A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Thanks for your interest in The Question! Sign up to participate in future questions here. This file is the raw data from Episode 11, deep dive hosted on Feb 15, 2024 with Ben Callahan and Brad Frost. There are 88 answers. The question this week was: ----- Brad recently wrote a post suggesting we and our users might be better served by a global design system. He says, “A Global Design System would improve the quality and accessibility of the world’s web experiences, save the world’s web designers and developers millions of hours, and make better use of our collective human potential.” It’s a well-reasoned idea. However, like any opinion expressed on the world wide web, there are lovers and there are haters. This week, we’re welcoming Brad as a co host and we want you to answer this question: Should there be a global design system? If yes, why? If no, why not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Question 1: Should there be a global design system? | Question 2: If yes, why? If no, why not? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Yes | At the atomic level, absolutely. I’d love to see one that defines hooks to plug in your company’s visual language, analytics framework, content guidelines. I wonder if it won’t be even better to define that foundational design system in HTML itself. Make all the basic components native to the browser. One distinction though is that this would take care of the basic elements needed to build interfaces, but it doesn’t replace the more important (in my opinion) aspects of a DS - uniting a digital product community around a new culture and mindset. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Yes | I don't think it should be perceived as an answer to everything as I would see it as a starting point for doing digital design with the basic principles of usability and accessibility built in. Imagine being able to start with a vanilla state for a component but that vanilla state had high standards of usability and accessibility baked in - that could mean the more complex nuances of how that component connects into another and into a page and into a journey, could be where we focus our energies as designers, developers, and as product people. I also think there's the benefits of having high standards of usability and accessibility baked in at a global scale - it would just automatically uplift the standards and inclusivity of products and services rather than relying on people having to have that knowledge within their teams. Everything would automatically become better. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Yes | Because it's an awesome idea and because it feels like the natural evolution of all work we've done in the past few years. I'm a somewhat skeptical, for two reasons: (1) web components have too many problems (2) it has been done already, see https://github.com/thepassle/generic-components We will end up with not one but many Global design systems, but that's better than none. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Yes | I say yes because I think it could benefit accessibility and elevate standards, but at the same time I don't know that our team would be quick to use it. We have to write things in multiple languages (Ruby, HAML, Vue …), so it would depend on how robust and flexible it is. As a designer, my first thought is how something like this might displace my role, but I think priorities and focus would just shift. It'd be great to have more universal documentation so we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. A lot of what I do is advocating for existing standards and promoting accessibility instead of cleverness, so it would seem that this could be helpful. There will always be room for exploration and customization, so I don't feel threatened in that way. I think this could be a net positive (pun intended). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | No | Isn't HTML itself a global design system? Consider how every design system's component library ends up revolving around the realities of dropdowns, checkboxes, and the other interface elements that HTML defines. When we get new interface elements defined in HTML (like <details>), it opens up new ways of building interfaces. If we take this as a new way of thinking about HTML and expanding what it offers, then this could be a great thing. I fear that a movement for a global design system could very easily inherit the currently prevalent folly of SPA-oriented JavaScript frameworks. About 3% of visits (that's visits, not users) involve JS failure. I worked on one site where it was closer to 10%. Frontend developers tend to ignore it, but progressive enhancement is as critical a consideration in 2024 as it ever was. If the global design system is built on the current, prevailing paradigms of frontend development, we could end up with something that permanently breaks the universality that the web was originally built on, something that locks in the current experience where websites are slow, janky, unresponsive, and frustrating, but no one knows why (it's because they're breaking 3% of the time). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | No | I think we already have some standards in place. Actually not pure design standards, but regulations which affect designs. Like the limitations with HTML & CSS itself or the WCAG (with country additions) for accessibility. Frameworks like Bootstrap and lot´s of others also give us some standards for a design system, but people are won´t necessarily take advantage of these options. They want to be creative and with creativity new ideas can be developed. I don´t think we could save millions of hours, as there are themes and templates, based on standards, which can be used for almost every system (CMS, CRM, LMS, ...). So designers and developers can pick something and adjust it to their needs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Yes | too much time and sweat to fix local problems, lets contibute to a global effort for usability & accessibility sake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | No | I love the idea of this initiative, but I just can’t help but think that whatever is produced will just become yet another open source standard that people disagree with and… we know how this goes. What I think could be interesting though is updates to the browser engine itself. How better to get people to use things than having it actually built in? I think there would be huge issues with composability though, and there’s not really much money to be generated, so how could a project like that ever really exist except from some idealists who would be facing some very tough opposition | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Yes | There absolutely should be. This ensures that users’ accessibility needs are considered and brand guidelines are also adhered to. It also enables digital products to maintain consistency in the experience and across design libraries and code. Where gaps in the design system are identified, contributions can be made or “clinics” can be held to triage the needs of the community and work together on a solution. The design system is not the enemy and all/any issues can be overcome by working together rather than against each other. Most problems stem from underfunded or under resourced design systems teams. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Yes | I think there needs to be an option of a global design system. Teams can choose to use it or reach for their preferred set of tools, but the amount of re-work and the barriers for entry when creating a new design system can prevent it from reaching its potential and restricts bandwidth for solving customer problems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Yes | It's worth figuring out what that might look like and if it's feasible. It may not be for everyone, or it could lead to all the FUD haters fear, like allegedly constraining innovation or whatever. However, that value it could unlock for lean teams trying to maximize their time spent on solving novel use cases vs. wasting time on identifying the best UX for a complex date selector (for example), which is a 'wheel that has already been invented' and should be an archetype someone can grab and get back to building their magical new thing. I work at a sizeable Enterprise company that's more like a house of brands, and many of our products came to us via acquisitions, so there's a wide variety of ages and tech stacks. But there's also net-new product development happening in-house. This new work is probably best positioned to benefit from design systems approaches, but the stuff clients use today and how that's capitalized in group-level accounting structures is a force of gravity that suffocates this level of shared approach modernization. So, unlike Netflix, which has a single brand and many touchpoints, we have the added complexity of wanting common 'headless' or blueprint-level componentry to drive efficiency across seemingly unrelated 'group companies'. Still, there's also a lot of need for Themeability and being able to lay those atomic components out in unique layouts specific to particular industry workflows. The size and siloed nature of such a company tend to reject or fail to invest in solving this at scale with some design system approach. I'm not sure if a "Global design system" might help show the way for an Enterprise facing these challenges. But if it could, I'm all in! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Yes | I've already wasted too much of my making autocompletes and date pickers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | No | A global design system would centralize the evolution of design systems in one place and would hinder creativity and innovation by designers building systems to meet specific use cases. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | No | I think native HTML/web components need to step up and fill the gap here. Adding another layer between native web and the dev process is only going to cause more friction to utilizing it. Similarly to how native CSS is making pre-processors obsolete, native HTML needs to add more common components with targeted styling and content abilities while maintaining the necessary accessibility. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Yes | My answer would again be somewhere in the middle, yes we need a global design system and yes it would save many person-hours, but the main counter argument is https://xkcd.com/927/ A truly global design system: 1. Needs to be a headless chameleon. 2. Needs to have clean defaults 3. Needs to have properties which are very flexible and extensible. 4. Needs to have a clear standard and protocol for modification and extension. 5. Needs to have a11y and responsiveness baked in. 6. Needs to be adopted by W3C and all the major browsers and OSes. Sadly, without any of the above, especially the last, and sometimes even with all of the above, it can become just another DS out in the market saying pick me, pick me. Many of the major DSes out there have a good base to start, but end up being slightly specialized to one aspect or other. Though it can always be argued that the needs of people are varied and nuanced and contradictory enough that one DS can never support all of it, but one can hope that sufficient flexibility, extensibility and adoption can carry it through. You have to do what @bottoson did with OKLCH - solved a clear problem, made something future proof, and got enough mileage to be picked up by CSS4. But it could also have been @jpohhhh with HCT - just a matter of right place right time. Overall, it's worth a try. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Yes | Yes, and no! I think we can see it as a religion: we can have core elements that are common, but then depending on each culture and company, each design system should adapt to their needs and make sure that they fit to their beliefs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Yes | Hi Ben, Good question this week and I'm excited that Brad will join the conversation! A global design system should be viewed as an extension of existing web standards itself and have accessibility features built-in! I love this idea, but it doesn't have to be that black and white – at least not initially. There could still be custom design systems with branches off a universally accepted & supported open-sourced one. The reality is not all teams/companies can afford to manage a complex system themselves like Netflix, Uber, etc. I do think we're in a diverging phase of the design system era and that maybe it's time we start converging to a common language. There are some good analogies in the hardware world. Think of how long it took the cable industry to standardize around USB-C! The idea first arrived almost 10 years ago and only now is Apple coming on broad. Is this a rare instance where we would invite regulation from the government to make it a reality? Thanks, Edward | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Yes | Having something that establishes a standard for all to strive towards like WCAG would be extremely beneficial. Allowing those who can leverage the available resources and those who cannot leverage them a target to build towards. I don't see this becoming a strict set of rules but more so a universal standard, perhaps with even a measurable degree of "standard" people can achieve like AA/AAA compliance for WCAG accessibility standards. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | No | Humans are inherently unable to use something of this scope. Organizations are provincial, no matter their size. Plus, there are so many subtle variations among a single component (e.g., code and content) — I wonder if any global system would break the minute it is used. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Yes | Yes because it helps ensure design consistency and establish best practices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Yes | As long as the ability to style components (of course accessibly) exists to reduce homogenous nature of the one system to rule them all. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Yes | Yes but also no. I think that some components could be global like buttons as long as they can be customized to branding. I am curious as to how this would be different than Bootstrap or any other cookie cutter design system. I am hesitant that the world wide web would begin to look like a dystopian future. Where outspoken designers and engineers are quickly replaced by an automatic design system that is run mostly by AI. Algorithms long since put in place in a time where creativity thrived now being defined by Alexa through a simple voice command. "Alexa make my button POP." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Yes | If this were in the hands of someone like the w3c, I could see this as a good thing. Would likely not be in support of it otherwise. We should still leave space for the weird, though. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Yes | I would only support this if it were in the hands of someone like w3c. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Yes | because i cannot take making another set of tokens and components to support the same standard UI that has no good reason to be different across the various companies i have worked for 😆 But actually, having a global system would be a wonderful way to elevate the problems that we tackle as system designers. Companies can of course opt out of using the global system but having this solution would mean that we can tackle larger problems that are actually unique to the products we serve | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Yes | Yes, as long as there remains a way to create "snowflakes." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | No | Design is very contextual. Working on multiple products, even within the same umbrella company that shares a design system, can result in very different needs that require adaptation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Yes | It doesn't make sense to rebuild the same common components over and over again. Having a global framework and customize to company's needs makes soooo much sense! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Yes | Yes. I believe a global design system could be a great starting point for all orgs that want a design system and remix all the basic components and pattern into their own recipes to cater to their specific context. It’s not realistic to have everyone of the same design system because of all the specific contexts and there is no one-size-fits-all for design systems. But not having to reinvent the wheel from the starting point and just remixing from there would be amazing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Yes | I think this is a great idea. We keep trying to scale design systems within our organizations, so why not beyond? From a efficiency and cost saving standpoint alone, it's hard to argue against the value. While I love the idea, I think it would be hard to garner adoption and support for this inside of larger organizations. As we scale our own design system, we need to be careful to understand all of the stakeholders of that system. In a large corporation, things move slowly and I think adoption by large corps could potentially stifle the pace of the global design system. Often times, we need to carefully consider our stakeholder impact before making updates to our design system (e.g. we're blocked from updating angular based on one large stakeholder). This is largely due to the size of our team and our inability to backport updates/fixes into older versions of the system, due to constrained resources. Perhaps a gobal system could be staffed appropriately enough to handle support and use cases like this. At the very least, if we standardized a set of basic components and offered those standards for other design systems to consume, we'd be far ahead of where we are now. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Yes | There should be a global design system, but give up all hope of creating a single set of components under a single technology for the web. Instead, concentrate on standardizing names for primitive tokens, and you might have a shot. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Yes | Standards and the systemization of design at an industry level. I don’t ever want to have to rebuild the wheel— I mean, “button” | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | No | I’m somewhere in between, as I believe certain components could be standardised based on function. However, design in essence still is creative and having different solutions reflects the culture of the org. It can be the outstanding content style or motion style that makes the brand. The unique way a checkbox behaves. And I believe we have enough tools to not completely reinvent the wheel. What did spark my interest in Brad’s piece however was how far behind we all are on accessibility - I would love us to have more standardised approach to make components more inclusive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Yes | I think the answer is, "Yes, who not?" It would be a nice thing to have in the world, as an option. And the Headless ideal is a fantastic concept, though still there are limitations/tricky negotiations about what design language flourishes to accommodate in the headless component, or justify a brand-specific 'special'. But I will not hold my breath for a Headless Global System, and it seems like an organisational challenge to orchestrate. We are still in a world where our one company has several brands and design system teams serving each. But the list of other systems team activities we could do other than basic UI elements, if only we got on-board the overall vision, is a good and useful one. But Devils Advocate in me asks: Perhaps a system team needs to be forged in the fire of replicating the wheel to earn the maturity and competency to do more challenging and complex stuff? Brad calls the Design and Build the easy part - I wish that it was so, but so far that's not my experience. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Yes | I'm in complete alignment with this snippet from Brad's article. "What we need is a library of aesthetic-and-technology-agnostic UI components that provides sturdy semantics and functionality while also providing a ton of aesthetic flexibility." There will still be extends and one-offs per organization but a global design system would make all that work way easier. Not sure about the name though. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Yes | 98%(not a scientific measurement) of all sites copy each other right now as is, we should make it official. We have global standards for accessibility, code, tokens, javascript etc etc what not build a global "base kit" of components? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | No | I hate to dissent with the allure of saving designers and developers millions of hours — in reality, I would say "yes" to a subset of system concerns, see below — but one thing immediately comes to mind as conflicting with this admirable goal: Strategic Differentiation. In my role as a design system manager, I have evaluated whether to "build or buy" a design system. We decided to build because building our own design system differentiates our products from countless cookie cutter online retail experiences. By reflecting the Kroger brand from the ground up in a way no third-party solution can do, the design system reinforces the tie between our brand with food. However, I think that there is room for a global standard of atomic and sub-atomic definitions. This could include foundational things like an accessible and customizable color system and the finite set of atomic components which make up everything else — buttons, form controls, etc. There are elevated risks to differentiation by standardizing anything more complex — though a well-defined, yet inherently flexible pattern library without functionality baked in could be a beneficial source of inspiration. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Yes | There should be a common standard system similar to road signs being universal. Having a global system means everyone is on board with the same system, it’s understanding, and needs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | No | I think there could be consistent patterns at the base level, but the effort of creating unique systems for each brand gives them some personality and charm. 1 global system to rule them all feels a bit cold and utilitarian. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Yes | Interesting, this reminds me of the push for web standards during the browser wars. I think there's enough commonality that we could have a foundational, shared layer that is extremely flexible to keep from always starting over at the beginning and focus on actual solutions and challenges. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Yes | There are more important problems to solve than designing the same components over and over again. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Yes | It's design systems all the way down! OK, seriously though: we're creating very very similar things, over and over, and reusable components are a gift! Many libs like MUI bring their own styling and opinions that a "global" DS might be able to somewhat avoid. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Yes | I would like to be very certain about my chosen option, which is yes, but I have doubts regarding the essential needs of each company to be able to generate their own principles, voice and tone style, culture for each country, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Yes | Just the fundamentals and a handful of common components, could serve sub-systems for consumer and enterprise applications. In theory. Within our organisation it is very hard to get this organised in a way which is independent to both consumer and enterprise. If organised in either one of those departments, it is not possible to prioritise right. We end up having to separate design systems, one for consumer and one for enterprise/employee applications. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | No | I suspect the answer is both yes and no, really! In theory, a headless, core design system for very common components like buttons is a good idea. In practice, coming from an organisation that tried a headless design system for just two brands, the challenges of balancing different priorities and technologies meant it was actually more efficient to have two systems. I'm not sure how you could have a global design system that wasn't weighed down by bureaucracy or at the very least, inundated with merge requests from people who think they have a new use case requiring an iteration or or an improvement that should be made at system level. I'm also not sure that we (as a global digital community) can agree even on the 'basics', especially when it comes to accessibility. The handful of a11y specialists in our team regularly disagree about the best way to make a component meet (and exceed) WCAG criteria, even for things like notifications and accordions. In a global system, who would have final say and sign off? How could that be done at pace? (Would have to be faster than WCAG iterates currently) Even if you could get a global design system for very common components, organisations will still need their own design systems for how their brand is applied to these, and for more complex components and patterns that are specific to the challenges they are solving for their specific users' needs. In commercial organisations, you are always looking for an edge over competitors, and I suspect organisations would see having their own system as a way to have an edge (this is what already happens, given that there are open source design systems available to all). So I think perhaps in an ideal world, where we can all put aside our own egos, agree on the best technologies and approaches, and truly want the best, most usable and accessible foundational components, a global design system is a good idea. But in the real world, I can't see it working. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Yes | I think this would be a great help to all designers and developers. I believe we have a good majority of components already with the base HTML elements that we have. There would need to be some big lifts to how appearance can be handled for some of these though. I'm looking at you; checkbox, radio, and select elements. To be able to add the flexibility to style these would be giving what everyone has been asking for years or you'll run into a standard of hacking these same elements all over again. A fully customizable select element has been asked for for years. I also don't envy the team that decides to take this on. It's almost like building a design system for a CMS editor. It's not easy but it can be done. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Yes | To create a unified language across all customer touchpoints | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Yes | Could be awesome to address topics as accessibility at once with an open source posture ! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Yes | Global design systems are efficient, accessible, and consistent, but they can limit creativity and ignore cultural needs. Even though it sounds ideal, diverse design approaches are better suited to specific contexts. Regional or domain-specific systems might be a more realistic solution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | Yes | I think a collective effort to build a global design system is worthy effort. I don’t think it would stop bespoke design systems from being made, but it could help define best practices on a large scale. If anything, the development of a global design system would prompt some productive conversations and challenge our notions of what defines a design system. A noble experiment, if nothing else. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Yes | Yes, if it's open-source, flexible with styling, and, most importantly, a dedicated team (just like for internal design systems) will maintain, promote, and create it. As a design system designer, I'm not interested in designing another date picker. A global design system would empower design system teams like how design systems empower feature teams; it allows design systems to start focusing on their next level of maturity, whatever that may be, instead of getting distracted by small UI component details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Yes | In theory, this sounds like a really good idea and could work if there is enough flexibility to scale to multiple different orgs. There are a few things I'd be curious to understand more of: - How would this be different from using a UI framework today? - how would it scale across different orgs (tech stacks, principles etc) - How much flexibility would exist within components? While our components might all be quite similar, would this start to limit our thinking to the components we have available now? For example, by having control within orgs, we're able to solve unique problems and create tailored solutions that scale. Would these business bespoke solutions be considered 'custom' outside this global system? Would a unified system somehow make all of our experiences boring and the same? Which, hilariously enough, is the exact question every design system team faces from teams who are apprehensive of them 🤣 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Yes | This is something we desperately need in my opinion, especially if we want to make the web accessible. Android and iOS both already have a some-what of a global design system, and we see much fewer accessibility issues in those apps compared with the Web. These prebuilt, stock-controls provide so much value with their already accessible implementations, owned by the platform itself. I think the Web needs it too if we're ever going to have more than a handful websites actually conform to WCAG. The largest issue I see the success of a global design system is that each company has their own set of content guidelines. Content should dictate components, rather than components dictating content (which often happens). For a global design system to work, I think we also need to have a foundational set of global content guidelines which support the components. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Yes | So, Yes, Brad''s idea is fine, but isn't HTML already our common design system? There is a list of components and some basic out-of-the-box styling and behavior. The extensibility of these components is getting better to allow all sorts of new components to be built. There could be higher level components created, and I see that we will eventually get there. Browser only years ago did not know what a modal dialog is and so we created a bunch of dialog components, but now that we have a dialog component, I expect that we'll start collescing on using that component rather than designing/developing our own from scratch. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Yes | I think there could be a lovely mass sharing of design systems. Obviously we run into the issue of personal styling and different audiences, but having some sort of design system especially incorporating accessibility issues and standard UX procedure would be greatly beneficial so we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Yes | We all have the same struggles and it could be great to have at least the same good foundations. We should tackle all the mandatory part to focus on customisation when needed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Yes | I totally agree with the idea of creating a global design system and think web components are the only real option when it comes to building such a system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Yes | Yes, but there wouldn't be just one. There would be N global design systems, because application development is a complex adaptive system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | No | Although the idea may sound good initially, systems are created for specific uses and even if something for universal use could be created, we do not know how it will end up being used, which could end up generating more problems than solutions. A possible consequence could be the generation of vanilla experiences on a massive scale and even the devaluation of the design. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | No | I don't have much of an opinion at this time, but if Brad Frost is there, I'm in :) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | No | While it’s a beautiful idea, the feasibility of creating and updating worldwide standards would be too great to achieve. Imagine a multi-select that can’t ship until it meets the guidelines of a committee approving design, implementation, and ensuring it meets all of the necessary standards across all human languages. Worse, imagine shipping a worldwide bug. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Yes | Yes, but a very complex answer. Here's my attempt to unpack it a bit…below is a list of what I think are the biggest impact areas. 1 – Heuristic patterns: A design system can be so powerful because it reiterates heuristic patterns and allows for usability to become optimized. If users didn't need to re-learn system-specific patterns (think Apple and Google design system/pattern differences), so much would move out of the way for our users allowing them to focus on the content we care about. 2 – Innovation: I feel like often design teams get in the weeds of things that aren't providing user value (ever read, "design decisions that don't fucking matter"?). If there was a global design system, efforts could be brought towards greater innovation. I'm thinking of things like headless commerce and personalization. With increased efficiency and putting hundreds of hours back into working teams, this would also allow platforms to scale at a much more efficient rate. 3 – Accessibility: Of course, a global design system would improve accessibility, given that proper tracking and regulation is implemented. One consideration though is when to implement AA and AAA since those ratings depend on the type of platform and use case. This creates some nuance to this concept, but I don't think would be enough to challenge it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | Yes | I think an expansive library of components that has been tested and ensured to be usable, accessible and responsive would be great. It would be a great resource for building 99% of repeatable elements. But, I'd be wary of too much reliance on a system built by others where a designers and developers become reduced to building with a set of Lego pieces, not understanding usability and accessibility issues because they never had to build something on their own. It would be a tough challenge to get right, but all aspirational goals are. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Yes | I think there are a few reasons why having a global design system would be useful: 1) Having a reference implementation (or even an agreed upon API specification) and documentation for the most common design system use cases would immediately create a high-level starting point for any design system -- assuming it was generic enough to be extended/modified for the inevitable "snowflake" situation. 2) It would force discussions on what is the best approach for various a11y scenarios, and hopefully create a general consensus. How nice would it be to have authoritative, agreed upon guideline for the, "should this be a button or a link" battle....that I can't believe is still a thing in 2024! 3) If a reference implementation was created in low-level/performant, standards-based, native tech -- specifically, vanilla web components -- and it was widely adopted, it could potentially push further support for web standards by frameworks that tend to ignore or dismiss them when they aren't aligned with the framework's philosophy (I'm looking at you, React!) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | Yes | I'm all in; let's get started, Ben and Brad! By providing a shared library of UI components, we can reduce redundant design, research, and development efforts, enhance UI consistency, and address both common and uncommon accessibility issues. This elevates the quality of web experiences for users worldwide, saving us more time to focus on user outcomes. However, there are obstacles: • Cultural Sensitivity and Localization: We might overlook the importance of design variations needed to cater to different cultural norms and languages. • Innovation Restriction: There's a potential to limit creativity and innovation by encouraging reliance on pre-made components. • Over-Generalization: There's a risk of creating solutions too generic to fully address specific user needs or contexts. • Complexity in Governance: Managing and updating a system at such a scale poses challenges, including decision-making about what gets included or updated. • Competitive Advantage and IP: Design patterns that give your company a competitive edge could become accessible to competitors. Despite these obstacles, if we truly empathize with our users, this is the golden path. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Yes | I've answered yes because of course the principle / concept of a Global Design System makes complete sense BUT the sponsorship and governance questions alone raise so many concerns and what if's that it makes my brain hurt. Not to mention trying to overcome the sunk cost fallacy corporations will have over adopting the new Global DS over their own system... BUT... if everything was easy it wouldn't be worth doing would it? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Yes | As baseline for accesibility, and at least for core components I think it will be great. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | No | Isn't really what MUI is? and yet there are companies that decide to go for MUI and companies that decide not to go for MUI? The differences in between design systems aren't always controlled by tokens (visual differences) but by nuances of interactions... Date picker is an example. There is not one date picker that behaves the same in all the design systems out there... each date picker has it's own differences in interactions... How can we ensure that we could create a universal date picker that could solve every companies needs? Maybe in 10 years time we will be in a position of having one global design system but for now I don't think there are strong enough industry standards out there for some of the most complex components... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | Yes | We all are working with the same basic components, having a universal design system to rule them all is a huge time saver for designers and developers. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | No | I'm very skeptical about this idea. It sounds promising and exciting, but is it the right solution to the problem? It would be nice to have a couple more tags in the HTML for components that are now in demand everywhere, for example, accordions and tabs or carousels. Even though a native button is ideal, I have never used an HTML native button as such. It works everywhere and is completely accessible, but every project still wants to style it, and it's never the same across projects. So, this means that with the common element we may be able to implement some of the requirements, but we still have many more individual requirements to consider within the project and we can solve it by creating our own design system (not global). As far as I understand, this is the exact purpose of the Global Design System - to satisfy basic needs. In any case, what can we define as basic? And how many elements can appear in the system? I don't think there are many, otherwise it would run into the same problems as other frameworks - all solutions would be too opinionated. Therefore, I believe that these few elements should be created within HTML and not in the design system. Of course, maybe I'm thinking too small, I haven't thought much about this topic and don't have the whole picture. Curious to hear more! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Yes | 1. Consistently accessible experience 2. Pragmatism - more time to work on social impact / other goals instead of reinventing the wheel | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Yes | Accessibility, consistency of common patterns for users. To globally and collectively cease solving the same problems over and over and put those man hours to more productive use. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | Yes | Yes, In some ways I would consider Material Design & HIG as design systems with global impact. I do believe a global design system would help save time - simplify conversations between teams with validated patterns and overall serve as a great reference point for young design systems. It wouldn't be too far out to imagine, we do have state-led Accessibility guidelines that are accepted and adhered to. The downside/danger of a global DS might be that teams might pigeonhole themselves to some degree and shy away from being brave enough to explore new patterns. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | Yes | A global design system of core components would accelerate the initial phases of design systems efforts for organizations in the SMB to "mid" range (and maybe enterprise too!). They'd have to be the atomic things, and also override-able/extendable to support support such a wide audience of teams. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Yes | I answered yes with a big caveat. I would want this system to be the most basic pieces and the most flexible set up. The benefits would be a solid starting place to make accessible sites built on convention. The basic pieces could serve to help construct any custom components atomically. Smush WCAG and w3 school together and take it to the next level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Yes | Give me an accessible set of web components to build from! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | Yes | It’s time to evolve. The basic building blocks of html css and JavaScript can be improved upon and there are very clear repeating patterns of use that could be made standard. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | Yes | Let's define what we mean by "global" design system. Technically, browsers have implemented similar components, but in modern web apps we have composed them into common patterns (big molecule level up to not quite organism level). And then there are the tools. I think an enhancement of the APG (https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/) including standardized design tokens would be one of the most sensible things. We want to add hooks and configure interactions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | No | While I can appreciate the streamlining it could bring, I just am not convinced there can be a one-size-fits-all solution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Yes | Shared understanding of functionality, meaning of elements, universal accessibility would be a great value. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | Yes | I hate to say this but.. It depends. It depends on the size of the organization. It depends on the resources allocation for this effort, it depends on the amount of brands | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | Yes | Design Systems are tough we are all working in silos from fighting for a buy-in to arguing about components behavior, naming further to design tokens… honestly it’s chaos for small businesses who can’t afford a big designOps team. Why can’t be there a global system that we all contribute to and use to create better products by focusing on less things. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Yes | We need to do a better job of collaborating globally, designers, developers and product managers. Right now, everyone is doing their own thing reinventing the wheel. HOWEVER, we need to make sure that a global system is inclusive, accessable and usable for everyone. That is a huge ask since people are not all the same and when you design globally you have to understand local customs and cultures or you won't be designing for everyone. In the end, the risk of not being inclusive is not as large as the risk of getting design wrong and I think we are already in the latter, where design is driven by market value and not people centered. What is lost on so many companies is that people centered is actual the best for the market, but only when we look at the big picture, the long story and reflect on past mistakes. That reflection is often not in the company schedule and so that does not happen, and that is why we really need a global design system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Yes | As someone that has been working to stand up a Global system for a large corporation which has many systems and we are proposing an architecture of "local"/experience systems.....I totally get the value of this FOR REALZ GLOBAL system. I'll word vomit some of the things that make me sweat when thinking about this. - Brad addressed how to keep the styling neutral, so that was one. - And, he addressed how to not pick a particular framework (e.g., React), so cool. I know we have to support Android (XML and Compose) and iOS (Swift and UI kit) and then React, Angular, Web components - it just balloons so quickly. - Tech teams seem to get pretty nervous about external dependencies....think back to Word Press...what if someone stops supporting the plugin they built. Its like out of your control. - Are there any security/cyber risks? I just don't know enough, other than we have to jump through a lot of hoops on this. but, I like the streamlined approach to accessibility. Our a11y team has a huge backlog. and, much like we promote our global system, i love the idea of folks not doing redundant work (like an accordion opening and closing). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Yes | Efficiency. Good way to learn as well. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | Yes | I think that having a starting point for every design system aligned with best practices and a11y would be a huge step in the right direction. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | Yes | When establishing a new Design System today, teams are faced with the decision of adopting an existing design system like Cabana, Core UnStyled, United UI, (insert others) or creating their own proprietary custom design system. In my perspective, a Global Design System can be considered an existing system like Cabana or UnStyled. However, our organization has chosen to create and maintain a proprietary design system. We believe that this approach allows for more customization and greater brand differentiation. In theory, organizations that support an internal design system could potentially save millions of dollars annually by replacing a proprietary system with a Global System. With the use of Design Tokens, themes can be tailored to meet individual brand needs. It is interesting to note that both Android and iOS have already established their own platform-specific "Global Design System." This raises the question of whether a Global Design System would be specific to the web or if it would also replace the design systems of Android and iOS. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | Yes | Before W3C recommendations web was chaotic, admittedly lot of fun but the expense of accessible and intuitive design. Even apple had glossy buttons and flashy looping animations. Web standards created a reference for every new designer playing with html/css, educated them, gave an edge to sell their design services by making web for everyone. What comes after standardisation, of course automation. Now that websites and web applications have stopped reinventing component design, the interface has never been so intuitive for even the most non-tech savvy users. The world would benefit greatly for next set of reference of pre-built, and stress tested components along with extensive documentation on usage. A global design system won’t be a rule you must have to follow. It won’t stop people from expressing brand identity. It will speed things up for designers and developers and align the entire web to a more uniformed interface for the mundane interactions. And as long as there are system there will always be people questioning it and rebelling from. And that’s where innovations continue to go on, feeding more data back to the global design system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 |