Showing posts with label Design System. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Design System. Show all posts

Designing Nested Tables: The UX of Showing Complex Data Without Creating Chaos

Mike's Notes

This gem was listed in a recent Smashing Magazine article. Will be included in a future update to the Pipi Design System.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > Smashing Magazine
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

03/10/2026

Designing Nested Tables: The UX of Showing Complex Data Without Creating Chaos

By: Damilola Bamgbelu
Medium: 20/05/2025

Damilola Bamgbelu: Product Designer, best known for crafting great experiences that deliver audacious results for both users and stakeholders.

...

Nested tables have a bit of a reputation. They’re often seen as messy or overwhelming, but when used thoughtfully, they can actually help users make sense of complex, layered information, without jumping between screens.

UI comparison of single vs. multi-level nested tables showing category data, with notes on usability benefits for each approach

I remember the first time I designed a nested table. It looked amazing in Figma: beautiful rows expanding neatly into sub-rows. I thought I was a genius.

Until user testing.

One participant squinted at the screen, clicked a few times, then said:

“Wait… where am I now? What row was I just looking at?”

That’s when it hit me:

Nested tables aren’t just about organizing data. They’re about organizing thinking.

…If you’ve ever struggled to design tables that show parent and child data together , without overwhelming users, this article is for you. Let’s walk through it step by step.

1. Always Start with “Why Nest This?”

Imagine you’re packing for a trip. Do you cram everything into your backpack just because you might need it? Or do you only pack what you’ll actually use?

Nested tables are the same. If users don’t need the child data right now to make a decision or take action, don’t show it inline.

Always ask:

  • Why does this need to be visible right now?
  • What task does seeing both parent and child data help users complete faster?
  • Could a modal, tab, or progressive disclosure do it better?

If you don’t have a strong reason, nesting is clutter, not clarity.

As Steve Krug puts it in Don’t Make Me Think,

“Every element you add competes with every other element for your user’s attention.” [1]

The more things you show on screen at once, the harder it is for users to know what to focus on.

A designer processing thoughts on what design decisions to make. Source: Freepik

2. Keep It Shallow: Two Levels Max

Picture this: you’re standing at the edge of a swimming pool. Jump into the shallow end? Great. Dive straight into the deep end with no bottom in sight? Panic.

Deep nesting feels like drowning in data.

  • One level of nesting (Parent > Child) is good.
  • Two levels (Parent > Child > Grandchild) is manageable — if truly needed.
  • Three or more? Stop. Redesign.

Humans aren’t built to track endless layers while scanning a screen. This aligns with George Miller’s Law, which says:

“Humans can comfortably hold 5 to 9 items in working memory.” [2]

If you must use multi-level nesting:

  • Visually differentiate each layer (indentation, color bands, labels)
  • Limit nesting to 2 levels
  • Provide expand/collapse all and clear context cues

To borrow a thought Jared Spool and Steve Krug might both agree on:

“The deeper the nesting, the higher the cognitive load. Use with restraint, and always design for collapse.” [3]

3. Make Expanding and Collapsing Feel Effortless

Ever opened a drawer and it jammed halfway? Now compare that to one that slides open smoothly. That’s how expanding a nested row should feel: smooth, responsive and satisfying.

When someone clicks to expand a row, they should get immediate, clear feedback, such as:

  • A smooth animation
  • A skeleton loader
  • A rotated chevron

These are microinteractions, small signals that say, “Yes, that worked.”

According to Jared Spool:

“Good UX reduces uncertainty at every interaction.” [4]

If there’s silence, delay, or confusion, users hesitate or worse, assume it’s broken. Every tiny motion helps users trust what’s happening.

UI showing nested tables with chevron icons to expand/collapse rows and a skeleton loader for loading child data illustrating that expanding and collapsing should feel effortless

4. Prioritize Scanning, Not Cramping

One of the biggest mistakes with nested tables is trying to show everything at once. The result? A wall of numbers, labels, and rows that’s hard to parse.

You know that feeling you get when you walk into a store that’s so packed you can’t even move? That’s how users feel when a table is over-stuffed with information.

Your goal: Make it insanely easy to scan. If someone can’t scan your table in 2–3 seconds and find what they need, it’s too dense.

How to improve scan-ability:

  • Clearly indent child rows to show hierarchy
  • Use soft shading or dividers to separate levels
  • Keep typography clean and consistent
  • Add sticky headers to maintain context

As Edward Tufte famously said:

“Clutter isn’t about the information itself. It’s a failure of layout.” [5]

Table UI showing clear row indentation for hierarchy, soft shading to separate levels, clean typography, and sticky headers to maintain context while scrolling

5. Never Leave Users with a Blank Expansion

Expanding a nested table row should feel purposeful, not like a dead end. Think of it like opening a fridge expecting leftovers, only to find it empty. No note, no label, no clue what happened.

That’s what it feels like when a user clicks to expand a row and sees nothing. When there’s no child data to display, it’s not enough to show an empty cell. A blank space can confuse users and make them wonder:

Instead:

  • Explain the state: e.g. “No related tasks found”
  • Suggest the next step: e.g. “+ Create Task”
  • Make it visually distinct: muted icons, faded backgrounds, or subtle illustrations

This tiny design choice adds clarity.

As Luke Wroblewski advises:

“Empty space should guide users toward their next action, not leave them wondering what went wrong.” [6]

Nested table UI showing an expanded row with an empty state message and a clear call-to-action button

6. Build Accessibility in from Day One

You’ve designed a slick, responsive table. It expands smoothly. It works in dark mode. But here’s the test:

  • Can a screen reader user understand the structure?
  • Can a keyboard-only user navigate the table easily

If not, you’re unintentionally excluding users. As Whitney Quesenbery puts it:

“Accessibility is not a feature. It’s a foundation.” [7]

Nested tables add visual hierarchy and relationships that are obvious to sighted users, but completely invisible to users relying on assistive technologies.

Without proper semantic markup, screen readers can’t tell what’s expandable, what’s nested inside what, or even what content is currently visible. And for keyboard users, expanding a row should be as easy as clicking, but often isn’t.

To make a nested table accessible;

  • Use semantic HTML

    Use actual <table>, <tr>, <td>, and <th> elements — not divs styled to look like tables.

  • Use aria-expanded and aria-controls

    These attributes help screen readers announce whether a row is open or collapsed, and which section it controls.

  • Ensure keyboard navigation

    Users should be able to tab through parent and child rows, expand/collapse with Enter or Space, and not lose focus in the process.

  • Design an alternate flat view

    For users who don’t benefit from inline nesting (e.g. screen reader users), offer a simplified version — a grouped list or summary view that doesn’t require expanding/collapsing.

Accessibility doesn’t only benefit users with disabilities.

  • Clear structure improves usability for everyone.
  • Keyboard-friendly interfaces help power users navigate faster.
  • Screen-reader compatibility often translates to better semantic structure and more maintainable code.

Side-by-side nested table designs, one accessible with semantic HTML, ARIA support, keyboard navigation, where the other lacks these features.

Final Thoughts

Nested tables aren’t the enemy. Careless nesting is. When designed intentionally, they:

  • Reveal relationships
  • Enable fast decisions
  • Prevent unnecessary page hopping

But if poorly designed, they:

  • Confuse users
  • Increase cognitive load
  • Exclude those who rely on assistive tech

Designers must treat nested tables not just as containers of data, but as tools for clarity and action. That means:

  • Start with why
  • Design for scanning and accessibility
  • Plan microinteractions
  • Never leave users wondering what’s happening

Good UX isn’t about making data visible.

It’s about making it useful, usable and usable by everyone. Nested tables are powerful. Use them with care.

References

  1. Steve Krug, Don’t Make Me Think, 2000.
  2. George A. Miller, “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,” Psychological Review, 1956.
  3. Paraphrased synthesis of ideas from Jared Spool and Steve Krug on cognitive load and interface clarity.
  4. Jared Spool, quoted in multiple UX talks and writings on reducing uncertainty in interactions.
  5. Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1983.
  6. Luke Wroblewski, “Designing for Empty States,” blog and presentations on interface design.
  7. Whitney Quesenbery, quoted in A Web for Everyone: Designing Accessible User Experiences, 2014.

Accordion Icons: Which Signifiers Work Best?

Mike's Notes

Excellent NN Group article on Accordion Icons: What works and what doesn't.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > NN/g Newsletter
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

24/09/2026

Accordion Icons: Which Signifiers Work Best?

By: Page Laubheimer and Raluca Budiu
NN/g Newsletter: 23/08/2020

Page Laubheimer: Page Laubheimer is a former NN/G employee who worked on research, teaching, leadership, and design thought leadership. His expertise focused on web applications, AI, and projects in complex domains. His many research findings and recommendations were also informed by his background in library and information science, and his work often involved information architecture, navigation design, taxonomy construction, and ontology management.

Raluca Budiu: Raluca Budiu is Senior Director, Data Strategy, at Nielsen Norman Group, where she uses her data-analysis expertise to drive strategic decisions. She also serves as editor for the articles published on NNgroup.com. Raluca has coauthored many NN/g reports, as well as the book Mobile Usability. She holds a Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

...

Summary:

The caret icon most clearly indicated to users that it would open an accordion in place, rather than linking directly to a new page.

For good reasons, accordions are a popular UI element today: on mobile, they are an essential tool because they collapse content and make page length manageable, but even on desktop, they mitigate visual complexity and allow users to focus on the content most relevant for the task at hand (and are particularly appropriate in complex applications).

A question that is often asked in both our Mobile UX and Application Design classes is: which icon should we use to best signal that content will expand in place? In other words, what’s the best signifier for accordions?

We decided to investigate this question as part of a bigger study of navigation and subnavigation on mobile. We looked at several possible icons as signifiers for accordions:

  • Caret (or downward-facing arrow)
  • Plus
  • Right-facing arrow
  • No icon at all

There are some subtle differences in what these icons are commonly used to represent — while the caret and plus icons are typically meant to indicate that an accordion will open, designers have used the right-facing arrow icon to signal two different actions: either staying on the same page and expanding content, or visiting a different page. Also, after expansion, the caret will typically twist (maybe in a nice quick animation), and a plus sign will turn into a minus, to become a signifier for the reverse action of collapsing the newly expanded content.

Jennair: Accordion signaled by caret icon

Bolé Road Textiles: accordion signaled by plus icon

Ferrari: accordion signaled by arrow icon

Braun: accordion with no signifier icon

We performed a quantitative study to find out which of these icons is the most effective at signaling that it will open an accordion.

In This Article:

  • Methodology
  • Where Participants Tap
  • What Participants Expect to Happen
  • Key Findings
  • Design Recommendations
  • Summary

Methodology

Materials. We decided to study the accordions in the context of mobile navigation so we created 11 prototypes of mobile websites, each in a different type of industry — clothing ecommerce, big-box retail, auto parts, finance, news, local government, higher education, DIY home projects, consumer-goods reviews, healthcare, and travel. The prototypes were not interactive; they were simple mockups with the menu already open and a list of categories visible on the screen, to ensure that we were only measuring the interaction with the accordions, as opposed to users’ efforts to locate the menus, look at homepage content, and so forth.

For each prototype, we created a task that involved finding information in one of the accordions visible in the prototype. For example, on a prototype of a consumer-goods review website, the task was “Find reviews of dishwashers.”

We also created 5 different variations for each prototype; each variation used one of 4 possible icons (an arrow, a caret, a plus, a foil) or no icon. We created a foil icon (that had not been used before for accordions) in order to see whether the type of icon mattered at all or the presence of an icon next to the accordion name was enough to signal an accordion (but the icon itself did not matter).

The icons tested in this study included a downward-facing caret, a right-facing arrow, a plus, a nonsense foil icon (used as a control for comparison), or a blank space. The icons were randomly assigned for each task, meaning that participants saw a random assortment and order of these five icons.

An example of one of the prototypes, shown in all 5 icon variations

We placed the accordion icon to the right of its associated label, close to the edge of the screen and right aligned. (We acknowledge that another possible position is to the left of the label — our results may not generalize to that placement.)

As the length of the text labels might impact where users look or click, we ensured that label lengths in each prototype were distributed equally and that the “correct” answer for each task (i.e. the menu option that was likely to be chosen by users) was of a different length in each prototype. 

We also ran several pilot studies to ensure that the task success rate was high (over 90%) and that people would be able to easily identify the “correct” menu category that had to be selected in order to complete each task. After each pilot study we refined the task phrasing and labels in the menu. Thus, effectively, we ran several usability studies on our prototypes’ information architecture before we collected the quantitative data. This process ensured that figuring out the right category was relatively trivial for most participants — as our study goal was to test the accordion signifiers, not the difficulty of finding the information in the tasks we gave users.

Participants. Our study had 136 participants.  All participants saw instances of all the different icons (in different prototypes, and in different order).

Procedure. The test was conducted on UserZoom as a series of first-click tasks, administered on mobile devices. All participants were shown one version of each of the 11 prototypes and the associated task in a random order. After the participants indicated where they would tap to find the answer, they had to answer a multiple-choice question asking what they expected to happen (going directly to a new page, seeing additional menu options on the same page, or something else). 

We collected data on:

  • Tap location: Where the participant tapped (directly on the text label, directly on the icon, in the space in-between the label and the icon, or anywhere else on the prototype)
  • Participants’ expectations: The response to the post-task question about expectations (going directly to a new page, seeing an additional list of links on the same page, or something else)

Where Participants Tap

Taps outside the area associated with the accordion were relatively few (5–8%), and most taps fell either on the label or on the icon associated with the accordions (and not on the space in between the two).

Participants were equally likely to tap on either the text label or the icon, except for the caret icon, where there was a statistically significant tendency to tap on the icon over the text label. When no icon was present, users were much more likely to tap on the text label than the empty space where an icon would normally be.

An ANOVA on the data for when users tapped on the text label found a significant effect of icon type both when participants or prototypes were treated as the random factor. Pairwise contrasts indicated that the no-icon condition was significantly different than all other conditions.  In particular, there was a higher chance to tap on the label when no icon was present — a finding that is not surprising at all since the “icon area” was just empty space in this condition (we just tracked if people tapped on the place where an icon would normally be), but an important reminder that users typically choose to interact with obvious signifiers.

For none of the icon conditions was there a statistically significant tendency to tap on the icon more than on the label except for the caret (p<0.01) —  in other words, when the accordion was signaled by a caret, people tended to tap more on the icon than on the label. For all other icons (arrow, foil, plus), there was no statistically significant preference for the icon.

What Participants Expect to Happen

To analyze the responses to the post-task question (regarding expectations to stay on the page) we defined the new-page expectation as a binary variable quantifying  whether participants expected to stay on the same page (0) or go to a new page (1). A rate of over 50% for a particular signifier indicates that overall people expected to go to a new page. For an accordion, where we want to convey that the page won’t change, the rate should ideally be under 50%.

None of the standard-icon rates were significantly different from 50%, indicating that there was no strong expectation related to them — people did not necessarily expect to stay on the page or leave the page. With the foil and the no-icon conditions, however, there was a significant expectation that people will leave the page.

For the standard signifiers (caret, plus, and arrow), there was no strong expectation to leave the page (as the rate of new-page expectation is not significantly different than 50%, p >0.05).  Among all the standard signifiers, the caret has a significantly stronger expectation to stay on the page than the foil (p<0.05) or the no-icon condition (p <0.05) and the plus is significantly better than the foil (p<0.05), but not than the no-icon condition. The arrow is not statistically different than the foil or no-icon conditions, suggesting that this icon should not be used for accordions.

Key Findings

Our hypothesis was that having no icon would cause users to expect that tapping on the menu item would take them directly to a new page, and this hypothesis held up in our study. Likewise, the foil icon was presumed to not have any association for users with opening an accordion, and this also held up.

Then, we compared users’ reported expectations of the caret, plus, and arrow icons to the foil or no icon, as a test of whether or not they were superior signifiers for an accordion. We also looked at whether people tend to tap the label or the icon for these different signifiers, under the assumption that, if indeed there is a strong tendency to tap only on one of them, we could, perhaps, separate the functionality of the two (a la split buttons).

  • For accordion patterns, people tend to tap fairly equally on the icon and on the label for most standard icons. The only exception is the caret, where people tend to tap somewhat more on the icon, but still 29% of the taps fall on the label. This suggests it’s not safe to use split buttons for accordions — where the text label links directly to a landing page, but the icon opens the accordion.
  • Making up new icons for accordion signifiers or using no signifiers at all is not a good idea as they violate users’ expectations (which are that they will be taken to a new page).
  • None of the standard signifiers have a strong association with staying on the page. That being said:
    • Using a caret is definitely better than using no icon at all or a random icon in terms of conveying the expectation to stay on the page (and open an accordion).
    • Using an arrow or a plus is not better than using no signifier at all.

  • When no icon was present, users tended to tap on the text label, rather than the empty space in that row. While an obvious finding, this is more evidence that users tend to interact with strong, clear signifiers.
  • Interestingly, using a right-facing arrow icon (as opposed to a plus or caret) was NOT significantly associated with an expectation of going directly to a new page.  While many designers might think that an arrow icon implies “go directly to a page” whereas the same icon pointing down implies “open an accordion here on the page” that was not supported in our data.

Design Recommendations

  • If using accordions in your mobile menus, the caret appears to be the safest icon choice.
  • Do not have icons and text labels link to different actions (i.e. label directly to page, icon opening an accordion).  Our study findings further support our previous recommendations that you should not use split buttons for accordions. Our study showed that users tapped fairly equally on both the text label and the icon and did not expect them to do different things.
  • Decide if your menu items will either open a submenu accordion or go directly to a category-overview page.  If you choose to have your menu items link directly to a landing page, do not use a right-aligned icon.

Summary

Users tend to click fairly equally on both the accordion icon and the accordion label, so avoid dissociating those by assigning them different functionalities.  Use a caret icon to designate an accordion, whether on desktop or mobile — our study found that of the standard set of icons used in this context, only the caret performed better than either no icon or a nonsense icon at indicating that than it was an accordion.

A roadmap for accelerators

Mike's Notes

It's getting busy, so I need a roadmap for accelerators now.

Update 24/09/2026

I recently visited the Ministry of Awesome (MOA) in Christchurch to learn more about Founder Catalyst. It looks great, but it solves the wrong problem for Ajabbi. Founder Catalyst focuses on sales, a "push" solution; because Ajabbi has a growing community, a "pull" solution is required. Demand already exists, so growth needs to be slowed using a very long runway.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

24/09/2026

A roadmap for accelerators

By: Mike Peters
On a Sandy Beach: 27/03/2026

Mike Peters: Mike invented and architected Pipi and founded Ajabbi.

...

Lots of opportunities are coming in.

This is a roadmap for using coaching, workshops, incubators and accelerators to develop, test and validate the Ajabbi Mission Business Model and the Pipi closed-core and Pipi open-source applications.

Ultimately, it's a record of what is learned, so it doesn't include missed opportunities or declined applications. A few items from some time back are still missing and need to be added.

Free is good (cloud credits, bro bono, software, training), but no funding or investment is being sought.

The roadmap is sorted by deadline, so that I remember to do them. The first row of the table is a key.


Date Roadmap

deadline

Start-End

Status

Title

Description

What

To come.

  • To come

Learned

  • To come

To do/done

  • To come

Resources


deadline

2017-2020

Completed

Steve Blank

"Steve Blank (born 1953) is an American entrepreneur, educator, author and speaker. He created the customer development method that launched the lean startup movement. His work has influenced modern entrepreneurship through the creation of tools and processes for new ventures, which differ from those used in large companies."

What

Learning from the very best.

  • Reading his books and blog
  • Watching videos
  • Using all the free courses and tools

Learned

  • How to use a Business Model Canvas
  • How to use a Mission Model Canvas
  • How to do customer discovery
  • How to run experiments to validate assumptions

Done

    • Read and tried everything
    • Build Pipi Experiment Engine

    Resources

    deadline

    2020-2023

    Completed

    KiwiSaaS

    "Our community is free to join, and it's where we can safely share our knowledge and experiences with each other. Paying it forward is what drives KiwiSaaS growth."

    What

    Online workshops and random monthly one-on-one meetings with other founders.

      Learned

      • To keep going and when to change course
      • It is OK to make mistakes
      • Will get lots of insights from being open
      • The importance of listening to others

      Done

      • Get stuck in

      Resources

      January 2024

      January - October 2024

      Completed

      Startup Aotearoa

      "Startup Aotearoa ignites New Zealand’s entrepreneurial spirit by providing personalised one-to-one coaching to early-stage startup founders. Delivered nationwide through local regional providers."

      What

      Mentoring from Mr G led to testing the ICP at Waimumu Southern Field Days 2024 on

      • Developers at Agritech companies
      • Agricultural suppliers

      Learned

      • Developers are the ICP
      • There is a real problem to solve
      • Find a teaching customer

      Done

        • Pivot ajabbi.com to developers
        • Host a teaching customer requiring 3 languages

        Resources

        April 2024

        May - November 2024

        Completed

        Creative HQ's On the Business workshop series

        "This 'On the Business' workshop series gives you the dedicated time and resources to help you grow your business. We'll provide tools, frameworks and hands-on..."

        What

        Remote workshops using Miro canvas.

        Learned

        • To come

        Done

        • To come

        Resources

        February 2025

        February 2025 - March 2025

        Completed

        NZTE Export Essentials SaaS 4-part workshop.

        "Learn what best-practice exporting involves when you sell SaaS offshore."

        What

        Workshops with individual follow-up sessions.

        Learned

        • To use the tools available to test assumptions.

        Done

        • To come

        Resources

        February 2025

        February 2025 - March 2025

        Completed

        NZTE Position for Growth workshop.

        "Our Position for Growth workshops help you define what problem you solve for"

        What

        Workshops with individual follow-up sessions.

        Learned

        • Use the available tools to test assumptions.

        Done

          • To come

          Resources

          25/03/2026

          April 2026 - March 2028

          Application Withdrawn

          Google AI Accelerator

          "With this program, you can get access to startup experts, your Google Cloud and Firebase costs covered up to $200,000 USD (up to $350,000 USD for AI startups) over 2 years, technical training, business support, and Google-wide offers."

          What

          Collaborate with DeepMind to run wild ML integration experiments to go where no developer has gone before.

          • Pipi > IaC > GCP
          • Pipi > VM > BoxLang > Workspaces
          • Pipi > MCP > DeepMind Gemini
          • Pipi > Scientific Workflows > TPU

          Learned

          • A Google chap who was assisting behind the scenes invited me to apply via an unlisted pathway. I then discovered that free credits begin on the day of application approval, so I will reapply when ready to start in July to make the most of the 24-month window of opportunity.

          To do

          • Increase Pipi DevOps speed (x1000) by automating the data centre (x10), workspace rendering (x10), and IaC to the GCP free tier (x10). This will enable fast, multiple automated experiments.

          Resources

            26/05/2026

            July - November 2026

            Application underway

            Sprout Accelerator

            "The Sprout Accelerator takes a cohort of agrifood innovators on a 3-month adventure to discover, articulate and refine the foundations to grow global startups."

            What

            Test farm management workspace using HTML Mockups on

            • Dairy farmer-led catchment group
            • Agritech wait list from Waimumu

            Learned

            • To come

            To do

            • To come

            Resources

            June 2026

            July 2026 - June 2028

            To apply

            Google AI Accelerator

            "With this program, you can get access to startup experts, your Google Cloud and Firebase costs covered up to $200,000 USD (up to $350,000 USD for AI startups) over 2 years, technical training, business support, and Google-wide offers."

            What

            Collaborate with DeepMind to run wild ML integration experiments to go where no developer has gone before.

            • Pipi > IaC > GCP
            • Pipi > VM > BoxLang > Workspaces
            • Pipi > MCP > DeepMind Gemini
            • Pipi > Scientific Workflows > TPU

            Learned

            • To come

            To do

            • To come

            Resources


             


             

            Design for the People: The US Web Design System and the Public Sans Typeface

            Mike's Notes

            The article reproduced below is from a fascinating website and is about another useful Design System.

            Resources

            References

            • Reference

            Repository

            • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
            • Home > Handbook > 

            Last Updated

            16/03/2026

            Design for the People: The US Web Design System and the Public Sans Typeface

            By: Jon Keegan
            On a Sandy Beach: 02/07/2024

            Jon Keegan is an investigative data journalist who covers technology. His work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Markup and MIT Technology Review. Jon’s work has won several journalism awards, including the Loeb Award, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Excellence in Journalism Award and the Society of News Design’s Best of Digital Gold Award.

            The United States has an official web design system and a custom typeface that belongs to the people. This thoughtful public design system aims to make government websites not only look good, but to make them accessible and functional for all.

            Before the internet, Americans may have interacted with the federal government by stepping into grand buildings adorned with impressive stone columns and gleaming marble floors. Today, the neoclassical architecture of those physical spaces has been replaced by the digital architecture of website design – HTML code, tables, forms, and buttons. 

            While people visiting a government website to apply for student loans, research veterans’ benefits, or enroll in Medicare may not notice these digital elements, they play a crucial role. If a website is buggy or doesn’t work on your phone, taxpayers cannot access the services they have paid for. This can feel like walking up to a boarded-up government building with broken windows, creating a negative impression of the government itself.  

             In the US, there are about 26,000 federal websites. Early on, each site had its own designs, fonts, and login systems, creating frustration for the public, and wasting government resources.

             A survey of the many different styles of buttons from government websites as of 2015. Source: 18F / GSA 

            The troubled launch Healthcare.gov in 2013 highlighted the need for a better way to build government digital services. In 2014, President Obama created two new teams to help improve government tech.

            Within the General Services Administration (GSA), a new team called 18F (named for their Washington, DC office at 1800 F Street) was created to “collaborate with other agencies to fix technical problems, build products, and improve public service through technology.” The team was built to move at the speed of tech start-ups rather than lumbering bureaucratic agencies. 

            The U.S. Digital Service (USDS) was tasked “to deliver better government services to the American people through technology and design.” In 2015, the two teams collaborated to build the US Web Design System (USWDS)—a style guide and collection of user interface components and design patterns to ensure a consistent user experience across government websites. “Inconsistency is felt, even if not always precisely articulated in usability research findings,” said Dan Williams, the USWDS program lead, in an email. 

            Some of the sample design elements for the USWDS. Source: https://designsystem.digital.gov/

            Today, the system defines 47 user interface components such as buttons, alerts, search boxes and forms each with their own design examples, sample code and guidelines such as “Be polite” and “Don’t overdo it.” The USWDS is now in its third iteration, and is used in 160 government websites. “As of September 2023, 94 agencies use USWDS code, and it powers about 1.1 billion pageviews on federal websites,” said Williams.

            USWDS design principles include focusing on real users’ needs, earning trust and embracing accessibility. The system requires websites to be optimized for all users, including people with disabilities such as those using screen readers or those with color blindness. Williams said accessibility is important to the team’s efforts, noting that they “prioritize any accessibility-related bug or improvement we find (or is contributed by our community).”






            Some federal websites that use the USWDS. Clockwise from top left: Va.gov, Medicaid.gov, Worker.gov, Supremecourt.gov

            To ensure clear and consistent typography, the free and open-source typeface Public Sans was created for the US government. “It started as a design experiment,” said Williams, who designed the typeface, which was released in 2019. “We were interested in trying to establish an open source solution space for a typeface, just like we had for the other design elements in the design system,” said Williams. Based on the Libre Franklin typeface, Public Sans is described as “a strong, neutral, principles-driven, open-source typeface for text or display.” 


            Both Public Sans and the USWDS embrace transparency and collaboration with government agencies and the public, inviting contributions to their development via the projects’ GitHub pages. 

            To ensure that the hard-learned lessons of improving public technology aren’t forgotten, the projects embrace continuous improvement. One of Public Sans’ design principles offers key guidance in this area: “Strive to be better, not necessarily perfect.”