A stricter evaluation can protect accessible output while narrowing what the model returns.
Customer trust depends on preventing inaccessible states, while creative usefulness depends on retaining enough acceptable output.
Who you’d be doing this for
“The focus state looked fine in the frame, then our accessibility review sent it back.”
Alejandra Barros · Staff UI/UX Designer
He reviews generated interface concepts before handing approved work to the product team building the experience.
What is at stake
Eighteen percent of sampled approved interface states have a keyboard-focus or screen-reader-support gap. You have to weigh a stricter model bar against the useful output designers need to keep moving.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- accessibility safeguards vs useful output retention
- automated signals vs verified review
- release urgency vs irreversible rubric commitments
- creative variation vs consistent standards
Why Figma
AI-generated designs in Figma must be reviewable before they move into the collaborative design and build workflows customers rely on.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 45 more at Figma, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.