Latest / The Feed & The Thread / The Feed & The Thread - May 9, 2026

Transcript

The Feed & The Thread - May 9, 2026 · The Feed & The Thread

• 0:00
  Text prompts are a design regression. Back to the command
• 0:03
  line? Joshua Leigh argues we're ignoring the interface, so let's
• 0:07
  see if that's true.
• 0:12
  Welcome to The Feed and The Thread, brought to you by
• 0:14
  Chicago Camps. Leadership By Design is on Thursday and
• 0:17
  Friday, September 17 and 18 and tickets are available now! And
• 0:20
  while you're at it, get caught up on UX fundamentals with five
• 0:23
  minute UX at five emm UX dot com. The Feed & The Thread is
• 0:25
  available online at feed and thread dot com to submit your
• 0:28
  feeds, or download our app for all the feeds and threads
• 0:31
  delivered right to your pocket.
• 0:40
  The tools we use to build products are changing how we
• 0:42
  talk about them. We're trading direct manipulation for text
• 0:46
  commands, and human judgment for automated output. That shift
• 0:49
  forces us to ask what we're losing in the process. Anna
• 0:52
  Kaley at Nielsen Norman Group addresses this tension in "UX
• 0:55
  Writing: FAQs from Practitioners". She notes a
• 0:58
  growing skepticism among practitioners toward AI-
• 1:00
  generated content. Designers want nuanced guidance from
• 1:03
  experienced humans, not just automated tools. Kaley
• 1:06
  emphasizes plain language, recommending a sixth to eighth-
• 1:09
  grade reading level for general audiences. Eye-tracking studies
• 1:12
  show users typically scan rather than read deeply. This means our
• 1:16
  copy needs to be clearer, not just smarter. Joshua Leigh
• 1:19
  makes a sharper critique in "The prompt is not an interface". He
• 1:22
  argues that text-based prompts represent a regression in
• 1:26
  interaction design. We're effectively returning to the
• 1:28
  command-line era. This forces users to translate visual intent
• 1:32
  into a medium that can't hold it. Leigh contrasts this with
• 1:35
  the decades-long trajectory of UX design. We moved from
• 1:38
  abstract syntax to direct manipulation and intuitive touch
• 1:41
  interfaces. Prompts break that progress by losing signal for
• 1:44
  spatial tasks. Franka Martinovic shows a different
• 1:47
  path in "How we turned support into a revenue engine at
• 1:50
  Intercom". Intercom's support team used AI efficiency to shift
• 1:53
  from reactive support to a revenue engine. They crowd-
• 1:56
  sourced ideas to engage customers consultatively. This
• 1:59
  required a cultural shift toward probing deeper into customer
• 2:02
  needs. It wasn't just about solving tickets faster. It was
• 2:06
  about understanding context to drive value. This proves
• 2:09
  efficiency gains can fund deeper human connection. Other reads
• 2:12
  today from Brad Frost on wireframing, CSS-Tricks on grid
• 2:15
  layouts, and UX Design.cc on user agency.
• 2:24
  Today's community chatter feels like we're holding onto physical
• 2:28
  tools while the workshop turns digital. Over on r/UXDesign,
• 2:31
  someone proposed a casual roundtable at Config to talk
• 2:34
  about the real future of our roles. The frustration isn't
• 2:37
  just about AI replacing us. It's about how we've lost the
• 2:40
  language for what we actually do. We're trading nuanced
• 2:43
  advocacy for simple UI tasks, and the industry is forgetting
• 2:47
  why that matters. In r/UserExperience, a researcher
• 2:50
  is drowning in Notion. They've two hundred interviews, and the
• 2:53
  links are breaking. They're trying to use AI to synthesize
• 2:56
  the mess, but the structure keeps falling apart. This is the
• 2:59
  tension. We want the speed of automated output, but we're
• 3:02
  losing the thread of human judgment that holds the evidence
• 3:06
  together. Another thread in r/UserExperience asks a harder
• 3:09
  question. Should we stop writing narrative case studies? The
• 3:12
  poster wants standardized links to data signals instead of
• 3:15
  pretty descriptions. It's a push for proof over persuasion. If we
• 3:19
  can't show the signal strength behind a decision, are we just
• 3:22
  guessing? Over on r/UXResearch, a biology grad is asking if
• 3:25
  research is right for them. They love the data but hate the
• 3:29
  people part. It highlights a shift. We're moving toward
• 3:32
  quantitative rigor, but the job still requires deep social
• 3:35
  navigation. You can't automate the stakeholder conversation, no
• 3:38
  matter how good your stats are. Finally, in r/UserExperience, a
• 3:42
  student is hunting for pure research case studies. They're
• 3:45
  tired of visual portfolios that hide the strategy. It proves we
• 3:48
  need better examples of thinking, not just making. We
• 3:51
  need to show the work, not just the wrapper. We're building
• 3:54
  faster, but we're explaining less. The gap between doing the
• 3:58
  work and proving the value is widening, and our tools aren't
• 4:01
  helping us bridge it.
• 4:09
  Chicago Camps is hosting Leadership By Design on Thursday
• 4:12
  & Friday, September 17 & 18. It's an online event, so you can
• 4:15
  join from anywhere in the world! Tickets are free, thanks to the
• 4:18
  generosity of the community! If it's within your budget, you can
• 4:21
  purchase a general admission ticket for only twenty six
• 4:24
  dollars - with limited early bird tickets at only fifteen
• 4:26
  dollars. Get tickets now at Chicago Camps dot org.
• 4:36
  Joshua Leigh's critique of prompts as a regression to the
• 4:39
  command line hits hard. We're trading direct manipulation for
• 4:42
  text commands. That shift loses spatial signal. It forces users
• 4:45
  to translate visual intent into a medium that can't hold it.
• 4:48
  But I'm looking at the community push for standardized data links
• 4:51
  over narrative case studies. That thread isn't just about
• 4:54
  efficiency. It's about proof. If we can't show the signal
• 4:57
  strength behind a decision, we're just guessing. The
• 4:59
  narrative is the problem. That connects directly to the prompt
• 5:03
  issue. Prompts hide the reasoning. They give you output
• 5:05
  without the journey. When designers demand data signals
• 5:08
  instead of pretty descriptions, they're trying to recover that
• 5:11
  lost transparency. We need to see the work, not just the
• 5:14
  result. Exactly. But the tools aren't helping us bridge that
• 5:17
  gap. We're building faster, but explaining less. The biology
• 5:20
  grad in the research thread hates the people part but loves
• 5:23
  the data. That's the tension. We're moving toward quantitative
• 5:26
  rigor, but the job still requires deep social navigation.
• 5:29
  And that's where the risk lies. If we automate the output, we
• 5:32
  might automate away the judgment. Anna Kaley notes
• 5:34
  designers want nuanced guidance, not just automated tools. Plain
• 5:37
  language helps, but it doesn't replace the human context. We
• 5:40
  need clarity, not just speed. So the skill isn't just writing
• 5:43
  prompts or analyzing stats. It's translating that data into
• 5:46
  stakeholder conversations you can't automate. The gap between
• 5:49
  doing the work and proving its value is widening. Our tools
• 5:52
  need to help us close it, not just fill it with noise. We're
• 5:55
  holding onto physical tools while the workshop turns
• 5:58
  digital. The metric for success has to shift from how fast we
• 6:01
  produce to how clearly we explain. Right. If your design
• 6:03
  system can't explain its own decisions, it's not a system.
• 6:06
  It's just a wish list waiting to break.
• 6:10
  That's The Feed and The Thread for today. We'll catch you next
• 6:13
  time!