Tim Ruof

The great thing about developers leveraging agentic coding tools, is that a lot of the same design best-practices for communicating with humans, are also really helpful context for LLMs. I hope this article is a helpful starting point for designers to set developers up for success, especially those using Figma's Dev Mode MCP server. https://lnkd.in/gNi92tmH

68

Bad UX is a symptom. A UX audit isn't just about design—it's about surfacing operational blind spots. Those frustrating navigation issues and confusing UI elements are just the visible tip of deeper systemic problems. Here are five practical findings we routinely uncover in audits: 1️⃣ Navigation designed for teams, not tasks → Content buried beneath internal silos instead of clear user journeys. 2️⃣ Unclear interactions causing usability breakdowns → Ambiguous buttons, opaque error messages, and jargon-heavy critical flows. 3️⃣ Dead-ends killing user momentum → Missing CTAs, unclear next steps, and no easy recovery paths. 4️⃣ Inconsistent components creating cognitive drag → Tabs behave differently across sections, breaking user trust and increasing cognitive load. 5️⃣ Poor accessibility blocks entire user segments → missing alt text, weak colour contrasts, and no clear focus states make your experience unusable for many. But audits always go deeper. Behind these surface-level issues, we typically find: → No unified content strategy → Unclear ownership across digital assets → Design debt accumulating without clear prioritization → Outdated governance frameworks → Misaligned KPIs disconnected from actual user needs An audit might flag your homepage navigation, sure—but what it truly reveals is how your organization thinks about users, collaboration, and managing change.

23

9 Comments

Design Advisors - do you need one? 🤔 If you're a Founder and have never hired a Product Designer or set up a design function before, I'd strongly suggest you bring on a design advisor to help with the process. Setting up your design function for success and laying those foundations will be key and it'll avoid having to take steps back in the long run.

44

4 Comments

There is a significant change already here in the regulatory landscape, around the world, that is already making a huge difference. It breaks an incumbant lazy logic that took hold in all things digital (including AI driven experiences): if we disclose the risks, we've discharged our duty. Everything from long Ts&Cs with obfuscated language, telling users the AI might hallucinate, warning them their data will be processed, to making them tick a box. The logic is that the responsibility transfers and your job is done, arses covered. The regulatory and legal precedent is moving decisively in the opposite direction which is of course great for customers (in other words everyone) and whilst painful in the short term for the CFOs who need to account for the fines, will also - I belive - result in more sustainable growth for business. The EU AI Act now centres on reasonably foreseeable use rather than intended use. The FTC's action against Amazon's Prime cancellation patterns established that deceptive design is culpable even when the terms of service disclose the truth. The UK's Consumer Duty places an active obligation on firms to prevent foreseeable harm, not merely to warn about it. The principle running through all of this is consistent: if you know how people will behave, you're responsible for designing accordingly. This matters because AI systems reliably trigger predictable cognitive biases. People over-trust conversational agents, they anthropomorphise, and they disclose more than they intend to, despite being told they're speaking to a machine. These aren't edge cases or failures of user attention—they're systematic, well-documented effects. So the question for leaders isn't whether your legal team has drafted comprehensive disclaimers. It's whether your design choices actually anticipate and mitigate the foreseeable ways people will misunderstand, over-rely, or be harmed by the systems you're deploying. Foreseeability creates responsibility, and asymmetry of knowledge creates a duty of care. Choice architecture—the way interactions are structured, the friction you add or remove, the persona you present—is itself now regulatable conduct. "We warned them" is no longer a defence. The question that matters is "what did you actually design for?" #design #deceptivepatterns #consumerduty #regulation #derisking #principles #FTC #FCA #amazonprime https://lnkd.in/eFAHq8vr

6

7 Comments

The biggest unlock in my design career wasn’t a tool. It was this mindset shift... For years, I treated design like a deliverable. A screen here, a component there, an interface pushed out. The quality of my work for me looked like copying the best good looking style. Everything changed when I started looking at the business side of design, and seeing design as a whole system. - A system for clarity (think about it, not all audiences can understand heavy designs). - A system for product decision-making - A system for reducing engineering waste - A system for improving users engagement. Stop designing for features, design for the entire product. Ask yourself how it'll all meet in the end. Founders now trust my decisions better, My work has become more predictable, reliable and scalable. Results started compounding faster. Teams I work with, always win. If you don't totally know how to start, just ask yourself this question in every step you take: "What would happen if this feature doesn't get shipped? Would all the other designs break?" THANKS FOR READING...

46

1 Comment

AI as Your UX Multiplier I’m watching UX leaders split into two camps: those threatened by AI, and those leveraging it to finally build what we’ve always promised—truly scalable, user-centered design. Here’s what I mean: For years, we’ve struggled with consistency across product teams, limited research bandwidth, and design debt that compounds faster than we can address it. AI doesn’t replace UX leadership—it removes the constraints that prevented us from leading effectively. Use AI to: ∙ Analyze thousands of user sessions to surface patterns human teams would miss ∙ Generate accessibility-compliant variations at scale ∙ Maintain design system consistency across hundreds of components ∙ Prototype and test concepts in hours, not weeks But here’s the critical part: AI needs your frameworks, your principles, your understanding of user context to do this well. Feed it weak thinking, get weak outputs. Feed it rigorous UX methodology, and suddenly you’re operating at a scale that was impossible before. The good fight now is ensuring every UX leader understands how to direct this capability, not fear it, and by UX leader, I mean researcher leaders, content leaders, design leaders, and UX operations, to name a few. #ai #ux #usercentered #Content #Design #Product

18

11 Comments

My biggest takeaways from Gev Marotz: 1. First design hires fail because of missing decisions, not bad designers. When design work slows down or feels messy, the root cause is usually unclear priorities and unresolved leadership decisions. 2. The real job of the first design hire is alignment, not output. Early hires are brought in for speed and polish, but their most important responsibility is creating clarity across the team. Execution only works once alignment exists. Without it, more output just creates more confusion. 3. Design follows decisions. It does not replace them. Founders often expect design to figure things out, but designers cannot decide strategy on their own. Tradeoffs like power users vs new users or retention vs acquisition must be decided by leadership first. Design can facilitate these conversations, but the decision is the founders' to make. 4. Skipping decisions has compounding costs. When decisions are avoided, teams become reactive, timelines stretch, and frustration builds across design, engineering, and marketing. Progress feels like motion rather than real movement forward. 5. Sharing early and often prevents misalignment. Strong design teams avoid big reveals. They share work incrementally through Loom, Slack, or quick check ins. Early visibility allows feedback to shape direction instead of derailing it late. 6. Founders should answer three questions before hiring design. What is broken? What does success look like in 90 days? What decisions do we need help with? Saying “we need design” is a feeling, not a hiring brief. If you cannot answer these, you are not ready for a full time hire. 7. Fractional design works well when problems are messy and undefined because it forces founders to decide before committing long term. Often, clarity is more valuable than raw output early on. Fractional designers are hired to solve ambiguity, not add capacity. Unlike full time hires, fractional designers ramp quickly, avoid internal politics, and focus on building systems and direction. They tell the company what to do rather than waiting to be told. 8. The transition to a full time design hire should be milestone driven. Common triggers include raising funding, validating a new revenue stream, or stabilizing product direction. Fractional designers often help founders reach these milestones and then assist with hiring the full time team. 9. Strong designers are attracted to decisive founders. Founders who care about craft, move quickly, shorten hiring cycles, and rely on trusted networks stand out. Long processes and recruiter heavy pipelines push senior designers away. 10. Speed comes from decision access, not tools. Senior designers move fast because they communicate clearly, share early, and have direct access to decision makers. Protecting founder decision time is one of the biggest levers for increasing velocity. Entire video in the comments below. 👇

18

7 Comments

Hiring designers in today's market doesn't work with the old school "So tell me about a time..." type of questions or "What did you do in this challenging situation?" It's 2025 and this isn't how you assess design talent anymore. Instead, do this 👇 (This is just a small sample) ↳Ask about HOW they conducted research → Where they found users → How they documented the insights → How they mapped insights → How they prioritised insights → How they communicated them and to whom ↳Ask about HOW they validated the solution → What did 'success' look like → What did PMs say about this → How did they measure them → What was the initial hypothesis → What business impact did this have → Who defined the metrics and what were they ↳Ask about their contribution (This is non-negotiable) → Who did they turn to for help → What would they do differently → What did they do, how and why → When did they need to compromise → How did they deal with ambiguity or uncertainty (The list goes on) Ask for evidence of the above. Stories. Examples. Break it down into small pieces. #design #ux #tech #careers

85

2 Comments

In environments where PMs are hired as "user proxies," designers will always lose in a fight over "rendering intent." The belief that subject matter expertise can replace the need for research and an SME already knows the right thing to do is irreconcilable with real user-centered design, and pushes us into the role of Feature Designers.

130

6 Comments

We’ve laid off too many junior designers and focused hiring too much on seniors. You can understand why: seniors are efficient, autonomous, and high-output. But there’s an insidious problem: when you don’t train junior designers mentorship collapses and the pipeline dries up. In 10 years there will be no one left ready to fill those senior seats. Short-term optimization = Long-term pain. You can read more from my recent newsletter article: https://lnkd.in/g-DgFMau

46

2 Comments

UX design isn’t just about making things pretty. It isn’t just wireframes. And it definitely isn’t an afterthought. It’s strategy, systems thinking, and collaboration - baked into every product decision. Yet, many organizations still treat UX as a siloed, visual layer rather than the connective tissue between user needs and business outcomes. But here’s the good news: UX is evolving fast. With technologies like UXPin Merge, designers are working with real, reusable code components, eliminating the old design-to-dev handoff chaos. Prototypes aren’t static mockups anymore - they’re interactive, functional, and built on the same foundations developers use in production. And with AI entering the workflow, we’re seeing a shift from repetitive UI creation to higher-order thinking: research synthesis, behavioural modelling, and predictive user flows. This is UX as it should be: ✅ Built on shared systems ✅ Grounded in production logic ✅ Focused on real outcomes, not just aesthetics So let’s reframe the conversation: UX is no longer a phase. It’s the operating system of modern product development. What do you think UX is becoming in this new era? #UXDesign #ProductDevelopment #DesignOps #UX #AI #UI #UXPinMerge #NoMoreHandoff #ScalableUX

14

1 Comment