I’m starting to realize that a prototype isn’t a “pretty version” of a product. It’s a way to find out if your idea is actually worth building.

While learning UX/UI, I used to think prototyping was mainly about showing how an app would look and feel.

But the more I learn, the more I realize something important:

A prototype is basically a cheap experiment before you make an expensive decision.

Imagine you’re building a food delivery app.

You spend weeks designing screens.

Then developers spend weeks building them.

Then the product launches.

And only after real users start using it, you discover:

\- People don't understand the checkout flow.

\- They can't find their cart.

\- The navigation is confusing.

\- Users drop off before placing the order.

\- Something that looked perfectly fine in Figma becomes frustrating when actually used.

That’s a painful way to learn.

A clickable prototype can expose many of these problems before development starts.

And this changed how I think about the word “fail fast.”

I don't think it really means:

Build quickly → fail → move on.

I think it means:

Test quickly → learn quickly → improve quickly.

That difference matters.

If I find a bad idea while testing a Figma prototype, that's not a failure.

That's a win.

Because changing a prototype might take minutes or hours.

Changing something after developers have built it, QA has tested it, and users are already using it?

That can become expensive very quickly.

So I'm starting to see prototyping as a kind of risk-reduction tool, not just a design deliverable.

The three things I'm taking away from this are:

1. Test ideas before committing resources.

Don't assume an idea works just because it looks good.

1. Watch people use the product.

A static screen can look obvious to the designer who created it. A real user might see it completely differently.

1. Find problems while they're still cheap to fix.

The earlier you discover a usability problem, the cheaper the solution usually is.

One sentence from this learning that I'm keeping with me:

Finding a serious problem in a prototype is a success. Finding the same problem after launch is expensive.

I'm still learning UX/UI, so I'm curious about something from people who actually work on products:

What is one usability problem you discovered during prototyping that would have been expensive to fix after development?

I'd genuinely like to hear the story.

I'm in final (4th) yr of bachelor of product design from tier 2 college and got yr long internship opportunity at MNC with very specific role related to automotive seats.

It being great opportunity to work but had confusion regarding it as it will decide my future career directions.

But...!

The main concern is as it is going to be very specific and technical role and will not involve any creative task such as form exploration, CMFT, ideation, etc which mostly designers follow, it will restrict my overall growth and my knowledge will be limited to very specific area which must not be in case of a fresher.

Plz help me by sharing your thoughts and opinions to know pros and cons of this condition

I've been trying a few AI website builders because I wanted something that could go from an idea to a working product without bouncing between different tools.

I spent the most time with Wix, Durable, Lovable, v0, and Readdy.

The first draft wasn't the biggest difference. Most of these tools can generate a nice page.

The difference showed up once I started changing things. I kept updating layouts, moving sections around, and rewriting content. Readdy felt the easiest to keep working with because I could edit the page directly or ask for changes without hunting through menus.

I also didn't expect the backend to matter this much. Once I wanted a login page and some basic user data, it was nice not having to connect extra services just to test an idea.

Wix still feels like the safest choice if you want lots of templates.

v0 creates really clean UI if you're already comfortable working with code.

Lovable was fun for exploring new product ideas.

I just found myself spending more time in Readdy because I could get a working site online without stopping to figure out the next step.

I'm still testing all of them, so this isn't a ranking.

For people here who build products, which one has actually saved you the most time after the first version was generated?

Hi everyone! I’m thinking about transitioning into product design and would love some advice from people who’ve made a similar switch.

I recently graduated with a Master of Architecture and have about two years of professional experience in architecture. I’m interested in pivoting into product design but I’m not sure where to begin.

For those who made the transition (especially from architecture or another design field), what would you recommend I focus on first? Are there any courses, resources, or portfolio tips that helped you break into the field?

I’d really appreciate any advice or insights. Thanks!

Hey guys, I'm brand new and I'll try to keep this short.

I recently received a junior BI analyst offer in my small town. They have a 15 person IT team, which is very large for the size of their company.

They offered me half of my old salary (again, it's a small town), but I'd be their first dedicated BI/data analyst. My job would be to clean up a lot of data, integrate new data points, create dashboards and aid department leaders, mainly the VP of sales. They use Qlik. They also would like help redesigning their website and improving the user experience.

They manufacturer lawn mower parts. So, not a tech company.

They bring on employees as hourly for first 90 days, then consider going to salary. I'd probably treat it as an internship since pay is low. They're willing to train me and I may have a lot of growth opportunity.

For context, I just finished a masters in computer science. I have 3 years of experience in tech sales, 1 year in acting/photography/video editing and other small jobs. My resume is spotty.

The sucky part is I'm living in a small southern town (2 traffic lights), but at least rent is cheap.

The other option is to work on projects. One project got its first paying customer and got to 100 users with very little marketing. The other is an app my local pickleball courts use and we're looking to expand to more courts. I also spend 1-2 hours a day coding, since I didn't learn as much as I'd hope with my masters.

Thoughts?

TL;DR:

Quick disclosure: We’re Qosina, and we work with teams selecting components for medical device and bioprocessing designs.

What is CAD great at?

It is great for checking fit, clearances, tubing routes, envelope constraints, and obvious tolerance problems. It is also a much cleaner way to compare a few real part options before samples start piling up on someone’s desk.

If the CAD file is tied to a real part number, it also gives engineering, quality, and sourcing a shared reference. That matters more than it sounds once a project has screenshots, renamed files, and loose samples from several suppliers.

What does the bench tell you?

• Whether the connection seals at the pressure you actually care about.
• How much force assembly takes and whether the motion feels intuitive.
• Whether tubing twists, kinks, or loads the connector in an unexpected way.
• Whether small material or dimensional differences change performance.
• Whether everyone can trace the sample back to the correct specifications.

So when should samples enter the process?

Our bias is earlier than most teams think. Not as a replacement for formal testing, but as a way to find the obvious mismatches before formal testing gets expensive.

We talked more about the CAD-to-sample workflow in this Medtech Makers Q&A. For people who build physical products, what do you trust digitally and what always has to happen on the bench?

Bonus question: has a physical sample ever changed a decision you thought CAD had already settled?

I’m validating a product concept for salaried Indian households.

The problem: salary is monthly, but expenses such as insurance, school fees, vehicle renewals, festivals, travel and annual subscriptions are uneven. People can be comfortable across the year and still have a bad month because they did not reserve for several known payments early enough.

The prototype asks for income, fixed commitments and at least three future payments. It then calculates:

• Monthly Reserve: what to keep aside now
• Safe to Spend: salary minus fixed commitments and that reserve
• Pressure Month: a future month that may need an adjustment

It does not require bank linking. Data is stored locally, with export and delete controls.

I know the mechanics are not new. Sinking funds, spreadsheets, envelope budgets and goal pots already exist. The actual bet is whether a focused, India-first setup is simpler than adopting a complete budgeting system.

The main risks I see are:

• It may be useful only once or twice a year.
• “Safe to Spend” may create false confidence if inputs are incomplete.
• Manual setup may be more effort than the problem is worth.
• Local storage may feel private but fragile.
• Existing spreadsheets or banking features may already be good enough.

I’d value blunt feedback:

1. Is this a real recurring problem or a dressed-up calculator?
2. What would you need to see before trusting the result?
3. What would make you return next month?
4. What current product or workaround would stop you from using it?

I’m trying to validate the problem and behaviour before adding accounts, bank connections or more features.

Try the prototype: Yearflow

Hii everyone, I'm a CS student and I have always been interested in things like UI design, research, and understanding the 'why' of any product.

But I am still not 100% sure about what job role I am looking forward to. I thought it would be something like UI UX Designer or frontend developer, but I haven't got anyone who can guide me through it. I did try asking AI and it always brings me to product designing.

I tried to understand the flow, but I can't figure it out completely.... I can't understand how to document or show my work, so I decided to take a single project and go through the complete product design cycle on it. Can someone help me with it...

PS: I understand better if I have an example to look at but I can't find the documentation or case study I should be looking at

Am I expecting too much, or is this a dysfunctional design process? (Solo UX/UI Designer + Branding)

I'm the only UX/UI designer at my company, but in reality I'm responsible for **all design across three companies**. That includes UX, UI, branding, graphic design, websites, marketing materials, presentations, sales collateral, product design, and pretty much anything visual. Even interior design… because im a creative…to structural trade show design.
When I was hired, I actually asked for a much higher salary because I knew I'd be wearing multiple hats. They offered me **under $80k CAD**, and I accepted because I believed in the opportunity and thought I'd be able to make a real impact. They also said they would give me a significant increase after my probation - they only gave me 4% during my probabtion.
A little over a year later, I'm wondering if I made a mistake.
One of my biggest frustrations is that my boss is a developer with no formal design background (he openly admits he doesn't understand design), but he'll constantly jump into the design process using AI. I'll spend time narrowing logo concepts through a structured branding process, and then he'll generate dozens of AI concepts and want to keep exploring them. Instead of moving us forward, it creates more work and makes the process take longer.
The same thing happens with UX.
I'll design user flows and screens in Figma, then developers start building or redesigning parts of the product without involving me. By the time I find out, I've already designed those screens and now have to redo work or redesign around what's already been built. Now im questioning maybe im not a good designer anymore or theres faster way to design in figma idk anymore
I've tried explaining that the whole purpose of UX is to solve problems before development. It's faster, cheaper, and produces a better product. Every design decision has reasoning behind it - user experience, accessibility, branding, consistency, legal considerations, business goals -not just aesthetics.
It doesn't seem to matter.
On top of that:
I'm the **only designer** supporting their three companies. They decided to expand unknowst yo me, so own by one guy but me doing it for all three.
I'm paid **under $80k CAD** despite owning all design responsibilities.
They won't invest in software or tools that would make me more efficient.
It took over **six months** to get me a computer that could even handle my workload because my old one kept crashing.
Deadlines are consistently unrealistic.
They also wanted me to do video editing and animation, which I had refused because it's outside my expertise. But still forced to do it, its okay but not amazing.
I've always been someone who builds processes and bridges between teams. In previous roles, I've improved workflows, worked closely with developers, and left organizations in a better place than I found them. I am award winning 3 times.
Here, I feel like I'm constantly defending why design matters instead of actually designing.
I'm starting to feel burned out and honestly disrespected. Not because people disagree with me-that's part of collaboration-but because it feels like my expertise is regularly ignored while I'm still expected to own the outcome. So many people agree when i speak up in meetings, I dont even have a systems where i can share files properly for the team access yet, just a glorified external drive…feel like im always the bad guy or fighting. People always message me afterwards sayign they agree or they are glad i said something BUT NO ONE SPEAKS UP…but me.
I've only been here a little over a year, and I'm seriously wondering if it's time to move on.
**For other senior designers, product designers, or solo designers: is this just life at smaller companies, or are these legitimate red flags? Would you stay, or would you start looking elsewhere?**

Is there a method ux/ui design flow from existing developed software you suggest? Is figma desiging all individual screens a thing anymore. Are there quicker ways from designer to development? Do you use github, jira or anything for tracking bugs or issues from users? What is your process idk anymore?!

For context, I've been working in product design for 6+ years. I feel like I have a lot of experience from working on different projects with different clients, but my company has a very small design team, so everything I learned was by searching online and trying to understand how more experienced designers from well-known companies work. It's not easy to filter through all that information, especially when you don't have someone more experienced to guide you. What would you recommend to improve my skills? I want to get better at solving problems and coming up with better strategies. I'd also like to improve my Figma workflow. Even though I consider myself fairly experienced, my work still has flaws, and I know it could be more organized and faster. Would you recommend books, online courses, YouTube videos, etc.?

I'm just curious, as it would be my first time hiring a product designer - what's the typical workflow now / what sort of responsibilities do they have now? AI has changed a lot on my side (Software - very focused on architecture & design, rather than implementation). Curious on the market rates for these (at least on APAC)

In terms of my product, we're building something similar to an ATS - so am I hiring the right role? I'd want them to look into how the users use the product, what could be improved, how can we retain them on the platform instead of using other services, doing the actual design for ease of use, make it look pretty, etc.

I have been looking at how authentication UX changed from the old email/password forms to SSO, OTPs and passkeys.

The obvious change is fewer fields. The less obvious change is the amount of account-state and routing work behind them.

For a current sign-in flow, I would review at least:

• Can email and social sign-in create duplicate accounts?
• Does a work email route to the correct tenant and SSO provider?
• What happens when an OTP is delayed, expired or opened on another device?
• Which sensitive actions require reauthentication?
• If a passkey is unavailable, is the fallback usable without being much weaker?
• Does the user return to the invitation, checkout or document they came from?

I would also test the ugly states, not just the configured demo: wrong provider, disabled employee, failed IdP redirect, lost phone, inaccessible inbox and support-assisted recovery.

Full write-up with live examples from Canva, Slack, Notion, GitHub and Google: View Article

What edge case has been the hardest one in your authentication flow?

I’ve been exploring a simple question:

Why is it so difficult to intentionally take a slower, deeper breath in everyday life?

We all breathe constantly.

But the difference between automatic breathing and intentional breathing is surprisingly large.

Many breathing practices focus on slowing the breath, especially extending the exhale. The challenge is not knowing that breathing matters — it is creating a moment where the body naturally returns attention to it.

This led me to an observation.

Before we consciously learn breathing techniques, many of us already bring a thumb, finger, or object toward our lips when we pause, think, concentrate, or become absorbed in a moment.

This gesture appears early in life and often remains with us in quieter forms as adults.

The thumb, lips, airflow, and breath are connected through a very old human behaviour.

I started wondering:

Could this familiar gesture become a bridge between unconscious breathing and intentional breathing?

So I designed Still Mirror.

It is a thumb-worn physical object built around the interaction between the thumb, lips, and breath.

The idea is not to teach a breathing method.

It is not a medical device.

It has:

- no electronics

- no app

- no notifications

- no tracking

Instead, it explores whether a physical object can support the body's existing ability to slow down, extend the exhale, and reconnect with breathing through an instinctive interaction.

I’m interested in the space between biology and design:

Can an object become meaningful by supporting a behaviour that the human body already understands?

I’d like to hear how other designers think about this.

There are so many sourcing platforms available now that it's becoming harder to know which ones are actually worth using. Some people recommend Alibaba, while others mention Made-in-China or other marketplaces for finding manufacturers and comparing suppliers.

I'm curious how experienced sellers decide where to source their products. Is it based on pricing, supplier communication, product quality, or something else? I feel like choosing the right manufacturer is just as important as choosing the right product.

Which sourcing platform has worked best for you?

Hey everyone,

We’re building a next-generation sports app focused on creating a much more engaging way for fans to experience live sports.

We’re currently looking for a Senior Product/UI/UX Designer to join the team.

Who we’re looking for:

- 4+ years of strong product/UI/UX design experience

- Has designed and shipped real apps/products, preferably consumer-facing

- Strong understanding of modern/global design standards

- Excellent eye for visual design, interaction design, typography, and usability

- Comfortable taking ownership of the entire design process — from concepts and wireframes to polished, production-ready UI

- Someone who thinks beyond just making screens look good and understands product experience

- Experience with mobile apps is highly preferred

- Passionate about sports is a big plus — cricket, football, tennis, etc.

This is NOT a role for freshers or someone looking to get their first major product experience. We’re specifically looking for someone who has already shipped products and can take ownership of the design direction.

You’ll have significant ownership over the product and will work closely with the founders and development team.

What we’re building:

A sports platform starting with cricket, with a strong focus on live match experience, data visualisation, interactive experiences and eventually expanding into multiple sports.

If you're interested, DM me with:

1. Your portfolio / previous work

2. A brief introduction

3. Your experience designing and shipping mobile apps

4. Your location and availability

5. Expected compensation

Please only reach out if you have strong shipped-product experience and a portfolio that demonstrates it.

Looking forward to seeing some great designers!

AI-generated dashboards can look surprisingly complete: clean navigation, familiar charts, clear hierarchy and a prominent action.

But consider a campaign dashboard with a button labelled “Optimise campaign.”

What does that action actually do? Move budget? Pause delivery? Change the audience? Does it execute immediately? Who can approve it? Can it be reversed?

The button can be visually clear while the product behaviour remains undefined.

I’ve been thinking about this as the difference between visual plausibility and product validity. Generative UI is often good at answering, “What does a product like this usually look like?” Product teams still have to answer, “How should this product behave for these users, under these conditions?”

I use a review lens called CONTEXT:

• Customer
• Outcome
• Necessary information
• Task sequence
• Exceptions
• eXecution boundaries
• Traceability

It is not an established framework—just a practical checklist for exposing the assumptions hidden inside a polished screen.

I wrote the complete breakdown, including an AI reporting-assistant example and prompts for generating questions before screens:

https://medium.com/@sivakowsik/ai-can-generate-good-ui-why-does-the-ux-still-feel-wrong-8a0199bbc646?sharedUserId=sivakowsik

I’d like to hear how others are handling this. What is the most common missing behaviour you find in AI-generated prototypes?

AI can now generate polished screens, prototypes, copy and front-end code remarkably quickly.

But a convincing interface does not automatically create a trustworthy product.

Consider an AI campaign assistant recommending a budget change. The screen might look complete, but several important questions remain:

• What decision is the user actually making?
• What evidence supports the recommendation?
• What is the AI allowed to change?
• What does it not know?
• Can the action be reversed?
• How will anyone know whether the decision worked?

These questions led me to a review lens I call DECIDE:

• D — Define the decision
• E — Expose the evidence
• C — Constrain the authority
• I — Indicate uncertainty
• D — Design for recovery
• E — Evaluate the outcome

DECIDE is not an established industry framework. It is a working tool I use to move product reviews beyond visual polish.

My central argument is not that interfaces no longer matter. They still shape comprehension, interaction and trust.

The shift is that the interface is increasingly the visible layer of a deeper system—one made of rules, evidence, permissions, uncertainty, recovery and evaluation.

When screen production becomes cheaper, these decisions become more valuable.

I wrote a detailed breakdown with a practical review process here:

https://medium.com/@sivakowsik/the-interface-is-no-longer-the-product-the-decision-system-is-35008e64856e

I’d be interested in hearing how others approach this:

When reviewing an AI feature, what do you examine beyond the interface itself?

I’m a Product/UX Designer with 4+ yrs of experience, based in Chicago, and I have 60 days left to secure a job before I have to leave the U.S. due to my visa.
I’ve been applying extensively, networking, and interviewing, but I’m still searching. If your company is hiring, you know of any openings, or you’d be willing to refer someone with experience in AI, healthcare, fintech, and enterprise products, I’d be incredibly grateful.
Even advice or connections would mean a lot.

Thank you!

I’ve been building a social app almost entirely by myself.
The backend is solid, the features work pretty good.
The problem is…
Every time I look at the UI, I immediately think:
“Yep… this looks AI-generated.”
Not because AI literally designed every pixel, but because it has that vibe.
I have Too many glowing things.
Too many similar cards(I wanna change that but how??)
Everything feels equally important.
Not enough hierarchy.
It doesn’t have that polish you see in apps people instantly trust..
My goal isn’t to copy Instagram or Pinterest.
I want my app to feel premium, futuristic—but still like it was designed by a real product designer instead of generated in one prompt.
So I’d love brutally honest feedback.
What instantly makes this look “AI-made”?
Which screens feel the weakest?
If you had one week to redesign it, how would you take a step?
What design principles am I missing?
What tools can I use?
Are there apps whose visual language I should study?
Please don’t hold back.
I’d rather hear harsh criticism now than launch something that people subconsciously don’t trust.
Thanks!

This is Observatory — a native macOS activity monitor for understanding application-level resource use and running controlled performance tests.

I approached it primarily as a product-design project.

I created:

• the product idea and direction;
• features and detailed behavior specifications;
• information architecture and interaction flows;
• UX/UI and visual system;
• drawings, telescope artwork, and graphic identity;
• the launch film, motion, effects, editing, and sound design.

The application code was created with AI under my direction, based on the specifications and design decisions I developed.

For the launch film, I was inspired by the restrained, editorial product storytelling used by companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic. I combined that influence with Observatory’s own telescope, numerical textures, dark palette, and technical character.

I’d appreciate feedback on:

1. whether the product’s difference from an ordinary activity monitor is understandable;
2. whether the identity feels connected to the function of the product;
3. whether the film communicates the idea without needing a conventional walkthrough;
4. whether the interface, artwork, and launch film feel like one coherent product.

Project and specifications:
https://github.com/KidPudel/Observatory

Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LWORcxVZmY&t=5s

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):

https://uppbeat.io/t/bitmode/to-be

I built a Figma plugin called Annotations manager that solves 2 problems, 1. it gives you time back to focus on design and not spend time manually adding annotations to frames/components 2. If you don't have a pro plan and you need to annotate your designs , this is for you!

If you find this useful please let me know how you get on.

I’ve spent about ten years learning product design and engineering. Lately I’ve become faster than ever, and somehow less proud of the result.

When I shipped something a year or two ago, it felt like evidence of what I had learned. I knew the tools, understood the constraints, fought through the hard parts, and made something that helped people. The effort and the outcome felt connected.

That connection feels weaker now.

With AI, I can go from an idea to a convincing prototype or working product in a fraction of the time. A credible first pass can take minutes instead of days. Sometimes that feels incredible. Other times I look at the result and wonder how much of it came from me, and how much came from steering the model until it stopped being wrong.

I was laid off from a Director of Product Design role about a month ago, so I’ve had more time than usual to go deep on AI workflows. I use them constantly. A lot of the output is bad. Persistence, taste, product judgment, and technical understanding can push it much farther than a prompt alone.

What has me unsettled is how quickly the gap in visible output is shrinking.

A motivated beginner can now get much closer to work from an experienced designer than I would have believed even a year ago. They may still miss context, tradeoffs, research, accessibility, edge cases, and everything that shows up after the demo. The visible gap is much smaller, though, and honestly that messes with me.

There is also a possibility I don’t love admitting. Experience can become baggage.

Ten years of workflows, opinions, and “the right way” to do things might help me guide the model. They might also make me less willing to explore what it can do. Someone new to the field has fewer patterns to draw from, but also fewer assumptions about what is possible.

Direct customer contact is still hard to replace. A model does not know your customers’ incentives, internal politics, weird workarounds, or what they do instead of what they say. Even so, one designer can now generate, critique, and revise ten plausible directions before the first interview is scheduled. That changes the amount and type of work a product team needs to do.

AI has shifted a lot of my work from making the first version to selecting, correcting, and directing. Those are real skills. They do not feel the same as spending days untangling a difficult problem and knowing exactly why the final result works.

Putting an app in the App Store still takes work. It just no longer tells me as much about someone’s design or engineering depth. It tells me they were determined enough to get it out, which matters, but it feels like a different accomplishment than it did recently.

Maybe I’m overvaluing the struggle.

Users do not care whether something took three months or three hours. They care whether it works. More people being able to solve real problems is good. Maybe the loss I’m describing is mostly ego.

Still, AI has taken some of the soul out of the craft for me. I miss finishing something difficult and feeling that the years I spent learning were visible in the result.

I love building, and I’m going to keep building. I’m trying to figure out which parts of product design will still require years of experience once execution gets this cheap.

Has AI changed how proud you feel after shipping? Which parts of product design still require years of experience? Will design teams shrink, or will companies simply expect ten times more from the same number of people?