Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› UX Design ›› Design Isn’t Dead. You Sound Dumb

Design Isn’t Dead. You Sound Dumb

by Nate Schloesser
6 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

Every few months, someone declares that design is dead — but the real issue is a deep misunderstanding of what design actually is. This sharp, no-nonsense article takes aim at both the critics who dismiss design and the designers who fueled the backlash, calling for a more mature, collaborative, and strategic approach in the age of AI.

Every few months, someone writes the same tired headline:

“Design is Dead.”
“UX is Over.”
“AI Killed Creativity.”

Cool. Hot take.
Also: dumb.

Design isn’t dead. Your understanding of it is. Though, let’s be real — was it ever actually alive in your mind to begin with?

If we’re going to talk about what’s actually going on, we need to get three things straight:

You never understood what design was

Let’s start with the loudest voices in the room — the ones writing think pieces titled “Design is Dead” or “UX is Over.”

Here’s the truth: Design isn’t dead. You just don’t know what design is.

These takes don’t reveal insight. They reveal ignorance.

You thought design was decoration. A coat of paint. A layout in Figma. You assumed that once it looked good, the work was done. So now that AI can spit out a landing page, you think designers are obsolete?

That’s not thought leadership. That’s just clueless.

Design isn’t what something looks like. It’s how something works — and how people move through it.

It’s flows, interactions, decisions, and trade-offs.
It’s hierarchy. Accessibility. User psychology.
It’s tested patterns, usability research, and friction reduced on purpose.

But time and time again, designers are forced to justify those decisions to people with no design background — people who ignore best practices and testing and say things like, “I don’t like it,” or “That’s not how I would do it.”

You don’t tell engineers how to write code.
You don’t tell marketers how to run campaigns.
You don’t tell PMs how to manage a roadmap.

You trust them to do their jobs. But with design? That trust disappears.

Suddenly, everyone is a designer.
Suddenly, gut feelings override research.
Suddenly, someone’s personal opinion outweighs months of thoughtful, informed work.

And when the product underperforms? You blame the designers, never acknowledging that what shipped is nowhere near what they actually designed.

Why? Because it was watered down, overwritten, and compromised until it was a ghost of itself.

So no, design isn’t dead. But if you keep treating designers like decorators instead of strategic problem-solvers, don’t be surprised when things break.

Designers haven’t helped themselves

Let’s flip the mirror. Designers: you’re not blameless in all this.

The “UX is dead” headline pops up every few months.
Sometimes it’s because of shifting trends.
Sometimes it’s because of poor leadership or bad implementations.
Sometimes it’s just because the internet loves a good overreaction.

But it keeps coming back. And one of the reasons it sticks? Designers have helped create the conditions for the backlash.

Somewhere along the way, we started believing our own hype.

We were told we could change the world. That design thinking would save the day. That human-centered design would revolutionize business, government, and society itself.

And in the absence of structure, that story felt good. Because for a long time, we didn’t know what the heck we were doing.

UX and product design exploded before the discipline was ready. Roles were handed out before responsibilities were defined. People entered the field from every angle — bootcamps, graphic design, web, architecture, writing — some with degrees, some with raw talent, all thrown under the same fuzzy title: UX Designer.

We were laying the tracks as the train was already moving.

When “design thinking” came along with a clean framework and an inspiring message, it gave us something to rally around. But let’s be real: it also inflated egos.

It convinced designers we were the sole keepers of empathy. The voice of the user. The irreplaceable heroes in the room.

And in the process, we gave people reasons to push back.

We rejected business goals.
We rolled our eyes in cross-functional meetings.
We treated product managers like obstacles and engineers like annoyances.
We demanded strategic influence while still behaving like pixel-pushers.

And then we thought we needed to be in the room with executives and the C-suite.
We pushed for a seat at the table — and when we got there, we questioned the vision.
We challenged direction without understanding constraints.
We acted like we knew better than the people actually running the business.

How arrogant.

Designers asked for a bigger voice, a bigger seat, more influence — and then often showed up unprepared to handle the weight of that responsibility.

We wanted strategy, but avoided accountability.
We wanted respect, but didn’t build trust.
We wanted power, but refused to share it.

It’s no wonder people started pushing back.
It’s no wonder the skepticism grew.
It’s no wonder the “Design is Dead” narrative keeps finding new fuel.

We didn’t just fail to earn trust — we made ourselves a target.

So when another “Design is Dead” piece shows up, people don’t just shrug — they nod along. They’ve been waiting for a reason to root against us. And we’ve given them plenty.

The emergence of AI is just the latest fuel for the fire. It’s the new excuse to question the value of design. But that skepticism? We helped create it.

Designers:
You need to be more humble.
You need to rebuild trust.
You need to stop playing the misunderstood genius and start being a better partner.

You’re not the hero.
You’re not owed control.
You don’t win by rejecting business goals or treating constraints as betrayal.

Good design doesn’t happen in isolation. It balances user needs and business outcomes. It flexes. It listens. It collaborates.

If you can’t do that? You’re not designing. You’re just decorating, and people can tell.

AI isn’t killing design — you just don’t get it

And now, the panic flavor of the month: AI.

“Design is over.”
“AI will replace designers.”
“Why hire a UX team when I have ChatGPT?”

Stop.

AI is a tool, not a takeover.

AI doesn’t understand users.
It doesn’t conduct usability testing.
It doesn’t collaborate with PMs, engineers, researchers, or business leaders to create something that actually works.

What it can do is generate fast visual outputs, automate parts of the process, and free you up to focus on deeper, more strategic work.

If you’re a designer and you’re scared of AI, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate what you think your job is. If you think the job is just “making wireframes,” then yeah, AI might shake you.

But design is not production.
Design is problem-solving.

And if you’re a critic hyping up AI like it’s the new creative director?
You’re not talking about design. You’re talking about mockups.

AI won’t replace designers. But designers who know how to use AI might replace you.

AI changes the landscape. It doesn’t erase it.

Design isn’t dead. It’s just growing up

Yes, the industry has been messy.
Yes, we lacked rigor.
Yes, the hype got out of control.
Yes, some teams ran more on vibes than outcomes.

But that’s what growth looks like. And that’s what this moment is.

Not death.
Not extinction.
Maturity.

The honeymoon phase is over. The myth is fading. What’s left is the real work: strategic, collaborative, humble, and focused design.

Design that solves problems.
Design that scales.
Design that makes everything else work better.

So please — stop writing eulogies

Design isn’t dead.
Stop panicking.
Stop writing clickbait.
Stop chasing hype.
Stop pretending you understand a discipline you’ve never practiced.

You’re not insightful.
You’re just loud.

And either way, you’re wrong.

The article originally appeared on Medium.

Featured image courtesy: Nate Schloesser.

post authorNate Schloesser

Nate Schloesser
Nate Schloesser is a UX Design Manager at Paychex with 20 years in design and over a decade in leadership. He’s led high-impact design teams across industries — scaling systems, shaping strategy, and building environments where designers thrive. Nate is the author of Building UX, founding editor of the Paychex UX Medium publication, and a frequent writer and speaker on design leadership, career growth, and ethical impact in design.

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print
Ideas In Brief
  • The article challenges the claim that “design is dead,” blaming both outsiders and designers for misunderstanding or misrepresenting the field.
  • It argues that AI threatens only superficial design, not true design, and calls for a more mature, collaborative mindset.

Related Articles

Trusting AI isn’t the goal — relying on it is. This article explores why human trust and AI reliance are worlds apart, and what UX designers should focus on to make AI feel dependable, not human.

Article by Verena Seibert-Giller
The Psychology of Trust in AI: Why “Relying on AI” Matters More than “Trusting It”
  • The article argues that “reliance,” not “trust,” is the right way to think about users’ relationship with AI.
  • It explains that human trust and AI reliance are driven by different psychological mechanisms.
  • The piece highlights that predictability, transparency, and control make users more willing to rely on AI.
  • It concludes that users don’t need to trust AI as a partner — only rely on it as a dependable tool.
Share:The Psychology of Trust in AI: Why “Relying on AI” Matters More than “Trusting It”
4 min read

What if your productivity app could keep you as focused as your favorite game? This article explores how game design psychology can transform everyday tools into experiences that spark flow, focus, and real engagement.

Article by Montgomery Singman
Flow State Design: Applying Game Psychology to Productivity Apps
  • The article shows how principles from game design can help productivity tools create and sustain a flow state.
  • It explains that games succeed by balancing challenge and skill, providing clear goals, and offering immediate feedback — elements most productivity apps lack.
  • The piece argues that applying these psychological insights could make work tools more engaging, adaptive, and motivating.
Share:Flow State Design: Applying Game Psychology to Productivity Apps
12 min read

Learn how understanding user emotions can create intuitive, supportive designs that build trust and loyalty.

Article by Pavel Bukengolts
The Role of Emotion in UX: Embracing Emotionally Intelligent Design
  • The article emphasizes that emotionally intelligent design is key to creating meaningful UX that satisfies users and drives business success.
  • It shows how understanding users’ emotions — through research, empathy mapping, journey mapping, and service blueprinting — can reveal hidden needs and shape more intuitive, reassuring digital experiences.
  • The piece argues that embedding empathy and emotional insights into design strengthens user engagement, loyalty, and overall satisfaction.
Share:The Role of Emotion in UX: Embracing Emotionally Intelligent Design
5 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

    This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and