From Vibe to Code — and Back: Lexical Oscillation in the Formation of Design Intent with Generative AI

Sato, Daisaku

doi:10.51094/jxiv.5731

##article.authors##

Sato, Daisaku JAIST

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.5731

キーワード:

human-AI interaction、 generative AI、 design intent formation、 lexical oscillation、 ambiguity as a resource、 reflexive thematic analysis

抄録

Generative AI design tools make natural-language prompts a starting point for design, placing new articulation demands on designers. Rather than treating prompts as the transmission of pre-existing design intent, we ask how design intent is formed through situated interaction with AI. Five expert UI/UX designers (11–20 years' experience, M = 15.4) designed landing-page hero sections with a generative AI tool, recorded through think-aloud and retrospective interviews. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we used lexical granularity (L1 vibe, L2 design-domain, L3 operational language) as a sensitizing lens. Rather than moving from vibe to code unidirectionally, designers showed lexical oscillation, including returns from operational specificity to ambiguity. Mismatches with AI outputs were taken up as occasions for designers to reconsider what they meant, and engagement shifted from instruction to consultation. One non-oscillating trajectory—a negative case—suggested conceptual misalignment as a tentative boundary for future examination. We position AI as a non-neutral generative interlocutor and ambiguity as a resource for design judgment.

利益相反に関する開示

The author declares no conflict of interest.

ダウンロード *前日までの集計結果を表示します

ダウンロード実績データは、公開の翌日以降に作成されます。

引用文献

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128

Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.). Sage.

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.001

Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). MIT Press.

Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03) (pp. 233–240). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642653

Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Karpathy, A. [@karpathy]. (2025, February 2). There's a new kind of coding I call "vibe coding" where you fully give in to the vibes [Post]. X. https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383

Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024). AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225

Koch, J., Lucero, A., Hegemann, L., & Oulasvirta, A. (2019). May AI? Design ideation with cooperative contextual bandits. In Proceedings of CHI '19. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300863

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of CHI '25. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778

Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development (pp. 1–8). Springer.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Meske, C., Hermanns, T., von der Weiden, E., Loser, K.-U., & Berger, T. (2025). Vibe coding as a reconfiguration of intent mediation in software development: Definition, implications, and research agenda. IEEE Access, 13, 213242–213259. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3645466

Nardi, B. A. (1993). A small matter of programming: Perspectives on end user computing. MIT Press.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.

Sidra, S., & Mason, C. (2025). Generative AI in human-AI collaboration: Validation of the collaborative AI literacy and collaborative AI metacognition scales for effective use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41, 5084–5108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2543997

Simkute, A., Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Scott, A. E., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2025). Ironies of generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(5), 2898–2919. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2405782

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press.

Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of CHI '24. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.

Vallgårda, A., & Fernaeus, Y. (2015). Interaction design as a bricolage practice. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15) (pp. 173–180). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680594

World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., Rosé, C., & Zimmerman, J. (2020). Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of CHI '20. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301

Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny can't prompt. In Proceedings of CHI '23. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388