Comment by bichiliad
1 day ago
I think that these things I've seen that are tells of a slop UI are when people without discernment (not as an insult!) don't do a pass over a UI. I'm working on a dumb little app to help me sequence photos for a book[0], and I'm building it with Claude (Opus 5.5, medium effort). The first pass was really sloppy, but I was surprised at how far I could get with some directed iterating.
This isn't a new problem; every generation of websites has tells of the lowest-barrier-of-entry tools of the trade. You could tell a Twitter Bootstrap UI from a mile away similarly.
The only difference I think is that AI will go ahead and add stuff that you didn't think of, like little badges and gradients and whatever. I think it's a different skill to say "no, this is distracting and unnecessary." The app I mentioned above has a few of these — extra stats about page counts and image counts and such.
[0]: https://photobook-sequencer.netlify.app/ (very much a work in progress, feedback welcome)
Ever tested it on mobile? There’s some cut off text in the top right nav, the “start by adding photos” text isn’t vertically centered in its container, and the page size/settings container is also cutting off content on the sides.
Nice aesthetic tho
The other difference was that Bootstrap met WCAG standards and had a very strong baseline of accessibility. These LLM slop outputs meet no such standards and seem to laugh in the face of accessibility.
Yeah, that's very true. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Claude's `design` skill, which does an accessibility pass that I've found pretty decent as someone with only minor experience in the area — contrast, tab/focus ordering, things of that nature. The catch is that you have to actually have to want to check these things, just like you have to want to not ship slop.