Our newest Co-Innovation Center is focused on cybersecurity, privacy, digital skills and social impact.
More RSS Feed for Cisco: newsroom.cisco.com/rss-feeds ...

Molly Wilson and Eileen Wagner battle the age old Christmas issues of right and wrong, good and evil, and how the messages we send through iconography design can impact the decisions users make around important issues of security. Are you icons wise men, or are they actually King Herod?

Congratulations, you’re locked out! The paradox of security visuals

Designers of technology are fortunate to have an established visual language at our fingertips. We try to use colors and symbols in a way that is consistent with people’s existing expectations. When a non-designer asks a designer to “make it intuitive,” what they’re really asking is, “please use elements people already know, even if the concept is new.”

Lots of options for security icons

We’re starting to see more consistency in the symbols that tech uses for privacy and security features, many of them built into robust, standardized icon sets and UI kits. To name a few: we collaborated with Adobe in 2018 to create the Vault UI Kit, which includes UI elements for security, like touch ID login and sending a secure copy of a file. Adobe has also released a UI kit for cookie banners.

Even UI kits that aren’t specialized in security and privacy include icons that can be used to communicate security concepts, like InVision’s Smart Home UI Kit. And, of course, nearly every icon set has security-related symbols, from Material Design to Iconic.

Many of these icons allude to physical analogies for the states and actions we’re trying to communicate. Locks and keys; shields for protection; warning signs and stop signs; happy faces and sad faces. Using these analogies helps build a bridge from the familiar, concrete world of door locks and keyrings to the unfamiliar, abstract realm of public- and private-key encryption.

When concepts don’t match up

Many of the concepts we’re working with are pairs of opposites. Locked or unlocked. Private or public. Trusted or untrusted. Blocked or allowed. Encouraged or discouraged. Good or evil. When those concept pairs appear simultaneously, however, we quickly run into UX problems.

Take the following example. Security is good, right? When something is locked, that means you’re being responsible and careful, and nobody else can access it. It’s protected. That’s cause for celebration. Being locked and protected is a good state.

Whoops.

If the user didn’t mean to lock something, or if the locked state is going to cause them any inconvenience, then extra security is definitely not good news.

Another case in point: Trust is good, right? Something trusted is welcome in people’s lives. It’s allowed to enter, not blocked, and it’s there because people wanted it there. So trusting and allowing something is good.

Nope. Doesn’t work at all. What if we try the opposite colors and iconography?

That’s even worse. Even though we, the designers, were trying both times to keep the user from downloading malware, the user’s actual behavior makes our design completely nonsensical.

Researchers from Google and UC Berkeley identified this problem in a 2016 USENIX paper analyzing connection security indicators. They pointed out that, when somebody clicks through a warning to an “insecure” website, the browser will show a “neutral or positive indicator” in the URL bar – leading them to think that the website is now safe. Unlike our example above, this may not look like nonsense from the user point of view, but from a security standpoint, suddenly showing “safe/good” without any actual change in safety is a pretty dangerous move.

The deeper issue

Now, one could file these phenomena under “mismatching iconography,” but we think there is a deeper issue here that concerns security UI in particular. Security interface design pretty much always has at least a whiff of “right vs. wrong.” How did this moralizing creep into an ostensibly technical realm?

Well, we usually have a pretty good idea what we’d like people to do with regards to security. Generally speaking, we’d like them to be more cautious than they are (at least, so long as we’re not trying to sneak around behind their backs with confusing consent forms and extracurricular data use). Our well-intentioned educational enthusiasm leads us to use little design nudges that foster better security practices, and that makes us reach into the realm of social and psychological signals. But these nudges can easily backfire and turn into total nonsense.

Another example: NoScript

“No UX designer would be dense enough to make these mistakes,” you might be thinking.

Well, we recently did a redesign of the open-source content-blocking browser extension NoScript, and we can tell you from experience: finding the right visual language for pairs of opposites was a struggle.

NoScript is a browser extension that helps you block potential malware from the websites you’re visiting. It needs to communicate a lot of states and actions to users. A single script can be blocked or allowed. A source of scripts can be trusted or untrusted. NoScript is a tool for the truly paranoid, so in general, wants to encourage blocking and not trusting. But:

“An icon with a crossed-out item is usually BAD, and a sign without anything is usually GOOD. But of course, here blocking something is actually GOOD, while blocking nothing is actually BAD. So whichever indicators NoScript chooses, they should either aim to indicate system state [allow/block] or recommendation [good/bad], but not both. And in any case, NoScript should probably stay away from standard colors and icons.”

So we ended up using hardly any of the many common security icons available. No shields, no alert! signs, no locked locks, no unlocked locks. And we completely avoided the red/green palette to keep from taking on unintended meaning.

Navigating the paradox

Security recommendations appear in most digital services are built nowadays. As we move into 2020, we expect to see a lot more conscious choice around colors, icons, and words related to security. For a start, Firefox already made a step in the right direction by streamlining indicators for SSL encryption as well as content blocking. (Spoilers: they avoided adding multiple dimensions of indicators, too!)

The most important thing to keep in mind, as you’re choosing language around security and privacy features, is: don’t conflate social and technical concepts. Trusting your partner is good. Trusting a website? Well, could be good, could be bad. Locking your bike? Good idea. Locking a file? That depends.

Think about the technical facts you’re trying to communicate. Then, and only then, consider if there’s also a behavioral nudge you want to send, and if you are, try to poke holes in your reasoning. Is there ever a case where your nudge could be dangerous? Colors, icons, and words give you a lot of control over how exactly people experience security and privacy features. Using them in a clear and consistent way will help people understand their choices and make more conscious decisions around security.

About the author

Molly Wilson is a designer by training and a teacher at heart: her passion is leveraging human-centered design to help make technology clear and understandable. She has been designing and leading programs in design thinking and innovation processes since 2010, first at the Stanford d.school in Palo Alto, CA and later at the Hasso-Plattner-Institut School of Design Thinking in Potsdam, Germany. Her work as an interaction designer has focused on complex products in finance, health, and education. Outside of work, talk to her about cross-cultural communication, feminism, DIY projects, and visual note-taking.

Molly holds a master’s degree in Learning, Design, and Technology from Stanford University, and a bachelor’s degree magna cum laude in History of Science from Harvard University. See more about her work and projects at http://molly.is.

Eileen Wagner is Simply Secure’s in-house logician. She advises teams and organizations on UX design, supports research and user testing, and produces open resources for the community. Her focus is on information architecture, content strategy, and interaction design. Sometimes she puts on her admin hat and makes sure her team has the required infrastructure to excel.

She previously campaigned for open data and civic tech at the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. There she helped establish the first public funding program for open source projects in Germany, the Prototype Fund. Her background is in analytic philosophy (BA Cambridge) and mathematical logic (MSc Amsterdam), and she won’t stop talking about barbershop music.

More articles by Molly Wilson & Eileen

Andy Clarke digs deep into snow to find ways flat design can be brought back to life in CSS with the use of techniques to create a sense of depth. Like spring after an everlasting winter, perhaps it’s time to let a different style of design flourish. What a relief.

A reaction to overly ornamental designs, flat design has been the dominant aesthetic for almost a decade. As gradients, patterns, shadows, and three-dimensional skeuomorphism fell out of fashion, designers embraced solid colours, square corners, and sharp edges.

Anti-skeuomorphism no doubt helped designers focus on feature design and usability without the distraction of what some might still see as flourishes. But, reducing both product and website designs to a bare minimum has had unfortunate repercussions. With little to differentiate their designs, products and websites have adopted a regrettable uniformity which makes it difficult to distinguish between them.

Still, all fashions fade eventually. I’m hopeful that with the styling tools we have today, we’ll move beyond flatness and add an extra dimension. Here are five CSS properties which will bring depth and richness to your designs.

To illustrate how you might use them, I’ve made this design for the 1961 Austin Seven 850, the small car which helped define the swinging sixties.

Transparency with alpha values

The simplest way to add transparency to a background colour, border, or text element is using alpha values in your colour styles. These values have been available in combination with RGB (red, green, blue) for years. In RGBA, decimal values below 1 make any colour progressively more transparent. 0 is the most transparent, 1 is the most opaque:

body {
  color: rgba(255, 0, 153, .75); 
}

Alpha values also combine with HSL (hue, saturation, lightness) to form HSLA:

body {
  color: hsla(0, 0, 100, .75);
}

Currently a Working Draft, CSS Color Module Level 4 enables alpha values in RGB and HSL without the additional “A”:

body {
  color: rgb(255, 0, 153, .75);
  /* color: hsl(0, 0, 100, .75); */
}

This new module also introduces hexadecimal colours with alpha values. In this new value, the last two digits represent the transparency level, with FF producing 100% opacity and 00 resulting in 100% transparency. For the 75% opacity in my design, I add BF to my white hexadecimal colour:

body {
  color: #ffffffbf;
}

Although there’s already wide support for hexadecimal, HSL, and RGB with alpha values in most modern browsers, the current version of Microsoft Edge for Windows has lagged behind. This situation will no doubt change when Microsoft move Edge to Chromium.

2. Use opacity

Using the opacity property specifies the amount of opacity of any element (obviously) which allows elements below them in the stacking order to be all or partially visible. A value of 0 is most transparent, whereas 1 is most opaque.

This property is especially useful for tinting the colour of elements by allowing any colour behind them to bleed through. The British Motor Corporation logo in the footer of my design is solid white, but reducing its opacity allows it to take on the colour of the body element behind:

[src*="footer"] {
  opacity: .75; 
}

You might otherwise choose to use opacity values as part of a CSS filter. 0% opacity is fully transparent, while 100% is fully opaque and appears as if no filter has been applied. Applying a CSS filter is straightforward. First, declare the filter-function and then a value in parentheses:

[src*="footer"] {
  filter: opacity(75%); 
}

3. Start blending

Almost universally, contemporary browsers support the same compositing tools we’ve used in graphic design and photo editing software for years. Blend modes including luminosity, multiply, overlay, and screen can easily and quickly add depth to a design. There are two types of blend-mode.

background-blend-mode defines how background layers blend with the background colour behind them, and with each other. My layered design requires three background images applied to the body element:

body {
  padding: 2rem;
  background-color: #ba0e37;
  background-image:
    url(body-1.png),
    url(body-2.png),
    url(body-3.png);
  background-origin: content-box;
  background-position: 0 0;
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  background-size: contain;
}

You can apply different background-blend modes for each background image. Specify them in the same order as your background images and separate them with a comma:

body {
  background-blend-mode: multiply, soft-light, hard-light;
}

When I need to apply an alternative colour palette, there’s no need to export new background assets. I can achieve results simply by changing the background colour and these background-blend modes.

Sadly, there’s not yet support for blending modes in Edge, so provide an alternative background image for that browser:

@supports not (background-blend-mode: normal) {
  body {
    background-image: url(ihatetimvandamme.png); 
  }
}

mix-blend-mode, on the other hand, defines how an element’s content should blend with its ancestors.

To blend my Mini image with the background colours and images on the body, I add a value of hard-light, plus a filter which converts my full-colour picture to greyscale:

[src*="figure"] {
  filter: grayscale(100%);
  mix-blend-mode: hard-light; 
}

You can also use mix-blend-mode to add depth to text elements, like this headline and large footer paragraph in a green and yellow version of my design:

.theme-green h1,
.theme-green footer p:last-of-type {
  color: #f8Ef1c;
  mix-blend-mode: difference;
}

4. Overlap with CSS Grid

Whereas old-fashioned layout methods reinforced a rigid structure on website designs, CSS Grid opens up the possibility to layer elements without positioning or resorting to margin hacks. The HTML for my design is semantic and simple:

<body>

<p>You’ve never seen a car like it</p>

<h1><em>1961:</em> small car of the year</h1>

<figure>
  <img src="figure.png" alt="Austin Seven 850">
  <figcaption>
    <ul>
      <li>Austin Super Seven</li>
      <li>Morris Super Mini-Minor</li>
      <li>Austin Seven Cooper</li>
      <li>Morris Mini-Cooper</li>
    </ul>
  <figcaption>
</figure>

<footer>
  <p>Today’s car is a Mini</p>
  <p>Austin Seven 850</p>
  <img src="footer.png" alt="Austin Seven 850">
<footer>

</body>

I begin by applying a three-column symmetrical grid to the body element:

@media screen and (min-width : 48em) {

  body {
    display: grid;
    grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr 1fr; 
  }

}

Then, I place my elements onto that grid using line numbers:

body > p {
  grid-column: 1 / -1; 
}

h1 {
  grid-column: 1 / 3; 
}

figure {
  grid-column: 1 / -1; 
}

footer {
  display: contents; 
}

footer div {
  grid-column: 1 / 3; 
}  

[src*="footer"] {
  grid-column: 3 / -1;
  align-self: end; 
}

As sub-grid has yet to see wide adoption, I apply a second grid to my figure element, so I may place my image and figcaption:

figure {
  display: grid;
  grid-template-columns: 1fr 3fr; 
}

figcaption {
  grid-column: 1; 
}

[src*="figure"] {
  grid-column: 2; 
}

Previewing the result in a browser shows me the energy associated with driving this little car is missing. To add movement to my design, I change the image’s grid-column values so it occupies the same space as my caption:

figcaption {
  grid-column: 1;
  grid-row: 3; 
}

[src*="figure"] {
  grid-column: 1 / -1; 
  grid-row: 3;
  padding-left: 5vw; 
}

5. Stack with z-index

In geometry, the x axis represents horizontal, the y axis represents vertical. In CSS, the z axis represents depth. Z-index values can be either negative or positive and the element with the highest value appears closest to a viewer, regardless of its position in the flow. If you give more than one element the same z-index value, the one which comes last in source order will appear on top.

It’s important to remember that z-index is only applied to elements which have their position property set to either relative or absolute. Without positioning, there is no stacking. However, z-index can be used on elements placed onto a grid.

As the previous figure image and figcaption occupy the same grid columns and row, I apply a higher z-index value to my caption to bring it closer to the viewer, despite it appearing before the picture in the flow of my content:

figcaption {
  grid-column: 1;
  grid-row: 3;
  z-index: 2; 
}

[src*="figure"] {
  grid-column: 1 / -1; 
  grid-row: 3;
  z-index: 1; 
}

Z’s not dead baby, Z’s not dead

While I’m not advocating a return to the worst excesses of skeuomorphism, I hope product and website designers will realise the value of a more vibrant approach to design; one which appreciates how design can distinguish a brand from its competition.

I’m incredibly grateful to Drew and his team of volunteers for inviting me to write for this incredible publication every year for the past fifteen years. As I closed my first article here on this day all those years ago, “Have a great holiday season!” Z’s still not dead baby, Z’s still not dead.

About the author

Andy Clarke is one of the world’s best-known website designers, consultant, speaker, and writer on art direction and design for products and websites. Andy founded Stuff & Nonsense in 1998 and for 20 years has helped companies big and small to improve their website and product designs. Andy’s the author of four web design books including ‘Transcending CSS,’ ‘Hardboiled Web Design’ and ‘Art Direction for the Web’. He really, really loves gorillas.

More articles by Andy

Jina Anne silences the night to talk about how we talk about Design Systems. Can the language we use impact the effectiveness of the solution? Fear not, if mighty dread has seized your troubled mind. Design systems of great joy we bring to you and all mankind.

Ooh, clickbaity title. Why on earth would I, a self-proclaimed “design systems advocate”, say there is no design system? Yes, I’m being a little tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I just wanted an excuse to use the “there is no spoon” gif. But I do have an actual point, so bear with me.

Design systems as a “thing” vs design systems as a methodology

Recently I tweeted my thoughts on why I have been tending to use design systems in plural form (rather than using an article like “a” or “the” in front of it). During my time at Salesforce when our team was called “Design Systems” and my role was “Lead Designer, Design Systems”, I would get asked “Why is it plural? We only have one.”.

My thoughts:

I liked my title at Salesforce as “Lead Designer, Design Systems”.

People asked, but it’s just one. Why plural?

“A design system” or “The design system” makes people think of a deliverable artifact/library.

But it’s ongoing design systems work. Process improvement & workflows.

— design systems jina (@jina) December 12, 2019

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the way we talk about design systems, including the confusion and negativity that can come along with it. Amélie Lamont gave a talk in 2018 called “The Language of Design”, and in it, she talked about the way we talk about design systems and design itself from a “jargony point of view”. She argues that design is technically problem-solving.

I definitely agree. People get caught up in “design” as the actual role or action of designing and have even taken issue with the term “design systems” for this very reason (and have suggested it be more focused on code). I don’t think it really does us a good service to just swap out one role for the other. And… is it even about the role?

For other folks, which I include myself, we see design as a larger effort that involves the end-user experience (which includes usability, accessibility, performance, etc) as well as having a huge impact on the business. This includes code.

But really, it should all be focused on people. I like Mina Markham’s definition of what makes for good art direction in design systems:

Art direction is progressive. Localized. Cross-functional. Inclusive. Systematic.

Mina Markham

You’ll notice that the emphasis of what she speaks about is on people.

So in the design systems work we do, you often think of a style guide. Or a component library. Or a Sketch UI Kit. And there are arguments on whether either of those things can be called a design system if it doesn’t include this other thing or that other thing. We even talk about whether design systems are products or are more of a service. My take? The word “design” and “system” used in combination together literally just means to systemize your design (and in my world view that is more about the overall experience). And so if for you that means a Sketch UI Library, then you do you! My point is I think there is too much focus on the deliverables in the first place.

I touched on this briefly very recently:

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about is how much time we spend on making beautiful design system websites. I love looking at them. They’re great. But as our design and engineering tools get closer and closer together, will we come to a point where we don’t need the website? Can our tools surface suggestions for better accessibility, localization, performance, and usability, because our design system is baked into the tools? Just a thought.

Quote from post in Smarter Design Systems Tools

Invisible Design Systems?

So this is something I am striving for in 2020 — in what ways can we improve our collaboration, remove any proverbial gaps between design and engineering (not just bridge them), and have more meaningful conversations around the work we do? I don’t have any wrong or right answers here, but I am looking forward to seeing this progress in our field.

Design tools are bringing in smarter, automated ways to check for color contrast and other accessibility issues that can be detected early on. Sketch just announced their Assistant feature planned for 2020, which will check for your visual design discrepancies. And some design tools are using real code to be used in your product.

Engineering tools are advancing every day as well. I was just attending Flutter Interact recently, which was an event held by Google about their Flutter UI toolkit. It previously enabled you to get apps built for native platforms like Android and iOS, from one code base, and now has also announced their support for desktop and web. The push at this year’s event was focused on making this approachable for creatives (with their integrations into tools like Adobe XD. It really does feel like design and engineering tools are coming closer and closer together. And that’s all really cool and exciting.

However, I have to tell you: a lot of the time that I’m working in design systems, I’m not even touching a design tool. Or coding. Rather, it’s a lot of people-focused work: Reviewing. Advising. Organizing. Coordinating. Triaging. Educating. Supporting. That’s a lot of invisible systems work right there. (I use “invisible” here to mean there is not a direct tangible object in some of this work, though it all does serve the end-user through the product outcomes).

Designed objects are the fruit of invisible systems.

Amélie Lamont

This definitely is not me saying “don’t build a style guide” or “don’t make a Sketch UI Kit”. Use whatever works best for your organization. But this essentially is a plea to always put the focus on the people using your products. And, think about design systems as more of a methodology. A shining example of this way of designing systems is the newly released Encore from Spotify. I had the opportunity to see this revealed at Design Systems London, and they just published a post on it recently.

What’s different about Encore is that it isn’t a single monolithic thing. It’s a framework that brings Spotify’s existing design systems under one brand—a “system of systems.”

Source: Reimagining Design Systems at Spotify

This design systems work is not about one style guide website and instead focuses on the needs across several systems that are connected. Design Tokens help this to be a reality. Needless to say, I’m a big fan.

Love for your community

Design system principle #4: Favor community over control.

— Nathan Curtis (@nathanacurtis) March 23, 2017

When you’re doing design systems work in your organization, you are actually building a community. This can involve shared language and nomenclature, an aligned purpose, and better, closer collaboration. It doesn’t have to be a “style police” situation (I actually very much dislike the term “governance”). This can be a joint effort – working together to share the ownership of design systems together.

I was a big fan of the pairing model that we had at Salesforce when I was there. The work we did in design systems informed the work our product designers did. But then the work that the product designers did, in turn, informed the work we did in design systems. It was a very cyclical model and combined Nathan Curtis’s observed models of the Centralized Team and the Federated Contributors.

From my experience, I have found that great design systems teams have hybrid skillsets. Whether that is having actual hybrid designer/engineers on the team, or just ensuring that those skillsets are represented across the team, it’s important to have the perspectives of design, engineering, product, content, accessibility, and more.

I think that part of a designer’s role – and not even a designer. Anybody who uses the design system by nature of what a design system is – it’s the conglomeration of all the disciplines. Some code, some design, some product knowledge, some writing. And what that means is I think everybody on the team has to approach it with some humility.

Dan Mall

Kim Williams spoke recently in her talk, Start with your Brand Purpose, on Design Systems Love:

Love is patient. With design systems, …it’s a marathon and not a sprint. …this is a long game and it is a labor of love. And love is kind. We support everyone through change. Internally change is so hard. How do you help engineers work in a different way, how do you help PMs think strategically and embrace a new definition of analytical, how do you make in-roads with marketing so that they’re comfortable with you talking about brand and that you’re comfortable with marketing talking about user experience? How do you really, really build those relationships up through empathy. …the onus is on us to educate, to facilitate, to help others understand, to speak the language, to be that bridge, to be that connector, to be that catalyst for our companies. It always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Never fails. I love this because there’s a resiliency that we need to have, a resilience when we go through this.

Kim Williams

I love, love, love that.

And so while I still think it’s fun to explore new tools and get really excited about certain processes, at the end of the day, (in my most humble opinion), the best design systems teams are not just hybrid teams — they are also teams that work and supports each other really well, thus producing amazing user-centered work.

So, my suggestion for the coming year is to perhaps move away from thinking of design systems as an actual thing (especially when it comes to the negative perception of spending time on them) and more as a way of working better, more efficiently, and more creatively so that we can build great experiences for our users. I like to repeat in my work, Design Systems are for people, because it is a call to cherish, support, and empower the people you serve (both internally and externally).

Happy holidays!

About the author

Jina is a design systems advocate and coach. At Amazon, Jina was Senior Design Systems Lead. At Salesforce, she was Lead Designer on the Lightning Design System. She led the CSS architecture and style guide for the Apple Online Store. She’s also worked at GitHub, Engine Yard, Crush + Lovely, and Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, and more. She developed projects with W3C, Mass.gov, FedEx, etc.

Jina coauthored Design Systems Handbook, Fancy Form Design, and The Art & Science of CSS. She’s published several articles. She’s spoken at conferences including Adobe MAX. Print Magazine featured Jina as a leading San Francisco creative.

More articles by Jina

Cambridge, Mass. : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020

Hoboken : Taylor & Francis, 2003.

Dewey Library - U39.C76 2020

Dewey Library - JK2071.H57 2019