When I work on design systems, I prioritize consistency of behavior, meaning, and interaction over rigid visual or structural uniformity.
Uniformity optimizes for sameness; consistency optimizes for understanding.
In complex products and multi-team environments, enforcing strict uniformity often leads to:
- fragile abstractions,
- forced components,
- and local workarounds that quietly undermine the system.
A consistent system, instead, allows contextual variation while preserving:
- predictable behaviors,
- shared mental models,
- and recognizable interaction patterns.
The system defines what must remain consistent and where variation is allowed, making adaptability an explicit design decision rather than an accidental one.
Shared behavior, contextual presentation
Components addressing similar needs were designed to behave consistently, even when their visual presentation differed based on context.
Semantic consistency over visual sameness
Similar UI elements were aligned semantically rather than visually.
Variant systems with clear intent
Variants were defined around intent (e.g. emphasis, hierarchy, feedback) rather than isolated design needs.
Variant system
Consistent design language constraints across flexible compositions
Composable components are allowed to combine freely, but within shared constraints.
Interaction patterns over pixel perfection
User flows and interaction feedback should be treated as the primary consistency surface.
A progress bar during a data saving operation
