When people talk about design system documentation, they often mean:
- values for design foundations, like colours, spacing and layouts
- component specification, like size, spacing and behaviour
- the system’s information architecture - how things are categorised and named
But not everything can be “baked in” and communicated through a token’s name, a component’s code, or an annotated visual.
Sometimes we can’t just show what we mean, we have to say it. I'll call this "usage guidance". It includes things like:
- when to use a certain component or design element, versus another one
- accessibility guidelines, like how to use semantic heading levels
- how to write copy for the text elements in a component, like the label or hint text on a form input
- relevant research findings
- how to contribute
- how to ask for support
For me, usage guidance is where the value lies. It’s where we tell people not just what to use but how, and why. It’s where we can communicate purpose and intent; helping to establish the values we adhere to, even if the specific applications of those values change.
Most design systems do provide usage guidance, but they’re often treated as secondary to the first set of things I mentioned—and that’s disappointing.
One system, many tools
Most design systems today include a number of different tools and platforms, for example:
- documentation websites, built from scratch or using an off-the-shelf solution like Zeroheight
- code repositories, for example, in GitHub
- developer documentation tools, like Storybook
- prototyping tools, like Figma or Sketch
By harnessing APIs and plug-ins, it’s becoming easier and easier to deliver design rules and component specs into these different tools from a single source.
This makes our design systems much easier to maintain.
It also means we can tailor what we deliver to each audience, which may differ depending on how much overlap there is (or isn't) between design and development in our organisation.
Are we forgetting about usage guidance in our multi-tool design systems?
While these solutions can help us show implementation details and configuration options, I can’t help but feel that usage guidance is being left out of the equation.
How are we going to manage that across different tools, so it can live alongside the component or style element it refers to, in whatever tool our audience is using?
Let’s use the example of a tabs component. We can create a single source of truth that shows developers in Storybook and designers in Figma:
- how to style the tabs with the right colours and fonts
- the size of the tabs
- how the tabs change at different breakpoints
- how the tabs behave on hover, focus, and when selected
But where do we explain that tabs can be a usability nightmare, causing users to miss content?
How about the fact that tabs probably work best in regular-use systems, where the need to efficiently switch between related information might be more important than simplicity of first-time use?
And what about guidance on how to write clear labels for tabs, which can’t just be hard-coded since we don’t know the context in which they’ll be used?
Our current solutions are inadequate
Unless you work in an organisation where designers alone make these kinds of decisions, and developers just implement them, this information is relevant for both disciplines. But currently, the best solutions we have for providing it in multiple tools within a design system are:
- put in all in our documentation website, which may become less relevant and less likely to be looked at the more we cater to our users’ in-tool experiences
- publish the same content in multiple places and update each instance every time there’s a change - a solution with huge maintenance overhead and that risks information falling out of sync
Neither of these solutions seems satisfactory. I worry that they’ll lead us to a place where usage guidance gets forgotten about, and our design systems turn into spec-libraries, devoid of context.
Could structured content and headless publishing be the answer?
Here’s the bit where I tell you I don’t really have an answer.
I’m a content designer thinking about a content problem, and I don’t yet know what’s technically possible, but one of the ways I think we could start to solve this problem is with structured content and headless publishing.
Structured content is content that has been broken down into its constituent elements, which are then categorised, tagged and named.
For example, if we were to take a structured content approach to our component usage guidance, we might break it down into:
|Description||The tabs component lets users switch between related sections of content, displaying one section at a time.|
|Installation guidance||To use the tabs component, you’ll need to import the component package from npm.|
|Suitable situations||Use tabs when users might need to switch between related sections of content and won’t need to view more than one section at a time.|
|Unsuitable situations||Don’t use tabs when users might need to view all of the content at once.|
|Implementation rules||Write clear labels to help users understand what content is included in unselected tabs.
If the tabs contain content that needs to be looked at in order, arrange the tabs to support that. If not, organise them in order from most-to-least important, based on user needs.
Don’t disable tabs—it’s confusing. If you don’t have any content for a tab, remove it.
|Support details||If you need help using this component, email us at email@example.com|
|Contribution guidelines||If you want to contribute a change to this component, open a pull request on GitHub|
This is an over-simplified example, but hopefully you can see how structured content helps us think about what information is needed, independently of the constraints of the individual tools we’re using.
We’re effectively creating a content API that can be consumed by other applications.
Using a headless publisher, we can then deliver whichever combination of those elements we think will be useful into the relevant platforms.
The potential benefits of this approach
This approach makes our design system's usage guidance easier to maintain and lets us tailor information to different audiences if their needs differ.
For example, we’d probably want to display the component title, description, support details and contribution guidelines everywhere the component appeared.
However, we could decide to only show the suitable and unsuitable situations to designers, if we know they’re responsible for choosing whether or not to use a component in the first place.
And we could decide to only show the installation guidance to developers, depending again on how people work in our organisation.
I don’t know if what I’ve described here has been done already, or if it’s even possible with the suite of design system tools most of us use.
However, I’d like to put usage guidance on the agenda for our discussions about publishing design system docs into multiple tools and platforms.
And if you’ve got any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear them. Contact me on Twitter, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
And thanks to Dave House who also reviewed it, and who helped me with the surprisingly challenging task of making the table above look acceptable!