The benefits of standardizing visual components

Author: Elena Gribanova, Bulltech designer

There is one silent enemy in the interfaces. It does not completely break the site, does not drop the server, and does not cause a red error on the entire screen. He acts softer. At first, one «almost like this» button appears. Then a card with a different indentation. Then there’s the form where the input field looks different than on the next page. Then the headlines start to take on a life of their own.

And everything seems to be working. The user can click, send, open, buy. But the feeling is not the same.

The interface starts to look like it was assembled on different days, by different people and in different emotional states. One screen is calm and tidy, the second is overloaded, the third seems to have come from an old version of the project and did not realize that the party was already over.

This is where the topic of visual component standardization comes in. It sounds a bit dry, almost like a paragraph from the internal regulations that no one has read through after the second paragraph. But in fact, this is a very applied story. It’s about speed, money, order, convenience, and the normal human desire not to redraw the same button for the tenth time.

Visual components are repetitive interface elements. Buttons, input fields, cards, titles, icons, tabs, filters, modal windows, notifications, statuses, badges, menus, forms.
That is, everything that a website, service, personal account, online store, or admin panel is made of.
To standardize them means to come to an agreement: how these elements look, where they are used, what states they have, and how they should behave in different situations.
For example, a button doesn’t have to reinvent itself every time. It should have clear options: primary, secondary, inactive, dangerous action, icon button, download button. And if on one screen the main button is blue, large and with a certain rounding, then on another screen it should not suddenly become smaller, darker and with a different mood.
The same goes for the input fields. If the user made a mistake in the phone number, the error should be displayed in the same way as the error in the email or password. Not because it’s «prettier this way,» but because it’s easier for a person to navigate when the interface behaves predictably.
Standardization is not about boring sameness. It’s about a clear interface language. As in speech: we can speak vividly, interestingly, with intonation, but if we change the rules of grammar every time, the interlocutor will quickly get tired of deciphering us.

At the start of a project, everything usually looks decent. There is a main page, a couple of internal sections, and an application form. The designer put everything together neatly, the developer checked, the client looked and said, «Yes, it’s beautiful.»
And then the project starts to live.
Added a new section.
Then another one.
Then I urgently needed a feedback form.
Then the service cards.
Then the filter.
Then a pop-up.
Then a banner with an important message.
Then the mobile version, because «something went wrong on the phone.»
Each revision seems to be small. But if the project does not have a common system of components, each such revision becomes a separate small design decision.
What indentation should I set?
Which button should I use?
How can I show the error?
How do I create an empty state?
What is the size of the header?
What does the active filter look like?
How do we show the download?
What is the style of the card?
If the answers are not fixed, the team decides again each time. And now this «new» is gradually starting to cost a lot.
It’s not always about money directly. It often costs time, attention, nerves, and quality. And then money, too, because the extra hours of development and rework are rarely paid for with air and a kind word.

The user rarely thinks, «Hmm, the component logic and visual hierarchy of the buttons are broken on this page.» Unless he’s a designer who came to suffer professionally.
Usually, a person feels simpler: «Something is inconvenient,» «something is strange,» «it’s not clear where to click,» «the site does not look very reliable.»
This is an important point. Visual inconsistencies don’t always catch the eye as a clear mistake. Rather, it creates a background distrust.
When everything on the site is put together in a single style, the user understands the logic faster. He sees: here is the main action, here is an additional one, here is a hint, here is an error, here is an active item, here is an inactive one. He doesn’t have to learn how to use the interface every time.
And when the components are different, the interface starts talking to the user in several dialects at once. On one page, a button with an outline means a secondary action. On the other, the same button leads to the main scenario. In one place, red means a mistake, in another it’s just a decorative accent. In one block, the card is fully clickable, in the other, there is only a text link inside.
And it seems like a small thing. But such small things make up the user’s path. And if the path is in doubt, the person may not reach the application, purchase or registration. He will simply close the tab and go to a place where he needs to think less.

The main benefit of standardization for the team is that it removes repetitive manual work.
When there are ready-made components, the designer does not draw every screen from scratch. He builds an interface from already thought-out elements and does not deal with what size to make a button, but with how best to build a script.
The developer also does not re-write the same thing. He takes a ready-made component, uses it in the right place and understands which states are already provided. You don’t need to create a new style for the button every time, a new field option, or a new way to show the notification.
It becomes easier for the manager to evaluate tasks. If the screen is assembled from ready-made components, this is one amount of work. If you need to create a new component or a custom script, this is a different volume. The assessment becomes not a fortune-telling on coffee grounds, but a more understandable conversation.
It’s easier for the tester too. It checks not only the specific page, but also the compliance with the general rules. If the error field should look a certain way, you can check it. If there is no rule, the eternal «is this a bug or is it intended that way?» begins.
As a result, the team argues less about the details and moves faster in essence. Not because standardization is magical, but because it removes a lot of unnecessary micro-solutions.

Let’s imagine an online store. It has a product card. In an ideal world, the product card in the catalog, on the main page, in recommendations and in collections can have different sizes, but must live according to the same logic.
It has an image, a name, a price, an availability status, a purchase button, perhaps favorites or a quick preview. If the product is finished, the card shows this in an understandable way. If there is a discount, it is displayed according to a single rule. If the title is long, it is cut off predictably, rather than breaking the entire block.
Now let’s imagine that the cards are not standardized. On the main page, the price is at the top, in the catalog at the bottom. The button in the selection has a different color. There is no availability status in the recommendations. In the mobile version, the image behaves differently. The discount is red in one place, orange in another, and simply the text «promotion» in the third.
Each individual card can be normal. But together they create a sense of fragmentation. The user does not understand whether these are the same products, whether this is the same scenario, and whether the same behavior can be expected.
Meanwhile, the team gets a separate set of problems. Do I need to adjust the discount display? We’ll have to look for all the card options. Do I need to change the purchase button? Also in all places. Do I need to add a new status? Great, now it needs to be integrated into five different implementations.
Standardization in this case saves not only time on creation, but also time on future changes. And there will almost always be future changes. A project that doesn’t change is usually either dead or just hasn’t been opened for a long time.

Sometimes standardization of visual components is perceived as an internal concern of designers. They say they want order in Figma, beautiful names, and everything sorted into folders. It’s nice, of course, but what about business?
There are a lot of things for business.
First, standardization reduces the cost of improvements. If the elements are reused, new pages and functions are created faster. You don’t have to design and build the same type of things from scratch every time.
Secondly, it reduces the risk of errors. When a component has already been tested, tested, and used in different locations, the chance of an accidental visual or functional jamb is lower.
Thirdly, it speeds up the launch of new partitions. Especially if the product is constantly evolving: services, promotions, pages, personal accounts, forms, scripts are being added.
Fourth, it helps to maintain a cohesive brand image. The site or service looks assembled, not like a collection of pages from different eras. This is especially important for companies that sell expensive services, complex products, or work in B2B. They are greeted, as you know, by their clothes. In a digital environment, the website and interface are often the clothes.
You can write as much as you want on the «we are a reliable technology company» page, but if the interface looks random and sloppy, the user will believe the eyes rather than the text.

There is a funny injustice: they usually try to make a public website beautiful, and internal interfaces are often built on the principle of «the main thing is to make it work.»
The admin panel? Besides the staff, who sees her?
CRM? Well, the managers are there, they’ll get used to it.
An inner office? The main thing is that the data is saved.
But the employees are also people. Moreover, people who use the interface not just once, but every day. If the visual components inside the system are not standardized, this directly affects the speed of operation.
For example, in one section the «Save» button is at the top, in the other at the bottom. In one place, the deletion asks for confirmation, in another it deletes immediately. In one table, the filter opens from the left, in the other from the top. In one field, the error is highlighted in red, in the other, the text just appears somewhere under the form.
The employee spends extra seconds on orientation. Then he makes mistakes. Then he asks a colleague. Then he starts the task in support. Then the development team fixes what could have been prevented by normal standardization.
Internal interfaces rarely affect a customer’s first impression, but they strongly influence operational efficiency. And this is quite an adult and serious business conversation, without magic and beautiful words.

In any team, people change. A new designer, a new frontend developer, a new manager, and a new tester are coming. And each time the project needs to be explained anew.
If the visual components are not standardized, the beginner gets into the jungle. He opens layouts, sees many similar elements and does not understand what is relevant, what is outdated, what can be used, and what is better not to touch.
The questions begin:
«Is this button working?»
«Which card option is correct?»
«Why is there a different input?»
«Is this an exception or a mistake?»
«Where can I see the rules?»
If there are no rules, a person begins to learn through someone else’s memory. They tell him, «Don’t use this, it’s old. This seems to be relevant, but it’s better to check with Masha. And we made this component for one section, but then we started using another one almost everywhere.»
It sounds familiar and a little painful.
Standardization transforms the project from an oral tradition into a normal system. It’s easier for a new person to get into the job because there are clear components and rules. He doesn’t spend the first week digging and isn’t afraid to accidentally use something from the interface of the last century.

It is important here not to confuse order with monotony.
Good standardization does not make all pages clones. It sets the foundation on which different scenarios can be built. As a constructor: the parts are the same, but you can assemble different things from them.
The main page can be more imaginative. Personal account, more functional. The admin panel is more dense and informative. Landing page, more emotional. But the basic elements must still be consistent.
The button must remain a button. The error should look like a mistake. The active state must be recognizable. The card must follow the general logic. Indentation should not be born out of an inner sense of beauty every time.
Standardization does not kill the individuality of the project. It removes randomness. And these are different things.
You can create an expressive, lively, memorable interface and at the same time save the system. Moreover, strong interfaces usually work like this: from the outside it seems easy and beautiful, but inside everything is based on very clear rules.

You don’t have to start with a huge design system that describes every pixel and all possible scenarios until the end of time. It sounds beautiful, but in practice it often turns into a long construction that no one can finish.
It is better to start with the most repeatable.
First, the typography. Headings, subheadings, main text, captions, and service texts. If the sizes and styles of the text are not fixed, the pages quickly start to look uneven.
Second, the colors. Basic, additional, background, colors of errors, success, warnings, inactive elements. The color should not just be liked, but perform an understandable function.
Third, buttons and links. Their types, sizes, conditions, and rules of use. It is especially important to identify the main action on the screen so that the user does not see five equally important buttons and does not wonder where to press.
Fourth, the shapes. Input fields, errors, hints, required fields, checkboxes, radio buttons, drop-down lists. Forms are often directly related to applications, orders, and registration, so chaos is especially expensive here.
Fifth, cards and lists. For services, products, articles, cases, employees, orders, documents. Flashcards are often repeated throughout the project and greatly affect the visual integrity.
Sixth, states. Download, empty list, error, successful action, unavailability. These states are often recalled at the last moment, and then the interface tells the user something like «well, there’s nothing here, figure it out for yourself.»
Even if we standardize only these basic things, the project will already become noticeably neater and more convenient to develop.

You can perfectly decompose the components in Figma, name the styles beautifully, assemble a library, put up a cover, and even give the team a presentation. But if everything lives separately in the code, the benefits will be limited.
True standardization begins where design and development are synchronized.
If the design has a Button component, the code should also have a clear button component. If the input field has an error condition in the design, it must also be implemented in the code. If the card has several options in the layout, the developer must understand which of them are real and which are design fantasies based on an evening craving for beauty.
Otherwise, you get two systems. One is beautiful, in mockups. The second one is real, in the product. And between them, as usual, the manager stands and tries to understand why «everything was fine on the design.»
Therefore, standardization of visual components should be a common task, not just a design one. It involves design, frontend, management, and sometimes testing. Everyone, for their part, helps to make sure that the component is not only beautiful, but also functional.

Yes, it happens too.
If the rules are too strict, the team starts to suffer. They try to cram each new script into the old component, even if it no longer fits. The designer can’t solve the problem properly because «we don’t have such a component.» The developer sees that it is easier to make a new element, but they tell him: «No, use the existing one, we have standardized it.»
As a result, the system turns from an assistant into a boss with a folder.
Good standardization should leave room for development. If a new scenario appears, it needs to be sorted out: is this a one-time exception or a component that may be useful later? If a component is outdated, it needs to be updated. If the rule interferes with user convenience, the rule needs to be reviewed.
Standards should not be stone tablets. They should be working arrangements. Lively, understandable and useful.
The main criterion is simple: standardization should speed up and improve work. If it only adds to the coordination and fear of taking a step aside, then something went wrong.

There are several signs that it is time to standardize visual components.
First, the team often asks, «What should it be like?»
Second, the same elements look different on different pages.
Third, simple improvements take an unexpectedly long time.
Fourth, it’s easier to re-draw a new screen than to assemble it from existing elements.
Fifth, developers create new styles because the old ones are unclear where and why.
Sixth: after the launch, there are constant edits in the spirit of «do as on that page».
Seventh: Users get confused in similar scenarios or make mistakes in forms.
If at least a few points match, it’s no longer «just minor discrepancies.» This is a systemic debt. Not purely technical, but interface-based. He also accumulates, also hinders development, and also comes for payment one day.

The most valuable thing in standardizing visual components is not a neat library or beautiful layouts. The most valuable thing is that the team starts thinking not only about the current screen, but also about the future of the product.
Not «how would I quickly draw this shape now», but «which shape will be used next».
Not «which button to put here», but «which action is the main thing here».
Not «how to issue this card», but «what kind of cards are in the product and according to what logic they should work».
This is a different level of maturity. The product ceases to be a set of one-time solutions and becomes a system.
And the system always lives longer than improvisation. Improvisation is good when you need to quickly test an idea. But if you build the entire product on it, sooner or later the team will find itself in a situation where any change will entail a tangle of old solutions.
Standardization does not guarantee that there will be no problems. But it makes the problems clearer and the changes more manageable.

The benefit of standardizing visual components is that it removes chaos from places where it has nothing to do.
The team stops arguing about buttons, margins, cards, and states every time. Developers build interfaces faster. Designers deal less with routine and think more about scenarios. Testers check according to clear rules. The business gets more predictable deadlines, fewer alterations, and a complete product.
And the user gets an interface that is easier to navigate. He doesn’t know that the standardization of components, a design system, or a neatly configured library is behind this. He doesn’t need to know that. He just visits the website or service and understands what’s going on.
And this is perhaps the main compliment of good standardization: it is almost ignored. She doesn’t shout about herself, doesn’t ask for applause, and doesn’t come to the fore. She just makes everything work smoother, clearer, and faster.
Because visual order is not about loving pixels for the sake of pixels. It’s about respecting the team’s time, the business’s money, and the user’s attention. And the user’s attention, as you know, is a gentle thing. Today he’s still looking at your button, and tomorrow he’s already gone to the competitors, where the buttons have at least agreed among themselves which of them is the main one.