AI Assistant: Fabrie Write

Fabrie · AI feature design case study

01 Framing

In 2023, after a year of launching the Fabrie whiteboard and completing a major technical refactor, the team started experimenting with AI features. Early tests (v1.0) included basic image-related capabilities such as text-to-image, image-to-image, and super-resolution. These experiments validated user interest, but the features remained lightweight and loosely connected to the core whiteboard experience.

A timeline diagram illustrating the evolution of image generation technology.
Early AI feature tests in Fabrie.

As Midjourney and ChatGPT gained massive traction, many tools expanded toward “AI + whiteboard” scenarios. For Fabrie, the whiteboard was already a natural canvas for AI-generated content, presenting an opportunity for feature expansion and product differentiation.

A computer screen displaying a chat interface with various menu options.
ChatGPT: chat-style, timeline-based interactions.
Screenshot of a digital brainstorming board titled Research on autopilot experience.
Fabrie: where AI meets whiteboards for spatial collaboration.

However, most AI features on the market were limited to chat-style, timeline-based interactions, focusing mainly on text or image generation. Fabrie’s real strength lies in spatial collaboration. Simply embedding a chat window into the whiteboard would neither create differentiation nor bring meaningful value to our users.

Challenge


02 Discovering

I analyzed several AI tools (ChatGPT, Notion AI, Gamma, Tome, Miro, etc.) to understand differences in feature types, interaction patterns, and integration with core products.

  • Mainstream interactions are concentrated in chat windows or command-based sidebars.
  • Most features focus on content generation, with limited integration into spatial objects.

Two Core Capabilities of AI

Based on this research, AI capabilities can be broken down into two steps:

Placeholder graphic requesting generation of image, text, video, or code.
Step 1: Natural Language Processing — understanding user text input.
Screenshot of a chat with generated Python code.
Step 2: Content Generation — producing images, text, low-code, executable code, or video.

Within Step 2: Content Generation, we identified two distinct modes:

  • Create from scratch: generating entirely new objects, such as sticky notes and mind maps.
  • Enhance existing: modifying current objects, such as changing color or adjusting style.

Interactive: Traditional vs AI

Comparison of two methods for changing a sticky note from yellow to purple.
Traditional commands rely on fixed buttons; AI commands rely on understanding natural language.

Traditional commands rely on fixed buttons, such as pressing “Back” to return to the previous page.

AI commands rely on understanding natural language, breaking the one-to-one mapping between command and task. This offers greater flexibility, but also higher uncertainty.


03 Ideation

Challenge

Comparison chart showing version 1.0 early tests and version 2.0 consolidation and expansion.
A flowchart comparing feature complexity and interaction needs.

We approached this challenge from a function-first perspective.

Feature scope by category:

  • Image Generation: generate images based on prompts.
  • Text Processing: summarize, continue writing, extract tasks, expand details, split paragraphs, translate, refine text.
  • Image Editing: background removal, OCR text recognition, upscaling, AI-assisted edits.
  • Template Generation (Canvas GPT): mind maps, brainstorming, pros & cons, business model canvas, stakeholder maps, timelines, data tables.

From these functions, I categorized interaction needs into two types:

  1. Low-customization needs, such as translation and background removal, should retain button-triggered actions.
  2. High-customization needs, such as generating complex illustrations and custom templates, should introduce natural language input.