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机构设计系统由Sketch库和代码维护。 一个跨多个品牌工作的小团队意味着始终存在一个问题，即为什么我们可能会或可能不会维护某些东西。 我们一直在思考每项活动的价值，以及我们的采购订单如何衡量它。

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.

从历史上看，我们将目光投向了视觉和代码对齐，这是低落的果实。 我的任务是与Interaction Designers进行一些研究，以找到改进的机会。

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.

视觉设计师通常会选择草图库将屏幕放在一起，然后在Invision中将它们拼接在一起，同时咨询交互设计师。

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.

有时，Invision基于热点的交互无法表示更丰富的交互，然后，交互设计器必须找到一种以其他方式表达建议的解决方案的方法。 在一种情况下，原则上将整个事情复制一遍。

线框图现在变得不那么重要了吗？ (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.

一种态度是利益相关者希望在他们的工作中看到高保真设计，而来到实验室的客户希望仍然可以看到高保真设计。

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

线框和原型制作是出于某种原因而开发的方法。 使人类能够专注于结构设计。 那原因还存在吗？

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.

虽然我们正在测试的内容可以包含在我们的设计系统中，并且可以(被认为是)适合特定目的，但是任何新提议的设计都应作为概念进行测试。 因此，我们还需要以概念性格式介绍现有组件。

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，这是覆盖用户体验的视觉和复制方面。 他们在从事业务时只参考了设计系统，当涉及到高保真设计时，视觉设计师从设计系统中获得了最大的收益，并与IxD一起填补了空白。

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.

这种方法的缺陷意味着没有将新设计反馈到设计系统中。 这也意味着没有利用将品牌注入互动设计的机会。

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?

出于维护一个真理来源的愿望，我们是否应该维护一个代表我们高保真设计系统的品牌不可知论层？ 如果我们怎么做呢？

英国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有一个用于早期概念设计的原型工具包。 他们似乎把这个过程全部缝了起来。

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

我现在告诉你为什么它对他们有用而不对我们有用

GDS无需区分。 (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.

我们只有一个政府。 由于这样的GDS能够创建如此薄的品牌层，因此实际上是不存在的。 这意味着它们的组件设计在早期概念设计中的工作效果与在实时服务中一样好。

私营部门方法 (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.

在私营部门，我们需要我们的品牌与众不同。 因此，除了设计的功能方面，我们还需要考虑和测试与品牌相关的情感方面。

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，可以说，与公共部门相反，在私营部门中，我们需要保持低保真度和高保真度的组成部分。 但是，从我们看到的行业开发工具来看，我们的发展方向相反。

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

我们看到越来越多的工具提出了以高保真方式进行编辑和维护的智能方法。

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

Sketch具有自动布局功能，这意味着我们可以快速轻松地编辑高保真设计。

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创建了React-sketchapp ，其中React组件被渲染回Sketch，以供设计师进行布局。 但是，如何以低保真度创建新设计并在此工作流程中对其进行测试？

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

这些工具所促进的工作流中的线框图和原型设计概念在哪里？ 概念化正在走恐龙化的道路吗？

支持概念的设计系统 (A design system supporting concepting)

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

我将建议我们维护以下内容以使我们能够覆盖所有基础：

• A style & interaction guide which includes low & hi-fi.
  风格和互动指南，包括低保真和高保真音响。
• The UX in low fidelity to enable test.
  低保真度的UX可以进行测试。
• Live code.
  实时代码。

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

鉴于上面所缺少的是用于高保真的显式测试的环境，但是有几种方法可以解决此问题：

• an environment based upon live code could facilitate this.
  基于实时代码的环境可以简化这一过程。
• a smart tool that could dynamically import and apply brand aspects to components, be that visual or behaviour (or even language?!).
  一个智能工具，可以动态导入品牌方面并将其应用到组件中，无论是视觉还是行为(甚至是语言？！)。

概念和贡献 (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.

还有一个问题，就是概念如何适合贡献框架。 感觉贡献应该从构思阶段开始。 对于贡献者来说，只需要完成一个组件就可以加入Design Systems团队。 这完全是另一篇文章。 关注此空间。

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

我很想听听任何人对这里讨论的任何主题的想法。