We need Design Languages not Design Systems
Design Systems are derived from Design Languages, which were first conceived of over 70 years to help companies create scalable, cohesive, easily identifiable, and easy to use products. That did not follow a prescriptive recipe for their construction. Indeed the original intent was to define a language that could accommodated both the current products and services but also in the conceptualization of products and service which had not yet even been imagined. Design Languages were originally conceptualized to provide companies the ability to express their value, culture, and raison d'être in their products and services—both verbally and non-verbally with forms, color, scale, etc, in the same way that a language like French, Spanish, or Tsonga allow you to create philosophy and poetry, along with technical specs and status reports — or simply have a conversation, while those all would use the same language, individual creativity or purpose was not constrained.
language [ lang-gwij ] : noun
a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition.
the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech).
any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.
any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.: the language of mathematics; sign language.
By contrast today’s design systems are little more than recipes; they contain a list of ingredients and instructions for their use. Most never address the underlying principles meant to guide the creative problem solving, or encourage people to push the boundaries using the language to create innovative expressions. For the most part today’s design systems simply expect products to be constructed from existing parts rather than created.
Originally design languages were future looking, frameworks that inspired designers to take on ever bigger challenges, develop net-new products and services that could be contemporary with changing customer needs and expectations, and that could move ahead of market trends and pull in new customers. Maintaining the core principle of modifying either the symbol, syntax, or semantics of a given expression, these languages could be expanded along with company’s portfolio ensuring new products could be both novel and innovative while still feeling familiar and understood.
Design Language were based on the science of semiotics, specifically the idea of product semantics (the expression of meaning through form) and situation semantics (the expression of meaning through action). The later works to clarify how the interaction between the object and the person creates the experience of use, and subsequently meaning through patterns of experience—leading to learning. (Yes, this is another example of the science behind design.)
Paul Rand’s charming rebus variation of the IBM logo from 1981
Paul Rand created the IBM corporate identity, which as Mark Favermann notes "was not just an identity but a basic design philosophy which permeated corporate consciousness and public awareness." Rand also published a comprehensive manual on the “use and abuse” of the identity that went far beyond the mark itself; It demonstrated the potential and provided future designers with a language that would allow them to expand the identity system. In that spirit, in 1981 Rand created the Rebus version of the logo (shown above) working with the the same design language—he created a playful and charming interpretation of the IBM identity and makes the company feel more human while maintaining the underlying brand identity. The complete IBM Design Language is here
Around the same time the designers at RichardsonSmith were creating a design language for Xerox copiers—the precursor the Xerox Star and its graphical user interface that led to the Macintosh. The final document created by RichardsonSmith for Xerox was called “Principles for Constructing Communicative Objects and Object Systems for Interactive Dialogs”. In this case “dialogs” did not refer to window on a screen but rather the conversation between the physical machine and the people using it. This document contained a detailed rationale and principles the drove the approach for every element on these machines and how they collectively create a positive interaction, as well as offering a means of applying those ideas to future products. This was a design language for creating, not a checklist for ensuring compliance. (You can learn more about these guidelines here.)
Rather than limiting the designers what are basically Lego™️ sets, Design Languages inspired not only the designer, but industries. While this makes it easier for the plug and play designers, they do little to move the ball forward for the profession.
I would challenge all of us to revisit the idea of today’s design systems and whether we are better served not with scaffolding for the novice, but rather a launch pad for experts: Design Languages.
As always, please feel free to share your thoughts.
(please note, all posts are moderated for appropriate content)
