Max van IJsselmuiden

I create and therefore I am

Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

What a pretentious title. I am aware. But it fits.

Recently I have been doing a lot of thinking of how I want to set up my life.

What makes me happy? What gives me energy? What drains my energy? How should I spend my time?

I don't see this as a box to tick once and move on. It's something that I'll keep coming back to all my life. Staying critical of how you spend your time.

So this is a post straight from my mind, straight from my heart, just putting it out there.

Without getting into too many details, at the end of 2024, something in my life shifted. For the first time after a long time, I was alone with my thoughts again. This might sound like a midlife crisis. Maybe it is. Either way, here we are.

I felt like I had not been critical of how I spent my time for a long time. I just 'went along' with life without really 'stopping to think'. At least, that's how I look back at it. I've had an amazing life so far, it's just that I feel I could have done 'more'. I could have done better. So now, I'm trying to do better.

I went on a motorcycle touring trip at the beginning of 2025. I bought a drone and decided to make some videos about it. Because I bought the drone I thought the videos might actually be worth watching, so I did my best, and put them on YouTube.

To my surprise, people actually started watching the videos and commented. So many nice comments, which I am still very appreciative of.

I loved it.

The trip made me realise that I can be on my own, making memories, out in the world, and have a good time while doing so. I socialised with travellers, I rode incredible roads and I never felt like I was doing it alone, because I would be recording it to share with friends, family and the world.

Nearly every day I would wake up and think 'what to do today' and the choice would be all mine. A great freedom to have. I'm privileged.

Fast forward a couple months. I was not having as much fun at my job as I used to. My rent was extremely high. My savings were going down. I had always wanted to go on an adventure abroad, to see the world. Something needed to change.

I visited my parents over the weekend, I don't remember details, but I told my family that I wanted to work abroad. New Zealand came up. Family lives there. I've always wanted to go, but never made any concrete plans. There were many reasons to go. Many reasons to not go. I decided to make it happen.

Fast forward a couple months. End of 2025 I moved to New Zealand. I managed to land a really cool job. I had about two months to travel around the country — and I did that in the way I love to travel: on a motorbike.

So, once more, with my new motorbike, I traveled around the country. This time I made over 15 videos (I'm still in the process of editing). People watched and commented and I became YouTube partner on the 1st of January of 2026. A very cool milestone I never thought I'd achieve.

Anyway, there's a point here, of course, and I'm getting to it, but you'll need this context first.

Moving to another country (especially on the complete other side of the world) is as tough as it is fun. One thing is for sure, it sets you up with something unique: a complete reset.

A reset of your life structure. A reset of your social circle (physically). A reset of 'who you are'.

I could have gone and put up a funny accent, pretended I was a Russian spy, or a successful olympics athlete. Just to 'take on a different identity' which we all have done some times when going out, but that's not my point here.

The point is that you've got time to decide how you want to orchestrate your life. So, I've been focusing my thoughts on that lately. A lot.

It's not an easy question — or perhaps better worded, it's not an easy answer. I think a lot of people avoid this question altogether and just 'go with the flow'. If it works, hey, that's fine. It's all very personal anyway. I found myself really asking the question and figuring it out.

While I'm still in the process of 'figuring it out', I've found that, looking back at my life, almost everything that has made me happy has to do with creation.

I've always loved being creative. One of my favourite activities as a kid at school was 'knutselen' which is a Dutch word for 'crafting' or 'puttering'. We made objects from all sorts of materials, papier-maché, wood, yarn, wire. At home, I spent a lot of time building a pond with a waterfall.

I tinkered on my computer. Built websites. Did graphic design. Loved Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 (I still do). Designed the school year booklet. Did the video editing for the projects we had for an arts class. Made the video graphics for the local football club. On holidays with my friends, I would record everything and create a video.

My point is, for each of those good memories I was creating something. It's how I like to spend my time. Even now, writing this, I know I will feel good once this is a published page, even if not many people will read it, it's a 'finished product'.

The world is a chaotic mess. Always has been. It's a privilege to even have the freedom and wealth to decide how you want to plan your life, living in the chaos. When reading 'Man's Search For Meaning', Viktor Frankl found that in the darkest of moments with the littlest freedom of possible, the people clung on to something, and that something was 'to have a choice'. It's a heavy reference, I'm aware, but it's the most extreme example I know for showing the value of choice.

I met a dad and a son on my trip around the South Island a couple months ago. Stefan and Theo. Stefan mentioned that he switched jobs to become a builder, he said "I used to be an accountant, and then I decided — I want to be proud of what I do." "At the end of the day you've got a finished product, and you can say 'I made that'". It's something that resonated with me.

So, whatever happens, I'll make room for creating. Whether it's objects, digital products, blog posts, videos, art, drawings. My schedule will have to make time for it.

"At the end of the day you've got a finished product, and you can say 'I made that'."

I love my job because I'm creating on a daily basis. The digital product that I design is my new 'pond', the interactions are the new 'waterfall'.

I'll make the choice to create, selfish as I am, because it makes me happy.

I tried reading a book every week in 2025

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT

In 2025, I set myself a very ambitious goal: read a book every week. I've never read much, and always struggled to finish what I started when reading. While I didn't manage to reach my goal, setting the overly ambitious goal helped me get into reading.

It's been a while since I've updated the blog. Since the last post, some big things happened. I decided to move from The Netherlands to New Zealand on a working holiday visa. Shortly after I received the visa I quit my job and made the necessary preparations. I flew to Auckland in November, to live at an apartment next to family. I'm writing this paragraph from that same apartment.

After I moved, I bought a new motorcycle and traveled across New Zealand. And vlogged about it on YouTube, which was a lot of fun.

Now, the adventurous lifestyle had to end at some point, since a man cannot thrive without financial stability. I've been very lucky to have found an incredibly fun and challenging (which is good) job at Sandfield in Auckland.

Expect more design-related (and AI, definitely AI, yes) articles soon, now that I'm back at work. When I opened my website to update my portfolio I found this page in my drafts. This page was intended to give a full overview of all the 52 books which I had successfully read in a year.

I was doing very well at first, on schedule and even ahead of schedule halfway through the year. It's easy to read when you're having fun. It's the books that you struggle with that make it hard to keep it up. Moving to another country does not help. Evidently I did not succeed (and I owe my good friend a bottle of whisky), but nonetheless I'm proud of having ignited a spark for reading. I read 36 books in a year, while my average would have been closer to 2 for the rest of my life before.

I hesitated to publish this or to just delete it. In the end, you're one of the few people actually reading this - which shows that my conclusion was 'eh, why not'.

I mostly read nonfiction (self-help, design, psychology, philosophy, history), with some fiction. The books that I still think about are The Psychology of Money, The Alchemist and Of Mice and Men. For something serious, I do recommend reading 'The Art of Choosing' as it is a fascinating insight into the human mind. For something unserious, I definitely recommend reading 'A Man Called Ove' - Ove might be my new favourite character.

The list

I hope that this semi-organised list can potentially spark some interest in reading for you, as it did to me.

Nonfiction

Psychology

History

Philosophy

Design

Finance

Science

Business

Hobby

Fiction

Science Fiction

Humor

Classics

Historical Fiction

Apple trapped me in their ecosystem — and I love it

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT

Over a decade ago I was a PC-building, Windows-gaming, open standards, Android advocate. I scoffed at Apple's walled garden. Then I bought an iPhone, followed by a MacBook for my studies. Now I own more Apple devices than you can count on two hands and I get it: Apple won.

Not because they made the best individual products, but because they made the best system. Here are some examples throughout my day.

A day in the life

I wake up with my Apple Watch. My iPhone brings me the news, and shows me the analysis of how well I slept (sometimes). I ask Siri via my HomePod to turn on the lights. At work from home days, I turn on my Mac Mini — and start work on my Studio Display. When I sit down at my desk and turn on the Mac, the Mac unlocks since I'm wearing my Apple Watch. I join meetings using the camera in the display and my AirPods Pro.

Whenever I've read something interesting on my phone, a small notification pops up in the Dock on my Mac. Essentially the system goes 'do you want to continue here?'. If I click it, the article opens up. All thanks to what Apple calls Handoff.

Similarly, whenever I need to transfer a bit of text between my computer and phone, I copy it on one device, and paste to the other. If I switch from using my Mac to listening to a podcast on my phone, my AirPods transition to my phone.

If I need to make a sketch for work, I use Freeform with the iPad and Apple Pencil. The sketch is automatically synchronised and I can use it on my Mac. I could also place my iPad next to my computer, move my mouse towards it to control the iPad, allowing me to drag the sketch to the Mac and continue. Feels like magic.

If I lose my keys or wallet, I can use my watch, phone or Mac to locate them with the AirTag.

Whenever I watch a show, I turn on my TV with the Apple TV remote. If it's late at night, I take out my AirPods and the TV requests 'Press {button} to connect'. If not, the HomePods play the TV sound.

If somebody rings my doorbell, it pops up on my phone, watch, Mac or TV. Not all at once, just whichever device is closest to me. On all the devices, I can view the video, and talk to the person standing in front of my door.

If you take away all these products and replace them with solutions from different brands, the ease-of-use would be reduced drastically. I love using these products, and when they work together it's a great experience. This is what I'm paying for.

The lock-in

Looking at individual devices in isolation misses what makes this work. Other companies might have made better phones, tablets, earbuds, speakers, media boxes, and so forth. However, when looking at it holistically, you lose the perks of these devices 'working together'. You lose the perks of the system.

If Samsung releases a phone that's objectively better, what then? I'd lose my iCloud photos - not just the storage, but the seamless synchronisation across devices. I'd have to reinstall my apps, sure, but then what? I'd lose the seamless transition with my AirPods, the universal clipboard, the Handoff magic. No more AirDrop. What do I do with my Apple Watch?

Different earbuds? OK, but forget about the continuity features.

Different laptop? Never (although Liquid Glass is a big dent).

Different tablet? Forget about the 'magic' interactions.

When a better product doesn't disrupt the system, I'll switch. I use a Keychron keyboard because I love how it types. I have a Logitech mouse because I hate the Magic Mouse (though I keep an Apple Trackpad next to it). These choices don't break the magic, so I'm comfortable making them.

Other companies are trying to build their own ecosystems. Google and Samsung are catching up. But Apple's been doing this for a long time and it shows. The question is whether the lock-in delivers enough value to justify the premium. For me, it does.

Thank you for reading. Have a good day.

'Atomic Habits' on one sheet

Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT

If you're time-poor or just want the actionable parts, this should get you started. The book goes deeper with stories and science, but these principles are enough to start building better habits.

Back in April 2025 when I read the popular book 'Atomic Habits' by James Clear, a friend had told me "this could have been one sheet". When I was reading, partially biased because I had put in the effort to read the whole book, I initially disagreed.

Looking back at it now, I must say her remark was very close to the truth.

Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones James Clear · Psychology

Because the concepts that are explained are so simple, the book feels slightly too long to make its point, however, the point it does make is very powerful and helpful. Perhaps it is so powerful because of its simplicity. It'll definitely help me avoid my bad habits and steer towards my good habits. Recommended!

In any case, the tips in the book are useful. It's just more extensive than it has to be. Here's my cheat sheet for the book. Save some time and improve your habits and life!

The four laws of behavior change

Make it obvious

Design your environment so the cue is visible. Example: Put your sports shoes by the door. This works both ways: out of sight, out of mind.

Make it attractive

Pair the habit with something you enjoy. Example: Listen to your favorite podcast only while at the gym. Your brain craves rewards.

Make it easy

Reduce friction. Don't start with "run 5km". Start with "put on sports clothes". The 2-minute rule: scale any habit down to something you can do in two minutes. Often the first 2-minutes are enough to get started and do more anyway.

Make it satisfying

Give yourself immediate rewards. Example: Track your habits. Reward yourself for streaks. What gets rewarded gets repeated.

Breaking a bad habit? Invert these laws. Make it invisible, unattractive, difficult, and unsatisfying.

A few more bits worth knowing

Systems over goals

Winners and losers have the same goals. The difference is the system. Focus on the daily process, not the end result.

1% better compounds

Small improvements add up. 1% better each day = 37x better after a year.

Identity-based habits

Don't aim to "read more". Aim to "become a reader". Every action is a vote for the type of person you want to become.

Never miss twice

Missing once is an accident. Missing twice is the start of a new habit: the habit of not doing it.

That's the cheat sheet. Good luck, hope this helps!

You'll start noticing this effect everywhere

Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT

My friend said to me the other day: "I was talking about buying a house and potentially moving to Spain. Then I opened up my phone, and the first ad I saw was for a house. The second ad I saw was for a trip to Spain - would you believe it?!"

This is not the first time someone has mentioned a story like this to me. Of course, part of this is due to the scarily accurate profiling of Meta and other ad companies, but a huge part to this is due to our own brain. We're experiencing frequency illusion.

The frequency illusion is a cognitive bias in which we notice a specific concept more frequently after recently becoming aware of said concept. I've recognised this particular phenomenon in real-life so often, talking about it with people around me, to the point where I've decided to write a bit about this. The funny thing is, if this is the first time you've read about this effect, you'll be able to recognise frequency illusion when it is happening to you - thus experiencing the frequency illusion effect for the concept of frequency illusion. Still with me?

This effect is also known as the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon - which is actually a West German terrorist group from the 1970s. A newspaper reader encountered the Baader-Meinhof name twice within 24 hours, then started noticing the name more frequently.

A personal example for me would be the term 'guerrilla usability testing', which is basically a do-it-yourself approach for a user test. Given the constraints of time on money in the 'real world' as opposed to the 'ideal world' where most design frameworks assume we have all the time and resources we need to perform our jobs, I've always been keen on 'quick and dirty' user testing. For me, this meant testing prototypes with a coworker, family member or a friend. It's a great way to cut out the time-consuming parts of testing, and far more preferable than not testing at all.

The term 'guerrilla' comes from the military tactics, where 'guerrilla warfare' is warfare fought by irregulars in fast-moving and small-scale actions. Guerrilleros were Spanish and Portuguese 'irregulars' during the Peninsular War.

Anyway, I've learned about 'guerrilla' no less than one week ago and I've started recognising the term in design blogs ever since. The frequency illusion would suggest that this effect is happening more often than it actually is. This phenomenon can be explained via two psychological effects: selective attention and confirmation bias.

Selective attention refers to focusing on specific information while ignoring distractions. Selective attention directs focus to information we are looking for; having recently learned of a new concept. As Sheena Iyengar writes in 'The Art of Choosing', a great book which I'm reading right now:

"Humans do, indeed, have two interconnected and yet distinct systems for processing information. (...) The first, which we'll call the automatic system, operates quickly, effortlessly, and subconsciously. (...) In contrast, the reflective system, driven not by raw sensation but by logic and reason, is one that we have to turn on and tune into."

Excerpt from The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar

Selective attention happens mostly in the automatic part of our brain. When reading about 'guerrilla' I made the connection to something I've always done, but didn't know it had a name for it, thus focusing and selecting on the word 'guerrilla' and therefore learning a new concept.

Confirmation bias refers to the tendency of seeking evidence which confirms our beliefs, while overlooking evidence of the contrary. By focusing on the word 'guerrilla', I noticed it more, confirming to me I'm 'not the only one' that uses guerrilla testing and appreciates it for its value. Now, I recognise the term everywhere.

The effect is visible everywhere. In marketing, companies deliberately create initial exposure knowing consumers will then notice their products more frequently. In medicine, rare conditions get overlooked due to unfamiliarity. Start house hunting and you'll see 'for sale' signs everywhere. When car shopping, research a specific car and half of the vehicles on the road seem to be that car.

Recognising frequency illusion can help you make better decisions. When you notice something appearing "everywhere," pause and ask: "Am I seeing this more because I'm looking for it, or because it's actually more common?"

And now that you know about it, you'll probably start recognising it... more frequently.

The dangerous comfort of AI answers

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT

A knowledgeable friend recently argued that people are using Large Language Models (LLM) to replace Google for reasoning and answering questions, but these models were never good at this. Their strengths, she said, is to extract meaning from text and build upon it, making them useful primarily for writing.

She's both right and wrong, and understanding why explains both LLM popularity and limitations.

ChatGPT is a household name now. Most people don't know GPT stands for "Generative Pre-trained Transformer" and honestly, why would they? To users, it's a box where you ask anything and get an answer with reasoning. Incredible. A technological breakthrough.

The name tells you everything.

Generative: the model creates text (or images, videos, audio, software code).

Pre-trained: it learned from existing data, not real-time information.

Transformer: a type of neural network architecture that processes patterns in sequences.

Nothing in that name says "truth engine" or "fact database". It says "pattern-based text generator."

At its core, artificial intelligence processes data, identifies patterns, and follows instructions. It cannot think, empathize, or reason. Instead, it replicates how people use knowledge without actually understanding it.

The disconnect between what the technology is (a transformer generating text based on training) and how we use it (as an oracle for answers) is where, in my eyes, danger lies. It's when we trust these confident-sounding responses for important scenarios such as medical advice, legal guidance, or financial decisions.

The Google replacement that isn't

When you ask Google a complex question, you get links (at least, before the AI Overview feature). We were used to scanning links, picking sources, and doing the thinking ourselves. Now, when you ask an LLM, you get an answer that feels like understanding, because they're better at understanding intent and context. Google requires translating problems into keywords. LLMs let you explain problems like you would to a colleague. That's powerful, even when the response is hallucinated nonsense, such as an example I mentioned in an earlier blog: advising people to eat rocks.

What LLMs think they are

I asked several leading generative AI chatbots to define the strength of an LLM in a single sentence. Yes, I'm aware of the irony.

"The strength of an LLM is fundamentally defined by its ability to generalize learned patterns from training data to perform well on novel tasks and reasoning challenges it has never explicitly seen before." Claude Opus 4.1 (new chat, extended thinking)

Notice the focus on patterns and generalization.

"An LLM's strength is its proven ability to reliably produce correct, well-reasoned, context-aware outputs across tasks at acceptable latency and cost while adhering to instructions and safety constraints." GPT-5 Thinking (new chat)

'Correct', 'well-reasoned' and 'context-aware', but what is 'correct'?

"The strength of an LLM is best defined by its ability to generate coherent, relevant, and contextually appropriate text across a wide range of tasks and domains." Gemini 2.5 Flash (new chat)

Very to the point: generating text.

Every model emphasizes different aspects, but they're all describing sophisticated pattern matching. These answers do not mention fact-based information.

The missing pieces

Current limitations are fundamental to how these systems work:

No true understanding

LLMs generate statistically likely responses based on patterns.

No verification

LLMs are equally confident when right or completely wrong.

No real-time awareness

Training data is static.

The paradox of utility

My friend was right: LLMs aren't built for facts or reasoning. But she was wrong about them being 'just' for writing. They're transformation engines that excel at any language-based task: summarizing, translating ideas across domains, adjusting tone or finding patterns.

Relevant read: LLMs aren't world models

Despite limitations, LLMs have become indispensable. Why? Most daily tasks don't require perfect accuracy, they require good-enough understanding and helpful transformation. Writing emails, summarizing documents, brainstorming ideas, these play to LLM strengths. You're asking for language work, not facts.

Problems arise when we treat LLMs as crystal balls rather than language tools.

Moving forward

We should learn how to use these new tools appropriately.

Use LLMs for drafting, not fact-checking.

For synthesis, not authoritative answers.

For creative connections, not systemic proofs.

The technology is transformative when we understand its true nature: a powerful pattern recognition system that works with language. The real breakthrough isn't having tools that can answer anything, it's having tools that can help us think and communicate better. That's transformative enough when we use it right.

What's your experience? Are you using LLMs as Google replacements, writing assistants, or something else entirely?

Artificial, not intelligent

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT

How rushed and unwanted AI features are making software worse and more expensive

I've been an avid fan of Firefox. Despite the recent controversy, and the repetitive frustratingly obnoxious decisions that the Mozilla's management have been making (that is another topic), it's been the best browser for me. A habit that I have is that I like to select text when browsing the web. Recently, a new 'ask AI' icon would pop up. Even more so, screen real estate would be taken by an AI-focused sidebar. Immediately I was frustrated and looking for ways to turn it off.

Usually, when I try to make a point, it takes a lot of research and a lot of work to find relevant examples. The push to add AI to everything is so large, that one does not have to look hard to find absurd cases. Logitech is building a mouse with an integrated AI button in it. Samsung is building refrigerators with AI integrations, allowing people to "share pictures, stream music and videos, access recipes (...)", combined with an 'AI Home' to 'streamline daily tasks'. Oh and 'AI Vision Inside (TM)', which actually seems to be somewhat useful. Now your fridge can tell you you're out of eggs and show you a YouTube video about it.

Google introduced AI Overviews a bit too enthusiastically, reducing the percentage the AI Overviews are shown to customers drastically to 7 percent of all searches last year. The overviews seem to have an undesired effect where users are less likely to click on the actual search results. Even when shown, it wasn't always helpful. Some funny examples are the AI overviews telling users to 'eat one rock per day' or to use 'non-toxic glue' to make cheese stick to pizza better. Perhaps because of the training on the reddit data (guess from my side). The non-human program doesn't seem to understand sarcasm.

LinkedIn added an AI writer helper to help write your posts for you - giving people one more reason to avoid their platform. They urge users to stick to their own thoughts, "We strongly recommend editing and adding your own thoughts to ensure the post reflects your point of view".

Tesla forced integration of the xAI Grok AI assistant in their vehicles, and their 'Full Self-Driving' mode absurdly gains the ability to honk. Quote: "Humans have developed different types of honks, such as short, friendly taps of the horn or louder, longer horn presses for emergency situations. It'll be interesting to see if Tesla also implements different types of honks as well." No comment necessary.

WhatsApp introduced a new floating circle button which seemingly changed position every other day. Meta really wanted users to press it. Meta AI integration. Humane built a $499 AI wearable that didn't work, customers who have bought one were informed that it will stop working (it wasn't really working anyway). Walmart will use AI to change prices in real-time, making it possible that the groceries you picked have increased in price by the time you are at the check-out.

When you consider these examples - it's very hard to convince yourself that all of these ideas started with customer feedback, or with a genuine use case nonetheless. It's not that these features are useless. It's that they were rushed out, half-baked, and no one asked for them. According to a 2024 survey by SellCell of 1,000 smartphone users in the U.S., 73% of iPhone users and even 87% of Samsung users say AI features 'add little to no value'. A recent study by METR shows that surprisingly, when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without. AI makes them slower. Most of the consumers do not want or need these features. This isn't innovation, it's feature theater performed for investors, while users pay the bill.

Money talks

The disconnect is strong, companies are forcing AI features that users actively resist, while simultaneously raising prices to fund these unwanted 'innovations'. All these AI programs are costly, eventually, the numbers do not add up - we're all complicit in making the number one AI hardware builder, NVIDIA, very very rich. And consumers are starting to pay for it.

Adobe included AI in their creative software suite and repeatedly increased their pricing significantly. The price increases are notable in all branches, from software and productivity (Adobe, Microsoft, Google), CRM (Salesforce, Hubspot), Design (Figma, Sketch, Canva), communication (Zoom, Slack), development (GitHub, Codex, Replit). Canva's Teams pricing plan increased from $120/year to $500/year (300% increase) explicitly stating AI as the primary justification.

According to Menlo Ventures' recent research, merely 3% (!) of AI users actually pay for the premium services voluntarily. In their research this is mentioned as "a strikingly low conversion rate and one of the largest and fastest-emerging monetization gaps in recent consumer tech history", in other words, opportunities to make money.

The pattern is clearly visible, companies are using AI as an cover, to cover for significant price increases on products that worked fine before. Basically, consumers are paying more for features they did not necessarily have any desire for. A good quote I've seen pop-up randomly over the past few years, you might have seen it, is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes, so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". I could only trace back this quote to 'Joanna Maciejewska'.

I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.

Joanna Maciejewska

The positive side

It's not all negative, of course. The recent technological advancements are allowing us to improve our everyday lives. The key lies in the intention and execution. The article you are reading now has been reviewed and restructured over and over by several different AI assistants. I didn't need this assistance to make my point, but the assistants helped me sharpen it. The article is better because of AI, not despite it.

I still wrote my article in Obsidian, 'dumb' software (as in, no obvious or obtrusive AI has been integrated). Whenever I was stuck, or in need of feedback, I chose for assistance with Claude. This is the difference between pull and push revelation, between voluntary use and forced interruptions. These tools succeed because they're optional, contextual and genuinely useful. Good AI implementations fit the user's needs. It adapts to workflows rather than hijacking them.

I'm a designer working on CRM software for housing corporations. We aim to support our users in their current workflows with the newly available opportunities. We present AI summaries on each relation's info card, quickly allowing our help centre customers to see what the latest status is of this particular person. I've looked into on AI transcribing and later summarizing phone calls to speed up reporting. One could also have an AI agent answer the calls immediately, that's not necessarily a path that matches the companies vision and strategy. Improve workflows for the actual human, the user.

Craftsmanship in software

Everybody loves craftsmanship. Whether it's in architecture, physical products, arts or in software. We recognize and appreciate when something has been made with time and consideration. When soul has been poured into a solution that actually respects the problem. Something built to last.

Think of a hand-coded website that loads fast, feels smooth, and shows that the one who has built the website put their thoughts into it. A well-designed mechanical watch. A timeless chair. A beautifully designed car or motorcycle. A tool that works perfectly for one job. Craftsmanship is about intentionality.

When you take a step back and look at todays AI-driven pace, the 'ship fast, fix later' mentality, the contrast becomes obvious. AI-generated images, AI-generated text, AI-generated emoji's. Artificial, artificial... There's a strong desire for real products, craftsmanship. I'd say it's not too long before we see an increase of products that will be branded as 'Made by humans'.

The goals of software should ultimately be about the users. I understand that money matters. Revenue gets the ball rolling. This shouldn't be the only goal. Software that is used by millions and billions of users, is software that people can rely on. Whether it is to do their work, to communicate or to have fun, the builders of this software should keep the responsibility of taking care of their users in mind.

No need to solve problems that have been artificially created. Problems that were around, problems that need solving should be solved. The best software solves real problems. When that happens, when the tools actually help and stay out of your way, when they feel like they were specifically made for you, you'll notice.

Craft matters.

Apple's Liquid Glass: When aesthetics beat function

Sun, 20 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT

If you're a designer and you haven't heard of Apple's Liquid Glass yet, either you've been offline for weeks or you just don't care. Either way: I envy you.

Apple recently announced Liquid Glass at WWDC 2025—their new transparent design system for all operating systems. Once again, aesthetics beats function. These interfaces have obvious readability issues that Apple's own design standards should have caught.

I watched the initial presentation during WWDC 2025. My initial thought was: they're getting people used to transparent UIs for spatial computing (mixed reality environments where digital interfaces blend with the physical world). My immediate second thought was, 'wow, you can't read a thing - are they serious?'.

Skeuomorphism done right (and wrong)

Designers have always borrowed from the real world, though these metaphors often outlive their origins. The universal save icon? Still a floppy disk, even though entire generations have never seen one. Attaching a document? A paperclip. Delete something? Trash can.

These started as clear functional metaphors, but many have become purely learned conventions. We know what the save icon means not because we work with floppy disks, but because we've been taught this symbol equals 'save.'

Apple's been a pioneer for this, especially on mobile where touchscreen interfaces were entirely new to users. Earlier computing had already established foundational metaphors—the desktop with folders and a trash can, documents and filing systems. But Apple took this further on mobile. The iBooks design? Representing a bookcase. Notes looking like a yellow legal pad. Contacts as an address book. Calendar with leather binding.

Skeuomorphism served a real purpose when computing was new. These visual metaphors helped users understand unfamiliar digital concepts by connecting them to familiar physical objects. The trash can for deletion, buttons that looked pressable—these weren't just decorative choices. They solved actual usability problems by providing clear functional metaphors.

So it's no surprise that Apple is doubling down on transparency for their new design system. Transparency in spatial computing makes sense—digital UI that's not too in-your-face, intertwined with the real world. I can see the appeal of that future.

The problem isn't that transparency is inherently bad design. In the right context, it works beautifully. The issue is when design decisions prioritize how something looks over how it actually functions. This is where things get problematic. And that's exactly what's happening with Liquid Glass on traditional interfaces.

Consistency at what cost?

The problem with Liquid Glass isn't transparency itself. It's that Apple is prioritizing visual consistency over readability. While this creates visual unity, it diminishes usability on traditional interfaces where transparency serves no functional purpose. Look at the screenshots: text becomes harder to read when layered over busy backgrounds. Interface elements blend together. What should be clear visual hierarchies become muddled.

I understand why Apple wants this consistency. Unified design languages across platforms make sense and can improve usability when done right.

However, I feel that the gains of consistency are far outweighed by the diminished readability. And I'm sure Apple knows it. So is this just another example of the familiar tendency in design where aesthetic decisions override functional ones?

Take modern car dashboards. The shift from physical knobs to touchscreens looked more premium and modern, but buried perfectly functional controls in digital menus that require you to look away from driving and thus making cars less safe to operate.

Apple's doing something similar with Liquid Glass—applying a design system optimized for spatial computing to traditional interfaces where consistency creates problems rather than solving them.

Spatial computing as an exception

Transparency works in visionOS where you need to see your physical surroundings for safety and spatial awareness. It also maintains immersion, as transparent interfaces feel like looking through glass while staying present in your physical space.

But here's the key difference—even visionOS transparency comes with major caveats. Apple's design guidelines require increased font weights and warn developers about stacking transparent materials because it impacts legibility and reduces contrast. This spatial computing rationale doesn't translate to traditional 2D interfaces.

On phones and computers, transparency serves no safety function. Instead, it introduces readability problems without any of the spatial computing benefits.

Apple's Liquid Glass may win design accolades, but history suggests it will join the long list of beautiful solutions that made computing harder, not easier, for the people who actually have to use it every day. Unless they get it right.

Early signs suggest they're already realizing this. Later iOS 26 beta releases show Apple reducing transparency and adding blur effects for better readability.

Just like car manufacturers are now discovering as they bring back physical controls. Sometimes the old knob worked better than the shiny new touchscreen. The digital interfaces we interact with daily deserve the same consideration: function over form, every time.

This post has sparked some discussion on Hacker News.

Side note

Design isn't just about aesthetics—it's about function. When design fails, we feel immediate frustration, even if we don't recognize it as a design problem. These moments aren't just annoyances—they're design failures, symptoms of a deeper problem. Each represents a failure of design thinking, where creators lost sight of the actual humans who would use their products and systems.

How to turn getting water into rocket science

Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 GMT

This is part of my ongoing series exploring frustrating user experiences we encounter in everyday life. These real-world UX failures show how design thinking (or lack thereof) forgets common sense.

A coworker dared me to try our new office water boiler. The assignment: make a cup of tea. Challenge accepted!

Walking up to the boiler, I noticed its clean, 'modern' design.

I started to take a critical look at the buttons: on the left, a water droplet with a checkmark; on the right, a water droplet falling into a cup. Both must activate water… somehow? In the middle of the 'display' there's a 'cold' symbol and a 'hot' symbol with a few dots below it. This section must indicate how hot or cold the water output is.

I pushed the left button—water spits out in the middle! Not where I expected my cup to go.

I tried the right button—same result. And the water didn't seem to be hot.

Confused and dazed, I noticed that on top of the water boiler there's a sheet with visual explanations. A manual! This is great. This will help me perform my task of making tea.

The manual showed the left side for cold water, right side for hot.

Step 1: hover your hand over the left side.

I've done that before, but then pressed the button. Let's try it without pressing.

I hover my hand over the left side, nothing really happens. I notice a lock symbol with '2s'—apparently it takes two seconds to unlock. I hover for two seconds. The lock 'charges up' in the middle but stays red and locked.

Step 2: move hand left-to-right to unlock the hot water (I think?).

I hover for two seconds, the lock charges, then I move my hand left to right. The lock turns green! It works!

I was so happy that it worked that I forgot to actually use the hot water. I waited too long, and it seems I have to redo everything again.

Step 3: hover hand over the right side.

After performing all the steps I just learned, hot water finally emerged! I remembered from the beginning that the cup was supposed to go in the middle, so I caught the hot water. I've still got a bit of the cold water in my cup from my previous attempts.

A lukewarm tea it will be for now.

I've spent the next fifteen minutes just thinking about all the processes that have come to this solution for a water boiler. What would be the advantage of this interaction? Potentially, not having to touch the device to interact with it (you'll feel like a wizard), and thus not having to clean it. Is that advantage really worth all this trouble?

For simple tasks like these, there's something wrong with the product design if you need the manual to be able to operate it.

Update July 20, 2025: This exact water boiler in the office has been replaced by an older model. You guessed it: the one with buttons.

Design isn't just about aesthetics—it's about function. When design fails, we feel immediate frustration, even if we don't recognize it as a design problem. These moments aren't just annoyances—they're design failures, symptoms of a deeper problem. Each represents a failure of design thinking, where creators lost sight of the actual humans who would use their products and systems.

University wayfinding: A master class in confusion

Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT

This is part of my ongoing series exploring frustrating user experiences we encounter in everyday life. These real-world UX failures show how design thinking often forgets the humans who use products and services.

Every now and then, I give workshops and lectures at universities. To prepare, I visit the offices of very smart people - professors. In this case, I was meeting a professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University of Groningen.

His email instructions were straightforward: go to the Harmonie building, officially known as building 1311, and find room 0723. Simple enough.

I had studied at the University of Groningen myself, so I already knew where the Harmonie building was. That meant I could safely ignore 1311—one less thing to think about. I walked in, climbed the stairs and headed for level 7, assuming the 7 in 0723 referred to the floor number. Common sense.

At level 7, I was met with four possible directions. No problem—I'd just follow the signs. I scanned my surroundings. Toilets. Department X. Department Y. Nothing about room numbers. Inconvenient.

Plan B: pick a hallway and try my luck.

I started with the closest one. A few turns later, I found 0723. Perfect! Except… the name on the door wasn't the professor's. Maybe he moved in recently and they haven't updated the nameplate yet? I waited a couple of minutes, then checked again. 0723. He must be late.

Wait. There was a number before 0723: 1314.0723.

What was the correct building number again?

I pulled up my calendar: 1311.0723.

Wrong building.

Back to the main staircase. Another hallway. This time, I paid closer attention to the room numbers. 1311.0756. 1311.0758. 1311. Okay, so I was in the right building now. Unfortunately the room numbers still didn't match the one I needed.

Two more hallways to go.

And there it was—finally—the right office, with the right name on the door. Just to be sure, I checked the number again. 1311.0723. The professor greeted me and made a joke about my tardiness. I suggested we meet at my office next time.

Design isn't just about aesthetics—it's about function. When design fails, we feel immediate frustration, even if we don't recognize it as a design problem. These moments aren't just annoyances—they're design failures, symptoms of a deeper problem. Each represents a failure of design thinking, where creators lost sight of the actual humans who would use their products and systems.

Food delivery fiasco

Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT

You recently moved house, after a day of hard work, renovating with a friend - you pick the easy food route. After all, both of you are exhausted and the kitchen isn't even close to being useful. You're going to order some food online.

You have to log in. No option to even see menu's without a log in. Sigh. Slightly frustrated, you register an account, and upon registration, the app tells you 'you already have an account'. OK, you knew that, you just forgot.

You try to log in with your common passwords. After several attempts, it is time to give up - you'll need to use the reset password functionality. After a password reset, a back-and-forth between the app and e-mail, you manage to quickly order food. Two pizza's pepperoni from your favorite place incoming. It has been a while, but these pizza's have always been good. You inform your friend. Food has been ordered.

It takes a while.

You hear your friend's stomach growling, you mention it should be here anytime. The mood is deteriorating by the minute.

After 1 hour, you get a message from the app. Food must be on the way. As you check the message you notice it says 'Did you like your order?'. Why would they ask that if the food isn't even here yet?

You check your e-mail.

The pizza's have been delivered to your old house.

Design isn't just about aesthetics—it's about function. When design fails, we feel immediate frustration, even if we don't recognize it as a design problem. These moments aren't just annoyances—they're design failures, symptoms of a deeper problem. Each represents a failure of design thinking, where creators lost sight of the actual humans who would use their products and systems.

The Scissor Paradox

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT

This is part of my ongoing series exploring frustrating user experiences we encounter in everyday life. These real-world UX failures show how design thinking (or lack thereof) forgets common sense.

After some more renovating days, you're working in the garden. To set out the terrace you're planning on building, you'll need some ropes and poles. You found some ropes and sticks that'll do. As you set off to this task, you quickly realize that the rope is too long. No scissors in the house yet.

Off to the hardware store for some scissors. After searching and checking several lanes you finally found some office supplies and scissors. Perhaps a different store would have been better, but after all, you found scissors. Happy that you finally found the scissors, you quickly pay and head off. The cashier requested if you had a customer card of the store. After a 'no', the follow-up question was 'Would you like to have one?'. You replied, 'No, I'll just have the scissors, thanks.'

Arriving home, motivated to continue with the terrace you try to use the scissors. The scissors are wrapped in a hard plastic casing. You try to break the casing but it is extremely sturdy. Funnily enough, a part of your mind is telling you that some pair of scissors would do a great job in opening this package. You blame yourself for not realizing this earlier. After a solid two minutes of struggling you try a new approach: a sharp knife.

Some effort and brute force. Still unable to open the packaging. Auch! Worse so, you cut your thumb. Now you're bleeding. Reaching for plasters – where did you leave those? Not in the kitchen, better check the bathroom.

Yes! You found them in the bathroom. The plasters are massive. They need to be cut…

Design isn't just about aesthetics—it's about function. When design fails, we feel immediate frustration, even if we don't recognize it as a design problem. These moments aren't just annoyances—they're design failures, symptoms of a deeper problem. Each represents a failure of design thinking, where creators lost sight of the actual humans who would use their products and systems.