UX/UI Director
Describe a weak feature — get the UX direction a world-class design director would give
What it makes
UX direction brief
Creative
Real output
It tells you the carousel is the wrong call — and what to do instead
A spoken homepage idea where the speaker floats an auto-rotating carousel to fit five value props.
What you said
So the homepage hero, I’m thinking we put like a carousel there, a rotating banner that cycles through our five main value props automatically. That way we can show everything without making the page super long. Can you flesh that out? I just feel like we have a lot to say and not enough room.
What you got
Problem
[STATED] The homepage hero needs to communicate five value propositions. The speaker feels there is too much to say and not enough room, and floated an auto-rotating carousel to fit it all.
Recommendations
- [RECOMMENDATION] Replace the auto-rotating carousel with a static hero that leads with your single strongest value proposition, and let the remaining props live in a scannable band below the fold.
The carousel's appeal is real — it feels like it solves the "not enough room" problem. But the evidence against auto-rotating heroes is consistent: users treat moving banners as ads and skip them (banner blindness), and click-through on slides 2–5 drops to near zero. Compressing five messages into a carousel doesn't expose them; it buries four.
- Why: Recognition over recall and visual hierarchy — a single dominant claim is processed immediately; a rotating one only if the visitor waits and watches. It also avoids the WCAG 2.2.2 (pause/stop/hide) liability auto-advancing content carries.
- Impact: Conversion. A static hero with one clear claim and a visible CTA is consistently the highest-converting hero pattern.
- [RECOMMENDATION] Put props 2–5 in a scannable "Why Us" band beneath the hero — one short card each — so visitors read all five in parallel, at their own pace.
- Why: Progressive disclosure and user control — the "not enough room" problem is a hierarchy problem, not a space problem.
- Impact: Engagement. Visitors self-select the prop that resonates, shortening the time to "this is for me."
Open Questions
- Which value prop has the strongest evidence behind it (conversion data, customer interviews, sales feedback)? Best-guess default: whichever most directly answers the visitor's primary job-to-be-done — that becomes the hero claim.
Why it’s better
A spec compiler would have built the carousel you asked for. UX/UI Director tells you — honestly — that the carousel is the wrong call, keeps your idea visible as [STATED], and hands you the stronger pattern instead, each move grounded in a named principle and tied to conversion. It brings the expertise you came for rather than rubber-stamping the idea.
A vague “make it premium” becomes grounded direction — with nothing invented
A vague aesthetic ask with no metrics, no screen names, and no current-design specifics.
What you said
So I want the app to feel more premium. Like the UX is okay but not amazing. Make it more like Apple. And cleaner. And more professional. Just improve it overall. Also maybe make it faster.
What you got
Problem
[STATED] The app's UX is okay but not amazing. The speaker wants it to feel more premium, cleaner, and more professional — with Apple as the reference — and thinks it may need to feel faster.
Recommendations
- [RECOMMENDATION] Enforce a disciplined visual hierarchy on every screen: one dominant action per view, supporting elements subordinate, decorative clutter removed.
- Why: "Premium" is the result of ruthless reduction, not addition — Apple's aesthetic is consistent hierarchy and whitespace. Hick's Law: every competing element slows decisions and reads as clutter.
- Impact: Lower cognitive load lifts task-completion and satisfaction — a compounding retention signal.
- [RECOMMENDATION] Tighten the type system: at most three sizes in use per screen, body text at a minimum 4.5:1 contrast (WCAG AA), line-height ≥ 1.5×.
- Why: Typography is the fastest proxy for professionalism; too many sizes or low contrast reads as unfinished. WCAG AA is also the accessibility floor.
- Impact: Better legibility cuts support contacts and broadens the addressable audience at zero engineering cost.
Open Questions
- What does "faster" mean — a specific slow screen, or a general impression? Best-guess default: perceived latency, addressed with skeleton screens and motion, with engineering triage if real load times exceed 2–3s on key screens.
Why it’s better
From a vague "make it feel premium," it gives concrete, prioritized moves — each grounded in a named principle and tied to a business outcome — without inventing a single fact about your app. A generic "act as a UX expert" tool tends to fabricate the specifics it is missing ("you probably have 8–12 font sizes"); this hat routes what it doesn’t know to Open Questions instead.
What comes back
- The output is design direction you act on or hand to a designer or developer — not a build spec, and not a prompt for another AI.
- It supplies the expertise: it diagnoses and recommends even when you named no fix. Handing the design question back to you is not its job.
- It brings honest opinion — it pushes back on a weak idea and proposes a stronger one, keeping your idea visible as [STATED] so you see what it’s responding to.
- It never invents your facts. A metric or behavior you didn’t give becomes an Open Question, never an asserted number.
What you can count on
- Grounded, not generic — every recommendation rests on a named UX principle and a business mechanism, not "make it cleaner"
- Honest by construction — your facts stay [STATED], its judgment stays [RECOMMENDATION], and missing facts go to Open Questions; it won’t fabricate a number to justify advice
- Real expertise, including disagreement — it will tell you a carousel is the wrong call and show you why, rather than rubber-stamp it
Install UX/UI Director and try it on your own voice.
Sign in to install UX/UI DirectorIs this hat for you?
Turns a weak-feature observation into expert UX direction with business rationale.
UX/UI Director turns a rough observation about a weak feature — "this onboarding loses people," "the pricing page doesn't convert," "this feels cluttered" — into the expert UX and business direction a senior product designer would give: what's likely wrong, what to change, the design principle behind each move, and the business reason it matters. Unlike a spec compiler that only writes down what you already decided, this hat supplies the direction you don't have. It brings real opinion — it will push back on a weak idea and propose the stronger alternative — but it stays honest: your facts stay yours, tagged [STATED], and every recommendation is tagged as the hat's judgment, never invented. When its advice needs a number you didn't give, it asks in Open Questions instead of fabricating one. You describe the problem; it hands you the direction.
Best for
- A weak feature you can’t diagnose — "onboarding loses people but I don’t know where" comes back as prioritized direction: defer non-essential fields, fix verification friction, add named-stage progress, each tied to activation
- A vague aesthetic ask — "make it feel more premium, like Apple" becomes concrete moves (visual hierarchy, an 8px spacing system, a tighter type scale, motion) grounded in principle and tied to perceived quality and conversion — without inventing a metric
- Pressure-testing your own idea — float a carousel or a trendy pattern and it tells you honestly whether it’s right, citing the evidence, and proposes the stronger alternative
- A mobile or accessibility complaint — "it’s cramped and people mis-tap" comes back with touch-target floors (WCAG 44px), spacing, and hierarchy, tied to the affected user segment and support load
Not for
- Writing the build spec — once you know the change you want, Developer Elite compiles it into an implementation spec; this hat decides the UX direction, it doesn’t write the ticket
- Organizing feedback you already have — if you’re relaying a critique to a designer, Design Revision Director de-conflicts and tags it; this hat generates the critique you don’t yet have
- A quick message, status update, or email — reach for Work Email, Clarity, or Casual Convo
Using it
How it works
- Just describe the weak feature — the symptom, the frustration, any goal or constraint. You don’t need a finished idea; a sharp observation is enough to direct from.
- It opens with the problem in your own words (tagged [STATED]), then gives priority-ordered recommendations, highest business impact first.
- Each recommendation names the change, the design principle behind it (Hick’s Law, visual hierarchy, WCAG, progressive disclosure…), and the business mechanism it moves (activation, conversion, retention…).
- What it would need to know to go deeper — a metric, your user segment, a constraint — goes in Open Questions with a best-guess default, never invented.
Try saying
- our onboarding is like five or six steps and people drop off somewhere in the middle, I don’t know where or what to do about it
- I want the app to feel more premium, like Apple, cleaner and more professional, just better overall
- the homepage hero, I’m thinking a carousel that rotates through our five value props — can you flesh that out?
- on mobile the dashboard feels cramped and the buttons are tiny, older users keep tapping the wrong thing
Tips
- You don’t need a solution — describe the problem or even just the feeling. Supplying the direction from a rough observation is exactly the job.
- Give it any real numbers you have — conversion, drop-off, the user segment — and the direction sharpens; it won’t invent them if you don’t.
- Float your own idea and ask it to weigh in — it will push back honestly and propose a stronger alternative rather than just agreeing.