I want to say this respectfully but I think there’s something contradictory happening in our community right now. Everyone is upset about the new Figma UI3 update and I get it - some of the complaints make sense. But here’s what bothers me. We’re UI/UX designers and we constantly make our own users deal with big interface changes in our products. Then when it happens to us we get really angry about it. Isn’t that kind of hypocritical? The Figma team is trying to make their product better just like we do with our own work. They took risks to improve things. Maybe we should try to understand their perspective instead of just complaining. We should give feedback that actually helps instead of just being negative all the time.
The perspective shift occurs when your daily workflow is disrupted without consent compared to intentionally designing change for users. Last year, I spent three months implementing a complete dashboard redesign for a financial platform, involving weekly user sessions, gradual feature rollouts, and extensive documentation. Although users still had complaints initially, they had agency in how they adopted the changes. With Figma UI3, many of us faced a fundamentally different tool that we rely on for billable hours. The frustration isn’t about change itself but about losing control over our primary work environment. When redesigning interfaces for clients, I always provide migration guides and training materials. The disconnect here is that Figma treated professional users like casual consumers rather than individuals whose productivity directly impacts their income. Understanding design principles doesn’t make us immune to poor change management.
There’s definitely some truth to what you’re saying, but I think the frustration comes from a different place than hypocrisy. When we design interfaces for clients or users, we usually do extensive user research, run A/B tests, and roll out changes gradually with proper onboarding. From what I’ve seen with UI3, Figma pushed a major overhaul without much warning or transition period. The muscle memory we’ve built over years got disrupted overnight, which affects our daily productivity. I’ve worked on redesigns that failed because we didn’t consider the existing user workflows enough. It’s not that designers can’t handle change - we just expect the same level of thoughtful implementation that we try to provide in our own work. The criticism feels harsh because this tool is essential to our livelihood and the change felt abrupt rather than well-planned.
Working in UX for over eight years, I’ve noticed something interesting about how we react versus how we implement changes. The difference isn’t hypocrisy but rather context and execution method. When I redesign interfaces for enterprise clients, there’s usually months of stakeholder alignment, user testing phases, and rollback plans if things go sideways. The feedback cycle is built into the process from day one. What happened with UI3 feels more like a product team making decisions in isolation and then asking for feedback after launch. I remember implementing a major navigation overhaul for a SaaS platform where we kept the old interface available for six months during transition. Users could toggle between versions while learning the new system. That’s the kind of thoughtful change management we expect because we practice it ourselves. The criticism isn’t about being resistant to change, it’s about recognizing when change could have been handled more strategically.
honestly i think we’re just being dramatic lol. yeah the new ui is annoying but we’ll get used to it in like 2 weeks. happens everytime adobe updates photoshop too and everyone freaks out for a bit then moves on.
I’ve been through about five major software transitions in my career and honestly, the anger usually fades once you adapt. What strikes me about this situation is how vocal designers are being compared to other professions dealing with software changes. Accountants didn’t riot when QuickBooks changed their interface, but maybe that’s because they expect less from their tools. We hold design tools to higher standards precisely because we understand good UX principles. The real issue isn’t that Figma changed things - it’s that some changes seem to go against established usability heuristics we teach our own teams. When I see contrast ratios that hurt readability or iconography that’s less intuitive, it feels like basic design principles were overlooked. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s professional critique based on expertise.