User notes that Figma Make prototypes lack context, purpose, and requirement origins, forcing users to read through prompt history for specs. They desire a way to integrate this information directly with the prototype for better clarity and inspectability.
Let’s talk Figma Make (and other AI prototype tools). A couple of trends that were always present but are now made worse by these tools: 1) You ask a designer for an update on something they’re working on - they send you a Figma Make prototype either in the interactive form (uninspectable and ‘mystery meat’ from an interaction perspective) OR the actual project and you have to read through the entire prompt history for the ‘spec’. No info on the purpose, where requirements came from etc 2) Multiple PMs, engineers and designers all create quick prototypes for the same thing. Once upon a time this was in PPT or sketched, and you could advise on extracting and combining the underlying ideas into the best of all of them. You can’t do this with polished ‘solutions’. It causes noise and friction. The solution? Figma should be your final tool, not your first one. Spend more time in the problem space and don’t let other stakeholders leave it until there’s a common understanding of the problem you’re solving. Otherwise you don’t know why the thing you’re designing deserves to exist in the first place, nevermind what will make it successful #design #ux #figma #ai #product