Show HN: UI micro interactions prompts for AI
typeui.sh
typeui.sh
The call to action says "Copy prompt", not "Unlock prompt", "Sign in to copy", or "Get Creative to access prompts". I didn't even go past the signup to see if the prompts themselves are actually free and work without a subscription to your hosted MCP server. There's a GitHub link in the header suggesting an OSS tier, at the least. That repo may include "prompts" folders, but no prompts are there. The README doesn't even hint that this is a paid library of assets/prompts until the very end, with the misspelled "enhanched" sentence under the "Pro" header. The only prompts that appear to be in the repo (other than those that configure an agent how to use the paid and hosted MCP) are basic design guidelines.
Getting back to the website: your hero text directly invites users to "Try each example and copy its implementation prompt." Which immediately demands the aforementioned signup flow that I didn't bother completing.
All of that just turned me right off.
Your examples are nice, if a bit generic. But if you intended this to be a loss-leader for the more "enhanched" UI/UX skills, it isn't doing that job.
That said, some nifty ideas that aren't hard to prompt / reference oneself. Thanks from a swe who's terrible at design but does care about it!
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Tailwind UI is a perfect example of this where when I used to use Tailwind UI religiously and paid for it, I can just tell Claude Code “make it much prettier and bring it to life with really well designed micro interactions to create an excellent and enjoyable end-user experience” and it will get me 90% there which is easily more than good enough.
I really hope I’m wrong and that there is still a market for hand crafted components like this but honestly I think the free components exposed here plus the images of the paid components is enough for any LLM to pick this up and run with it likely without the LLM user even knowing that’s what has happened and therefore I can’t see a path to sustainable ARR for you guys.
Unfortunately for a thing whose core job is polished UI, there's still quite a lot of polish needed before I would be willing to implement any of this in my UI To name a few : - the swap icon state theme preview switcher cascades the element brightness rather than fading them together. - The confirm reveal has something wrong with the spring every third or fourth click, which is strange - Cards: the stacked deck cycle. When you click Next, it doesn't draw the top card. - The shared element expand option: when you minimize, the spring dampening pushes the components outside of the container. - Swipe to dismiss causes the container to temporarily show a scroll bar.
Running claude yourself to replicate UI is an actual time investment and takes some setup.
I've seen you all on Twitter and have been confused on why people like this product. A lot of these are fairly unpolished and don't seem to have been designed with much consistency. I think if I gave Opus 5.5 instructions to make pretty much any of these components it could produce these 1-shot.
Take the verification code UI for example. We have animations on switching between the numbers, but not on updating the check icon. I also don't have the option to see other states. What happens on Error? For example.
On your Bio fill, the better pattern for text character limits is not to stop allowing typing after the limit has been hit, but instead to allow overfill and start counting onwards with an obvious red state. You do this, but cap at 20 more. Why? The whole point is to allow people to enter their full text and synthesize to the character limit. Is this a configurable setting? I can't tell if there's a customization because I have to create an account to copy the prompt and there's no obvious path to learn more about it.
These were literally the first two components I looked at. At that rate I feel like I can find an issue with all of them.
Feels unpolished and I can't imagine paying for it. Much less at a minimum of $10/mo when soooo many other free component websites do the same. For a design-focused product, the experience feels cheap and more like AI slop to me than a polished solution.
* toggle animation on the heart moves the same direction for add and subtract (confusing)
* hold-to-trigger indicator is covered by finger on touch screen
* remove button confirmation can be accidentally confirmed by double click
(I stopped looking after this)
oh I wonder if I can point claude at it...
Good front-end code is still expensive. Do you think ChatGPT/Anthropic/Meta/etc. can claim industry leading front-ends on their webapps or desktop apps? Why have they not reached parity with all their smaller competitors if it's all just code.
There's also new serverless platforms constantly being funded nowadays; if code is so cheap why doesn't everyone just whip an LLM to go build their own version? Only bad code is low value.
But that aside, $30 per month is questionable.
I'm not talking about upper luxury products. I'm talking about good, maintainable business code or just something as basic as a polished, full-featured dashboard that contains no "silly" bugs.
That kind of thing is still not very cheap in the context an average person's typical expenses.
The chatGPT webapp is as example of something built to a budget (despite having a team with access to cutting edge AI); and it just doesn't feel good to use or to navigate around. Contrast that to Twitter's front-end. That took millions of dollars in designer/SWE salary to build and you can just tell how much better it is than the average social media platform, or any new webapp by a less experienced team.
Human in the loop prompting/steering/testing time is also not free, even if a $20 claude/chatgpt sub can theoretically build anything to an acceptable level. 2 days worth of a humans's time is still ~100 bucks. Very few harnesses can run fully autonomously and still end up with usable software unless you're someone who specializes in working with these things.
Production level code is really not as cheap as you imagine it to be.
I think I'd target companies and provide customized solutions. "Hey, everybody in your company connects their agents to this, and boom, they all produce consistent output that matches your company's CI."
I do love some of these examples, but, and as others noticed, they do lack polish.
I feel having a lot more items visible without scrolling would be perfect for a site like this. Especially with the focus being entirely on the rendered components (and not typical UI library docs).
but the animations are nice
Only problem is that now I want all things to have this level of UI
At each stage it's all about the poster wanting their attention and outcome.
If I can't see a few and see the value of them and what the library then represents, I'll just have to pass.
And when you click the “Manage preferences” option…
“Required for security, authentication, preferences, and core site functionality.”
Sorry, but are cookies really “essential” to me simply viewing the site? Note there is no option to completely opt out.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
He said much the same thing on camera, followed by Jony Ive on the iMac:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BibWZJOClgU
STEVE JOBS: Design's a really loaded word. I don't know what it means. And so we don't really talk about design a lot around here. We actually just talk about how things work. Most people think it's how they look, but it's not really how they look. It's how they work.
Everyone says, you know, I want to make a great product, or I want to make a great movie, or whatever they're doing. So there's no difference there, but there's a big difference in the outcomes.
JONY IVE: When we were developing the new iMac, we were at a point when we had a couple of solutions that, I mean, at the time I think we thought they were good, but we had that sinking feeling, you know, when you are aware that you're trying to convince yourself something's actually better than in your heart you really know that it is. Sometimes you just have to look at yourself and go, you know, it's just not really great. It's okay, it's good, but let's not fool ourselves and call it great.
Steve really felt that we could do better, and when we all realized we needed to, I mean, that's a hard call to make, you know. We're willing to throw something away because it's not great and try again, when all of the pressures of commerce are at your back saying no, you can't do that.
Steve is so much more than a supporter of design. He not only has a very clear sense of vision and sense of the future, but has this sort of unnerving ability to describe the future in a way that's very inclusive, in a way that draws people from many different disciplines in to share this sense of what this vision could be.
really compelling on-ramp