> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.

Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.

Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.

ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.

I tell people we have inverted control with the latest agent concepts. Instead of deterministic code treating LLMs as functions, we have LLMs determining the flow of the app and the interaction with the user. It is much more organic when it is done right and you can gain access to features you never coded. We have been implementing UI tools/widgets to allow a much more interactive experience and it is amazing to play with that idea. This will obviously be part of the standard toolkit of agentic software a year or two from now. The agent stack is just now forming and UI is a core piece of it.

I bristled at the title, article contents, and their spreadsheet example, but this does actually touch on a real paint point that I have had - how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software? By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?

I do a lot of CAD. Every single keyboard shortcut I know was learned only because I needed to do something that was either *highly repetitive* or *highly frustrating*, leading me to dig into Google and find the fast way to do it.

However, everything that is only moderately repetitive/frustrating and below is still being done the simple way. And I've used these programs for years.

I have always dreamed of user interfaces having competent, contextual user tutorials that space out learning about advanced and useful features over the entire duration that you use. Video games do this process well, having long since replaced singular "tutorial sections" with a stepped gameplay mechanic rollout that gradually teaches people incredibly complex game mechanics over time.

A simple example to counter the auto-configuration interpretation most of the other commenters are thinking of. In a toolbar dropdown, highlight all the features I already know how to use regularly. When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it, highlight it in a "currently learning" color, and slowly change the highlight color to "learned" in proportion to my muscle memory.

Here's why this is silly:

Most UI's are fundamentally dumbed down, they're only good for repetitive tasks.

If you're doing any task that is non-repetitive enough such that the UI needs to change, what you really need or would like is an "assistant" who you can talk through, get feedback, and do the thing. Up until very recently, that assistant probably had to be human, but probably obviously, people are now working quite a bit on the virtual one.

it is a case of "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Microsoft already tried this in office when they made the menu order change with usage frequency. People hated it

Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.

Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.

> The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.

I don't see how this follows.

The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).

That's a bad idea. It isn't deterministic. How do you even make documentation for users for your generative UI? It looks different for every single user.

Cant wait to use a program that changes constantly

could this kind of interface make it harder for users to discover useful features they might not know to ask for?

This is getting panned, probably for good reasons. But, in a similar vein, I really think that generative applications are going to be big in the future. User speaks (or OS predicts) what they want and an app spins up on the fly. I don’t think they’ll wipe out traditional apps, but I could see lots of long tail cases where they meet users needs.