This is a really well-written piece that pulls the AI + design concepts neatly together. Sharang Sharma, writing in UX Collective:

As AI reshapes how we work, I’ve been asking myself, it’s not just how to stay relevant, but how to keep growing and finding joy in my craft.

In my learning, the new shift requires leveraging three areas

1. AI tools: Assembling an evolving AI design stack to ship fast
2. AI fluency: Learning how to design for probabilistic systems
3. Human-advantage: Strengthening moats like craft, agency and judgment to stay ahead of automation

Together with strategic thinking and human-centric skills, these pillars shape our path toward becoming an AI-native designer.

Sharma connects all the crumbs I’ve been dropping this week:

• Designing for AI interfaces
• Designing for control
• Understanding orchestration and agents
• Prompt and context engineering
• Being AI native

From UX Magazine:

Copilots helped enterprises dip their toes into AI. But orchestration platforms and tools are where the real transformation begins — systems that can understand intent, break it down, distribute it, and deliver results with minimal hand-holding.

Think of orchestration as how “meta-agents” are conducting other agents.

The first iteration of AI in SaaS was copilots. They were like helpful interns eagerly awaiting your next command. Orchestration platforms are more like project managers. They break down big goals into smaller tasks, assign them to the right AI agents, and keep everything coordinated. This shift is changing how companies design software and user experiences, making things more seamless and less reliant on constant human input.

For designers and product teams, it means thinking about workflows that cross multiple tools, making sure users can trust and control what the AI is doing, and starting small with automation before scaling up.

Let’s stay on the train of designing AI interfaces for a bit. Here’s a piece by Rob Chappell in UX Collective where he breaks down how to give users control—something I’ve been advocating—when working with AI.

AI systems are transforming the structure of digital interaction. Where traditional software waited for user input, modern AI tools infer, suggest, and act. This creates a fundamental shift in how control moves through a experience or product — and challenges many of the assumptions embedded in contemporary UX methods.

The question is no longer: “What is the user trying to do?”

The more relevant question is: “Who is in control at this moment, and how does that shift?”

Designers need better ways to track how control is initiated, shared, and handed back — focusing not just on what users see or do, but on how agency is negotiated between human and system in real time.

Most design frameworks still assume the user is in the driver’s seat. But AI is changing the rules. The challenge isn’t just mapping user flows or intent—it’s mapping who holds the reins, and how that shifts, moment by moment. Designers need new tools to visualize and shape these handoffs, or risk building systems that feel unpredictable or untrustworthy. The future of UX is about negotiating agency, not just guiding tasks.

Vitaly Friedman writes a good primer on the design possibilities for users to interact with AI features. As AI capabilities become more and more embedded in the products designers make, we have to become facile in manipulating AI as material.

Many products are obsessed with being AI-first. But you might be way better off by being AI-second instead. The difference is that we focus on user needs and sprinkle a bit of AI across customer journeys where it actually adds value.

Since its debut at Config back in May, Figma has steadily added practical features to Figma Make for product teams. Supabase integration now allows for authentication, data storage, and file uploads. Designers can import design system libraries, which helps maintain visual consistency. Real-time collaboration has improved, giving teams the ability to edit code and prototypes together. The tool now supports backend connections for managing state and storing secrets. Prototypes can be published to custom domains. These changes move Figma Make closer to bridging the gap between design concepts and advanced prototypes.

In my opinion, there’s a stronger relationship between Sites and Make than there is Make and Design. The Make-generated code may be slightly better than when Sites debuted, but it is still not semantic.

Anyhow, I think Make is great for prototyping and it’s convenient to have it built right into Figma. Julius Patto, writing in UX Collective:

Prompting well in Figma Make isn’t about being clever, it’s about being clear, intentional, and iterative. Think of it as a new literacy in the design toolkit: the better you get at it, the more you unlock AI’s potential without losing your creative control.

Ted Goas, writing in UX Collective:

I predict the early parts of projects, getting from nothing to something, will become shared across roles. For designers looking to branch out, code is a natural next step. I see a future where we’re fixing small bugs ourselves instead of begging an engineer, implementing that animation that didn’t make the sprint but you know would absolutely slap, and even building simple features when engineering resources are tight.

Our new reality is that anyone can make a rough draft.

But that doesn’t mean those drafts are good. That’s where our training and taste come in.

I think Goas is right and it echoes the AI natives post by Elena Verna. I wrote a little more extensively in my newsletter over the weekend.

Miquad Jaffer, a product leader at OpenAI shares his 4D method on how to build AI products that users want. In summary, it’s…

• Discover: Find and prioritize real user pain points and friction in daily workflows.
• Design: Make AI features invisible and trustworthy, fitting naturally into users’ existing habits.
• Develop: Build AI systematically, with robust evaluation and clear plans for failures or edge cases.
• Deploy: Treat each first use like a product launch, ensuring instant value and building user trust quickly.

Geoffrey Litt, Josh Horowitz, Peter van Hardenberg, and Todd Matthews writing a paper for research lab Ink & Switch, offer a great, well-thought piece on what they call “malleable software.”

We envision a new kind of computing ecosystem that gives users agency as co-creators. … a software ecosystem where anyone can adapt their tools to their needs with minimal friction. … When we say ‘adapting tools’ we include a whole range of customizations, from making small tweaks to existing software, to deep renovations, to creating new tools that work well in coordination with existing ones. Adaptation doesn’t imply starting over from scratch.

In their paper, they use analogies like kitchen tools and tool arrangement in a workshop to explore their idea. With regard to the current crop of AI prompt-to-code tools…

We think these developments hold exciting potential, and represent a good reason to pursue malleable software at this moment. But at the same time, AI code generation alone does not address all the barriers to malleability. Even if we presume that every computer user could perfectly write and edit code, that still leaves open some big questions.

How can users tweak the existing tools they’ve installed, rather than just making new siloed applications? How can AI-generated tools compose with one another to build up larger workflows over shared data? And how can we let users take more direct, precise control over tweaking their software, without needing to resort to AI coding for even the tiniest change? None of these questions are addressed by products that generate a cloud-hosted application from a prompt.

Kind of a different take than the “personal software” we’ve seen written about before.

I love this from Marc Brooker:

Every organization and industry has watering holes where the whiners hang out. The cynical. The jaded. These spots feel attractive. Everybody has something they can complain about, and complaining is fun. These places are inviting and inclusive: as long as you’re whining, or complaining, or cynical, you’re in. If you’re positive, optimistic, or ambitious, you’re out.

Avoid these places.

I’ve seen this firsthand on Reddit. Seems like the r/graphic_design and r/UXDesign subreddits have been full of posts decrying the state of the job market and attacking AI. Any meaningful conversations about the work or debates about AI are too few and far between.

Brooker again:

My advice: find the yes, and communities, and spend time there. Find the people doing cool stuff you admire, and spend time with them. Find the people doing the work you want to do, or living the life you want to live, and find ways to learn from them.

Those are hard to find online. If you know of any, please let me know!

This piece from Mike Schindler is a good reminder that a lot of the content we see on LinkedIn is written for engagement. It’s a double-edged sword, isn’t it? We want our posts to be read, commented upon, and shared. We see the patterns that get a lot of reactions and we mimic them.

We’re losing ourselves to our worst instincts. Not because we’re doomed, but because we’re treating this moment like a game of hot takes and hustle. But right now is actually a rare and real opportunity for a smarter, more generous conversation — one that helps our design community navigate uncertainty with clarity, creativity, and a sense of shared agency.

But the point that Schindler is making is this: AI is a fundamental shift in the technology landscape that demands nuanced and thoughtful discourse. There’s a lot of hype. But as technologists, designers, and makers of products, we really need to lead rather than scare.

I’ve tried to do that in my writing (though I may not always be successful). I hope you do too.

He has this handy table too…

Designed by Mike Schindler (mschindler.com)

I remember the article from 2016 titled “Hamburger Menus and Hidden Navigation Hurt UX Metrics” where the conclusion from NN/g was:

Discoverability is cut almost in half by hiding a website’s main navigation. Also, task time is longer and perceived task difficulty increases.

Fast forward nearly 10 years later and NN/g says:

Hamburger menus are a more familiar pattern today than 10 years ago, but the same old best practices for hidden navigation still apply.

Kate Kaplan, revisiting her conclusion from nearly a decade ago:

Over the past decade, the hamburger menu — much like its namesake — has become a classic. As mobile-first design took hold, it offered a clean, space-saving solution, and when design leaders like Apple and Amazon adopted it, others followed. Its growing ubiquity helped standardize its meaning: Through repeated exposure, users learned to recognize and interpret the icon with increasing confidence.

I think the hamburger menu grew in popularity despite NN/g’s authoritative finger wagging. As designers, most of the time, we have to balance between the needs of the project and client with known best practices. Many websites, especially e-commerce, don’t have four or fewer main navigation links. We had to put the links somewhere and the hamburger menu made sense.

Christopher Butler writes a wonderful essay about the “best interfaces we never built,” exploring the UIs from sci-fi:

Science fiction, by the way, hasn’t just predicted our technological future. We all know the classic examples, particularly those from Star Trek: the communicator and tricorder anticipated the smartphone; the PADD anticipated the tablet; the ship’s computer anticipated Siri, Alexa, Google, and AI voice interfaces; the entire interior anticipated the Jony Ive glass filter on reality. It’s enough to make a case that Trek didn’t anticipate these things so much as those who watched it as young people matured in careers in design and engineering. But science fiction has also been a fertile ground for imagining very different ways for how humans and machines interact.

He goes on to namecheck 2001: A Space Odyssey, Quantum Leap, Inspector Gadget and others. I don’t know Butler personally, but I’d bet $1 he’s Gen X like me.

As UX designers, it’s very easy to get stuck thinking that UI is just pixels rendered on a screen. But in fact, an interface is anything that translates our intentions into outcomes that technology can deliver.

Vincent Nguyen writing for Yanko Design, interviewing Alan Dye, VP of Human Interface Design at Apple:

This technical challenge reveals the core problem Apple set out to solve: creating a digital material that maintains form-changing capabilities while preserving transparency. Traditional UI elements either block content or disappear entirely, but Apple developed a material that can exist in multiple states without compromising visibility of underlying content. Dye’s emphasis on “celebrating user content” exposes Apple’s hierarchy philosophy, where the interface serves content instead of competing with it. When you tap to magnify text, the interface doesn’t resize but stretches and flows like liquid responding to pressure, ensuring your photos, videos, and web content remain the focus while navigation elements adapt around them.

Since the Jony Ive days, Apple’s hardware has always been about celebrating the content. Bezels got smaller. Screens got bigger and brighter. Even the flat design brought on by iOS 7 and eventually adopted by the whole ecosystem was a way to strip away the noise and focus on the content.

Dye’s explanation of the “glass layer versus application layer” architecture provides insight into how Apple technically implements this philosophy. The company has created a distinct separation between functional controls (the glass layer) and user content (the application layer), allowing each to behave according to different rules while maintaining visual cohesion. This architectural decision enables the morphing behavior Dye described, where controls can adapt and change while content remains stable and prominent.

The Apple platform UI today sort of does that, but Liquid Glass seems to take it even further.

Nguyen about his experience using the Music app on Mac:

The difference from current iOS becomes apparent in specific scenarios. In the current Music app, scrolling through your library feels like moving through flat, static layers. With Liquid Glass, scrolling creates a sense of depth. You can see your album artwork subtly shifting beneath the translucent controls, creating spatial awareness of where interface elements sit in relation to your content. The tab bar doesn’t just scroll with you; it creates gentle optical distortions that make the underlying content feel physically present beneath the glass surface.

Sara Paul writing for NN/g:

The core principles of UX and product design remain unchanged, and AI amplifies their importance in many ways. To stay indispensable, designers must evolve: adapt to new workflows, deepen their judgment, and double down on the uniquely human skills that AI can’t replace.

They spoke with seven UX practitioners to get their take on AI and the design profession.

I think this is great advice and echoes what I’ve written about previously (here and here):

There is a growing misconception that AI tools can take over design, engineering, and strategy. However, designers offer more than interaction and visual-design skills. They offer judgment, built on expertise that AI cannot replicate.

Our panelists return to a consistent message: across every tech hype cycle, from responsive design to AI, the value of design hasn’t changed. Good design goes deeper than visuals; it requires critical thinking, empathy, and a deep understanding of user needs.

“Beating AI” is an interesting framing, but OK. There is a lot of concern out there about how AI will affect the entire design industry, from graphic design to UX. Understandably, designers are worried about their careers.

Georgia Coggan writing for Creative Bloq:

“So are we just cooked?” asks a recent Reddit thread from a designer who is four years out of college. ” Any other jobs i can get with such a degree now that design is kind of becoming obsolete?”

Hundreds of responses poured in from designers with strong and diverse opinions on what AI is doing to the graphic design industry – and it isn’t all as doom and gloom as you might fear. Ranging from advice around what humans can do that AI can’t, to how nothing has really changed regarding what the industry needs from its designers, there’s lots for the OP to feel positive about – as long as they’re happy to stay agile. Head over to the Reddit thread to garner more wisdom from those in the field.

Great reminder from Kai Wong about getting stuck on a solution too early:

Imagine this: the Product Manager has a vision of a design solution based on some requirements and voices it to the team. They say, “I want a table that allows us to check statuses of 100 devices at once.”

You don’t say anything, so that sets the anchor of a design solution as “a table with a bunch of devices and statuses.”

In the early days of computing, it was easy for one person to author a complete program. Nowadays, because the software we create is so complex, we need teams.

Gaurav Sinha writing for UX Planet:

The faster you accept that they’re not going to change their communication style, the faster you can focus on what actually works — learning to decode what they’re really telling you. Because buried in all that technical jargon is usually something pretty useful for design decisions.

It’s a fun piece on learning how to speak engineer.

I have relayed here before the story that I’ve been using Macs since 1985. It wasn’t the hardware that drew me in—it was MacPaint. I was always an artistic kid so being able to paint on a digital canvas seemed thrilling to me. And of course it was back then.

Behind MacPaint, was a man named Bill Atkinson. Atkinson died last Thursday, June 5 of pancreatic cancer. In a short remembrance, John Gruber said:

I say this with no hyperbole: Bill Atkinson may well have been the best computer programmer who ever lived. Without question, he’s on the short list. What a man, what a mind, what gifts to the world he left us.

I‘m happy that Figma also remembered Atkinson and that they are standing on his shoulders.

Every day at Figma, we wrestle with the same challenges Atkinson faced: How do you make powerful tools feel effortless? How do you hide complexity behind intuitive interactions? His fingerprints are on every pixel we push, every selection we make, every moment of creative flow our users experience.

When you’re building a SaaS app, I believe it’s important to understand the building blocks, or objects, in your app. What are they? How do they relate to each other? Should those relationships be peer-to-peer or parent-child? Early in my tenure at BuildOps, I mentioned this way of thinking to one of my designers and they pointed me to Object-Oriented UX (OOUX), a methodology pioneered by Sophia Prater.

Mateusz Litarowicz writes:

Object-Oriented UX is a way of thinking about design, introduced and popularized by Sophia Prater. It assumes that instead of starting with specific screens or user flows, we begin by identifying the objects that should exist in the system, their attributes, the relationships between them, and the actions users can take on those objects. Only after this stage do we move on to designing user flows and wireframes.

To be honest, I’d long thought this way, ever since my days at Razorfish when our UX director Marisa Gallagher talked about how every website is built around a core unit, or object. At the time, she used Netflix as an example—it’s centered around the movie. CRMs, CMSes, LMSes, etc. are all object-based.

Anyway, I think Litarowicz writes a great primer for OOUX. The other—and frankly more important, IMHO—advantage to thinking this way, especially for a web app, is because your developers think this way too.

As a reaction to the OpenAI + io announcement two weeks ago, Christopher Butler imagines a mesh computing device network he calls “personal ambient computing”:

…I keep thinking back to Star Trek, and how the device that probably inspired the least wonder in me as a child is the one that seems most relevant now: the Federation’s wearables. Every officer wore a communicator pin — a kind of Humane Pin light — but they also all wore smaller pins at their collars signifying rank. In hindsight, it seems like those collar pins, which were discs the size of a watch battery, could have formed some kind of wearable, personal mesh network. And that idea got me going…

He describes the device as a standardized disc that can be attached to any enclosure. I love his illustration too:

Christopher Butler: “I imagine a magnetic edge system that allows the disc to snap into various enclosures — wristwatches, handhelds, desktop displays, wearable bands, necklaces, clips, and chargers.”

Essentially, it’s an always-on, always observing personal AI.

Related to my earlier post today about Arc’s novelty tax, here’s an essay by DOC, a tribute to consistency.

Leveraging known, established UX patterns and sticking to them prevent users from having to learn net-new interactions and build net-new mental models every time they engage with a new product.

But, as Josh Miller wrote in the aforementioned post, “New interfaces start from familiar ones.” DOC’s essay uses jazz as a metaphor:

Consistency is about making room for differentiation. Think about a jazz session: the band starts from a known scale, rhythm. One musician breaks through, improvising on top of that pattern for a few minutes before joining the band again. The band, the audience, everyone knows what is happening, when it starts and when it ends, because the foundation of it all is a consistent melody.

Josh Miller, writing in The Browser Company’s substack:

After a couple of years of building and shipping Arc, we started running into something we called the “novelty tax” problem. A lot of people loved Arc — if you’re here you might just be one of them — and we’d benefitted from consistent, organic growth since basically Day One. But for most people, Arc was simply too different, with too many new things to learn, for too little reward.

“Novelty tax” is another way of saying using non-standard patterns that users just didn’t get. I love Arc. It’s my daily driver. But, Miller is right that it does have a steep learning curve. So there is a natural ceiling to their market.

Miller’s conclusion is where things get really interesting:

Let me be even more clear: traditional browsers, as we know them, will die. Much in the same way that search engines and IDEs are being reimagined [by AI-first products like Perplexity and Cursor]. That doesn’t mean we’ll stop searching or coding. It just means the environments we do it in will look very different, in a way that makes traditional browsers, search engines, and IDEs feel like candles — however thoughtfully crafted. We’re getting out of the candle business. You should too.

“You should too.”

And finally, to bring it back to the novelty tax:

**New interfaces start from familiar ones. **In this new world, two opposing forces are simultaneously true. How we all use computers is changing much faster (due to AI) than most people acknowledge. Yet at the same time, we’re much farther from completely abandoning our old ways than AI insiders give credit for. Cursor proved this thesis in the coding space: the breakthrough AI app of the past year was an (old) IDE — designed to be AI-native. OpenAI confirmed this theory when they bought Windsurf (another AI IDE), despite having Codex working quietly in the background. We believe AI browsers are next.

Sad to see Arc’s slow death, but excited to try Dia soon.

Allen Pike:

While chat is powerful, for most products chatting with the underlying LLM should be more of a debug interface – a fallback mode – and not the primary UX.

I agree. Pike breaks down the various non-chat UIs in his post.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been fascinated by how television shows and movies are made. I remember the specials ABC broadcast about the making of The Empire Strikes Back and other Lucasfilm movies like the Indiana Jones series. More recently—especially with the advent of podcasts—I’ve loved listening to how show runners think about writing their shows. For example, as soon as an episode of Battlestar Galactica aired, I would rewatch it with Ronald D. Moore’s commentary. These days, I‘m really enjoying the official The Last of Us podcast because it features commentary from both Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann.

Anyway, thinking about personas as characters from TV shows and movies and using screenwriting techniques is right up my alley. Laia Tremosa for the IxDF:

Hollywood spends millions to bring characters to life. UX design teams sometimes spend weeks… only to make personas no one ever looks at again. So don’t aim for personas that look impressive in a slide deck. Aim for personas that get used—in design reviews, product decisions, and testing plans.

Be the screenwriter. Be the director. Be the casting agent.