Being a designer has always been synonymous with being creative, transforming abstract and complex ideas into concrete solutions. However, in recent years, many professionals have been losing this creative spark, and with it, the very essence of the profession. We’ve witnessed an exponential growth of artificial intelligence tools within the creative industry. This, in itself, isn’t a problem; the real risk lies in becoming dependent on these tools.
Abandoning your own creative capacity and relying on AI to generate design concepts or evaluate solutions is a mistake that can compromise your professional autonomy and creative confidence.
In this article, I want to discuss why you shouldn’t rely solely on artificial intelligence tools, but instead focus on building your intellectual foundation as a designer. This foundation develops through both theoretical study and consistent practice in real projects; over time, it becomes the cornerstone of your repertoire and professional competence.
How to build knowledge in design
Before discussing knowledge in design, it’s important to first understand what knowledge actually is. According to the dictionary, knowledge is the act of knowing or the state of being aware of something, whether through reason or experience. This definition highlights three central elements that deserve attention:
- Act of knowing: understanding a phenomenon — knowing what it is, how it works, and why it works in a certain way.
- Through reason: acquiring knowledge through reflection, study, and theory.
- Through experience: referring to tacit knowledge, which is built over time through practice and observation of reality.
When we bring this definition into the field of design, knowledge in design means mastering the principles, philosophies, methods, and practices that help us to solve problems in a structured and creative way.
In the context of interaction design or digital product design, the nature of this knowledge is particularly complex. There is no universal list of skills that defines a good designer.
(2023), addresses this issue in his doctoral thesis when discussing the competencies of digital product designers. According to Grilo, the field still lacks consensus on which knowledge is essential, precisely because the discipline continues to evolve.
Even so, companies set expectations, anticipating that designers will perform certain activities and deliver specific results, which is often mistaken for actual professional knowledge.
This is where we need to be careful: a job description is not synonymous with knowledge. A job description talks about tasks; knowledge concerns the judgment, understanding, and autonomy required to execute those tasks with insight. As Grilo (2023, p.94) points out:
“There are some epistemological issues in UX Design (UXD) that, in my view, are unavoidable in this theoretical discussion. The first concerns the scope of UX Design, due to its wide range of responsibilities. The second revolves around the relationship of UX with diffuse problems. The third relates to the specificity of User Experience as a construct within the theory of Digital Product Design.”
Several authors have attempted to define what interaction design and UX are, as well as how the discipline is organized, including Garrett (2001), Saffer (2006), and Six (2010). However, most focus on describing the discipline and its connections with other fields, without clearly specifying the types of knowledge a UX designer must master to excel in their practice.
Let’s take a look at the famous diagram by (2008). While it is useful for visualizing the intersections and scope of the discipline, the diagram by itself does not reveal anything about the types of knowledge and competencies required for the practice of an interaction designer or a UX designer.
It is common for designers to feel confused when it comes to professional competencies and skills. The question often arises: Should I know everything about visual design? human factors or usability engineering? This confusion is natural when there is no clear competency model to guide professional development in the field.
Sometimes, designers wonder which skills are truly necessary to work as an interaction designer or UX designer. There was a time when mastering tools like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and Flash was enough to be considered a competent interaction designer or web designer. That period produced many excellent software operators, but not all of them were truly designers.
When many of these professionals were questioned about their design decisions, there was often surprise or even responses like: “Why do you want to know how I did it?” There has always been a certain mystery surrounding designers’ decisions. I believe this is, in part, one of the reasons why our relationship with other professionals, such as developers, has historically been complicated.
Being unable to justify a design decision is as incoherent as hearing a surgeon, when questioned about a decision during surgery, say that they don’t know or cannot explain. Yet, it is still common to find designers who cannot articulate the reasoning behind their actions, a clear sign of a lack of reflection and professional maturity.
Being a designer goes beyond knowing how to use tools. The new generation needs to be careful not to fall into the same trap, now fueled by the use of artificial intelligence. The risk is producing professionals who master prompt engineering but do not truly understand the problems they are solving.
Building knowledge in design requires practice, reflection, and purpose. I personally developed my competence by working directly in the discipline, learning from projects, mistakes, and discoveries, rather than relying on tools. A designer needs to know how to do something and, above all, know why they are doing it that way.
Every design decision needs to be intentional, never vague or accidental. Design is, by nature, an act of choice, and every choice reveals an intention, whether conscious or not. As I discussed in my article “When intention drives design”, designing without intention is like navigating without a compass: you may reach somewhere, but it is unlikely to be the right destination.
Intentionality is what distinguishes the designer as an author from the designer as an operator. The former creates meaning; the latter merely executes commands.
Therefore, to build knowledge in design, designers need to understand which competencies they need to develop. Theory can be useful for this, helping to cultivate what Schön calls reflection-in-action, reflection on action, and knowledge-in-action.
However, designers must not forget to apply their knowledge in practice, as this is the ground where understanding is validated and transformed. It is through practice that new theories emerge, new solutions are tested, and the designer truly becomes a reflective practitioner and creator of knowledge.
Types of knowledge in design
The types of knowledge in design vary greatly, depending on the professional’s experience and the context in which they work. For instance, a digital product designer working in the finance sector will have different competencies from someone working in healthcare, dealing with domain-specific challenges, regulations, and user expectations.
In the finance sector, there are mandatory trainings related to anti-money laundering, as well as regulations from the central bank, that drive the development of financial software, knowledge that a designer in the healthcare sector may not possess or need. Additionally, the design standards and UX practices applied in each sector are also completely distinct.
If we analyze the UX competencies proposed by Elizabeth Bacon (2009), we notice a generalization that does not always reflect the reality of the designer. What the professional should know to move beyond tool proficiency and build true intellectual and creative depth.
In the model, disciplines such as information architecture, service design, and interaction design are treated collectively, as if they shared the same set of knowledge. In practice, each of these areas has distinct philosophies, principles, and methods. Evaluating a designer’s knowledge based on such a generalized model can be problematic.
This reflection reinforces the need for each designer to build their own repertoire and develop critical judgment, adapting their knowledge to the real demands of the context in which they work, rather than relying solely on theoretical models. What will differentiate you from the majority is not following generic standards, but the unique knowledge that only you possess.
To explore this topic further, I recommend reading my article “Becoming Good at Something”.
The knowledge development model
Considering the complexity involved in defining the types of knowledge a designer should possess, I propose that knowledge development in design should be structured into three levels: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and reflective knowledge.
This approach applies regardless of whether the professional works as an interaction designer, service designer, or industrial designer.
Declarative knowledge (knowing what)
Declarative knowledge refers to the factual information an individual possesses, including both general and specific knowledge about their environment. Ahmet Demir et al. (2022) explain that declarative knowledge relates to an individual’s understanding and intentions, which are crucial for problem-solving and decision-making.
In other words, declarative knowledge is connected to the process of learning and recalling information that one already knows.
Wikipedia provides a broader definition:
“Declarative knowledge is the awareness of facts that can be expressed through declarative sentences. It is also called theoretical knowledge, descriptive knowledge, propositional knowledge, or knowledge-that. It is not restricted to a specific use or purpose and can be stored in books or computers.”
In my model, I start with declarative knowledge because it establishes the foundation upon which all other learning in design is built. If you want to work as an interaction designer, service designer, or information designer, it is essential to understand the fundamental principles of the discipline, such as typography, visual hierarchy, information architecture, usability heuristics, user-centered design, and so on.
This type of knowledge is crucial because it enables designers to understand the foundations of their discipline before advancing to specific skills, such as prototyping techniques or the use of generative AI tools. Without this foundation, any practice or decision risks being superficial or disconnected from the critical reasoning necessary to solve complex design problems.
In declarative knowledge, the focus is on understanding theory. For example, knowing that Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich created the 10 usability heuristics in 1990 for evaluating interactive products, or understanding what the gulfs of execution and evaluation are and their purpose in interface evaluation.
Furthermore, declarative knowledge serves as a reference for procedural knowledge (knowing how to perform tasks) and reflective knowledge (understanding why a design decision works or fails). It is the starting point for building repertoire and autonomy: knowing what allows the designer to understand the rules of the game before playing it creatively and strategically.
Procedural knowledge (Knowing how)
Procedural refers to knowledge that depends on a process, rules, or steps. According to Wolfgang Carl (2014), procedural knowledge, also called know-how or practical knowledge, is the type of knowledge that manifests in the ability to perform actions effectively, sometimes referred to as imperative or performative knowledge.
This is the second level of knowledge a designer needs to develop. The model is flexible and can be adapted to any design discipline, serving as a guide to structure learning, practice, and professional development.
In interaction design or digital product design, this knowledge is reflected in a designer’s ability to carry out concrete tasks, such as conducting a heuristic evaluation, designing user interfaces, prototyping, or organizing navigation flows. In other words, it is not enough to know the theory; one must know how to apply it in practice and demonstrate tangible results.
There is a fusion between knowing what (declarative knowledge) and knowing how (procedural knowledge), and it is precisely this combination that makes all the difference in a designer’s career. A professional who only masters the theory may understand concepts but will not be able to transform that knowledge into concrete solutions.
Let’s observe the sketch below, which I created as a simple concept to illustrate the importance of having both declarative and procedural knowledge. When a designer receives a sketch like this from a product manager or design director, they must be able to translate the conceptual idea into a real, functional design.
However, this transformation requires the designer to have strong declarative knowledge, in other words, a solid grasp of the theory that guides the design process. Being able to translate this sketch into a coherent, consistent, and aesthetically pleasing interface is what separates a professional from an amateur.
Furthermore, procedural knowledge complements this process by enabling the designer to execute the translation effectively, choosing the right visual hierarchy, layout structure, interaction patterns, and usability principles to bring the concept to life. It’s not only about knowing what should be done, but also how to do it in a way that preserves both functionality and aesthetic integrity.
In practice, this means understanding how each design decision affects user perception and behavior, for instance, where to place primary actions or how to balance visual weight. These are not random choices; they emerge from a deep understanding of HCI principles and accumulated experience through continuous reflection and iteration.
Ultimately, the ability to move from concept to execution, grounded in both theoretical and practical knowledge, is what defines true design mastery.