Northline · 2021
A system that outlived me
Four product teams, four interpretations of the same brand. The interesting part was never the components — it was the contribution model that kept them honest after I left.
- 62
- Components shipped
- −40%
- Time to build a new screen
- AA
- Contrast enforced in the contract
The situation
Northline had a brand book and four teams quietly ignoring it. Every team had built its own button, its own form field and its own idea of what a modal should do. The cost showed up as inconsistency for users and as rework for engineers.
What we did
- 01
We audited what existed before proposing what should
Screenshots of every interface surface, sorted into piles. 19 button variants. 11 input styles. Six modal behaviours. Showing that inventory to the leadership team made the case better than any argument could.
- 02
Accessibility became part of the component contract
Contrast, focus order, keyboard behaviour and reduced-motion handling were built into each component and tested in CI. Teams could not ship an inaccessible variant without deliberately working around the system.
- 03
Contribution beat enforcement
Any engineer could propose a component through a one-page template. Review happened weekly, in public, with a decision every time. Nothing sat in a queue, so nobody routed around the system.
- 04
We wrote the handover before we needed it
Ownership, review cadence, deprecation policy and versioning were documented in month three, not month twelve. That document is why the system is still maintained.
Where it landed
Four teams build from one system. New screens take roughly 40% less time to assemble, and accessibility regressions are caught before review. The system has had three maintainers since me and has not forked.
Next project
Booking for people who do it twice a year