Apr 15, 2025
A Medium publication by UX Collective
Design Systems and the Decline of Experience
How engineer-led standardization is draining the soul out of UX
A Designer's Honest Confession
If you've worked in a large tech company as a product designer, chances are you've participated in building or maintaining a design system.
It’s often seen as a badge of maturity: color tokens, grid systems, component libraries, handoff documentation, front-end integration. The belief is that once the system is in place, design becomes scalable, efficient, and magically “better.”
But here’s my honest take: I’ve never found Design Systems all that inspiring.
They are not the pinnacle of design thinking. Nor are they the truest representation of creative value. In many organizations, they function more like a ritual response to systemic anxiety than a genuine attempt to improve user experience.
I’ve helped build them, advocated for them, and know their value. But I’ve also seen what they fail to address: Design Systems solve for efficiency—not for empathy. They align surfaces, but rarely meaning.
What I Experienced Behind the System
I once took part in the development of a Design System across multiple business lines within a global financial product group. We pushed for component engineering, adapted shared design assets across markets, and introduced tools like Storybook to align visual systems with front-end realities.
We defined component specs, hosted cross-functional walkthroughs, coordinated with PMs, devs, marketers, and operations. On paper, everything looked systematic.
But in execution, we saw:
Multiple versions of the same components in different dev teams, without centralized usage;
Designers using tools like "Zeplin" to generate index-marked specs, but naming conventions often mismatched with development code;
No clear mapping between the design component library and dev’s actual component usage;
Developers finding documentation time-consuming, often opting to just “copy and paste the CSS”;
And ultimately, the design system was barely reused the way we intended.
Most importantly:
The system didn’t elevate user experience. It merely made screens look uniform.
That was the moment I realized: Standardization does not equal usability. Consistency does not equal clarity.
In many organizations, the design system becomes a false signal of progress—what we align visually may still fail emotionally.
Why Most Design Systems Don’t Improve UX
Design Systems promise many things: alignment, efficiency, scalability, speed. But what they often fail to deliver is this:
Real clarity. Real trust. Real help.
Users don’t care if your rounded corners match across pages. They care about:
“Do I feel confident about what to do next?”
“Does this interface feel like it understands my hesitation?”
“Can I trust the outcome if I proceed?”
These are not things component libraries can answer.
A design system can tell you how to say something. But it can't tell you when, to whom, or why. It doesn't understand urgency, hesitation, delight, or doubt—all of which are core to experience.
Worse, in many teams, the design system becomes a crutch:
Designers stop making intentional decisions. They simply assemble interfaces. The result? Uniform, frictionless, and utterly forgettable screens.
Design Systems Are Painkillers, Not Cures
So why are Design Systems everywhere?
Because they solve a real—but limited—problem: organizational inefficiency.
1. The A/B Testing Epidemic
Modern teams run dozens of experiments at any given time. Copy, CTA, layout, flow. That means huge overhead for design and engineering.
In this context, design systems become a survival tactic—a way to reduce the cost of iteration, not a method for improving experience.
2. Designers Lack a Voice in Decision-Making
Most designers operate far downstream from business or product strategy. They execute visual ideas, but rarely participate in framing the actual problem.
Part of the reason is structural. But it’s also because many designers have been trained to focus on visuals, not business models.
When that happens, the organization doesn’t ask for judgment. It asks for execution. And systems are the most convenient format for managing execution.
3. Research Is Outsourced. So Is Judgment.
User insights are often delivered as reports, charts, or survey graphs—from external researchers or analytics teams.
But designers shouldn’t only consume insights. They should generate hypotheses, conduct informal testing, challenge assumptions, and apply second-order reasoning (Bayesian-style updates, not binary claims).
Otherwise, all decisions are made elsewhere—and design simply decorates them.
4. The Death of Differentiation
When every product uses the same layout, the same spacing, the same neutral palette… the brand disappears.
Sameness might feel clean, but it’s also what makes most SaaS, fintech, or productivity tools utterly forgettable.
Design Systems don’t create differentiation. They accelerate commoditization.
And in a saturated, zero-sum marketplace, lack of distinctiveness is a death sentence.
What We Still Need Design to Do
Design is not here to just “make things efficient.” It’s here to:
Turn ambiguity into guidance.
Help users build trust in uncertain systems.
Translate complexity into decision paths.
Create emotional tempo—not just visual rhythm.
A designer’s true leverage isn’t speed. It’s discernment.
That’s what makes us irreplaceable.
Systems don’t make that judgment. People do.
In a World That Moves Fast, We Need to Defend the Right to Move Slow
Everything is accelerating:
AI prototyping
Instant code handoffs
Multi-variant testing
Composable product stacks
Designers are being told to keep up.
To systematize. Automate. Predict. Align.
But I’ll say this:
Slowness is not a flaw. It’s a form of fidelity.
To pause before choosing a component.
To rethink the structure of a flow.
To resist the urge to apply a default.
That’s not hesitation.
That’s craftsmanship.
This world already has plenty of tools.
Plenty of templates.
Plenty of “best practices.”
What it lacks is…
Judgment.
Courage.
Taste.
We don’t need more Design Systems.
We need more designers who dare to say:
“This is what we must say here.”
“This is what they might be feeling.”
“This is what we must not compromise.”
Zeppelin Zhang · Evelyn
This piece is a collaboration between Zeppelin Zhang & Evelyn,
where AI doesn’t just generate – it co-authors, challenges, and refines.
We believe great design comes from judgment, not just templates.
And that includes the way we write, critique, and speak up.