Perspective

Visual testing is a design problem, not just an engineering one

Pixel diffs detect change. They can't judge intent. Bringing designers into the visual approval loop transforms noisy tests into confident design sign-off.

Join the waitlist

The designer-engineer trust gap

Most visual testing workflows are engineering-only. A developer makes a change, visual tests detect differences, the developer reviews the diff, and approves the new baseline. The design team is nowhere in this loop.

This creates a trust gap. Engineers approve changes they don't fully understand. Designers discover problems after code ships. Both sides end up frustrated—engineers feel blamed for design inconsistencies they couldn't see, designers feel excluded from decisions about visual quality.

Engineers approve changes they don't understand

Developers see a diff, verify it's intentional, and approve—without knowing if it matches the design spec.

Designers discover problems after deployment

Design inconsistencies surface in production because nobody with design context reviewed the changes before merge.

Visual testing becomes engineering-only

Tests exist to prevent regressions, but engineers treat them as a code quality gate rather than a design quality gate.

Rework cycles increase

Changes that looked fine to engineers get flagged in design review, requiring additional fix-up commits.

Engineering-only approval

When engineers own visual approval entirely, the focus naturally shifts to technical correctness. Did the change cause the diff? Yes. Was it intentional? Yes. Approved.

Fast but incomplete

Engineers can quickly approve changes, but may miss design intent violations that aren't obvious bugs.

Technical focus

Review focuses on whether code works, not whether the result aligns with design specifications or brand guidelines.

Assumption of correctness

If the change was intentional and doesn't break functionality, it gets approved—even if it deviates from design.

This isn't negligence—it's reasonable behavior. Engineers optimize for what they can evaluate: functionality, performance, code quality. Visual design intent often isn't visible in diffs or specs they have access to.

Designer-in-the-loop approval

A different approach routes visual changes to designers for approval. Not as a bureaucratic gate, but as a natural extension of the design review process.

Context-aware review

Designers understand intent and can distinguish between acceptable variations and actual regressions.

Catch issues earlier

Design problems get flagged during code review rather than after deployment or in the next design sync.

Shared ownership

Visual consistency becomes a shared responsibility between design and engineering rather than an afterthought.

The key shift is ownership. Visual consistency stops being an engineering afterthought and becomes a shared responsibility with clear accountability.

Ownership reduces rework

When designers approve visual changes before merge, problems get caught earlier. A misaligned margin or wrong color value gets flagged in the PR, not in a production design audit weeks later.

This front-loads effort but reduces total work. Catching issues during development is faster than fixing them after release—no context switching, no separate tickets, no coordination overhead.

Building confidence in UI changes

Designer approval transforms visual testing from a defensive tool (catch regressions) into a proactive one (confirm intent). Engineers can ship with confidence knowing design has signed off. Designers can trust that their specifications are being followed.

This confidence extends to the whole team. Product managers know visual quality is being actively maintained. QA can focus on functionality rather than pixel-checking. The release process has one less source of last-minute surprises.

Making it practical

Designer involvement shouldn't mean designers reviewing every CSS change. Effective workflows filter noise, surface meaningful changes, and integrate into tools designers already use.

This requires addressing the flakiness problem first. Designers won't engage with a system that shows 50 meaningless diffs per PR. Clean signal is a prerequisite for designer involvement.

For a broader view of visual testing approaches, the visual regression testing guide covers fundamentals and common failure modes.

Related guides

Visual diff approval workflowsBaseline management best practicesStorybook visual testing for design systemsVisual regression testing fundamentals

Frequently Asked Questions

Why should designers review visual test results?
Engineers can verify that visual changes are intentional but often lack context to judge whether they're correct. Designers understand design intent, brand guidelines, and component specifications—they can distinguish between acceptable variation and actual regression.
Won't designer review slow down development?
It can, if implemented poorly. Effective workflows surface only meaningful visual changes to designers, filter out noise, and integrate into existing review processes. The goal is informed review, not additional bureaucracy.
What is the designer-engineer trust gap?
The trust gap is the disconnect between what engineers ship and what designers intended. Engineers may approve visual changes that technically work but don't match design specs. Designers may not see changes until production. Both sides end up frustrated.
How do you bring designers into a CI workflow?
Designers shouldn't need to understand CI pipelines. Effective workflows present visual diffs in accessible formats—web interfaces, design tool integrations, or PR comments—with enough context to make informed decisions without touching code.
What is intent-based visual testing?
Intent-based testing focuses on whether UI changes align with design intent rather than just detecting pixel differences. It asks 'is this change correct?' not just 'did something change?' This requires human judgment, ideally from someone with design context.
Should every visual change require designer approval?
Not necessarily. Teams might require designer approval for component library changes while letting engineers own application-specific views. The key is clear ownership and appropriate routing based on what changed.
How do you handle urgent fixes that need designer approval?
Build in escape hatches. Engineers might have authority to approve critical fixes with async designer notification, or certain change types might have pre-approval. The workflow should support real development velocity, not block it.
Does designer approval eliminate the need for visual testing?
No. Visual testing catches regressions and surfaces changes for review. Designer approval ensures those changes get reviewed by someone with appropriate context. They're complementary—testing provides signal, approval provides judgment.

Interested in designer-friendly visual testing? Join the waitlist

Get early access