Part 1 of 4. How to run a real UX case study on generative image AI when the field reshuffles every few weeks, and one insight that reframes the whole category.
This is Part 1 (intro) of a four-part UX case study evaluating the top generative image AI apps. Part 1 covers why it was split into four and how candidate apps were chosen. Part 2 details the methodology. Part 3 has the apps tested and results. Part 4 has the analysis and expert opinions. Because AI moves fast, the study is explicitly not definitive: over a six-month window the top pick would change, so it’s best read as a methodology demonstration, not a current buyer’s guide.
Key takeaways
- A four-part case study, structured so readers can see methodology, not just conclusions.
- Candidate apps were selected by PR/media mentions, social-media mentions, user counts, and a consumer-facing overview.
- Selection alone took three months because the field changes weekly.
- Key insight: generative AI apps have weak conventional social presence but thrive on Discord.
- The results are explicitly time-sensitive and not definitive.
How the top apps were chosen
Because creative-tool preference is subjective, the team used a methodical selection. With too many AI image apps to test, they narrowed the field using four criteria: PR and media mentions, social-media mentions in dedicated groups, user counts (where public), and a consumer-facing overview. They joined AI image groups on Facebook and Reddit and followed companies and influential figures for three months, a long window justified by how fast the ‘cool thing’ in AI turns over.
The key insight: these apps live on Discord
The standout finding was that, like many gaming startups, generative AI startups have a weak presence on mainstream social media, with one exception: Discord. Most run their communities (and even prompt-to-output workflows) on Discord. From a UX standpoint that signals three things:
| Signal | What it means | Angle |
|---|---|---|
| App-first to conversational | A paradigm shift in user behavior: away from a standalone app toward a chat/community-driven interaction. | Behavior |
| A deliberate audience split | The message is ‘we’re a demographic with our own codes; we don’t cater to old-schoolers’, with real marketing consequences. | Marketing |
| Fast community with many touchpoints | Discord enables quick community-building, from user galleries to direct developer contact, which traditional apps rarely offer. | Community |
This shaped the research: interviewees needed varying support (strong but non-native English), which also let the team assess accessibility and required skill levels across technology access, design proficiency, age and app familiarity. The study is positioned as useful both to AI novices wanting an unbiased steer and to UX students learning to build case studies from third-party data.
By four criteria: PR/media mentions, social-media mentions in dedicated groups, user counts where public, and a consumer-facing overview, gathered over three months.
Because generative AI moves so fast that the leading tools shift within weeks; a longer window gives a more stable picture, though it’s still time-sensitive.
They have weak mainstream social presence but use Discord for community, prompts and output, reflecting a shift from app-first to conversational interaction.
No. It’s explicitly non-definitive and time-sensitive; it’s best used as a UX-research methodology example rather than an up-to-date tool ranking.
Need rigorous, unbiased UX research on tools or competitors? Talk to Dorve.
Start a project