On the face of it, this seems like a terrible idea. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve spent 30 years encouraging simple, repeatable, user-focused UI’s where hierarchies are explicit, pages are referenceable, search results are real URLs and so on. Randomness is generally bad - humans expect X module or block or whatever to be in the same place from visit to visit, not adapting based on some complex algorithm that “learns”.
UX and UI takes work, and it’s mostly work getting back to simplicity - things like “think more like a user and less like your organisation” in terms of naming conventions and structures, or making sure that content works harder than navigation in orienting users. I don’t think there’s any sort of quick fix here, it’s hard to get it right.
> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.
Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.
Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.
ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.
Yes and this is my biggest anxiety of future software and interfaces to come. You won't remember how you got there or did what because there are n permutations of getting there or doing that, except they're vaguely similar but not exactly the same thing. I too want predictable software (including UIs) that stays the same until I want to change/upgrade it myself as a user.
> I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it
Nothing "just works" for everyone. You are a product of your environment, people say apple interfaces/OSX are intuitive, I found them utterly unusable until I was forced to spend a lot of time to learn them.
Depending on which software you grew up using, you either find it intuitive or don't. If you found someone that has never used technology, no modern UI would be intuitive.
Personally, I hate it when software that I have to use daily is not configurable (and ideally extensible via programming). It's basically designed for the lowest common denominator for some group of users that product/design groups have decided is "intuitive".
> People hate UI redesigns for a reason...
I do agree here, stop changing things for the sake of changing things. When I owned some internal tools, I would go out of my way to not break user workflows. Even minor things, like tab-order, which I think most people don't think about, I'd have browser automation tests to make sure they remained consistent.
I tell people we have inverted control with the latest agent concepts. Instead of deterministic code treating LLMs as functions, we have LLMs determining the flow of the app and the interaction with the user. It is much more organic when it is done right and you can gain access to features you never coded. We have been implementing UI tools/widgets to allow a much more interactive experience and it is amazing to play with that idea. This will obviously be part of the standard toolkit of agentic software a year or two from now. The agent stack is just now forming and UI is a core piece of it.
I bristled at the title, article contents, and their spreadsheet example, but this does actually touch on a real paint point that I have had - how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software? By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
I do a lot of CAD. Every single keyboard shortcut I know was learned only because I needed to do something that was either *highly repetitive* or *highly frustrating*, leading me to dig into Google and find the fast way to do it.
However, everything that is only moderately repetitive/frustrating and below is still being done the simple way. And I've used these programs for years.
I have always dreamed of user interfaces having competent, contextual user tutorials that space out learning about advanced and useful features over the entire duration that you use. Video games do this process well, having long since replaced singular "tutorial sections" with a stepped gameplay mechanic rollout that gradually teaches people incredibly complex game mechanics over time.
A simple example to counter the auto-configuration interpretation most of the other commenters are thinking of. In a toolbar dropdown, highlight all the features I already know how to use regularly. When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it, highlight it in a "currently learning" color, and slowly change the highlight color to "learned" in proportion to my muscle memory.
> how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software?
On-the-job-training, honestly; like we've been doing for decades, restated as:
Employer-mandated required training in ${Product} competence: consisting of a "proper" guided introduction to the advanced and undiscovered features of a product combined with a proficiency examination where the end-user must demonstrate both understanding a feature, and actually using it.
(With the obvious caveat the you'll probably want to cut-off Internet access during the exam part to avoid people delegating their thinking to an LLM again; or mindlessly following someone else's instructions in-general)
My pet example is when ("normal") people are using MS Word when they don't understand how defined-styles work, and instead treat everything in Word as a very literal 1:1 WYSIWYG, so to "make a heading" they'll select a line of text, then manually set the font, size, and alignment (bonus points if they think Underlining text for emphasis is ever appropriate typography (it isn't)), and they probably think there's nothing more to learn. I'll bet that someone like that is never going to explore and understand the Styles system on their own volition (they're here to do a job, not to spontaneously decide to want to learn Word inside out, even on company time).
Separately, there are things like "onboarding popups" you see in web-applications thesedays, where users are prompted to learn about new and underused features, but I feel they're ineffective or user-hostile because those popups only appear when users are trying to use the software for something else, so they'll ignore or dismiss them, never to be seen again.
> By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
Unfortunately for our purposes, autism isn't transmissible.
Generative UI is incompatible with learning. It means every user sees something different, so you can't watch a tutorial or have a coworker show you what they do or have tech support send you a screenshot.
The solution could be search. It's not a House of Leaves.
I break out blender every six months or so in order to create a model for 3d printing. It needs to be precise and often has threads or other repetitive structures.
Every. Single. Time. I spend at least the first 3 hours relearning how to use all the tools again with Claude reminding me where modifiers are, and which modifier allows what. And which hotkey slices. Etc etc.
Most UI's are fundamentally dumbed down, they're only good for repetitive tasks.
If you're doing any task that is non-repetitive enough such that the UI needs to change, what you really need or would like is an "assistant" who you can talk through, get feedback, and do the thing. Up until very recently, that assistant probably had to be human, but probably obviously, people are now working quite a bit on the virtual one.
Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.
Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.
> The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.
I don't see how this follows.
The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).
That's a bad idea. It isn't deterministic. How do you even make documentation for users for your generative UI? It looks different for every single user.
This is getting panned, probably for good reasons. But, in a similar vein, I really think that generative applications are going to be big in the future. User speaks (or OS predicts) what they want and an app spins up on the fly. I don’t think they’ll wipe out traditional apps, but I could see lots of long tail cases where they meet users needs.
On the face of it, this seems like a terrible idea. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve spent 30 years encouraging simple, repeatable, user-focused UI’s where hierarchies are explicit, pages are referenceable, search results are real URLs and so on. Randomness is generally bad - humans expect X module or block or whatever to be in the same place from visit to visit, not adapting based on some complex algorithm that “learns”.
UX and UI takes work, and it’s mostly work getting back to simplicity - things like “think more like a user and less like your organisation” in terms of naming conventions and structures, or making sure that content works harder than navigation in orienting users. I don’t think there’s any sort of quick fix here, it’s hard to get it right.
Simplicity is surprisingly complex :-)
> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.
Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.
Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.
ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.
Yes and this is my biggest anxiety of future software and interfaces to come. You won't remember how you got there or did what because there are n permutations of getting there or doing that, except they're vaguely similar but not exactly the same thing. I too want predictable software (including UIs) that stays the same until I want to change/upgrade it myself as a user.
> I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it
Nothing "just works" for everyone. You are a product of your environment, people say apple interfaces/OSX are intuitive, I found them utterly unusable until I was forced to spend a lot of time to learn them.
Depending on which software you grew up using, you either find it intuitive or don't. If you found someone that has never used technology, no modern UI would be intuitive.
Personally, I hate it when software that I have to use daily is not configurable (and ideally extensible via programming). It's basically designed for the lowest common denominator for some group of users that product/design groups have decided is "intuitive".
> People hate UI redesigns for a reason...
I do agree here, stop changing things for the sake of changing things. When I owned some internal tools, I would go out of my way to not break user workflows. Even minor things, like tab-order, which I think most people don't think about, I'd have browser automation tests to make sure they remained consistent.
I tell people we have inverted control with the latest agent concepts. Instead of deterministic code treating LLMs as functions, we have LLMs determining the flow of the app and the interaction with the user. It is much more organic when it is done right and you can gain access to features you never coded. We have been implementing UI tools/widgets to allow a much more interactive experience and it is amazing to play with that idea. This will obviously be part of the standard toolkit of agentic software a year or two from now. The agent stack is just now forming and UI is a core piece of it.
I bristled at the title, article contents, and their spreadsheet example, but this does actually touch on a real paint point that I have had - how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software? By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
I do a lot of CAD. Every single keyboard shortcut I know was learned only because I needed to do something that was either *highly repetitive* or *highly frustrating*, leading me to dig into Google and find the fast way to do it.
However, everything that is only moderately repetitive/frustrating and below is still being done the simple way. And I've used these programs for years.
I have always dreamed of user interfaces having competent, contextual user tutorials that space out learning about advanced and useful features over the entire duration that you use. Video games do this process well, having long since replaced singular "tutorial sections" with a stepped gameplay mechanic rollout that gradually teaches people incredibly complex game mechanics over time.
A simple example to counter the auto-configuration interpretation most of the other commenters are thinking of. In a toolbar dropdown, highlight all the features I already know how to use regularly. When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it, highlight it in a "currently learning" color, and slowly change the highlight color to "learned" in proportion to my muscle memory.
> how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software?
On-the-job-training, honestly; like we've been doing for decades, restated as:
Employer-mandated required training in ${Product} competence: consisting of a "proper" guided introduction to the advanced and undiscovered features of a product combined with a proficiency examination where the end-user must demonstrate both understanding a feature, and actually using it.
(With the obvious caveat the you'll probably want to cut-off Internet access during the exam part to avoid people delegating their thinking to an LLM again; or mindlessly following someone else's instructions in-general)
My pet example is when ("normal") people are using MS Word when they don't understand how defined-styles work, and instead treat everything in Word as a very literal 1:1 WYSIWYG, so to "make a heading" they'll select a line of text, then manually set the font, size, and alignment (bonus points if they think Underlining text for emphasis is ever appropriate typography (it isn't)), and they probably think there's nothing more to learn. I'll bet that someone like that is never going to explore and understand the Styles system on their own volition (they're here to do a job, not to spontaneously decide to want to learn Word inside out, even on company time).
Separately, there are things like "onboarding popups" you see in web-applications thesedays, where users are prompted to learn about new and underused features, but I feel they're ineffective or user-hostile because those popups only appear when users are trying to use the software for something else, so they'll ignore or dismiss them, never to be seen again.
> By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
Unfortunately for our purposes, autism isn't transmissible.
Generative UI is incompatible with learning. It means every user sees something different, so you can't watch a tutorial or have a coworker show you what they do or have tech support send you a screenshot.
The solution could be search. It's not a House of Leaves.
> When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it...
"It looks like you're trying to learn a new feature. Would you like help?"
I miss Clippy.
I break out blender every six months or so in order to create a model for 3d printing. It needs to be precise and often has threads or other repetitive structures.
Every. Single. Time. I spend at least the first 3 hours relearning how to use all the tools again with Claude reminding me where modifiers are, and which modifier allows what. And which hotkey slices. Etc etc.
Here's why this is silly:
Most UI's are fundamentally dumbed down, they're only good for repetitive tasks.
If you're doing any task that is non-repetitive enough such that the UI needs to change, what you really need or would like is an "assistant" who you can talk through, get feedback, and do the thing. Up until very recently, that assistant probably had to be human, but probably obviously, people are now working quite a bit on the virtual one.
it is a case of "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft already tried this in office when they made the menu order change with usage frequency. People hated it
"Your thumbs will learn" is a famous Steve Jobs quote from the 2007 iPhone launch.
Only if the buttons on the iPhone aren't constantly being rearranged by a chatbot. Then they'll never learn.
But AI?
Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.
Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.
> The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.
I don't see how this follows.
The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).
That's a bad idea. It isn't deterministic. How do you even make documentation for users for your generative UI? It looks different for every single user.
Cant wait to use a program that changes constantly
could this kind of interface make it harder for users to discover useful features they might not know to ask for?
This is getting panned, probably for good reasons. But, in a similar vein, I really think that generative applications are going to be big in the future. User speaks (or OS predicts) what they want and an app spins up on the fly. I don’t think they’ll wipe out traditional apps, but I could see lots of long tail cases where they meet users needs.
"Copilot, make me a drawing app."
MS Paint opens.
"No, Copilot! Make me a drawing app with feature X."
Fans turn on. Laptop gets hot. Ten minutes pass as the entire MS Paint codebase is downloaded and recompiled.
Finally, MS Paint opens. There's an extra button in the toolbar. It doesn't work.