Isn’t that a door (haha) opened by our supreme new AI coding overlords: that now it’s possible to take the Every Door source code (it’s on Github), and throw it into a coding agent with the instruction to „improve <ux shortcoming of your choice> without breaking functionality“, and with some iterations and human validation that yes, the UX is now indeed better, play the changes back with a PR?
replyUX is one of the things AI isn’t good at. You can ask it for specific changes but just “make it nicer” is unlikely to work.
reply“Make it nicer” will lead to unpredictable and controversial changes, likely to clash with the project owner’s vision. The owner would be better off using the LLM as a collaborator, if anything, to decide where to take the design.
replyHowever, UX can also be improved by some simple heuristics that could be seen as mechanistic by the standards of modern LLMs.
Performance and responsiveness, for example, contribute to UX even when the UI remains fixed. I’d wager Fable-level LLMs could improve perf on most open-source GUIs by benchmarking typical use cases and progressively applying standard tricks like caching, buffering, batching network calls.
That's real work and requires real skill. The parent comment example prompt just doesn't work.
replyNo but if you have specific asks like “make this resizable” “I should be able to drag and drop to combine” or “add a button on the top right to close” it’s quite good at directed changes
replyI can improve the UI to my taste but if the maintainer doesn't have time/money to maintain a big ol vibe coded PR for some very opinionated change isn't going to do much.
replyThat would appear to leave me with the choice of just using it for myself (lame) or I then have a public fork to maintain :(
If there's basically no shot of it getting up streamed I think I'd rather make something from scratch to suit my needs without the extras.
Anyway, I hope the AI overlords help us fund more maintainers soon!
FYI LLMs are also very good at maintaining a fork ;)
reply