webdesignxp.com

Blog

  • The 7 Emotional Stages Every Designer Endures While Pushing Pixels

    Designing a website starts with purpose. You’ve got a clear vision, a good brief, fresh UI components, and maybe even buy-in from stakeholders. This time, you tell yourself, the design will be clean, the file will stay organized, and the button padding will be consistent across every breakpoint.

    And then somehow, 36 hours later, you’re nudging a div 1px to the left, again, and wondering if maybe your parents were right and you should’ve gone to law school.

    Welcome to the unspoken emotional arc of every web designer—the 7 stages of pushing pixels.

    Stage 1: Optimism (The Fresh Canvas High)

    It always starts the same way: a blank frame, a shiny new component library, and the open road of creative possibility. You feel powerful. Strategic. Maybe even important. You declare to no one, “This will be the cleanest file I’ve ever made.”

    You create grids. You drop in your H1s and H2s. You align things on the 8pt scale like some kind of pixel monk. You drag in that first button and it snaps into place like destiny.

    You are a god. A god with a design degree and a strong opinion about whitespace.

    Stage 2: Tweak Euphoria

    Suddenly, every tiny adjustment feels genius. Move that image 4px down? Perfect. Increase letter spacing by 0.02? Iconic. You toggle between frames, high on that crisp before-and-after magic. You rename a layer from “Frame 12 Copy” to “Card_Main_Final” and feel like you’re finally getting your life together.

    This is peak productivity. This is when you tell yourself you were born for this. That UX is your calling. That this design will convert so hard, it’ll break the internet.

    Stage 3: The Great Doubt

    You zoom out. You squint. Something feels off.

    Is the layout unbalanced? Are those icons slightly heavier than the text? Is that heading aligned visually or mathematically? Is the color palette too muted or too aggressive or too beige?

    You open the file in Chrome to test it. Now it looks worse. You scroll up and down repeatedly, like the answer will suddenly reveal itself through friction.

    You consider rebuilding it from scratch. Because this must be the grid’s fault. Or the typeface. Or the internet. Anything but you.

    Stage 4: Pixel Purgatory

    Welcome to the danger zone. You are now fully trapped in an infinite loop of microscopic adjustments. Every pixel is a threat. Every shadow is suspect.

    You duplicate the same layout four times and give them increasingly unhinged names:

    v2_exploration
    v2_exploration_better_spacing
    v2_final_v3
    v2_final_final_sendToJames

    You switch back and forth between them like a gambler waiting for one to hit. None of them do. They all look the same. And yet—not quite the same.

    You start to believe in design ghosts. Tiny, invisible misalignments sent to haunt you. You open the Figma inspector obsessively, hoping for absolution. Instead, it shows you that your 16px margin is actually 15.998px.

    You cry a little.

    Stage 5: Design System Betrayal

    Ah, the design system. The sacred library. Your one source of truth. Until it becomes your greatest enemy.

    You drag in a trusted button component. You nest it inside a card. And everything explodes. The text overflows. The padding vanishes. The auto-layout snaps in the wrong direction like a possessed accordion.

    You click “Detach Instance” in a moment of weakness. Now you’re off the map. You’re in the wild.

    Two hours later, you discover that someone updated the master component, which broke everything. Again.

    Design system, I loved you. I believed in you. I evangelized you in meetings. Now I fear you.

    Stage 6: Existential Dread

    This is when you start having thoughts like:

    What even is good design?
    Does whitespace matter if no one respects it?
    Is this form going to change anyone’s life?

    You stare at your screen, hollow-eyed, wondering if you’re just rearranging decorative boxes in a giant digital mall that no one visits. You wonder if your work is meaningful. If your A/B test results will ever make sense. If “user-centric” is just a corporate lie.

    You start a new tab and Google “quiet remote villages with no Wi-Fi.” You delete the tab. You try to fix your margins again.

    Stage 7: Release and Numb Acceptance

    It’s done. You’ve exported the assets. The dev handoff has begun. Someone says, “Looks great!” and you no longer have the strength to ask if they actually looked at it. The tracking pixel is in place. The deadline is behind you.

    You feel nothing.

    You promise yourself next time will be different. Cleaner. More rational. No more tweaking till 3am. No more self-inflicted spacing drama. You close the file, feeling both relieved and broken.

    And then, a Slack message pings:

    “Hey, quick thing—can we make the hero section pop a little more?”

    The cycle begins again.

    Conclusion: The Sacred, Slightly Unhinged Art of Pixel Pushing

    In the end, pushing pixels isn’t just a compulsive behavior—it’s a coping mechanism. A ritual. A strange, oddly beautiful form of control in a profession where everything else—clients, trends, browser bugs—is chaos.

  • Apple’s Liquid Glass: Design Revolution or Shiny Distraction?

    Apple has quietly resurrected skeuomorphism, only now it’s dressed in futuristic language like “Liquid Glass.” At WWDC 2025, the company revealed this new design language—a glossy blend of translucent layers, reactive lighting, and depth effects that look impressive until you try to use them.

    This moment marks a full-circle return to tactile, material-rich interfaces Apple once abandoned. The stitched leather is gone, replaced by molten acrylic textures that feel more like a sci-fi showroom.

    From Flat Minimalism to Glowing Depth

    More than a decade ago, Apple discarded skeuomorphism in favor of flat minimalism. Shadows, textures, and faux 3D surfaces were replaced by clean lines and pastel color palettes. Now, Liquid Glass reverses that trend with shimmering surfaces, refractions, and dynamic behaviors that evoke the spirit of Aqua reimagined for Vision Pro.

    According to Apple, these layers aren’t merely decorative. They’re supposed to guide focus, enhance immersion, and respond to ambient cues. But underneath the marketing language, the principle is the same: simulate tactile reality to make software feel more real.

    When Beauty Undermines Usability

    Not everyone is celebrating. Designers and accessibility advocates have already flagged serious concerns. When layered over complex wallpapers or dynamic content, Liquid Glass can make text difficult to read and controls easy to miss.

    Contrast weakens. Legibility suffers. What was intended to feel immersive often looks like a smudged showroom display. Early testers report disappearing buttons, blurred labels, and a sense that visual spectacle is replacing practical clarity.

    Aesthetic Diversion While Siri Lags

    It’s hard to ignore the timing. Apple’s AI strategy continues to trail competitors. While Google and Microsoft push forward with generative assistants, Siri remains stuck handling basic tasks inconsistently.

    So when the intelligence isn’t ready, Apple does what it often does best: create a distraction. Liquid Glass shifts attention away from Siri’s shortcomings, presenting a fresh interface as proof of progress. But layering translucency over Safari tabs won’t fix fundamental limitations in AI capability.

    Developers Face a New Challenge

    Developers now find themselves forced to rework apps so they don’t dissolve into unreadable overlays. With Liquid Glass embedded across iPhones, iPads, Macs, and CarPlay, every detail—from light behavior to layering logic—requires reconsideration.

    This isn’t a simple setting to toggle. It’s an architectural overhaul that could break established workflows and require extensive redesign. For many developers, the anxiety feels familiar—echoing the upheaval of iOS 7.

    Nostalgia Wrapped in Cognitive Load

    Liquid Glass tries to present itself as minimalist sophistication, but in reality, it piles on layers of visual complexity. It’s the UI equivalent of whispering loudly—pretending to be subtle while demanding attention.

    Classic skeuomorphism was criticized for burdening users with heavy metaphors and unnecessary ornamentation. Liquid Glass trades leather for acrylic but keeps the same cognitive cost, asking users to interpret more than they should.

    The Verdict on Liquid Glass

    There’s no denying the appeal. Liquid Glass gives Apple’s ecosystem a unified, spatial, and polished look. It feels modern and cohesive in a way few design systems do.

    But that polish comes with tradeoffs. It’s built to impress in presentations, not necessarily to improve daily usability. For users who value clarity, the glow may feel like a distraction rather than an upgrade.

    The move is confident and polarizing—a statement that Apple still believes in the power of surfaces, even as AI and invisible interfaces take center stage elsewhere.

    Final Thought

    Liquid Glass may prove to be Apple’s most characteristic decision in years—ambitious, beautiful, and slightly overconfident. Whether it will age as a visionary leap or an unnecessary flourish depends on whether users accept more visual dazzle in exchange for less functional certainty.

    This is skeuomorphism reborn, not as stitched leather, but as a shimmering sci-fi aesthetic. The real question isn’t whether it’s attractive. It’s whether it ever needed to exist.

  • The Decline of WordPress: 2025 and the Legacy Platform Losing Relevance

    WordPress in 2025 isn’t thriving—it’s rotting. Bloated, outdated, and hijacked by commercial greed, the world’s most popular CMS has become a cautionary tale of innovation gone stale. If you’re still building on WordPress, you’re clinging to a corpse.

    Noah Davis
    Posted July 7, 2025

    WordPress, the behemoth that once empowered a third of the internet, stands in 2025 as a paradox. On one hand, it’s still everywhere—powering blogs, newsrooms, e-commerce empires, and SaaS landing pages.

    On the other, it’s increasingly irrelevant to the forward march of the modern web. It’s bloated. Fragmented. Over-commercialized. And its once-vibrant open-source soul is slowly being strangled by a familiar antagonist: profit.

    From Power to Paralysis: A Platform Eating Itself

    WordPress was always a bit of a Frankenstein. PHP? Check. MySQL? Of course. Thousands of plugins duct-taped together with mixed standards and varying support? Absolutely. Yet, for nearly two decades, this messy architecture worked. It offered unprecedented freedom and customization to developers and non-developers alike.

    But in 2025, WordPress has become a victim of its own inclusivity. The democratization of publishing—its rallying cry—is now a marketing cliché, plastered across investor decks and Automattic’s keynote slides while the actual experience of building with WordPress is increasingly undemocratic, commercialized, and convoluted.

    Gutenberg: Visionary or Vanity Project?

    The block editor, launched in 2018, was supposed to modernize WordPress. Technically, it did. But in practice, it created a divide. Gutenberg represents a single-page application mentality slapped onto a legacy CMS.

    It alienated experienced developers who had mastered the classic editor and confounded casual users who just wanted to write a blog post without dealing with columns, containers, or reusable blocks that break mysteriously.

    Fast-forward to 2025, and Gutenberg has metastasized into Full Site Editing, patterns, block themes, and a jungle of UI metaphors requiring a mental model more suited to React developers than casual bloggers.

    WordPress now sits uncomfortably between Wix and React—too complicated for newbies, too primitive for modern devs.

    The Marketplace Has Been Monetized to Death

    Themes in 2025 are paywalled at every turn. Plugins that once offered free functionality now drip-feed their usefulness behind ever-higher paywalls. You’re not building with WordPress anymore—you’re shopping.

    It’s common to build a site and juggle six paid plugins, three freemium themes, and a bloated stack of dependencies. Performance? Secondary to conversion. The ethos of “just works out of the box” has been replaced by “works after you’ve paid $500/year in subscriptions.”

    The freemium economy isn’t just thriving—it’s cannibalizing the platform’s original value. The open-source ideal has been squeezed into the margins by venture-backed plugin developers and theme shops using WordPress as bait.

    Developer Experience: A Study in Frustration

    WordPress in 2025 is a terrible place for modern developers.

    You want TypeScript? Good luck. You want to deploy with GitHub Actions? Possible, but over-engineered. You want composable architecture, headless workflows, GraphQL APIs, or serverless functions? It’s easier to use Sanity, Astro, or Next.js.

    The REST API, once hyped as a revolution, is largely ignored in favor of WPGraphQL—a third-party plugin. Local development is clunky. Security is a headache. The core is creaky, the dashboard archaic, and reliance on hooks feels like coding in Morse code.

    The Headless Delusion

    WordPress has flirted with being headless. But if you decouple WordPress from its frontend, what’s left? A mediocre backend outclassed by younger, leaner systems.

    You can use WordPress as a headless backend, but why would you, when Strapi, Payload, and Contentful offer cleaner APIs and better developer experiences?

    This is WordPress’s existential problem: it no longer knows who it’s for.

    Automattic’s Corporate Drift

    Automattic has grown increasingly corporate, opaque, and disconnected from the open-source community.

    While core development drags under the weight of consensus, Automattic ships polished premium experiences on WordPress.com that leave the .org version behind. There’s a two-tier system: a WordPress for the masses, and a WordPress for the monetized.

    The community is still passionate and building—but often like unpaid labor sustaining a legacy platform for Automattic’s benefit.

    What Comes Next: Forks, Fights, and Futures

    Some whisper about forks. Others dream of a leaner WordPress 2.0, stripped of backward compatibility and rebuilt for the modern web. But realistically, that’s unlikely. The inertia is too massive, the ecosystem too entangled.

    What we’ll see instead is fragmentation. Specialized distros. More headless stacks. A slow bleed of contributors into rival platforms. And, for the first time, serious competition from open-source contenders unafraid to reinvent themselves.

    Conclusion: WordPress Isn’t Dying, But It Is Decaying

    WordPress will be here in 2030 and probably 2040. But its golden age is over.

    What remains is a legacy platform pretending it’s still leading—when it’s really being dragged forward by inertia and monetization rather than innovation.

    If you’re a content creator with minimal technical needs, WordPress still works. If you’re an enterprise needing fast, cheap deployment, it still checks the box. But for the modern web, it’s no longer the obvious choice.

  • Sustainable Web Design: Real Progress or Just Another Buzzword?

    Sustainable web design isn’t just a feel-good idea. Bloated, inefficient sites waste enormous amounts of energy. By cutting the excess, optimizing performance, and rethinking design decisions, we can create a web that’s greener, faster, and more user-friendly.

    Let’s be honest—sustainable web design sounds great in theory. Who wouldn’t want to build a cleaner internet while delivering high-performance websites? But in practice, many “green” initiatives are more about appearances than real impact.

    A carbon-neutral hosting badge doesn’t change the fact that your site may be loaded with autoplay videos, oversized images, and countless third-party scripts. The internet might seem weightless, but it relies on power-hungry servers and data centers that generate a far larger carbon footprint than most people realize.

    Is sustainable web design truly the future, or is it another convenient label companies use to appear eco-friendly while continuing to build sluggish, wasteful sites? More importantly, what does it take to actually make a difference?

    The Internet Is Dirtier Than It Looks

    People rarely think of the internet as a polluter. It’s digital—no smoke, no exhaust. But every website depends on a vast network of servers consuming huge amounts of energy. Data centers alone are estimated to emit as much carbon as the entire airline industry.

    Every page load sets off a chain reaction of requests, processing, and transfers. One visit may seem trivial, but multiplied by billions each day, it becomes a massive environmental burden. And most sites aren’t helping. Autoplay videos, unoptimized images, bloated JavaScript, and endless tracking scripts slow everything down and waste resources.

    Sustainable web design can’t remain an abstract idea. Poor design choices directly contribute to environmental harm. The internet has become a bloated, inefficient system growing at an unsustainable rate.

    When Sustainability Goes Beyond PR

    Some organizations are driving genuine progress. Google’s Core Web Vitals reward faster sites that reduce excessive JavaScript and improve user experience—not just for the environment but for better performance overall.

    Mozilla’s Sustainable Web Manifesto encourages designers to create lightweight, efficient sites. These efforts reflect a commitment to real change.

    On the other hand, greenwashing is everywhere. Companies may use renewable hosting while shipping enormous JavaScript bundles and unnecessary features. Greener hosting helps, but if your site is bloated and inefficient, you’re still part of the problem.

    The real solution lies in reducing the volume of data users must load, not only where the data is hosted.

    Building a Sustainable Website That Still Delivers

    Sustainability starts with lean, efficient design. Most websites are overloaded with elements that add no real value—massive images, background videos, and heavy animations.

    For example, the BBC homepage loads with just 90KB of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript combined. It’s fast, efficient, and user-friendly—proof that performance doesn’t require sacrifice.

    Switching to static sites can further reduce energy waste. Unlike dynamic sites, which process database queries every time a page loads, static sites pre-generate content. Frameworks like Next.js and Astro help developers create dynamic-feeling experiences while minimizing server requests.

    Hosting still matters. Green providers like GreenGeeks, Kualo, and SiteGround rely on renewable energy. But without optimization, the benefits are limited.

    User behavior also plays a role. Progressive web apps and server-side caching can prevent unnecessary reloads by storing assets locally, reducing both server load and energy consumption.

    Sustainability Is No Longer Optional

    Eventually, sustainable design won’t be a choice—it will be a requirement. Rising energy costs and intensifying climate concerns will force companies to prioritize efficiency.

    The good news is that lean websites are better for business. Faster sites improve Google rankings, boost conversions, and create stronger user experiences. A site that loads in under two seconds is not only greener but more profitable.

    This isn’t about following a trend or slapping a green badge in your footer. It’s about building a web that’s faster, more efficient, and less wasteful.

    Sustainable web design can be the future—if designers are willing to do the work instead of just talking about it.

  • Rethinking Hero Images: Why They’re Hurting Your Website

    There’s a pattern that has haunted web design for over a decade—so ingrained in workflows that questioning it feels almost heretical.

    The full-bleed hero image.

    You know it. You’ve designed it. You probably default to it in Figma without a second thought. A massive visual splash right at the top of the homepage—maybe a moody workspace photo or a startup founder mid-walk-and-talk. Alongside it, a vague slogan like “Powering What’s Next” and a ghost CTA hoping someone will click.

    We tell ourselves this design “makes a statement,” that it captures attention and instantly conveys mood and brand values.

    But if you peel back the gloss, what remains is often a hollow first impression: bloated performance, low information density, poor accessibility, and an overwhelming sameness. The hero image has quietly become one of the most overused and misunderstood elements in modern web design.

    And it’s overdue for a reckoning.

    A Pattern That Outlived Its Usefulness

    In the early 2010s, when responsive design emerged and high-resolution displays became mainstream, hero images felt fresh. They were cinematic and aspirational—suddenly, a homepage could feel like the opening shot of a film.

    But like most trends, the hero image got commodified. It stopped being a creative decision and became the default.

    It appears in every template, every pitch deck, every “modern SaaS homepage.” What began as a way to create emotional resonance became a crutch—a placeholder for content strategy that never materialized.

    Today, more often than not, the hero image doesn’t communicate. It decorates. It distracts. It delays.

    The Performance Tax Nobody Talks About

    There’s a reason your LCP is terrible—and it’s probably in your hero section.

    Usually, that high-res JPEG or autoplaying background video is the largest render-blocking element on the page. It doesn’t matter how clean your CSS grid is or how clever your JavaScript might be—if your hero image is 2MB and loads above the fold, you’ve already lost the performance game.

    Performance isn’t just a developer concern. It’s a design decision. Designers who ignore performance metrics are designing in a vacuum. You might win awards, but your users are waiting five seconds for a stock photo of a coffee cup to render.

    That’s not storytelling. It’s sabotage.

    Vagueness Dressed Up as Vision

    Even if performance were perfect—and it rarely is—there’s a bigger problem: abstraction.

    Too many hero images are paired with slogans so vague they border on parody. “Empowering Possibility.” “Where Innovation Meets Impact.” These polished phrases say absolutely nothing.

    This is the visual equivalent of small talk. You have three seconds to tell visitors what you do—and you spend it showing a city skyline from above?

    It’s not just lazy. It’s dishonest. If a user lands on your site and can’t immediately understand what you offer, who it’s for, and why it matters, they leave. No matter how good your typography is.

    Mobile Doesn’t Forgive Design Vanity

    On a desktop display, a hero image has room to breathe. There’s space to compose and crop carefully. But collapse that same layout onto a 390px viewport, and everything falls apart. Text overlaps. CTAs disappear below the fold. The perfect “rule of thirds” composition? Gone.

    Designing for mobile isn’t just about responsive breakpoints—it’s about context. On a phone screen, a massive abstract image often adds no value and pushes essential content out of view.

    Accessibility Is Usually an Afterthought

    Hero sections are often where accessibility goes to die.

    Overlay text on photos rarely meets contrast guidelines. Background videos autoplay without captions or controls. Images carrying crucial information are labeled decorative. Semantic hierarchy disappears so the H1 can sit inside an absolutely positioned container screen readers can’t find.

    These are solvable problems. But they rarely get solved—because the hero image is treated as a visual asset, not meaningful content.

    And when visuals outweigh meaning, people with disabilities are the first to be excluded.

    The Real Problem: A Strategy Gap

    Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most hero images exist because no one knew what else to put there.

    It’s the most valuable real estate on the page—the first impression—and it gets filled with a photo. Not because that photo adds clarity, but because the messaging isn’t ready. The value proposition isn’t clear. The product is hard to explain. So we default to a skyline and an empty slogan, hoping the user will scroll far enough to figure it out.

    Hero images aren’t inherently bad. But they’ve become a way to avoid the hard work of clarity.

    They mask indecision. They cover weak messaging.

    They delay the moment when your product has to speak for itself.

    What’s the Alternative?

    No, you don’t have to ban all visuals. Images have their place—when they earn it.

    A good homepage should lead with clarity. If someone lands on your site, they should be able to answer three questions within seconds:

  • How Templates Killed Web Design Before AI Ever Could

    AI Isn’t the Villain—Templates Are

    The web isn’t dying because of AI—it’s drowning in a sea of templates. Platforms like Squarespace, Wix, and Shopify have made building a site easier than ever—but at the cost of creativity, originality, and soul. If every website looks the same, does design even matter anymore?

    Let’s get one thing out of the way: AI is not the villain of web design. It’s just the flashy scapegoat we’ve all decided to blame while quietly ignoring the real killer hiding in plain sight—templates.

    No, not the innocent-looking starter kits we all downloaded in our early days. I’m talking about the all-consuming, cookie-cutter, SEO-optimized, funnel-worshipping design sameness that has turned the open web into a tragic gallery of “Buy Now” buttons floating on beige rectangles.

    If you’re wondering why the web feels dead, lifeless, or like you’re stuck in a scrolling Groundhog Day of “hero image, tagline, three icons, CTA,” it’s not because AI hallucinated its way into the design department. It’s because we templatified creativity into submission.

    The Real Killer: Sameness as a Service

    We used to design websites like we were crafting digital homes—custom woodwork, strange hallways, surprise color choices, even weird sound effects if you dared. Each one had quirks. A personality. A soul.

    Now, websites are just slightly re-skinned Shopify stores pretending to be brand experiences. Even portfolio sites—the sacred playgrounds of creativity—have become sterile clones of each other: pastel backgrounds, sans serif fonts, and a strategically placed photo of a coffee mug to humanize the horror.

    ThemeForest, Squarespace, Webflow, WordPress—bless their convenience—have created an ecosystem where differentiation is not only optional, it’s discouraged. Because originality breaks the template. And breaking the template is bad for conversion. Or SEO. Or the client’s cousin Chad who once read a Medium article about UX best practices.

    Templates Didn’t Just Flatten Design—They Flattened Expectations

    Clients aren’t asking for design anymore. They’re asking for “a site like this.” You know the one. It looks clean. It has animations. It scrolls smoothly. It’s “modern.” Which, in 2025, is just a euphemism for “I want what everyone else has so I don’t have to think.”

    Templates didn’t just streamline web development. They rewired what people expect a website to be.

    Why hire a designer when you can drop your brand colors into a no-code template, plug in some Lottie files, and call it a day? The end result isn’t bad. It’s worse than bad. It’s forgettable.

    And the worst part? We did this to ourselves.

    AI Didn’t Kill Design—We Gave It a Map

    Everyone’s busy blaming ChatGPT, Claude, or Midjourney for killing originality. But AI didn’t birth itself into our workflow. It trained on what we fed it. And what did we feed it?

    Thousands of templated, templated-from-templates, SEO-farmed websites that all look the same. You can’t tell a robot to innovate when your portfolio is made of duplicated grid layouts and gradient buttons copied from Stripe in 2017.

    AI isn’t the end of design. It’s just the inevitable mirror held up to a web we already standardized, sanitized, and sold for $39 on a marketplace.

    We gave AI the Ikea catalog of the internet and expected Bauhaus in return.

    The Design Web Is Dead—Long Live the Application Web

    The “website” as we knew it—handcrafted, bespoke, exploratory—is dying. In its place, we’re getting web apps, not sites. Utility is the new creativity. The homepage has been replaced by the dashboard. The About page is now a Notion doc. And that experimental layout you were proud of in 2014 doesn’t even pass Core Web Vitals anymore.

    The web we loved was a canvas. The web we have now is a series of modular blocks optimized for user retention, ad revenue, and frictionless e-commerce.

    Design is no longer about creating a unique experience. It’s about minimizing bounce rate, hitting conversion targets, and running A/B tests on whether button #4 should be 1.5em or 1.6em tall.

    We are no longer designers—we are template wranglers, nudging variables until the spreadsheet turns green.

    Web Design Isn’t Just Dying—It’s Evolving into Product Management

    The line between designer and product manager has blurred into oblivion. You’re not designing a homepage; you’re optimizing a funnel. You’re not choosing typography; you’re preserving “brand consistency.” You’re not making art; you’re massaging business goals.

    The average website today isn’t designed—it’s assembled.

    It’s a series of UX components picked from a pre-approved design system that lives in a Figma file so large it has its own gravitational pull. We’re not paid to invent anymore. We’re paid to ensure nothing surprises anyone. Web design has become corporate risk mitigation disguised as creativity.

    The Irony? Templates Were Supposed to Be Tools, Not Endgames

    Templates were never evil. They were supposed to help us go faster, prototype better, and democratize design. But like stock photos before them, they’ve become the fast food of the internet—cheap, convenient, and nutritionally empty.

    And just like fast food, they’re addictive.

    Why cook from scratch when the Big Mac of landing pages is a click away? Why iterate on originality when the template is “proven to convert”?

    We built a world where good enough is the default. And then we trained the next generation of designers to treat it as the ceiling, not the floor.

    Is There Hope? Sure. But It Won’t Be on ThemeForest.

    If web design has any hope of surviving, it’s going to require rebellion. A willful rejection of efficiency for the sake of expression. A refusal to conform to “what works” and instead a deep dive into “what surprises.”

    The artists of the web—the weird ones, the brave ones, the ones who still code CSS by hand and animate things that serve no purpose other than joy—they’re out there. But they’re no longer mainstream. They’re not in the top 10 of Product Hunt. They’re in the margins, hiding out in codepens, personal blogs, and obscure corners of the indie web.

    If you want design to live, stop feeding the template machine. Build weird stuff. Ugly stuff. Confusing stuff. Human stuff.

    Because the web wasn’t meant to be a conveyor belt of sameness. It was supposed to be a playground. A punk zine. A laboratory. A little chaotic. A little broken. But undeniably alive.

    The Verdict: We Did This. Not AI.

    Let’s stop pointing fingers at artificial intelligence for killing creativity. AI didn’t templatify the web—we did. We chose speed over originality. Conversions over character. Convenience over craft.

    So yes, AI might finish the job. But let’s not forget who pulled the trigger first.

    And if the death of web design is inevitable? Let it die weird.

  • The New Age of Web Design: Profiling Over Personalization

    The next era of web design isn’t about aesthetics or convenience. It’s about understanding you so precisely that your online experience feels predestined. Websites will no longer simply personalize—they will profile you in real time. If that sounds unsettling, it’s because it is. But it’s also inevitable.

    Let’s be clear: web design has outgrown its early ambitions. What once focused on clarity and usability has shifted toward something far more invasive. Profiling is the new frontier—not the friendly, superficial “know your audience” approach. Instead, it’s a deep, psychological mapping of every facet of who you are.

    Tomorrow’s websites will predict your choices before you even sense them forming. They will assess what you might buy, how you think, and even what could spark your late-night frustration.

    Design as Digital Phrenology

    In the 19th century, phrenology claimed you could understand someone’s character by feeling their skull. Now, we’re creating its digital equivalent. Every scroll, pause, and rage-click becomes a data point that feeds a sophisticated psychological model.

    If you lean toward brutalist interfaces and grayscale color schemes, you’ll be labeled rebellious and nonconformist. Prefer clean serif fonts? The system might conclude you’re detail-oriented and anxious. These interpretations will inform every element you see online.

    The future of design isn’t simply about crafting a layout—it’s about mapping and exploiting behavioral patterns with granular precision.

    Goodbye Personas, Hello Dynamic Psychological Profiles

    User personas were once the backbone of design strategy—simple sketches of fictional users meant to guide decisions. But these archetypes are quickly becoming obsolete.

    In their place will be dynamic psychological profiles that adjust in real time. Machine learning models will watch your every action, cross-reference vast datasets, and generate evolving profiles that shape your experience moment by moment.

    You won’t just get a website that feels relevant. You’ll get one that reacts to your mindset, your impulses, and your vulnerabilities as they emerge.

    The End of Traditional UX

    Classic UX design valued clear paths and user autonomy. But autonomy rarely maximizes revenue. The next wave of web design will focus on gently removing choice—on guiding users to decisions that serve business objectives.

    Expect interfaces that use subtle dark patterns calibrated to your individual biases. Recommendations will feel perfectly timed not because they match your taste but because they trigger your fear of missing out. Design will be less about delight and more about persuasion.

    Web Designers as Behavioral Strategists

    In this new landscape, mastery of design tools like Figma will no longer be enough. The most influential designers will be part behavioral economist, part psychologist.

    They’ll need to understand cognitive biases such as loss aversion and hyperbolic discounting. Button copy will be tested for its emotional resonance as much as its clarity. If your audience values authority, a button labeled “Official” will outperform any aesthetic consideration. If they crave autonomy, “Take Control” will drive more conversions.

    Designers will become strategists skilled in decoding and shaping human behavior.

    The Challenge of Ethics

    Will this progression be regulated? Possibly—but ethics has always lagged behind innovation. A few companies will make ethical design part of their brand, and for a time, they’ll be praised. Eventually, though, many will be overtaken by competitors willing to exploit profiling to its fullest potential.

    The truth is simple: when one website can provoke an irresistible reaction, users will choose it over the platform that plays fair.

    Profiling as the New Creative Medium

    Where creativity once meant original layouts and fresh color schemes, it will soon mean discovering novel ways to analyze and influence the subconscious.

    The designer’s canvas will be user data. The brushstrokes will be algorithms. Your thoughts and emotions will provide the raw material.

    Already in Motion

    Look around—this isn’t some distant possibility. Amazon recommendations, TikTok’s For You page, and Google’s tailored results all rely on early forms of real-time profiling. The groundwork is laid.

    Designers are fast becoming architects of digital behavior. Their blueprints are no longer wireframes—they are psychological portraits.

    If that feels unsettling, it should. Because the web ahead won’t just reflect your preferences. It will predict and guide them, until choice itself feels like an illusion.

  • Hello world!

    Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!