Episode 064 Raw Data

	A	B	C	D
1	Thanks for your interest in The Question! Sign up to participate in future questions here. This file is the raw data from Episode 064, deep dive hosted on November 20, 2025 with Ben Callahan and Pegah Ahmadi. There are 44 answers. The question this week was: ----- Hello, system thinkers! I have had a few really interesting, philosophical conversations with this week’s co host—Pegah Ahmadi—and I’m so excited for her to join us! Most recently, we were discussing the massive responsibility it is to lead a design system. We agreed that design systems can do much more than disseminate UI patterns, that they can also propagate both our values and our ethics. Where the values a DS distributes are usually derived from the values of the organization, ethics are tied to a more global standard. Ethical responsibility is the obligation to act in a way that is morally right and beneficial to society. If part of our jobs is to consider the ethical responsibility of the design system, it adds weight to our work and brings a new meaning to DS governance beyond simply ensuring the quality of the parts. This week, we want to understand your view on the ethics of design systems. Welcome to Episode 064 of The Question! Do you believe design systems carry ethical responsibility? Do ethics play a part in your daily design system work? Why or why not? How do you measure trust in your design system?
2	Question 1: Do you believe design systems carry ethical responsibility?	Question 2: Do ethics play a part in your daily design system work?	Question 3: Why or why not?	Question 4: How do you measure trust in your design system?
3	Yes	Yes	We all have a duty to be ethically responsible for the product of our work, design systems are no different in that sense.	Interviews with our consumers, satisfaction surveys, adoption metrics
4	Yes	Yes	Ethics play a part in my daily design system work because our Design System directly influences how millions of users interact with our products. Every token, component, and pattern we define shapes user behaviour, so we have a responsibility to ensure those experiences are accessible, honest, and supportive. Working in the sports betting domain makes this even more important, because small design decisions can impact how people make choices. By considering ethics, we make sure the system promotes clarity, fairness, and responsible usage across all brands. This mindset helps us build a design system that not only maintains quality but also protects and respects the people who use it.	We measure it through the way teams consistently choose to use it. When designers and engineers adopt components without hesitation, follow our guidelines, and involve us early in decision making, it shows they trust the system to support high-quality work. We also look at how often teams rely on the system for new features, how quickly they migrate to updated components, and the quality of feedback we receive. Trust becomes visible when the system is seen as the safest, fastest, and most reliable way to build product experiences.
5	Yes	Yes	Design itself carries all the (dark) patterns, and so will the design system as well.	Currently we don't.
6	Yes	Yes	we prioritize accessibility to ensure usability across the greater population. and, we work to ensure dark patterns are not instigated/crafted. but i'm interested in learn how to think of this more broadly - the 2 i listed feel "obvious", i'm curious to know what opportunities i'm missing.	we do NPS surveys and gather feedback from users. NPS is how much you would recommend our product, which could imply trust. but i don't think in terms of ethics, etc that we capture this.
7	I'm not sure how to answer this. I think yes for the DS practitioners, the documentation, accessibility, the processes, behaviors, and tooling decisions. I think no for artifacts and components themselves. For example, a button itself isn't moral, but the decisions that went into making it, and for whom, definitely are.	Yes	Yes in how we relate to and communicate with others as well as accessibility. So very much the people side of things.	We don't measure it, but we pay attention to consumer sentiment and watch behaviors that may indicate something about trust.
8	Yes	Yes	For me, ethics come into play whenever we make choices that affect compliance, fairness, and accessibility in our products. First, I work for a company that builds HR and HCM products that businesses depend on to operate responsibly. Our tools help professionals pay employees accurately and maintain compliance with laws and regulations. That responsibility means our design decisions directly impact fairness, transparency, and trust. Second, accessibility is a core ethical commitment. My team collaborates closely with our UX accessibility experts to make the design system as inclusive as possible. We provide clear documentation, examples, and support channels to guide teams in implementing accessible experiences. This work ensures that everyone, regardless of ability, can interact with our products effectively.	We don’t have a formal metric for trust in our design system, but we do track signals that suggest confidence is growing. Adoption is one indicator, and those numbers have been encouraging. Beyond that, we look for signs that teams feel the system is reliable and easy to use. Over the past few years, we’ve worked hard to reduce questions about whether design, code, or documentation is cohesive and correct. Fewer questions mean people are finding what they need and trust that the information is accurate and up to date. Another signal is office hours participation. When I started four years ago, signups filled four hours each week. Today, we’re down to about one hour, which suggests teams feel more self-sufficient and confident in the system. A big part of building this trust has been collaborating with key product team ambassadors across UX and engineering. These partnerships help us validate decisions, ensure alignment with real-world needs, and create advocates who reinforce confidence in the system within their teams.
9	Yes	Yes	The first thing I had in mind was : It can cary ethical responsabilities if it's on the pattern level, if it intergrates dark patterns or refuses these kind of patterns. But even on a lower level, components and tokens, its carries quality and accessibility, which is still ethical topics : how people with disabilities, with low connexion, etc can access you digital product ? And on the other side, the environmental subject : How heavy and energy efficient are our product ? And design system and the whole ops has a impact on this question too	I don't understand that question : if we are we talking trust that consumer have for the design system, I would say with user research (both quantitative with surveys and qualitative with interviews & focus groups) and we could finish with a mesurable score with a KPI like a eNPS and/or a more operational one, like the real usage of components with a score. real usage = (nb of instance of component - nb of detachment) / nb of instance of component We could use that for each component, for each library or customize it with the number of component to talk volume instead of percentage.
10	Yes	Yes	The main way I have tried to do ethical work in design systems is by building accessible components and patterns. Things like adding labels to inputs, checking color contrast, including reduced motion queries, stuff like that. I am very curious to hear of other ways to build ethical practices in design system work.	I am planning to run some surveys and feedback sessions to gauge how things are going with this new design system.
11	Yes	Yes	In general the company within which I am building the design system is oriented on being ethically responsible, so naturally the design system follows. I would say it is crucial for the design system to be ethically responsible by being accessible and promoting inclusivity, mitigating bias or assumptions (e.g. gender based). I believe avoiding dark patterns and deceptive practices matters. Design systems conveying the “why” behind how the components are built often reference the ethical principles (e.g. a11y, transparency, etc.). The ethical decisions made (or not) in the design system carry through the entire product later on, so I consider ethically responsible design systems to be the most efficient way to scale responsible design.	By collecting ongoing feedback from the users - tech and design.
12	No	No	The more we continue to add these very organization-level (but very important things) to the tool-level (ie. making it the responsibility of the design system to drive this), the harder we continue to make our jobs. Our design systems are INTERNAL TOOLS. They are not society-changing artifacts. Let's take a step down from our pedestal. "If part of our jobs is to consider the ethical responsibility of the design system," I'd equally ask the ethical responsibility of home depot to sell hammers.	I don't think "trust in an internal tool" should be equated with ethics
13	Yes	Yes	Ethic = Responsible Design = also Inclusivity & Accessibility And we are building an accessible design system. Beside that, we ensure to build components and push pattern practices that will not create deceptive flows. On the Tech side, we implemented for example a tree-shaking to lower package weight. And beside that linked to DS I, as DesignOps Lead, push to train and talk about Responsible Design, Responsible AI...	Qualitative data, testimony, one-one and out of the record discussions mainly
14	Yes	Yes	Without ethical considerations, design systems can easily become inaccessible, inefficient, and bloated. Making ethical choices can have a positive impact on not only the product itself but also society and the planet.	Haven't come up with a system of actually measuring trust in a system, but we do aim to build trust with things like user/peer testing as the system is built, and building a feedback loop for continual improvements
15	Yes,Yes, but it’s deeply tied to the ethics of the company your design system supports.	Yes	Just like HR is a function meant to protect companies from risk, design systems are tools, processes, and foundations meant to scale business performance. Just like any other aspect of running a company, design systems practitioners can’t single-handedly overcome the ethics of capitalism. If the business makes ethical decisions, the design system can work to support those views, beliefs, and day-to-day decisions. If the business is unethical, the design system will support that mindset and the resulting unethical decisions. As design systems practitioners, it’s our responsibility to push for ethical approaches and build them into the ways we all build products, through focus on user needs, accessibility, and best practices that account for the global needs of the humans who use our products. But if the company strategy is unethical we will at best always be swimming upstream, and at worst supporting an unethical business. Question for the group: Is it possible to build dark patterns with your design system? Is it possible for thr design system to protect against this mindset?	We use sentiment surveys alongside a few OKRs and associated metrics we track. We have dedicated questions in our sentiment surveys that directly get to trust dynamics, but I also observe our engagement metrics. If folks are engaging with our components (in Figma and in code), if they’re booking time in our office hours or our pair sessions, if they’re consulting the documentation often, if they’re pushing for pattern usage in design reviews, etc—it’s all signal on how well we’re trusted. In the less-trackable category, one of the biggest trust signals is when we have product development designers and engineers who become advocates for the design system and foster adoption, coverage, and engagement across their own product domains. Organic advocacy is the strongest indicator of trust I’ve experienced.
16	Yes	Yes	Yes—ethics play a daily role because design systems in large, trusted organizations harden choices into defaults that scale across products and users. Every token, pattern, guideline, and constraint influences comprehension, inclusion, consent, and trust: accessible defaults reduce friction for diverse users, clear terminology prevents confusion, guardrails curb dark-pattern drift, and privacy-first templates make respectful data practices the path of least resistance. By aligning documentation with reality, clarifying intent, and making “the right thing” easier than misuse, the system encodes values that protect people and uphold institutional trust—so ethics are embedded in the work, not an afterthought.	Trust is measured by whether teams choose the system, users succeed with it, and issues are caught early. I track adoption and adherence (use of tokens/components, variance, time-to-ship), quality and reliability (accessibility defects, task success, consistency bugs, rollbacks), privacy and consent health (clarity of opt-ins, reversibility, opt-out availability), and human signal (designer/dev feedback). Paired with decision records and transparent changelogs, rising adoption, fewer exceptions, and fewer complaints make trust visible.
17	Yes	Yes	Our systems are designed for people and therefore we have a moral obligation to make them work for all users. Universal design is hard, and DS sytems are built for scale. But ethical questions remain. If a system that took 10x designers to build, but only 1x person to maintain. Then there is an inevitable reduction of "human" capacity once scale is achieved. Systems AI, and the potential demise of meaningful work for design system thinkers, is not only an ethical dilemma but possibly not good for our sytems generally?	How often are components detached? How many component requests come in during DS reviews?
18	Yes	Yes	At risk of sounding high-minded about it, I think all decisions one makes in life carry ethical responsibility , and when questions like this are proposed, they are really not generally about the existence of ethical weight but the scale and nature of that weight. I think one’s labor, in particular, inevitably requires at least SOME grappling with the question of ethical responsibility, even if your conclusion is the just that your design system (or whatever) is low-stakes ethically speaking. I feel like the likely direction that this question will drive dialogue is towards one of two main topics: accessibility and dark patterns. These are two typical areas that are generally either not directly connected to whatever quantifiable metrics make the business go (or leadership has decided represents making the business go), and actually commonly may be directly at odds with said metrics. So they’re areas where ethics play a part: where are you asked to do something unethical (eg canonicalize a dark pattern), or where do you have to push for some ethical progress (eg advocate for extra scope to ensure A11y support beyond what’s legally mandated)? Design often has to deal with questions like these, but the design system is in a unique position to address these problems at scale, so I would argue that our decisions carry extra ethical weight for that reason.	In terms of quantifiable metrics, we surface instance counts of components across the design system, along with tracking detaches, which for us is an indication that a component isn’t satisfying a need and designers are having to detach it in order to do something that it doesn’t already do. In terms of more qualitative data, we put out a sentiment survey every few months to gauge how people are feeling about the design system and the design system team.
19	Yes	Yes	The first thing that comes to mind is around ensuring our DS design and code components are built with optimal accessibility in mind, but that we also provide UX "best practices" documentation around ensuring accessible applications beyond what is "built in" to the components. The ethical responsibility there is in making what you're DS is building available to all users.	Objective measurements? I have no idea. The only thing that comes to mind is keeping track of subjective testimonials from adopters.
20	Yes	Yes	Design Systems are the true enablers of inclusion in tech. We are constantly exercising empathy internally with diverse types of consumers, disciplines, cultures, neurodivergence, and ways of thinking. As well as externally, we ensure that our digital products are accessible and can reach a wide audience.	I can think initially of a qualitative measure collected through surveys and testimonials. Accessibility is more data-driven, but I'm excited about the discussion on Thursday about more quantitative measures.
21	Yes	Yes	I think ethics should be impacted all out work as designers and developers, but simply due to the scale of touchpoints and users that a design system can reach this is especially important. As an example an inaccessible input in a design system could make an entire website unusable to a group of users.	We don't current specifically track trust. Interest in what others have to say on this topic.
22	Yes	No,Yes	When i think about ethical execution for the end user, the only reason my answer is no is because right now were so early on that it doesnt come up daily. It comes up when we talk about making sure we are building accessible components that enable the same experience no matter the abilities of the user, but our components are so basic right now that it doesnt span too much outside that. but i do believe this is the bare minimum ethical standard for all ds teams. whether or not your org values accessibility shouldnt matter - its whats best for the society that uses your products. I work for a gambling company so when we start to think of larger patterns and components though, absolutely this will play a part in every decision there. Responsible gambling is a huge part of how we design and patterns need to be introduced and maintained that ensure the safety of players, especially those who are at risk of gambling addiction. its our responsibility as a ds team to help facilitate positive patterns allow us to build end UX responsibly, and to push back on things we dont think meet those standards. We shouldnt support patterns we do not feel is in the best safety interest of our players. Again right now though were still nailing basics like "when to use sheets vs modals" One other part of ethics i think about a lot is AI now. Systems can enable the use of AI but we dont know what the societal impact really is because we dont have the feedback loops to tell us. This makes me uneasy as I do feel an ethical responsibility to use AI with this in mind but i cant define what that is without impact metrics. Theres also internal ethical responsibility i think we have too - though its less heavy. if the "society" is the organization then i think sometimes we have to do things that put aside our own goals and desires to benefit the teams we work with at large, but the fun part is in balacing what this internal society asks for vs what is good for the external society	Nothing tangible right now but i can see this though office hours and support sign ups (more has signaled more trust in our system and team) and how much people look to build custom elements when something we have could easily work. Maybe its simply usage - using our system requires trust in it. The other part of this is how much we see teams collab with us. Less about trust in the system and more about trust in the team...but the team is a part of the system so samesame i guess!
23	Yes	Yes, but indirectly. Not thinking about it day-to-day but it's part of our product vision. And, working in the public sector, ethical responsibility is part of our mandate to serve the public good	Ethics come into play when we make decisions about accessibility, content clarity, and respect for users’ time and cognitive load. Even small choices in UI patterns, naming, or documentation can shape how people engage with state services. Ethics also show up in governance conversations around design system, because how we govern design system is ultimately about being good stewards: deciding what is added to the system, what is rejected, and what standards we uphold. We owe it to people who use our design system to be good stewards.	Qualitative: agencies feel confident adopting it without worrying about abandonment or rework, they trust us that we will follow-through on supporting and maintaining a DS we put out there, feedback is positive Quantitative: adoption numbers, # of pilots (for us, relevant since our DS is new), version and release cadence, open tickets
24	Yes	Yes	The impact of our work is our responsibility, especially as design system practitioners. Our work scales within, across, and outside of organizations.	By ensuring quality and being responsive to requests for support, modifications, etc.
25	Yes	Yes	there is no standardised way to approach ethics, but I think for example considering accessibility concerns into our design system guidelines is fundamental and quite ethical. When I say accessibility concerns I do not speak only about the "required" to be compliant, I'm talking about considering all kinds of mental models when creating our guidelines. Also, besides a11y, we are very mindful of data privacy, and that reflects onto our design system too, ensuring we always give the users the chance to decide what they do with their data, being transparent about it.	I don't think we do, besides keeping it as consistent as possible and all that
26	Yes	Yes	Accessible UX is not just a nice to have but a responsibility we carry as designers. The DS team more than anyone must deliver accessible solutions because of how our decisions scale across and organization.	It’s mostly a vibe check. Are people coming to us or not? If not then there is something broken in how we are carrying our business.
27	Yes	Yes	As part of a design system team, we always need to base any decision on our morals and for the good of our company and customers. We can't let any dark patterns seep in and need to make the system easy to navigate and work with to give our adopters confidence and trust.	We send out a semi-annual survey to collect data and ask questions to our community.
28	Yes	Yes	From an ethics perspective, I think a design system site should not only contain guidelines for accessibility and inclusion but also be a role model site that is accessible and inclusive.	I don’t think the organization where I work measures trust in the design system, but I would love some ideas for how to do this.
29	Yes	Yes	It’s the “systems” part of design systems: are you perpetuating deceptive design practices? Are you promoting accessibility? Does it demonstrate diversity? The system is a reflection of choices and the degree of willingness to adhere to those choices — including principles and ethics.	People don’t use what they don’t trust. It’s as simple as that.
30	Yes	No	Ethics are not openly spoken about and therefore are not a shared value of the team. The team is too busy keeping above water to do so.	Usage; but it is poor.
31	Yes	No	Ethics is not a daily consideration. It only happens every now and then.	By word of mouth. Nothing is done formally.
32	Yes	Yes	Decisions at the ds level trickle down to everyone and everything	No but should
33	Yes	Yes	Designing for everyone goes beyond accessibility laws. A design system needs to not only be legally compliant but ethically compliant.	I don't have a good answer to this. Perhaps trust could be measured through adoption, contribution, or satisfaction score surveys.
34	Yes	Yes	Government services must be usable by everyone, including people with disabilities, low digital literacy, or limited access to technology. So when you review components, color contrast, interaction patterns, or documentation, you are actively making ethical decisions about inclusion and equal access.	1. Number of active product teams using DS components 2. Frequency of component downloads/installs/imports 3. Percentage of a product’s UI built with DS components 4. Requests for new features (shows confidence the system will deliver)
35	Yes	Yes	We set standards for design teams and that includes making ethical design decisions. This may be obvious like accessibility or subtle like inclusive avatars. Plus there are manipulative patterns the system can prevent.	It’s difficult, more of a feeling than a metric.
36	Yes	Yes	Setting the standard for accessibility is a huge tenant for design systems. Not to mention, it's an opportunity to define bad/deceptive practices.	Adoption
37	Yes	Yes	While accessibility standards are our legal responsibility, they are also an ethical responsibility. I've experienced instances where we could have fixed something that technically passed the ADA standard, but the result would not have been in the spirit of making the content truly accessible to all audiences with equity. That seems to require human judgement and problem solving.	n/a
38	Yes, sort of. The DS can only reflect same strong or weak ethical standards of the organization. Even then then, DS has to have a strong governance model to moderate what people actually build with the system. You can define things like inclusive language all day long but those guidelines have to be followed by the end and enforcements of standards are WAY easier if they align with the larger organization.	Yes, in that we are enacting the standards from my organization.	My company has strong moral and ethical guidelines so we carry those forward into our system.	Currently we are not measuring trust.
39	Yes	Yes	I'm thinking along the lines of accessibility. curious to know what I'm NOT aware of, though!	Adoption, perhaps?
40	Yes	Yes	I believe ethics are a major part of design system work, it’s part of what attracted me to it. We create patterns for good, we make it harder to do bad things, we highlight inequality and promote inclusive design, we refuse to put things in the system that go against our principles. Ultimately we do this because we can, when a lot of product teams cannot.	Not sure we do
41	Yes	Yes	Good systems should offer best practices to product teams, helping people build with high craft more easily. My definition of high craft includes making a product accessible to those with disability. It should also discourage dark patterns, misleading UI. Components need to meet expectations (when my cursor becomes a pointer, I know I can click it).	Purely off vibes. I try to build trust in a few ways: by affirming the system is always incomplete, by encouraging reaching out when the system isn't meeting someone's needs, by committing to iteratively making our components higher quality and more useful over time. I can sense people trust that in how often they use the system, reach out for help, and the thumbs up and thank you emojis I get to my communciation
42	Yes	No	Not daily, it will occasionally come up but more so in product discussions, less in the design system refinement meetings.	At the moment, trust is based on the expertise of our designers, product managers and devs. This is a great question and I'd love to learn more tangible ways.
43	Yes	Yes	I build in accessibility considerations from the beginning and in the guidelines so that it's just baked in from the beginning.	Usage coverage metrics
44	Yes		I don't normally think too much about DS ethics in my daily work, but it does impact and influence my decisions even if I'm not aware of it, for better or worse. I feel a strong urge to benefit and improve people's lives through my work but sometimes that can be at odds with what's best for the company.	I think this type of measurement can come from different areas. Are people and the organization on board and using it regularly and consistently in design and production? Are documentation and support channels used regularly or are folks turning to other sources? Is the DS a part of the organization's processes, or is it silo-ed/avoided? Building trust in the DS is building trust in the people who both use it and maintain it as part of the organization's ecosystem.
45	Yes	Yes	I think in the DS space, it is our responsibility to proving user experiences that provide value to the users. I think generally that product teams can sometimes get lost in the complexity of their timelines and requirements, enough that they can’t think about these things.	I tend to just gauge the general sentiment when our users ask questions and how they respond to our answers. We have some problematic users that fight against every decision we make, because it “isn’t right”. We are still trying to build enough trust for people to realize we have a shared goal with their products.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100