The styleguide, design principles, and pattern library for British Airways. It’s the “global experience language” for BA …so it’s called BAgel.
I really, really like Heydon’s framing of inclusive design: yes, it covers accessibility, but it’s more than that, and it’s subtly different to universal design.
He also includes some tips which read like design principles to me:
- Involve code early
- Respect conventions
- Don’t be exact
- Enforce simplicity
Come to think of it, they’re really good design principles in that they are all reversible i.e. you could imagine the polar opposites being design principles elsewhere.
I think Tyler’s onto something here:
I noticed three qualities that recurred in different combinations. Without at least two, the projects seemed doomed to failure.
I certainly think there’s a difference in how you approach a pattern library intended as a deliverable (something we do a lot of at Clearleft) compared to building a pattern library for an ongoing ever-evolving product.
Y’know, I think PPK might be on to something here. It’s certainly true that developers have such an eversion to solving a problem twice that some users end up paying the cost (like in the examples of progressive enhancement here).
I will be pondering upon this.
Marvellous insights from Mark on how the robustness principle can and should be applied to styeguides and pattern libraries (‘sfunny—I was talking about Postel’s Law just this morning at An Event Apart in Boston).
Being liberal in accepting things into the system, and being liberal about how you go about that, ensures you don’t police the system. You collaborate on it.
So, what about the output? Remember: be ’conservative in what you do’. For a design system, this means your output of the system – guidelines, principles, design patterns, code, etc etc. – needs to be clear, unambiguous, and understandable.
A wonderfully thoughtful piece on typography, Jan Tschichold and the web. This really resonated with me:
It’s only been over the past year or so in which I’ve recognised myself as a ‘Web designer’ with a capital W, as I now believe that something happens to information and technology, and even typography itself, when people pass through these interconnected networks and interact with hypertext.
It’s for these reasons that I don’t believe in “digital design” or “designing for screens” and it’s why I’m often attracted to one particular side of this spectrum.
Robin proposes three “principles, suggestions, outlines, or rather things-that-I-ought-to-be nervous-about when setting text on the web”:
- We must prioritise the text over the font, or semantics over style.
- We ought to use and/or make tools that reveal the consequences of typographic decisions.
- We should acknowledge that web typography is only as strong as its weakest point.
There’s an in-depth look at applying progressive enhancement to web type, and every single link in the resources section at the end is worth investigating.
Oh, and of course it’s beautifully typeset.
A great little primer on the origins of the internet and the web, by Aleks.
Very thoughtful and sensible thinking from Paul.
I really like the way that Paul’s talk builds on top of ideas laid down by Ethan and Frank. Good stuff.
The slides from Paul’s talk-in-progress on design principles for building responsive sites. He gave us a sneak peak at Clearleft earlier this week. ‘Sgood.
These are principles of visual design—hierarchy, rhythm, etc.—nicely explored and explained.
The minimum dependency for a web site should be an internet connection and the ability to parse HTML.
- Know Your History
- Know Your Medium
- Respect Those Who Came Before You
- Respect Your Audience
- Get Involved
I have to admit, my initial reaction to the idea of providing free access to some websites for people in developing countries was “well, it’s better than no access at all, right?” …but the more I think about it, the more I realise how short-sighted that is. The power of the internet stems from being a stupid network and anything that compromises that—even with the best of intentions—is an attack on its fundamental principles.
On the surface, it sounds great for carriers to exempt popular apps from data charges. But it’s anti-competitive, patronizing, and counter-productive.