"Within that flexibility, there are edge conditions - such as permissive naming patterns, optional variants, or structurally equivalent but non-identical configurations - that are perfectly usable for a human designer assembling the intended UI. Those nuances don't block design outcomes. An AI agent, however, treats every structural detail as an explicit instruction. To make the agent work, the design library had to become structurally unambiguous. Pockets of flexibility that were harmless to human designers became blockers for the automation pipeline."
"Visually, it's just text and separators. Behaviorally, it's not. In our system, long paths collapse the middle items into an ellipsis that reveals a dropdown when clicked. None of that logic exists in a static frame. To generate the component correctly, I had to inject what I came to think of as narrative logic - explicitly describing the rules, constraints, and intent behind the UI. Designing the appearance wasn't enough; the behavior had to be architected and explained."
AI co-piloting revealed that design system flexibility tolerated by human designers becomes a liability for automation. Figma components optimized for human use often include permissive naming, optional variants, and structurally equivalent but non-identical configurations that do not impede manual composition but confuse agents. To enable reliable automation, the design library must be structurally unambiguous, effectively turning design files into part of the source code. Static visual frames express appearance but not interaction intent; behaviors such as collapsing breadcrumb paths require explicit narrative logic, rules, and constraints. Automation reliability depends more on enforced processes and clear specifications than on agent intelligence alone.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]