Common Mistakes in Design Tokens Adoption

What are the most common mistakes and how to avoid them

This post kicks off the series of in-depth guides on specific topics.
All subscribers can read a preview of the covered topics, while with a paid subscription you can access the full article.

TL;DR

Design tokens can create consistent, scalable user interfaces, but their implementation and adoption often face common pitfalls:

1. Overspecific Naming

❌ Design tokens tied to particular components limit reusability and adaptability.
✅ Use functional or semantic names adaptable to different contexts.

2. No Cross-Platform Variants

❌ Design tokens that don’t account for different platforms leading to inconsistent user experiences.
✅ Create platform-specific tokens to accommodate all the differences.

3. Inconsistent Naming

❌ Team members may misuse token names without a consistent structure.
✅ Establish a clear naming convention using a structured approach.

4. Redundancy

❌ Too many similar or duplicate tokens clutter the system, making it harder to maintain.
✅ Conduct regular token audits to consolidate similar tokens.

5. Ignoring Accessibility

❌ Failing to account for accessibility, like color contrast and spacing, results in a less inclusive design.
✅ Develop accessibility-focused, specific, design tokens that meet WCAG standards.

6. Lack of Documentation

❌ Lack of documentation confuses team members, leading to incorrect or inconsistent token use.
✅ Document each token's intended use and provide practical examples.

7. Inflexibility

❌ Design tokens that don’t adapt to evolving design requirements can become obsolete and difficult to refactor.
✅ Implement a flexible token structure and version control system to adapt to evolving design requirements

Ok, how to tackle each of them?

Read the full article upgrading to a paid subscription!