Design tokens are often treated as a technical detail within a design system. But when set up incorrectly they lay the groundwork for inconsistent interfaces, slow workflows, and chaotic product landscapes.
In short: design tokens are no gimmick — they are critical business infrastructure. Unfortunately, many teams recognise this too late.
Design tokens are considered the backbone of modern design systems. Working without them today is seen as outdated.
But here lies the fallacy: tokens are not an end in themselves. They don't automatically make your design system better — they can also destroy it.
If poorly conceived or sloppily implemented, design tokens transform from the great hope into the biggest weakness of your system.
Let's look at the mistakes that happen most often — and how to avoid them.
Many teams think: “We need tokens right from the start so everything stays tidy.” Wrong. Tokens are an abstraction of design decisions — they only make sense once those decisions have matured.
Defining tokens too early cements an unfinished design. Tokens then become a stumbling block for creative iterations instead of a stabilizing element.
At minddraft we deliberately start without tokens in the early design phase. Only when visual and functional patterns are clear do we abstract them into a scalable token system.
Too often tokens are treated only as "color", "font size" or "spacing". Technically correct — strategically wrong. Tokens need context: branding, UX principles, accessibility. Otherwise you define blue as #0044CC but forget it stands for “Primary Action” — and should have the same effect everywhere.
That's why we always define tokens within their context. This ensures they are not only technically correct but also semantically consistent.
If every team invents its own token names it ends in chaos: primaryColor, main-blue, action_primary, blue1. Without naming conventions there is no orientation, and no one knows which token comes from where or what it was intended for.
At minddraft we establish clear naming standards and a governance process that ensures tokens remain traceable and consistent.
Design → Tokens → Code? Think again. Design tokens aren't a one-way street. They should be fed back: when developers discover new states or accessibility requirements change, tokens must be adjusted.
Our design systems are set up so that this feedback loop is natural — without friction between design and development.
After three months nobody remembers what spacing-xs actually means. Missing or poor documentation is the fastest route to legacy hell.
We maintain our token documentation as a living part of the workflow. This keeps it up to date and understandable — even for new team members.
Many think: the more granular the better. Wrong. Too deep hierarchies or unnecessary sub-tokens make the system hard to maintain. Keep it simple.
We prioritize pragmatic token hierarchies that make everyday work easier — not harder.
The same gray suddenly appears five times — in slightly altered variants. Result: unnecessary complexity, maintenance hell, inconsistent UI.
Therefore we regularly audit token sets for redundancies and standardize them consistently.
Design tokens should be platform-agnostic. If you define them only in Figma or only for one frontend framework you lose flexibility. Your design system must be able to evolve — independent of the toolstack.
We develop token systems that are open to various platforms and frameworks. This keeps your system future-proof.
Design tokens may seem insignificant — but they determine the scalability of your design system. Those who underestimate them pay for it later.
Our call to action:
Treat tokens strategically, contextually and systematically from day one.
This is how we approach token systems at minddraft: pragmatic, scalable, context-based.
Tell us what you want to achieve – we will listen and help you take the next steps. Personally, clearly, and without detours.