. Karri Saarinen, the designer who co-founded Linear, saw it and called it a trap. Ryo Lu, the head of design at Cursor, pushed back. The Twitter back-and-forth went on for a couple days until they conceded they mostly agreed. Tommy Geoco digs into what the debate actually surfaced.

The traditional way we talk about design tools is floor versus ceiling—does the tool make good design more accessible, or does it push what’s possible? Geoco argues the Saarinen/Lu exchange revealed a second axis: unconstrained exploration versus material exploration. Sketching on napkins versus building in code.

Saarinen’s concern:

Whenever a designer becomes more of a builder, some idealism and creativity dies. It’s not because building is bad, but because you start introducing constraints earlier in the process than you should.

Lu’s counter:

The truth only reveals itself once you start to build. Not when you think about building, not when you sketch possibilities in a protected space, but when you actually make the thing real and let reality talk back.

Both are right, and Geoco’s reframing is useful:

The question is not should designers code. It’s are you using the new speed to explore more territory or just arriving at the same destination faster?

That’s the question I keep asking myself. When I use AI tools, am I discovering ideas I wouldn’t have found otherwise, or am I just getting to obvious ideas faster? The tools make iteration cheap, but cheap iteration on the same territory isn’t progress.

I think about it this way—back when I was starting out, sketching thumbnails was the technique I used. It was very quick and easy to sketch out dozens of ideas in a sketchbook, especially when they were logo or poster ideas. When sketching interaction ideas, the technique is closer to a storyboard—connected thumbnails. But for me, once I get into a high-fidelity design or prototype, there is tremendous pull to just keep tweaking the design rather than coming up with multiple options. In other words, convergence is happening rather than continued divergence.

I’ve spent a lot of my product design career pushing for metrics—proving ROI, showing impact, making the case for design in business terms. But I’ve also seen how metrics become the goal rather than a signal pointing toward the goal. When the number goes up, we celebrate. When it doesn’t, we tweak the collection process. Meanwhile, the user becomes secondary. Last week’s big idea was around metrics, this piece piles on.

Pavel Samsonov calls this out:

Managers can only justify their place in value chains by inventing metrics for those they manage to make it look like they are managing.

I’ve sat in meetings where we debated which numbers to report to leadership—not which work to prioritize for users. The metrics become theater. So-called “vanity metrics” that always go up and to the right.

But here’s where Pavel goes somewhere unexpected. He doesn’t let designers off the hook either:

Defining success by a metric of beauty offers a useful kind of vagueness, one that NDS seems to hide behind despite the slow loading times or unnavigability that seem to define their output; you can argue with slow loading times or difficulty finding a form, but you cannot meaningfully argue with “beautiful.”

“Taste” and “beauty” are just another avoidance strategy. That’s a direct challenge to the design discourse that’s been dominant lately—the return to craft, the elevation of aesthetic judgment. Pavel’s saying it’s the same disease, different symptom. Both metrics obsession and taste obsession are ways to avoid the ambiguity of actually defining user success.

So what’s the alternative? Pavel again:

Fundamentally, the work of design is intentionally improving conditions under uncertainty. The process necessarily involves a lot of arguments over the definition and parameters of “improvement”, but the primary barrier to better is definitely not how long it takes to make artifacts.

The work is the argument. The work is facing the ambiguity rather than hiding behind numbers or aesthetics. Neither Figma velocity nor visual polish is a substitute for the uncomfortable conversation about what “better” actually means for the people using your product.

“I want my MTV!” That is the line that many music artists spoke to camera in a famous campaign by George Lois to get fans to call their cable companies to ask for MTV. It worked.

While MTV’s international music-only channels went off the air at the end of 2025, its US channels still exist. They’re just not all-music all the time like it was in the 1980s.

That’s where MTV Rewind comes in. It’s a virtual TV where you can relive MTV programming as it was. Built by an artist going by FlexasaurusRex, it’s an archive of Day 1 programming, and then different channels (YouTube playlists) to shuffle through the different shows, including 120 Minutes.

It’s January and by now millions of us have made resolutions and probably broken them already. The second Friday of January is known as “Quitter’s Day.”

OKRs—objectives and key results—are a method for businesses to set and align company goals. The objective is your goal and the KRs are the ways to reach your goals. Venture capitalist John Doerr learned about OKRs while working at Intel, brought it to Google, and later became the framework’s leading evangelist.

Christina Wodtke talks about how to use OKRs for your personal life, and maybe as a way to come up with better New Year’s resolutions. She looked at her past three years of personal OKRs:

Looking at the pattern laid out in front of me, I finally saw what I’d been missing. My problem wasn’t work-life balance. My problem was that I didn’t like the kind of work I was doing.

The key results kept failing because the objective was wrong. It wasn’t about balance. It was about joy.

This is the second thing key results do for you: when they consistently fail, they’re telling you something. Not that you lack discipline—that you might be chasing the wrong goal entirely.

And I love Wodtke’s line here: “New Year’s resolutions fail because they’re wishes, not plans.“ She continues:

They fail because “eat better” and “be healthier” and “find balance” are too vague to act on and too fuzzy to measure.

Key results fix this. Not because measurement is magic, but because the act of measuring forces clarity. It makes you confront what you actually want. And sometimes, when the data piles up, it reveals that what you wanted wasn’t the thing you needed at all.

Building on our earlier link about measuring the impact of features, how can we keep track of the overall health of the product? That’s where a North Star Metric comes in.

Julia Sholtz writes and introduction to North Star Metrics in the analytics provider Amplitude’s blog:

Your North Star Metric should be the key measure of success for your company’s product team. It defines the relationship between the customer problems your product team is trying to solve and the revenue you aim to generate by doing so.

How is it done? The first step is to figure out the “game” your business is playing: how your business engages with customers:

1. The Attention Game: How much time are your customers willing to spend in your product?
2. The Transaction Game: How many transactions does your user make on your platform?
3. The Productivity Game: How efficiently and effectively can someone get their work done in your product?

They have a whole resource section on this topic that’s worth exploring.

How do we know what we designed is working as intended? We measure. Vitaly Friedman shares something called the TARS framework to measure the impact of features.

We need UX metrics to understand and improve user experience. What I love most about TARS is that it’s a neat way to connect customers’ usage and customers’ experience with relevant product metrics.

Here’s TARS in a nutshell:

• Target Audience (%): Measures the percentage of all product users who have the specific problem that a feature aims to solve.
• Adoption (%): Tracks the percentage of the target audience that successfully and meaningfully engages with the feature.
• Retention (%): Assesses how many users who adopted the feature continue to use it repeatedly over time.
• Satisfaction Score (CES): Gauges the level of satisfaction, specifically how easy it was for retained users to solve their problem after using the feature.

Friedman has more details in the article, including how to use TARS to measure how well a feature is performing for your intended target audience.

I really appreciate the perspective of Lai-Jing Chu here as a Silicon Valley veteran. The struggle to prove the value of design is real.

I don’t know another function or role in the tech industry where it seems like we have to do our jobs at the same time as — and I will avoid saying “demonstrating value” here because it’s more than that — we carry out some sort of divine duty to make the product (let alone the world) a better place through our creativity.

Instead of more numbers like ROI calculations, Chu argues for counterintuitive approaches for advocacy, “not more left-brain exercises.”

Chu introduces us to W. Edwards Deming, an influential management consultant who wrote:

The most important figures needed for management of any organization are unknown and unknowable, but successful management must nevertheless take account of them.

One strategy she offers is to ask leadership a common-sense question: How would you grade the design?

Because when was the last time anyone did the most basic thing — to stop for a moment, hold the product in their hands, and take a good hard look at it? These questions throw the ball back in their court. It makes them wonder what they can do to help. Because chances are, most leaders want their product to have a good user or customer experience and understand that it makes a difference to their business success. You don’t just want buy-in — you want them to have true ownership.

I admire this approach, because chances are, leaders are already hearing about UX issues from customers. But to put this into practice in, let’s say, at any startup post-Series A will be an issue. There’s a lot of coordination and alignment that needs to happen because exec-level attention is much harder to come by.

Here is a good reminder from B. Prendergast to “stop asking users what they want—and start watching what they do.”

Asking people what they want is one of the most natural instincts in product work. Surveys, interviews, and feature wish lists feel accessible, social, and collaborative. They open channels to understand and empathise with the user base. They help teams feel closer to the people they serve. For teams under pressure, a stack of opinions can feel like solid data.

But this breaks when we compare what users say to what they actually do (say-do gap).

We all want to present ourselves a certain way. We want to seem more competent than confused (social desirability bias). Our memories can be fuzzy, especially about routine tasks (recall bias). Standards for what feels “easy” or “intuitive” can vary wildly between people (reference bias).

And of course, as soon as we start to ask users to imagine what they’d want, they’ll solve based on their personal experiences—which might be the right solution for them, but might not be for other users in the same situation.

Prendergast goes on to suggest “watch what people do, measure what matters, and use what they say to add context.” This approach involves watching user interactions, analyzing real behaviors through analytics, and treating feature requests as signals of underlying problems to uncover genuine needs. Prioritizing decisions based on observed patterns and desired outcomes leads to more effective solutions than relying on user opinions alone.

AI threatens to let product teams ship faster. Faster PRDs, faster designs, and faster code. But going too fast can often lead to incurring design and tech debt, or even worse, shipping the wrong thing.

Anton Sten sagely warns:

The biggest pattern I have seen across startups is that skipping clarity never saves time. It costs time. The fastest teams are not the ones shipping the most. They are the ones who understand why they are shipping. That is the difference between moving for the sake of movement and moving with purpose. It is the difference between speed and true velocity.

How do you avoid this? Sten:

The reset is simple and almost always effective. Before building anything, pause long enough to ask, “What problem am I solving, and for whom?” It sounds basic, but this question forces alignment. It replaces assumptions with clarity and shifts attention back to the user instead of internal preferences. When teams do this consistently, the entire atmosphere changes. Decisions become easier. Roadmaps make more sense. People contribute more of themselves. You can feel momentum return.

One of the most interesting things about design systems is how many of them are public—maybe not open source, but public so that we can all learn from them.

The earliest truly public, documented design systems showed up in the early 2010s. There isn’t a single “first,” but a few set the tone. GOV.UK published openly and became the public‑sector benchmark. Google’s Material landed in 2014 with a comprehensive spec. Salesforce’s Lightning started surfacing around 2013–2014 and matured mid‑decade. IBM’s Carbon followed soon after. Earlier frameworks like Bootstrap and Foundation (2011) acted like de facto systems for many teams, but they weren’t a company’s product design system made public.

PJ Onori says that public design systems are a “marketplace of ideas.”

Public design systems have lifted all boats in the harbor. Most design system teams do the rounds to see how other teams have tackled problems. Every system that raises bar puts healthy pressure on others to meet or exceed it. This shared ecosystem may be the most important facet of the design systems practice.

Onori also says that there may be a growing trend to shut down public design systems:

There’s a growing trend to close down public systems. Funny enough, the first thing I did when I left Pinterest was clone the Gestalt repo. I had this spidey sense it wouldn’t be around forever. Yes, their web codebase is still open source, but the docs have gone private. That one stung. Gestalt wasn’t the first design system to be public. It wasn’t the best one either. But it’s hat was in the ring–and that’s what mattered.

But that’s only one design system, right? Sadly, I’m hearing more chatting about mounting pressure to privatize their systems.

This is an incredibly shitty idea.

Why? Because that’s how we all learn from each other. That’s how something like the Component Gallery can exist as a resource for all of us.

Open design systems are the library for people wanting to get into design systems. They’re a free resource to expand their understanding. There’s no college of design systems. Bootcamps exist, but they’re bootcamps–and I’ll leave it at that. The generation who shaped design systems didn’t create universities–they built libraries. Those libraries can train the next generation once people like me age out. When the libraries go, so does the transfer of knowledge.

Imagine working for seven years designing the prototyping features at Figma and then seeing GPT-4 and realizing what AI can soon do in the future. That’s the story of Figma designer–turned–product manager Nikolas Klein. He shares his journey via a lovely illustrated comic—Webtoon style.

Klein emphasizes:

The truth is: There will always be new problems to solve. New ideas to take further. Even with AI, hard problems are still hard. An answer may come faster, but it’s not always right.

Huei-Hsin Wang at NN/g published a post about how to write better prompts for AI prompt-to-code tools.

When we asked AI-prototyping tools to generate a live-training profile page for NN/G course attendees, a detailed prompt yielded quality results resembling what a human designer created, whereas a vague prompt generated inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes across the board.

There’s a lot of detailing of what can often go wrong. Personally, I don’t need to read about what I experience daily, so the interesting bit for me is about two-thirds of the way into the article. Wang lists five strategies to employ to get better results.

• Visual intent: Name the style precisely—use concrete design vocabulary or frameworks instead of vague adjectives. Anchor prompts with recognizable patterns so the model locks onto the look and structure, not “clean/modern” fluff.
• Lightweight references: Drop in moodboards, screenshots, or system tokens to nudge aesthetics without pixel-pushing. Expect resemblance, not perfection; judge outcomes on hierarchy and clarity, not polish alone.
• Text-led visual analysis: Have AI describe a reference page’s layout and style in natural language, then distill those characteristics into a tighter prompt. Combine with an image when possible to reinforce direction.
• Mock data first: Provide realistic sample content or JSON so the layout respects information architecture. Content-driven prompts produce better grouping, hierarchy, and actionable UI than filler lorem ipsum.
• Code snippets for precision: Attach component or layout code from your system or open-source libraries to reduce ambiguity. It’s the most exact context, but watch length; use selectively to frame structure.

This is a fascinating watch. Ryo Lu, Head of Design at Cursor builds a retro Mac calculator using Cursor agents while being interviewed. Lu’s personal website is an homage to Mac OX X, complete with Aqua-style UI elements. He runs multiple local background agents without stepping on each other, fixes bugs live, and themes UI to match system styles so it feels designed—not “purple AI slop,” as he calls it.

Lu, as interview by Peter Yang, on how engineers and designers work together at Cursor (lightly edited for clarity):

So at Cursor, the roles between designers, PM, and engineers are really muddy. We kind of do the part [that is] our unique strength. We use the agent to tie everything. And when we need help, we can assemble people together to work on the thing.

Maybe some of [us] focus more on the visuals or interactions. Some focus more on the infrastructure side of things, where you design really robust architecture to scale the thing. So yeah, there is a lot less separation between roles and teams or even tools that we use. So for doing designs…we will maybe just prototype in Cursor, because that lets us really interact with the live states of the app. It just feels a lot more real than some pictures in Figma.

And surprisingly, they don’t have official product managers at Cursor. Yang asks, “Did you actually actually hire a PM because last time I talked to Lee [Robinson] there was like no PMs.”

Lu again, and edited lightly for clarity:

So we did not hire a PM yet, but we do have an engineer who used to be a founder. He took a lot more of the PM-y side of the job, and then became the first PM of the company. But I would still say a lot of the PM jobs are kind of spread across the builders in the team.

That mostly makes sense because it’s engineers building tools for engineers. You are your audience, which is rare.

It’s always interesting for me to read how other designers use AI to vibe code their projects. I think using Figma Make to conjure a prototype is one thing, but vibe coding something in production is entirely different. Personally, I’ve been through it a couple of times that I’ve already detailed here and here.

Anton Sten recently wrote about his process. Like me, he starts in Figma:

This might be the most important part: I don’t start by talking to AI. I start in Figma.

I know Figma. I can move fast there. So I sketch out the scaffolding first—general theme, grids, typography, color. Maybe one or two pages. Nothing polished, just enough to know what I’m building.

Why does this matter? Because AI will happily design the wrong thing for you. If you open Claude Code with a vague prompt and no direction, you’ll get something—but it probably won’t be what you needed. AI is a builder, not an architect. You still have to be the architect.

I appreciate Sten’s conclusion to not let the AI do all of it for you, echoing Dr. Maya Ackerman’s sentiment of humble creative machines:

But—and this is important—you still need design thinking and systems thinking. AI handles the syntax, but you need to know what you’re building, why you’re building it, and how the pieces fit together. The hard part was never the code. The hard part is the decisions.

Alrighty, here’s one more “lens” thing to throw at you today.

In UX Collective, Daleen Rabe says that a “designer’s true value lies not in the polish of their pixels, but in the clarity of their lens.” She means our point-of-view, how we process the world:

1. The method for creating truth
2. The discipline of asking questions
3. The mindset for enacting change
4. The compass for navigating our ethics

The spec, as she calls it, is the designer’s way for creating truth. Others might call it a mockup or wireframe. Either way, it’s a visual representation of what we intend to build:

The spec is a democratic tool, while a text-based document can be ambiguous. It relies on a shared interpretation of language that often doesn’t exist. A visual, however, is a common language. It allows people with vastly different perspectives to align on something we can all agree exists in this reality. It’s a two-dimensional representation that is close enough to the truth to allow us to debate realistic scenarios and identify issues before they become code.

As designers, our role is to find the balance between the theoretical concept of what the business needs and what is tangibly feasible. The design spec is the tool we use to achieve this.

T-shaped, M-shaped, and now Σ-shaped designers?! Feels like a personality quiz or something. Or maybe designers are overanalyzing as usual.

Here’s Darren Yeo telling us what it means:

The Σ-shape defines the new standard for AI expertise: not deep skills, but deep synthesis. This integrator manages the sum of complex systems (Σ) by orchestrating the continuous, iterative feedback loops (σ), ensuring system outputs align with product outcomes and ethical constraints.

Whether you subscribe to the Three Lens framework as proposed by Oliver West, or this sigma-shaped one being proposed by Darren Yeo, just be yourself and don’t bring it up in interviews.

Oliver West argues in UX Magazine that UX designers aren’t monolithic—meaning we’re not all the same and see the world in the same way.

West:

UX is often described as a mix of art and science, but that definition is too simple. The truth is, UX is a spectrum made up of three distinct but interlinked lenses:

• Creativity: Bringing clarity, emotion, and imagination to how we solve problems.
• Science: Applying evidence, psychology, and rigor to understand behavior.
• Business: Focusing on relevance, outcomes, and measurable value.

Every UX professional looks through these lenses differently. And that’s exactly how it should be.

He then outlines how those who are more focused on certain parts of the spectrum may be more apt for more specialized roles. For example, if you’re more focused on creativity, you might be more of a UI designer:

UI Designers lead with the creative lens. Their strength lies in turning complex ideas into interfaces that feel intuitive, elegant, and emotionally engaging. But the best UI Designers also understand the science of usability and the business context behind what they’re designing.

I think for product designers working in the startup world, you actually do need all three lenses, as it were. But with a bias towards Science and Business.