Fuel Your Blog

There are many rumors and misconceptions about conforming to WCAG criteria for the minimum sizing of interactive elements. I’d like to use this post to demystify what is needed for baseline compliance and to point out an approach for making successful and inclusive interactive experiences using ample target sizes.

Getting right to it: When it comes to pure Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) conformance, the bare minimum pixel size for an interactive, non-inline element is 24×24 pixels. This is outlined in Success Criterion 2.5.8: Target Size (Minimum).

Success Criterion 2.5.8 is level AA, which is the most commonly used level for public, mass-consumed websites. This Success Criterion (or SC for short) is sometimes confused for SC 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced), which is level AAA. The two are distinct and provide separate guidance for properly sizing interactive elements, even if they appear similar at first glance.

SC 2.5.8 is relatively new to WCAG, having been released as part of WCAG version 2.2, which was published on October 5th, 2023. WCAG 2.2 is the most current version of the standard, but this newer release date means that knowledge of its existence isn’t as widespread as the older SC, especially outside of web accessibility circles. That said, WCAG 2.2 will remain the standard until WCAG 3.0 is released, something that is likely going to take 10–15 years or more to happen.

SC 2.5.5 calls for larger interactive elements sizes that are at least 44×44 pixels (compared to the SC 2.5.8 requirement of 24×24 pixels). At the same time, notice that SC 2.5.5 is level AAA (compared to SC 2.5.8, level AA) which is a level reserved for specialized support beyond level AA.

Sites that need to be fully WCAG Level AAA conformant are rare. Chances are that if you are making a website or web app, you’ll only need to support level AA. Level AAA is often reserved for large or highly specialized institutions.

Making Interactive Elements Larger With CSS Padding

The family of padding-related properties in CSS can be used to extend the interactive area of an element to make it conformant. For example, declaring padding: 4px; on an element that measures 16×16 pixels invisibly increases its bounding box to a total of 24×24 pixels. This, in turn, means the interactive element satisfies SC 2.5.8.

This is a good trick for making smaller interactive elements easier to click and tap. If you want more information about this sort of thing, I enthusiastically recommend Ahmad Shadeed’s post, “Designing better target sizes”.

I think it’s also worth noting that CSS margin could also hypothetically be used to achieve level AA conformance since the SC includes a spacing exception:

The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 24×24 CSS pixels, except where:

Spacing: Undersized targets (those less than 24×24 CSS pixels) are positioned so that if a 24 CSS pixel diameter circle is centered on the bounding box of each, the circles do not intersect another target or the circle for another undersized target;

[…]

The difference here is that padding extends the interactive area, while margin does not. Through this lens, you’ll want to honor the spirit of the success criterion because partial conformance is adversarial conformance. At the end of the day, we want to help people successfully click or tap interactive elements, such as buttons.

What About Inline Interactive Elements?

We tend to think of targets in terms of block elements — elements that are displayed on their own line, such as a button at the end of a call-to-action. However, interactive elements can be inline elements as well. Think of links in a paragraph of text.

Inline interactive elements, such as text links in paragraphs, do not need to meet the 24×24 pixel minimum requirement. Just as margin is an exception in SC 2.5.8: Target Size (Minimum), so are inline elements with an interactive target:

The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 24×24 CSS pixels, except where:

[…]

Inline: The target is in a sentence or its size is otherwise constrained×the line-height of non-target text;

[…]

If the differences between interactive elements that are inline and block are still confusing, that’s probably because the whole situation is even further muddied by third-party human interface guidelines requiring interactive sizes closer to what the level AAA Success Criterion 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) demands.

For example, Apple’s “Human Interface Guidelines” and Google’s “Material Design” are guidelines for how to design interfaces for their respective platforms. Apple’s guidelines recommend that interactive elements are 44×44 points, whereas Google’s guides stipulate target sizes that are at least 48×48 using density-independent pixels.

These may satisfy Apple and Google requirements for designing interfaces, but are they WCAG-conformant Apple and Google — not to mention any other organization with UI guidelines — can specify whatever interface requirements they want, but are they copasetic with WCAG SC 2.5.5 and SC 2.5.8?

It’s important to ask this question because there is a hierarchy when it comes to accessibility compliance, and it contains legal levels:

Human interface guidelines often inform design systems, which, in turn, influence the sites and apps that are built by authors like us. But they’re not the “authority” on accessibility compliance. Notice how everything is (and ought to be) influenced by WCAG at the very top of the chain.

Even if these third-party interface guidelines conform to SC 2.5.5 and 2.5.8, it’s still tough to tell when they are expressed in “points” and “density independent pixels” which aren’t pixels, but often get conflated as such. I’d advise not getting too deep into researching what a pixel truly is-pixel%3F). Trust me when I say it’s a road you don’t want to go down. But whatever the case, the inconsistent use of unit sizes exacerbates the issue.

I’ve also observed some developers attempting to use the pointer media feature as a clever “trick” to detect when a touchscreen is present, then conditionally adjust an interactive element’s size as a way to get around the WCAG requirement.

After all, mouse cursors are for fine movements, and touchscreens are for more broad gestures, right? Not always. The thing is, devices are multimodal. They can support many different kinds of input and don’t require a special switch to flip or button to press to do so. A straightforward example of this is switching between a trackpad and a keyboard while you browse the web. A less considered example is a device with a touchscreen that also supports a trackpad, keyboard, mouse, and voice input.

You might think that the combination of trackpad, keyboard, mouse, and voice inputs sounds like some sort of absurd, obscure Frankencomputer, but what I just described is a Microsoft Surface laptop, and guess what? They’re pretty popular.

There is a difference between the two, even though they are often used interchangeably. Let’s delineate the two as clearly as possible:

• Responsive Design is about designing for an unknown device.
• Inclusive Design is about designing for an unknown user.

The other end of this consideration is that people with motor control conditions — like hand tremors or arthritis — can and do use mice inputs. This means that fine input actions may be painful and difficult, yet ultimately still possible to perform.

People also use more precise input mechanisms for touchscreens all the time, including both official accessories and aftermarket devices. In other words, some devices designed to accommodate coarse input can also be used for fine detail work.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t also point out that people plug mice and keyboards into smartphones. We cannot automatically say that they only support coarse pointers:

Context Is King

Conformant and successful interactive areas — both large and small — require knowing the ultimate goals of your website or web app. When you arm yourself with this context, you are empowered to make informed decisions about the kinds of people who use your service, why they use the service, and how you can accommodate them.

For example, the Glow Baby app uses larger interactive elements because it knows the user is likely holding an adorable, albeit squirmy and fussy, baby while using the application. This allows Glow Baby to emphasize the interactive targets in the interface to accommodate parents who have their hands full.

In the same vein, SC SC 2.5.8 acknowledges that smaller touch targets — such as those used in map apps — may contextually be exempt:

For example, in digital maps, the position of pins is analogous to the position of places shown on the map. If there are many pins close together, the spacing between pins and neighboring pins will often be below 24 CSS pixels. It is essential to show the pins at the correct map location; therefore, the Essential exception applies.

[…]

When the "Essential" exception is applicable, authors are strongly encouraged to provide equivalent functionality through alternative means to the extent practical.

Note that this exemption language is not carte blanche to make your own work an exception to the rule. It is more of a mechanism, and an acknowledgment that broadly applied rules may have exceptions that are worth thinking through and documenting for future reference.

We also want to consider the larger context of the device itself as well as the environment the device will be used in.

Larger, more fixed position touchscreens compel larger interactive areas. Smaller devices that are moved around in space a lot (e.g., smartwatches) may benefit from alternate input mechanisms such as voice commands.

What about people who are driving in a car? People in this context probably ought to be provided straightforward, simple interactions that are facilitated via large interactive areas to prevent them from taking their eyes off the road. The same could also be said for high-stress environments like hospitals and oil rigs.

Similarly, devices and apps that are designed for children may require interactive areas that are larger than WCAG requirements for interactive areas. So would experiences aimed at older demographics, where age-derived vision and motor control disability factors tend to be more present.

Minimum conformant interactive area experiences may also make sense in their own contexts. Data-rich, information-dense experiences like the Bloomberg terminal come to mind here.

While you can control what components you include in a design system, you cannot control where and how they’ll be used by those who adopt and use that design system. Because of this, I suggest defensively baking accessible defaults into your design systems because they can go a long way toward incorporating accessible practices when they’re integrated right out of the box.

One option worth consideration is providing an accessible range of choices. Components, like buttons, can have size variants (e.g., small, medium, and large), and you can provide a minimally conformant interactive target on the smallest variant and then offer larger, equally conformant versions.

There is no magic number or formula to get you that perfect Goldilocks “not too small, not too large, but just right” interactive area size. It requires knowledge of what the people who want to use your service want, and how they go about getting it.

The best way to learn that? Ask people.

Accessibility research includes more than just asking people who use screen readers what they think. It’s also a lot easier to conduct than you might think! For example, prototypes are a great way to quickly and inexpensively evaluate and de-risk your ideas before committing to writing production code. “Conducting Accessibility Research In An Inaccessible Ecosystem” by Dr. Michele A. Williams is chock full of tips, strategies, and resources you can use to help you get started with accessibility research.

The bottom line is that

“Compliant” does not always equate to “usable.” But compliance does help set baseline requirements that benefit everyone.

To sum things up:

• 24×24 pixels is the bare minimum in terms of WCAG conformance.
• Inline interactive elements, such as links placed in paragraphs, are exempt.
• 44×44 pixels is for WCAG level AAA support, and level AAA is reserved for specialized experiences.
• Human interface guidelines by the likes of Apple, Android, and other companies must ultimately confirm to WCAG.
• Devices are multimodal and can use different kinds of input concurrently.
• Baking sensible accessible defaults into design systems can go a long way to ensuring widespread compliance.
• Larger interactive element sizes may be helpful in many situations, but might not be recognized as an interactive element if they are too large.
• User research can help you learn about your audience.

And, perhaps most importantly, all of this is about people and enabling them to get what they need.

Further Reading

• Foundations: target sizes (TetraLogical)
• Large Links, Buttons, and Controls (Web Accessibility Initiative)
• Interaction Media Features and Their Potential (for Incorrect Assumptions) (CSS-Tricks)
• Meeting WCAG Level AAA (TetraLogical)

As lavish influencer lifestyles, wealth flaunting, and hauls dominate social media feeds, we shouldn’t be surprised that excessive consumption has become the default way of living. We see closets filled to the brim with cheap, throw-away items and having the latest gadget arsenal as signifiers of an aspirational life.

Consumerism, however, is more than a cultural trend; it’s the backbone of our economic system. Companies eagerly drive excessive consumption as an increase in sales is directly connected to an increase in profit.

While we learned to accept this level of material consumption as normal, we need to be reminded of the massive environmental impact that comes along with it. As Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, writes in a New York Times article:

“Obsession with the latest tech gadgets drives open pit mining for precious minerals. Demand for rubber continues to decimate rainforests. Turning these and other raw materials into final products releases one-fifth of all carbon emissions.”

— Yvon Chouinard

In the paper, Scientists’ Warning on Affluence, a group of researchers concluded that reducing material consumption today is essential to avoid the worst of the looming climate change in the coming years. This need for lowering consumption is also reflected in the UN’s Sustainability goals, specifically Goal 17, “Ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns”.

For a long time, design has been a tool for consumer engineering by for example, designing products with artificially limited useful life (planned obsolescence) to ensure continuous consumption. And if we want to understand specifically UX design’s role in influencing how much and what people buy, we have to take a deeper look at pushy online shopping experiences.

Today, most online shopping experiences are designed with persuasion, gamification, nudging and even deception to get unsuspecting users to add more things to their basket.

There are “Hurry, only one item left in stock” type messages and countdown clocks that exploit well-known cognitive biases to nudge users to make impulse purchase decisions. As Michael Keenan explains,

“The scarcity bias says that humans place a higher value on items they believe to be rare and a lower value on things that seem abundant. Scarcity marketing harnesses this bias to make brands more desirable and increase product sales. Online stores use limited releases, flash sales, and countdown timers to induce FOMO — the fear of missing out — among shoppers.”

— Michael Keenan

To make buying things quick and effortless, we remove friction from the checkout process, for example, with the one-click-buy button. As practitioners of user-centered design, we might implement the button and say: thanks to this frictionless and easy checkout process, we improved the customer experience. Or did we just do a huge disservice to our users?

Gliding through the checkout process in seconds leaves no time for the user to ask, “Do I actually want this?” or “Do I have the money for this?”. Indeed, putting users on autopilot to make thoughtless decisions is the goal.

As a business.com article says: “Click to buy helps customers complete shopping within seconds and reduces the amount of time they have to reconsider their purchase.”

Amanda Mull writes from a user perspective about how it has become “too easy to buy stuff you don’t want”:

“The order took maybe 15 seconds. I selected my size and put the shoes in my cart, and my phone automatically filled in my login credentials and added my new credit card number. You can always return them, I thought to myself as I tapped the “Buy” button. [...] I had completed some version of the online checkout process a million times before, but I never could remember it being quite so spontaneous and thoughtless. If it’s going to be that easy all the time, I thought to myself, I’m cooked.”

— Amanda Mull

This quote also highlights that this thoughtless consumption is not only harmful to the environment but also to the very same user we say we center our design process around. The rising popularity of buy-now-pay-later services, credit card debt, and personal finance gurus to help “Overcoming Overspending” are indicators that people are spending more than they can afford, a huge source of stress for many.

The one-click-buy button is not about improving user experience but building an environment where users are “more likely to buy more and buy often.” If we care to put this bluntly, frictionless and persuasive e-commerce design is not user-centered but business-centered design.

While it is not unusual for design to be a tool to achieve business goals, we, designers, should be clear about who we are serving and at what cost with the power of design. To reckon with our impact, first, we have to understand the source of power we yield — the power asymmetry between the designer and the user.

Imagine a scale: on one end sits the designer and the user on the other. Now, let’s take an inventory of the sources of power each party has in their hands in an online shopping situation and see how the scale balances.

Designers

Designers are equipped with knowledge about psychology, biases, nudging, and persuasion techniques. If we don’t have the time to learn all that, we can reach for an out-of-the-box solution that uses those exact psychological and behavioral insights. For example, Nudgify, a Woocommerce integration, promises to help “you get more sales and reduce shopping cart abandonment by creating Urgency and removing Friction.”

Erika Hall puts it this way: “When you are designing, you are making choices on behalf of other people.” We even have a word for this: choice architecture. Choice architecture refers to the deliberate crafting of decision-making environments. By subtly shaping how options are presented, choice architecture influences individual decision-making, often without their explicit awareness.

On top of this, we also collect funnel metrics, behavioral data, and A/B test things to make sure our designs work as intended. In other words, we control the environment where the user is going to make decisions, and we are knowledgeable about how to tweak it in a way to encourage the decisions we want the user to make. Or, as Vitaly Friedman says in one of his articles:

“We’ve learned how to craft truly beautiful interfaces and well-orchestrated interactions. And we’ve also learned how to encourage action to meet the project’s requirements and drive business metrics. In fact, we can make pretty much anything work, really.”

— Vitaly Friedman

User

On the other end of the scale, we have the user who is usually unaware of our persuasion efforts, oblivious about their own biases, let alone understanding when and how those are triggered.

Luckily, regulation around Deceptive Design on e-commerce is increasing. For example, companies are not allowed to use fake countdown timers. However, these regulations are not universal, and enforcement is lax, so often users are still not protected by law against pushy shopping experiences.

After this overview, let’s see how the scale balances:

When we understand this power asymmetry between designer and user, we need to ask ourselves:

• What do I use my power for?
• What kind of “real life” user behavior am I designing for?
• What is the impact of the users’ behavior resulting from my design?

If we look at e-commerce design today, more often than not, the unfortunate answer is mindless and excessive consumption.

This needs to change. We need to use the power of design to encourage sustainable user behavior and thus move us toward a sustainable future.

The discussion about sustainable e-commerce usually revolves around recyclable packaging, green delivery, and making the site energy-efficient with sustainable UX. All these actions and angles are important and should be part of our design process, but can we build a truly sustainable e-commerce if we are still encouraging unsustainable user behavior by design?

To achieve truly sustainable e-commerce, designers must shift from encouraging impulse purchases to supporting thoughtful decisions. Instead of using persuasion, gamification, and deception to boost sales, we should use our design skills to provide users with the time, space, and information they need to make mindful purchase decisions. I call this approach Kind Commerce.

While the intent of designing Kind Commerce is noble, we have a bitter reality to deal with: we live and work in an economic system based on perpetual growth. We are often measured on achieving KPIs like “increased conversion” or “reduced cart abandonment rate”. We are expected to use UX to achieve aggressive sales goals, and often, we are not in a position to change that.

It is a frustrating situation to be in because we can argue that the system needs to change, so it is possible for UXers to move away from persuasive e-commerce design. However, system change won’t happen unless we push for it. A catch-22 situation. So, what are the things we could do today?

• Pitch Kind Commerce as a way to build strong customer relationships that will have higher lifetime value than the quick buck we would make with persuasive tricks.
• Highlight reduced costs. As Vitaly writes, using deceptive design can be costly for the company:

“Add to basket” is beautifully highlighted in green, indicating a way forward, with insurance added in automatically. That’s a clear dark pattern, of course. The design, however, is likely to drive business KPIs, i.e., increase a spend per customer. But it will also generate a wrong purchase. The implications of it for businesses might be severe and irreversible — with plenty of complaints, customer support inquiries, and high costs of processing returns.”

— Vitaly Friedman

Helping users find the right products and make decisions they won’t regret can help the company save all the resources they would need to spend on dealing with complaints and returns. On top of this, the company can save millions of dollars by avoiding lawsuits for unfair commercial practices.

• Highlight the increasing customer demand for sustainable companies.
• If you feel that your company is not open to change practices and you are frustrated about the dissonance between your day job and values, consider looking for a position where you can support a company or a cause that aligns with your values.

Add Friction

I know, I know, it sounds like an insane proposition in a profession obsessed with eliminating friction, but hear me out. Instead of “helping” users glide through the checkout process with one-click buy buttons, adding a step to review their order and give them a pause could help reduce unnecessary purchases. A positive reframing for this technique could be helpful to express our true intentions.

Instead of saying “adding friction,” we could say “adding a protective step”. Another example of “adding a protective step” could be getting rid of the “Quick Add” buttons and making users go to the product page to take a look at what they are going to buy. For example, Organic Basics doesn’t have a “Quick Add” button; users can only add things to their cart from the product page.

Inform

Once we make sure users will visit product pages, we can help them make more informed decisions. We can be transparent about the social and environmental impact of an item or provide guidelines on how to care for the product to last a long time.

For example, Asket has a section called “Lifecycle” where they highlight how to care for, repair and recycle their products. There is also a “Full Transparency” section to inform about the cost and impact of the garment.

Design Calm Pages

Aggressive landing pages where everything is moving, blinking, modals popping up, 10 different discounts are presented are overwhelming, confusing and distracting, a fertile environment for impulse decisions.

Respect your user’s attention by designing pages that don’t raise their blood pressure to 180 the second they open them. No modals automatically popping up, no flashing carousels, and no discount dumping. Aim for static banners and display offers in a clear and transparent way. For example, H&M shows only one banner highlighting a discount on their landing page, and that’s it. If a fast fashion brand like H&M can design calm pages, there is no excuse why others couldn’t.

Be Honest In Your Messaging

Fake urgency and social proof can not only get you fined for millions of dollars but also can turn users away. So simply do not add urgency messages and countdown clocks where there is no real deadline behind an offer. Don’t use fake social proof messages. Don’t say something has a limited supply when it doesn’t.

I would even take this a step further and recommend using persuasion sparingly, even if they are honest. Instead of overloading the product page with every possible persuasion method (urgency, social proof, incentive, assuming they are all honest), choose one yet impactful persuasion point.

To make it clear, I’m not advocating for designing bad or cumbersome user experiences to obstruct customers from buying things. Of course, I want a delightful and easy way to buy things we need.

I’m also well aware that design is never neutral. We need to present options and arrange user flows, and whichever way we choose to do that will influence user decisions and actions.

What I’m advocating for is at least putting the user back in the center of our design process. We read earlier that users think it is “too easy to buy things you don’t need” and feel that the current state of e-commerce design is contributing to their excessive spending. Understanding this and calling ourselves user-centered, we ought to change our approach significantly.

On top of this, I’m advocating for expanding our perspective to consider the wider environmental and social impact of our designs and align our work with the move toward a sustainable future.

E-commerce design is a practical example of how design is a part of encouraging excessive, unnecessary consumption today. In this article, we looked at what we can do on this practical level to help our users shop more mindfully. However, transforming online shopping experiences is only a part of a bigger mission: moving away from a culture where excessive consumption is the aspiration for customers and the ultimate goal of companies.

As Cliff Kuang says in his article,

“The designers of the coming era need to think of themselves as inventing a new way of living that doesn’t privilege consumption as the only expression of cultural value. At the very least, we need to start framing consumption differently.”

— Cliff Kuang

Or, as Manuel Lima puts in his book, The New Designer,

“We need the design to refocus its attention where it is needed — not in creating things that harm the environment for hundreds of years or in selling things we don’t need in a continuous push down the sales funnel but, instead, in helping people and the planet solve real problems. [...] Designs’s ultimate project is to reimagine how we produce, deliver, consume products, physical or digital, to rethink the existing business models.”

— Manuel Lima

So buckle up, designers, we have work to do!

Today, design is part of the problem of encouraging and facilitating excessive consumption through persuasive e-commerce design and through designing for companies with linear and exploitative business models. For a liveable future, we need to change this. On a tactical level, we need to start advocating and designing mindful shopping experiences, and on a strategic level, we need to use our knowledge and skills to elevate sustainable businesses.

I’m not saying that it is going to be an easy or quick transition, but the best time to start is now. In a dire state of need for sustainable transformation, designers with power and agency can’t stay silent or continue proliferating the problem.

“As designers, we need to see ourselves as gatekeepers of what we are bringing into the world and what we choose not to bring into the world. Design is a craft with responsibility. The responsibility to help create a better world for all.”

— Mike Monteiro

One of the reasons I can’t stop thinking about native Web Components is how you can use them anywhere. “Incremental adoption” is the fancy phrase, I suppose.

We’ve even started using them on the new editor for CodePen we’re still hard at work on to solve some interesting issues I’m sure we’ll talk about someday. We’re using React/Next there, which isn’t famous for it’s support of Web Components, but it’s mostly been fine. Other JavaScript frameworks are much more friendly, and of course if you aren’t using a JavaScript framework you haven’t a care in the world; Web Components can be part of your world.

Because they are pretty easy to slip in anywhere, they work pretty well on CodePen. I mentioned a list of “stand alone” Web Components the other week here at the ol’ Corner, then I converted them into Pens just to prove that. A lot of web components are published to npm to using a site like esm.sh makes linking up the resources pretty easy.

What’s cool about using web components like I have above is that they just might last forever. I ranted a little about this on Mastodon the other day. The fewer dependencies a web component has, the longer it will last. It will certainly outlive your JavaScript framework, as Jake Lazaroff put it:

If we want our work to be accessible in five or ten or even 20 years, we need to use the web with no layers in between. For all its warts, the web has become the most resilient, portable, future-proof computing platform we’ve ever created — at least, if we build with that in mind.

I think that’s cool.

I makes me think what will break about those demos I posted. Like, what is going to make this Pen stop working someday? If CodePen goes offline, it will. But we’ve just had our 12th birthday are are going strong. You’d have to fight me to the death for that to happen. The web component is linked up from esm.sh so if that went down it would stop working. That’s definitely possible, we’ve seen free CDN-like websites like this come and go. But you could just change to a different one. The code is on npm, so that could die or the author could pull it down. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of risk of that, and it’s open source so mirrors will exist. Pretty resilient, I’d say! Although different projects have different needs there and you could always get stronger by reducing even those dependencies.

Oh hey speaking of web components and things that are super cool… check out David Darnes new one just for us: <code-pen>.

The idea is that it’s a convienient way to use our Post to Prefill API. So you’d author code like this:

<script type="module" src="code-pen.js"></script>

<code-pen>
  <pre>
    <code>&lt;p&gt;Hello world&lt;/p&gt;</code>
  </pre>
  <pre>
    <code>:root { color: hotpink; }</code>
  </pre>
  <pre>
    <code>document.querySelector(&quot;p&quot;).style.backgroundColor = &quot;orange&quot;;</code>
  </pre>
</code-pen>

(Or you could use Markdown triple backticks and avoid the code escaping, among other options)

Then it builds an “Open in CodePen” button that users can click to open that code in a real Pen. The point is usually stuff like documentation and blog posts where you want to manage all the code yourself, not maintain both the text and the Pens separately. Thanks David, this is super cool.

David also recently published a free eBook called The Case for Web Components you might want to check out if you’re looking to be further convinced or need more learnings on the basic to decide. In it, he mentioned the use case of “design systems”, which seems like an awful big one to me. These days, if you’re creating a design system, doing it in anything other than web components seems weird. Web components will last and be movable between frameworks as your project evolves, with little if any downside.

While we’re on the subject let’s just get a little more into the weeds.

Ultimately a Web Component is a class in JavaScript. It has standard methods, like a constructor that is called when the class is instantiated. It also has a method connectedCallback that runs when on each instance of a web component when it shows up in the DOM. This is a bit of a subtle difference and can be quite a gotcha, as Nolan Lawson says. If your component needs to do stuff that might be unique to each instance, that belongs in connectedCallback. I think it’s a real superpower of web components! For example, it’s kinda like getting event delegation for free.

There is an approach to web components called HTML web components which is essentially:

1. Take some perfectly acceptable HTML
2. Wrap it in a <web-component> to extend the functionality

That’s fun and obviously useful (e.g. a blog post with a web component would render fine over RSS). It’s related but not quite the same declarative shadow DOM. Raymond Camden explores something interesting here… how does a web component know if the HTML inside it changes? Unfortunately there is no obvious solution or helper API for this… other than the platform itself. The trick is that you use a MutationObserver on itself internally to watch for changes and then do whatever you gotta do. Interesting stuff. I’d be tempted to rip the whole thing out of the DOM and replace it just so connectedCallback does it’s thing, rather than craft every web component such that it’s watching for it’s own changes.

I hadn’t really thought that much about watching for changes like that before, as it just hasn’t come up for me. Similarly, Ben Nadel points out that the contents of a <template> can be mutated at any time, and new components instantiated off it will use that new content. That makes sense to me, it’s just a twist of how I normally think of components. I think of the template as this static thing which takes data and does what it needs to do. Less so do I think of a template itself that is dynamic based on data.

User journey maps are a remarkably effective way to visualize the user’s experience for the entire team. Instead of pointing to documents scattered across remote fringes of Sharepoint, we bring key insights together — in one single place.

Let’s explore a couple of helpful customer journey templates to get started and how companies use them in practice.

This article is part of our ongoing series on UX. You might want to take a look at Smart Interface Design Patterns 🍣 and the upcoming live UX training as well. Use code BIRDIE to save 15% off.

AirBnB Customer Journey Blueprint (also check Google Drive example) is a wonderful practical example of how to visualize the entire customer experience for two personas, across eight touch points, with user policies, UI screens and all interactions with the customer service — all on one single page.

Now, unlike AirBnB, your product might not need a mapping against user policies. However, it might need other lanes that would be more relevant for your team. For example, include relevant findings and recommendations from UX research. List key actions needed for the next stage. Include relevant UX metrics and unsuccessful touchpoints.

Whatever works for you, works for you — just make sure to avoid assumptions and refer to facts and insights from research.

Spotify Customer Journey Blueprint (high resolution) breaks down customer experiences by distinct user profiles, and for each includes mobile and desktop views, pain points, thoughts, and actions. Also, notice branches for customers who skip authentication or admin tasks.

To get started with user journey maps, we first choose a lens: Are we reflecting the current state or projecting a future state? Then, we choose a customer who experiences the journey — and we capture the situation/goals that they are focusing on.

Next, we list high-level actions users are going through. We start by defining the first and last stages and fill in between. Don’t get too granular: list key actions needed for the next stage. Add the user’s thoughts, feelings, sentiments, and emotional curves.

Eventually, add user’s key touchpoints with people, services, tools. Map user journey across mobile and desktop screens. Transfer insights from other research (e.g., customer support). Fill in stage after stage until the entire map is complete.

Then, identify pain points and highlight them with red dots. Add relevant jobs-to-be-done, metrics, channels if needed. Attach links to quotes, photos, videos, prototypes, Figma files. Finally, explore ideas and opportunities to address pain points.

You don’t have to reinvent the wheel from scratch. Below, you will find a few useful starter kits to get up and running fast. However, please make sure to customize these templates for your needs, as every product will require its own specific details, dependencies, and decisions.

• User Journey Map Template (Figma), by Estefanía Montaña B.
• Customer Journey Mapping (PDF), by Taras Bakusevych
• End-To-End User Experience Map (Figma), by Justin Tan
• Customer Journey Map Template (Figma), by Ed Biden
• Customer Journey Map Template (Miro), by Matt Anderson
• Customer Journey Map (Miro), by Hustle Badger
• Customer Experience Map Template (Miro), by Essense
• The Customer Journey Map (Miro), by RSPRINT

Keep in mind that customer journeys are often non-linear, with unpredictable entry points and integrations way beyond the final stage of a customer journey map. It’s in those moments when things leave a perfect path that a product’s UX is actually stress-tested.

So consider mapping unsuccessful touchpoints as well — failures, error messages, conflicts, incompatibilities, warnings, connectivity issues, eventual lock-outs and frequent log-outs, authentication issues, outages, and urgent support inquiries.

Also, make sure to question assumptions and biases early. Once they live in your UX map, they grow roots — and it might not take long until they are seen as the foundation of everything, which can be remarkably difficult to challenge or question later. Good luck, everyone!

If you are interested in UX and design patterns, take a look at Smart Interface Design Patterns, our 10h-video course with 100s of practical examples from real-life projects — with a live UX training later this year. Everything from mega-dropdowns to complex enterprise tables — with 5 new segments added every year. Jump to a free preview. Use code BIRDIE to save 15% off.

100 design patterns & real-life examples.
10h-video course + live UX training. Free preview.