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.

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.

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.”

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.

In this short piece by Luke Wroblewski, he observes how the chat box is slowly giving way as agents and MCP give AI chatbots a little more autonomy.

When agents can use multiple tools, call other agents and run in the background, a person's role moves to kicking things off, clarifying things when needed, and making use of the final output. There's a lot less chatting back and forth. As such, the prominence of the chat interface can recede even further. It's there if you want to check the steps an AI took to accomplish your task. But until then it's out of your way so you can focus on the output.

Following up on OpenAI’s acquisition of Jony Ive’s hardware startup, io, Mark Wilson, writing for Fast Company:

As Ive told me back in 2023, there have been only three significant modalities in the history of computing. After the original command line, we got the graphical user interface (the desktop, folders, and mouse of Xerox, Mac OS, and Windows), then voice (Alexa, Siri), and, finally, with the iPhone, multitouch (not just the ability to tap a screen, but to gesture and receive haptic feedback). When I brought up some other examples, Ive quickly nodded but dismissed them, acknowledging these as “tributaries” of experimentation. Then he said that to him the promise, and excitement, of building new AI hardware was that it might introduce a new breakthrough modality to interacting with a machine. A fourth modality. 

Hmm, it hasn’t taken off yet because AR hasn’t really gained mainstream popularity, but I would argue hand gestures in AR UI to be a fourth modality. But Ive thinks different. Wilson continues:

Ive’s fourth modality, as I gleaned, was about translating AI intuition into human sensation. And it’s the exact sort of technology we need to introduce ubiquitous computing, also called quiet computing and ambient computing. These are terms coined by the late UX researcher Mark Weiser, who in the 1990s began dreaming of a world that broke us free from our desktop computers to usher in devices that were one with our environment. Weiser did much of this work at Xerox PARC, the same R&D lab that developed the mouse and GUI technology that Steve Jobs would eventually adopt for the Macintosh. (I would also be remiss to ignore that ubiquitous computing is the foundation of the sci-fi film Her, one of Altman’s self-stated goalposts.)

Ah, essentially an always-on, always watching AI that is ready to assist. But whatever the form factor this device takes, it will likely depend on a smartphone:

The first io device seems to acknowledge the phone’s inertia. Instead of presenting itself as a smartphone-killer like the Ai Pin or as a fabled “second screen” like the Apple Watch, it’s been positioned as a third, er, um . . . thing next to your phone and laptop. Yeah, that’s confusing, and perhaps positions the io product as unessential. But it also appears to be a needed strategy: Rather than topple these screened devices, it will attempt to draft off them.

Wilson ends with the idea of a subjective computer, one that has personality and gives you opinions. He explains:

I think AI is shifting us from objective to subjective. When a Fitbit counts your steps and calories burned, that’s an objective interface. When you ask ChatGPT to gauge the tone of a conversation, or whether you should eat better, that’s a subjective interface. It offers perspective, bias, and, to some extent, personality. It’s not just serving facts; it’s offering interpretation. 

The entire column is worth a read.

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.

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.

Dan Maccarone:

If users don’t trust the systems we design, that’s not a PM problem. It’s a design failure. And if we don’t fix it, someone else will, probably with worse instincts, fewer ethics, and a much louder bullhorn.

UX is supposed to be the human layer of technology. It’s also supposed to be the place where strategy and empathy actually talk to each other. If we can’t reclaim that space, can’t build products people understand, trust, and want to return to, then what exactly are we doing here?

It is a long read but well worth it.

There has been an explosion of AI-powered prompt-to-code tools within the last year. The space began with full-on integrated development environments (IDEs) like Cursor and Windsurf. These enabled developers to use leverage AI assistants right inside their coding apps. Then came a tools like v0, Lovable, and Replit, where users could prompt screens into existence at first, and before long, entire applications.

A couple weeks ago, I decided to test out as many of these tools as I could. My aim was to find the app that would combine AI assistance, design capabilities, and the ability to use an organization’s coded design system.

While my previous essay was about the future of product design, this article will dive deep into a head-to-head between all eight apps that I tried. I recorded the screen as I did my testing, so I’ve put together a video as well, in case you didn’t want to read this.

Product design is going to change profoundly within the next 24 months. If the AI 2027 report is any indication, the capabilities of the foundational models will grow exponentially, and with them—I believe—will the abilities of design tools.

The TL;DR of the report is this: companies like OpenAI have more advanced AI agent models that are building the next-generation models. Once those are built, the previous generation is tested for safety and released to the public. And the cycle continues. Currently, and for the next year or two, these companies are focusing their advanced models on creating superhuman coders. This compounds and will result in artificial general intelligence, or AGI, within the next five years. 

Karri Saarinen, writing for the Linear blog:

Unbounded AI, much like a river without banks, becomes powerful but directionless. Designers need to build the banks and bring shape to the direction of AI’s potential. But we face a fundamental tension in that AI sort of breaks our usual way of designing things, working back from function, and shaping the form.

I love the metaphor of AI being the a river and we designers are the banks. Feels very much in line with my notion that we need to become even better curators.

Saarinen continues, critiquing the generic chatbox being the primary form of interacting with AI:

One way I visualize this relationship between the form of traditional UI and the function of AI is through the metaphor of a ‘workbench’. Just as a carpenter's workbench is familiar and purpose-built, providing an organized environment for tools and materials, a well-designed interface can create productive context for AI interactions. Rather than being a singular tool, the workbench serves as an environment that enhances the utility of other tools – including the ‘magic’ AI tools.

Software like Linear serves as this workbench. It provides structure, context, and a specialized environment for specific workflows. AI doesn’t replace the workbench, it's a powerful new tool to place on top of it.

It’s interesting. I don’t know what Linear is telegraphing here, but if I had to guess, I wonder if it’s closer to being field-specific or workflow-specific, similar to Generative Fill in Photoshop. It’s a text field—not textarea—limited to a single workflow.

Sarah Gibbons and Evan Sunwall from NN/g:

The rise of AI tools doesn't mean becoming a "unicorn" who can do everything perfectly. Specialization will remain valuable in our field: there will still be dedicated researchers, content strategists, and designers.

However, AI is broadening the scope of what any individual can accomplish, regardless of their specific expertise.

What we're seeing isn't the elimination of specialization but rather an increased value placed on expanding the top of a professional's "expertise T.”

This reinforces what I talked about in a previous essay, "T-shaped skills [will become] increasingly valuable—depth in one area with breadth across others."

They go on to say:

We believe these broad skills will coalesce into experience designer and architect roles: people who direct AI-supported design tasks to craft experiences for humans and AI agents alike, while ensuring that the resulting work reflects well-researched, strategic thinking.

In other words, curation of the work that AI does.

They also make the point that designers need to be strategic, i.e., focus on the why:

This evolution means that the unique value we bring as UX professionals is shifting decidedly toward strategic thinking and leadership. While AI can execute tasks, it cannot independently understand the complex human and organizational contexts in which our work exists.

Finally, Gibbons and Sunwall end with some solid advice:

To adapt to this shift toward generalist skills, UX professionals should focus on 4 key areas:
• Developing a learning mindset
• Becoming fluent in AI collaboration
• Focusing on transferable skills
• Expanding into adjacent fields

I appreciate the learning mindset bit, since that's how I'm wired. I also believe that collaborating with AI is the way to go, rather than seeing it as a replacement or a threat.

The fall of Sonos isn’t as simple as a botched app redesign. Instead, it is the cumulative result of poor strategy, hubris, and forgetting the company’s core value proposition. To recap, Sonos rolled out a new mobile app in May 2024, promising “an unprecedented streaming experience.” Instead, it was a severely handicapped app, missing core features and broke users’ systems. By January 2025, that failed launch wiped nearly $500 million from the company’s market value and cost CEO Patrick Spence his job.

What happened? Why did Sonos go backwards on accessibility? Why did the company remove features like sleep timers and queue management? Immediately after the rollout, the backlash began to snowball into a major crisis.

As a designer and longtime Sonos customer who was also affected by the terrible new app, a little piece of me died inside each time I read the word “redesign.” It was hard not to take it personally, knowing that my profession could have anything to do with how things turned out. Was it really Design’s fault?

Fabricio Teixeira and Caio Braga, in their annual The State of UX report:

Despite all the transformations we’re seeing, one thing we know for sure: Design (the craft, the discipline, the science) is not going anywhere. While Design only became a more official profession in the 19th century, the study of how craft can be applied to improve business dates back to the early 1800s. Since then, only one thing has remained constant: how Design is done is completely different decade after decade. The change we’re discussing here is not a revolution, just an evolution. It’s simply a change in how many roles will be needed and what they will entail. “Digital systems, not people, will do much of the craft of (screen-level) interaction design.”

Scary words for the UX design profession as it stares down the coming onslaught of AI. Our industry isn’t the first one to face this—copywriters, illustrators, and stock photographers have already been facing the disruption of their respective crafts. All of these creatives have had to pivot quickly. And so will we.

Teixeira and Braga remind us that “Design is not going anywhere,” and that “how Design is done is completely different decade after decade.”