Structuring Design Tokens for Interactive States
Exploring two different approaches to defining interactive state tokens: property-specific and semantic group tokens
In modern design systems, design tokens are crucial in maintaining consistency, scalability, and flexibility. One of the most critical aspects of token structuring is handling interactive states, such as hover, focus, active, and disabled. These states impact multiple UI elements—buttons, links, inputs, and more—making it essential to structure tokens in a way that balances clarity, maintainability, and adaptability.
We explore two primary approaches to defining interactive state tokens: property-specific and semantic group tokens. Each one has its advantages and challenges, and selecting the best structure depends on the needs of the design system.
Approach 1: Property-Specific Tokens
One method of defining interactive states is to create separate tokens for each UI property that can change due to user interaction. These include background color, border color, and text color.
Example Token Structure
color-background-primary-hovercolor-border-primary-hovercolor-text-primary-hovercolor-background-primary-activecolor-border-primary-focus
Advantages
✅ Fine-Grained Control – Each property has a dedicated token, allowing UI components to customize individual elements (e.g., only the border changes on focus while the background remains the same).
✅ Predictable Naming Structure – Tokens follow a clear pattern (color-{property}-{role}-{state}), making them easy to locate and update.
✅ Alignment with Atomic Tokens – This approach integrates well with atomic design principles and supports multi-branding needs where different properties may vary.
Challenges
❌ Token Bloat – As states and roles increase, the number of tokens grows exponentially, leading to potential redundancy.
❌ Higher Maintenance Effort – Changes across multiple interactive states require updating several tokens instead of modifying a single reference.
Approach 2: Semantic Group Tokens
An alternative method is to group interactive states under a single, higher-level semantic token. Instead of separating tokens by property, a more abstract "interactive" category can be used.
Example Token Structure
color-interactive-primary-hovercolor-interactive-secondary-hovercolor-interactive-primary-focuscolor-interactive-primary-active
Advantages
✅ Simplifies Token Management – By consolidating tokens, the design system is easier to maintain and scales more effectively.
✅ Ensures Consistency – Since a single token defines an interactive state, there is less risk of inconsistency across components.
✅ Improves Readability – The naming convention remains clear while reducing the number of individual tokens.
Challenges
❌ Limited Customization – If background, text, and border colors need different values in an interactive state, this structure becomes restrictive.
❌ Potential Ambiguity – The term "interactive" may not convey which property is affected, leading to confusion about its application.
Hybrid Approach: Balancing Precision and Simplicity
A hybrid approach can offer the best of both worlds by combining semantic tokens with property-specific overrides. This allows a default color-interactive-primary-hover to be defined while allowing component-level overrides when needed.
Example Hybrid Token Structure
color-interactive-primary-hover(Default for background, border, and text)color-border-primary-hover(Specific override for borders)color-text-primary-hover(Specific override for text)
This approach ensures a baseline consistency while providing flexibility for detailed customization where required.
Best Practices for Structuring Interactive State Tokens
Keep the Naming Convention Predictable – Whether using property-based or semantic tokens, ensure consistency across the design system.
Prioritize Scalability – Choose an approach that accommodates future expansion without requiring extensive refactoring.
Enable Theming Support – Reference base-level tokens (
theme.primary,color.text.secondary) instead of hardcoding values.Avoid Deep Token Chains – Excessive referencing between tokens can complicate maintenance and debugging.
Document Token Usage Clearly – Provide clear guidelines on when to use semantic tokens versus property-specific tokens.
Conclusion
Both property-specific tokens and semantic group tokens have their place in a well-structured design system. The choice between them depends on the level of control required, the scale of the design system, and the need for customization. In many cases, a hybrid approach offers the best balance, allowing generalization with the option for targeted overrides.
By carefully structuring interactive state tokens, design systems can achieve a harmonious balance of flexibility, consistency, and maintainability, ensuring that interactive elements behave predictably while remaining adaptable to evolving UI needs.