Navigating the Challenges of Interactive Prototyping in Figma: A Case Study

Introduction

In the world of user interface design, Figma stands out as a powerful tool for creating interactive prototypes. However, as with any tool, it has its limitations, especially when dealing with complex interaction logic. This article explores the challenges I faced while trying to implement a seemingly simple interaction in Figma and the eventual solution that was arrived at after navigating through various constraints.

The Problem

The task was to design a set of interactive components—specifically, options related to Menstrual Health, Cervical Health, and Contraception—that could be selected and deselected by users. The primary requirements were:

1. Mutually Exclusive Selection: Only one option could be selected at a time. If a new option was selected, the previously selected option would automatically deselect.
2. Error State: If a user attempted to select another option while one was already selected, the newly selected option would enter an error state.
3. Automatic Reset: When the originally selected option was deselected, any options in the error state should automatically reset to their default state.

On the surface, this seemed like a straightforward task, but as I delved deeper into Figma’s interaction capabilities, several challenges arose.

Challenges Faced

1. Lack of Global State Management: Unlike traditional programming environments, Figma does not support global variables or states that can be shared across different components. This made it difficult to create interactions that could influence the state of multiple components simultaneously.
2. Conditional Logic Limitations: Figma’s conditional logic is limited to basic “if-else” statements within the scope of a single component. This restriction meant that it was impossible to directly control the state of one component based on the state of another.
3. Interaction Complexity: Coordinating interactions across multiple components, ensuring that states reset correctly, and managing the error states without direct communication between components added layers of complexity that were difficult to manage within Figma’s current feature set.

Initial Attempts at a Solution

The initial approach involved trying to set up interactions within each component that would allow them to control the state of the others. The logic was based on the following steps:

1. Default State: Each component starts in a default state, waiting for user interaction.
2. Selection Interaction: When a user selects an option, it changes to the selected state, and a variable is set to indicate that it is selected.
3. Error State: If another option is selected while one is already in the selected state, the newly selected option would change to the error state.
4. Deselect Interaction: When a selected option is deselected, it should return to the default state, and any options in the error state should also reset.

However, due to Figma’s limitations, particularly the inability to set conditions that involve the states of multiple components, this approach did not work as intended. The interactions were not as fluid as required, and components did not reset automatically as expected.

The Final Solution

After multiple iterations and testing different approaches, a simplified solution was implemented:

1. Independent State Management: Each component was set up to manage its own state independently. This meant that each component had its own interactions to handle selection, error state, and resetting.
2. Manual Reset Logic: Instead of trying to directly reset other components through conditional logic, the focus was on ensuring that when a component was deselected, it would reset itself correctly. Additional interactions were set up within each component to manually check and reset other components if necessary.
3. User-Driven Interactions: Recognizing the limitations, the final solution involved accepting that some interactions would require additional user input. For example, if an option was in an error state, the user might need to click on it again to reset it, rather than relying on an automatic reset.

While not the most elegant solution, this approach worked within Figma’s constraints and provided a functional prototype that met the basic requirements.

Lessons Learned

This experience highlighted several key insights about working with Figma’s interactive prototyping features:

1. Understand Tool Limitations: Figma is a powerful tool, but it has its limits, particularly when it comes to complex interaction logic. Understanding these limits upfront can help in planning more feasible solutions.
2. Iterative Testing: Building complex interactions in Figma requires constant testing and iteration. Small changes can have significant impacts, so it’s essential to test frequently to ensure everything works as expected.
3. Simplify Where Possible: When faced with tool limitations, sometimes the best solution is to simplify the design. This might involve adjusting the interaction flow or reducing the complexity of the prototype to fit within the tool’s capabilities.
4. User-Centric Design: Ultimately, the goal is to create a prototype that users can interact with intuitively. If the tool imposes limitations, it’s important to balance technical constraints with user experience to deliver a functional and usable prototype.

Conclusion

Designing complex interactions in Figma can be challenging, especially when dealing with state management and conditional logic across multiple components. However, by understanding the tool’s limitations and iteratively refining the approach, it’s possible to create effective prototypes that meet the design goals. This case study serves as a reminder that even the most powerful tools have their constraints, and finding creative solutions within those boundaries is a critical skill for designers.