korrents

Design

What the people who shaped how things are made think about design — in their own words, and when they said it.

Tuomas Artman, Jason Fried, Paul Graham, David Heinemeier Hansson, Mitchell Hashimoto, John Maeda, Craig Mod, Jakob Nielsen and 16 more Tuomas Artman, Jason Fried, Paul Graham, David Heinemeier Hansson, Mitchell Hashimoto, John Maeda, Craig Mod, Jakob Nielsen, Don Norman, Sundar Pichai, Dieter Rams, Guillermo Rauch, Naval Ravikant, Karri Saarinen, Ryan Singer, Derek Sivers, Jared Spool, Peter Steinberger, Edward Tufte, Bret Victor, Amelia Wattenberger, Sebastiaan de With, Luke Wroblewski, Julie Zhuo

Five viewsour reading; the words are theirs

Good design is less, and it disappears into the hand Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. — Dieter Rams, by 2012 Mitchell Hashimoto, Julie Zhuo, Amelia Wattenberger, Sebastiaan de With, Dieter Rams, John Maeda, Paul Graham 11 claims

The principles pile: as little design as possible, nothing arbitrary, obvious to use, never noticed.

The best terminal multiplexer is the one nobody has to learn; needing to be learned at all is the first design failure.

It says needing to be learned is the first design failure; a claim on the same subject from the same week says a couple of days of learning is a fair price.

  1. Mitchell Hashimoto Creator of Ghostty and co-founder of Superlogical I can't tell you the number of people over my career that have said "I tried learning tmux" First problem: the fact you have to "learn it" at all. The world's best multiplexer is the one you don't have to learn. It just works. @mitchellh on Xx.com · 28 Aug 2026
    I can't tell you the number of people over my career that have said "I tried learning tmux" First problem: the fact you have to "learn it" at all. The world's best multiplexer is the one you don't have to learn. It just works.

Obviousness comes from conforming to people's existing mental models: do not reinvent a common UI pattern unless the new one is at least twice as good.

Conventions (Jakob's law)

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… Obviousness comes from conforming to people’s existing mental models. Don’t waste time reinventing common UI patterns or paradigms unless they are at least 2x better, or you have some critical brand reason to do so. The Looking Glass: How to tell if work is beautifullg.substack.com · 16 Nov 2023
    Obviousness comes from conforming to people’s existing mental models. Don’t waste time reinventing common UI patterns or paradigms unless they are at least 2x better, or you have some critical brand reason to do so.

Better design does not mean more design: the most obvious designs are often invisible.

Less, but better

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… Better design does not mean more design. Often, the most obvious designs are invisible. The Looking Glass: How to tell if work is beautifullg.substack.com · 16 Nov 2023
    Better design does not mean more design. Often, the most obvious designs are invisible.

Good tools make it clear how they should be used and how they should not; a chat box looks the same as a search box, a login form and a credit card field.

Affordances and signifiers

  1. Amelia Wattenberger by Designer and engineer; formerly principal research… Good tools make it clear how they should be used. And more importantly, how they should not be used. Why Chatbots Are Not the Futurewattenberger.com · by 1 May 2023
    Good tools make it clear how they should be used. And more importantly, how they should not be used.

You know a design is great when it disappears: a superb typeface, good signage or a well-designed door handle is never noticed, only the absence of frustration.

Design is how it works

  1. Sebastiaan de With Designer and co-founder of Lux, makers of Halide When you come across an article set in a superb typeface for reading, some excellent airport signage or a well designed door handle, you don’t think about it or even notice it. If anything you might just notice being happier, or simply not frustrated. That’s how you know a design is great: it disappears. A Spectre Retrospective – Part 2: Designlux.camera · 11 Apr 2019
    When you come across an article set in a superb typeface for reading, some excellent airport signage or a well designed door handle, you don’t think about it or even notice it. If anything you might just notice being happier, or simply not frustrated. That’s how you know a design is great: it disappears.

Good design is as little design as possible: less, but better, because it concentrates on the essentials.

Less, but better

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.

Good design is unobtrusive: products that fulfil a purpose are tools, neither decorative objects nor works of art, and should leave room for the user's self-expression.

Design is how it works

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.

Good design makes a product understandable: at best it is self-explanatory.

Conservation of complexity

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory.

Good design is thorough down to the last detail: nothing must be arbitrary, and care in the design process shows respect towards the user.

Craft in the details

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the user. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the user.

Good design is simple, because being forced to be simple forces a maker to face the real problem and deliver substance instead of ornament.

Less, but better

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb When you're forced to be simple, you're forced to face the real problem. When you can't deliver ornament, you have to deliver substance. Taste for Makerspaulgraham.com · 1 Feb 2002
    When you're forced to be simple, you're forced to face the real problem. When you can't deliver ornament, you have to deliver substance.
It is honest and it is felt: speed, behaviour and truth matter more than looks Speed in software is probably the most valuable, least valued asset. To me, speedy software is the difference between an application smoothly integrating into your life, and one called upon with great reluctance. — Craig Mod, 2019 David Heinemeier Hansson, Jakob Nielsen, Jason Fried, Julie Zhuo, Craig Mod, Derek Sivers, Dieter Rams, Edward Tufte, Paul Graham 11 claims

What a design owes the person using it, from latency to not lying.

Aesthetics is truth: when something is beautiful it is likely to be correct, in code as in mathematics and physics.

  1. David Heinemeier Hansson Creator of Ruby on Rails, CTO of 37signals I mean, I think aesthetics is truth. When something is beautiful, it's likely to be correct. I think this is true in mathematics. This is true in physics. This is true in a lot of different domains that when you arrive at something that has the correct aesthetic quality. DHH’s new way of writing codeyoutube.com · 8 Apr 2026 · 0:28:33 into the videoAll korrents from this video
    I mean, I think aesthetics is truth. When something is beautiful, it's likely to be correct. I think this is true in mathematics. This is true in physics. This is true in a lot of different domains that when you arrive at something that has the correct aesthetic quality.

    Watch from 0:28:33 plays here

    ↗DHH’s new way of writing codeyoutube.com

    8 Apr 2026 · video · 1h 47m · spoken · machine transcript

Companies pay for design so that customers buy more and look at more ads; internet-era UX was manipulation, whatever designers set out to do.

Incentives

Not a claim about good design but about what design is bought for; filed here as what an honest design is up against.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… The reason companies pay for design is to get customers to buy more and users to look at more advertisements. Intent by Discovery: Designing the AI User Experiencejakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 26 Mar 2026
    The reason companies pay for design is to get customers to buy more and users to look at more advertisements.

The most interesting design is design that changes your behaviour, more than what something looks like or how it works.

Design is how it works

  1. Jason Fried Co-founder and CEO of 37signals (Basecamp, HEY) In some cases, design is what something looks like. In other cases, design is how something works. But the most interesting designs to me are when design changes your behavior. Even the smallest details can change how someone interacts with something. When design drives behaviorworld.hey.com · 7 Oct 2025
    In some cases, design is what something looks like. In other cases, design is how something works. But the most interesting designs to me are when design changes your behavior. Even the smallest details can change how someone interacts with something.

Do not judge a product's beauty by its aesthetics; judge it by how it made you feel.

Design is how it works

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… Do not judge a product’s beauty by its aesthetics; judge it by how it made you feel. The Looking Glass: How to tell if work is beautifullg.substack.com · 16 Nov 2023
    Do not judge a product’s beauty by its aesthetics; judge it by how it made you feel.

Speed in software is probably the most valuable, least valued asset.

Speed is a feature

  1. Craig Mod Writer, photographer and software maker based in Japan Speed in software is probably the most valuable, least valued asset. To me, speedy software is the difference between an application smoothly integrating into your life, and one called upon with great reluctance. Fast Software, the Best Softwarecraigmod.com · 1 Jul 2019
    Speed in software is probably the most valuable, least valued asset. To me, speedy software is the difference between an application smoothly integrating into your life, and one called upon with great reluctance.

The best touch interfaces are physical buttons; on a screen, to feel tactile is to move without latency.

Speed is a feature

  1. Craig Mod Writer, photographer and software maker based in Japan Excellent touch interfaces feel tactile. The best “touch interfaces,” in my opinion, are actual buttons, things with physicality, haptics. But on a screen, to feel tactile is to move without latency. Fast Software, the Best Softwarecraigmod.com · 1 Jul 2019
    Excellent touch interfaces feel tactile. The best “touch interfaces,” in my opinion, are actual buttons, things with physicality, haptics. But on a screen, to feel tactile is to move without latency.

The feeds businesses design to be addictive are obstacles to anyone whose aim is to make something.

  1. Derek Sivers Founded CD Baby in 1998 and sold it in 2008 Every business wants to get you addicted to their infinite updates, pings, chats, messages, and news. But if what you want out of life is to create, then those are your obstacles. Disconnectsive.rs · 27 Jul 2016All korrents from this piece
    Every business wants to get you addicted to their infinite updates, pings, chats, messages, and news. But if what you want out of life is to create, then those are your obstacles.

Good design is honest: it does not make a product seem more innovative, powerful or valuable than it is, and does not manipulate with promises that cannot be kept.

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.

Good design is long-lasting: it avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated.

  1. Dieter Rams by Industrial designer; head of design at Braun from 1961… It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society. Dieter Rams: ten principles for good designvitsoe.com · by 3 Aug 2012
    It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society.

Audience boredom is usually a content failure, not a decoration failure: if the numbers are boring you have the wrong numbers.

Design is how it works

  1. Edward Tufte Statistician and professor emeritus at Yale If your numbers are boring, then you've got the wrong numbers. If your words or images are not on point, making them dance in color won't make them relevant. Audience boredom is usually a content failure, not a decoration failure. PowerPoint Is Evilwired.com · 1 Sept 2003
    If your numbers are boring, then you've got the wrong numbers. If your words or images are not on point, making them dance in color won't make them relevant. Audience boredom is usually a content failure, not a decoration failure.

Good design is timeless: if something is ugly it cannot be the best solution, and someone will eventually find a better one.

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb if something is ugly, it can't be the best solution. There must be a better one, and eventually someone will discover it. Taste for Makerspaulgraham.com · 1 Feb 2002
    if something is ugly, it can't be the best solution. There must be a better one, and eventually someone will discover it.
Taste is real, one person has to hold it, and the makers should work in the medium Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things. — Paul Graham, 2002 David Heinemeier Hansson, Luke Wroblewski, Julie Zhuo, Jakob Nielsen, Jared Spool, Karri Saarinen, Paul Graham 11 claims · claims collide here

Who decides, and whether they should be building the thing themselves.

Saarinen says a product needs one person of great taste who gets furious about every small detail. Spool says everyone who renders their intention is a designer, and that the experienced designer’s job is therefore to teach the rest of the team rather than own the outcome. Both are answers to "where does design quality come from", and they distribute the authority opposite ways.

Most organisations are bottlenecked on ideas, vision and taste rather than on implementation, so making code cheap does not make them productive.

Bottlenecks

  1. David Heinemeier Hansson Creator of Ruby on Rails, CTO of 37signals The other thing I'd say is that most organizations don't know what they want. They don't know how to make it better. They're not bottlenecked on implementation. They're bottlenecked on ideas. They're bottlenecked on vision. They're bottlenecked on taste. And if you don't have those element in excess of your implementational capacity, it doesn't help. So you can make a lot of shitty ideas come true, then what? DHH: Future of Programming, AI, Agentic Engineering, Vibe Coding & Linux | Lex Fridman Podcast #501youtube.com · 26 Aug 2026 · 0:20:13 into the videoAll korrents from this video
    The other thing I'd say is that most organizations don't know what they want. They don't know how to make it better. They're not bottlenecked on implementation. They're bottlenecked on ideas. They're bottlenecked on vision. They're bottlenecked on taste. And if you don't have those element in excess of your implementational capacity, it doesn't help. So you can make a lot of shitty ideas come true, then what?

Without the handoff, everyone builds: designer, developer and product manager can all work in the codebase at once, and that changes everything.

  1. Luke Wroblewski Product designer and entrepreneur But without the handoff, everyone builds. And that makes all the difference. The New Designer/Developer Collaborationlukew.com · 15 Apr 2026
    But without the handoff, everyone builds. And that makes all the difference.

Designers should find what the spec should be and build it in HTML and CSS themselves, not make a product manager's spec look pretty.

Make it real

  1. David Heinemeier Hansson Creator of Ruby on Rails, CTO of 37signals Designers at 37 Signals are not just here to make a spec look pretty. They're here to find what the spec should be. They're product managers in many ways. DHH’s new way of writing codeyoutube.com · 8 Apr 2026 · 0:23:27 into the videoAll korrents from this video
    Designers at 37 Signals are not just here to make a spec look pretty. They're here to find what the spec should be. They're product managers in many ways.

    Watch from 0:23:27 plays here

    ↗DHH’s new way of writing codeyoutube.com

    8 Apr 2026 · video · 1h 47m · spoken · machine transcript

Designers should code, and AI coding agents have reopened that door after a decade in which front-end complexity closed it.

  1. Luke Wroblewski Product designer and entrepreneur There's a question that never goes away in design: should designers code? My answer has always been yes. But for a decade or so, the complexity of front-end development made it impractical for most. Thankfully, AI coding agents have reopened the door. Should Designers "Code"?lukew.com · 7 Apr 2026
    There's a question that never goes away in design: should designers code? My answer has always been yes. But for a decade or so, the complexity of front-end development made it impractical for most. Thankfully, AI coding agents have reopened the door.

Taste is the ability to distinguish excellence from mediocrity, and the hand can never consistently produce better than the eye can discern.

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… Good taste: taste is the ability to distinguish excellence from mediocrity. The hand can never consistently produce better than the eye can discern. The Death of Product Development as We Know itlg.substack.com · 25 Mar 2025
    Good taste: taste is the ability to distinguish excellence from mediocrity. The hand can never consistently produce better than the eye can discern.

Vibe coding lets users design and build their own software, upending the user-centred design paradigm that has held since 1947.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… The new trend toward vibe coding and vibe design may be upending the user-centered design paradigm that has remained based on the same ideology since the first UX design projects at Bell Labs, starting in 1947. Does User-Driven Design Still Need User-Centered Design?jakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 13 Mar 2025
    The new trend toward vibe coding and vibe design may be upending the user-centered design paradigm that has remained based on the same ideology since the first UX design projects at Bell Labs, starting in 1947.

Mockups existed because coding was hard; now designers can skip static mockups and go straight to building a UI that works.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… Essentially, vibe coding makes it trivial to create front-end code, so designers can skip static mockups and go straight to building a UI that works. Vibe Coding and Vibe Designjakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 7 Mar 2025
    Essentially, vibe coding makes it trivial to create front-end code, so designers can skip static mockups and go straight to building a UI that works.

Everyone who renders their intention is a designer, so the experienced designer's role shifts from owning the outcome to teaching the rest of the team to render theirs.

  1. Jared Spool Co-founder of Center Centre and founder of UIE The notion of the academically-trained, experienced designer holding the keys to the design outcome fades with this definition. In fact, when we think about design in these terms, it becomes clear that many of the people rendering their intention don’t know they are designers. This implies the role of the experienced designer shifts from owning the design outcome to educating all the other designers on the team on how to best render their own intentions. Design is the Rendering of Intentarticles.centercentre.com · 30 Dec 2013
    The notion of the academically-trained, experienced designer holding the keys to the design outcome fades with this definition. In fact, when we think about design in these terms, it becomes clear that many of the people rendering their intention don’t know they are designers. This implies the role of the experienced designer shifts from owning the design outcome to educating all the other designers on the team on how to best render their own intentions.

A product needs a soul, and for that it needs one person of great taste who is its living, breathing aspect and gets furious about every small detail.

  1. Karri Saarinen Co-founder and CEO of Linear For the soul, you need a person with a great taste to be the living and breathing aspect of the product. The one forging the blades. The person who thinks about the in and outs of the product and the business. Your Product Needs a Soulkarrisaarinen.com · 12 Feb 2010
    For the soul, you need a person with a great taste to be the living and breathing aspect of the product. The one forging the blades. The person who thinks about the in and outs of the product and the business.

Good design requires a dictator: design by committee is a synonym for bad design, because a design has to be all of a piece.

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb I'm inclined to think there isn't-- that good design requires a dictator. One reason is that good design has to be all of a piece. Design is not just for humans, but for individual humans. If a design represents an idea that fits in one person's head, then the idea will fit in the user's head too. Design and Researchpaulgraham.com · 1 Jan 2003
    I'm inclined to think there isn't-- that good design requires a dictator. One reason is that good design has to be all of a piece. Design is not just for humans, but for individual humans. If a design represents an idea that fits in one person's head, then the idea will fit in the user's head too.

Taste is not just personal preference: there is such a thing as good and bad design, and a maker's taste can be wrong.

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things. Taste for Makerspaulgraham.com · 1 Feb 2002
    Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to design things.
The user is not you: design for what they need, and study them to improve what exists In the world of high-stakes digital strategy, the “average user” is a dangerous statistical artifact. — Jakob Nielsen, 2026 Jakob Nielsen, Tuomas Artman, Julie Zhuo, Don Norman, Ryan Singer, Paul Graham 10 claims · 1 change of mind · claims collide here

Users, research, and where the breakthroughs actually come from.

Norman says design research is essentially useless for new, innovative breakthroughs, however good it is at improving an existing category. Zhuo says the less your audience looks like you, the more you should distrust your own intuition — which is an argument for research exactly where your instincts are least reliable. Both are true only if breakthroughs must be designed for people like the designer.

The average user is a dangerous statistical artifact: design for the gap between the median user and the heavy-use tail, not for a phantom mean.

The map is not the territory

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… In the world of high-stakes digital strategy, the “average user” is a dangerous statistical artifact. Don’t Design for Average Usersjakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 19 Mar 2026
    In the world of high-stakes digital strategy, the “average user” is a dangerous statistical artifact.

To compete with limited resources, scope down who you are building for as much as possible and solve the problems of specific people.

Less, but better

  1. Tuomas Artman Co-founder and CTO of Linear To be able to do this with limited resources, you must scope down your audience (and thus your ambitions) as much as possible to make competing easier, and aim to solve the problems of specific people. Rethinking the startup MVP: Building a competitive productlinear.app · 28 Feb 2024
    To be able to do this with limited resources, you must scope down your audience (and thus your ambitions) as much as possible to make competing easier, and aim to solve the problems of specific people.

The more your target audience does not look like you, the more you should be skeptical of your design intuition.

You are not the user

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… The more your target audience does not look like you, the more you should be skeptical of your design intuition. Despite having seen thousands of a/b test results for minor design details, I am still regularly surprised and humbled by my intuition being wrong. The Looking Glass: What AI Won't Changelg.substack.com · 20 Apr 2023
    The more your target audience does not look like you, the more you should be skeptical of your design intuition. Despite having seen thousands of a/b test results for minor design details, I am still regularly surprised and humbled by my intuition being wrong.

What gets called human error is design error: technology-centred design makes people do what machines are good at and then blames them.

Design is how it works, You are not the user

  1. Don Norman Cognitive scientist and designer Human error is blamed for over 90 percent of industrial and automobile accidents. It is the leading cause of aviation accidents, and medical error is reported to be the third-largest cause of death in the entire United States. Horrifying? Yes, but why do we label it “human error”? It is design error. People-Centered (Not Tech-Driven) Designjnd.org · 26 Jul 2019
    Human error is blamed for over 90 percent of industrial and automobile accidents. It is the leading cause of aviation accidents, and medical error is reported to be the third-largest cause of death in the entire United States. Horrifying? Yes, but why do we label it “human error”? It is design error.

Over-specifying a design makes it harder to estimate, not easier: the more specific the work, the more hidden complexity a mockup commits the team to.

Conservation of complexity

  1. Ryan Singer by Author of Shape Up; formerly head of strategy at Basecamp Over-specifying the design also leads to estimation errors. Counterintuitive as it may seem, the more specific the work is, the harder it can be to estimate. Shape Up, chapter 2: Principles of Shapingbasecamp.com · by 10 Jul 2019
    Over-specifying the design also leads to estimation errors. Counterintuitive as it may seem, the more specific the work is, the harder it can be to estimate.

Design thinking is a myth: designers have no special creative thought process, and the term is a public relations label for good old-fashioned creative thinking.

Its holder called design thinking a myth in 2010 and took it back in 2013; the second statement is what he holds now.

  1. Don Norman · held 3 years Cognitive scientist and designer As a result, I have changed my mind: Design Thinking really is special. Alas, it isn't embraced by all designers, but where it exists, it is powerful. Rethinking Design Thinkingcore77.com · 19 Mar 2013

    As a result, I have changed my mind: Design Thinking really is special. Alas, it isn't embraced by all designers, but where it exists, it is powerful.

    Since my essay was posted, I keep encountering people who jump to solutions and who fail to question assumptions—engineers, business people, and yes, designers (and design students). These encounters made me reconsider.

Design research is great for improving existing product categories but essentially useless for new, innovative breakthroughs.

  1. Don Norman Cognitive scientist and designer I’ve come to a disconcerting conclusion: design research is great when it comes to improving existing product categories but essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs. Technology First, Needs Lastjnd.org · 5 Dec 2009
    I’ve come to a disconcerting conclusion: design research is great when it comes to improving existing product categories but essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs.

Design is for users, but you have to design what the user needs rather than what he says he wants.

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb The answer to the paradox, I think, is that you have to design for the user, but you have to design what the user needs, not simply what he says he wants. Design and Researchpaulgraham.com · 1 Jan 2003
    The answer to the paradox, I think, is that you have to design for the user, but you have to design what the user needs, not simply what he says he wants.

You are most likely to get good design if the intended users include the designer, because looking down on the user corrupts the designer.

You are not the user

  1. Paul Graham Co-founder of Y Combinator and Viaweb You're most likely to get good design if the intended users include the designer himself. When you design something for a group that doesn't include you, it tends to be for people you consider to be less sophisticated than you, not more sophisticated. That's a problem, because looking down on the user, however benevolently, seems inevitably to corrupt the designer. Design and Researchpaulgraham.com · 1 Jan 2003
    You're most likely to get good design if the intended users include the designer himself. When you design something for a group that doesn't include you, it tends to be for people you consider to be less sophisticated than you, not more sophisticated. That's a problem, because looking down on the user, however benevolently, seems inevitably to corrupt the designer.
The chat box was the door, not the room: the interface is being argued over again The problem with a blank chat box on a blank page is that it violates the first rule of a high-quality user experience: it isn’t obvious what I can do. — Julie Zhuo, 2025 Guillermo Rauch, Naval Ravikant, Peter Steinberger, Luke Wroblewski, Sundar Pichai, Sebastiaan de With, Julie Zhuo, Jakob Nielsen, Amelia Wattenberger, Bret Victor 12 claims · claims collide here

Whether the interface disappears into intent and agents, survives as buttons, or was the wrong thing all along.

Ravikant expects every interface to converge on chat and gestures in, chat and video out. Wroblewski says chat is not AI’s final form, that agent-based applications already outperform chat-only ones, and that many different interfaces will emerge. Convergence on one shape and proliferation into many are the same prediction with the sign flipped.

Wattenberger’s objection is structural: a text box has no affordances, so it cannot tell anyone what it can do. Ravikant expects that box to become the shape of every interface. If the objection holds, the convergence is a convergence on the worst available design.

Nielsen says agents end traditional UI design because users will stop visiting websites, and also that the graphical interface survives in a reduced, hybrid role. Ending and surviving-in-reduced-form are compatible as a prediction and incompatible as advice to anyone deciding whether to keep employing interface designers.

Victor calls the touchscreen a transitional technology and says treating pictures under glass as the future of interaction is like calling black-and-white the future of photography. Ravikant expects convergence on chat and gestures in, chat and video out — which is pictures under glass with a microphone. The disagreement is about whether the body gets to come back.

The middle of the web gets subsumed by agents producing just-in-time UI: the agent is the new browser.

  1. Guillermo Rauch CEO of Vercel; creator of Next.js and Socket.IO The 'in between' is likely to be subsumed by agents producing just-in-time UI. When you need utilitarian content or data, it'll be generated just-in-time for you. Think of the agent as the new browser in this model. @rauchg on Xx.com · 28 Aug 2026
    The 'in between' is likely to be subsumed by agents producing just-in-time UI. When you need utilitarian content or data, it'll be generated just-in-time for you. Think of the agent as the new browser in this model.

The chat box is not the final form of working with models; it is radio shows recorded onto television.

  1. Peter Steinberger Founded PSPDFKit in 2011 and ran it for a decade Like, if you think more globally, we are, we copied Google for agents. You have, like, a prompt, and, and then you have a chat interface. That, to me, very much feels like when we first created television and then people recorded radio shows on television and you saw that on TV. OpenClaw: The Viral AI Agent that Broke the Internet - Peter Steinberger | Lex Fridman Podcast #491youtube.com · 12 Feb 2026 · 1:50:06 into the videoAll korrents from this video
    Like, if you think more globally, we are, we copied Google for agents. You have, like, a prompt, and, and then you have a chat interface. That, to me, very much feels like when we first created television and then people recorded radio shows on television and you saw that on TV.

Chat is not AI's final form: agent-based applications increasingly outperform chat-only ones, and many different interfaces for AI will emerge.

  1. Luke Wroblewski Product designer and entrepreneur It's also worth noting that chat isn't the only way to integrate AI in software products and increasingly agent-based applications outperform chat-only solutions. So expect things to keep changing. Chat is: the Future or a Terrible UIlukew.com · 28 Aug 2025
    It's also worth noting that chat isn't the only way to integrate AI in software products and increasingly agent-based applications outperform chat-only solutions. So expect things to keep changing.

Models that can code should be allowed to write their own interfaces, instead of being boxed into the UI humans give them.

  1. Sundar Pichai CEO of Google and Alphabet Today, we are constraining the models, the models can't quite express themselves in terms of the UI to people. But if you think about it, we've kind of boxed them in that way, but given these models can code, they should be able to write the best interfaces to express their ideas over time. Sundar Pichai: CEO of Google and Alphabet | Lex Fridman Podcast #471youtube.com · 5 Jun 2025 · 0:43:02 into the videoAll korrents from this video
    Today, we are constraining the models, the models can't quite express themselves in terms of the UI to people. But if you think about it, we've kind of boxed them in that way, but given these models can code, they should be able to write the best interfaces to express their ideas over time.

    Watch from 0:43:02 plays here

    ↗Sundar Pichai: CEO of Google and Alphabet | Lex Fridman Podcast #471youtube.com

    5 Jun 2025 · video · 2h 12m · spoken · official transcript

Interfaces are returning to skeuomorphism, but as behaviour rather than lacquer: clear, graphic elements that act like materials from the real world.

Design is how it works

  1. Sebastiaan de With Designer and co-founder of Lux, makers of Halide We’ve come back, in a sense, to skeuomorphic interfaces — but this time not with a lacquer resembling a material. Instead, the interface is clear, graphic and behaves like things we know from the real world, or might exist in the world. This is what the new skeuomorphism is. It, too, is physicality. Physicality: the new age of UIlux.camera · 3 Jun 2025
    We’ve come back, in a sense, to skeuomorphic interfaces — but this time not with a lacquer resembling a material. Instead, the interface is clear, graphic and behaves like things we know from the real world, or might exist in the world. This is what the new skeuomorphism is. It, too, is physicality.

A blank chat box is lazy: it violates the first rule of a good user experience, that it is obvious what you can do.

Affordances and signifiers

  1. Julie Zhuo Co-founder of Sundial; former vice president of product… The problem with a blank chat box on a blank page is that it violates the first rule of a high-quality user experience: it isn’t obvious what I can do. Conversational Interfaces: the Good, the Ugly & the Billion-Dollar Opportunitylg.substack.com · 12 May 2025
    The problem with a blank chat box on a blank page is that it violates the first rule of a high-quality user experience: it isn’t obvious what I can do.

AI agents will end traditional UI design and accessibility, because users will stop visiting websites and act only through their agent.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… Once, humans navigated the web manually. In the future, AI agents will act on our behalf, browsing, clicking, and deciding. This shift marks the end of traditional UI design and accessibility, ushering in a future where agents are the primary users of digital services. Hello AI Agents: Goodbye UI Design, RIP Accessibilityjakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 21 Feb 2025
    Once, humans navigated the web manually. In the future, AI agents will act on our behalf, browsing, clicking, and deciding. This shift marks the end of traditional UI design and accessibility, ushering in a future where agents are the primary users of digital services.

AI is the first new user-interface paradigm in sixty years: intent-based outcome specification, where the user says what outcome they want rather than how to get it.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… The third UI paradigm, represented by current generative AI, is intent-based outcome specification. The user tells the computer the desired result but does not specify how this outcome should be accomplished, such as the steps to be executed. Compared to traditional command-based interaction design, this completely reverses the locus of control. AI Is First New UI Paradigm in 60 Yearsjakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 22 Jun 2023
    The third UI paradigm, represented by current generative AI, is intent-based outcome specification. The user tells the computer the desired result but does not specify how this outcome should be accomplished, such as the steps to be executed. Compared to traditional command-based interaction design, this completely reverses the locus of control.

The graphical user interface will survive AI in a less dominant role: future AI systems will have hybrid interfaces that combine intent and command.

  1. Jakob Nielsen Usability pioneer; co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group… Thus, the 2nd UI paradigm will survive, albeit in a less dominant role. Future AI systems will likely have a hybrid user interface that combines elements of both intent-based and command-based interfaces while still retaining many GUI elements. AI Is First New UI Paradigm in 60 Yearsjakobnielsenphd.substack.com · 22 Jun 2023
    Thus, the 2nd UI paradigm will survive, albeit in a less dominant role. Future AI systems will likely have a hybrid user interface that combines elements of both intent-based and command-based interfaces while still retaining many GUI elements.

Chatbots are a terrible interface for large language models, because a text box has no affordances.

Affordances and signifiers

  1. Amelia Wattenberger by Designer and engineer; formerly principal research… Hopefully I've convinced you that chatbots are a terrible interface for LLMs. Or, at the very least, that we can add controls, information, and affordances to our chatbot interfaces to make them more usable. Why Chatbots Are Not the Futurewattenberger.com · by 1 May 2023
    Hopefully I've convinced you that chatbots are a terrible interface for LLMs. Or, at the very least, that we can add controls, information, and affordances to our chatbot interfaces to make them more usable.

Touchscreens are pictures under glass, a transitional technology; calling them the future of interaction is like calling black-and-white the future of photography.

  1. Bret Victor Interface designer and researcher To me, claiming that Pictures Under Glass is the future of interaction is like claiming that black-and-white is the future of photography. It's obviously a transitional technology. And the sooner we transition, the better. A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Designworrydream.com · 8 Nov 2011
    To me, claiming that Pictures Under Glass is the future of interaction is like claiming that black-and-white is the future of photography. It's obviously a transitional technology. And the sooner we transition, the better.

Read togetherour reading of the record — ours, not theirs

They agree good design is less, and split over who should do it and what a model changes.

What is a view?

Our reading of what a group of claims have in common. Nobody holds a belief about design as such; people hold beliefs about the handful of live questions the name stands for, and each view is one of them. The claims are printed under it, so the sentence can be checked against them.

Claims are filed here — never people. Somebody is named on a card because a dated claim of theirs sits under it, and somebody whose claims sit under two views is named on both. There are no counts of who believes what: the people under a view are the names printed there.

Four questions, view by view

Each one: the views people take on it and who holds which, every name on a dated claim.

On this subject, not yet placed

Matched by wording, not yet read into a view. The archive grows on its own — the watcher adds claims every two hours — so this is where new ones wait for somebody to read them.

The stream

The same 3587 positions as the timeline, threaded — each on the rail of the view it is filed under, and 3540 on no rail yet. Tap a view to follow it.

October 2026

Gergely Orosz ·

Machines are not conscious

September 2026

Kent C. Dodds ·

A new feature is a new product.

Mitchell Hashimoto ·

Software should be fun.

August 2026

July 2026

June 2026

May 2026

April 2026

March 2026

February 2026

January 2026

c. 2024–2025

December 2025

November 2025

October 2025

September 2025

August 2025

July 2025

June 2025

May 2025

April 2025

March 2025

February 2025

January 2025

December 2024

November 2024

October 2024

September 2024

August 2024

July 2024

June 2024

May 2024

April 2024

March 2024

February 2024

January 2024

December 2023

November 2023

October 2023

September 2023

August 2023

July 2023

June 2023

May 2023

April 2023

March 2023

February 2023

January 2023

December 2022

November 2022

October 2022

September 2022

August 2022

July 2022

June 2022

May 2022

April 2022

March 2022

February 2022

January 2022

December 2021

November 2021

October 2021

September 2021

August 2021

July 2021

June 2021

May 2021

April 2021

March 2021

February 2021

January 2021

December 2020

November 2020

October 2020

September 2020

August 2020

July 2020

June 2020

May 2020

April 2020

March 2020

February 2020

January 2020

c. 2018–2019

December 2019

November 2019

October 2019

September 2019

August 2019

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

April 2019

March 2019

February 2019

January 2019

December 2018

November 2018

October 2018

September 2018

August 2018

July 2018

June 2018

May 2018

April 2018

March 2018

February 2018

January 2018

December 2017

November 2017

August 2017

July 2017

June 2017

May 2017

March 2017

February 2017

January 2017

November 2016

September 2016

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

February 2016

January 2016

c. 2011–2015

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

March 2015

February 2015

c. 2000–2014

c. 2014

December 2014

November 2014

September 2014

August 2014

July 2014

May 2014

January 2014

c. 2013

c. 1988–2013

c. 2013

c. 1988–2013

c. 2013

December 2013

October 2013

August 2013

July 2013

June 2013

March 2013

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

April 2012

c. 2011

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

August 2011

July 2011

May 2011

April 2011

c. 2010

August 2010

June 2010

May 2010

April 2010

February 2010

December 2009

October 2009

April 2009

February 2009

November 2008

June 2008

January 2008

October 2007

May 2007

February 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

August 2006

June 2006

May 2006

March 2006

c. 2005

August 2005

June 2005

January 2005

August 2004

May 2004

February 2004

c. 2002–2003

September 2003

August 2003

May 2003

January 2003

December 2002

February 2002

July 2000

March 1999

May 1998

January 1998

c. 1996

February 1996

April 1995

May 1990

August 1984

c. 1979

c. 1978

December 1978

c. 1977

c. 1970

c. 1968

c. 1963–1968

c. 1968

December 1968

c. 1963–1964

c. 1964

c. 1962

c. 1961

c. 1959

January 1958

c. 1955

December 1954

c. 1944

c. 1942

c. 1930

c. 1925

c. 1921

c. 1918–1920

June 1920

c. 1918

c. 1917

May 1905

February 1903

c. 1902

c. 1890–1902

c. 1902

c. 1898

February 1867

c. 1861

c. 1859–1860

October 1859

c. 1854

July 1852

c. 1851

November 1844

c. 1843

c. 1838

December 1790

March 1789

c. 1785

July 1783

March 1776

c. 1748

c. 1733

c. 1713–1726

c. 1704–1718

c. 1694–1697

September 1656

c. 1651

June 1637

c. 1597–1625

c. 1513–1514

c. 1258–1273

c. 1126–1195

c. 1190

c. 1106–1111

c. 450–500 CE

c. 89–135 CE

c. 62–65 CE

c. 341–270 BCE

c. 450–250 BCE

The same record, other ways: every position as a chronology, or person by person.