And this isn't a new issue, Gina actually called this out two years ago at Clarity 2020. And she asked us to think about our design systems simply as our design as a system, she asked us to focus less on deliverables and more on the practice of doing the work The current represents our unique context, our organization's needs, and the barriers and challenges that we face along the way. And in pursuit of that one specific vision, we often find ourselves swimming against the current. So when we focus on the current and the friction, and when we find ourselves making no progress, we conclude that, or it must be us or the context, or the people around us. So efficiency is only valuable if it helps us to move faster towards meaningful outcomes for the people using our products and services. Consistency is only valuable if we standardize things to a good level of quality.06:17So there's nothing good about consistently crap and scaling things is only valuable if there actually worth reproducing. So, it's really important that we take the time to look at where we are as an organization. and we ask ourselves, whether these things are actually going to deliver value for us, given where we are right? N Instead of asking contributors to approach us, we published our roadmap of components that we knew we needed to deliver in an order that made sense for us. We set up a weekly forum for contributors to provide input into the components and patterns that we were working on with each week, concentrating on a different component.13:29And we use the sessions to gather requirements and insights and examples and feedback on our early designs. We then took the outcomes of that session and used that to then guide the development of the component or pattern in question, before eventually publishing it And this approach allowed us to start establishing this culture of collaboration and contribution that we knew that we needed, without getting completely derailed by ad hoc submissions.13:59The sessions started to strengthen relationships between designers and developers in our organization, and to cross--pollinate knowledge between those disciplines. So, we created a practice that worked much better for us by abandoning convention, in favor of doing something that was right for our context. ReactJS Tutorial - 8 - JSX How does JSX's simplicity translate into efficiency gains (or losses) when dealing with complex React applications? What are the potential long-term implications of the proposed breaking changes to JSX in future React versions? Beyond React, are there other frameworks or libraries that utilize a similar approach to JSX, and what are their advantages and disadvantages? Considering the evolution of web development, what future innovations might render JSX obsolete or significantly alter its role? How does the use of JSX impact the debugging and maintenance of large-scale React projects? This segment explains that while not strictly required for React development, JSX simplifies and enhances the elegance of React code. It bridges the gap between the familiarity of HTML-like syntax and the underlying JavaScript functionality, making it accessible to developers from various backgrounds. This segment focuses on the second parameter of `React.createElement`, which handles attributes. It explains how to add attributes like `id` and `class` (using `className` in JSX) and demonstrates the differences between using attributes directly in JSX vs. the `React.createElement` method. It also highlights a common pitfall involving the `class` keyword. This segment provides a foundational understanding of JSX, defining it as an extension to JavaScript syntax used with React for writing XML-like code within React components. It highlights the core purpose of JSX as a means to create and structure elements and components in a more readable and familiar manner.