Design Taste — Complete Notes, Drills & Implementation Plan

Compiled for Johan · 14 November 2026 From five Medium articles, read in full. Nothing paraphrased away: every claim, number, example and named source is kept.

Also available: Word version (printable) · Markdown source · Full unedited article text

Every line below is tagged so you can act on it rather than just read it:


Part 1 — Article-by-article notes

1. How to Develop Design Taste in the AI Era: A 4-Week Plan for UX Designers

Nishkarsh Gupta · ILLUMINATION · Oct 2026 · ~1,672 words medium.com/illumination/design-taste-new-skill-how-to-build-it-a46d424f3173

The author's stake: he works mostly in B2B, so his examples and conclusions lean toward tables, forms and empty states rather than hero images.

1.1 The definition of taste — and why explanation is the whole point

1.2 The Ira Glass trap

1.3 What taste is not

1.4 Why taste matters more when AI can generate screens

1.5 The five habits (the author's real thesis)

1.6 Habit 1 — Collect references on purpose

1.7 Habit 2 — Write down why you like it (the habit that converts feeling into skill)

What I see: ____________
Why it works: ____________
What I would steal: ____________

1.8 Habit 3 — Copy to learn

1.9 Habit 4 — Critique every day

1.10 Habit 5 — Look outside software

1.11 The 4-week plan (verbatim structure)

1.12 Can taste be taught? (and the honest limit)


2. Everyone Says Designers Need "Taste". How Do You Actually Develop It?

Life Considered · Muzli — Design Inspiration · Oct 2026 · ~1,345 words medium.com/muzli-design-inspiration/everyone-says-designers-need-taste-how-do-you-actually-develop-it-c8c09f0e2605

This is the most practical of the five for a working designer: it never asks you to collect more references — it asks you to practise on the file you already have open.

2.1 The problem it names

2.2 Study more than other interfaces

2.3 The capture template for out-of-domain references (4 questions)

2.4 Ask what isn't working — and why (how to request feedback)

2.5 Practice on a problem you can finish (the 5-step loop)

2.6 Notice how your decisions change (the maturity signals)

2.7 Know when your favourite approach doesn't fit

2.8 Start with the screen you're working on


3. The Fastest Way to Develop Visual Taste as a Designer

Omoraiyewa Samuel · Bootcamp · Jun 2026 · ~974 words medium.com/design-bootcamp/the-fastest-way-to-develop-visual-taste-as-a-designer-85ef6d905034

Context he sets: AI generates interfaces on demand, and beginner designers use those outputs as references. What makes you stand out is your taste. Every designer he has watched develop quickly had one thing in common: they were all inspired by great work — and that has always been how taste gets built.

3.1 What taste actually is

3.2 The three layers of taste

3.3 Why borrowed taste stops working

3.4 Practice one — study references with a question, not just your eyes

3.5 Practice two — reverse-engineer what you admire

3.6 Why companies actually hire for taste

3.7 The honest timeline


4. What "Good Taste" in UI Design Actually Means

Heshan.Design · Feb 2026 · ~631 words medium.com/@heshan.design/what-good-taste-in-ui-design-actually-means-2b52ffc4b3c4

The article to reread whenever you catch yourself adding instead of deciding. It is the shortest and, per-word, the sharpest of the five.

4.1 What it's not

4.2 Taste is judgment

4.3 Restraint

4.4 Hierarchy

4.5 Why beginners struggle

4.6 How good taste develops over time

4.7 Copying doesn't build taste

4.8 The practical exercise

  1. Open a random app.
  2. Look at one screen.
  3. Ask: What's unnecessary here? What's unclear? What's competing for attention?
  4. Remove or simplify one thing.
  5. Explain why.

4.9 Senior designers aren't more creative

4.10 Final thought (and how to know you're improving)


5. 10 Tips on How to Develop a Sense of Taste in Design and Other

Kseniia Vertunova · Mar 2023 · ~738 words medium.com/@izh.open.yoga/10-tips-on-how-to-develop-a-sense-of-taste-in-design-and-other-41b2dfb24707

The graphic-design angle — 10 years in, and she gives the concept a name that the other four articles describe but never label.

5.1 Nasmotrennost' — the concept worth stealing

5.2 The ten tips, in full

5.3 The shortcut she actually recommends


Part 2 — What all five agree on (the consolidated meaning)

Read together, the five articles collapse into one model. This is the part to memorise.

2.1 The single definition

Taste = trained, explainable judgment about what to include, what to remove, and why — developed by volume of looking, volume of making, and the discipline of articulating the difference.

All five arrive here independently: Gupta ("trained judgment… explain why in plain words"), Samuel ("taste is your judgment"), Heshan ("good taste is decision-making… not a feeling, a skill"), Life Considered ("notice what works, understand why, learn when a different approach serves the user better"), Vertunova ("a skill that can be trained… the more you look, the more you know").

2.2 The four ingredients (Samuel's list, corroborated everywhere)

  1. Curation across a wide range — not one feed, not only apps (Gupta: look outside software; Life Considered: magazines, menus, signage; Vertunova: exhibitions, art history).
  2. Knowledge of why things work — the three-line note, the one-question study, the feedback four.
  3. Practice making decisions — handrebuilds, live-project loops, redesigns of bad screens.
  4. The experience of seeing decisions play out — user testing, before/after comparisons, the judgment log, reopening old work.

None of these come from collecting or reposting inspiration. That's the sentence all five endorse in some form.

2.3 The five repeatable mechanisms

MechanismWhat it doesNamed by
Volume of quality looking ("nasmotrennost'")Builds the surface layer — instant "this works / something's off"Vertunova (core), Gupta (habit 1), Samuel (layer 1), Heshan (exposure)
Articulation (write the why)Converts feeling into transferable, repeatable judgment; closes the vocabulary gapGupta (habit 2), Samuel (question-first study), Life Considered (capture template), Heshan (explain or you're borrowing)
Reconstruction (rebuild by hand)Exposes the decisions you didn't see while lookingGupta (habit 3), Samuel (practice 2)
Critique cadence (daily, incl. AI)Turns passive taste into edits and rules; builds pattern recognitionGupta (habit 4), Heshan (5-move drill), Samuel (layer diagnosis)
Out-of-domain inputEscapes the convergence trap; supplies non-average ideasGupta (habit 5), Life Considered (study more than interfaces), Vertunova (exhibitions, art history)

2.4 The shared psychology

2.5 What "improvement" actually looks like (a testable definition)

All five accept the same evidence of progress — your language changes:


Part 3 — Where they disagree (and how to hold the tension)

TensionPosition APosition BHow to hold both
Instinct vs articulationVertunova: trust your instincts, follow what feels right.Gupta/Heshan: if you can't explain it, you're borrowing taste.Trust instinct as a signal, then force it through words before acting. An unexplained instinct is a hypothesis, not a decision.
CopyingGupta/Samuel: handrebuild is a core drill.Heshan: copying doesn't build taste.Copy to understand decisions, never to publish the artefact. Copying + explanation = taste; copying alone = visual competence.
Breadth vs depth of referencesVertunova: consume constantly, broadly.Gupta: save fewer things; Samuel: borrowed taste stalls.Look broadly, save narrowly. High volume of looking, low volume of saving, and every save carries a question.
MinimalismCommon reflex: simple = tasteful.Heshan: knowing what not to add; Gupta: a crowded dashboard can have great taste.Restraint is a decision quality, not a density setting. Dense is fine when every row earns its place (Life Considered's stock-management screen is the failure case: clean, but staff open every row).
SpeedSamuel: fastest way to develop visual taste.All five: no shortcut on time.Fast method (start today, on the file that's open) — slow timeline (weeks to months).

Part 4 — Coverage matrix (every practice × who teaches it)

PracticeGuptaLife ConsideredSamuelHeshanVertunova
Question-named reference collections●○●–○
Three-line "why" note●●●○–
One-question-per-reference study○●●––
Handrebuild / reverse-engineer in Figma●–●––
Map a full flow (states, transitions, copy)––●––
Daily 10-minute critique●○–●–
Critique AI output specifically●–○––
Running rules note → personal style guide●––○–
Out-of-domain references (magazines, signage, art)●●––●
Redesign bad products + compare before/after○●–●–
Feedback with the four questions–●––○
Tradeoff accounting ("what did I sacrifice?")–●–––
Live-project practice loop–●–○●
Judgment log / expectations vs outcomes–●–––
Restraint + hierarchy audit○○○●–
Deliberate uncomfortable decisions (no AI)○–●––
Structured 4-week programme●––––
10 tips / long-term curriculum––––●

● = core to that article · ○ = mentioned/secondary · – = not covered

Read the matrix as a training split, not a scoreboard. Every row is a distinct rep; if six rows are unchecked in your week, you're practising looking, not taste.


Part 5 — The reusable toolbox (verbatim templates)

5.1 The reference note (Gupta) + the out-of-domain capture (Life Considered), merged

URL / photo:
What I see (spacing, type, order, tone): ............
Why it works (the decision, not the vibe): ..........
What I would steal / apply (name ONE decision): .....
[out-of-domain only]
What did I notice first (size, colour, position, wording)? ...
What did the design help me do (find, choose, begin)? .......
Where did I hesitate (missing, unclear, competing)? .........
Source article:

5.2 The feedback request (Life Considered)

Context:   Who uses this screen, and for what task.
Constraint: What they need to do / what can't change.
Unsure:    The one decision I want your judgment on.

Ask them:
1. What do you notice first? Does it match what matters for the task?
2. What is difficult to scan or understand? (point to a specific area)
3. What would you change first? What would that improve?
4. What might that change make worse?

5.3 The judgment log (Life Considered)

Date:
Problem named in one sentence ("filters and results compete for attention"):
What I changed (grouping/spacing first):
What I sacrificed (the tradeoff accepted):
What I expected / what happened / what I'd do differently:
Still needs checking via (prototype | feedback | user test):

5.4 The rules note → personal style guide (Gupta)

# My rules
- Rule: ...                     (added when I caught myself repeating this observation)
- Test where it broke: ...
- Counter-example (when it's wrong): ...   ← from Life Considered's "whose preference is driving this?"

5.5 The one-question study card (Samuel)

Reference:
The ONE question I'm looking through:
  Why does the hierarchy work here?
  What makes this feel trustworthy?
  Where is the designer directing attention, and how?
  What would this look like if the primary action were less obvious?
What I found (decision-level):

5.6 The four judgment gates before adding anything (Heshan)

☐ Does this element earn its place?
☐ Is this helping the user or just decorating?
☐ Is this clear enough without explanation?
☐ Is this consistent with the rest of the product?

5.7 The four context questions before committing a direction (Life Considered)

☐ What task am I making easier? (benefit beyond "it looks cleaner")
☐ What am I making less visible? (do people need that to decide or act?)
☐ Whose preference is driving this? (mine vs requirement vs observed need)
☐ What would make me reconsider? (prototype / feedback / actual use)

Part 6 — The practice system (four-week sprint + ongoing cadence)

6.1 The 4-week sprint — Gupta's structure, expanded into tickable days

Daily budget: 20–30 minutes. Same slot every day; the plan fails on irregularity, not on effort.

Week 1 — collect and name. Output: ~35 notes + a shared vocabulary.

Week 2 — copy. Output: 3 handrebuilds + 6 rules.

Week 3 — critique. Output: 7 critiques + a rules note in your own words.

Week 4 — look outside and make. Output: 10 outside references + 1 designed-by-rules screen + a comparison.

6.2 The ongoing cadence (after the sprint)

CadenceRepSource
Daily, 10 minOne critique: what works / what doesn't / what I'd change first. Half the week on AI output.Gupta, Heshan
Daily, 2 minAdd a rule to the running note when you repeat an observation.Gupta
Per reference savedThree lines + one named decision. No bare saves.Gupta, Life Considered, Samuel
Per projectOne "mini research" pass on the exact thing being designed (Pinterest/Behance/Dribbble/Mobbin) before implementing.Vertunova
Per weekOne decision made without AI generation, then checked against reality.Samuel
Per 2 weeksOne handrebuild, three guesses written first.Gupta, Samuel
MonthlyRedesign one bad screen (a login, settings page, checkout step) and publish before/after with the reasoning.Heshan
MonthlyRun the Life Considered loop on the part of your live project that bothers you most; keep the judgment log.Life Considered
QuarterlyReopen a design from months ago; write what you notice before fixing it; check the four maturity signals.Life Considered
QuarterlyCoverage-matrix audit: which rep haven't I done in 12 weeks?This document

6.3 The 10-minute critique, three versions (use all three in rotation)

  1. Gupta (daily default): what works · what does not · what would I change first.
  2. Heshan (when you're about to add something): what's unnecessary · what's unclear · what's competing for attention → remove or simplify one thing, explain why.
  3. Samuel (when studying a reference): pick one question — hierarchy? trust? attention direction? what if the primary action were less obvious? — and look only through it.

Part 7 — Master checklist

7.1 REMEMBER (the principles, condensed to load-bearing statements)

7.2 PRACTICE (the reps)

7.3 IMPLEMENT (changes to how you work)


Part 8 — Failure modes, named

Failure modeWhat it looks likeWho names itThe counter
Convergence trapAI output drifts to generic and polished; you accept it because it looks fineGupta (Berkeley study)Critique AI output daily; design one screen only from your written rules
Vocabulary gapYou know it's wrong but write "make it cleaner"Gupta (Berkeley study)Three-line notes; decision-level language; log vague prompts
Borrowed tasteSensitivity to what looks good in feeds, no judgment for contextSamuel; Heshan ("if you can't explain why, you're borrowing taste")Question-first study; rebuild by hand; explain decisions
Inspiration-feed scrollingSave, move on, nothing transfersSamuelOne question per reference; four capture questions
Style ≠ tasteFancy visuals, gradients, complex animation, Dribbble polish on a confusing UIHeshanFour judgment gates; hierarchy test without colour/images
Impress-the-peer reflexAdding to be admired by designers, not served by usersHeshanServe users; ask "helping or decorating?"
Aesthetic preference overriding needHiding secondary info "to be cleaner" until staff open every rowLife ConsideredThe four context questions; "what am I making less visible?"
"Looks good" feedbackReassurance instead of informationLife ConsideredThe four feedback questions; ask what would get worse
Taste as research substituteBeautiful and wrongGupta (NN/g)Taste for feel/look; users for whether it works
Waiting for the gap to closeParalysis because eye > handsGupta (Ira Glass)Volume of work; ship the uncomfortable decision

Part 9 — Limits and honest caveats (kept, not smoothed over)


Sources

  1. Nishkarsh Gupta, How to Develop Design Taste in the AI Era: A 4-Week Plan for UX Designers, ILLUMINATION, Oct 2026 — link
  2. Life Considered, Everyone Says Designers Need "Taste". How Do You Actually Develop It?, Muzli — Design Inspiration, Oct 2026 — link
  3. Omoraiyewa Samuel, The Fastest Way to Develop Visual Taste as a Designer, Bootcamp, Jun 2026 — link
  4. Heshan.Design, What "Good Taste" in UI Design Actually Means, Feb 2026 — link
  5. Kseniia Vertunova, 10 Tips on How to Develop a Sense of Taste in Design and Other, Mar 2023 — link

Secondary sources cited inside the articles: NN/g State of UX 2026 (Kate Moran, Raluca Budiu, Sarah Gibbons, Jan 2026); UC Berkeley School of Information 2026 final project on prompt-based interface tools (13 UX designers, Lovable); Ira Glass on the creative gap.

Full unedited article text: medium-design-taste-full-articles.md (compiled alongside this document).

↑ Top