Jordan Herbert

Product design practice

Designing with AI

How I use AI across my product design workflow, and where I keep my hands on the wheel.

Stance
AI does the legwork. I do the judgement.
Tools
Claude, connected to Figma, Maze, Confluence, Jira and GitHub
Used for
Research synthesis, ideation, design system migration and design to code

My stance

AI does the legwork. I do the judgement.

I treat AI as a fast, capable collaborator inside a user-centred process. It helps me make, research and synthesise. Deciding what is right for users stays with me.

Approach

Where AI fits in a user-centred process

StageWhere AI helpsWhat I keep
DiscoverPulling desk research, product docs and past findings into a starting briefChoosing which evidence matters
FrameDrafting problem statements and hypotheses in our house formatAgreeing the problem with the team
IdeateGenerating options and copy variations quicklyPicking the direction
DesignBuilding prototypes in Figma from our design system components and tokensEvery design and content decision
TestDrafting test plans, then synthesising results with every theme linked to its sourceWatching real users and reading the nuance
MeasureTurning results into clear stories for stakeholdersDeciding what happens next

Context before prompts

Most of the value comes from what it knows before I ask it anything

Claude, connected to Figma, Maze, Confluence, Jira and GitHub.

Claude

Figma

Maze

Confluence

Jira

GitHub

Connected to my tools

Design files, research results, documentation, tickets and code, so it works from real files rather than my descriptions of them.

Taught our conventions

Design system tokens and components, brand voice and the house hypothesis format, captured as reusable skills.

Given standing rules

Preferences it follows every time, from punctuation style to never presenting a figure it can't source.

In practice

Three examples from real work

01 · Ideate

Exploring three directions before committing to one

What AI did

For the early termination charge journey, generated three distinct, clickable directions, each with its own design question to test.

What I did

Judged each against what members need to know before they leave, and chose which ideas to carry forward into the design.

Option A · Step by step, with a save offer
Option B · Single page, with a sticky summary
Option C · Conversational and editorial

02 · Design

Moving live journeys onto a new design system

Who did what

  • What AI didRebuilt existing account screens in Figma on the new design system library, swapping old components for new ones and keeping layouts consistent from one journey to the next.
  • What I didSet the rules it had to follow: components that match how the same thing appears elsewhere in the product, one format for related cards, and options hidden when a member can't use them.

03 · Design to code

Design and build in the same loop

What changed

On an internal tool, designs went straight into code, with generated components as the starting point instead of drawing every state by hand. I raise pull requests in GitHub for design changes myself, so they reach engineers ready to review rather than as a ticket to interpret.

Where judgement mattered

One generated pattern was rejected because it hid fault information from someone triaging a fault. Only a person holding that principle catches it.

Read the agent platform case study →

The agent platform, designed straight into code

Guardrails

What I never hand over

Real users stay real

AI never stands in for research participants. It helps me plan and synthesise, not replace the session.

Every number is traceable

Figures must come from a source, and anything unsourced gets challenged.

Sensitive data stays inside

Internal and customer data stays inside the business, whatever the tool.

I make the call

On design, on copy, and on what ships. The AI can suggest; it does not decide.

Failure modes

Where AI goes wrong, and what I do about it

01

Plausible, but not true

What it looks like

AI fills gaps with confident detail that sounds right but has no evidence behind it.

What I do now

Every claim is traced to real data before it reaches a customer. AI drafts; evidence decides.

02

Helpful, but off-goal

What it looks like

Left unchecked, it keeps adding helpful extras that dilute the one thing the user came to do.

What I do now

I brief with the goal and the success measure, not just the task, and judge output against both.

03

Generic, not ours

What it looks like

Without context, output drifts to generic patterns, values and tone instead of your own system.

What I do now

Our design system, brand voice and formats are loaded as skills, so the defaults are ours.

04

Persuasive, but overstated

What it looks like

Synthesis can smooth over nuance and make findings sound stronger than the evidence.

What I do now

Insights are rewritten in plain terms, with every stat and quote linked to its source.

Reflections

Six principles I work by

  1. 01Start with context, not prompts
  2. 02Work in small loops and review each one
  3. 03Keep a human checkpoint at every stage
  4. 04Verify anything that looks like a fact
  5. 05Codify what you repeat as rules and skills
  6. 06Be open about where AI was used

My role

How it has changed my role

Less

Production work

Resizing and re-laying out screens, first drafts of plans and copy.

More

Time on the problem

With users, with stakeholders, and on the decisions that actually matter.

Harder

Catching plausible but wrong

Output that looks finished can still be wrong for users. Spotting that is now a core skill.

In summary

Faster making. Same standards.

  • AI is most useful when it knows your system, your users and your rules.
  • The value is in the loop: generate, review, correct, repeat.
  • Speed only counts if the work is still right for users.