Episode Details

We explore whether the shift from direct manipulation to text-based prompts is a regression in interaction design, weighing Joshua Leigh’s critique against Anna Kaley’s call for plain-language clarity. As we navigate this tension, we ask what we lose when we trade human judgment for automated output and whether our industry is forgetting the nuanced advocacy that defines our roles.

From The Feed

• How we turned support into a revenue engine at Intercom (Franka Martinovic) — AI efficiency gains can fund deeper human connection and consultative customer engagement.
• The prompt is not an interface (Joshua Leigh) — Text prompts regress interaction design by forcing users to translate visual intent into abstract commands.
• UX Writing: FAQs from Practitioners (Anna Kaley) — Designers prefer nuanced human guidance over AI, requiring plain language for scanning users.

From The Thread

• how to keep UX research notes in Notion without losing the thread? (r/UserExperience) — Automated synthesis speeds up work but risks losing the human judgment that structures evidence.
• Config Social idea? Honest yapping about the future of UX (r/UXDesign) — The industry is losing the language for nuanced advocacy in favor of simple UI tasks.
• How do you think UX should handle “proof” of user work vs just descriptions of experience? (r/UserExperience) — Standardized data links offer proof over persuasion, demanding signal strength behind decisions.

Today's Notable Articles

• Spicy Chicken w/ Brad Frost | Wireframe Live — Brad Frost
• Making Zigzag CSS Layouts With a Grid + Transform Trick — Durgesh Rajubhai Pawar
• Users own the present. You own the future. — Alex Dapunt

Today's Notable Discussions

• What is we doingggg? — r/UXDesign
• How did you know UXR was the right career for you? — r/UXResearch
• UX research career suggestion — r/UXResearch
• UX case study — r/UserExperience
• I'm looking for some advice — r/UXResearch