将灵魂注入 AI 设计：Figma 首席设计官谈音乐、直觉与未来

她说：“如果音乐没有灵魂，你不能怪电脑。如果音乐没有灵魂，那是因为没有人把灵魂放进去。”AI 也是如此。AI 是一种工具，但你的责任是为它注入情感。AI 将如何改变人们能够想象的东西，我们又该如何朝着这个方向进化 Figma？把灵魂注入音乐、把自己融入设计——这就是我现在想传达给每个人的信息。

She said, "You can't blame the computer if the music has no soul. If the music has no soul, it's because nobody put it there." That is the case with AI as well. AI is a tool, but your responsibility is to bring the heart to it. How will AI change what people are able to imagine, and how do we evolve Figma in that direction? The idea like putting the soul in the music, putting yourself into your design, is the message that I give everyone right now.

欢迎收听 Dive Club。我是 Rid，在这里设计师永不停歇地学习。本周的嘉宾是 Figma 的首席设计官 Loredana Creșan。我们将深入探讨 Config 2026 上发布的所有内容，以及这对设计师意味着什么。老实说，这描绘了一幅关于 AI 在我们工艺未来中所扮演角色的令人兴奋的图景。但在深入细节之前，我想先了解一下 Loredana 独特的背景，以及它如何影响她对设计和品味的思考。

Welcome to Dive Club. My name is Rid, and this is where designers never stop learning. This week's episode is with Loredana Creșan, who's the Chief Design Officer at Figma. And we're going to do a deep dive into everything that launched at Config 2026, and what it all means for designers. Honestly, it paints a really exciting picture about the role that AI plays in the future of our craft. But before we get into all of the details, I wanted to dig into Loredana's unique background, and the ways that it's influenced how she thinks about design and taste.

我是罗马尼亚人，在那里长大。我的父母都是工程师，材料工程师，两人都很书呆子气。我六岁时，妈妈问我是否想学钢琴。我说“想”。然后我就在钢琴前坐了将近 20 年没起来。主要是古典钢琴，但到了青少年时期，我通过开始制作和搞副业来反叛古典音乐——录制和实验 house、techno、摇滚等各种音乐制作。所以我的第一份工作是录音室的音响工程师，干了挺长时间。说实话，音乐教会你的、并能迁移到任何媒介的东西，就是成为大师的感觉，以及需要投入多少时间才能培养出那种具身直觉。我们现在经常谈论专业知识、判断力、品味，但人们没有意识到其中有多少只是你身体感知到的东西。不是大脑，而是你怎么看，你的眼睛真正锁定什么。对我来说音乐也是如此。我的耳朵学会了以特定方式听声音，我的手指学会了表达只存在于我脑海中的声音。建立这样一个系统，让你感觉完全掌控你的工具，才能真正把你的心和灵魂注入你创作的东西。这就是我热爱工具的原因。我的第一个工具是键盘，后来进化到更复杂的东西，比如 SSL J 调音台，有无数推子和按钮，还有放在另一个房间的设备，你得确保声音能传过去。有趣的是，我当时在旧金山。很多来录音室的客户都在初创公司工作。他们谈论初创公司和科技，硅谷的 bug 就这样悄悄爬进来了。某个时刻，我不得不决定是去洛杉矶专注于音乐制作人的职业生涯，还是做更疯狂的事——加入一家初创公司，看看能带我到哪里。所以我在旧金山初创公司的第一份工作是帮他们为类似助手的体验原型设计音频界面。当时技术还不成熟，但这让我得以用声音这个媒介进行设计，既新鲜又熟悉。我职业生涯中多次重复这个故事。当有人问我关于扩展思维和承担更多责任的职业建议时，我总是说：有一件你真正擅长的事，然后学习相邻领域，这能帮你创造出更有意义的东西。我记得在那家初创公司，我们和外部供应商做了一次用户研究，那个人问：“谁设计了这种体验？”我们面面相觑，因为不太清楚。然后我意识到是我设计的，而当时“设计”这个词并不在我的词汇表里，我甚至不完全知道这是一份工作。我只是在创造东西。很酷的是，我们现在仍然都在创造东西。我们谈论很多关于设计是什么、角色如何模糊等等。只管去创造。

I'm Romanian. I grew up there, and my parents were both engineers, like material engineers, pretty nerdy both. When I was six, my mother asked me if I wanted to play piano. I said, "Yes." And then I did not stand up from in front of the piano for something like 20 years. This was mostly classical piano, but around teenage years, I rebelled against classical music by starting to prototype and my side project at that point like just record and experiment with house, techno, rock, and music production in general. So, my first job ever was to be a sound engineer at the recording studio. I did that for quite a bit of time. And honestly, what music teaches you that translates across honestly any medium is what it feels like to be a master of your craft, how much time you need to put in to develop that embodied intuition. We talk a lot about expertise right now, about judgement, about taste, but people don't realize how much of that is just what you sense like in your body. It's not your brain. It's how you see. It's what your eyes actually lock into. And so that was the same for me with music. My ears learned how to hear sounds in a certain way. My fingers learned how to express sounds that was only in my head. And like creating that system for yourself where you feel in complete control of your tool is what really brings out your heart, your soul into what you're producing. This is why I love tools in general. Like my first tool was a keyboard. It evolved to something a lot more complicated like the SSL J console with many many faders and buttons and gear that was in a different room that you had to make sure that you get sound through. And then very interestingly I was in San Francisco at that time. And a lot of the customers that were coming in, the clients of the studio, were working at startups. They would talk about startups and technology and the Silicon Valley bug sort of creeped in. And at some point I had to decide whether I would go to LA and really focus on my music career as a music producer forever or do this crazier thing which is join a startup and see where else it could lead me. And so my first role at a San Francisco startup was to help them prototype audio interfaces for an assistant-like experience. The technology wasn't there at the time, but that allowed me to design in my medium in sound. It was something that was very new and very comfortable at the same time. Now I've repeated this story many times throughout my career and I generally when somebody asks me for career advice around expansive thinking and taking on more, it's always about having something that you're really good at and then pick up the adjacent area that could help you craft something that's even more meaningful. So, I remember being at that startup and we did a user research study with an external vendor and that person asked, "Who designed this experience?" And we all kind of looked at each other because it was a little bit unclear. And then I realized that I designed it and design was not in my vocabulary at that point. It wasn't even a job that I was fully aware of. I was just making something and what's really cool about it is that we're still all making something. We're talking a lot about what design is, how roles are blurring, etc. Just make something.

快速插播一条消息，然后我们继续。如果你还没试过 Paper，尽管感觉这个播客里每个人最近都在谈论它——他们刚刚让上手变得更容易了，因为你现在可以直接从 Figma 复制粘贴到 Paper 的画布上。所有图层及其属性，包括图片和 SVG，都能瞬间导入。这挺重要的，你今天就可以试试。只需访问 dive.club/paper 即可开始。Framer 3.0 刚刚发布，这正是我想要的构建专业网站的方式。你可以获得与 AI 智能体协作的能力，而且直接在一个专为发布生产站点定制的画布中。例如，我为 Dive 用了五个不同的 CMS，这可不是我喜欢处理的事，但现在我可以让 Framer 智能体直接在 Framer 内部处理所有与 CMS 管理相关的事情。当然，你还能获得 SEO、暂存链接、本地化等所有你期望的功能。但说实话，归根结底，我最喜欢的是能够在 Framer 内部用智能体探索、设计和构建。如果你访问 dive.club/framer，可以获得 Framer Pro 的 30% 折扣，今天就开始构建。现在，回到正题。

Real quick message and then we can jump back into it. If you still haven't tried Paper, even though it kind of feels like everybody on this podcast is talking about it lately, they just made it way easier to get started because you can now copy and paste from Figma directly into Paper's canvas. All of the layers and their properties, including images and SVGs, are imported in an instant. It's pretty big deal and you can try it out today. Just head to dive.club/paper to get started. Framer 3.0 just launched and it is exactly how I want to build pro websites. You can get the power of working with AI agents, but directly in a canvas that is tailor-made for shipping production sites. For example, I have like five different CMSs for Dive, which isn't exactly my favorite thing to deal with, but now I can have the Framer agent do everything related to CMS management directly inside of Framer. And of course, you get SEO, staging links, localization, and everything else that you'd expect. But honestly, at the end of the day, the thing that I love most is just being able to explore, design, and build with agents all inside of Framer. And if you head to dive.club/framer, you can get 30% off Framer Pro to start building today. Now, on to the episode.

我经常思考，我可以把哪些小兴趣和技能加入自己的技能库，来创造出真正属于我的、能让人有所感触的东西。对我来说，下一个想探索的小前沿其实是声音设计。所以我私下希望你的 DNA 能渗透到整个组织，等到 Config 2027 发布时，我们就能讨论你添加到文件中的声音设计面板了。

I think a lot about what the little interests and skills that I could add to my own repertoire to make something that is truly me, makes people feel something. And for me, actually, the thing that almost is like my little mini frontier that I want to explore next is sound design. So, my secret hope is that your DNA spills over to the rest of the org, and that when we have the Config 2027 release, we're talking about your sound design panel that you get added to the file.

嗯，我太希望这样了。

Well, I would love that so much.

我想聊聊品味，因为我欣赏你提到的那些类比。为了更深入地了解你的想法，我暂时戴上设计推特怀疑者的帽子——我有时会在这些节目里戴上它。首先，看看你的背景，20 年的钢琴练习，这太疯狂了。我大概学了 10 到 11 年钢琴，那已经是难以想象的练习量、音阶和训练了。而有了 AI，我们几乎把获得这些练习的速度压缩了一个数量级甚至更多。

I want to talk a little bit about taste because I appreciate some of the parallels that you're drawing. And in order to get at more of what you believe, I'm going to temporarily put on my design Twitter skeptic hat a little bit that sometimes I wear in these episodes. And the first is that well, okay, if we look at your background as somebody, I mean, you 20 years of reps playing piano is crazy. Like, I took probably 10 or 11 years of piano, and just it's an unimaginable amount of practice and scales and drills and everything. And with AI, it's almost like we're compressing the speed at which we can get those reps by an order of magnitude or more.

所以有一种观点认为，品味其实无法辩护，因为每个人都在快速积累经验，你的经验反而没那么重要了。

And so, one sentiment might be, well, taste is actually not defensible because everybody's getting these reps so quickly that your experience matters less.

真正卓越的专业技能需要时间。没有人——哪怕天赋异禀或生理上适合某项任务——不需要付出努力就能进入 NBA、成为杰出的钢琴家或了不起的设计师。品味只是“这个人有天赋，天生就具备”的简写，但这完全不是事实。对我来说，问题在于：如果它需要大量时间投入，而往往只是源于你对所做之事的热爱，你该如何获得它？你每天都被它吸引吗？当你有一小时空闲时，你会做什么？是刷社交媒体，还是学习更多关于你手艺的东西？你更热爱创造，还是更愿意坐着看东西？所以在我看来，品味就等于用心。那些我们觉得有品味、觉得好的体验，实际上都是非常刻意营造的。我有时把设计比作举办派对。想想你参加过的最棒的派对，主办方考虑到了所有细节：进门有地方放外套，音乐音量恰到好处，房间动线完美规划，食物考虑到不同人的饮食限制。这一切都是用心——花时间去预判、模拟、考虑他人的感受，设身处地。是的，我们最终称之为品味，但它其实就是努力。

Really good performance expertise requires time. Nobody, even somebody with incredible aptitude or biological aptitude towards a task, still needs to put in the work to get to the NBA, to be a brilliant pianist, to be an incredible designer. And taste is a shorthand for 'this person has it and they were miraculously born with it.' It's very, very much not true. The question becomes to me: how do you get to it if it requires a lot of time invested, and often times it's just the love of what you do? Are you drawn to it every single day? When you have a free hour, what do you do with it? Do you scroll some social network or do you try to learn something else about your craft? Do you love making more than you love sitting and watching something? So for me, taste equals care from that perspective. The experiences that we recognize as tasteful, things that we recognize as good, are actually experiences that are just very, very intentional. I sometimes compare design to throwing a party. If you think about the best party you've ever showed up for, that person thought about everything. You came into the door and there was a place to put your coat. The music was just the right volume. The flow of the house was perfectly prepared. The food considered that there are many people with different restrictions. All of that stuff is care. It's taking the time to anticipate, to simulate, to consider how other people might feel, to put yourself in other people's shoes. Yes, we say it's taste at the end, but it's just hard work.

好的，我想再深入探讨一下，因为我喜欢这个派对比喻。我认为长期来看它可能被削弱的地方在于，派对无法复制粘贴，对吧？它总是需要一定的手工努力。但我们正从各个角度冲刺进入的世界是：你可以创造出绝对美丽、植根于个人热情和经验的东西，然后别人就能直接复制。当工具让趋势周期崩塌时，保持独特性变得更难。你如何调和这一点与你对品味长期价值的看法？

Okay, I'm going to keep pushing on this a little bit because I love the party metaphor. The place where I think it might start eroding in the long run is there's no equivalent to copying and pasting a party, right? It's always going to require a level of manual effort. But this world that we're sprinting at from all angles is you can make something absolutely beautiful, rooted in your personal passion and experience, and then somebody can just replicate it. It's harder to stay unique when trend cycles collapse because of what our tools are making possible. How do you reconcile that with your thoughts around the value of taste in the long run?

我实际上认为，当每个人都有能力去创造时，反而提升了脱颖而出的必要性。我经常想到另一个比喻，因为我坚信设计师有责任创造融入自己观点、让人感到真实的东西：你可以买那些有趣或深情的贺卡，生日卡之类的，里面已经写好了很棒的信息。你会直接把那张卡送给别人吗？你可以，但如果你是个好朋友，你不会这么做。那不是你表达关心的方式。所以我认为，随着越来越多的软件被创造、越来越多的文章被写出——基本上，我们正处于一切都被高速生产的状态，而我们已经在消费已有的东西。因此，我们会试图寻找更多的真实性。我不知道你是否遇到过这种情况：当人们意识到某样东西完全由 AI 开发时——再说一次，AI 是过程中帮你实现想法的工具，我非常支持；但 AI 作为输出，我相当不看好——所以当人们意识到眼前的东西不真实、只是 AI 生成的，他们就会失去兴趣。研究非常清楚地表明了这一点。这就是为什么我认为这不是品味，而是你的观点、你的人类直觉。你希望那种体验传达什么，必须由你来实现，而我们构建的工具对于帮助你实现这一点非常重要。

I actually think that when everyone has the power to build, it elevates the need to stand out. Another metaphor I often think about, because I believe in the responsibility of the designer to create something that bakes in their point of view and feels authentic to people: you could buy those funny or soulful congratulatory cards, birthday cards, whatever cards, and they have the message written inside, and it's a great message. Do you just give somebody that card? You could, but that's not what you do if you're a good friend. That's not how you show up. So I think that the more software is being created, the more articles are being written — basically, we're in a place where everything is being produced at such a high rate, and we're already consuming what was already there. So what we're going to try to do is look for even more authenticity. I don't know if you've come across this, but when people realize that something is developed by AI only — again, AI is a tool in the process to help you create what's in your head, very much a fan of; AI is the output, very much kind of down on — so when people realize that what's being put in front of them is inauthentic and just created by AI, they disengage. Research says this very, very clearly. So this is why I think it's not taste, it's just your point of view, your human intuition. What you want for that experience needs to come through, and the tools we build are very important to help you drive that.

我很喜欢这一点，这甚至呼应了你开头提到的音乐类比。合成器出现的时候，对吧？人们直接否定了它，说“你不能用手做出来，所以它不是艺术”。然而，它让人们能够表达脑海中可能之前无法实现的声音或想法。当 AI 以这种方式被使用时，它是美丽的。那时它就是一种乐器。

I love that and it even ties back to what you were starting with with the music analogies. There was this moment in time with the synth, right? Where people just wrote it off. It's like, 'You can't make that with your hands, therefore it is not art.' And yet, it allowed people to express a sound or an idea that maybe was in their head that was previously otherwise not possible. When AI is used that way, it's beautiful. Then it's an instrument.

Björk 对此有一句美丽的引述。因为你说得对，音乐界当时完全拒绝，认为这些不是真实的。她说了一句让我印象深刻的话：“如果音乐没有灵魂，你不能责怪电脑。如果音乐没有灵魂，那是因为没有人把灵魂放进去。”AI 也是如此。AI 是一种工具，但你的责任是为它注入心灵。

There is a beautiful quote by Björk on this. Because you're right, the world of music was like, absolutely not, these are not real. She said something that really stuck with me: 'You can't blame the computer if the music has no soul. If the music has no soul, it's because nobody put it there.' That is the case with AI as well. AI is a tool, but your responsibility is to bring the heart to it.

好的，我们来聊聊你们是如何将心灵注入到 Config 发布的产品中的。

Okay, let's talk a little bit about how you guys brought the heart into what you shipped with config.

我相信技术改变世界，主要是通过改变我们能够想象的东西。想想历史上的模式：文字最初是为了记录谁欠谁钱而创造的，但凭借人类的想象力，我们把它带到了莎士比亚的高度。或者摄影，它被发明出来是为了捕捉现实，但现在想想 Nano Banana Pro 输出的各种疯狂作品，因为我们认定已有的世界很有趣，但我们想象的世界更甚。对于 Figma 来说，我们当下的问题是：AI 将如何改变人们能够想象的东西？我们如何让 Figma 朝那个方向演进？因此，赋予人们梦想和扩展能力的工具对我们至关重要。我们发布的一系列功能，一方面非常 AI 驱动，另一方面也非常富有表现力。这可能是为什么它们看起来跨度很大，但实际上，你有一个设计智能体，它越来越能将控制权交还给你。你能够将代码作为一种创意媒介使用。这是一种扩展，让设计师能够通过更多的交互性、数据作为行为来表达自己，并将他们的愿景一直交付到生产环境。这曾是我们无法实现的梦想。此外，你还有更多的表达方式，比如动效，它帮助你的产品在一个日益被模型输出同质化的世界中脱颖而出。

I believe that technology changes the world mostly by changing what we're able to imagine. So, if you think about patterns in time, writing was initially created to help capture who owed money to who. But in reality, where we took it with our human imagination was all the way to Shakespeare. Or, if you consider photography, it was invented to capture reality. And now, think about whatever crazy output comes out of, you know, Nano Banana Pro because we've decided that the world that is already here is interesting, but the one that we imagine is even more so. The question for us with Figma at this moment was: how will AI change what people are able to imagine? And how do we evolve Figma in that direction? So it's really, really important for us to give people the tools to dream and expand what they're able to do. The set of releases that we landed on are very AI forward in one regard, but also very, very much expressive on the other. This is why it probably feels like they span the gamut, but in reality you have a design agent that is increasingly able to hand off control to you. You have the ability to use code as a creative medium. Now that is an expansion that allows designers to express themselves using more interactivity, data as behavior, and ship their vision all the way to production. That was always a dream we could not do. And you have more expression with motion as an example, something that helps your product stand out in a world that is increasingly uniformitized by just what the models can produce.

我想深入探讨“控制”这个词，因为我一直在思考它，而且我认为它是对另一部分观众和设计社区的回应——他们在很多方面将 AI 视为放弃控制，因为他们习惯了画布上每个东西都能直接操作，其他任何方式都感觉相反。我非常欣赏这一系列发布的地方在于，这种“好吧，我可以自己构建工具”的想法。我可以实现脑海中的结果，并给自己设定参数来实现它。所以我想知道，你能不能稍微展开一下，比如，基于这项技术，你不仅能想象出哪些新的可能性，而且在 Figma 内部，你看到了哪些行为，关于如何充分利用这种增强的控制力和创造力？

I want to zoom in on the word control because that's something that I've been thinking a lot about and I think it is the answer to another chunk of audience and design community that views AI as almost the giving up of control in many ways because they're used to every single thing being directly manipulable in a canvas and anything else feels the opposite of that. And what I really appreciate about this set of releases is this idea of okay I can kind of build my own tools. I can achieve the outcome that is in my head and actually give myself the parameters to do so. So I'm wondering if maybe you can unpack a little bit around like okay given that technology what are not only some of the things that you are now capable of imagining in terms of what's possible but what are the behaviors that you're even seeing internally at Figma in terms of how you're making the most of this increased level of control and creativity.

基本上，我认为我们一些发布的前提——比如你可以通过提示词自己生成着色器效果，以及这些工具——前提是 AI 能帮你做到 70%。这在动效上也是如此：你可以提示你的帧，然后你会得到第一个动画设置，但之后你需要让它变成你自己的。所以这几乎就像 AI 搭建了工作空间。它给了你参数，但然后你是那个把它做出来的人，对吧？所以对我来说，非常重要的一点是摆脱“AI 给我一个东西，然后我试着描述它应该如何不同”的模式。那部分实际上非常慢。我提到过像在电话里口述一幅画。这非常非常难。比如我脑子里有一个形状，我还没画下来，但我自己可以轻松地操作它来达到我想要的效果。要描述它几乎是不可能的。如果我想在我的设计中加入一种颜色，色轮永远不会被提示词取代，你懂的。所以有些时候你只想自己掌控。所以以着色器效果为例，我们允许你提示你想要的效果，非常明确地说明你可能想要的参数。AI 会给你惊喜，给你额外的东西，但你会来回迭代，同时开发工具和图层。一旦你有了它，你就可以实际调整其中的所有变量。所以如果是动效，你可以决定它的速度或响应性。如果是渐变，比如创建着色器的渐变，你可以调整它的所有值。这是一种有趣的工作方式，因为我相信，作为设计师，我们越来越多地在创建系统，而不仅仅是屏幕。这在 Weave 上也是如此，我们可能稍后会谈到。但在那个点上，那个图层包含了创建它的工具，你可以与团队中的所有人分享和调整它。这也是设计中非常重要的一部分。设计从来不是独自完成的。设计通过批评而演变。设计的一个工具就是其他人。所以能够将 AI、智能体、直接操作和直接控制以及你的团队放在同一个空间里，真的很有趣。

Basically I think the premise for some of our releases as an example that the shader effects that you could prompt yourself and the tools the premise is that AI could get you to 70%. This is true with motion: you could prompt like your frame and then you will get the first animation set up, but then from there you need to make it yours. So it's almost like AI sets up the workspace. It gives you the parameters, but then you are the one that makes that thing, right? And so it's really important to me to move away from AI gives me something and then I try to describe how it should be different. That part is actually very slow. I talk about me dictating a painting over the phone. It's very, very hard. Like I haven't written down a shape that I have in my head and I could easily manipulate it myself to get to what I want. It's almost impossible to describe. If there's a color that I want to put in my design, the color wheel will never be replaced by a prompt to, you know. So there are moments where you just want to take control yourself. So what we're doing with shader effects as an example, we're allowing you to prompt the effect that you want, be very clear with what parameters you might want. The AI will surprise you by giving you extra, but you go back and forth just developing the tool and the layer at the same time. And once you have it, then you could actually tweak all of the variables in it. So if it's motion, you could decide the speed of it or the responsiveness. If it's a gradient, for example, that creates that shader, you could tweak all of its values. And it's an interesting way of working because increasingly as designers, I believe, we're creating systems, not just screens. This is very true with Weave as well and probably we'll get to it. But at that point, that layer has the tool that created it and you're able to share it and tweak it with all of the people on the team. And this is one of the really important parts of design as well. Design is never done alone. Design is evolved through critique. It's a place where one of the tools of design is other people. And so it's really fun to be able to have AI, have agents, have the direct manipulation and direct control and your team in one space.

你说了一个有趣的短语，“创建系统，而不是屏幕”。我想知道我们能否深入探讨一下，而且我很好奇，考虑到这种转变，这会如何改变你在招聘新设计师时寻找的信号？

You said an interesting phrase, creating systems not screens. I'm wondering if we can double click on that and I'm actually curious like given that shift, how does that change what signals you would look for in new designers that you want to hire?

好的，第一部分是“系统而不是屏幕”。我给你举一个 Weave 的例子。Weave 是我们去年收购的一个设计产品，它允许你在无限画布上使用基于节点的界面，将你的输入、对模型的提示（任何视觉模型，无论是视频还是图像）以及几个变量串联起来，创造出真正独一无二的东西。你可以从一张图片中提取纹理，从另一张中提取物体，再加上一个你想实现这两者的具体数据库，然后你就创建了一个系统，而它的输出实际上是一个迷你应用。我们实际上会在 Config 上把这些带入 Figma。所以这些迷你应用将允许你或任何人只需添加输入就能生成输出，但它的底层，所有特殊之处，都在工作流程中。所以这是一个系统，无论输入是什么，输出都会从品牌角度、意图角度考虑并匹配你在工作流程内部设计的内容。

Okay, so the first part, systems not screens. I'll give you an example with Weave. Weave is a design product that we acquired last year and what it allows you to do is on an infinite canvas use a node-based interface to string together inputs from you, prompts to the model, any visual model, whether it's like video or image, and several variables to create something that really feels as unique as you are. You could take a texture from one image and the object from another and a database of specifics that you'd want to implement those two and like you create a system at that point and what the output for that is is actually a mini app. We're actually bringing these into Figma as well at Config. And so these mini apps will allow you or anyone to just add the inputs that would generate the output, but the underneath of it, all of the special sauce, is in the workflow. And so that is a system no matter what the input is, the output will consider and match from a brand perspective, from an intentional perspective, what you've designed in the guts of the workflow.

甚至从这样的角度思考：比如有人负责设计提示工具和插件，它们给你自定义参数之类的。是的，就像你考虑你可能提供给模型的组件，但这对最终输出的控制非常松散。所以我们能不能再深入一点，当设计师负责的是这样的东西——而不是有限的屏幕和流程列表——时，他们如何才能茁壮成长？

And even thinking about it from the standpoint of like somebody was leading the design of prompting tools and plugins that give you custom parameters, kind of thing. Yeah, like you think about the components maybe that you're making available to the model, but like that's a really loose grip on what the final output is. And so can we just go a little bit deeper in terms of what does it look like to thrive as a designer when that's the thing that you are responsible for. It's not this finite list of screens and flows.

是的，你必须放大到我们在 Figma 经常讨论的整个“MD”概念。那就是：你能理解意图，理解正在创建的东西背后的想法，这样你不仅能让团队中更多人，还能让智能体也带着那个意图去构建。实际上，你问我我们在寻找什么样的设计师。一方面，我们想要那些真正在探索当前工具、不害怕真正了解外面有什么的人。但我不会说，你知道，我被 AI 洗脑了，只寻找 AI 能为我做什么，而是那些能够找到这些交集的人，因为实际上，任何工具都有细微差别。如果回到绘画，你知道，如果你是一个 5 岁的孩子，我给你一些水彩，你会得到 10 种颜色和大约三支画笔。这就是你所需要的，也是你所能做的。但如果你是一个画家，你的工具集将会非常非常不同，没有人能告诉你这把大刷子很好，你可以用它做任何你想做的事。实际上，你必须有多样性。所以我们寻找那些有广度，但愿意扩展它的人，因为现在更多的工具正在进入我们的武器库，我们需要保持好奇，理解如何使用它们。除了工具，我认为是这种系统思维和这种想法：我能提炼出这里重要的东西吗？有没有办法提取它，使其变得可复制，这有利于让 AI 成为一种精确的工具。目前，它远非如此。

Yes, you have to zoom to the level of we actually talk about this whole MD concept at Figma a lot. And that is just like, can you understand the intent, the idea behind what's being created such that you could enable not just more people on your team, but agents to actually build with that intent as well. And the reality, you asked me what types of designers we're looking for. On the one hand, we want the people that really are exploring the tools right now and they're not afraid to truly understand what's out there. But I wouldn't say, you know, I'm AI-pilled and like I will look for nothing but how AI can do this for me, but actually the people that are able to find those intersections because in reality, any tool is nuanced. If back to painting, you know, like if you're a 5-year-old and I give you some watercolors, you're going to get 10 colors and like three paint brushes. And that is all you need, that's all you could do. But if you're a painter, your set of tools will be very very different and nobody could tell you that this big brush is so good like you could use it for anything you want. In reality, you have to have range. So we look at people that have range, but they're willing to expand it because right now a lot more tools are coming into our arsenal and we need to be curious and like understand how we use them. Outside of tools, I think it's this system thinking and this idea of like, can I distill what's important here? Is there a way to extract this so that it becomes replicable and like that is in the interest of making AI a precision tool. Right now, it's very much not so.

如果你向 AI 问同一个问题或交给它同一个任务，它每次都会以非常不同的方式执行。你可以使用一个每次调用都表现迥异的工具。但通常，你希望锤子每次使用时的表现都一样，因为你想要理解并学会自己使用它。我们所做的一切都是为了精确，而我们设计师明白这一点。

If you ask AI the same question or give it the same task, it will implement it in very different ways each time you ask. And you can wield a tool that does something very different each time you ask it to. Generally, you'd want the hammer to behave the same every time you use it because you want to understand and learn how to wield it yourself. All of these things that we're doing are in the service of precision, and we designers understand that.

我猜你们显然一直在做大量研究，可能是在为一些战略押注做准备。你们试图了解不同团队的形态和活动。借用你的画笔比喻，当你观察这些团队、与不同组织交流，试图理解事物如何变化以及人们如何工作时，你注意到哪些行为或画笔类型，让你能够想象未来的方向以及你们应该构建什么？

I would assume there's probably a good amount of research that you all are obviously doing at all times, but probably leading up to some of these strategic bets. You're trying to understand the shape and activities within different teams. To borrow your paintbrush analogy, when you're looking at these teams and talking to different orgs, trying to understand how things are changing and how people are working, what are the behaviors or types of paintbrushes that you're noticing in these teams that give you the ability to imagine where things are headed and what you all should be building for?

是的，太多了。我想说每个人都在实验。我们收到很多关于 Figma 的问题：我们应该锚定什么样的工作流？它应该如何演变？各个组织在采用新技术和确立新工作流方面处于不同阶段。我们听到的很多声音，一方面是人们对现在能做的事情感到兴奋，但几乎总是伴随着一个“但是 XYZ”，而这个 XYZ 最终就是每个人都能构建的东西。很难决定甚至审查所有涌入的东西。审查是目前设计和开发中的瓶颈。这很有趣，因为作为人类，我们其实热爱创造，而不太喜欢审查。但我们现在必须成为专家审查者，并可能找出如何自动化这些审查的方法。这就是我经常将 Figma 用作程序化画布的地方，例如，我将不同的事物可视化，以便吸引人们参与，并通过协作加快审查。我们稍后可以深入探讨一些工作流。所以这是我们听到的一件事。我们听到的第二件事有时来自设计师。他们会说：“我觉得我有使命去转型，用 AI 做所有事情。有时我觉得我的领导层并不完全理解 AI 并不总是他们想要的一切的解决方案。”尽管我热爱 AI，它是我工具包的一部分，但我想扩展并能够使用我想要的一切。所以当我们告诉他们 AI 即将进入 Figma 时，每个人都非常兴奋，因为它消除了“我必须在这个工具里以某种方式做某些事”的想法。所以这是关于如何一起使用这些系统的细微差别的另一部分，这种差别开始显现。综合和数据非常非常有趣。将 Slack 中的讨论、Asana 任务、设计工作流和发布到生产环境的内容统一起来的能力。这种思维水平特别为设计师打开了机会。例如，引入“Hey Marvin”，了解用户如何使用你的系统以及他们可能想要什么不同的东西。这是人们热衷于探索的一个领域。如果我要稍微深入一点，真正重要的事情是：你能实现更多的综合、更好的数据源，让更多上下文流入你的系统吗？第二件事是你有多大的能力以你想要的方式塑造事物，既快速又精确？然后，我们如何处理所有这些？当每个人都独自朝着某个方向构建时，我们如何共同构建？我们如何汇集所有这些材料，创造出深思熟虑并能推动我们前进的东西，而不仅仅是制造更多？

Yeah, there's so much. I would say that everyone is experimenting. We get so many questions about Figma: what is the workflow that we should anchor on? How should this evolve? Various organizations are at various levels of adopting the new technologies and settling on new workflows. A lot of what we're hearing is, on the one hand, excitement about what's possible now, and that is almost always paired with a 'but XYZ', and the XYZ ends up being what everyone can build. It's really hard to decide or even review all of the things that are coming in. Review is a bottleneck across design and development right now. It's quite interesting because as humans we actually love making and we don't love reviewing quite as much. But we're now in a place where we have to become expert reviewers and probably figure out how to automate those reviews as well. This is where I use Figma a lot as a programmatic canvas, for example, where I visualize different things in order to bring people in and speed up the reviews through collaboration. We can go into some of those workflows in a bit. So that's one thing we're hearing. The second thing we're hearing is from designers sometimes. They'll say, 'I feel like I have the mandate to transform, to use AI for everything. And sometimes I don't feel like my leadership fully understands that AI is not always the solution for everything they want.' Even though I love AI and it's part of my toolkit, I want to expand and be able to use everything I want. So everyone's very excited when we tell them that AI is coming into Figma because it removes the idea that I have to be in this tool and do certain things a certain way. So that's another part of the nuance of how you use these systems together that is starting to appear. Synthesis and data are really, really interesting. The ability to unify what's being said in Slack with your Asana tasks, with your design workflows, with what you ship to production. That level of thinking really opens up the opportunity for designers in particular. For example, bring in 'Hey Marvin' and understand how your users use your system and what they might want differently from you. That's one area that people are excited to explore. If I was going to peel back a little bit, the things that are really, really important are: can you enable more synthesis, better data sources, just a lot more context to flow into your system? The second thing is how much power do you have to mold things in the way that you want with speed but also precision? And then, what do we do with all of this? How do we build together when everyone is kind of on their own, building in a certain direction, often alone? How do we pull all of this material to make something that feels considered and moves us forward, not just create more?

这正是我期待看到你持续见解的地方。感觉就像，好吧，我通过 AI 获得了超能力，特别是在代码方面，但我几乎可以做出任何东西，你知道吗？但一切都发生在我机器上的本地孤岛中，这对设计师来说是一个巨大的转变，以前感觉我可以随时跳进任何人的文件。所以我很好奇最近的这些发布在哪些方面为增强协作和与人一起工作的感觉奠定了基础，而不仅仅是整天编码。

That's kind of where I'm excited to see your continued take. It does feel like, okay, I've been given superpowers with AI specifically in the code piece, but I can kind of make anything, you know? But everything happens locally in a silo on my machine, and it's a very big departure as a designer from previously where it felt like I could just hop into anybody's file. So I'm interested to see in what ways these recent releases lay the foundation for enhanced collaboration and the feeling of working together with people, not just coding all day.

我们坚信代码是一种媒介，你应该能够引入代码并进行探索。数据也非常重要，你的团队也应该在那里。所以我们希望让所有的编码工作流都变得非常可视化。我们想为你提供当下所需的所有设计工具，并且我们也希望将你的团队带到画布上。想想看，计算机始于 MS-DOS，我们并没有止步于此，而且我们止步于此是有充分理由的。因为人类是视觉动物，我们想要触摸，想要操作。这些系统并不容易对齐，但这是可能的，而且我们正在路上。

And we really believe that code is a medium, and you should be able to bring code in and explore. Data is really important as well, and your team should be there. So we want to make all of the coding workflows really visual. We want to give you all of the design tools that you need in the moment, and we want to bring your team on the canvas as well. If you think about it, the computer started with MS-DOS, and we did not stop there, and we didn't stop there for good reason. Because as people are visual, we want to touch, we want to manipulate. These systems are not as easy to bring into alignment, but it's possible, and we're very much on our way.

我们能谈谈审查瓶颈吗？我相信很多听众现在正在经历这个。你们是如何考虑解决这个问题的？即使只是在你们内部的工作方式中，你们是如何处理这个我认为很多人都面临的问题的？

Can we talk about the review bottleneck piece? I'm sure a lot of people listening are experiencing that right now. How are you all thinking about solving that? Even just in the way that you all work internally, how do you approach this problem that I think a lot of us are facing?

这现在可能发生在每家公司。你进去用代码构建一些东西，有一个很棒的想法。把它展示出来的方式通常是录制一个 Loom 视频。有很多 Loom 视频，我很想全部看完，但它们需要时间。所以问题变成了：有什么更好的方法可以真正不丢失这些想法？因为想法很棒，而当有人在此基础上构建时，想法会变得非常棒，你开始看到系统，你把它们整合在一起，然后发布出绝对令人难以置信的东西。所以将它们可视化在每个人都在的画布上确实是第一步。我们能够通过画布上的代码层做的是将你的原型带到画布上，然后从那里你可以简单地告诉你的智能体可视化应用的所有状态。

This probably happens in every company right now. You go in and build something in code, and you have a great idea. The way to get it out is often to record a Loom video. There are a lot of Loom videos, and I would love to watch all of them, but they take some time. So the question becomes: what's a better way to actually not lose any of these ideas? Because the ideas are awesome, and ideas are really awesome when somebody builds on them, and you start seeing the system, and you bring them together, and then ship something that's absolutely incredible. So visualizing them on the canvas where everyone is is really step one. What we're able to do with code layers on the canvas is bring your prototype onto the canvas, and from there you could simply tell your agent to visualize all of the states of the app.

你可以让它可视化应用的流程，如果你想看到它的图表。你可以运行一个技能，也许从新用户的角度来看它。有很多工具可以引入到那个评审过程中，让你摆脱“我必须看完 7 分钟的 Loom 视频，然后决定给出什么反馈或下一步怎么做”的状态，而是有一个界面，你可以拆解它，与他人一起可视化它，在需要深化想法的特定屏幕上给出评论，这样不仅让评审过程变得更有趣，因为现在是协作的，而且让下一步变得非常清晰，从而以这种方式清理积压任务。

You could ask it to visualize the flow of the app if you wanted to also see the diagram of it. You could run a skill that maybe looks at it through the point of view of a new user. There's so many tools that you could bring into that review process that take you out of 'I just must consume the 7-minute Loom and decide what feedback I might give for the next step', but have a surface where you pull it apart, you visualize it with other people, you give comments on the specific screen that actually needs a build-up on the idea, and you make the review process not only a lot more fun because now it's joint, but you make the next steps very, very clear and you clear the backlog in that way.

是的，我看到很多人构建自定义工具，从原型到甚至只是取出屏幕再放回画布。我不知道。我敢肯定，也许你在自己的研究中也遇到过这种情况，就像，“天哪，感觉肯定有更好的方法来做这件事。”我们觉得我们在交互性和全局视图之间做选择，而免费获得这两者感觉是不可避免的。当然必须是这样。

Yeah, I've seen a lot of people building custom tools to go from prototype to even just taking out the screens and bringing it back to the canvas. I don't know. I'm sure that maybe you've encountered that in your own research, too, where it's like, 'Man, it felt like surely there's a better way to do that.' Like we felt like we had this choice between interactivity and the bird's-eye view of something and getting both of those for free kind of thing feels like inevitable. Like you of course it has to be that way.

这正是我们在做的，这就是为什么我们认为无限画布作为思考空间是答案，因为你不想只看一种模式，你不想处于线性流程中，你想要非连续创新的机会，对吧？举个例子，我们经常在 Figma 中构建 Figma，但我们也在构建各种应用，这些应用不是我们想发布的产品，而是我们设身处地地站在开发金融类移动应用的人的角度。所以，当你开始像看待设计屏幕一样看待代码时，你的本能就是，如果我们能用不同的方式做呢？于是你在画布上复制那个代码层，突然间你可以在计算器的键盘按钮或你正在构建的任何东西上添加一种不同的交互方式。然后另一个人过来说，实际上我们往另一个方向调整一下。它可能感觉更有趣。现在你有了同样的过程。底层的媒介变了，这绝对完美。这根本不是问题，但你能达到的那种思考和协作方式，让我们感到熟悉且有趣。

That's exactly what we're doing and that's why we think an infinite canvas is the answer as a thinking space because you don't just want to look at one mode, you don't want to be in linear flow, and you want the opportunity for discontinuous innovation, right? As an example, we're often building Figma in Figma, but we're also building all sorts of apps that are not products we want to release in the world, but where we put ourselves in the shoes of somebody developing a mobile app for finance, for example. And so, when you start looking at code in the same way that you might look at a design screen, then your instinct is to, you know, what if we could do it a different way? So, you duplicate that code layer on the canvas, and all of a sudden you could put in a different type of interactivity on the keyboard buttons of that calculator or whatever it is that you are building. And then somebody else comes in and says, well, actually we tweak it in a different direction. It might feel even more playful. And now you have that same process. The medium has changed underneath, and that's absolutely perfect. That's not a problem at all, but the type of thinking and the type of collaboration that you could get to is the one that feels familiar to us and fun.

有一个我忍不住问自己的问题。如果公司主动申请与你交谈，而不是反过来呢？这个问题就是全新 Dive Talent Network 的基础，而且它正在奏效。就像现在，我正在帮助我所知道的最令人兴奋的初创公司，招聘收听这个节目的设计师和构建者。所以，如果你好奇外面有什么机会，也许你想加入我的名单，或者你甚至正在寻找你的下一位设计人才，请访问 dive.club/talent 立即加入。

There's one question that I can't stop asking myself. What if companies applied to talk to you rather than the other way around? And that question is the foundation for the all-new Dive Talent Network, and it's working. Like right now, I'm helping many of the most exciting startups that I know to hire the designers and builders who listen to this show. So, if you're curious what might be out there, and maybe you want to get on my list, or maybe you're even looking for your next design hire, head to dive.club/talent to join today.

我记得在 Config 大会上，我想应该是两年前或三年前，你们发布了开发者模式。在某些方面感觉，是的，代码和设计之间有了桥梁，但很多时候也加深了角色之间的鸿沟。而现在你说的所有内容都像是代码只是设计师可用的一种媒介，一切都变得非常模糊。我想知道，对于这种情绪——我们最终都会成为构建者，设计师和工程师之间的界限长期来看会逐渐消失，每个人都在使用代码，谁还分什么角色——你有什么想法吗？

I remember being at Config, I guess it would have been two or probably three years ago, when you released dev mode. And in some ways it felt like, yeah, there are bridges between code and design, but it was also like the deepening of the trenches between roles a lot of times. And now everything that you're saying is like code is just a medium that is available to designers and everything's getting really blurry and I guess I'm kind of wondering like do you have any thoughts on this sentiment that you know we're all just going to become builders and the lines drawn between designers and engineers in the long run just kind of fade away and everybody's working with code and who is what role anymore. Do you have any thoughts there?

我有。我认为这正在发生，而且非常有趣的是，每个人都在某种程度上向上提升。设计正在经历身份危机和复兴同时发生的时期。

I do. I think it's happening and what's really interesting is that everyone is elevating up the stack in some way. Design is having an identity crisis and a renaissance at the same time.

说得太好了。

So well said.

我们将发布一项我们做的研究，询问了设计的重要性。这是我们一直在做的事情，非常有趣的是，开发者最有可能说设计更重要，而且他们正在做更多的设计。所以我们有时会从设计师的身份出发，目光短浅地认为我们在做更多编码，而实际上设计正在发生得更多。就像开发者已经——你知道，你和一个优秀的开发者合作，他们有设计思维。现在对他们来说真正重要的不仅是检查代码。我认为检查代码很重要，但也要参与我们正在构建什么以及为什么。角色正在模糊。专业知识仍然非常重要。当然，我会说设计师应该感到有能力将自己的想法一直带到前端生产，并确保他们心中的交互不是通过文档翻译回产品，如果他们自己能做的话。就像我们一直在提交 PR。

We'll release a study that we did where we asked about the importance of design. This is something that we've been doing for a while and what's really interesting is that developers are the most likely ones to say that design is more important and that they are doing more design. So we are sometimes myopic from our identity as designers as we're like doing more coding about how much more design is happening. Like developers are already like, you know, you work with a great developer. They have a design mind. And what's really important for them right now is not only to check the code. I think it's important to check the code but also participate in what we're building and why. The roles are blurring. Expertise still very much matters. Of course I would say that a designer should feel empowered to take their idea all the way to front-end production and make sure that the interaction they had in mind is not translated through a document into the product if they're able to do that themselves. Like we ship PRs all the time.

我也提交 PR。

I ship PRs.

真的吗？

Really?

这很有趣，因为你进入了“谁应该审批我的 PR”的问题。

It's quite interesting because you get into the 'who should stamp my PRs' question.

哦，这很有趣。你提交什么样的 PR？给我举个例子。

Oh, that's funny. What kind of PRs do you ship? Give me an example.

评估工具。我最近专注于评估工具。这就是我和团队一起工作的领域，我们在做评估。我们可以多聊聊评估。设计师拥抱评估真的非常重要，因为那是你创建系统的方式。那是你对“好”的定义。然后是 bug，比如我们属性页面上的一些简单问题。所以，如果我看到某些东西对齐有问题，或者有一个实例，悬停状态实际上是用新徽章实例化的，但新徽章被隐藏了，因为那里没有新内容。所以它只是对齐有问题，修复它只需要很少的时间，但后来我遇到了谁应该审批我的 PR 的问题。所以，我决定请负责那个领域的 VP 工程师来做，因为这样才公平。而且，这是一个相当顺利的问题。

Eval tools. I specialize in eval tools these days. And that's where I work with a team that is in our eval. We could talk about evals more. It's really really important for designers to embrace evals because that is how you create the system. That's your definition of good. And then bugs, like simple things on our properties. So, if I see something misaligned or there's an instance where a hover state actually was instantiated with the new badge, but the new badge was hidden because there was nothing new there. So it was just misaligned and it took very little time to actually fix that, but then I ran into who should style my PR. And so, I've decided to ask the VP engineer responsible for that area to do it because it's only fair. And yeah, it was a pretty smooth issue.

当我思考未来、这一切的走向以及变化的速度时，我脑海中的一个变量是，组织中有多少人活跃在代码库中？每个人都在自己的机器上有代码吗？我们都在协作代码吗？每个人都在向生产环境发布吗？还是设计师只是在这个媒介中工作，因为它更真实，我们有大量的 playground 仓库，一切都是 80/20、90/10 这样的比例。你们看到了什么？

Like, one of the variables that is in my head when I think about the future and where this is all going and how fast it's changing is like, what percentage of people in an org are actively in the code base, you know? Does everybody have it on their machine? Are we all collaborating code? Is everybody shipping to production? Or are designers just working in the medium because it's more realistic and we have playground repos like crazy and everything's this like 80/20, 90/10. How what are you all seeing?

两者都很重要，我们两者都在做。

Both are important and we are doing both.

原型 playground 可以加速你的工作，因为你没有一些代码库的依赖，运行代码和确保它能跑的时候可能不会遇到那么多问题。如果你的目的不一定是发布产品，你还在探索阶段，那么速度在那时真的非常重要。当你需要精确性时，你就应该进入代码库。试图在原型 playground 里打磨交互然后再翻译过去是没有意义的。所以，你需要知道自己处于哪个阶段。我们往往过于简化，说你应该只用这种方式工作，但实际上，从桌面上的草图到生产环境，一切都是工具和媒介，你需要有足够的细腻度去知道如何使用它们。

Prototyping playgrounds can speed you up because you don't have some of the code base dependencies and you might not run into as many issues just running the code and making sure you can. If your intent is not necessarily to ship that, you're still exploring, so speed is really, really important at that point. When you want precision, you want to be in the code base. There's no point trying to refine an interaction in your prototyping playground and then just translate it over. So, you need to know what stage you are in. It's just like we tend to be reductionist and say you should only work this way, but in reality, anything from a sketch on your desk all the way to production is a tool and medium that you need to have the nuance to know how to use.

好，我们来聊聊评估（evals）。显然，我对这个考虑得远远不够。那么，为什么这对设计师来说很重要？

Okay, let's talk about evals. I'm not thinking about that near enough, apparently. So, why is that a big deal for designers?

我们越来越多地与非确定性系统打交道，对吧？所以，很多体验是由大语言模型（LLM）生成的。以前，它可能由算法生成。我在 Meta 工作过，可以告诉你我们讨论过很多关于信息流故事中按钮的问题。那些按钮很重要，但当你想到人们打开这些产品时真正体验的是什么，那是内容。所以，我们作为设计师关于按钮的所有讨论，远不如我们应该对算法本身进行的讨论重要，对吧？当涉及到这些非确定性系统时，你如何确保它们达到你的质量标准？有一个东西叫做评估（evals）。一方面，这是世界上最不性感的事情，因为你现在要尝试定义“好”的样子，并让系统能够自己识别，或者通过人类辅助来做到这一点。在像设计这样不可验证的领域尝试这样做非常迷人，因为设计没有唯一正确的答案，但有很多错误的答案。所以，我们在考虑所有智能体应该如何构建和设计时，确实深入探讨了这一点。老实说，如果我们关心体验，那才是我们应该花时间的地方。

Increasingly, we're working with non-deterministic systems, right? So, a lot of what the experience is is produced by an LLM. Previously, it could be produced by an algorithm. I worked at Meta and can tell you we've had a lot of conversations about the buttons that would exist on a feed story. Those buttons are important, but when you think about what people really experience when they open one of those products, it's the content. And so, all of the conversations that we had about buttons as designers were far less important than the conversations that we should have had about the algorithm itself, right? And when it comes to these non-deterministic systems, how do you ensure that they meet your quality bar? There's this thing called evals. It's on the one hand the least sexy thing in the world because you are now in a place where you're trying to specify what good looks like and have systems that could either recognize that themselves or be augmented with humans that could do that. And it's fascinating to try to do this on an unverifiable domain like design because design is not — there's not a correct answer to design, but there are many incorrect answers. And so, we certainly dive deep in there as we consider how all of our agents should build and design. And honestly, if we care about the experience, that's where we should spend our time.

感觉我们作为设计师感到压力，老实说，要去成长和探索的很多新领域都非常技术化。我只是在想，这就是转变吗？这就是趋势吗？我们都会变得有点工程化，就连品牌领域我也在创建这些半技术化的工作流程，你知道，这就是未来的方向吗？

It feels like a lot of the new areas that we as designers are feeling pressure, honestly, to grow in and explore are all pretty technical. And I'm just wondering, is that just the shift? Is that just where this is heading? We're all going to become a little bit engineery where even brand is like I'm creating these semi-technical workflows and that, you know, is that just where this is going?

我认为很多方面确实在朝那个方向发展，但依然会有很多时刻需要工艺和细节打磨，就像你可能想要的那样。我欢迎设计师进入这些技术领域，因为我们对可用性有很高的标准，我迫不及待地想把它带到所有那些可能不太追求可用性的技术系统中。以代码为例，这是我们正在做的一件事。我们希望它感觉像一种你可以控制的媒介，而不是一个让你撞墙、与之搏斗的技术东西。好的工作状态需要流畅，这非常重要。那么，当你使用的产品——无论是技术性的、关于评估的，还是其他东西——实际上用起来很愉快时，那会是什么样子？我建了一个小的评估游戏。当然，我们在画布上进行评估，你可以尝试击败自动裁判，找出设计问题。有很多方法可以让所有这些事情变得有趣。

I think a lot of it is going in that direction, but also there will still be plenty of moments for craft and for sweating the details in the way that you might want to. I welcome designers entering some of these technical areas because we have a bar for usability that I just can't wait to bring to all of the technical systems that maybe did not crave it as much. And this is one of the things that we're doing with code as an example. We wanted to feel like a medium that's under your control, not like a technical thing that you're just banging your head against the wall and fighting. It's really important for good work to be in the flow. So, what does it look like when the product that you're using, whether it's technical, it's about evals and all of the other stuff, but it's actually a joy to use. I built a little eval game. We eval on the canvas, of course, where you could try to beat an auto judge at finding design issues. There are so many ways to make all of these things fun.

我们把视野从应用上拉远一点。你在 Figma 大约 10 个月了，这可能真的很短，但如今 10 个月也像是永恒。你是外部引入的，在 Meta 有很长的背景。我猜你正在与现有领导层讨论你想给团队注入什么，为什么是你之类的问题。所以，也许我们可以在这个层面上聊一聊。比如，关于设计组织如何能够且应该如何运作，你希望在 Figma 看到更多的一些核心理念是什么？

Let's zoom out of the app for a second. So, you've been at Figma for around 10 months, which is probably a really short time, but also 10 months is an eternity nowadays. And you're brought in externally, you have this long background at Meta. And my assumption is you're having conversations with existing leadership around what you want to instill in the team, why me kind of thing. So, maybe we could talk at that level for a little bit. Like, what are some of the core ideas around how design orgs can and should operate that you're hoping to see more of at Figma?

老实说，Figma 有非常出色的人才，我认为作为领导者，我每天花大量时间要做的是想办法把他们全部调动起来，移除障碍，让他们能够真正构建出脑海中的东西。所以，AI 带来的一些挑战变得完全是良性的。比如我们讨论的评审周期以及如何疏通那个管道等等，这是一方面。第二点是，你想让这些工具可用，想激励每个人，想确保协作发生。然后，从 Figma 的角度来看，我一直在说的是寻找交叉点。我真的非常相信那些曾经不相干的事物之间的交叉点会产生魔力，无论是设计与代码、声音与视觉、产品经理与设计。你看到我在所有这些之间穿梭。而在 Figma 内部，FigJam 和幻灯片、幻灯片和设计、代码层和画布，当这些东西可以互操作时，你能做的事情要多得多。这需要以不同的方式看待团队和项目。

Honestly, we have incredible talent at Figma, and I think as a leader a lot of what I want to spend my day on is figuring out how to pull all of that up and remove the barriers from them literally building what's in their heads. So, some of the things that AI is creating as challenges become entirely virtuous. Like this whole way we're talking about the review cycles and how to unclamp that pipeline, etc. That's one thing. The second thing is you want to make these tools available, you want to inspire everyone, you want to make sure that collaboration happens. And then maybe from a Figma perspective, the thing that I consistently say is find intersections. I really, really believe in the magic that happens at the intersection of things that used to be disconnected, whether it's design and code, sound and visual, PM and design. You've seen me hover across all of those. And then within Figma itself, FigJam and slides, slides and design, code layers and the canvas, there is so much more that you could do when these things are interoperable. And that requires looking at teams and projects in different ways.

你在 Meta 工作了近十年，现在在 Figma 快一年了。我想你肯定注意到了一些不同之处，对吧？不同的组织形态，不同类型的人。那么，到目前为止，设计组织的运作方式有哪些独特之处让你印象深刻？

So you have almost a decade at Meta, now almost a year at Figma. I would imagine there's certain things that you're noticing that are just a little bit different, right? Different shape of an org, different type of people. So what are some of the unique ways that the design org operates that have stood out to you so far?

构建的乐趣以及我们在 Figma 对细节、交互的痴迷程度，构建工具的乐趣在 Figma 非常非常明显，而且不仅仅在设计部门。所有部门都有这种精神。甚至我们的 HR 和销售部门也是如此。我们都是创造者。这创造了一种最暖心的内部极客文化，大家一起工作。这就是最突出的地方。每个人都在创造东西。不断创造，不断思考工具应该如何进化。而在 Meta，有很多关于全球范围内的人、什么内容重要以及真正对开发下一代产品至关重要的文化元素的思考。

The joy of building and how much we nerd out at Figma over the details, the interactions, the joy of building a tool is very, very apparent at Figma, but not just across design. All of the disciplines have it. Literally, down to our HR and sales departments. All of us are makers. And that just creates a culture of most heartwarming inner nerds coming to work together. That's the thing that stands out. Everyone is making something. It's constantly creating, constantly thinking about how the tools should evolve. Where at Meta, there was a lot of thought about the people on a global scale and what content is important and elements of culture that are truly key to developing the next set of products.

你提到设计师需要更整体地思考，产品策略是每个人都必须把握的东西。我们不妨顺着这条线聊下去，因为你们处在一个有趣的位置——既有扎实的基础，又在通过收购等方式添加大量不同类型的功能。我认为你们可能有很多种方式来划分功能归属、定义工具间的关系、决定它们互联的程度，以及这一切如何融入更广泛的平台战略。带我们回到 Config 大会前的核心产品策略讨论现场吧。你们当时真正纠结的问题有哪些？

You talked about how designers are having to think a little bit more holistically, like product strategy is something that everybody holds on to. And maybe we can pull on that strand a little bit because you guys are in an interesting place where you have a heck of a foundation, and yet you're adding so many different types of features, some of them coming from acquisitions. I think there's probably multiple different ways that you could have sliced up the what lives where, and what's the relationship between all these tools, and how interconnected are they, and how does that fit into like the broader platform strategy? Put us in the room on some of the core product strategy debates that were leading up to Config. What were some of the things that you guys were really wrestling with?

有很多事情，有些非常细微，有些则更宏观，关乎产品如何融合以及正确的构建方式。例如，在画布上引入代码层就是一个重大决策，它改变了设计画布的能力。有了画布动画，你总要考虑这些功能如何相互组合。是否应该支持动画？能否直接在画布上构建？由于我们引入了代码层，答案是肯定的——你需要能够完成所有这些事情。我们只是在消除这些操作之间的距离，这些操作之前就已经存在，只是以非常序列化的方式进行。过去，你可能会去一个地方设计你想要的东西，产生一个产物，然后这个产物成为另一个工具中设计的简报，设计又变成产物，再次被转化。每一步都有转化成本，更重要的是，你无法快速循环回去尝试不同的想法。所以我们关注的是如何将它们整合在一起。但这显然引发了许多战略问题，比如每个产品的定位是什么，它们应该如何互操作。我们在这方面还会有更多动作。此外，还有一些小而重大的决策，比如画布上的智能体应该如何呈现？它们应该像团队成员一样，还是更多在后台工作，不占用太多注意力？这些都是没有正确答案的灵魂拷问，我们经常是“先做出来，看看感觉，再退回来，重新构建”。即使内部也需要一些时间才能找到感觉。幸运的是，我们在 Figma 内部用 Figma 构建，所以我们始终在工具中。我们觉得这代表了正确的平衡：既让 AI 在与你协作时走到前台，又让你能真正专注于任务和身边的人。

A number of things, some very small that you'd expect us to talk about, and some that are broader around how the products, exactly as you said, are coming together, and what is the right way to build. For example, with code layers on canvas, that is a big decision. It changes what the design canvas can do. With animation on canvas, you always have to think about how these things compose with each other. Should you have an animation, would you be able to build it straight on the canvas? As a result of us introducing the code layers on canvas, the answer is yes, you need to be able to do all of these things. We're just removing the distance between all of these actions that were already happening, but in a very sequenced way before, right? It used to be that you'd go to one place to design what you wanted to do, and that resulted in an artifact, and then that artifact would become a brief for a design that happened in a tool, and the design would become an artifact that again would get translated. Each of these steps had a translation cost, and more importantly, you don't have the quick loop back to try a different idea. So what we're looking at is how do you bring it all together? But that obviously creates a lot of strategic questions about what each product is about, how they should interoperably talk about that quite a bit, and there's a lot more that you'll see from us in that direction. And then we have the small big decisions around agents on canvas, like how should they be represented? Should they feel like people on your team, or should they be more in the background, working and not taking too much attention? Those are the soul questions that come up where there's no right answer, and there's a lot of 'let's build something, see what it feels like, let's pull back, let's build again.' It takes a little bit of time to get to something that we feel even internally. Thankfully, we're both building Figma in Figma, so we're always in the tool. And we feel that it represents the right balance between bringing AI into the foreground as it builds with you, and allowing you to really stay focused on the task and the humans around you.

那么，假设我是某个功能的 design lead，这个功能有横向元素，因为当你在画布中塞入一堆功能时，所有东西都相互关联，并且需要不断迭代、探索、制作和构建。作为设计负责人，你希望看到我有哪些行为？不仅带着大家一起前进，还要在紧迫的时间线下推动实际设计和决策。

And so, let's imagine that I'm a design lead on one of these features that has a horizontal element to it because everything is kind of touching everything when you're putting a bunch of functionality inside of the canvas, and there's this constant iteration, exploring, and just making and building things. And what are the behaviors that you would hope to see as the design leader in terms of how I'm not only bringing people along for the ride, but like helping move the actual design and decision-making forward given these compressed timelines?

一方面，我们常说设计之所以重要，是因为它让事物变得具体。你可以长时间讨论某件事，但很容易各说各话，因为你脑海中的想象和别人完全不同。所以一图胜千言，而原型或方向性的演示则胜过更多言语。因此，我特别希望设计师能做到的是：让事情具体化，清晰地展示权衡空间。他们的工作是探索方向，尽可能考虑所有可能性。实际上，Figma 正是这样一个好工具，可以帮助你理解那些你可能未曾考虑过的变体。所以，把所有的张力点都提出来。这是重要的一点，这样我们才能就什么最重要进行最富有成效的对话，并推动解决方案前进。所以，这些就是：真正理解系统，理解权衡，暴露权衡，展示如何解决这些问题的示例，让所有人达成共识。有了这些，至少方向部分就解决了。我期望的第二点是他们的观点，即他们认为正确的事情是什么？他们的信念在哪里？幸运的是，在 Figma 我们有这样的空间。正如我所说，在 Figma 这绝对是非常棒的。

On the one hand, we used to say design is so important because it makes things tangible. You could talk about something for a long time, and you have the risk of talking over each other because what you imagine in your head is very different than another person's imagination. So a picture is worth a thousand words exactly for that reason, and a prototype or a staging around a direction is worth even more words. So a lot of the time, what I love for designers to do is try to make things concrete, be very clear with the trade-off space. Their job is to explore directions, to consider all of the possibilities as much as possible. This is actually where Figma is a great tool to understand what variation could be in place that you might not have considered. So elevate all of the tension points. That's one of the important things so that we could have the most productive conversations about what matters and move the solution forward. So those are the things: understand the system really well, understand the trade-offs, expose the trade-offs, show ways in which we could work through those as an example, and bring everyone on the same page. With that, I think at least the direction part of it is taken care of. The second thing that I expect is just their point of view, like what do they think is the right thing to do? Where is their conviction? And thankfully, we have that in space in Figma. As I said, in Figma it's just absolutely crushing.

这又让我想到了系统思维的价值，因为所有东西都相互关联。能够看到全局，然后理解这如何反映在你周二做出的一系列微观决策中，这本身就是设计师的一项完整技能。

Points back to the value systems thinking again for me, where again, because everything's kind of touching everything else. And so, being able to see that full picture and then how that reflects in the set of micro decisions that you're making on a Tuesday, that's a whole skill just in that for designers.

我认为你说得对，完全正确。想想看，我们生活在一个日益复杂的世界，软件本身也变得极其复杂。我们在构建全球产品，人们以多种不同的形态体验它们。有些从左到右阅读，有些从右到左。这甚至还不是构建软件时需要考虑的最复杂的事情。所以，当你构建一个需要为全人类表达软件的工具时，你真的需要学会读懂言外之意，理解哪些想法是相连的，并简化事物以便推进，因为复杂性是行动的大敌。从这个意义上说，设计也变得越来越重要。

I think you're right. Absolutely. And if you think about it, we live in an increasingly complex world, and software has gotten incredibly complex itself. We're building global products that people experience in many different incarnations. Some of them read left to right, some of them read right to left. That's not even the most complex thing that we need to think about when we build software. So when you're building the tool that needs to express software for the entire population, you really need to figure out how to read between the lines, figure out what thoughts connect, and simplify things that allow you to take things forward because complexity is kind of the enemy of action. And this way design is increasingly important here, too.

在结束之前，我想听听你的看法，你经常招聘并思考不同类型和形态的设计师。

Before I let you go, I want to tap into your perspective as somebody who is pretty frequently hiring and thinking about the different types and shapes of designers.

我们聊过设计能带来很多开箱即用的东西，对吧？假设听众正面对一堆作品集和申请，里面全是七八分的水平。那么，你在别人的作品集或他们展示自己的方式中，能看到什么，让你觉得“哇，这信号太强了。我现在开始注意了，这很可能是我想要招进团队的人”？

And so, we've talked about how design gives you a lot out of the box, right? So, let's imagine that somebody who's listening is in a stack of portfolios and applications that are just full of eight out of 10s, nine out of 10s, you know? So, what is something that you could see in either somebody's portfolio or how they're presenting themselves that would get you to the point where it's like, "Wow, that is a heck of a signal. Like they I'm now paying attention and this is probably somebody that I'd want to bring onto the team."

有趣的是，你可能会遇到一些出色的设计思考者，他们未必在与你直接相关的领域工作过。所以很多时候，你得克制自己不去想“他们有没有专门做过设计工具？因为我们需要的正是懂设计工具领域的人”。我认为你实际上更看重思维方式。同样，在系统层面，你看重他们的技艺。对我来说，技艺和热情紧密相连，所以我往往最看重热情，因为它能带来很多东西：它给你克服挫折的动力；它给你品味，就像我们一开始聊的；它给你独特的视角，别人会欣赏；它让你与团队其他成员拥有共同语言，那些已经深深信奉技艺至上的人。从这个角度看，热情最终能带动一切。你当然会寻找他们是否在尝试、思维是否开阔的信号。你会寻找他们是否乐于探索当前技术状态的信号。声音设计师对深入模型空间很感兴趣。我们实际上会招聘 AI 模型设计师，他们的工作略有不同——更少关注像素，更多关注如何塑造那个媒介。所以这有点因人而异。现在设计领域出现了一些专业化方向，每个人仍然是产品设计师，但可能专注于不同的领域。

It's interesting because you can have incredible design thinkers that maybe did not work on a domain that immediately applies to what you've done. And so, often times you actually have to pull yourself back from "Oh, have they worked on a design tool specifically because we need somebody who understands just the design tool space in particular." I think that you're actually looking more for a way of thinking. Again, like at the system level, you look for their craft. And for me, craft and passion are so united that often times I look for passion more than I look for anything else because that gives you a number of things. It gives you the drive to overcome something that maybe doesn't go your way. It gives you the taste, back to where we started. Like it gives you that way of seeing that's unique to you that people come to appreciate. It gives you the shared language with the rest of the team that is already very much bought into the church of craft. From that perspective, I think the passion ends up carrying things. You certainly look for signals that they're experimenting, that they're expansive in their thinking. You look for signals that they're comfortable exploring technology in the state that we're in right now. Sound designers are quite interested in diving deep into the model space. We actually hire AI model whose job is a little bit different. It's less about figuring out the pixels and more about figuring out how to mold that medium. So, it depends a little bit. There's some specializations that are coming about right now in design where everyone is still a product designer, but might be focused on a different area as well.

你所说的一切，都回归到作为人类的独特性——无论是你如何使用工具、你能想象什么、你为什么在乎某件事。我很欣赏这一点，它贯穿了我们整个对话。

Everything that you're saying keeps coming back to what makes you unique as a human, both in terms of how you're using the tools, what you're capable of imagining, why you're caring about something. I appreciate that as a through line through this whole conversation.

但这不正是美好之处吗？这不正是我们存在的意义吗？

And isn't that beautiful though? Isn't that why we're here?

在结束之前，我有一个特别刁钻的问题想问你，然后我们就可以愉快收尾了。如果你有 24 小时，可以制作一块广告牌，让设计社区的每个人都能看到，你会放什么在上面？为什么？考虑到你作为塑造这个行业未来的关键人物之一，我很少问这个问题，但今天我想问你，你可以慢慢想。

I have an annoyingly hard question for you before we leave and we can ride off into the sunset on this, but if you had 24 hours where you could create a billboard that everybody in the design community would see, what would you put on that billboard and why? And I think given your position as somebody who's shaping the future of this industry as much as anybody, I don't reach for this question often, but I'm going to reach for it with you and you can take your time to think about it.

我想会是某种形式的“把自己放进你创造的东西里”。把灵魂注入音乐，把自己融入设计——这就是我现在想对每个人说的话。这正是世界所需要的。

I think it'll be a version of "put yourself in what you're making." The idea of putting the soul in the music, putting yourself into your design is the message I'd give everyone right now. That's what the world needs.

太美了。我认为这是一个绝佳的收尾。Loredana，非常感谢你今天来做客，分享你们幕后工作的点滴、你的思考方式、你在行业中的观察，以及你所有话语中不断强调的人性核心。这意义深远，对我很有启发，希望也能启发其他人。非常感谢你。

It's beautiful. Well, I think that's a fantastic place to end this conversation. And Loredana, I really appreciate you coming on today and sharing a little bit about behind the scenes of what you all are working on, how you're thinking, what you're seeing in the industry, and also just reinforcing this human message at the heart of everything you're saying. Really goes a long way, and it's inspiring for me. I hope it's inspiring for others. So, appreciate you.

谢谢你邀请我，也谢谢你运营这个播客。它对我们所有人都是巨大的鼓舞。

Thank you for having me, and thank you for running this podcast. It's such an inspiration for all of us.