IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE Computer Society

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

Consumers should know the quality of blends used in the packets, says itsIndian Tea Association chief Hemant Bangur

Building genuine connections and understanding the intrinsic motivations of farmers can create a vibrant ecosystem

While the issue with the of TOS has been addressedsorted out, the trailers are still facing delays in the scanning centre

Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1987

First GSTR-2B based on IMS to be generated for October on November 14.

This plan aligns with the global targets set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Committee's report on the performance audit of schemes for flood control and forecasting underscores the need for urgent action to ensure timely and effective flood management

Brad Frost has got design systems on his mind—at a global scale. What is a global design system? Are two design systems ever the same? How would this slot inside atomic design? What has been the response from the web community to global design system as an idea? And what's Frostapalooza?

Updated 10/30/2024

ARRL previously reported that we are responding to a serious incident involving access to our network and headquarters-based systems. Several services have been affected, including those administered by the ARRL Volunteer Examiner Coordinator (ARRL VEC).

Exam Registrations and Materials. ARRL Volunteer Examiners (VEs) should continue to submit exam registrations and material re...

The book explores the complex Vajpayee-Advani relationship

Union Agriculture Ministry launches Krishi-DSS, a digital platform providing real-time data insights for stakeholders in Indian agriculture

Seed Stories, a documentary recently screened in Bengaluru, is a nuanced exploration of the efforts of barefoot ecologist Dr. Debal Deb and his team and their attempt to conserve over 1,000 endangered heirloom varieties of rice

He also presents sanction letters for pre-incubation centres, which aim to support innovative business ideas in their initial stages

Jina Anne silences the night to talk about how we talk about Design Systems. Can the language we use impact the effectiveness of the solution? Fear not, if mighty dread has seized your troubled mind. Design systems of great joy we bring to you and all mankind.

Ooh, clickbaity title. Why on earth would I, a self-proclaimed “design systems advocate”, say there is no design system? Yes, I’m being a little tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I just wanted an excuse to use the “there is no spoon” gif. But I do have an actual point, so bear with me.

Design systems as a “thing” vs design systems as a methodology

Recently I tweeted my thoughts on why I have been tending to use design systems in plural form (rather than using an article like “a” or “the” in front of it). During my time at Salesforce when our team was called “Design Systems” and my role was “Lead Designer, Design Systems”, I would get asked “Why is it plural? We only have one.”.

My thoughts:

I liked my title at Salesforce as “Lead Designer, Design Systems”.

People asked, but it’s just one. Why plural?

“A design system” or “The design system” makes people think of a deliverable artifact/library.

But it’s ongoing design systems work. Process improvement & workflows.

— design systems jina (@jina) December 12, 2019

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the way we talk about design systems, including the confusion and negativity that can come along with it. Amélie Lamont gave a talk in 2018 called “The Language of Design”, and in it, she talked about the way we talk about design systems and design itself from a “jargony point of view”. She argues that design is technically problem-solving.

I definitely agree. People get caught up in “design” as the actual role or action of designing and have even taken issue with the term “design systems” for this very reason (and have suggested it be more focused on code). I don’t think it really does us a good service to just swap out one role for the other. And… is it even about the role?

For other folks, which I include myself, we see design as a larger effort that involves the end-user experience (which includes usability, accessibility, performance, etc) as well as having a huge impact on the business. This includes code.

But really, it should all be focused on people. I like Mina Markham’s definition of what makes for good art direction in design systems:

Art direction is progressive. Localized. Cross-functional. Inclusive. Systematic.

Mina Markham

You’ll notice that the emphasis of what she speaks about is on people.

So in the design systems work we do, you often think of a style guide. Or a component library. Or a Sketch UI Kit. And there are arguments on whether either of those things can be called a design system if it doesn’t include this other thing or that other thing. We even talk about whether design systems are products or are more of a service. My take? The word “design” and “system” used in combination together literally just means to systemize your design (and in my world view that is more about the overall experience). And so if for you that means a Sketch UI Library, then you do you! My point is I think there is too much focus on the deliverables in the first place.

I touched on this briefly very recently:

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about is how much time we spend on making beautiful design system websites. I love looking at them. They’re great. But as our design and engineering tools get closer and closer together, will we come to a point where we don’t need the website? Can our tools surface suggestions for better accessibility, localization, performance, and usability, because our design system is baked into the tools? Just a thought.

Quote from post in Smarter Design Systems Tools

Invisible Design Systems?

So this is something I am striving for in 2020 — in what ways can we improve our collaboration, remove any proverbial gaps between design and engineering (not just bridge them), and have more meaningful conversations around the work we do? I don’t have any wrong or right answers here, but I am looking forward to seeing this progress in our field.

Design tools are bringing in smarter, automated ways to check for color contrast and other accessibility issues that can be detected early on. Sketch just announced their Assistant feature planned for 2020, which will check for your visual design discrepancies. And some design tools are using real code to be used in your product.

Engineering tools are advancing every day as well. I was just attending Flutter Interact recently, which was an event held by Google about their Flutter UI toolkit. It previously enabled you to get apps built for native platforms like Android and iOS, from one code base, and now has also announced their support for desktop and web. The push at this year’s event was focused on making this approachable for creatives (with their integrations into tools like Adobe XD. It really does feel like design and engineering tools are coming closer and closer together. And that’s all really cool and exciting.

However, I have to tell you: a lot of the time that I’m working in design systems, I’m not even touching a design tool. Or coding. Rather, it’s a lot of people-focused work: Reviewing. Advising. Organizing. Coordinating. Triaging. Educating. Supporting. That’s a lot of invisible systems work right there. (I use “invisible” here to mean there is not a direct tangible object in some of this work, though it all does serve the end-user through the product outcomes).

Designed objects are the fruit of invisible systems.

Amélie Lamont

This definitely is not me saying “don’t build a style guide” or “don’t make a Sketch UI Kit”. Use whatever works best for your organization. But this essentially is a plea to always put the focus on the people using your products. And, think about design systems as more of a methodology. A shining example of this way of designing systems is the newly released Encore from Spotify. I had the opportunity to see this revealed at Design Systems London, and they just published a post on it recently.

What’s different about Encore is that it isn’t a single monolithic thing. It’s a framework that brings Spotify’s existing design systems under one brand—a “system of systems.”

Source: Reimagining Design Systems at Spotify

This design systems work is not about one style guide website and instead focuses on the needs across several systems that are connected. Design Tokens help this to be a reality. Needless to say, I’m a big fan.

Love for your community

Design system principle #4: Favor community over control.

— Nathan Curtis (@nathanacurtis) March 23, 2017

When you’re doing design systems work in your organization, you are actually building a community. This can involve shared language and nomenclature, an aligned purpose, and better, closer collaboration. It doesn’t have to be a “style police” situation (I actually very much dislike the term “governance”). This can be a joint effort – working together to share the ownership of design systems together.

I was a big fan of the pairing model that we had at Salesforce when I was there. The work we did in design systems informed the work our product designers did. But then the work that the product designers did, in turn, informed the work we did in design systems. It was a very cyclical model and combined Nathan Curtis’s observed models of the Centralized Team and the Federated Contributors.

From my experience, I have found that great design systems teams have hybrid skillsets. Whether that is having actual hybrid designer/engineers on the team, or just ensuring that those skillsets are represented across the team, it’s important to have the perspectives of design, engineering, product, content, accessibility, and more.

I think that part of a designer’s role – and not even a designer. Anybody who uses the design system by nature of what a design system is – it’s the conglomeration of all the disciplines. Some code, some design, some product knowledge, some writing. And what that means is I think everybody on the team has to approach it with some humility.

Dan Mall

Kim Williams spoke recently in her talk, Start with your Brand Purpose, on Design Systems Love:

Love is patient. With design systems, …it’s a marathon and not a sprint. …this is a long game and it is a labor of love. And love is kind. We support everyone through change. Internally change is so hard. How do you help engineers work in a different way, how do you help PMs think strategically and embrace a new definition of analytical, how do you make in-roads with marketing so that they’re comfortable with you talking about brand and that you’re comfortable with marketing talking about user experience? How do you really, really build those relationships up through empathy. …the onus is on us to educate, to facilitate, to help others understand, to speak the language, to be that bridge, to be that connector, to be that catalyst for our companies. It always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Never fails. I love this because there’s a resiliency that we need to have, a resilience when we go through this.

Kim Williams

I love, love, love that.

And so while I still think it’s fun to explore new tools and get really excited about certain processes, at the end of the day, (in my most humble opinion), the best design systems teams are not just hybrid teams — they are also teams that work and supports each other really well, thus producing amazing user-centered work.

So, my suggestion for the coming year is to perhaps move away from thinking of design systems as an actual thing (especially when it comes to the negative perception of spending time on them) and more as a way of working better, more efficiently, and more creatively so that we can build great experiences for our users. I like to repeat in my work, Design Systems are for people, because it is a call to cherish, support, and empower the people you serve (both internally and externally).

Happy holidays!

About the author

Jina is a design systems advocate and coach. At Amazon, Jina was Senior Design Systems Lead. At Salesforce, she was Lead Designer on the Lightning Design System. She led the CSS architecture and style guide for the Apple Online Store. She’s also worked at GitHub, Engine Yard, Crush + Lovely, and Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, and more. She developed projects with W3C, Mass.gov, FedEx, etc.

Jina coauthored Design Systems Handbook, Fancy Form Design, and The Art & Science of CSS. She’s published several articles. She’s spoken at conferences including Adobe MAX. Print Magazine featured Jina as a leading San Francisco creative.

More articles by Jina

Amy Hupe prepares a four bird roast of tasty treats so we can learn how the needs of many different types of users can be served through careful implementation of components within a design system.

Design systems help us to make our products consistent, and to make sure we’re creating them in the most efficient way possible. They also help us to ensure our products are designed and built to a high quality; that they’re not only consistent in appearance, and efficiently-built, but that they are good. And good design means accessible design.

1 in 5 people in the UK have a long term illness, impairment or disability – and many more have a temporary disability. Designing accessible services is incredibly important from an ethical, reputational and commercial standpoint. For EU government websites and apps, accessibility is also a legal requirement.

With that in mind, I’ll explain the four main ways I think we can use design systems to promote accessible design within an organisation, and what design systems can’t do.

1. Bake it in

Design systems typically provide guidance and examples to aid the design process, showing what best practice looks like. Many design systems also encompass code that teams can use to take these elements into production. This gives us an opportunity to build good design into the foundations of our products, not just in terms of how they look, but also how they work. For everyone.

Let me give an example.

The GOV.UK Design System contains a component called the Summary list. It’s used in a few different contexts on GOV.UK, to summarise information. It’s often used at the end of a long or complex form, to let users check their answers before they send them, like this:

Users can review the information and, if they’ve entered something incorrectly, they can go back and edit their answer by clicking the “Change” link on the right-hand side. This works well if you can see the change link, because you can see which information it corresponds to.

In the top row, for example, I can see that the link is giving me the option to change the name I’ve entered because I can see the name label, and the name I put in is next to it.

However, if you’re using a screen reader, this link – and all the others – will just say “change”, and it becomes harder to tell what you’re selecting. So to help with this, the GOV.UK Design System team added some visually-hidden text to the code in the example, to make the link more descriptive.

Sighted users won’t see this text, but when a screen reader reads out the link, it’ll say “change name”. This makes the component more accessible, and helps it to satisfy a Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) success criterion for links which says we must “provide link text that identifies the purpose of the link without needing additional context”.

By building our components with inclusion in mind, we can make it easier to make products accessible, before anyone’s even had to think about it. And that’s a great starting point. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have to think about it – we definitely do. And a design system can help with that too.

2. Explain it

Having worked as the GOV.UK Design System’s content designer for the best part of 3 years, I’m somewhat biased about this, but I think that the most valuable aspect of a design system is its documentation.

(Here’s a shameless plug for my patterns Day talk on design system documentation earlier this year, if you want to know more about that.)

When it comes to accessibility, written documentation lets us guide good practice in a way that code and examples alone can’t.

By carefully documenting implementation rules for each component, we have an opportunity to distribute accessible design principles throughout a design system. This means design system users encounter them not just once, but repeatedly and frequently, in various contexts, which helps to build awareness over time.

For instance, WCAG 2.1 warns against using colour as “the only visual means of conveying information, calling an action, prompting a response or distinguishing a visual element”. This is a general principle to follow, but design system documentation lets us explain how this relates to specific components.

Take the GOV.UK Design System’s warning buttons. These are used for actions with serious, often destructive consequences that can’t easily be undone – like permanently deleting an account.

The example doesn’t tell you this, but the guidance explains that you shouldn’t rely on the red colour of warning buttons to communicate that the button performs a serious action, since not all users will be able to see the colour or understand what it signifies.

Instead, it says, “make sure the context and button text makes clear what will happen if the user selects it”. In this way, the colour is used as an enhancement for people who can interpret it, but it’s not necessary in order to understand it.

Making the code in our examples and component packages as accessible as possible by default is really important, but written documentation like this lets us be much more explicit about how to design accessible services.

3. Lead by example

In our design systems’ documentation, we’re telling people what good design looks like, so it’s really important that we practice what we preach.

Design systems are usually for members of staff, rather than members of the public. But if we want to build an inclusive workplace, we need to hold them to the same standards and ensure they’re accessible to everyone who might need to use them – today and in the future.

One of the ways we did this in my team, was by making sure the GOV.UK Design System supports users who need to customise the colours they use to browse the web. There are a range of different user needs for changing colours on the web. People who are sensitive to light, for instance, might find a white background too bright. And some users with dyslexia find certain colours easier to read than others.

My colleague, Nick Colley, wrote about the work we did to ensure GOV.UK Design System’s components will work when users change colours on GOV.UK. To ensure we weren’t introducing barriers to our colleagues, we also made it possible to customise colours in the GOV.UK Design System website itself.

Building this flexibility into our design system helps to support our colleagues who need it, but it also shows others that we’re committed to inclusion and removing barriers.

4. Teach it

The examples I’ve drawn on here have mostly focused on design system documentation and tooling, but design systems are much bigger than that. In the fortuitously-timed “There is No Design System”, Jina reminds us that tooling is just one of the ways we systematise design:

…it’s a lot of people-focused work: Reviewing. Advising. Organizing. Coordinating. Triaging. Educating. Supporting.”

To make a design system successful, we can’t just build a set of components and hope they work. We have to actively help people find it, use it and contribute to it. That means we have to go out and talk about it. We have to support people in learning to use it and help new teams adopt it. These engagement activities and collaborative processes that sit around it can help to promote awareness of the why, not just the what.

At GDS, we ran workshops on accessibility in the design system, getting people to browse various web pages using visual impairment simulation glasses to understand how visually impaired users might experience our content. By working closely with our systems’ users and contributors like this, we have an opportunity to bring them along on the journey of making something accessible.

We can help them to test out their code and content and understand how they’ll work on different platforms, and how they might need to be adjusted to make sure they’re accessible. We can teach them what accessibility means in practice.

These kinds of activities are invaluable in helping to promote accessible design thinking. And these kinds of lessons – when taught well – are disseminated as colleagues share knowledge with their teams, departments and the wider industry.

What design systems can’t do

Our industry’s excitement about design systems shows no signs of abating, and I’m excited about the opportunities it affords us to make accessible design the default, not an edge case. But I want to finish on a word about their limitations.

While a design system can help to promote awareness of the need to be accessible, and how to design products and services that are, a design system can’t make an organisation fundamentally care about accessibility.

Even with the help of a thoughtfully created design system, it’s still possible to make really inaccessible products if you’re not actively working to remove barriers. I feel lucky to have worked somewhere that prioritises accessibility. Thanks to the work of some really brilliant people, it’s just part of the fabric at GDS. (For more on that work and those brilliant people, I can’t think of a better place to start than my colleague Ollie Byford’s talk on inclusive forms.)

I’m far from being an accessibility expert, but I can write about this because I’ve worked in an organisation where it’s always a central consideration. This shouldn’t be something to feel lucky about. It should be the default, but sadly we’re not there yet. Not even close.

Earlier this year, Domino’s pizza was successfully sued by a blind customer after he was unable to order food on their website or mobile app, despite using screen-reading software. And in a recent study carried out by disability equality charity, Scope, 50% of respondents said that they had given up on buying a product because the website, app or in-store machine had accessibility issues.

Legally, reputationally and most importantly, morally, we all have a duty to do better. To make sure our products and services are accessible to everyone. We can use design systems to help us on that journey, but they’re just one part of our toolkit.

In the end, it’s about committing to the cause – doing the work to make things accessible. Because accessible design is good design.

About the author

Amy is a content specialist and design systems advocate who’s spent the last 3 years working as a Senior Content Designer at the Government Digital Service.

In that time, she’s led the content strategy for the GOV.UK Design System, including a straightforward and inclusive approach to documentation.

In January, Amy will continue her work in this space, in her new role as Product Manager for Babylon Health’s design system, DNA.

More articles by Amy

Addressing food inequality and ensuring that everyone has access to nutritious food are essential steps

Boston : Birkhäuser, 2006

Berlin : Springer, 2005