DtG #3: Are design tools really making design less valuable?

Hello and welcome to the third issue of Designing the Gap. In this issue, I want to talk about design tools and the growing trend of blaming them for somehow making design "worse."

The tools I'm mainly referring to are Figma (the software) and design systems (the system or framework), but it also extends to other tools like Webflow, Framer, and Canva. While GenAI tools like Adobe Firefly and Figma First Draft are definitely part of the broader conversation, their impact on design is a whole other discussion that I’m not diving into just yet.

The other day I read a post entitled "Figma and the ensh*tification of design." For whatever reason, the post has since been deleted, but it included the line “Figma has democratized design, destroying its legitimacy in the process.”

As soon as I read it, I immediately took issue with this claim, as if 1. democratization is inherently bad (we all work in service to the user) and 2. the legitimacy of design as a discipline is being eroded by the tool itself.

This is not a unique take. Here’s a lively thread from /r/UXDesign that blames Figma for encouraging bad practices in design. It’s not even a new take; here’s a 4+ year old post from Medium provocatively titled “Design Systems are Bullsh*t.”

This fixation on tools as a threat to design’s value or quality is a distraction. The issue isn’t that design has become more efficient or more accessible; it’s that these gains in efficiency have been exploited to justify undervaluing design expertise.

Let's get into it.

The convenience vs. perception tradeoff

Design tools have made execution faster and more accessible. Collaborative interfaces and reusable components have reduced friction, improved efficiency, and made it easier to scale design work. It’s widely accepted that design systems save companies money. As design work becomes more streamlined, it risks being perceived as effortless and, therefore, less valuable.

Figma, in particular, has made design work more visible. Unlike Photoshop or Sketch, which kept files local and siloed, Figma’s cloud-based, collaborative nature puts designs on display at all times. Its simple UI makes it look easy—even when mastering the tool is not.

In some ways, this parallels what happened with photography. When everyone got access to high-quality smartphone cameras and editing tools, professional photography didn’t disappear, but its perceived exclusivity changed. Design is experiencing a similar shift. The ability to create something visually appealing doesn’t automatically translate to strong design thinking, just as taking a well-lit photo doesn’t make someone a professional photographer.

The real issue: chasing growth at any cost

The biggest and most pervasive issue isn’t the tools; it’s the way companies, particularly in tech, are chasing growth at any cost. Growth itself isn’t inherently bad; innovation and progress depend on it. But prioritizing speed over thoughtful solutions has led to design being undervalued in the process. This means cutting corners and shipping new features and products as quickly as possible, in pursuit of the next bit of growth they can highlight in a quarterly earnings report or in a pitch deck to VCs.

Speed has become the priority, often at the expense of meaningful, thoughtful design solutions. This leads to usability issues, increased technical debt, and products that prioritize short-term gains over long-term user satisfaction and business sustainability.

Companies are increasingly prioritizing rapid iteration over deep, intentional design work. This pressure to move fast has reshaped expectations around design’s role in product development. So, while tools like Figma and design systems aren’t to blame for this larger problem, they have contributed to a shift in how design is perceived and practiced.

By making execution more efficient, and more visible, these tools have lowered the perceived cost of producing designs at scale, making it easier for executives to commoditize design. This has led to an environment where design is often treated as disposable; just another step in the production pipeline rather than a critical function that requires time, thought, and strategy.

Because of this broader industry shift, it’s easy to conflate the tools with the fact that we aren’t able to explore meaningful solutions as deeply as we should. But, again, the tools are not the problem. The issue is how companies prioritize rapid iteration over intentional, well-crafted design.

When design unintentionally weakens its own value

Compounding this shift in how business leaders value design is the fact that design is collectively experiencing some atrophy in its problem-solving skills, especially among junior designers.

Many UX/UI bootcamps or programs focus on equipping students with the ability to “do the work”—learning design tools, applying UI best practices, and building portfolios that look polished. But they don’t always teach critical problem-solving or strategic thinking. The result? Designers who are great at executing but may struggle when faced with ambiguous, complex problems that require deeper exploration.

Design systems have contributed to this atrophy; I run design system teams and I’ve witnessed designers turn to design system teams when a component or pattern doesn’t fit their needs, only to realize that the actual challenge lies in composition and problem-solving—not the system itself. The conversation is "how do I get this square peg to fit this round hole" rather than "should we use a square peg in the first place?"

Without experience working outside of design systems, or more rigorous education, some designers may struggle with the kinds of challenges their predecessors navigated with ease. Similarly, design systems should enable designers to explore solutions rather than simply prescribing them.

This isn't to say that design systems or bootcamps are inherently problematic; far from it. I run design systems teams for a living and I'm currently participating in a bootcamp myself. But if designers aren’t being equipped or given opportunities to think beyond execution, they risk becoming overly reliant on predefined solutions rather than developing the skills to create their own.

The real value of design never went away

If the pixel pushing is becoming more transparent, streamlined, and now automated, where does that leave designers? The good news is that the true value of design has never been just about aesthetics; it’s always been about problem-solving, systems thinking, and delivering the best possible experience for both the user and the business.

Designers, especially design leaders, need to take an active role in reinforcing the strategic value of their work. That means ensuring design is positioned as more than execution and that its impact is clearly articulated. Some ways to do this include:

• Advocating for design’s role beyond execution – Get involved in early product conversations, not just when it's time to execute on product strategy and design "the thing." Have a point of view on how design can help empower product-level decisions in a way that will best benefit the user.

• Educating stakeholders – Help non-designers understand that tools don’t replace expertise, just like owning a wrench doesn’t make someone a mechanic. Speak openly and often about the strategic decisions being made to inform the end result. Show how design impacts usability, accessibility, and business outcomes.

• Empathizing with constraints – Product managers and engineers face the same intense pressure to deliver quickly. Rather than pushing back against those constraints, design should embrace them, finding ways to adapt our process to different timeframes—whether that means six months or six weeks—while still delivering thoughtful, high-impact solutions.

Balancing design advocacy with business demands

As we wrap up, it’s important to acknowledge the realities design leaders are facing. Pushing back on the commoditization of design isn’t as simple as just advocating for it more loudly. Many design leaders are navigating difficult conversations with CPOs, CEOs, and other high-level decision-makers who hold more influence over business priorities. There’s only so far they can push before recognizing that their job is ultimately to deliver for the business.

This balance—defending design’s value while working within business constraints—is a tough one. It requires picking battles wisely, finding opportunities to demonstrate impact in ways that resonate with executives, and recognizing when to adapt. The goal isn’t to fight democratization but to shape it, ensuring that as design becomes more accessible, its strategic importance remains clear.

As we do this, it’s equally important that we don’t regress too far back into an ivory tower. Tools like Figma and design systems have made design more open and collaborative; locking it away again won’t help our case. If anything, shutting others out will only reinforce the perception that design is isolated, unapproachable, and resistant to progress. Instead of gatekeeping, we should be actively showing how design thinking drives better business outcomes. This means collaborating cross-functionally, sharing our process transparently, and demonstrating the impact of well-executed design decisions through measurable results.

Things I’ve been reading this week:

• The design game has changed and I don’t know where I fit anymore by Pascal Potvin. Pascal has been working in design longer than I have, but his story about feeling at a crossroads really resonated with me. As I approach my 40s, I’ve (mostly) made peace with the futility of chasing job titles or the next big logo for my resume. Instead, I want my job in design to align with my passion for it. His reflection on finding meaning in design—while the industry evolves around him—is both powerful and vulnerable.

• Embracing Introversion in UX by Victor Yocco. On first glance, this appears to be a really long article, but it’s actually more of a toolkit or playbook for introverted designers who feel “held back” by the pressure to have a larger, louder presence at work in order to succeed. As a self-described “pseudo-extrovert”—a design leader with social anxiety who feels compelled to show up with presence despite how draining it is—I found some useful tips here and deeply resonated with the overall topic.

• Is it good design or does it just look good? by James Harrison. After posting last week about the overemphasis on “craft” in product design, I coincidentally came across this post through a newsletter I subscribe to. While my post focused on how product design craft is valued at the job level, this one takes a much broader look at the cultural over-emphasis on aesthetics.

Thanks for reading this issue of Designing the Gap. Did it resonate with you? Is there anything you wanted more (or less) of? Please let me know!

Thanks,

Ben