Athe financial institution where I was recently working the design system was maintained in Sketch libraries and code. A small team working across multiple brands means there is always a question for why we may or may not maintain something. We were always thinking about the value of each activity and, with our PO, how we could measure it.

我最近在其中工作的那家金融機構設計系統由Sketch庫和代碼維護。 一個跨多個品牌工作的小團隊意味著始終存在一個問題，即為什么我們可能會或可能不會維護某些東西。 我們一直在思考每項活動的價值，以及我們的采購訂單如何衡量它。

Historically we were focused on visual and code alignment, as the low hanging fruit. I was tasked with doing some research with Interaction Designers to find opportunities for improvement.

從歷史上看，我們將目光投向了視覺和代碼對齊，這是低落的果實。 我的任務是與Interaction Designers進行一些研究，以找到改進的機會。

太早跳入 (Jumping in too early)

Visual Designers were often picking up the Sketch libraries to put screens together and stitching them together in Invision whilst consulting with Interaction Designers.

視覺設計師通常會選擇草圖庫將屏幕放在一起，然后在Invision中將它們拼接在一起，同時咨詢交互設計師。

On occasions, the hotspot based interactions of Invision couldn’t represent richer interaction, and the Interaction Designer then had to find a way of articulating the proposed solution some other way. In one case, by duplicating the whole thing in Principle.

有時，Invision基于熱點的交互無法表示更豐富的交互，然后，交互設計器必須找到一種以其他方式表達建議的解決方案的方法。 在一種情況下，原則上將整個事情復制一遍。

線框圖現在變得不那么重要了嗎？ (Is wireframing less important now?)

One attitude was that stakeholders wanted to see hi-fidelity design in their work, and that customers who came to the lab expected to see hi-fi design anyway.

一種態度是利益相關者希望在他們的工作中看到高保真設計，而來到實驗室的客戶希望仍然可以看到高保真設計。

Wireframing & prototyping were methods developed for a reason; to enable human beings to focus upon the structural design. Does that reason still exist?

線框和原型制作是出于某種原因而開發的方法。 使人類能夠專注于結構設計。 那原因還存在嗎？

Whilst aspects of what we are testing may be included in our design system and be (perceived to be) fit for purpose, surely any new proposed design should be tested as a concept. As such, we need to also present our existing components alongside in their conceptual format.

雖然我們正在測試的內容可以包含在我們的設計系統中，并且可以(被認為是)適合特定目的，但是任何新提議的設計都應作為概念進行測試。 因此，我們還需要以概念性格式介紹現有組件。

到桌太晚了 (Too late to the table)

One IxD remarked that he didn’t care about brand, that this was a visual and copy aspect that overlaid the user experience. They went about their business with limited reference to the design system.When it came to hi-fi design, the visual designer took what they could from the design system & worked with the IxD to fill in the gaps.

一位IxD表示，他不在乎品牌，這是覆蓋用戶體驗的視覺和復制方面。 他們在從事業務時只參考了設計系統，當涉及到高保真設計時，視覺設計師從設計系統中獲得了最大的收益，并與IxD一起填補了空白。

The deficits of this approach meant that new design was not being fed back into the design system. It also meant that the opportunity to imbue brand into interaction design was not being taken.

這種方法的缺陷意味著沒有將新設計反饋到設計系統中。 這也意味著沒有利用將品牌注入互動設計的機會。

With the desire to maintain one source of truth, should we maintain a brand agnostic layer that is representative of our hi-fidelity design system? How do we do it if we do?

出于維護一個真理來源的愿望，我們是否應該維護一個代表我們高保真設計系統的品牌不可知論層？ 如果我們怎么做呢？

英國GDS方法 (The UK GDS approach)

GDS has a prototyping toolkit for early-stage concepting. They appear to have this process thing all sewn up.

GDS有一個用于早期概念設計的原型工具包。 他們似乎把這個過程全部縫了起來。

I’ll now tell you why it works for them and not for us

我現在告訴你為什么它對他們有用而不對我們有用

GDS無需區分。 (GDS doesn’t need to differentiate.)

We only have one government. As such GDS are able to create a brand layer so thin, it is virtually non-existent. This mean the design of their components work just as well for early-stage concepting as they do for live services.

我們只有一個政府。 由于這樣的GDS能夠創建如此薄的品牌層，因此實際上是不存在的。 這意味著它們的組件設計在早期概念設計中的工作效果與在實時服務中一樣好。

私營部門方法 (The private sector approach)

In the private sector, we need our brands to stand apart from the rest. So in addition to the functional aspects of the design we need to consider and test the emotive aspects which pertain to the brand.

在私營部門，我們需要我們的品牌與眾不同。 因此，除了設計的功能方面，我們還需要考慮和測試與品牌相關的情感方面。

So arguably, in contrast to the public sector, in the private sector we need to maintain components in both their low and high fidelity guises. However from the tools we are seeing developed in the industry we are going in the opposite direction.

因此，可以說，與公共部門相反，在私營部門中，我們需要保持低保真度和高保真度的組成部分。 但是，從我們看到的行業開發工具來看，我們的發展方向相反。

We’re seeing more and more tooling coming up with smart ways to edit and maintain in hi-fidelity.

我們看到越來越多的工具提出了以高保真方式進行編輯和維護的智能方法。

Sketch has auto layout, which means we can quickly and easily edit our hi-fidelity design.

Sketch具有自動布局功能，這意味著我們可以快速輕松地編輯高保真設計。

Airbnb has created React-sketchapp where React components are rendered back to Sketch for Designers to do the layout. But how is new design created in low fidelity and tested in this workflow?

Airbnb創建了React-sketchapp ，其中React組件被渲染回Sketch，以供設計師進行布局。 但是，如何以低保真度創建新設計并在此工作流程中對其進行測試？

Where is wireframing and prototyping concepts in the workflows that these tools are facilitating? Is concepting going the way of the dinosaurs?

這些工具所促進的工作流中的線框圖和原型設計概念在哪里？ 概念化正在走恐龍化的道路嗎？

支持概念的設計系統 (A design system supporting concepting)

I’m going to propose we maintain the following to enable us to cover all bases:

我將建議我們維護以下內容以使我們能夠覆蓋所有基礎：

• A style & interaction guide which includes low & hi-fi.
  風格和互動指南，包括低保真和高保真音響。
• The UX in low fidelity to enable test.
  低保真度的UX可以進行測試。
• Live code.
  實時代碼。

Granted what is missing in the above is an environment for explicitly testing in high fidelity, there several ways to address this however:

鑒于上面所缺少的是用于高保真的顯式測試的環境，但是有幾種方法可以解決此問題：

• an environment based upon live code could facilitate this.
  基于實時代碼的環境可以簡化這一過程。
• a smart tool that could dynamically import and apply brand aspects to components, be that visual or behaviour (or even language?!).
  一個智能工具，可以動態導入品牌方面并將其應用到組件中，無論是視覺還是行為(甚至是語言？！)。

概念和貢獻 (Concepting and contribution)

There is another question of how concepting fits into the contribution framework. It feels like contribution should begin at the concepting stage. It feels topsy turvy for contributors to just rock up to the Design Systems team with a finished component. This is another post entirely though. Watch this space.

還有一個問題，就是概念如何適合貢獻框架。 感覺貢獻應該從構思階段開始。 對于貢獻者來說，只需要完成一個組件就可以加入Design Systems團隊。 這完全是另一篇文章。 關注此空間。

I’d be interested to hear about anyone’s thoughts on any of the subjects discussed here.

我很想聽聽任何人對這里討論的任何主題的想法。