Published 3 September 2026 · Source dated 1 September 2026
NN/g's ongoing usability research keeps making the same unglamorous point: watching real users still catches problems AI critique tools can't. It's not exciting, but it's still the job.
Amid all the noise about AI generating and reviewing designs, NN/g's core usability guidance hasn't moved: a handful of real users doing real tasks still surfaces friction that no AI critique pass catches, because it can't see confusion, hesitation or a wrong click in context. That's not a knock on AI tools — it's a reminder of what they can't replace.
This counts as established practice, not trending, precisely because it's decades old and still holds up. For a junior designer building credibility, being the person who actually tests with users — while others just ship AI-generated mockups — is a genuinely useful differentiator.
Coach
Book 3 quick 15-minute usability sessions on your current project this week — even rough ones beat zero testing.
Jakob Nielsen's ten usability heuristics have been the backbone of UX critique since 1994. They're worth relearning properly, not just skimming the list.
AI tools can generate screens fast, but they don't validate usability — that's still on you. Classic heuristic evaluation is more relevant, not less, now that production speed has gone up.
More first drafts are arriving via AI agents, but the fundamentals of a good design critique haven't moved. IxDF's literature on critique still holds regardless of who — or what — made the first version.