Search for: All records

Generative AI has enabled novice designers to quickly create professional-looking visual representations for product concepts. However, novices have limited domain knowledge that could constrain their ability to write prompts that effectively explore a product design space. To understand how experts explore and communicate about design spaces, we conducted a formative study with 12 experienced product designers and found that experts — and their less-versed clients — often use visual references to guide co-design discussions rather than written descriptions. These insights inspired DesignWeaver, an interface that helps novices generate prompts for a text-to-image model by surfacing key product design dimensions from generated images into a palette for quick selection. In a study with 52 novices, DesignWeaver enabled participants to craft longer prompts with more domain-specific vocabularies, resulting in more diverse, innovative product designs. However, the nuanced prompts heightened participants’ expectations beyond what current text-to-image models could deliver. We discuss implications for AI-based product design support tools. 

An increasing number of tools now integrate AI support, extending the ability of users—especially novices—to produce creative work. While AI could play various roles within such tools, less is known about how the positioning of AI affects an individual’s cognitive processes and sense of agency. To examine this relationship, we built a collaborative whiteboard plugin that integrates an LLM into design templates to facilitate reflective brainstorming activities. We conducted a between-subjects experiment with N=47 participants assigned to one of three versions of AI-support—No-AI, AI input provided incrementally (Co-led) and AI provided all at once (AI-led)—to compare the allocation of cognitive resources. Results show that the positioning of AI scaffolds shifts the underlying cognition: AI-led participants devoted more time to comprehension and synthesis, which yielded more topically diverse problems and solutions. No-AI and Co-led participants spent more time revising content and reported higher confidence in their process.