I’ve spent around 5 years working on design systems at different scales: in my own work, I’ve worked on design systems for a product team of one—myself; at Dropbox, I helped create and distribute a nascent design system in Sketch and CSS to a team of 30 product designers and hundreds of engineers; and at Facebook, I’ve been working with my team to create and distribute a system in a variety of design tools and React components to hundreds of product designers and thousands of engineers.
Between each of these different scales, I’ve found some common ground in how to approach building design systems. We tend to hear—and talk—a lot about why a design system is important, and what it looks like, but spend little time discussing how to build them, and how to overcome the various existential crises every systems team eventually endures.
Below, you’ll find the high-level questions I’ve asked myself, and the answers I’ve stumbled into, imbued with the collective wisdom and experience of some of the smartest people I’ve worked with.
A system only needs to provide the parts that the product requires. It can be tempting to anticipate all requirements, but most of the time, this equates to inventing problems that don’t (yet) exist.
The job of a systems team is similar to that of a map-maker: the places you’re mapping already exist. You aren’t discovering new places: you’re just providing them with an outline, a designation, and coordinates.
Start anywhere that the product most demands the coherence offered by a system. Typically, this means addressing an overabundance of a certain kind of component.
Begin by identifying the culprit component, and look at it in only a handful of places. You need to form an opinion on what is “correct,” and this is harder to do when you’re trying to boil the ocean. Once you’ve formed an opinion, try to apply it to another place.
Hold your opinion strongly: look for multiple pieces of corroborating evidence before deciding to change it.
Once you’ve started, this actually becomes the more difficult question. Designing for systems can be a bit like pulling a rope out of water: you’re not sure how long the rope is, or what’s at the end of it. Before you know it, you may end up scoping a problem for so long that the original constraints or requirements have shifted in your absence.
Try to remain in the habit of tackling the smallest problem you can. Apply a hypothesis to the problem at hand; if it works, change the parameters of the problem. Continue this process until the solution breaks, expand the scope of the solution accordingly, and—if you’re comfortable with the current solution’s ability to adapt—make the solution available for use, with the promise of it becoming even more suitable in the future.
If there is a problem that the system is not equipped to solve, you should find out how many times this problem occurs. If it only occurs once, it’s highly likely that it is specific to a particular view or product. If it occurs more than once, this is a good sign that the system should change to address the problem.
You should always favor reuse of existing patterns and components, even—and especially—when updating or changing the system. The design system is your constraint as much as it is the constraint of the teams you serve.
When creating something brand new to solve a problem, ask yourself: What implications does this have on the rest of the system? What rules have changed or been broken to get to this solution? How can I change the solution to fit those rules, or limit the changes to those rules?
Design systems, and the pieces it is comprised of, are never finished. They are living, breathing tools that will have to change as the needs of the teams it supports change.
As outlined above, under “When should the system change?”, there will sometimes be exceptions to rules in the system: components or patterns that only make sense in a particular context. One way to avoid this is to disallow a components context to dictate its behaviour or appearance.
What this means, in practical terms, is saying “Component X has a state/variant A,” rather than “In this context f, Component X behaves/appears as A.” Context should not be the sole determiner of a component’s behaviour or appearance: the component should be able to render in that way in any context.
This rule helps you to remain steadfast in your opinion about the component’s overall behaviour or appearance.
In addition to designing only for real needs, as outlined in “What does a system need?”, you must strive to design only for the material reality in which the system will be built.
No matter what we create in design tools, the thing that customers and end-users ultimately experience is in the hands of the engineers that build it. Thus it is crucial to make those engineers an equal part of the design process.