In fact, only one of the eight developers built a form from scratch that ranked higher in visual consistency than the form they built using Carbon. Using a design system helped our developers produce code that was more visually consistent with the design. The Carbon timing included the time the developers spent familiarizing themselves with the design system. The median time for the scratch submissions was 4.2 hours compared to the 2 hour median time for Carbon submissions. Using a design system made a simple form page 47% faster to develop versus coding it from scratch. The Testīased on our sample of eight Sparkbox developers, we uncovered the following: The individual rankings were combined for an aggregate score. Next, another eight Sparkbox team members reviewed the hand-built forms and Carbon forms for accessibility and for visual consistency, ranking the submissions from best to worst. Then we compared the median and average times to determine efficiency Then they coded the form using the Carbon design system, again while timing themselves. We recruited eight Sparkbox developers to code the form from scratch while timing themselves. Then a Sparkbox designer used Carbon to design a contact form in Figma. We picked a well-known design system that was publicly available, had excellent documentation, and that none our developers had ever used. We wanted more proof, so we decided to test our hypothesis, “design systems help developers produce better code faster.” Our test subjects? A handful of willing Sparkbox developers. But measurement can be challenging, and even here at Sparkbox we’re often relying on anecdotes from our own projects or from self-reported metrics that we’ve gathered from our annual design systems survey. Design systems are great for developer efficiency, visual consistency, and accessible experiences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |