undefined | Better HN

0 pointspedalpete1y ago0 comments

I was thinking the process would be

1) as for a certain UX design 2) AI shows me an image of what it thinks I want 3) I make suggestions, changes to what I want 4) AI makes changes, shows me an image 5) back to step 3 and repeat until I'm ready to view code 6) have the AI write the code of the UX once.

I understand this may mean there are multiple images showing a flow, or different states, but in my mind, the time consuming part is the AI creating each JS file for the UX. I would think it could iterate quicker on designs and then output code.

This is how UX is designed today, designer does a bunch of iterations, gets feedback, then hands it to developer.

Right now, you're doing this all at once (or at least that is what my experience was).

I get what you mean about code as a method of communicating with the LLM, and I'm an engineer, so I kinda get that, but my first reaction wasn't "let's look at the code output", I was looking at the design output and thinking "is this what I want?"

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

alexdanilowicz1y ago

I don't think generating images would be faster than generating code, plus you lose all the interactivity. Many designers tell us where they get the most value out of Magic Patterns is that the designs are interactive by default, unlike traditional vector-based design tools.

I'm with you that the first reaction is not "let's look at code output." In fact, for most of our users, they never look at the code. It's abstracted away from them and just an implementation detail to unlock interactivity.

P.S. You might enjoy our /Inspiration command, which gives you 4 variations at once. Demo video: https://www.magicpatterns.com/docs/documentation/editor/edit...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse