Vibe design is a developing term for working out an interface in conversation with AI, using prompts, images and references. It can speed up exploration of a visual direction. The result still needs understandable navigation, accessible controls and designs for the moments when a task fails or has no result.
In this article
Where the term is being used
In the March 2026 announcement for Stitch, Google uses “vibe design” to describe an AI-assisted interface workflow driven by natural language. This gives us a specific vendor use of the phrase. It establishes neither an agreed design discipline nor evidence of user testing.
Our use of the term concerns visual iteration through conversation. Vibe coding concerns generated code and software behaviour. The activities may overlap, but a layout's approval leaves its forms, access permissions and payment flow to be checked separately.
Write a brief that contains decisions
Give the brief choices a designer can act on. Name the reader, their task, the information they bring and the decision they must make next. Describe constraints such as a phone screen, slow connection, long company names or labels in several languages. A request to make the page beautiful leaves these questions open.
For a fictional funding directory, describe a first-time founder comparing programme suitability, distinguishing cash from credits and finding the official application. Clear filters and readable terms serve that task. A large animated headline may be a style choice, but it cannot compensate for results the founder cannot understand.
Limit the visual vocabulary to a set you can reuse: heading and body sizes, spacing, buttons, borders and a small palette. Apply the same choices to profiles, forms and results. The product should remain recognisable as the reader moves beyond its first screen.
A visual review framework: route, evidence, action
- RouteMake the reader's location and possible paths clear. Show which filter is selected; changing only the result count leaves that state unclear.
- EvidenceGroup the facts needed for a decision. In a funding offer, separate investment, ownership conditions and application requirements.
- ActionTell readers where the control leads. “Read programme terms” predicts the destination more clearly than an arrow alone.
- RecoveryFor empty results, invalid fields and failed requests, explain the problem and offer a useful next action.
Use these questions as an editorial review framework, not as a scored usability study. FindSeed illustrates the underlying information problem: discovering a programme and examining its actual offer require different amounts of detail.
Review more than the desktop screenshot
Try long text and a narrow screen, then operate the menu and filters, submit an invalid form and navigate with the keyboard. Watch for visible focus and readable content as text size increases. Keep a card's link available without requiring a hover to reveal it.
Criteria for contrast, reflow, keyboard use and other behaviours are available in the W3C accessibility reference. Use it to investigate the interactions your users need. A handful of successful visual checks does not justify claiming full accessibility compliance.
Give users a pause control for videos and moving carousels, and respect reduced-motion preferences. Place controls where they remain visible without covering faces or words. On mobile, leave enough surrounding context to explain why the media belongs on the page and what to do next.
Hand off a system, not a pile of screens
Keep the agreed design choices and examples of important states with the implementation. Document loading, empty results, errors and success as well as the populated screen. Identify reusable elements and explain which decisions apply only to this page.
As a proposed exercise, ask someone new to the project to complete a core task without guidance. Note hesitation and the behaviour they expect from controls. This tells you more about the task than a question about favourite colours. The creator-tool guide helps choose a workflow; the Wordle design analysis offers another example of a clearly bounded task.
A brief you can adapt to your own page
An illustrative directory brief might ask for a founder to compare three suitable programmes and continue to the official application. Require investment structure, region and participation conditions before the click. Show unpublished terms distinctly from zero. On a phone, keep the programme name and main action visible without horizontal scrolling.
Supply real content and visual references alongside the states to design. Include a long name, no matching results and an unavailable destination, not just the ideal filled screen. Review the full set together so an appealing first view does not hide a journey that stops short.
Explore typography and image choices in why AI websites look alike. Once the interface becomes a working application, use the maintenance guide to assign the responsibilities that continue after design approval.
Read a result card as three decisions
1. Programme fit
For idea-stage founders · Europe · Remote participation
2. Offer terms
Cash amount: unpublished
Equity terms: consult the agreement
What the reader needs
1. Start with fit. Keep the stage and participation constraints together so readers can judge relevance.
2. Leave missing amounts unknown. An unpublished cash amount must not appear as an offer of zero dollars.
3. Explain the next step. This destination lets readers examine terms; it does not submit an application.
A worksheet you can reuse
Design brief
Copy this brief into your own document and replace its bracketed fields with the decisions for your page. Leave passwords and private customer data out.
Reader: [ ] One task to complete: [ ] Decision information: [ ] Primary action label and destination: [ ] Shortest and longest real content: [ ] Loading, empty, error and success states: [ ] Mobile information priority: [ ] Keyboard order and visible focus: [ ] Reference and specific property to borrow: [ ] Task an unfamiliar user should complete: [ ]Download template (.txt)
Sources and scope
Sources reviewed October 24, 2026. Company-reported figures remain attributed to the original publisher. The explanations and planning exercises are Vibe Wire’s editorial analysis; they are not measured results or financial advice.
