This was amazing

For Modals specifically, I tend to make layer styles for the modal (container) and overlay (background). Depending on if they're themed i'll typically name them something like theme/dark/modal/container or something like that.

Then I keep the components within the modal as symbols and text styles (you might have headlines and descriptions in some or just headlines in others).

I found this to work best because you get the benefits of the design system without having to "Detach from symbol" all the time.

Design Systems do, and will replace design jobs not through automation but through efficiency.

I'm not too sure why this is a point of contention. A good design system decreases the number of designers required to design, maintain or scale a product.

As a result, if your design team went from 10 - 5 then your design system replaced 5 jobs. This is the point.

In fact, if you design a system that doesn't replace design jobs, then you haven't really designed a very good system in the first place.

To be honest, I was expecting a lot of fluff and to dismiss this as a joke. Optimistic much? Ha.

What I found was potentially one of the most progressive and thoughtful handbooks about designing at scale. Design Op's is really a word that can be misinterpreted as "young kids rephrasing old concepts, to make themselves feel important".

However, Design Ops is a new category of operational know how. This book helps articulate, to all stakeholders, the importance of designers and how, if you don't pigeon hole them, they can become the corner stone of any organization.

I expect all the kids to start adding 'Senior Design Op's' to their Linkedin profiles from now on. Ha.

Thank your hard work and contribution to the design space.

• A junior designer doesn't know what to do.
• A mid-level designer knows what to do.
• A senior designer knows what not to do.

Came here specifically to bitch about this. Hoping it's a bug.

1,000,000% disagree.

I have a feeling this is coming from a perspective where you haven't actually tried to code and so you think it's an unattainable skill. I could be wrong but I doubt it because I used to think the same way before I taught myself to code.

I consistently hear this defeatist attitude on both sides of the aisle. Designers saying you can't be good at developing. Developers saying they can't be good at design. The truth is, good design and development share many of the same fundamentals such as simplicity, modularity, reusability, scalability, systems thinking etc.

If you learn Javascript and a framework (like React) for even 6 months, you'll see that it's not that difficult. Is it hard? Sure. Is it a 'savant-only' skill? No way.

You might also be in a position where you work in a large company or studio where specialists are all that people hire. Personally, I don't do that, I start companies or work on early stage companies where being a generalist is your only option.

At early stage companies you don't have the budget to hire:

• 1 x UX designer
• 1 x UI Designer
• 1x User Research
• 1x HTML/CSS Developer
• 1x Frontend Developer
• 1x Backend Developer.

You learn to 80% yourself or you're unemployable, or in my case unfound-able. If you're not a "specialists specialist" (i.e Erik Spiekermann, Massimo Vignelli) you're always at the risk of a person with 1 more skill than you stealing your opportunities.

Personally, that's not a risk i'm willing to take.

Precisely.

This x100.

We're in an era, where it's acceptable to be a 'non-technical' designer, but I believe that era is coming to an end. As a designer, you should want to carry your designs through to completion to ensure your design maintains its integrity as it's translated from pixels to code.

I can guarantee you one thing. Learning to code makes you a better designer. You'll stop doing frilly bullshit because you'll know how hard it is to implement. By simplifying your designs and thus the associated code, is likely to make half the argument for you.

The other half of course, is learning to code. The fact you guys are using React, shows they know the right approach to frontends. As a designer, you should be learning it because it enables you to build cross platform applications with a single tool. Reacts mantra after all is 'Learn one, write anywhere'.

If you can learn React, then you'll be able to design, implement, then code applications for Desktop, Web, Android and iOS. From a developers perspective they're going to respect you a great deal more. From an employees perspective you're a unicorn.

And in the odd case that the company or development team are actually fuckwits. You can pack up your bags and take your skills to a company that respects them and make more money.

My advice is to learn React through Stephen Griders courses on Udemy. React is a great way to start actually learning more functional Javascript too. You'll realize that CSS/HTML isn't that hard, and now you want to figure out how to stop duplicating code and use data instead of static code.

Once here, you're in good shape for the next 10 years.

I'm old enough to remember when Path was fined $800k by FTC for the same gross, privacy-invading tactics Facebook has. They'd use dark UX patterns to get access to your contacts list and, I shit you not, started auto dialing people.

Path needs to get off their high-horse and stop frontin'––acting like a white knight here to save us all.

Path had an amazing UI and UX. It was groundbreaking at the time (arguably, it still is), but the app itself was a self-inflicted victim of the Silicon Valley syndrome. Too much money, too fast, and it all came crashing down when metrics didn't come close to the hype.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/01/path-settles-with-ftc-over-privacy-row-will-pay-800k-and-establish-new-privacy-program-including-outside-audits/