Hey Reader,

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what happens when design work gets faster.

AI gives us more output, more options, and more ways to move from idea to artefact.

But what I keep hearing from designers isn't really about speed. It's what speed is exposing: alignment that was never actually there, and the harder question of what we're responsible for now.
​

In today's email:

• What AI can't take from us: The decisions, the accountability, the alignment work — a few reads on what stays distinctly human even as the tools get faster.
  ​
• Build your own tools: Two resources for using AI to spin up custom design tools and agent skills that carry your taste and judgement, not someone else's defaults.
  ​
• Craft and the invisible details: The micro-decisions that separate an interface that works from one that feels alive, plus a visual dictionary for naming the components you can never quite name.

Build better design systems with AI Discover practical AI workflows for building and maintaining design systems, collaborating more effectively with engineering and contributing beyond the design file. 🎟️ Get your ticket

Design gems of the week

• ​Better UI Skills: A set of agent skills for AI coding tools that bake design judgement — animation, typography, layout, colour into the agent itself.
  ​
• ​Build personal design tools with AI using Toolcraft: A starter kit and UI library for building your own creative tools with AI agents. Describe what you want — a gradient generator, a blog cover builder, an image effect and get a working app with a proper canvas, real controls, and performance checks baked in.
  ​
• ​Name that UI: A handy visual dictionary for testing whether you know the actual names of common interface patterns and components. Describe the thing in plain English and get back the real name, the API symbol, and a paste-ready prompt for your coding agent.
  ​
• ​Warm Lead, No Scope, No Budget? Do This and Get Paid for 3 Months: A 5-step system for turning a vague "we should work together" lead into a scoped three-month engagement: pull out the problem list, stack-rank priorities, write your HMW questions, run a 90-minute session, and send the SOW within 48 hours. ​
  ​
• ​Product design in the age of AI: As AI makes producing artifacts cheap and fast, the value of design shifts to the decisions behind them — who set the goal, whose needs made it in, which risks got accepted.
  ​
• ​Invisible Details: A course on the micro-decisions that make an interface feel polished. It gets into the things designers often notice but struggle to explain: states, feedback, input behaviour, timing, interaction weight, and all the tiny details that turn “fine” UI into something that feels right.
  ​
• ​AI is helping us move fast. Not together: A sharp piece on the collaboration gap AI can create: more output, faster decisions, but not always more shared understanding.

​
Open design roles worth a look

• ​Product Designer (1Password) - Remote across US & Canada
• ​Sr Product Designer- iOS/ Android (Lowe's) - Charlotte, NC
• ​Software Experience Prototyper (Lenovo) - Morrisville, NC
  ​

A MESSAGE FROM FRAMER Explore design directions faster One of the hardest parts of redesigning a site is deciding which direction to take. Sometimes you need to see a few options before you know what’s working. With Framer Agents, I can give the Agent a specific goal and quickly explore different creative directions inside the actual Framer project. Not as the final answer, but as a starting point I can compare, react to, and refine. ​​→ ​Try Framer Agents​

What if nobody's ever going to hand you the seat at the table?

You don't need permission to do strategic work. You need a pitch.

That's the whole idea behind something I keep seeing pop up in different corners of the design world lately: the designer as intrapreneur. Not a title. Not a reporting line. Just designers who stopped waiting for someone to hand them a strategic problem and started going and finding one.

​Jess Eddy made the case for this directly recently — that designers who want a real seat at the table need to start speaking in outcomes, not just usability, and stop waiting around for a brief before they act on a good idea.

It got picked up and expanded on by design blogger Roger Wong too, who pushed on the idea that making a concept tangible isn't the finish line — staying accountable for whether it actually moves anything is. It's the same instinct I keep running into in different forms, and it's why I wanted to write about it this week.

Here's what that actually looks like, stripped of the buzzword:

You notice something's broken — a flow that quietly loses users, a metric nobody's tracking, a decision getting made without the context you have. Instead of flagging it and waiting for a brief, you spend a few hours forming a real hypothesis. You sketch the fix. You bring it to the room already half-solved.

That's it. That's the move.

Why this works when "advocating for design" usually doesn't

Most advice about getting a strategic seat at the table treats it like a status you're granted. Someone senior decides you're ready, and then the interesting work starts flowing your way.

In practice, it goes the other way. The seat is earned by acting like you already have it — and then it becomes official later, if it becomes official at all.

Here's how I've experienced this in my current role at Gusto: reviews between design, PM, and engineering existed, but they were inconsistent — they happened too late to matter, expectations varied team to team, and feedback stayed stuck on surface-level execution instead of strategic alignment.

Nobody assigned me to fix it. I audited how reviews were actually breaking down across teams, built a lightweight framework for when reviews should happen and what "good" looked like, and pressure-tested it with PM and engineering partners before I ever asked permission to roll it out org-wide.

It's still the process being used today, and it's one of the clearest "bias to action" moments of my time here — not because the fix was clever, but because I didn't wait to be asked.

The part people skip: owning the result

This is where the intrapreneur framing gets uncomfortable, and also where it gets real. Pitching a solution isn't the finish line — it's the start of a commitment. If you spot the problem and propose the fix, you're signing up to see it through, not just to hand off a Figma file and move on.

Design artifacts are evidence along the way. They're not the deliverable. The deliverable is the outcome actually landing.

That distinction is what separates "designer who occasionally does strategic work" from "designer people trust with strategic work." One ships a mockup. The other ships a result and can explain, afterward, why it moved the number it moved.

Three questions before you pitch anything

If you're looking for a place to start, try this filter before you bring an idea to anyone:

1. What's the cost of nothing changing? If you can't answer this in one sentence, you don't have a pitch yet — you have an observation.
2. What would I need to be wrong about for this not to matter? Say it out loud before someone else does. It's the fastest way to tighten the idea.
3. Am I willing to own this past the first meeting? If the honest answer is no, it's still a good idea — just not one to lead with your name on it yet.

There's a reason this conversation is picking up steam right now, beyond it being a nice framework.

A lot of designers are stretched across product, engineering, and strategy work already — often without the title or comp to match. If that's you, waiting for permission to do strategic work is waiting for something that's arguably already happening.

The intrapreneur move isn't about doing more. It's about naming what you're already doing, and doing it on purpose instead of by accident.

You don't need someone to open the door. You need a pitch good enough that it doesn't matter whether the door was open.

Have a topic you'd like me to write about? Reply to this email and let me know! I read every reply.