Storybook for Teams(storybookforteams.com)

over 2 years ago from Zack Brown, Product designer & co-founder @ Haiku

  • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

    Hey Sacha, thanks for this feedback

    To better understand where you're coming from: do you feel the same sentiment re: lottiefiles.com?

    Motion designers & developers have strongly positive associations with LottieFiles, from what we've seen via Haiku Animator.

    LottieFiles is commercial — AND it makes users' lives better. It builds on the Lottie open-source brand and enhances its ecosystem.

    That's exactly our goal with Storybook for Teams. Do you feel like we're missing that mark?

    5 points
    • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, over 2 years ago

      Well in the case of "LottieFiles", "Lottie" is a qualifier for "Files", so it's a bit clearer that it's a site built around the Lottie ecosystem: "Files for Lotties".

      "StorybookForTeams" though makes it sound much more like an "official" project since "Storybook" is the main noun in the construct.

      For example, do you see no difference between "HaikuFiles.com" and "HaikuForTeams.com"?

      5 points
      • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

        Storybook for Teams is an official project. It's built & maintained by Haiku (officially,) and we're doing our darndest to provide (official) value to the ecosystem. [1]

        LottieFiles is official in exactly the same way. GitHub is official too.

        Worth communicating: S4T isn't Haiku's first contribution to the design systems ecosystem — see diez.org. It also won't be our last. We have designs laid out for "Storybook Native," for example.

        [1] The raison d'être of open source is the ability to belong to no one. That includes the notion of "officialness" — see "Linux"!

        4 points
        • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, over 2 years ago

          What I meant is that "Storybook for Teams" makes it sound like a product put out by an entity or company called "Storybook". So to me it's a bit misleading and goes against that "open source belongs to no one" philosophy.

          I would have no problem with a product called "Classroom – Storybook for Teams" for example. I just find that piggy-backing on an established open-source product's brand and reputation so closely is a bit of a grey area for me.

          6 points
          • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

            I believe I understand your position — "x for y" makes a bold claim on x. Is it leeching off of x, or is it propping it up? Where's the razor?

            We are seeking to provide value to the Storybook ecosystem via democratizing access to the tool. We come into it understanding that there's not a centralized owner for the community, and that "everyone is free to contribute."

            This is an initial beta-launch though, and we are quite open to feedback & learning — and we are open to renaming this product if our understanding doesn't mesh with the community's.

            6 points
            • Maciej Golebiewski, over 2 years ago

              lol, I still don't think you get what he means...

              He's saying that it sounds like you folks are from Storybook. When in reality you are not affiliated in any way -- which is obviously misleading to the consumer.

              7 points
              • Afnizar Nur Ghifari, over 2 years ago

                At first, I thought this product is by Chroma (the core maintainers).

                I’ m agree! this totally misleading to the customer.

                1 point
                • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

                  Chroma has hired many of the Storybook contributors and has taken over the maillist, discord, etc. They've injected themselves as benevolent corporate overlords of the open-source project.

                  Others have expressed alarm over Chroma's actions and intentions: https://medium.com/protecting-storybooks-future/storybook-is-being-commercially-hijacked-463524825fbc

                  Your implicit sentiment that Storybook belongs to Chroma seems to validate some of the concerns of that author. If anyone is sowing a narrative of "owning Storybook" — well, I'd recommend double-checking where the "misleading" is coming from.

                  3 points
                  • Dominic Nguyen, over 2 years ago

                    Hey Dominic from Chroma here. I designed the Storybook UI, brand, website, and work on the design system.

                    Our team recently learned of this project. Our focus is building Storybook, as we have for 3 years now, and supporting customers of our visual testing tool Chromatic. We're not here for drama and haven't "sown" a thing.

                    Please leave us out of it ✌️

                    6 points
                    • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

                      Hey Dominic — mad respect to you, Chroma, Zol, and all of the work you've done contributing to the Storybook community.

                      I stand by the belief that any narrative of ownership between Chroma <> Storybook is harmful to the ideals open source. The "if-statement" above is far from an accusation.

                      Dominic, please speak up if you feel like Storybook for Teams is in poor form vis-a-vis the Storybook community! As a fellow career open-source contributor, don't you share the sentiment that it's good for Storybook that we're helping democratize access to the tool and helping spread awareness?

                      We are open to renaming the product.

                      7 points
              • Zack Brown, over 2 years ago

                What does it mean to be "from Storybook?"

                Is Red Hat Linux part of the Linux community? What about "Linux for Dummies?"

                My point is: Storybook is a community. Anyone can be part of an open-source community, but we're also contributing value to it! By democratizing Storybook. Storybook for Teams is Storybook.

                Just like Storybook Native will be Storybook.

                7 points