Beyond Automation: How Designers Perceive AI as a Creative Partner in the Divergent Thinking Stages of UI/UX Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Divergent thinking activities, like research and ideation, are key drivers of innovation in UI/UX design. Existing research has explored AI's role in automating design tasks, but leaves a critical gap in understanding how AI specifically influences divergent thinking. To address this, we conducted interviews with 19 professional UI/UX designers, examining their use and perception of AI in these creative activities. We found that in this context, participants valued AI tools that offer greater control over ideation, facilitate collaboration, enhance efficiency to liberate creativity, and align with their visual habits. Our results indicated four key roles AI plays in supporting divergent thinking: aiding research, kick-starting creativity, generating design alternatives, and facilitating prototype exploration. Through this study, we provide insights into the evolving role of AI in the less-investigated area of divergent thinking in UI/UX design, offering recommendations for future AI tools that better support design innovation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it