Brand site refresh
Eight visual directions on day two instead of week two; the client chose one that would never have been drawn on a shorter timeline.
The expensive part of design used to be seeing enough options to choose well. Generative tools change that: dozens of layout and visual directions in an afternoon, synthetic user scenarios to pressure-test a flow, concept imagery for a moodboard. What they do not change is who decides.
Design timelines are consumed by producing variations rather than evaluating them. Teams settle for the second direction they saw because a fifth would take another week.
Eight visual directions on day two instead of week two; the client chose one that would never have been drawn on a shorter timeline.
Generated scenarios — no signal, gloves on, bright sunlight — reshaped the interaction model before a single screen was built.
Tokens, states and documentation drafted from the approved screens, reviewed and shipped in the same sprint.
No. Generative tools explore; the chosen direction is hand-refined, built as a real design system and reviewed for accessibility by a person.
The point of wider exploration is the opposite — more directions considered means less chance of landing on the default everyone else lands on.
A 30-minute demo on your own use case: what we would build, how long it would take with AI in the loop, and what it would cost. No deck, no obligation.