This is an interesting comparison: design systems as APIs. It makes sense. A design system—like an API—is a contract. Also, an API without documentation is of little use …much like a design system without documentation.
An interesting project that will research and document the language used across different design systems to name similar components.
The video of a talk in which Mark discusses pace layers, dogs, and design systems. He concludes:
- Current design systems thinking limits free, playful expression.
- Design systems uncover organisational disfunction.
- Continual design improvement and delivery is a lie.
- Component-focussed design is siloed thinking.
It’s true many design systems are the blueprints for manufacturing and large scale application. But in almost every instance I can think of, once you move from design to manufacturing the horse has bolted. It’s very difficult to move back into design because the results of the system are in the wild. The more strict the system, the less able you are to change it. That’s why broad principles, just enough governance, and directional examples are far superior to locked-down cookie cutters.
This is a really interesting distinction:
An intentional design system. The flavour and framework may vary, but the approach generally consists of: design system first → design/build solutions.
An emergent design system. This approach is much closer to the user needs end of the scale by beginning with creative solutions before deriving patterns and systems (i.e the system emerges from real, coded scenarios).
It’s certainly true that intentional design systems will invariably bake in a number of (unproven?) assumptions.
Keep what you need, delete what you don’t and add whatever you like on top of whats already there.
The good folks at Sparkbox ran a survey on design systems. Here are the results, presented in a flagrantly anti-Tufte manner.
Dave enumerates the things about Vue that click for him. The component structure matches his mental model, and crucially, it’s relative straightforward to add Vue to an existing project instead of ripping everything out and doing things a certain way:
In my experience Angular, React, and a lot of other frameworks ultimately require you to go all in early and establish a large toolchain around these frameworks.
This post was originally written in 2015, but upon re-reading it today, it still (just about) holds up, so I finally hit publish.
Brad describes how he has found his place in the world of React, creating UI components without dabbling in business logic:
Instead of merely creating components’ reference HTML, CSS, and presentational JS, frontend designers can create directly consumable HTML, CSS, and presentational JS that back-of-the-frontend developers can then breathe life into.
What’s clear is that the term “React” has become as broad and undefined as the term “front-end”. Just saying that someone does React doesn’t actually say much about the nature of the work.
When you say “we’re hiring a React developer”, what exactly do you mean by that? “React developer” is almost as vague as “frontend developer”, so clarify. Are you looking for a person to specialize in markup and styles? A person to author middleware and business logic? A person to manage data and databases? A person to own build processes?
A case study from Twitter on the benefits of using a design system:
With component-based design, development becomes an act of composition, rather than constantly reinventing the wheel.
I think that could be boiled down to this:
Component-based design favours composition over invention.
I’m not saying that’s good. I’m not saying that’s bad. I’m also not saying it’s neutral.
Rachel makes the case for integrating content design patterns into component libraries:
Instead of content design systems and visual design systems existing in isolation, the ideal is one design system that accommodates everything, marrying the content and design together in the way it will actually be used and experienced.
This really is a most excellent introduction to React. Complete with cheat sheet!
A very thoughtful post by Hidde that draws a useful distinction between the “internals” of a component (the inner workings of a React component, Vue component, or web component) and the code that wires those components together (the business logic):
I really like working on the detailed stuff that affects users: useful keyboard navigation, sensible focus management, good semantics. But I appreciate not every developer does. I have started to think this may be a helpful separation: some people work on good internals and user experience, others on code that just uses those components and deals with data and caching and solid architecture. Both are valid things, both need love. Maybe we can use the divide for good?
The bait’n’switch is laid bare. First, AMP is positioned as a separate format. Then, only AMP pages are allowed ranking in the top stories carousel. Now, let’s pretend none of that ever happened and act as though AMP is just another framework. Oh, and those separate AMP pages that you made? Turns out that was all just “transitional” and you’re supposed to make your entire site in AMP now.
I would genuinely love to know how the Polymer team at Google feel about this pivot. Everything claimed in this blog post about AMP is actually true of Polymer (and other libraries of web components that don’t have the luxury of bribing developers with SEO ranking).
Some alternative facts from the introduction:
AMP isn’t another “channel” or “format” that’s somehow not the web.
Weird …because that’s exactly how it was sold to us (as a direct competitor to similar offerings from Apple and Facebook).
It’s not an SEO thing.
That it outright false. Ask any company actually using AMP why they use it.
It’s not a replacement for HTML.
And yet, the article goes on to try convince you to replace HTML with AMP.
I think the situation that Remy outlines here is quite common (in client-rehydrated server-rendered pages), but what’s less common is Remy’s questioning and iteration.
So I now have a simple rule of thumb: if there’s an onClick, there’s got to be an anchor around the component.
Chris ponders the motivations behind companies sharing their design systems publicly. Personally, I’ve always seen it as a nice way of sharing work and saying “here’s what worked for us” without necessarily saying that anyone else should use the same system.
That said, I think Chris makes a good poin here:
My parting advice is actually to the makers of public design systems: clearly identify who this design system is for and what they are able to do with it.
Wouldn’t it be great if every component in your design system had accessibility acceptance criteria? Paul has some good advice for putting those together:
- Start with accessibility needs
- Don’t be too generic
- Don’t define the solution
- Iterate criteria
document.querySelectorfirst got wide browser support and started to end jQuery’s ubiquity? It finally gave us a way to do natively what jQuery had been providing for years: easy selection of DOM elements. I believe the same is about to happen to frontend frameworks like Angular and React.
The article goes on to give a good technical overview of custom elements, templates, and the Shadow DOM, but I was surprised to see it making reference to the
is syntax for extending existing HTML elements—I’m pretty sure that that is, sadly, dead in the water.