Component Acceptance Criteria

Component acceptance criteria define the requirements that new components must meet before joining a design system. Clear component acceptance criteria ensure consistent quality, prevent premature additions, and provide contributors with explicit targets.

What Are Component Acceptance Criteria

Component acceptance criteria are the documented standards that proposed components must satisfy for inclusion in the design system. Criteria typically span multiple dimensions including design quality, code quality, accessibility compliance, documentation completeness, and alignment with system patterns.

Acceptance criteria serve dual purposes. They protect system quality by establishing minimum standards. They also enable contribution by telling potential contributors exactly what their submissions must achieve. Ambiguous criteria frustrate contributors and produce inconsistent decisions.

How Component Acceptance Criteria Work

Design criteria specify visual and interaction requirements. Components must use design tokens appropriately, follow spacing and typography patterns, and maintain visual consistency with existing components. Interaction patterns should align with established conventions for state management, feedback, and user input handling.

Technical criteria address code quality requirements. Components must pass all tests, meet code coverage thresholds, follow coding standards, and implement required patterns for accessibility, internationalization, and customization. Technical criteria often include specific framework requirements or API conventions.

Accessibility criteria ensure compliance with standards like WCAG. Components must support keyboard navigation, provide appropriate ARIA attributes, maintain sufficient color contrast, and work correctly with assistive technologies. Accessibility criteria are often non-negotiable requirements rather than best-effort goals.

Documentation criteria require adequate guidance for consumers. Components need complete props documentation, usage examples, behavior descriptions, and guidance on appropriate use cases. Documentation must be accurate and stay synchronized with implementation.

Key Considerations

• Criteria should be specific and measurable where possible
• Documentation of criteria should be easily accessible to potential contributors
• Criteria should evolve as system standards and capabilities mature
• Enforcement should be consistent across all contributions
• Exceptions should be rare and explicitly documented

Common Questions

How do organizations develop acceptance criteria?

Organizations develop acceptance criteria by examining what makes existing components successful and identifying gaps that created problems. Input from consumers helps identify what documentation and quality standards matter most. Industry standards and accessibility requirements provide baseline criteria. Criteria should be reviewed periodically and updated based on experience.

Should all criteria be mandatory?

Organizations typically distinguish between mandatory and recommended criteria. Mandatory criteria like accessibility compliance must be met for any acceptance. Recommended criteria like preferred patterns may permit exceptions with justification. Clear distinction helps contributors understand flexibility boundaries.

How do acceptance criteria relate to contribution guidelines?

Contribution guidelines tell contributors how to submit work. Acceptance criteria tell them what their work must achieve. Guidelines describe process; criteria describe outcomes. Both are necessary for effective contribution. Contributors need to understand the process they will follow and the standards their submissions must meet.

Summary

Component acceptance criteria define standards for design system inclusion. Success requires clear, documented criteria spanning design, technical, accessibility, and documentation concerns. Organizations should invest in explicit criteria that protect quality while enabling contribution from potential contributors.