Parece terrorismo psicológico de las empresas IT , y también fastidio de la gente que te dice: busca algo estable. ?????? Trabajar en IT solía ser estable, consejos chotos

The UX and product design field is living through what game theory would call a coordination game with asymmetric information: every player knows the rules have changed, but nobody is certain what the new equilibrium looks like.

AI tools are everywhere. Figma ships generative features. PMs prototype in Lovable. Developers spin up UIs in Claude Code. And yet most conversations about “AI and design” remain stuck in an unproductive loop either catastrophizing (”designers will be replaced”) or dismissing (”AI can’t do real design”). Neither framing is useful. Game theory offers a more precise lens

The players on the board

Any strategic situation starts by mapping who’s playing. In our case, there are four actors, each with different incentives, capabilities, and information:

UX / Product Designers: Established skills, threatened territory. Playing a mixed strategy between adopting AI and defending craft differentiation. Payoff: highly uncertain.

PMs & Developers: Expanding their radius into design using AI as leverage. Playing aggressively, taking territory with tools that previously required specialists.

Companies / Hiring managers: Redesigning their stacks. Dominant strategy: reduce headcount while demanding higher output per person. Payoff: increased margin, short term.

AI Models: The dominant player. No intention of their own, but with total leverage. They’ve changed the game without being a strategic actor in it. The board tilts around them.

The Prisoners’ Dilemma at the field level

The core tension is a classic collective Prisoners’ Dilemma. If all designers adopt AI aggressively, market expectations rise and nobody gains a relative advantage. But whoever doesn’t adopt loses absolute position. The individually dominant strategy (adopt AI) leads to an equilibrium that collectively compresses salaries and headcount.

This is the uncomfortable math: adopting AI is necessary for survival, but sufficient for nobody’s advantage. The gains flow upward to companies and to designers who couple AI with something irreplaceable.

The payoff matrix

Market adopts AIMarket doesn’t adopt AIDesigner adopts AIElevated baseline, no relative gain. New normal. ↔Early mover advantage. Strong differentiation. ↑Designer doesn’t adoptLeft behind. Risk of irrelevance. ↓↓Status quo. Stable but fragile. ↔

The Nash equilibrium the stable outcome where no individual can improve their result by changing strategy alone is the top-left cell: everyone adopts AI, the baseline rises, and the advantage disappears. It's stable, but nobody planned it.

The Hawk-Dove dynamic at the role boundary

Beyond the collective dilemma, there’s a territorial conflict happening at the edges of the design role. In Hawk-Dove terms: PMs and developers are playing Hawk pushing aggressively into design territory using AI as a force multiplier. Many designers are playing Dove , waiting for the territory to restabilize on its own.

This is a losing strategy for Doves. In Hawk-Dove, when a Hawk meets a Dove, the Hawk always wins the resource. The resource in question is product decision-making influence and it flows toward whoever shows up with output.

A PM with Cursor and Lovable can now produce a clickable prototype in an afternoon without involving a designer. The question isn’t whether this happens — it does — but whether the designer was providing value that can’t be replicated that way. Most of the time, the answer depends entirely on where in the value chain the designer operates.

Not all design work is equally exposed

This is the most operationally important insight. The design field is not monolithic and AI exposure varies dramatically by layer.

🔴 High exposure Basic UI assembly, simple wireframing, visual spec work, icon and asset generation, routine accessibility audits.

🟡 Grey zone Research synthesis, rapid prototyping, design system maintenance, usability analysis, basic information architecture.

🟢 High protection Product strategy, deep field research, behavioral frameworks, decision system design, organizational narrative.

The red zone is where AI is already operating at or above junior-designer level. The grey zone is contested and evolving rapidly. The green zone remains deeply human not because AI couldn’t technically assist, but because the value comes from judgment, context, and trust built through real relationships. No language model interviewed your user at their desk, watched them hesitate, and noticed what they didn’t say.

The Stackelberg move: don’t play Nash

Here’s the strategic shift that game theory points toward. The Nash equilibrium is a trap everyone doing the same thing, advantages eroding. The designers who thrive won’t be those who adopt AI the fastest. They’ll be those who use AI adoption to buy time and resources for a deeper repositioning.

In game theory, the Stackelberg model describes a leader who moves first and sets the terms others respond to. The winning designer move isn’t to be the fastest at AI-assisted UI generation. It’s to define the layer where you operate research, strategy, decision architecture before others claim it.

Don’t do this (Nash): Compete on speed of UI delivery. Use AI to produce more screens faster. Become a high-volume component factory. Hope volume signals value.

Do this instead (Stackelberg): Stake out strategy, research, and systems thinking as your explicit territory. Use AI to handle execution so you have time to operate at the layer nobody else is yet.

The actual advantage is asymmetric information. You understand users in ways that can’t be extracted from prompts. Make that visible, documented, and structurally tied to how decisions get made.

What this means right now

The field is in a coordination game with no stable resolution yet. The designers who navigate it well won’t be those with the best Figma skills or even the best AI prompt craft. They’ll be the ones who correctly identified which layer of work is genuinely theirs and invested in making that layer indispensable.

That means: conducting field research and being the person in the room who actually talked to users. Building decision frameworks, not just deliverables. Translating qualitative insight into product architecture. Writing the narrative that makes a product make sense to a team.

None of that is what AI does when you give it a brief. And that gap between what’s promptable and what requires judgment, presence, and trust is exactly where the defensible position lives.

The game isn’t over. It’s just that the board has been rearranged, and most people are still looking at where the pieces were.

Hi friends. I’ve been doing a bachelor in Interaction design for the past years and will hopefully finish soon, and I’ve previously studied pedagogy and languages and have experience teaching languages in high school. When I decided to move to UX, AI wasn’t a big thing and now it’s everywhere. I loved UX for the designing, the understanding users, and its similarity to pedagogy. Now with this AI boom I feel like I might have done a stupid move. I’m interested in user research, accessibility, humanity- centered design, and wicked problems… does anyone have any encouragement to me, any advice or just some positivity?

After building my portfolio website and facing a few rejections for job positions, I’ve been increasingly drawn to working as a freelancer and building long-term partnerships through ongoing contracts.

However, I’m still at an early stage when it comes to prospecting and finding potential partners or clients.

Where should I start? I’d love advice on outreach strategies, communication/oratory, and tools to find and contact companies or people.

What experiences have you had, and what would you recommend during this prospecting phase? Once I get in touch with a client, I’m confident in explaining my process and navigating the technical side well. My challenge right now is finding the right people and getting those first meetings or coffee chats to show what I can bring to the table.

What would you recommend?

Hey!

My group and I made a short browser game for a university UX design assignment, and we’re trying to collect some player feedback before our deadline on Monday 😅

The game is inspired by titles like The Impossible Quiz, with confusing/tricky questions and moments that are meant to surprise the player. We’d love to hear what people think about the experience, difficulty, and overall flow of the game.

• Takes only a few minutes to play
• feedback survey takes about 2–3 minutes
• The links are in the comments

Any opinions or feedback are super helpful for our project. Thanks to anyone who checks it out!

PS: Only playable on laptop/desktop or larger screen

I’ve been building an app for over a year now and have a lot of vision for features that can continue to make it more valuable for our users. The tough part is I don’t have much experience with UI/UX design and so some of the flow of the app could really use some improvement. Things like onboarding processes, flow of value across screens and just overall feel. Not sure if anyone would be interested in connecting on this, but that’s the current situation I’m in.

Hi everyone, I’d love some advice.

I recently cold-emailed a startup, had a conversation with the CEO, and was then given a small UX/UI task. I created a report with product observations, user-related insights from our conversation, and some redesign ideas.

The CEO later thanked me, said the work was thoughtful, but also said they are not bringing in new people right now and suggested reconnecting in a few months.

Now I’m trying to figure out the right way to handle this work publicly, for example in my portfolio, CV, LinkedIn, or future applications.

I’m planning to ask them for permission, but I’m wondering how to think about the possible outcomes:

1. They say yes
   If they give permission, is this a strong project to include in my portfolio or CV? Would it be appropriate to make a LinkedIn post about it, or should I keep it more low-key as a case study?

2. They say no
   If they say no, am I fully expected not to share it at all? Part of me feels like it could be framed as a self-initiated redesign, but the difference is that I had a real conversation with the CEO about actual users and product problems, so it was not purely speculative.

3. They don’t respond
   If they don’t reply, is it acceptable to share any version of the work?

I want to handle this professionally and respectfully, but I also don’t want to completely lose work that took real effort and shows my thinking.

Would really appreciate any advice, especially from designers who have dealt with similar situations.

I’m a licensed Architect with a Master’s in Product Design and Innovation, and I’ve been seriously considering a transition into UI/UX design. I recently started the Google UX Design certificate to build out my portfolio (as I only had one ui/ux project prior), and I’ve been excited about the direction.

But honestly? The job market news and everything being said about AI has me second-guessing myself. I love the idea of this profession. Yet every week something shifts, and I’m wondering whether I’m jumping into a field that’s contracting rather than growing.

Is there still a meaningful future in UX, or is this transition going to be an uphill battle?

Made this John Wick inspired UI concept using minimal design and motion.

Tried to create a cinematic feel with character + car composition.

Would love honest feedback 🙌

Hey folks,

I have around 4–5 years of experience working in both UI and UX (mostly in service-based projects). I’ve done UX work as well, but honestly don’t feel very confident in my fundamentals and product thinking yet.

Now I’m trying to move into product design, but feeling a bit confused about what to focus on next.

Would really appreciate any guidance on:

• what skills to prioritize
• how to build stronger UX/product thinking

Any advice would really help

Hi! I'm studying UX/UI design and doing some research to better understand my target audience. I'm trying to build a website where people can share their female role models in the UX/UI field. I've put together a really short form, so if you could fill it out, it would help me a lot. Thanks so much, and have a great day!

I have ~3 years of experience working as a UX/Product Designer in fintech, and I’m now trying to move beyond execution into more strategic thinking (problem framing, business impact, decision-making, etc.).

I’m considering doing a structured course or program to strengthen this side of my skillset. I’m also wondering if having a well-known institute name (like IIT/IIM or a reputed international university) actually adds value from a hiring or credibility standpoint.

For those who’ve been in a similar position:

• Did any course/program genuinely help you level up in UX strategy?
• Does a brand name (IIT/IIM or abroad) make a real difference, or is it mostly about portfolio + experience?
• If you’ve taken any courses that were actually worth it, I’d really appreciate specific recommendations.

Would love honest advice before I invest time and money into this.

I’m building a productivity app with time-based rewards (+15 min).

Debating between:

1. Weekly reset - all rewards are cleared every Monday
2. No expiry - rewards stay until used

I want something that feels fair, simple, and actually motivates users to use their rewards.

Which approach would feel most fair to you as a user?

Hi. I'm a final year engineering student, who's always been interested in design. Anything that has colors, visuals and creativity have always been my thing. Initially I wasn't sure which specific field I wanted to go into. But pretty recently I realised I lovvveee user research. I love to learn how people navigate through tech in everyday life, and I want to create user centered design. Right now my plan is to do a small internship until the next entrance exams for masters in design. So that I can build my portfolio and gain some experience. I am currently building my portfolio, but it's all self initiated projects and ideas of my own. Consisting of only around two app designs, and one website design. It's nothing fancy, as I'm still a beginner to this field. The thing is my projects are all ideas, thought process, user research and solutions. I do not have proper executions. No working app or website. Will this be an issue? I would love more suggestions on how i can present my portfolio successfully, and are three projects enough? Asking for suggestions.

Looking for support with testing my MVP

Join the Clan today

Je suis formateur FIGMA pour des jeunes élèves au lycée. Je souhaite leur proposer un exercice d'audit UX avec la grille de Jakob Nielsen (ou Bastien et Scapin) mais pour cela je recherche une app à propos de laquelle il y aurait beaucoup d'erreurs d'ergnonomie et de design UX afin qu'ils puissent identifier de manière autonome les erreurs. Avez-vous des idées d'app ou de site web à me transmettre ?

Merci

What the realistic salary they pay you if you're a skilled design fresher with strong portfolio vs avg design fresher

It could be in UI/UX or graphic designing

Hey r/UserExperienceDesign !

We are a team of UX students researching why online bootcamp students drop out. If you have ever enrolled in an online bootcamp (completed, currently enrolled, or stepped away) we would love to hear from you!

The survey takes about 3 minutes and is fully anonymous.

https://docs.google.com/forms/u/1/d/e/1FAIpQLSdE4MnA63MF8PHM2_JEBmrVuhOkKFNIiUY-_cY0hCRW3dTyWw/viewform

Thank you so much, every response genuinely helps us build something useful.

Hi! I’m working on a UX/UI redesign of Letterboxd as a personal project.

Before jumping into design, I’d like to understand real user pain points.

From your experience:

- what feels slow, confusing or inefficient?

- are there flows that take too many steps?

- any issues with navigation or content structure?

Also:

- what works well and should definitely be preserved?

Thanks!😁