elements.
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 6 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
Success!
Progressive enhancement
Now that we have created the grid system required we need to back-track a little.
Not all browsers support Grid, over the last 9 months or so this has gotten a lot better. However there will still be browsers that visit that potentially won’t have support. The effort required to make the grid system fall back for these browsers depends on your product or sites browser support.
To determine if we will be using Grid or not for a browser we will make use of feature queries. This would mean that any version of Internet Explorer will not get Grid, as well as some mobile browsers and older versions of other browsers.
@supports (display: grid) {
/* Styles for browsers that support Grid */
}
If a browser does not pass the requirements for @supports we will fallback to using flexbox where possible, and if that is not supported we are happy for the page to be laid out in one column.
A website doesn’t have to look the same in every browser after all.
A responsive grid
We started with the big picture, how the grid would be at a large viewport and the grid system we have created gets a little silly when the viewport gets smaller.
At smaller viewports we have a single column layout where every item of content, every component stacks atop each other. We don’t start to define a grid before we the viewport gets to 700px wide. At this point we have an 8 column grid and if the viewport gets to 1100px or wider we have our 14 column grid.
/*
* to start with there is no 'grid' just a single column
*/
.container {
padding: 0 .75em;
}
/*
* when we get to 700px we create an 8 column grid with
* a left and right area to breakout of the grid.
*/
@media (min-width: 700px) {
.container {
display: grid;
grid-gap: .75em;
grid-template-columns:
[full-start]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[main-start]
repeat(8, [col-start] 1fr)
[main-end]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[full-end];
padding: 0;
}
}
/*
* when we get to 1100px we create an 14 column grid with
* a left and right area to breakout of the grid.
*/
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.container {
grid-template-columns:
[full-start]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[main-start]
repeat(14, [col-start] 1fr)
[main-end]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[full-end];
}
}
Being explicit in creating this there is some repetition that we could avoid, we will define the number of columns for the inner grid by using a Sass variable or CSS custom properties (more commonly termed as CSS variables).
Let’s use CSS custom properties. We need to declare the variable first by adding it to our stylesheet.
:root {
--inner-grid-columns: 8;
}
We then need to edit a few more lines. First make use of the variable for this line.
repeat(8, [col-start] 1fr)
/* replace with */
repeat(var(--inner-grid-columns), [col-start] 1fr)
Then at the 1100px breakpoint we would only need to change the value of the —inner-grid-columns value.
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.container {
grid-template-columns:
[full-start]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[main-start]
repeat(14, [col-start] 1fr)
[main-end]
minmax(calc(calc(100% - 1008px) / 2), 1fr)
[full-end];
}
}
/* replace with */
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.container {
--inner-grid-columns: 14;
}
}
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 8 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
The final grid system
We have finally created our new grid for the design system. It stays true to the existing grid in place, adds the ability to break-out of the grid, removes a
that could have been needed for the nested 14 column grid.
We can move on to the new component.
Creating a new component
Back to the new components we are needing to create.
To me there are two components one of which is a slight variant of the first. This component contains a title, subtitle, a paragraph (potentially paragraphs) of content, a list, and a call to action.
To start with we should write the HTML for the component, something like this:
To place the component on the existing grid is fine, but as child elements are not affected by the container grid we need to define another grid for the features component.
As the grid doesn’t get invoked until 700px it is possible to negate the need for a media query.
.features {
grid-column: col-start 1 / span 6;
}
@supports (display: grid) {
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.features {
grid-column-end: 9;
}
}
}
We can also avoid duplication of declarations by making use of the grid-column shorthand and longhand. We need to write a little more CSS for the variant component, the one that will sit on the right side of the page too.
.features:nth-of-type(even) {
grid-column-start: 4;
grid-row: 2;
}
@supports (display: grid) {
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.features:nth-of-type(even) {
grid-column-start: 9;
grid-column-end: 16;
}
}
}
We cannot place the items within features on the container grid as they are not direct children. To make this work we have to define a grid for the features component.
We can do this by defining the grid at the first breakpoint of 700px making use of CSS custom properties again to define how many columns there will need to be.
.features {
grid-column: col-start 1 / span 6;
--features-grid-columns: 5;
}
@supports (display: grid) {
@media (min-width: 700px) {
.features {
display: grid;
grid-gap: .75em;
grid-template-columns: repeat(var(--features-grid-columns), [col-start] 1fr);
}
}
}
@supports (display: grid) {
@media (min-width: 1100px) {
.features {
grid-column-end: 9;
--features-grid-columns: 7;
}
}
}
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 10 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
Laying out the parts
Looking at the spec and reading several articles I feel there are two ways that I could layout the text of this component on the grid.
We could use the grid-column shorthand that incorporates grid-column-start and grid-column-end or we can make use of grid-template-areas.
grid-template-areas allow for a nice visual way of representing how the parts of the component would be laid out. We can take the the mock of the features on the grid and represent them in text in our CSS.
Within the .features rule we can add the relevant grid-template-areas value to represent the above.
.features {
display: grid;
grid-template-columns: repeat(var(--features-grid-columns), [col-start] 1fr);
grid-template-areas:
"". title title title title title title""
"". subtitle subtitle subtitle subtitle subtitle . ""
"". content content content content . . ""
"". list list list . . . ""
"". . . . link link link "";
}
In order to make the variant of the component we would have to create the grid-template-areas for that component too.
We then need to tell each element of the component in what grid-area it should be placed within the grid.
.features__title { grid-area: title; }
.features__subtitle { grid-area: subtitle; }
.features__content { grid-area: content; }
.features__list { grid-area: list; }
.features__link { grid-area: link; }
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 12 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
The other way would be to use the grid-column shorthand and the grid-column-start and grid-column-end we have used previously.
.features .features__title {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 6;
}
.features .features__subtitle {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 5;
}
.features .features__content {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 4;
}
.features .features__list {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 4;
}
.features .features__link {
grid-column: col-start 5 / span 3;
}
For the variant of the component we can use the grid-column-start property as it will inherit the span defined in the grid-column shorthand.
.features:nth-of-type(even) .features__title {
grid-column-start: col-start 1;
}
.features:nth-of-type(even) .features__subtitle {
grid-column-start: col-start 1;
}
.features:nth-of-type(even) .features__content {
grid-column-start: col-start 3;
}
.features:nth-of-type(even) .features__list {
grid-column-start: col-start 3;
}
.features:nth-of-type(even) .features__link {
grid-column-start: col-start 1;
}
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 14 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
I think, for now, we will go with using grid-column properties rather than grid-template-areas. The repetition needed for creating the variant feels too much where we can change the grid-column-start instead, keeping the components elements layout properties tied a little closer to the elements rather than the grid.
Some additional decisions
The current component library has existing styles for titles, subtitles, lists, paragraphs of text and calls to action. These are name-spaced so that they shouldn’t clash with any other components. Looking forward there will be a chance that other products adopt the component library, but they may bring their own styles for titles, subtitles, etc.
One way that we could write our code now for that near future possibility is to make sure our classes are working hard. Using class-attribute selectors we can target part of the class attributes that we know the elements in the component will have using *=.
.features [class*=""title""] {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 6;
}
.features [class*=""subtitle""] {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 5;
}
.features [class*=""content""] {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 4;
}
.features [class*=""list""] {
grid-column: col-start 2 / span 4;
}
.features [class*=""link""] {
grid-column: col-start 5 / span 3;
}
See the Pen Design Systems and CSS Grid, 15 by Stuart Robson (@sturobson) on CodePen.
Although the component we have created have a title, subtitle, paragraphs, a list, and a call to action there may be a time where one ore more of these is not required or available. One thing I found out is that if the element doesn’t exist then grid will not create space for it. This may be obvious, but it can be really helpful in making a nice malleable component.
We have only looked at columns, as existing components have their own spacing for the vertical rhythm of the page we don’t really want to have them take up equal space in the component and just take up the space as needed. We can do this by adding grid-auto-rows: min-content; to our .features. This is useful if you also need your component to take up a height that is more than the component itself.
The grid of the future
From prototyping this new grid and components in CSS Grid, I’ve found it a fantastic way to reimagine how we can create a layout or grid system for our sites. It gives us options to create the same layouts in differing ways that could suit a project and its needs.
It allows us to carry on – if we choose to – using a
-based grid but swapping out floats for CSS Grid or to tie it to our components so they have specific places to go depending on what component is being used. Or we could have several ‘grid components’ in our design system that we could use to layout various components throughout a page.
If you find yourself tasked with creating some new components for your design system try it. If you are starting from scratch I believe you really should start with CSS Grid for your layout.
It really feels like the possibilities are endless in terms of layout for the web.
Resources
Here are just a few resources I have pawed over these last few weeks whilst getting acquainted with CSS Grid.
A collection of CodePens from this article
Grid by Example from Rachel Andrew
A Complete Guide to CSS Grid on Codrops from Hui Jing Chen
Rachel Andrew’s Blog Archive tagged: cssgrid
CSS Grid Layout Examples
MDN’s CSS Grid Layout
A Complete Guide to Grid from CSS-Tricks
CSS Grid Layout Module Level 1 Specification",2017,Stuart Robson,stuartrobson,2017-12-12T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2017/design-systems-and-css-grid/,code
198,Is Your Website Accidentally Sexist?,"Women make up 51% of the world’s population. More importantly, women make 85% of all purchasing decisions about consumer goods, 75% of the decisions about buying new homes, and 81% of decisions about groceries. The chances are, you want your website to be as attractive to women as it is to men. But we are all steeped in a male-dominated culture that subtly influences the design and content decisions we make, and some of those decisions can result in a website that isn’t as welcoming to women as it could be.
Typography tells a story
Studies show that we make consistent judgements about whether a typeface is masculine or feminine: Masculine typography has a square or geometric form with hard corners and edges, and is emphatically either blunt or spiky. Serif fonts are also considered masculine, as is bold type and capitals.
Feminine typography favours slim lines, curling or flowing shapes with a lot of ornamentation and embellishment, and slanted letters. Sans-serif, cursive and script fonts are seen as feminine, as are lower case letters.
The effect can be so subtle that even choosing between bold and regular styles within a single font family can be enough to indicate masculinity or femininity.
If you want to appeal to both men and women, search for fonts that are gender neutral, or at least not too masculine. When you’re choosing groups of fonts that need to work harmoniously together, consider which fonts you are prioritising in your design. Is the biggest word on the page in a masculine or feminine font? What about the smallest words? Is there an imbalance between the prominence of masculine and feminine fonts, and what does this imply?
Typography is a language in and of itself, so be careful what you say with it.
Colour me unsurprised
Colour also has an obvious gender bias. We associate pinks and purples, especially in combination, with girls and women, and a soft pink has become especially strongly related to breast cancer awareness campaigns. On the other hand, pale blue is strongly associated with boys and men, despite the fact that pastels are usually thought of as more feminine.
These associations are getting stronger and stronger as more and more marketers use them to define products as “for girls” and “for boys”, setting expectations from an incredibly young age — children as young as four understand gender stereotypes. It should be obvious that using these highly gender-associated colours sends an incredibly strong message to your visitors about who you think your target audience is. If you want to appeal to both men and women, then avoid pinks and pale blues.
But men and women also have different colour preferences. Men tend to prefer intense primary colours and deeper colours (shades), and tolerate greys better, whilst women prefer pastels (tints). When choosing colours, consider not just the hue itself, but also tint, tone and shade.
Slightly counterintuitively, everyone likes blue, but no one seems to particularly like brown or orange.
A picture is worth a thousand words, or none
Stock photos are the quickest and easiest way to add a little humanity to your website, directly illustrating the kind of people you believe are in your audience. But the wrong photo can put a woman off before she’s even read your text.
A website about a retirement home will, for example, obviously include photos of older people, and a baby clothes retailer will obviously show photos of babies. But, in the latter case, should they also show only photographs of mothers with their children, or should they include fathers too? It’s true that women take on the majority of childcare responsibilities, but that’s a cultural holdover from a previous era, rather than some rule of law. We are seeing increasing number of stay at home dads as well as single dads, so showing only photographs of women both enforces the stereotype that only women can care, as well as marginalising male carers.
Equally, featuring prominent photographs of women on sites about male-dominated topics such as science, technology or engineering help women feel welcomed and appreciated in those fields. Photos really do speak volumes, so make sure that you also represent other marginalised groups, especially ethnic groups. If people do not see themselves represented on your site, they are not going to engage with it as much as they might.
Another form of picture that we often ignore is the icon. When you do use icons, make sure that they are gender neutral. For example, avoid using a icon of a man to denote engineers, or of a woman to denote nurses. Avoid overly masculine or feminine metaphors, such as a hammer to denote DIY or a flower to denote gardens. Not only are these gendered, they’re also trite and unappealing, so come up with more exciting and novel metaphors.
Use gender-neutral language
Last, but not least, be very careful in your use of gender in language.
Pronouns are an obvious pitfall. A lot of web content is written in the second person, using the cleary gender neutral ‘you’, but if you have to write in the third person, which uses ‘she’, ‘he’, ‘it’, and ‘they’, then be very careful which pronouns you use. The singular ‘they’ is becoming more widely acceptable, and is a useful gender-neutral option. If you must use generic ‘he’ and ‘she’, (as opposed to talking about a specific person), then vary the order that they come in, so don’t always put the male pronoun first.
When you are talking about people, make sure that you use the same level of formality for both men and women. The tendency is to refer to men by their surname and women by their first name so, for example, when people are talking about Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, they often talk about “Ada and Babbage”, rather than “Lovelace and Babbage” or “Ada and Charles”. As a rule, it’s best to use people’s surnames in formal and semi-formal writing, and their first names only in very informal writing.
It’s also very important to make sure that you respect people’s honorifics, especially academic titles such as Dr or Professor, and that you use titles consistently. Studies show that women and people of colour are the most likely to have their honorifics dropped, which is not only disrespectful, it gives readers the idea that women and people of colour are less qualified than white men.
If you mention job titles, avoid old-fashioned gendered titles such as ‘chairman’, and instead look for a neutral version, like ‘chair’ or ‘chairperson’. Where neutral terms have strong gender associations, such as nurse or engineer, take special care that the surrounding text, especially pronouns, is diverse and/or neutral. Do not assume engineers are male and nurses female.
More subtle intimations of gender can be found in the descriptors people use. Military metaphors and phrases, out-sized claims, competitive words, and superlatives are masculine, such as ‘ground-breaking’, ‘best’, ‘genius’, ‘world-beating’, or ‘killer’. Excessive unnecessary factual detail is also very masculine.
Women tend to relate to more cooperative, non-competitive, future-focused, and warmer language, paired with more general information. Women’s language includes word like ’global’, ‘responsive’, ‘support’, ‘include’, ‘engage’ and ‘imagine’. Focus more on the kind of relationship you can build with your customers, how you can help make their lives easier, and less on your company or product’s status.
Smash the patriarchy, one assumption at a time
We’re all brought up in a cultural stew that prioritises men’s needs, feelings and assumptions over women’s. This is the patriarchy, and it’s been around for thousands of years. But given women’s purchasing power, adhering to the patriarchy’s norms is unlikely to be good for your business. If you want to tap into the female market, pay attention to the details of your design and content, and make sure that you’re not inadvertently putting women off. A gender neutral website that designs away gender stereotypes will attract both men and women, expanding your market and helping your business flourish.",2017,Suw Charman-Anderson,suwcharmananderson,2017-12-20T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2017/is-your-website-accidentally-sexist/,content
196,Designing a Remote Project,"I came across an article recently, which I have to admit made my blood boil a little. Yes, I know it’s the season of goodwill and all that, and I’m going to risk sounding a little Scrooge-like, but I couldn’t help it. It was written by someone who’d tried out ‘telecommuting’ (big sigh) a.k.a. remote or distributed working. They’d tested it in their company and decided it didn’t work.
Why did it enrage me so much? Well, this person sounded like they’d almost set it up to fail. To them, it was the latest buzzword, and they wanted to offer their employees a ‘perk’. But it was going to be risky, because, well, they just couldn’t trust their employees not to be lazy and sit around in their pyjamas at home, watching TV, occasionally flicking their mousepad to ‘appear online’. Sounds about right, doesn’t it?
Well, no. This attitude towards remote working is baked in the past, where working from one office and people all sitting around together in a cosy circle singing kum-by-yah* was a necessity not an option. We all know the reasons remote working and flexibility can happen more easily now: fast internet, numerous communication channels, and so on. But why are companies like Yahoo! and IBM backtracking on this? Why is there still such a negative perception of this way of working when it has so much real potential for the future?
*this might not have ever really happened in an office.
So what is remote working? It can come in various formats. It’s actually not just the typical office worker, working from home on a specific day. The nature of digital projects has been changing over a number of years. In this era where organisations are squeezing budgets and trying to find the best value wherever they can, it seems that the days of whole projects being tackled by one team, in the same place, is fast becoming the past. What I’ve noticed more recently is a much more fragmented way of putting together a project – a mixture of in-house and agency, or multiple agencies or organisations, or working with an offshore team. In the past we might have done the full integrated project from beginning to end, now, it’s a piece of the pie.
Which means that everyone is having to work with people who aren’t sat next to them even more than before. Whether that’s a freelancer you’re working with who’s not in the office, an offshore agency doing development or a partner company in another city tackling UX… the future is looking more and more like a distributed workplace.
So why the negativity, man?
As I’ve seen from this article, and from examples of large corporations changing their entire philosophy away from remote working, there’s a lot of negativity towards this way of working. Of course if you decide to let everyone work from home when they want, set them off and then expect them all to check in at the right time or be available 24/7 it’s going to be a bit of a mess. Equally if you just jump into work with a team on the other side of the world without any setup, should you expect anything less than a problematic project?
Okay, okay so what about these people who are going to sit on Facebook all day if we let them work from home? It’s the age old response to the idea of working from home. I can’t see the person, so how do I know what they are doing?
This comes up regularly as one of the biggest fears of letting people work remotely. There’s also the perceived lack of productivity and distractions at home. The limited collaboration and communication with distributed workers. The lack of availability. The lower response times.
Hang on a second, can’t these all still be problems even if you’ve got your whole team sat in the same place? “They won’t focus on work.” How many people will go on Facebook or Twitter whilst sat in an office? “They won’t collaborate as much.” How many people sit in the office with headphones on to block out distractions? I think we have to move away from the idea that being sat next to people automatically makes them work harder. If the work is satisfying, challenging, and relevant to a person – surely we should trust them to do it, wherever they are sat?
There’s actually a lot of benefits to remote working, and having distributed teams. Offering this as a way of working can attract and retain employees, due to the improved flexibility. There can actually be fewer distractions and disruptions at home, which leads to increased productivity. To paraphrase Jason Fried in his talk ‘Why work doesn’t happen at work’, at home there are voluntary distractions where you have to choose to distract yourself with something. At the office these distractions become involuntary. Impromptu meetings and people coming to talk to you all the time are actually a lot more disruptive. Often, people find it easier to focus away from the office environment.
There’s also the big benefit for a lot of people of the time saved commuting. The employee can actually do a lot that’s beneficial to them in this time, rather than standing squeezed into people’s armpits on public transport. Hence increased job satisfaction. With a distributed team, say if you’re working with an off-shore team, there could be a wider range of talent to pick from and it also encourages diversity. There can be a wider range of cultural differences and opinions brought to a project, which encourages more diverse ways of thinking.
Tackling the issues - or, how to set up a project with a remote team
But that isn’t to say running projects with a distributed team or being a remote worker is easy, and can just happen, like that. It needs work – and good groundwork – to ensure you don’t set it up to fail. So how do you help create a smoother remote project?
Start with trust
First of all, the basis of the team needs to be trust. Yes I’m going to sound a little like a cheesy, self-help guru here (perhaps in an attempt to seem less Scrooge-like and inject some Christmas cheer) but you do need to trust the people working remotely as well as them trusting you. This extends to a distributed team. You can’t just tell the offshore team what to do, and micromanage them, scared they won’t do what you want, how you want it because you can’t see them. You need to give them ownership and let them manage the tasks. Remember, people are less likely to criticise their own work. Make them own the work and they are more likely to be engaged and productive.
Set a structure
Distributed teams and remote workers can fail when there is no structure – just as much as teams sitting together fail without it too. It’s not so much setting rules, as having a framework to work within. Eliminate blockers before they happen. Think about what could cause issues for the team, and think of ways to solve this. For example, what do you do if you won’t be able to get hold of someone for a few hours because of a time difference? Put together a contingency, e.g. is there someone else on your time zone you could go to with queries after assessing the priority? Would it be put aside until that person is back in? Define team roles and responsibilities clearly. Sit down at the beginning of the project and clearly set out expectations. Also ask the team, what are their expectations of you?
There won’t be a one size fits all framework either. Think about your team, the people in it, the type of project you’re working with, the type of client and stakeholder. This should give you an idea of what sort of communications you’ll need on the project. Daily calls, video calls, Slack channels, the choice is yours.
Decide on the tools
To be honest, I could spend hours talking about the different tools you can use for communication. But you know them, right? And in the end it’s not the tool that’s important here - it’s the communication that’s being done on the tool. Tools need to match the type of communications needed for your team. One caveat here though, never rely solely on email! Emails are silos, and can become beasts to manage communications on.
Transparency in communication
Good communication is key. Make sure there are clear objectives for communication. Set up one time during the week where those people meet together, discuss all the work during that week that they’ve done. If decisions are made between team members who are together, make sure everyone knows what these are. But try to make collective decisions where you can, when it doesn’t impact on people’s time.
Have a face-to-face kick off
Yes, I know this might seem to counter my argument, but face-to-face comms are still really important. If it’s feasible, have an in-person meeting to kick off your project, and to kick off your team working together. An initial meeting, to break the ice, discuss ways of working, set the goals, can go a long way to making working with distributed teams successful. If this is really not viable, then hold a video call with the team. Try to make this a little more informal. I know, I know, not the dreaded cringey icebreakers… but something to make everyone relax and get to know each other is really important. Bring everybody together physically on a regular basis if you can, for example with quarterly meetings. You’ve got to really make sure people still feel part of a team, and it often takes a little more work with a remote team. Connect with new team members, one-on-one first, then you can have more of a ‘remote’ relationship.
Get visual
Visual communication is often a lot better tool to use than just a written sentence, and can help bring ideas to life. Encourage people to sketch things, take a photo and add this to your written communications. Or use a mockup tool to sketch ideas.
But what about Agile projects?
The whole premise of Agile projects is to have face-to-face contact I hear you cry. The Agile Manifesto itself states “The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation”. However, this doesn’t mean the death of remote working. In fact loads of successful companies still run Agile projects, whilst having a distributed team. With all the collaborative tools you can use for centralising code, tracking tasks, visualising products, it’s not difficult to still communicate in a way that works. Just think about how to replicate the principles of Agile remotely - working together daily, a supportive environment, trust, and simplicity. How can you translate these to your remote or distributed team?
One last thought to leave you with before you run off to eat your mince pies (in your pyjamas, whilst working). A common mistake in working with a remote project team or working remotely yourself, is replacing distance with time. If you’re away from the office you think you need to always be ‘on’ – messaging, being online, replying to requests. If you have a distributed team, you might think a lot of meetings, calls, and messages will be good to foster communication. But don’t overload these meetings, calls, and communication. This can be disruptive in itself. Give people the gift of some uninterrupted time to actually do some work, and not feel like they have to check in every second.",2017,Suzanna Haworth,suzannahaworth,2017-12-06T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2017/designing-a-remote-project/,business
205,Why Design Systems Fail,"Design systems are so hot right now, and for good reason. They promote a modular approach to building a product, and ensure organizational unity and stability via reusable code snippets and utility styles. They make prototyping a breeze, and provide a common language for both designers and developers.
A design system is a culmination of several individual components, which can include any or all of the following (and more):
Style guide or visual pattern library
Design tooling (e.g. Sketch Library)
Component library (where the components live in code)
Code usage guidelines and documentation
Design usage documentation
Voice and tone guideline
Animation language guideline
Design systems are standalone (internal or external) products, and have proven to be very effective means of design-driven development. However, in order for a design system to succeed, everyone needs to get on board.
I’d like to go over a few considerations to ensure design system success and what could hinder that success.
Organizational Support
Put simply, any product, including internal products, needs support. Something as cross-functional as a design system, which spans every vertical project team, needs support from the top and bottom levels of your organization.
What I mean by that is that there needs to be top-level support from project managers up through VP’s to see the value of a design system, to provide resources for its implementation, and advocate for its use company-wide. This is especially important in companies where such systems are being put in place on top of existing, crufty codebases, because it may mean there needs to be some time and effort put in the calendar for refactoring work.
Support from the bottom-up means that designers and engineers of all levels also need to support this system and feel responsibility for it. A design system is an organization’s product, and everyone should feel confident contributing to it. If your design system supports external clients as well (such as contractors), they too can become valuable teammates.
A design system needs support and love to be nurtured and to grow. It also needs investment.
Investment
To have a successful design system, you need to make a continuous effort to invest resources into it. I like to compare this to working out.
You can work out intensely for 3 months and see some gains, but once you stop working out, those will slowly fade away. If you continue to work out, even if its less often than the initial investment, you’ll see yourself maintaining your fitness level at a much higher rate than if you stopped completely.
If you invest once in a design system (say, 3 months of overhauling it) but neglect to keep it up, you’ll face the same situation. You’ll see immediate impact, but that impact will fade as it gets out of sync with new designs and you’ll end up with strange, floating bits of code that nobody is using. Your engineers will stop using it as the patterns become outdated, and then you’ll find yourself in for another round of large investment (while dreading going through the process since its fallen so far out of shape).
With design systems, small incremental investments over time lead to big gains overall.
With this point, I also want to note that because of how they scale, design systems can really make a large impact across the platform, making it extremely important to really invest in things like accessibility and solid architecture from the start. You don’t want to scale a brittle system that’s not easy to use.
Take care of your design systems, and keep working on them to ensure their effectiveness. One way to ensure this is to have a dedicated team working on this design system, managing tickets and styling updates that trickle out to the rest of your company.
Responsibility
With some kind of team to act as an owner of a design system, whether it be the design team, engineering team, or a new team
made of both designers and engineers (the best option), your company is more likely to keep a relevant, up-to-date system that doesn’t break.
This team is responsible for a few things:
Helping others get set up on the system (support)
Designing and building components (development)
Advocating for overall UI consistency and adherence (evangelism)
Creating a rollout plan and update system (product management)
As you can see, these are a lot of roles, so it helps to have multiple people on this team, at least part of the time, if you can. One thing I’ve found to be effective in the past is to hold office hours for coworkers to book slots within to help them get set up and to answer any questions about using the system. Having an open Slack channel also helps for this sort of thing, as well as for bringing up bugs/issues/ideas and being an channel for announcements like new releases.
Communication
Once you have resources and a plan to invest in a design system, its really important that this person or team acts as a bridge between design and engineering. Continuous communication is really important here, and the way you communicate is even more important.
Remember that nobody wants to be told what to do or prescribed a solution, especially developers, who are used to a lot of autonomy (usually they get to choose their own tools at work). Despite how much control the other engineers have on the process, they need to feel like they have input, and feel heard.
This can be challenging, especially since ultimately, some party needs to be making a final decision on direction and execution. Because it’s a hard balance to strike, having open communication channels and being as transparent as possible as early as possible is a good start.
Buy-in
For all of the reasons we’ve just looked over, good communication is really important for getting buy-in from your users (the engineers and designers), as well as from product management.
Building and maintaining a design system is surprisingly a lot of people-ops work.
To get buy-in where you don’t have a previous concensus that this is the right direction to take, you need to make people want to use your design system. A really good way to get someone to want to use a product is to make it the path of least resistance, to show its value.
Gather examples and usage wins, because showing is much more powerful than telling.
If you can, have developers use your product in a low-stakes situation where it provides clear benefits. Hackathons are a great place to debut your design system. Having a hackathon internally at DigitalOcean was a perfect opportunity to:
Evangelize for the design system
See what people were using the component library for and what they were struggling with (excellent user testing there)
Get user feedback afterward on how to improve it in future iterations
Let people experience the benefits of using it themselves
These kinds of moments, where people explore on their own are where you can really get people on your side and using the design system, because they can get their hands on it and draw their own conclusions (and if they don’t love it — listen to them on how to improve it so that they do). We don’t always get so lucky as to have this sort of instantaneous user feedback from our direct users.
Architecture
I briefly mentioned the scalable nature of design systems. This is exactly why it’s important to develop a solid architecture early on in the process. Build your design system with growth and scalability in mind. What happens if your company acquires a new product? What happens when it develops a new market segment? How can you make sure there’s room for customization and growth?
A few things we’ve found helpful include:
Namespacing
Use namespacing to ensure that the system doesn’t collide with existing styles if applying it to an existing codebase. This means prefixing every element in the system to indicate that this class is a part of the design system. To ensure that you don’t break parts of the existing build (which may have styled base elements), you can namespace the entire system inside of a parent class. Sass makes this easy with its nested structure.
This kind of namespacing wouldn’t be necessary per se on new projects, but it is definitely useful when integrating new and old styles.
Semantic Versioning
I’ve used Semantic Versioning on all of the design systems I’ve ever worked on. Semantic versioning uses a system of Major.Minor.Patch for any updates. You can then tag released on Github with versioned updates and ensure that someone’s app won’t break unintentionally when there is an update, if they are anchored to a specific version (which they should be).
We also use this semantic versioning as a link with our design system assets at DigitalOcean (i.e. Sketch library) to keep them in sync, with the same version number corresponding to both Sketch and code.
Our design system is served as a node module, but is also provided as a series of built assets using our CDN for quick prototyping and one-off projects. For these built assets, we run a deploy script that automatically creates folders for each release, as well as a latest folder if someone wanted the always-up-to-date version of the design system.
So, semantic versioning for the system I’m currently building is what links our design system node module assets, sketch library assets, and statically built file assets.
The reason we have so many ways of consuming our design system is to make adoption easier and to reduce friction.
Friction
A while ago, I posed the question of why design systems become outdated and unused, and a major conclusion I drew from the conversation was:
“If it’s harder for people to use than their current system, people just won’t use it”
You have to make your design system the path of least resistance, lowering cognitive overhead of development, not adding to it. This is vital. A design system is intended to make development much more efficient, enforce a consistent style across sites, and allow for the developer to not worry as much about small decisions like naming and HTML semantics. These are already sorted out for them, meaning they can focus on building product.
But if your design system is complicated and over-engineered, they may find it frustrating to use and go back to what they know, even if its not the best solution. If you’re a Sass expert, and base your system on complex mixins and functions, you better hope your user (the developer) is also a Sass expert, or wants to learn. This is often not the case, however. You need to talk to your audience.
With the DigitalOcean design system, we provide a few options:
Option 1
Users can implement the component library into a development environment and use Sass, select just the components they want to include, and extend the system using a hook-based system. This is the most performant and extensible output. Only the components that are called upon are included, and they can be easily extended using mixins.
But as noted earlier, not everyone wants to work this way (including Sass a dependency and potentially needing to set up a build system for it and learn a new syntax). There is also the user who just wants to throw a link onto their page and have it look nice, and thats where our versioned built assets come in.
Option 2
With Option 2, users pull in links that are served via a CDN that contain JS, CSS, and our SVG icon library. The code is a bit bigger than the completely customized version, but often this isn’t the aim when people are using Option 2.
Reducing friction for adoption should be a major goal of your design system rollout.
Conclusion
Having a design system is really beneficial to any product, especially as it grows. In order to have an effective system, it’s important to primarily always keep your user in mind and garner support from your entire company. Once you have support and acceptance, this system will flourish and grow. Make sure someone is responsible for it, and make sure its built with a solid foundation from the start which will be carefully maintained toward the future. Good luck, and happy holidays!",2017,Una Kravets,unakravets,2017-12-14T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2017/why-design-systems-fail/,process
210,Stop Leaving Animation to the Last Minute,"Our design process relies heavily on static mockups as deliverables and this makes it harder than it needs to be to incorporate UI animation in our designs. Talking through animation ideas and dancing out the details of those ideas can be fun; but it’s not always enough to really evaluate or invest in animated design solutions.
By including deliverables that encourage discussing animation throughout your design process, you can set yourself (and your team) up for creating meaningful UI animations that feel just as much a part of the design as your colour palette and typeface. You can get out of that “running out of time to add in the animation” trap by deliberately including animation in the early phases of your design process. This will give you both the space to treat animation as a design tool, and the room to iterate on UI animation ideas to come up with higher quality solutions. Two deliverables that can be especially useful for this are motion comps and animated interactive prototypes.
Motion comps - an animation deliverable
Motion comps (also called animatics or motion mock-ups) are usually video representation of UI animations. They are used to explore the details of how a particular animation might play out. And they’re most often made with timeline-based tools like Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate, or Tumult Hype.
The most useful things about motion comps is how they allow designers and developers to share the work of creating animations. (Instead of pushing all the responsibility of animation on one group or the other.) For example, imagine you’re working on a design that has a content panel that can either be open or closed. You might create a mockup like the one below including the two different views: the closed state and the open state. If you’re working with only static deliverables, these two artboards might be exactly what you handoff to developers along with the instruction to animate between the two.
On the surface that seems pretty straight forward, but even with this relatively simple transition there’s a lot that those two artboards don’t address. There are seven things that change between the closed state and the open state. That’s seven things the developer building this out has to figure out how to move in and out of view, when, and in what order. And all of that is even before starting to write the code to make it work.
By providing only static comps, all the logic of the animation falls on the developer. This might go ok if she has the bandwidth and animation knowledge, but that’s making an awful lot of assumptions.
Instead, if you included a motion mock up like this with your static mock ups, you could share the work of figuring out the logic of the animation between design and development. Designers could work out the logic of the animation in the motion comp, exploring which items move at which times and in which order to create the opening and closing transitions.
The motion comp can also be used to iterate on different possible animation approaches before any production code has to be committed too. Sharing the work and giving yourself time to explore animation ideas before you’re backed up again the deadline will lead to happier teammates and better design solutions.
When to use motion comps
I’m not a fan of making more deliverables just for the sake of having more things to make, so I find it helps to narrow down what question I’m trying answer before choosing which sort of deliverable to make to investigate.
Motion comps can be most helpful for answering questions like:
Exactly how should this animation look?
Which items should move? Where? And when?
Do the animation qualities reflect our brand or our voice and tone?
One of the added bonuses of creating motion comps to answer these questions is that you’ll have a concrete thing to bring to design critiques or reviews to get others’ input on them as well.
Using motion comps as handoff
Motion comps are often used to handoff animation ideas from design to development. They can be super useful for this, but they’re even more useful when you include the details of the motion specs with them. (It’s difficult, if not impossible, to glean these details from playing back a video.)
More specifically, you’ll want to include:
Durations and the properties animated for each animation
Easing curve values or spring values used
Delay values and repeat counts
In many cases you’ll have to collect these details up manually. But this isn’t necessarily something that that will take a lot of time. If you take note of them as you’re creating the motion comp, chances are most of these details will already be top of mind. (Also, if you use After Effects for your motion comps, the Inspector Spacetime plugin might be helpful for this task.)
Animated prototypes - an interactive deliverable
Making prototypes isn’t a new idea for web work by any stretch, but creating prototypes that include animation – or even creating prototypes specifically to investigate potential animation solutions – can go a long way towards having higher quality animations in your final product.
Interactive prototypes are web or app-based, or displayed in a particular tool’s preview window to create a useable version of interactions that might end up in the end product. They’re often made with prototyping apps like Principle, Framer, or coded up in HTML, CSS and JS directly like the example below.
See the Pen Prototype example by Val Head (@valhead) on CodePen.
The biggest different between motion comps and animated prototypes is the interactivity. Prototypes can reposed to taps, drags or gestures, while motion comps can only play back in a linear fashion. Generally speaking, this makes prototypes a bit more of an effort to create, but they can also help you solve different problems. The interactive nature of prototypes can also make them useful for user testing to further evaluate potential solutions.
When to use prototypes
When it comes to testing out animation ideas, animated prototypes can be especially helpful in answering questions like these:
How will this interaction feel to use? (Interactive animations often have different timing needs than animations that are passively viewed.)
What will the animation be like with real data or real content?
Does this animation fit the context of the task at hand?
Prototypes can be used to investigate the same questions that motion comps do if you’re comfortable working in code or your prototyping tool of choice has capabilities to address high fidelity animation details. There are so many different prototyping tools out there at the moment, you’re sure to be able to find one that fits your needs.
As a quick side note: If you’re worried that your coding skills might not be up to par to prototype in code, know that prototype code doesn’t have to be production quality code. Animated prototypes’ main concern is working out the animation details. Once you’ve arrived at a combination of animations that works, the animation specifics can be extracted or the prototype can be refactored for production.
Motion comp or prototype?
Both motion comps and prototypes can be extremely useful in the design process and you can use whichever one (or ones) that best fits your team’s style. The key thing that both offer is a way to make animation ideas visible and sharable. When you and your teammate are both looking at the same deliverable, you can be confident you’re talking about the same thing and discuss its pros and cons more easily than just describing the idea verbally.
Motion comps tend to be more useful earlier in the design process when you want to focus on the motion without worrying about the underlying structure or code yet. Motion comps also be great when you want to try something completely new. Some folks prefer motion comps because the tools for making them feel more familiar to them which means they can work faster.
Prototypes are most useful for animations that rely heavily on interaction. (Getting the timing right for interactions can be tough without the interaction part sometimes.) Prototypes can also be helpful to investigate and optimize performance if that’s a specific concern.
Give them a try
Whichever deliverables you choose to highlight your animation decisions, including them in your design reviews, critiques, or other design discussions will help you make better UI animation choices. More discussion around UI animation ideas during the design phase means greater buy-in, more room for iteration, and higher quality UI animations in your designs. Why not give them a try for your next project?",2017,Val Head,valhead,2017-12-08T00:00:00+00:00,https://24ways.org/2017/stop-leaving-animation-to-the-last-minute/,design