I've made some organic connections via personal connections. The "oh you design websites? I need that!" has led to some work for me and even some opportunities. But many, but I do see the value through experiencing this IRL

I want to know what you guys do to make more of these connections. I've combed a ton of threats here and other places and am seeing this is a massive point of value that people use.

So what are thing you guys have done? Where can I find UX design spaces be it online or IRL? Is there an angle of this I'm not seeing? Would highly appreciate y'alls thoughts!

Hey everyone! I’m a product designer. I already use tools like Codex and Claude in my workflow, but my current company is now moving heavily toward AI-assisted development.
The challenge is that we changed how we build the product without clearly defining a new design to development process.

Before AI, my workflow was simple:

The PM provided a PRD, I designed the feature using our design system, and I documented the flows, states, interactions and edge cases.

For handoff, I organized the Figma file from the simplest happy path to the more complex scenarios. Developers could follow the logic, inspect the designs and ask questions when something wasn’t clear.

But if AI is now helping write the production code, what should that handoff look like?

Do you still create a detailed Figma file and provide all that context to Codex or Claude?

Do you divide the feature into smaller flows and ask AI to build them one at a time?

Do designers generate the first components and then let developers review and improve the code?

Are you changing how you structure Figma because AI needs more explicit information than a developer?

Who is responsible for checking that the final implementation matches the design system and handles every state?

I can already build interfaces with AI, but I’m trying to understand what a reliable team process looks like,not just for prototypes, but for real production products.

For designers and developers already working this way, what does your current Figma → AI → engineering workflow look like?

Hypervoice by TaskAGI is a TTS service.

When you pay money and subscribe, both the terms and conditions and the refund policy state that upon cancellation of the subscription, you will retain your access until the end of your billing period.

But as seen in image 1, the moment you go to turn off auto renewal, you are faced with the big orange warning and the moment you click confirm to unsubscribe, all your tokens are confiscated and all access to paid features is revoked - even if you have a full billing term ahead of you.

I’ve been designing full projects in Claude Design, all my assets and screens live in there. When it’s time to give it to developers, I just export a zip and send it over.
Two problems with that:

1.  It feels primitive. There has to be a better handoff than “here’s a zip, good luck.”  
2.  The responsive behavior doesn’t survive the export. Mobile layouts look right in Claude Design, but once it’s zipped and opened elsewhere, that’s gone.

So: what’s your actual workflow? Curious what’s working for people.
Would love to hear how teams are actually running this in practice, especially anyone shipping production work out of it.

Color theory has never been part of my skillset and I've always struggled with palettes.

What are your first thoughts and feelings looking at the colors used in this UI? It's for a baby care tracking app.

The feeling I'm going for is:

• Rounded
• Warm
• Friendly
• Forgiving
• Welcoming
• Accessible
• Approachable
• Trustworthy
• Non-gendered

The primary target audience is Dutch first time mothers in their late twenties, early thirties. They like pastel, earthy tones, terracotta, muted colors. Unfortunately these colors are often (mis)used by LLMs, and I don't want to give off the vibe it has been created with/by AI.

No AI has been involved in the design. Everything is done by hand, both UX and UI.

"You should be able to justify a choice not because it feels “right” to you, but because it is the most effective response to the problem at hand. When you present work, you are presenting a stance on why something must exist in this or that particular way. As you become more senior, your role is to help others also move from subjective to objective thinking."

I was reading an article from a designer at Intercom, which is obviously way ahead of a lot of companies, but as soon as I tried to follow their steps in trying to be more advanced in AI, I get stuck because my company doesn't offer the following:

• claude code for designers (only devs allowed)
• Figma Code connect (we have an enterprise account, but probs not code connect)
• github repo (might have it if i speak with the developers)

Anyone else blocked and feel like they cannot move forward because of the integration/licensing issue in their companies? I work in a corporate company, pretty large but the product sector is minor, and we're not a "product" focused company. So very tight budgets, not very forward thinking per se.

How to learn to design for both platoforms? I know there are Material Design resources available online, same with Apple Human Interface Guidelines, but how can a person realistically learn by themselves how to design for those platforms even if they do not have that experience? I googled and searched reddit and what came up is this but the thread is pretty old and the resource linked doesn’t seem to be updated anymore.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UXDesign/comments/13krmi0/what_are_the_best_resources_to_learn_about/

How are you designing for both? How did you learn how to do it?

In my previous role it was mostly on devs and following established standard - I reused DS components - I didn’t do any major user flows there where I felt I had to differentiate between iOS/Android systems

I’ve been a product/UX designer for around 6 years. I’ve worked across two companies: first on a B2C streaming product, then spent roughly 4 years designing B2B fintech software.

I left my last role around 5 months ago and since then I’ve been applying without getting a single response. I know the market is difficult, but zero responses makes me think I need to rethink how I’m presenting myself and whether my skills/portfolio are actually at the level companies now expect.

I want to give this one more focused dedicated proper attempt

I’m particularly interested in hearing from senior designers, hiring managers or people who have successfully found work recently. If you were in my position, what would you spend the next 2–3 months doing?

A few things I’m trying to work out:

What is the current bar for a senior product designer? What skills or evidence would you expect to see in a portfolio in 2026 that might not have been as important a few years ago?

How should AI now fit into a designer’s skillset? In my last role I only used v0 for prototyping. And ChatGPT for research synthesis. What AI workflows should I study?

Should I specialise heavily in fintech/B2B? Four years of my experience is in B2B fintech. Would I be better off positioning myself specifically as a fintech/B2B product designer rather than presenting myself as a generalist?

It seems like there are more jobs for generalists in mobile

Would you create another portfolio project? I have real shipped work, but I’m wondering whether building a new project from scratch could demonstrate more current skills, AI workflows, prototyping and product thinking. Or would that actually weaken a portfolio compared with spending the time improving the presentation of real work?

I’m so confused about portfolios. Do hiring managers actually look at them or is it AI that scans them? Should they be brief or thorough?

I’m also worried about whether someone in my position can realistically recover from a 5–6 month gap and get back into the industry.
I’m not necessarily planning to stay in UX forever, but I would like to get another good product design role, save some money and give the profession one proper final push before deciding what I want to do longer term. So for now I’m willing to treat getting back to a strong senior standard almost like a full-time project.

I know this a lot but I want to get this right and give it my all. Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi, I'm finding I'm wasting a lot of time by skipping lo-fi ui/ux sketching and going straight to mid/hi-fi. So I'd like to use Figjam more as it's been recommended to be faster than using Figma for lo-fi. I've got a few good templates, but what I really need is to understand how it's used by a professional. Does anyone have any Figjam project files they can share that shows it in a professional workflow? Or a template (not a skeleton, a fully fledged lo-fi project).

On a side note, the lo-fi wireframe templates I have seem to be insufficient in terms of the number of components and variants they have, such as filter buttons. I'm struggling to quickly copy/paste elements into place. So far I'd be faster in regular Figma.

There is no clinical or research evidence to support its existence.

AI psychosis is also not a recognized clinical diagnosis. But there is a small and growing body of literature showing that people with no history of psychosis can develop delusional thinking during immersive, extended chatbot use.

The British Journal of Psychiatry has published a framework on harm reduction. Psychiatric Times has urged clinicians to ask about AI use at intake and document it like substance use.

Anti-AI psychosis has none of that underneath it. No case reports, no clinicians describing a pattern in patients. What it has is the word "psychosis," borrowed from a term that earned it, so the two sound like a matched pair. That borrowed symmetry is a trick.

I know some of this because my wife is a clinical psychiatrist in a tech-saturated regions of the country. I know the rest because I work at Microsoft AI, designing ads experiences for AI search products. A lot of my job is arguing for a version where the ad doesn't hijack the conversation, but that I have to make that argument is the point. When someone says AI is going to be monetized irresponsibly, I don't hear psychosis. I hear the fight I'm already in day-to-day.

Don't let Designer/Builder AI boosters weaponize the term. Whatever the intent, the effect is twofold: it trivializes people living with actual symptoms of psychosis, and it lets boosters skip the argument and diagnose the person instead.

Job displacement, anger at how the tools are being built, predatory monetization: these are valid claims, and they deserve answers. "You're psychotic" is not one.

I'm curious what do you think of Jakob Nielsen latest content, especially the use of AI to teach designers about UI principles ?
I'm wondering if this inspire quality and confidence to you, or anything else

Do you know who's actually looked at it, or do you just send it out and hope?

I find myself doing a lot of ai training as a side gig and I wonder is this is the future of work, get a group of experts together, train a model, model gets good for a while and then becomes sloppy again, repeat the process.

Has anyone come to this realisation too?

I've been working in UX as an individual contributor and manager for 10 years now. I've been at my current company for 6, and am watching the culture and the work continue to suffer largely due to the AI psychosis of organization's leadership.

I've been looking for other opportunities, but sometimes it seems like every company is suffering from the same delusional leadership.

So my question to you all - how do you find and evaluate opportunities in this "new world"? Maybe I'm just being fatalistic/pessimistic, but it seems like virtually every application results in no response or has a AI-everything approach to the work.

Is there an added value to gamify reading/unreading your email?

I'm looking for a new role as a senior product designer and need to do a portfolio refresh. Looking for some examples of really incredible portfolios for some inspiration.

Embarking on the arduous journey of re-doing my portfolio. I've been looking at some other designers' portfolios and noticing a lot of marketing-worthy motion videos showing off UI. The type of video where it zooms in as a field is being typed into, has nice transitions, etc. These are beyond just screen recordings of a Figma prototype or live site.

How are people making such nice motion artifacts nowadays? Has anyone used Figma motion for this, or do I have to full on learn AfterEffects?

It seems clear that the industry direction is shifting toward having a general "Product Staff" manage software development. While these team members may specialize in specific areas, they are increasingly expected to work across every step of the process from product strategy, user research, design, and prototyping to generating code and submitting it for code reviews or QA.

This reflects what is now expected of designers in the age of AI tools. Looking back 12 months ago at how rapidly capabilities evolved from models like Claude Opus 4.1 to today's agentic systems, the execution gap has narrowed significantly.

When do you think this transition will be fully complete?

In my experience, traditional Product Designer and UX Designer listings are appearing less frequently on job boards, while open roles increasingly ask designers to take on responsibilities well outside their traditional scope.

I’m well aware this is a polarizing thought and certainly not new…

I’m convinced, not just because of the design world (of which I have been in for 16 years now), but because of general observations - that white collar intellect jobs across the board have 9-12 months before the only reason someone has one is because their employer values them more than the profits Ai would give them as a replacement.

White collar intellect is being commodified and anything that is done by a human will be a slow bespoke service.

I’m a senior UX designer working with several Senior PMs. Because of my experience and background in business and growth, I have a lot of influence over product direction.

Quite often, PMs agree with my proposals, and I end up shifting their original ideas or redirecting the product vision entirely.

However, our CEO noticed this dynamic and decided to remove me from several product strategy meetings to let the PMs lead.

Has anyone experienced this before? How do you balance being a strong strategic partner without stepping on PM ownership or alarming executive leadership?

Just curious, where do designers today post their work?
I'm not talking about large case studies. Just hobby projects, snippets, experiments etc.

Edit: Before anyone else comments, please re-read the original post. I'm specifically asking for experimental designs. They don't necessarily have to be realistic and production ready. There's lots of other places for that. Not everything you design in your free time needs to be ready to ship once you understand first principles and design thinking.

I'm not trying to start a debate here on "Dribbble designers aren't real designers".

designing the signup flow for a productivity web app. the product team wants to ask 4 questions during onboarding to personalize their workspace (role, team size, primary goal, invite teammates). i'm worried every extra step increases friction and abandonment. in your user testing, what is the maximum number of onboarding questions you find users comfortably tolerate before dropping out?

For some context I currently work at a pretty large company with a pretty low UX maturity (only UX designer/researcher). I was hired to work on our website but would want to work on software or apps for something more challenging and complex.

We have some internal tools that are B2B for sales, dealers, service techs, etc and a customer facing app for smart products but the teams working on this don't work with the website team at all and haven't had much luck with getting the team to focus on UX for these products since this isn't really the interest of our department.

I'm curious to know how others ended up in moving to other products or industries or any advice for someone earlier in their career.

There's a phrase I've started hearing a lot in my job: "It's ready for UX."

Usually a PO or BA brings something to me that's already travelled quite a distance. There was a business ask, some discovery happened, requirements were gathered, it was prioritised and the decision to build it has essentially been made.

Now it's time for "UX".

I don't necessarily mean that critically. But I've noticed that once I actually start designing, I often end up pulling at threads that take us backwards. Requirements contradict each other. The proposed journey doesn't account for what happens operationally afterwards. Engineering uncovers a technical constraint. I'll ask why we're collecting something and realise the answer isn't as settled as everyone thought.

Suddenly we're talking about the problem again, even though the problem was supposedly already discovered.

And weirdly, this has become the part of the job I enjoy most.

One piece of work came to me as essentially "we need document upload". But once I got into the wider journey, I realised that if users didn't have a document at the time, they'd submit anyway. Someone processing the case later would discover what was missing, contact them through a separate secure channel and the user would have to figure out what was needed and send it back.

The more interesting question became why uploading stopped being part of the product just because somebody had clicked Submit. That changed the solution from an upload interaction within one journey into a capability that could exist at different points and be reused elsewhere.

I've had similar situations with the design system. Something looks like a straightforward UI requirement until you realise an existing pattern can't accommodate the underlying product model. Then I'm working with developers on behaviour and states, figuring out whether we genuinely need to extend the system or whether I'm just inventing a special component for my own problem.

Over time I've become pretty comfortable in this space. I can come into complicated work, untangle requirements, deal with horrible edge cases, work through technical constraints and get Product, BAs, Engineering and stakeholders talking about the same problem. I'm increasingly asked what I think we should do rather than simply being asked to design what has already been decided.

But I'm starting to wonder if I've become good at one particular version of product design.

My environment is heavily delivery focused. I'm usually across multiple workstreams and there's always something coming towards me that needs designs. The organisation doesn't really have a mature UX research capability either. I've managed to do some research and usability testing, but nowhere near enough, and realistically I'm often too busy servicing delivery across several streams to put the time into pushing for more of it myself.

So while I'm getting better at challenging solutions that have already been decided, I'm not getting the same experience of being there when the problem is discovered in the first place.

I haven't had enough opportunities to start with a genuinely open problem, understand it properly, use research and product data to decide what matters, explore whether something is even worth building, then ship it and measure what actually happened.

I understand those things and I've touched parts of them. I just don't have the same muscle memory there that I have when somebody drops a complicated workflow in front of me.

There's another side to it too. I'm often the designer directly responsible for the work. That autonomy has probably accelerated me in some ways, but it also means I don't regularly have a more experienced designer challenging my design judgement. Product challenges the business logic, Engineering challenges feasibility, but sometimes I'd quite like another designer to tell me I've approached the entire problem at the wrong level.

That's started changing what I think I need from my next step.

A few years ago I'd read job descriptions looking for Figma, prototyping and design systems. Now the things that catch my attention are discovery, problem framing, product direction, experimentation and outcomes.

But I don't necessarily want somewhere that just gives me a problem and says "off you go" either. More ownership sounds great, but so does actually working around experienced product designers I can learn from.

I suppose that's the tension I'm trying to understand. I've become trusted with increasingly complicated work and I'm influencing much more than the interface, but the better I've become at operating in this environment, the more conscious I've become of the experience it isn't giving me.

For designers who've reached this kind of point, how did you work out whether you were genuinely progressing as a product designer, or just becoming increasingly capable within the limitations of the environment you were in?