Learning Tools Before Learning Thinking
At some point in my second year, I got quite comfortable with Figma.
I knew the shortcuts. I could build a component, set up auto layout, organize a file in a way that looked clean and intentional. When someone would share their screen and fumble around the interface, I’d quietly feel like I was ahead. Like I understood something they didn’t yet.
What I didn’t realize was that I had confused the map for the territory.
Knowing Figma isn’t knowing design. But for a while, it genuinely felt like it was. Because tool fluency is visible and design thinking isn’t. You can show someone a well-organized file. You can’t easily show them that you understood the problem before you started solving it.
So tool fluency fills that space. It becomes the thing you can point to.
And the world rewards it. Openly.
The person in class who could prototype the fastest got the most attention. The designer on Twitter with the satisfying UI breakdowns, the ones where every shadow is perfect and every spacing is deliberate, gets thousands of followers. The intern who learned the software in a week gets called talented. Nobody stops to ask what problem any of it was solving. The craft looked impressive, so everyone assumed the thinking was there too.
There’s a kind of social proof that comes with tool fluency that has nothing to do with depth. When someone moves through a design tool with confidence, it reads as competence. It signals that they know what they’re doing. And in rooms where most people are still figuring things out, that signal carries a lot of weight. People look to them. Defer to them. Put them slightly above everyone else in the unspoken hierarchy of who seems to have it figured out.
Even when they don’t.
Get Looks Right’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I’ve seen work get praised in critiques because it looked finished. The interactions were smooth, the file was tidy, the presentation was polished. And somewhere in that polish, the actual questions got skipped. Does this solve anything? Who is this for? The work looked so resolved that asking those questions felt almost rude.
That’s the quiet danger of putting tool fluency on a pedestal. It doesn’t just mislead the people watching, it misleads the person doing it too.
Because if you’re being told you’re good, it’s easy to believe the part people aren’t saying, which is that you’re good at design, not just good at the tool. The validation feels the same from the inside. And so you keep going, building more polished things with less examined thinking, and for a while it works. The likes come in. The praise keeps arriving. Nobody asks the harder questions because the surface is too smooth to find a way in.
I’m not immune to this. There was a period where I was more focused on how my work looked in a presentation than on whether it actually answered the brief. I’d spend time on the mockup before I’d spent enough time on the thinking. Because I knew the mockup would land. I wasn’t as sure the thinking would.
And design education, at least in my experience, doesn’t always push back on this. A lot of early instruction is tool instruction. These things matter, but they come with a quiet implication that once you know the tool, you’re equipped to design. That the thinking will follow naturally.
Sometimes it does. Often it doesn’t.
The tool became a way of avoiding the thinking. And the strange thing is, the output could still look good. A polished layout with no real reasoning behind it reads as competent from a distance. It can even fool you into thinking the thinking happened somewhere along the way.
But there’s a difference between a design that looks resolved and one that actually is. And I started noticing that difference in feedback. Not the feedback on how things looked, but the questions that followed. Why this structure? What’s the user actually doing here? What problem does this solve?
Those questions exposed something tool fluency had been quietly covering up.
I’m still learning to separate the two. To notice when opening the file is the right next step, and when it’s just the comfortable one. The tool is genuinely useful once the thinking is there. Before that, it’s just somewhere comfortable to hide.
Takeaway: The design world has a habit of celebrating people who are good with tools and calling it talent. Sometimes it is. But tool fluency without real thinking is just a convincing surface. And a convincing surface, for a while, can look a lot like the real thing.
