Mr. Brad Frost, and his brother Ian, have a new course they are selling called Subatomic: The Complete Guide to Design Tokens.

To be honest, I was a smidge skeptical. I know what a design token is. It’s a variable of a color or font-family or something. I pretty much only work on websites, so that exposes itself as a --custom-property and I already know that using those to abstract common usage of colors and fonts is smart and helpful. Done. I get that people managing a whole fleet of sites (and apps running in who-knows-what technologies) need a fancier token system, but that ain’t me.

But then we had those fellas on ShopTalk Show and I’ve updated my thinking that you really do want to lean on the expertise of people that have done this time and time again at scale.

(p.s. they also gave us a 20% discount code when they were on the show: SHOPTALKSHOWISAWESOME)

Spoiler: they advocate for a three-tier system of custom properties. The first is just the raw ingredients. Colors, but you’re just naming the color; sizes, but you’re just naming the sizes. Then there is this middle tier where you are essentially crafting a theme from those raw ingredients. And this layer is the most important, as it gives you this perfect layer of abstraction where you’re both not reaching into the raw ingredients and you’re not being too overly specific, like naming individual parts of components. The third layer should be avoided as best as it can, but if you absolutely need to get hyper specific, this is where you do it, and are still keeping in the land of custom properties.

This feels particularly smart to me, and I wish I had the benefit of the Frost Brother’s expertise on this before building some custom property systems I have built in the past. I tend to have that first layer with just the raw ingredients, and then jump right to what they’d call the third tier, which leads to a real blowing up of how many custom properties are in use, to the point that it feels overly cumbersome and like the whole system isn’t even helping that much. I’ll definitely be thinking about the theming tier next time I have a good refactoring opportunity.

Brad has also been steady on his global design system idea. I’ve posted my thoughts on this before, but I keep coming back to this one:

It feels like every decision you make will chip away at who will use it.

I’m fascinated at seeing how decisions get made that keep this thing as “global” as possible. That absolutely must be done, otherwise it’s just another design system which I thinks falls short of the goal. I appreciated Brian’s deep thoughts on it all as well, and I’m basically writing all this as an excuse to link to that.

Would a global design system have any design to it at all? Maybe; maybe not. It makes me wonder if the era of “flat design” that it seems like we’ve been in for a decade or so was partially the result of design systems, where the simpler things look the more practical it is to build all the “lego blocks” of a cohesive aesthetic. But it’s likely design trends move on. Maybe flat is over. Are design systems ready for very fancy/complex looks? Definitely worth a read is Amelia’s thoughts on “balancing the hard structure and soft flexibility” of UIs.

Speaking of design tokens, designtokens.fyi is a nice site for defining all the terms that design systems/tokens people like to throw around. A site with word definitions can be awfully boring so I appreciate the fun design here. I like the idea of calling a value system a “t-shirt” where you’re actually defining, say, a set of padding options, but the options follow the mental model of t-shirt sizes.

Sometimes you just need to look and see what other people are doing. In design, there always has been and will be design galleries full of inspirational stuff. But instead of linking to one of those, I’m going to link to to the “Home of the internet’s finest website headlines.” I love a good headline, myself. I’ve seen far too many sites that do a terrible job of just saying what their point is.