"AI design tools are everywhere right now. But here's the question every designer is asking: Do they actually solve real UI problems - or just generate pretty mockups? To find out, I ran a simple experiment with one rule: no cherry-picking, no reruns - just raw, first-attempt results. I fed 10 common UI design prompts - from accessibility and error handling to minimalist layouts - into 5 different AI tools. The goal? To see which AI came closest to solving real design challenges, unfiltered."
"Here's the lineup I put through the test: Claude AI - Anthropic's model, excellent at contextual understanding, UX writing, and accessibility-focused content. Stitch (Google) - Still in beta, but already showing strength at structured, clean UI layouts. UX Pilot - A specialized AI tool built specifically for user experience and interface design. Mocha AI - Designed for rapid prototyping. (I switched to ChatGPT once my"
Ten common UI prompts were submitted to five AI tools without reruns to capture first-attempt outputs. Tested tools included Claude (strong in contextual understanding, UX writing, and accessibility), Stitch (clean, structured layouts), UX Pilot (UX/interface specialization), and Mocha AI (rapid prototyping, with ChatGPT used as a fallback). First-pass outputs ranged from practical accessibility and error-handling suggestions to attractive but impractical mockups. Common weaknesses included missed edge cases, inconsistent accessibility details, and shallow interaction handling. Human designers remain necessary to refine microcopy, interactions, and corner cases for production-ready UI solutions.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]