
Staff product designer @AppWorkCo Top 18 UX Insta to Follow. Wife & Mum of 4❤️s. Prev partnerships w @adobe @meta @hotjar @editorx
Figma
Joined April 2011
- Tweets5.9K
- Following1.4K
- Followers4.3K
- Likes19.4K
Pinned Tweet
Husband: Miriam, I think you got scammed! It says here you paid $300 for a font??
Me: Erm...
Miriam Isaac retweeted
Hi, it's Darshita. I am a designer.
And I'm pitching myself in public 'cause I'm done with a year full of anxiety.
Everyone says design is dead and AI killed it. But the real parasite was hiding in plain sight.
So here's my film, DESIGN IS DEAD. She's bold, fearless and very PINK 💖
Hiring? My DMs are open.
Miriam Isaac retweeted
User interfaces are not going away.
Yes, humans will use computers alongside agents. When working with agents, we will need the ability to audit what agents do in a human-readable way.
Yes, some interfaces (ex: dashboards, in-chat UI for ephemeral tasks, etc) will be generated. Most important interfaces will be intentionally designed. We will want both deterministic and non-deterministic interfaces in different situations. We're thinking a lot about the best ways to help designers shape non-deterministic systems at Figma.
Yes, new input modalities like voice, VR/AR and BCI will change the way we use computers and introduce lots of new interaction paradigms. This is all very exciting :)
Overall, the surface area of design will continue to grow much broader. Design is the new code and the key differentiator for software moving forward. Expect more and more energy to go into design / craft in the years ahead... it will be how you win or lose.
Eric is right about plenty of things, but the market will prove him wrong on this one...
"User interfaces are largely going to go away.
Because the agents speak English, or other languages. You can talk to them. You can say what you want. The UI can be generated.
So I can say, generate me a set of buttons that allows me to solve this problem, and it's generated for you."
- Eric Schmidt is the former CEO of Google.
Today’s websites are designed for humans, with carefully crafted UIs.
But we are probably moving towards UI-less web.
automated bot traffic has already surpassed human activity on the web. with AI agents, this number will explode.
In near future its very plausible that 90% or more of web traffic will be non-human.
Imagine a web with no websites. All your favorite apps are now just databases, queried for information by agents that zip around on your behest.
In a world primarily composed of bots, what happens to websites? Do agents learn to navigate them like a human? Do they go away entirely? 🤔
---
Video from 'Peter H. Diamandis' YT channel
Miriam Isaac retweeted
Some of my favorites: brianlovin.com/sites
Miriam Isaac retweeted
Update from the german "component factory " - Astra is now just building them (almost) autonomously
Miriam Isaac retweeted
made a figma with 4,400+ of frames from viral launch videos.
began as a reference folder for one project.
now it's best reference file i've ever had.
Miriam Isaac retweeted
It’s kinda hilarious how much energy we’re all spending trying to make a magical indeterminate system actually determinate.
Miriam Isaac retweeted
My biggest takeaways from @Netflix's Chief Product and Technology Officer Elizabeth Stone:
1. Elizabeth believes that “systems thinking” is becoming the most important skill in the AI era. In engineering and product, this means people who can see across business domains and build the common capabilities that let many teams move quickly. In design, it means experience designers who create templates and design systems so that non-designers can ship work that stays coherent and on-brand. The underlying driver is velocity: when more people are doing more types of work at higher speed, you need to be good at building common scaffolding.
2. Systems thinking is learnable: zoom out one level from your specific problem. Given a task, step back one click—what bigger problem does this serve the business, will it scale across the product surface areas, should it become a platform capability? The companion habit: do your job in a way that helps your manager do theirs. This will force you to think about how all the pieces fit together.
3. Expect a storming phase before a forming phase. The role confusion people feel right now (“What is my job anymore?”) is the predictable middle of any transformative technology. Elizabeth’s advice: focus on high-quality source-of-truth data, guardrails on what ships, and constant internal reinforcement that humans own what they create.
4. The top AI labs converged on Netflix’s culture. High agency, high talent density, top-of-market pay, bottom-up thinking, fast experiments—the traits Lenny hears constantly from AI labs were in Netflix’s early culture deck. Elizabeth’s explanation: excellence comes from hiring exceptional people, trusting them to do great work, and holding them accountable.
5. Netflix’s culture is centered around building “excellence as an operating system.” High talent density, radical transparency, context not control, and the keeper’s test. These work together to create an environment of trust and accountability, without bureaucracy. But it’s also uncomfortable. It requires tolerating people making decisions you’d make differently, resisting the reflex to add process when things go wrong, and letting people carry the weight of their own choices. Elizabeth describes the hardest part as “being comfortable in that discomfort.”
6. The keeper’s test is as much about recognizing great people as it is about removing the wrong ones. The test—“If this person told me they were leaving, would I fight to keep them?”—is often cited in its difficult form: the moment you realize someone isn’t the right fit. But Elizabeth uses it predominantly as an entry point for honest performance conversations that are deeply positive. Most of the time the answer is “I would fight so hard to keep you,” which creates the opening to articulate strengths, discuss impact, and name what’s working. Good feedback hygiene needs a forcing function; the keeper’s test provides one.
7. Specialization is trending down—adaptable generalists are trending up. We’re shifting away from narrow stack-layer specialists (pure frontend, pure backend) toward people who can navigate fluidly across layers. The same logic applies to business domain knowledge: the mindset of “I’m a payments expert, full stop” is less valuable than “I know payments well enough and I’m willing to imagine what the future version of this looks like.” The meta-skill is learning to learn, not locking into a single lane.
8. Netflix’s approach to AI fluency is a universal principle, not a level-specific expectation. Rather than rewriting career ladders to specify what AI competence looks like at each level, Netflix added a single aspiration across all roles and levels: AI fluency. What fluency means varies by function and seniority, but the non-negotiable minimum is the same everywhere—an open-minded, experimental mindset, genuine curiosity, and comfort with ambiguity.
Miriam Isaac retweeted
I'm 33 and I think Claude Code is melting my brain.
For 6 months straight I've had 5-6 terminals open at once, waiting on responses just to smash "enter" 90% of the time. That's the whole job now.
And it's doing something to me. A few friends and I keep circling back to the same thing in conversations: none of us feel as sharp as we used to.
Maybe it's just us. But I keep wondering how many other people in their 30s feel it too.
(And yeah: this is a me problem, how I lean on the tool, not the tool itself. Doesn't make the effect any less real.)
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This is directly plagiarised from a viral post from @astnkennedy, with the only change being the age. x.com/astnkennedy/st…
i gave 5.6 sol access to my camera roll and had it extract pictures of every piece of clothing i own from my photos
then, told it to find new outfits for me and render them on me with gpt-image!
its kinda cool to see your entire wardrobe in a collection like this
It’s not about competing with the machine, because of course, that’s a losing battle.
Our job is to receive it, test it against lived experience, and then take responsibility for what’s done with it moving forward.
I went viral because I was honest.
My post spoke the truth, and truth cuts deep. I addressed the elephant in the room, admitting AI designs better than I do. And I’m grateful that it does so.
2K likes suggest I’m not the only one. Many developers know AI writes better code, strategists know it thinks better, and copywriters know it writes better. It’s not the majority view yet, but the trajectory is clear.
The replies were funny, though. They included denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. When a computer defeated Kasparov in chess in 1997, people had similar reactions.
I chose to quantum-leap into acceptance. I’m not willing to deny the quality of AI’s work or try to compete with machines at something they’re great at.
Time to move on!
Miriam Isaac retweeted
I have been thinking about whether to comment on this. Not clear if Gal is serious, rage baiting, etc. Whatever the case, it has spread enough in the design community that I want to share some thoughts.
The psychological journey people go through with AI is quite fascinating to me. A new model launches, people think the world has changed, they sometimes have an existential crisis, then they play with the model, they understand its strengths and limitations and then they settle down. A few weeks later, the cycle repeats.
On top of this, even before AI, designers have often shown insecurity and imposter syndrome. There are probably many reasons for this. First, before ~2010 design wasn't valued by the tech industry in the way it is today. Second, the people attracted to working in the field of design are often very open to new ideas and have high empathy. Third, there is no "one path" to working as a designer and designer backgrounds are often pretty random.
Ironically, despite the insecurity + imposter syndrome so many designers feel, design is more important than ever. I truly believe this. And yes, I have an incentive to believe this. But just think about it... the logic couldn't be more clear. More design is entering the world, the attention economy is real and therefore creativity / design / point of view is how you will stand out. Your brand, marketing, product design, moments of delight and overall customer journey must be excellent. Some companies already get this and are fighting wild battles over design talent. Other companies are still figuring it out. Everyone will get there and it will be obvious in retrospect.
This isn't a new trend with AI. It is a trend that we've seen over the last decade. Designers used to complain about not having a seat at the table. Now designers have a seat at the table. And many of the businesses I speak with are pulling from their design bench when looking for new leaders for their business... they know that design thinking and the design process is what they need to adopt everywhere to win.
I'm not saying that every stakeholder gets it. But so many are trying to learn right now. Designers need to do more than create great work, they have to spend a lot more effort educating.
Showing work can also trigger anxiety. Sometimes the best solution to a design challenge is the first thing you think of. And other times you have to explore for quite a long time to come up with something great. Inputs to a design process might include things that feel like traditional office work and are easy to point to... reading docs, talking with teammates, formal research, etc. Inputs might also include a walk in the park, an interesting dream you had the night before, a good song you listened to on the radio during your commute, a painting from the 1800's or all sorts of other cultural / emotional input.
In summary, I've never been more confident in the role of design and impact design can have. I wish designers felt the same confidence. This is the moment to be more bold, to take more creative risk, to double down on the power of design. Everyone is on their own journey, and there are lots of fascinating ways to move through life, so if Gal is serious about "quitting design" then I wish him the best in his adventures ahead. But I hope if others follow they do it because there are other things they are so excited about spending time on vs fear of AI.
It’s over. I’m quitting design.
A client of mine just created a logo with Fable 5, and the result left me speechless.
It understood the brand story, values, audience, strategy, and turned all of it into a smart, minimal symbol. A genuinely brilliant concept. The kind of idea that captures everything at once. Something I honestly don’t think I would have come up with myself.
And it didn’t just nail the idea. It executed the design pixel-perfectly.
So I raise the white flag.
My skepticism about AI’s ability to do great design is officially gone.
There, I said it:
AI beat me at design.
Now that AI finally took my job, I can peacefully quit and dedicate my life to studying the only thing it may never achieve: human consciousness and the pathways to God.
Good luck everyone.
Miriam Isaac retweeted
Means & Methods is now live on interfacecraft.dev.
A collection of practical techniques to achieve excellence in interface design, covering 100+ topics across 11 chapters, with plenty of interactive examples and code.
New members welcome; enjoy!
Miriam Isaac retweeted
typically you've had to choose: prototype with code, or prototype in an editor. why not both?
we created a new format for writing React components that lets us direct edit real UI, while keeping it interactive...
Miriam Isaac retweeted
Every morning, the moment my eyes open, I wake up to 40 unread Slack messages that effectively say:
“If you don’t fix this in the next 5 minutes, the world will implode and the app will cease to exist.”

























