Giedrius Jaloveckas’ Post

In my 7+ years of working on design systems, 2 major required outcomes continue to rise above the others: Consistency and Cohesion. Why? Simply put, customers want consistency across products and cohesion between them. This magical crescendo of all the parts working in concert, until the whole is greater than the sum. It struck me recently, however, that these are actually different goals that require different tactics. You can have consistency and lack cohesion, and vice versa. Consistency is sameness. Cohesion is familiarity. Consistency is rules-based. Cohesion is principles-based. To achieve consistency, you just need to ensure the same parts get used over and over again. Use the same button, don't deviate. Use the same dropdown, don't deviate. Here are the rules. Stick to 'em. Most design systems start and end with the rules. To achieve cohesion, you need greater design sensitivity. It's a familial feeling. It's the sense a customer gets that every part belongs together. It's the shared soul of the product. Because cohesion is principles (rather than rules) based, it broadens and deepens the discussion. It invites interpretation and innovation within a framework. It solves the age old design systems problem of following vs breaking the system. With a cohesion mindset, both are possible. If you're interested in a good example of a cohesive set of products based on a limited set of principles, check out Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design, along with all of his work for Braun over the years.

Explore the journey of redefining the concept of a design system and building with the LTD method. Witness the transformation from fragmented spare time to a robust design system in just six months. Get insights from Jakub Hajduk: https://lnkd.in/gPuPcJH9. #ProductDesign #LTDMethod #DesignSystem

Respectful work design is key

It's just a render. Three words that undervalue an entire industry. Yet, Archviz is more than just creating compelling images; it's about storytelling, understanding architecture, and foreseeing the future. Think about it. Every groundbreaking building once started as a vision in someone's mind. Archviz is the bridge between imagination and reality. It's not merely about making pretty pictures, but about solving real architectural challenges before they arise. It's about testing the waters of innovation, sustainability, and functionality. This field demands a blend of technical skill and creative vision, a unique mix that often goes unrecognized. Archviz professionals dive deep into the architect's mind, bringing to life what hasn't been built yet. They allow us to see the potential of spaces, influencing decisions long before the first stone is laid. Yet, the misconception persists. Archviz isn't just a final step in the presentation; it's a crucial phase in the design process. It deserves more than a passing glance. It deserves recognition for its role in shaping our built environment. Let's start giving Archviz the credit it's due. Engage if you agree. Share your thoughts on how Archviz has impacted your view of architecture and design.

In "How Buildings Learn", Stewart Brand reveals how architecture becomes meaningful when it can adapt to the changing needs of its users.  Brand describes how buildings evolve in response to users, expanding Winston Churchill’s idea that “we shape our buildings, and thereafter, they shape us” to a cycle of continual refinement: "We shape our buildings, they shape us, we reshape them, and they reshape us." Successful architecture is that which finds the balance between adaptability and its fitness for a purpose. His insights apply beyond physical spaces—software architecture, too, is a dynamic system that must balance stability and adaptability to thrive. In software architecture, this means designing systems that are flexible enough to evolve as user requirements and technologies change, but stable enough to serve their core purpose effectively. Successful architectures strike this balance, adapting over time while maintaining their integrity. Brand's concept of "shearing layers" is especially relevant. In both buildings and software, different layers of a system—core infrastructure, application logic, and user interfaces—change at different rates. Infrastructure might remain stable for years, while the application logic and interfaces shift with each iteration. The faster, more frequent changes can even signal the need for future adaptations in the underlying architecture. In today’s fast-paced tech landscape, adaptability in software architecture isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential. Systems that can evolve in response to new demands will not only serve users better but will also have the resilience to endure in an ever-shifting digital environment. Brand says: "We want adaptability in our buildings. There’s really no other way for a building to last and to be appreciated if it’s not amenable to our shifting needs". It's a great advise for software architects too!!. #softwarearchitecture

A strong portfolio opens doors to my design career. From creating my first architecture portfolio for an international conference to building my site to reach clients worldwide. Here are 3 simple rules to get people's attention through your portfolio: 1/ Be different, not blend in Standing out is the most important thing. Your uniqueness makes it easier for people (strangers) to remember you. Different is better than being the best in the same category. -- 2/ Be specialized in one thing, not everything People want to work with an expert. They don't collaborate with a "full-stack thing" if they only need one area to focus on. An expert knows a subject deeply, not just on the surface. -- 3/ Give it a time — then, hit publish Give yourself a deadline so you don't procrastinate. If not, you'll change it relentlessly until it's perfect—never enough. Then, share it publicly.

A fully-formed design system is an organization-spanning, governed, drop-in, ready-to-use monster of a project. Laying the first brick is tough. Since we're usually setting the foundation for new systems, we put together some thoughts about those early stages: targets, tips, and the usual issues. A design system MVP, if you will. https://lnkd.in/giiTBrbP

"The architect is actually 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆 things in one " - IDesign Inc. 1. Process Lead 2. Technical Lead 3. Design Lead It's not just about architecture. Architecture is merely 2%. To 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅 you have to do above three. Hence, the architect 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 wear 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆 Hats. Sometimes 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 on the project, one hat is HEAVIER than the other two, but you 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 must wear all three. In fact you cannot 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅 without wearing Three Hats. Doing each run on their 𝒐𝒘𝒏 is a form of 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞. 1. If you just do 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 but 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 to execute it you have 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥. 2. If you have a 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 but your process is a 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 then it's 𝘯𝘰𝘵 good either. 3. If you just do 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, you'll be 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈 the process but not doing anything. The 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 affect the 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 which is related to design, 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 affects the process it's all the same actually. You must practice all three and what I find is it's a 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒖𝒖𝒎. It's called 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔. #SystemDesign #ProjectDesign #DetailDesign

Companies laying off design systems designers have lost the plot. Design systems are the one investment in the company that saves you the most money and can pay off for years. - Repeatable patterns - Recycling code - Empowering faster builds - Creating coherence between applications, systems and whatever is consuming the design system - Anything you fix and reuse pays off in multiple products like solving accessibility issues, usability issues, flow, performance etc. The #1 benefit a design system brings to a business is reducing engineering hours needed because you can leverage existing components to make applications. This allows you to solve bigger problems and leverage those brilliant engineering hours to solve new problems instead of re-inventing multi-select, tables, search, sort and filter. Design system designers and engineers work in tandem to provide and support repeatable systems. They are a keystone of innovation and support for stable, coherent well built, strong, scalable systems. It's not an extraneous expense. The amount of tech debt you accrue when the design system cannot keep innovating, expanding and responding to business needs due to budget cuts significantly outweighs the investment to keep it running. It's like turning off your de-humidifier and crossing your fingers nothing goes bad :( You can't always see the great work a design system is doing for you, but when you turn it off, boy is it obvious what the wild west of spiraling features and re-inventing common patterns creates. Anyways, I don't get it, rant over.

Every design system I’ve worked with implemented as much cost as it did savings due to the nature of the design system typically being a platform team. The best operations of a system would allow new components and its flexibility be designed by product teams themselves congruently. Hard sell for teams moving at different speeds with different metrics.