This article was originally written on LinkedIn on March 6, 2026.
I’m writing again after spending several months barely interacting here on LinkedIn. That distance was intentional. I needed to detox from all the FOMO brought on by the adoption of Artificial Intelligence and from the generalized pessimism online caused by the difficult job market we’ve been facing for quite some time.
I also needed distance from the proliferation of “Bootcamp Gurus” who haven’t had enough real-world experience to speak so freely about the future of the discipline, loudly proclaiming in Reels and TikTok Shorts how knowledge built over decades suddenly becomes a delusion of boomers who failed to adapt to the new era of LLMs, AI Agents, and Vibe Coding.
Amidst all this turmoil, the recent comments from J.W., a design leader at some of the coolest companies right now (yes, I know that’s kind of a boomer phrase), have also surfaced. She recently presented a series of somewhat messianic statements about the future of the discipline that, in my opinion, are extremely harmful for those of us who have spent 10, 20, or 30 years working in User Experience Design.
This post is not meant to be a childish rant or a witch hunt. It simply aims to present these statements—which carry a clear whiff of clickbait—and to offer my own opinions on them from my position and experience in the trenches of this discipline.
1. The “Design Process” Is Not Dead (It Has Been Misinterpreted)
J.W. criticizes user-centered design processes and the use of artifacts as an end in themselves. On that criticism, I partially agree. These elements should never be adopted from a rigid standpoint (you shouldn’t become a “methodology fundamentalist”), nor should we fall into UX theater, pretending that creating a few User Personas without any real data behind them somehow counts as doing actual research or strategy.
On the other hand, something basic needs to be clarified: design processes such as the Double Diamond, Design Thinking, or Design Sprints were never meant to be universal “cookbook recipes.” They are strategic frameworks that serve as a foundation for designing processes tailored to the specific business challenge being addressed.
2. The Trap Behind the “Solution-First” Approach
J.W. suggests that in this new AI era we should start with the solution rather than the problem. She argues that:
“…sometimes you don’t know what problem you’re solving until you see an inspiring solution.”
While this may sound like an innovative approach, it is actually a fairly basic mistake that is taught from day one in Design: avoid the temptation to jump immediately to the solution, and always start from the problem/business challenge you are trying to solve.
3. The Problem With Using “Intuition” as a Working Method
J.W. also argues that designers should rely more on intuition. That this is not guessing, but rather the ability to make quick judgments based on years of experience and deep observation of users.
Perhaps a different term would be more appropriate here, since intuition is defined as:
“The ability to understand, feel, or decide something instantly and automatically, without the apparent use of conscious reasoning or logical analysis.”
The problem is that intuition can be influenced by cognitive biases, which means it is far from infallible and, in many cases, must be contrasted with a more rational approach.
That said, I do agree that it is necessary to know how to make informed decisions, especially considering that for decades there has been a fairly large body of knowledge around Design Principles and best practices.
4. Artifacts as Tools for Strategic Alignment
Another point J.W. raises in her talk is that users don’t care about design artifacts such as Empathy Maps or User Personas; they care about the final product. She criticizes the fact that many portfolios focus 80% on the process and only 20% on the outcome.
Here I also partially agree with her point, but at the same time, I believe it contains a somewhat confusing element and is closely aligned with her first argument, where Design Processes in general are questioned.
Design artifacts have always been inexpensive tools used to create alignment with Product Teams, Development, Stakeholders, Legal Teams, Marketing, and others.
Design artifacts should never be considered the central focus of our work nor the final deliverable (output), unless we make sure they are actually used to generate debate and consensus within teams. That’s the real outcome a designer should be aiming for when producing these artifacts, because that is the real value it has to be delivered to the Business, not the artifact itself.
5. “Making People Smile” vs. Business Outcomes
J.W. highlights the success of FigJam based on the idea that their goal was to “make users smile.” Unfortunately, she contrasts this with the argument that we should adopt a “Solution-First” approach in order to avoid limiting ourselves to searching for a problem, and instead find solutions that are creative and innovative.
This is a perspective that makes a lot of sense for creative tools such as Figma or FigJam (SaaS products built for designers). In that context, and under those premises (“making people smile”), it is perfectly valid to adopt it. In practice, this translates into Divergent Exploration and Convergent Definition. There is nothing fundamentally different here from what the design frameworks J.W. criticizes have already proposed.
On the other hand, when you design for more regulated industries such as banking, healthcare, or telecommunications, the business objective is not for the user to “smile,” but rather for users to be more efficient, to avoid making mistakes, or to complete transactions without friction. The results (outcomes) of the Design Processes in these contexts are measured through metrics such as conversion, retention, or reductions in operational costs, not only through mere User Satisfaction or a simple aesthetic delight.