Scattered components
The same pattern was rebuilt in multiple places, allowing small differences to accumulate across the product.
Product Design · Design System · LMS
Rebuilding the design language behind LearnPress and Eduma so learning journeys, devices, and brand themes can grow on a consistent foundation.
01 · Overview
LearnPress is a WordPress LMS ecosystem for learners, instructors, administrators and education businesses.
As features and themes expanded, similar components were rebuilt separately. Naming, tokens, and documentation no longer pointed to one reliable source.
I mapped 93 screens to the product journey, standardized foundations and components, and checked those decisions against real UI. The figures below describe the design audit, not learner behavior.
02 · Product context
LearnPress supports the work of teaching and learning. Eduma brings that platform into different educational and brand contexts. A component change can surface in a course list, a learning flow, and several demos; scope therefore needs to be defined around journeys and shared rules.
This map interprets the product relationship shown in the design files. Source LearnPress screens and Eduma demos appear below.
03 · The design challenge
The same pattern was rebuilt in multiple places, allowing small differences to accumulate across the product.
Color, spacing, and radius were set manually instead of expressing their roles in the interface.
The system needed to support discovery, learning, assessment, collaboration, and administration.
The solution had to flex across WordPress themes and add-ons while giving developers clear implementation rules.
04 · Reframing the problem
How can the UI support more journeys and brand contexts without repeating the same decisions on every screen?
This is my design framing from the audit, not a claim from user testing.
05 · Product architecture
I organized 93 screens into seven stages of the learning journey. This made the relationships between touchpoints visible and allowed each screen to be traced back to its instance, component, and token.
Four real touchpoints show how the journey spans course discovery, learning, collaboration, and progress tracking.
Consistent lesson navigation, question states, and progress cues help learners understand where they are and what comes next.
Reusable patterns across courses, curricula, lessons, and assessments reduce the need to relearn each module.
Metrics, statuses, tables, and feedback follow shared rules so information can be interpreted and acted on consistently.
06 · Rebuilding the system
Color, typography, spacing, radius, surfaces, borders, actions, feedback, and icons were organized in layers. Components reference semantic tokens so changes can be controlled at the source.
Temporary names, typos, hidden characters, and duplicate variants were removed. Properties now describe style, size, state, content, layout, and direction.
Legacy values were identified separately so migration could continue without changing existing screens unexpectedly.
This example follows Eduma’s Global / Alias Color Tokens and semantic usage guide. The blue Global card illustrates a raw color value; it does not indicate a selected state.
The Global → Alias mapping is documented in Figma; the demo UI is where the mode is checked in context.See Eduma Main UI ↗
07 · Components in product context
Across course discovery and assessment, I examined component anatomy, state feedback, and how instances appear in product screens. Course Card and Quiz Choice provide two examples traceable to the source files. See Course Card in the discovery screen ↗
Check information order and layout behavior as Course Card moves from a multicolumn listing to one column.
08 · Responsive behavior
Using the Course Card anatomy above, I identified which information must retain its order and which behaviors to verify at each breakpoint. The adjacent diagram is a design checklist, not product UI.
These are responsive QA criteria; this case study does not claim a shipped mobile screen.
Figma shows vertical and horizontal Course Card variants. The Responsive / Usage specification defines columns and behavior at each breakpoint.
09 · Extending to Eduma
Eduma began as a UI Kit I built while developing several demos. As the scope grew, I restructured it into a Design System: separating Foundation from Component Source, consolidating Button, organizing Input as Base–Composite, and bringing icons into one canonical library.
Mode names and colors are drawn from Global / Alias Color Tokens in the Eduma Design System.
The demos share component architecture while adapting message, imagery, typography, and semantic color to their intended audiences.
10 · Design decisions & trade-offs
These trade-offs describe the consequences of the architecture recorded in the design files. They do not imply that every alternative was tested.
Problem: the same action role appears across different Eduma brand colors.
Decision: Global holds raw values; Alias names roles; components reference semantic tokens by mode.
Trade-off: each mode needs governance and QA, while Button can remain a shared component.
Evidence · Alias Color Tokens · 10 modesProblem: combining input type, size, and state in one matrix makes the source hard to maintain.
Decision: organize Base → Composite → Selection. Base has 30 variants (3 radii × 2 sizes × 5 states); Input / Field keeps ten type variants at product level.
Trade-off: library users must understand the nested relationship; this avoids a 300-variant matrix.
Evidence · Input Architecture / 01 BaseProblem: existing screens and icons cannot be replaced in a single design operation.
Decision: distinguish legacy values, relink icon instances, and inspect detached instances after migration.
Trade-off: migration requires additional checks but makes later updates more controlled.
See audit measures ↗11 · Measured outcomes
spacing properties in Eduma Component Source bound to tokens.
legacy icon instances relinked to the canonical library.
duplicate icon masters removed.
Input / Field type variants instead of a 300-variant matrix.
instances detached from their main components after migration.
standard documentation canvas width, down from as much as 5,200px.
These measures describe design assets and migration within the audited LearnPress / Eduma files. They do not measure delivery speed, conversion, or postlaunch learning outcomes.
12 · Product implications
One Button is maintained at the source, while ten Eduma color modes govern its expression across demos.
Input / Field is kept to 10 type variants instead of expanding into a 300-variant matrix. Actual design time savings have not been measured.
Spacing properties in Eduma Component Source are token-bound; more than 1,000 legacy icon instances were relinked to the canonical library.
Specifications cover anatomy, states, tokens, and breakpoints. This provides a consistent handoff reference, not a measured delivery-speed gain.
13 · Collaboration & handoff
The Eduma Course Card specification sets a Fill container with a maximum width of 1290px, Fill cards in the grid, fixed media aspect ratio, and touch targets of at least 44px. The semantic color guide lets developers map implementation back to component roles.
These specifications exist in the design file; development speed and code quality after handoff have not been measured here.
14 · Role & contribution
My contribution spanned three connected areas: creating the shared design source, designing new demos and themes using LearnPress, and producing the visual touchpoints needed for release.
Mapped screens and repeated patterns; defined Global / Alias tokens, typography, components, variants and states. Specified responsive behavior, migrated instances, and documented usage for development.
Designed additional demos and themes built on LearnPress, applying shared components to real interfaces while adapting expression to each educational and brand context.
Designed landing pages, thumbnails, covers, and illustrations for product releases, keeping the product UI, message, and visual language connected.
Role details were supplied by the designer. The case study shows demo UI; launch assets are not included as visual evidence here.