By Muhammad Faraz · 3 min read
Start with the problem
Figma offers AI features within its design product family. The official product page describes the available capabilities, which may change over time. Before exploring them, write down the user’s task and the information the screen must communicate. A visually polished starting point is useful only if it helps that task.
Source: Figma AI overview ↗Use a brief with constraints
Include the audience, content hierarchy, required states and existing components. For a booking screen, that could mean location, date, availability and a clear confirmation state. Constraints make alternatives easier to compare. Without them, you may spend time choosing between attractive layouts that all miss an important requirement.
Inspect the interaction states
Review what happens when content is long, a list is empty or an action fails. Check whether components fit the design system and whether text remains readable on smaller screens. AI-assisted work still benefits from the same design critique as a manually assembled interface. It should not receive an automatic pass because it was generated quickly.
Keep the handoff understandable
Name the components, document significant decisions and confirm behavior with the developer. Remove exploratory elements that no longer belong in the final design. The deliverable should communicate a coherent product direction, not the history of every generated variation. Evaluate the tool by the quality and clarity of the completed workflow.
Example: generate a starting point for onboarding
Describe the audience, the information already known and the first useful task after signup. Ask for a short onboarding flow that collects only what the product needs to begin. Review each field by asking what decision it enables. If removing a field does not affect the next task, consider collecting it later. Use the generated layout to make these tradeoffs concrete, rather than treating a polished first result as the final answer.
Critique with realistic content
Replace sample names, perfect headings and evenly sized descriptions with content that resembles the real product. Try a long company name, an untranslated label and a missing profile image. These examples reveal whether the visual system handles variation. Review keyboard navigation and error placement with the developer rather than assuming the design tool has resolved implementation details. A useful critique identifies a specific decision to improve, not simply whether the screen looks modern.
Move useful patterns into the system
Identify repeated controls and compare them with existing components. Reuse a suitable pattern before creating another almost-identical variation. Document meaningful differences, such as a destructive action or a loading state. Keep experiments outside the approved handoff frames so the team can distinguish exploration from the current decision. The goal is a product that feels consistent across screens, even when different tools helped create those screens.
Know when to stop generating
If new variations keep changing decoration without improving the task, return to the brief. Write down the unresolved question and seek evidence from content, users or technical constraints. More generated alternatives will not settle a missing business decision. Finish with an approved flow, representative states and a short explanation of key choices. That package helps development far more than a large collection of visually different screens with no clear direction.
