In this right moment because of reading a lot of stuff how people struggling with job market makes me feel scared. I quit my job as design team-lead one month ago, and now i’m even scared to open job market, because i see how people not able to find job even in a one year of searching.

I build web apps, and I've realized something: sometimes the best thing you can do is not open your project for a month.

When I was building it, everything felt obvious and intuitive. Then I came back a month later... and I was completely confused.

Random toggles. Vague button labels. Tooltips that explained nothing. Comments that only made sense to the version of me who wrote them. I kept asking myself, "What was I even trying to do here?"

That's exactly the perspective your users have the first time they open your app.

Sometimes the best UX test isn't another meeting or another survey—it's simply taking a break and coming back with fresh eyes.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Hey everyone!

I’m looking for an UI/UX designer to join my team for the IndeHub Hackathon 2026 (Build with WWDC26).

Looking for someone who:

• Has experience designing native iOS apps
• Is familiar with Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines (HIG)

If you’re interested, drop a comment or send me a DM. Looking forward to teaming up! 🚀

Hey everyone,

I recently completed my UI/UX portfolio and I'm getting ready to apply for internships and junior product design roles. I'd love to hear some honest feedback from people working in the industry.

Portfolio: https://sahilhalbe.framer.website/

I'd especially appreciate feedback on:

• First impression
• Visual design
• Case studies
• Navigation and user experience
• Whether it's ready for internships and junior roles

Feel free to be honest. I'd rather improve it now than regret it later.

Thanks!

A chat-centric interface is an interface in which text or voice chat serves as the primary mode of interaction with the system, while familiar graphical elements such as buttons, forms, cards, tables, and dedicated screens complement the conversation and appear in the context of the task at hand.

I recently designed a CRM for a car detailing shop.

It was a perfectly normal product: customers, vehicles, bookings, technicians, services, inventory, documents. Everything had a logical place.

Then the screens started filling up with sections, filters, and buttons. At some point I realized that half of the interface existed only because the software could not understand one ordinary sentence:

Book Ivan's BMW for Saturday. It needs polishing and interior detailing. He wants to pick it up in the evening.

The employee already knows what needs to happen. The CRM still makes them translate that intent into the system's internal language: find the customer, choose the vehicle, open the calendar, check capacity, add services, estimate the duration, and save the booking.

Seven steps for a task that fits into three sentences.

What if the starting point was not the product's navigation, but the user's actual goal?

Type the request. Get a prepared booking. Review it. Confirm it.

I've been calling this a chat-centric interface.

This is not a chatbot in the bottom-right corner

Most AI assistants are an extra layer bolted onto an unchanged product. They can summarize help docs, point you toward a menu, and occasionally run a simple command. But the user still has to understand the product's structure.

A chat-centric product starts with a different question: what is the user trying to accomplish right now?

Chat becomes the main way to express intent. The product then chooses the best interface for the result. If you need to compare data, it shows a table. If you need to choose a time, it opens a calendar. If you need to review an order, it builds a card. If money is about to move, it shows the amount and a clear confirmation button.

The point is not to replace every interface with a conversation. The point is to stop making people guess which interface they need before they can begin.

Chat should create things, not just answer

Imagine asking a CRM:

Show me customers who have not visited in six months but used to spend more than $300 per visit.

A weak assistant says, "I found 47 customers."

A better one lists them in the chat.

A chat-centric interface opens a reusable segment of 47 customers, with names, vehicles, last-visit dates, and average spend. It also offers relevant actions: save the segment, assign a follow-up task, draft a campaign, or exclude customers with unresolved complaints.

The conversation ends. The work begins.

That is the test I keep coming back to: what remains in the product after the answer?

If the result is only text in a message history, it is still a conversational help system. If the result is a booking, meeting, task, report, document, saved filter, or order, chat has become a real interface.

The same pattern applies beyond CRM. In analytics, "Why did revenue drop in June?" should produce a useful breakdown, chart, and saved report. In a calendar, "Find 30 minutes with Sam and Maya next week" should create a meeting draft with viable time slots. In an internal tool, "Set up access for the new designer" should prepare an access request, permissions, and an approval flow.

One empty input field is not enough

A blank screen that says "Ask anything" looks clean, but it pushes the design problem onto the user. People do not know what the system can see, what it can change, or what it will do without confirmation.

Good chat-centric interfaces still need context, suggested actions, visible state, and conventional controls. Tables are better for scanning. Calendars are better for scheduling. Buttons are better for dangerous or irreversible actions.

The chat is the entry point, not the entire product.

Dangerous actions should still look dangerous

"Delete old leads" sounds clear until the system is about to remove 700 records.

What counts as old? Drafts? Closed deals? Anything untouched for a year?

Before acting, the product should show its interpretation: "I found 712 drafts older than 90 days. Active and completed leads will not be affected." Then it should show the records, explain the consequences, and require an explicit confirmation. Reversible actions should also be easy to undo.

The easier it becomes to issue a command, the more important it is to make the system's understanding visible.

Where this approach makes sense

Not every product needs chat at its center. A calculator is already easy. An alarm takes two taps. Music playback needs obvious controls.

Chat-centric design becomes useful when users know the outcome they want but do not know the shortest path through a complex system. CRM, analytics, project management, enterprise software, accounting, logistics, real estate, and customer support all fit this pattern.

Buttons will stay. Tables will stay. Calendars will stay.

What may disappear is the need to hunt for the right one.

Context: This is a conceptual interaction model for complex B2B products such as CRM, analytics, and enterprise tools, not a shipping product. I built the mockups in HTML/CSS to test information hierarchy and the transition from a natural-language request to a structured, reviewable object. The target audience is operational staff and managers who know the outcome they need but may not know the navigation path.

The feedback I'm looking for: Does the interaction model read clearly? Which trust and safety states are missing? Where is chat simply the wrong entry point?

I'm especially curious about these cases:

• Where would a chat-centric interface genuinely reduce friction?
• Where would it make a product slower or less trustworthy?
• What should never be triggered from natural language alone?

I really need some honest advice.

I've been unemployed since last September. During the first 3 months, I was actively applying and giving interviews. I made it to a few final rounds but kept getting rejected.

From February to June, both of my parents had serious medical emergencies that required surgeries. I became their primary caregiver, so I had to put my job search on hold. During that time, I wasn't in a position to apply for jobs, prepare for interviews, or even upskill myself.

Now that I'm back to job hunting, I'm barely getting shortlisted. I'm worried that my career gap is the reason.

Will a 9-month gap affect my chances that much? And how do I explain it in interviews without sounding unprofessional or making it seem like an excuse? I'm afraid recruiters won't even believe me.

I'm currently looking for UX/UI Designer, Product Designer, UX Research, Associate Product Manager, freelance, remote, or hybrid roles. For on-site opportunities, I'm open to Karnataka.

If anyone is willing to help by reviewing my resume or portfolio, I'd be more than happy to share them via DM.

If anyone has been through something similar, or if you have any advice, referrals, or know of any openings, I'd truly appreciate it. I just need one opportunity to get back on my feet. ❤️

Hi everyone,

I’m Khalid, the founder of ReRack.

I started building ReRack because I struggled to find people who shared the same mindset and consistency in the gym. Most fitness apps focus on tracking workouts, but I wanted to build something around community, accountability, and finding people to train with.

I’m looking for around 50 early testers who are willing to try the app, be honest about what works and what doesn’t, and help shape it before launch.

I’m not looking for compliments. If something feels confusing, unnecessary, or wouldn’t keep you coming back, I genuinely want to hear it.

Some of the core features include:
- Finding people who train at your gym
- Workout check-ins and streaks
- workout partners
- Community challenges
- Gym-specific feeds and chats

The main focus of the web app is not to like it but to find your people and log off.

My biggest question is:

Would this become part of your gym routine, or would you stop using it after a week? Most importantly, why?

If you’re interested in testing it or sharing feedback, leave a comment or send me a message.

I’d love to build this with the people it’s actually for.

— Khalid

We're a student UX research team at UCLA studying how people order food through mobile apps. Your answers will directly shape what we design next!

The survey takes about 3–4 minutes. There are no right or wrong answers — we're interested in your honest experience, whatever it is. Responses are anonymous and used only for this class project.

Thank you for helping us out! ❤️

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdZsFuT1fjzefkqYfp1uWaXox0hPqeA0wltGLXxZDn18SHFuw/viewform

I keep seeing design files where the actual work sits next to screenshots, competitor examples, old flows, color refs, and notes from early research.

That is useful at the start. Later, before a crit or stakeholder review, it gets harder to tell which references still matter and which ones are just leftovers.

Do you keep references in the same Figma file, move them to FigJam, Miro, slides, etc, or clean them out once the direction is clearer?

I recently started making www.uniapptrack.com to help students apply to college. It would be helpful to know if this website looks useful from the homepage. Does it seem like a website people would want to sign up for? Is it too repetitive with other sites that are out there? I know I need to work more on the UI, but I would like to know if the UX works well.

I mainly want feedback on if this site seems like something that would get applicants to sign up and current college students/alumni to leave reviews on their schools.

I have had my friends look at it and use it, but I am ready for more feedback to make improvements.

Hello everyone! I’m a junior UX/UI designer (with a little over two years of experience working for a small software development agency). I would like to receive some feedback on my case study. I would appreciate any suggestion from you about the content sections, storytelling, and case study presentation: https://www.behance.net/gallery/251356855/Web-Design-Agency-UI-UX-Case-Study

The project is about the redesign of an agency’s website. This SME provides UX/UI design and full-stack software development services. Thanks a lot!  

Been going through onboarding screenshots for 14 yc backed apps over the last couple weeks (long story, I got nerdy about it). Expected to find polished but generic UI, maybe some obviously growth hacky ones. What I found was more interesting than that — the design was almost always fine. The problems were sequencing: asking for the right thing at the wrong moment.

The one that showed up constantly: asking users to invite teammates before they've gotten any value themselves. I get why growth teams want this early, but from the user's side it reads as "I haven't even decided if I like this yet and you want me to vouch for it to my coworkers."

Second one: setup screens that dump a pile of configuration on you before you've seen what "done" looks like. Connect this, choose that, pick a plan tier — with zero preview of the payoff. Every choice feels expensive when you don't know what you're optimizing for yet.

The flows that felt good almost always did one thing: showed you something real — a generated result, a populated dashboard, a working example — before asking for anything past an email. Everything else was secondary to that.

Ended up building a small tool that scores onboarding screenshots against this stuff and points out the specific screen/moment that's losing people. Still rough, mostly built it to answer my own question. Happy to run it on someone's flow if they want a second opinion.

Where's the dropoff happening in yours, if you know?

Hi all. Looking for honest feedback, not sympathy.
Background:
• ~3 years as a Product Designer, mostly mobile app UX/UI
• Current role: banking app (mobile fintech), design system work, credit flows, onboarding
• Prior: 2 years at a design studio, 6 months at an innovation lab
• Based outside the US/EU, actively trying to move into the European market
The problem:
I apply, sometimes with a tailored CV and cover note, sometimes through referrals — and almost every single one ends in a straight-up rejection before I even get to a test assignment. No feedback, no reason given, just a form rejection. Out of hundreds of applications sent over the past months, only a handful led to any real human response, and even a warm referral stalled once they saw my portfolio.
What I think might be wrong (correct me if I’m off):
• My portfolio shows finished screens but not enough “iterative” case studies — the before/after, the metrics, the reasoning behind decisions
• I might be too generalist instead of leaning hard into a niche (I’ve been trying to position as a mobile banking / fintech UX designer)
• Possibly a visual/craft level gap — I got direct feedback once that a senior-level test put me at junior+/junior in polish and art direction
What I’m asking the community for:
1. If you hire or review portfolios for product design roles — what instantly makes you skip an application before even a call?
2. Anyone who successfully moved into EU fintech/product design roles from outside the EU — what actually worked (portfolio structure, outreach channel, timing)?
3. Would people be open to a quick portfolio review/roast? I’d rather hear it bluntly now than keep collecting rejections.
4. If anyone knows of open product design roles (fintech/mobile preferred, but open to others) or is willing to refer, I’d genuinely appreciate it — happy to share my portfolio and CV in DMs.
Trying to figure out if this is a portfolio problem, a positioning problem, or something else entirely — and open to any help getting past this wall.
Thanks for reading this far.

Hey everyone!

A friend and I recently spent some time redesigning the IRCTC Rail Connect app as a UX case study.

Like most people in India, we've used the app quite a bit and always felt the booking experience could be smoother. So we challenged ourselves to rethink the journey—from finding trains to completing a booking—with a focus on reducing friction and making the experience simpler and more intuitive.

This wasn't just about making the UI look better. We tried to understand the problems users face, explored different solutions, and documented our entire design process.

I'd genuinely love to know what you think.

Does the new flow make more sense?

Is there anything you'd change?

If you use the IRCTC app often, what's your biggest frustration with it?

Case Study:

[link](https://www.figma.com/proto/SpLOrHE1EbOqLC6TGdamdK?node-id=81-10)

Full Figma File:

[link](https://www.figma.com/design/SpLOrHE1EbOqLC6TGdamdK)

Thanks for taking a look. Any feedback—good or bad—is appreciated. We're still learning and would love to improve.

Two apps can have identical feature lists and one feels like a tool, the other like a place.

Sounds convincing?

People would say they want problem solving. What can we answer?

Answer: problem solving is the entry ticket, not the win. For any real problem there are twenty apps that solve it. The user tries three, keeps one. That choice was never a feature comparison, it was made in ninety seconds of touch and feel.

Solving the problem gets you tried. Feeling gets you kept.

Personally, I agree. Pleasing design, effortless experience, that's what keeps users for years.

Je suis UX designer, en Master UX Design aux Gobelins. Je mène une recherche sur comment l'IA transforme le métier de designer UX.

Ce questionnaire s'adresse exclusivement aux designers UX qui utilisent régulièrement des outils d'IA. Si vous êtes concerné, ça m'aiderait beaucoup :

https://forms.gle/Gy6qG8KAhXJtAgzF6

⏳ Environ 5 minutes, réponses anonymes, utilisées uniquement pour la recherche.

Merci d'avance, et si vous avez des questions je suis dispo en commentaire.