Is it correct to adopt a design specification for an entire project?

Question

I see many frameworks, migrating to a visual based on design material and using flexbox to contain the elements, among them.

• Bootstrap
• Materialize
• Quasar
• Foundation
• UI material

Whereas they are UI components, they should be used as a complement to something already modeled not? an example of this is the jquery UI.

I’ve seen dealership sites using, in which the niche are people who still use technologies incompatible with part of the structure of these frameworks.

Finally I would like to know, if it is correct to adopt a specific design for an entire project?

Answer 1

Follow guidelines is not a rule. Are, as the word says, guidelines.

Who is your target audience?

Why would you follow the design standards of iOS to make an Android app? Little robot users are used to the look and way of using apps. This works the other way around.

Windows users are used to Fluent Design, Google users with Material and Apple users with Flat.

Creating a new design pattern is valid, but a good analysis has to be done. By default and intelligently you want to let your user use a platform that he is already used to and that he already knows how to use. It is more expensive to re-educate the public to use its application.

Recycle and reuse.

Reusing an already defined pattern is sagacious. Your user is already suited to the style of use. Material Design is present in all Google products. If you use the search engine, Gmail, Youtube, Maps or Chrome, you know the Material Design. And so also works with your user.

The chameleon.

Your application adapts to every environment. On Android you have some patterns of the Material, but without losing its shape, the essence of your application. In iOS always have the menu at the bottom of the screen, this is how you use the vast majority of apps on this system. On Windows Phone... well, I don’t know what WP looks like.

The Uber has its own design, its own guidelines but it adapts to each operating system. That is, on Android, iOS and Windows the visual changes, with some adaptations to the guidelines defined by each platform.

It’s not just about beauty.

Don’t be foolish to think that the guidelines of a specification contemplate only beautiful colors and interesting animations.

I will use the Material example:

The main action button in the lower right corner is standard. The user exposed to this design is used to this operation. With the cards lined up side-by-side and the position of the back button as well.

All these components are strategically positioned and there have been studies of human behavior to be put in a certain way. On I/O 2014 it was said that Material Design was made based on real-world interactions.

• Material Design guidelines

The Material does not attach to Android and can be used in web applications, just as it is done in all Google products and more external websites.

• Don’t risk making a crappy UI, use Material Design
• Is it acceptable to use Google Material Design in web Applications?

What’s right and what’s wrong?

In conclusion, there are no right and wrong. The pattern of interaction design should be defined by you and your team, there are several options, among them:

• use Material Design;
• use Material Design in the Android environment and follow Apple’s guidelines on iOS;
• create a new specification that suits different architectures (such as Uber);
• create a new specification that will be standard for any environment (such as Google and Material);
• merge design specifications that have already been studied in terms of human-machine interaction;
• among several other options.

The wrong Maybe it’s not using a pattern. Your project can gain a pattern during development, this is the most common case. However, when you already have something solid, concrete, well defined and documented, development flows better, easier and faster.

Answer 2

TL;DR

In general terms, yes. And not just for one project, but for the entire family of projects if possible.

Practical example

Let’s take as an example the newly launched design language of Atlassian (Atlassian Design Guidelines).

Warning: I work at Atlassian, but as a developer and not as a designer.

The company has focused, especially in the last year, on a deep restructuring in terms of UI/UX, which began with its own brand (logos and typography) until the standardization of the components used in its various products with the Atlaskit.

It is important to point out that all this is not a simple freshness, fetish, a random decision or because the company has money left.

Frequent and varied research was carried out, including feedback thousands of users around the world and various other statistical data, and it has been concluded that offer a consistent experience (among other features) in its various products is essential for business.

In addition to their own products, offer the guide to design for the general public, it allows third parties to create integrations and extensions for Atlassian products while maintaining a consistent user experience. Everyone wins.

"Visual frameworks"

Obviously, not all companies are able to invest in creating their own identity, so they become as important as the "design frameworks" cited in the question.

It makes perfect sense for a project that is starting to specify and adopt a design standard. It would just be important to have an experienced designer to do it properly.

Hazards

An important factor to consider is that adopting a UI/UX standard to guide development cannot become a limiting factor.

A few years ago, I worked in a company where a design standard was developed but with no reasonable possibility to extend the components.

This forced the developers to create "visual gambiarras" for the most "different" cases, which in reality were precisely the most complex and important.

Therefore, it is a mistake to think that by mounting a design specification using some framework, the work is over. Designers are needed continuously whenever a new type of interaction is identified.

Completion

My answer, although not to be interpreted as an absolute rule, is based on research, evidence and actual and objective data within a scenario common to several companies, not being mere achism or philosophy arbitrarily followed.

In practice, the questions that persist are not in the sense of having or not having a design pattern - this is practically a consensus, but in the best possible way to do this within the budget.