Read at Chris Coyier
Brad Frost discusses the idea of a Global Design System and the need to prevent repeating effort across organizations. While design systems have been successful within individual organizations, there is still a lot of repeat work being done across organizations. Frost suggests that every open-source design system is a "global design system", but some may fail to meet the philosophy of a true global design system. He also mentions that the ideal adoption goal for a global design system is not 100% or 50%, and the level of opinionatedness needs to be adjusted to strike a balance between usefulness and flexibility.
Isn't every open-source design system a "global design system"? Aren't the people making them trying to make them as useful as possible for as many people as possible? If that's right, and thus they have failed, why did they fail? What are they doing that doesn't map to the philosophy of a global design system?
The article raises questions about the ideal adoption goal for a global design system. It is not 100%, as it is impossible to solve for every niche edge case. It is also not 50%, as that would be too low for something that aims to cover many core needs. The level of opinionatedness needs to be adjusted to strike a balance between usefulness and flexibility, potentially aiming for around 80%. However, there is a trade-off, as the lower the opinionatedness, the less useful the system becomes.
What percentage of organizations is the goal for ideal adoption? Or that could at least theoretically meet the needs of those organizations? It's not 100% (Brad said so directly) because that would need to solve for every niche edge case there is. It's also not, say, 50%, as that's shooting low for something that's supposed to cover so many core needs. Is it 80%? Where do you have to turn the dial of opinionated-ness to get there? Probably pretty low, right? You can't dictate the structure of a Dialog or a Card component to get to 80%.