{ "_description": "本文件由 data/ 生成：请改动来源文件，不要改这里。各字段的证据边界见接入指南。", "schemaVersion": "1.0.0", "kind": "entry", "locale": "zh-CN", "id": "design-systems", "name": { "zh": "设计系统", "en": "Design Systems" }, "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/entries/design-systems/", "self": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/entries/design-systems.json", "alternates": { "zh-CN": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/entries/design-systems.json", "en": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/design-systems.json" }, "site": { "catalogSchemaVersion": "0.1.0", "entries": 137, "index": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/entries/index.json", "query": "https://designvocabulary.com/api/query?lang=zh", "guide": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/agents/", "llms": "https://designvocabulary.com/llms.txt" }, "provenance": { "sourceBacked": [ "entry.definition" ], "editorial": [ "entry.boundary", "entry.signature", "entry.when", "entry.when_not", "entry.tradeoff", "entry.comparison", "entry.rules", "entry.relations", "entry.implementationNote", "entry.philosophy" ], "scope": "定义参考以上来源；数字界面示例、选择建议、条件关系及配方由本样例编辑，尚未经用户研究验证。", "editorialStatus": "drafted", "specimenData": "fictional", "specimenNote": "示例为原创虚构界面；定义附来源，用法与配方为编辑建议。", "sources": [ { "id": "designsystems-nng", "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-systems-101/", "title": "NN/g · Design Systems 101", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16", "archive": { "status": "pending", "confirmed": false, "url": null, "capturedAt": null, "lookupUrl": "https://web.archive.org/web/20260916*/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-systems-101/" } }, { "id": "designsystems-govuk", "url": "https://design-system.service.gov.uk/", "title": "GOV.UK Design System", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16", "archive": { "status": "pending", "confirmed": false, "url": null, "capturedAt": null, "lookupUrl": "https://web.archive.org/web/20260916*/https://design-system.service.gov.uk/" } } ], "lists": [], "ordered": false, "listDisclaimer": "席位号是编辑位置，不是评分、排名或人气统计；清单未收满时保持原样，不补足。" }, "entry": { "id": "design-systems", "type": "philosophy", "name": { "zh": "设计系统", "en": "Design Systems" }, "aliases": [ "Design System", "Component Library", "组件体系", "设计体系" ], "granularity": "experience", "intents": [ "organize-content", "reduce-complexity" ], "tags": [ "组件", "设计令牌", "规范", "复用", "规模化" ], "definition": "把设计工作的单位从\"一个页面\"换成\"一套共享的标准\"：组件、令牌、模式与写作规则被集中定义与维护，各处使用它们而不是各自重做，从而在规模变大时仍保持一致。", "boundary": "设计系统不等于组件库：组件库是交付物，设计系统还包括决定这些组件为何存在、如何演进、由谁维护的一整套约定。有一个 Figma 文件或一个 npm 包，并不意味着有设计系统。它也不是一次性项目——它的价值全部来自持续维护，停止维护的设计系统会变成阻碍，因为各处仍在使用它，却不再能反映真实需要。本词条讨论的是这一工作方式本身；与之同名的另一类候选条目指的是关于设计系统的具体著作，那是参考文献而不是同一个概念。", "signature": [ "组件与令牌有唯一的定义来源，各处引用而不是复制", "存在关于如何提议、评审与淘汰组件的明确流程", "有具名的维护者与可查的变更记录" ], "when": [ "同一组界面要素在多个产品或多个团队中反复出现", "规模增长快到逐页维护一致性已经不现实", "组织愿意为持续维护投入固定的人力，而不只是做一次" ], "when_not": [ "产品还在快速探索形态，过早固化组件会锁死方向", "只做了组件库却没有维护者、流程与淘汰机制", "系统停止维护后各处仍被要求使用，它变成了阻碍而非基础" ], "tradeoff": "集中定义把一致性与修改的传播变成一次性的工作，也把讨论从\"这个按钮什么样\"抬升到\"我们的按钮应该什么样\"；代价是它给每一次例外都加上了成本，而且它自身需要长期的维护投入——这份投入一旦停止，系统就从基础设施变成负担。", "comparison": { "focus": "把设计工作的单位从页面换成共享标准", "mechanism": "集中定义组件、令牌与模式，各处引用并持续维护", "cost": "例外变得昂贵，且依赖长期的维护投入" }, "sources": [ { "id": "designsystems-nng", "title": "NN/g · Design Systems 101", "url": "https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-systems-101/", "claim": "该文把设计系统定义为一套用于在规模上管理设计的完整标准，借助可复用的组件与模式实现，目的是减少冗余、建立共同语言并在各渠道间保持视觉一致；文中还说明这一需求来自界面数量与生产速度的增长。本词条的定义与动机据此转述。", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16", "archive": { "lookupUrl": "https://web.archive.org/web/20260916*/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-systems-101/", "status": "pending", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16T17:41:09.727Z", "error": "status-request-failed", "jobId": "spn2-24ab2e786b40bfc8cd3d51c46cabc90c2a6c080a" } }, { "id": "designsystems-govuk", "title": "GOV.UK Design System", "url": "https://design-system.service.gov.uk/", "claim": "该设计系统在首页说明其用途：用 GOV.UK 的样式、组件与模式来设计服务，使各政府服务与 GOV.UK 保持一致，并让团队\"借鉴其他服务团队的研究与经验，避免重复已经做过的工作\"；它同时公开组件的生命周期状态（例如 Trial 与 Stable）与版本发布记录。本词条关于\"共享标准\"与\"持续维护\"的说法据此转述。", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16", "archive": { "lookupUrl": "https://web.archive.org/web/20260916*/https://design-system.service.gov.uk/", "status": "pending", "checkedAt": "2026-09-16T17:41:31.878Z", "error": "status-request-failed", "jobId": "spn2-718c6450aa41af704ceccf7cb39be7ffff9e026c" } } ], "relations": [ { "target": "consistency", "kind": "realized_by", "condition": "一致性需要在多个团队与产品之间被维持", "reason": "设计系统是把一致性从每次判断变成一次定义的具体机制。", "basis": "editorial" }, { "target": "systems-thinking", "kind": "composes_with", "condition": "需要判断一处改动会波及哪些使用方", "reason": "集中定义让改动的传播范围变大，因此必须先看清依赖关系再动手。", "basis": "editorial" }, { "target": "inclusive-design", "kind": "composes_with", "condition": "无障碍要求需要在所有使用方生效", "reason": "把无障碍做进组件本身，比要求每个团队各自实现更可靠，也更容易被验证。", "basis": "editorial" }, { "target": "participatory-design", "kind": "composes_with", "condition": "系统的使用者同时也是它的贡献者", "reason": "组件的提议与淘汰若只由中心团队决定，系统会逐渐偏离各产品的真实需要。", "basis": "editorial" } ], "rules": [ { "when": "组织决定建立设计系统", "instruction": "先确定谁长期维护它、按什么流程接受与淘汰组件；没有这两项时只交付组件库，不要宣称拥有设计系统。", "strength": "must", "basis": "editorial" }, { "when": "某个产品确实需要偏离系统", "instruction": "提供一条记录在案的例外路径，并定期回看这些例外——反复出现的例外通常说明系统本身需要改。", "strength": "recommend", "basis": "editorial" } ], "philosophy": { "values": [ "共享的标准优于各自重做", "设计决定应当可被复用与追溯" ], "tension": "集中带来的一致性与各产品真实差异之间", "questions": [ "这个组件由谁维护？停止维护后会怎样？", "改动它会影响到哪些使用方？", "反复出现的例外在告诉我们什么？" ] }, "demo": null, "version": "0.1.0", "editorialStatus": "drafted", "requirements": [], "demoCapabilities": [], "implementationNote": "本词条尚无可操作示例；插画为编辑示意，展示中心定义与多处引用的关系，不代表任何真实的设计系统。应用到组织之前仍须先确定维护者与组件的接受、淘汰流程。", "image": { "src": "/images/design-systems.webp", "alt": "一张示意图：画面中央是一组被定义好的虚构组件——按钮、输入框、卡片与几枚色块令牌；细线从它们分别连向四周三个不同的虚构产品界面，每个界面中都出现同样的组件。" }, "searchTerms": [ "components", "tokens", "standards", "reuse", "scale" ] } }