Share Your Feedback

In the traditional workflow, there is a default option to export assets (like SVGs) when sharing the development link. However, in Figma Make AI, there is no direct option to export assets.For example, SVG icons are automatically converted into inline code instead of being available as exportable image files. But for WordPress CMS, these assets are required as image files (like SVG or PNG) to upload in the backend.So, what is the best way to export these assets from Figma Make AI? Are there any available options or workarounds? Or is there any other way to get there via prompt?

I’m on the Education plan, and collaborating with people who have different subscriptions has become extremely frustrating. Collaboration simply isn’t working anymore. Even though everyone has verified their student status and clearly shows they have editing access, they’re still unable to edit the files. This is seriously affecting our productivity.I’m honestly disappointed with some of the recent changes Figma has introduced. I really hope these issues get resolved soon; otherwise, we’ll have to start considering other tools.

Make sure to read the updates to our Figma Education plan and let us know in this topic if you have any questions or feedback. A few quick reminders:If you need help with a specific account or file issue, please get in touch with our Support Team. A note on Forum Guidelines: Posts that veer off-topic or become unproductive may be moderated to keep the focus on the product at hand. Keep feedback focused on the updates to the Education plan — this helps everyone follow along.

Hi Figma team, Since the recent updates, it’s no longer possible to easily change image fills inside a frame by simply selecting the parent frame.Previously, selecting a frame allowed us to quickly replace image fills contained within its child elements, which made workflows much faster — especially when working with templates, cards, or repeated layouts. Now, the Fill panel only shows the frame’s own background color, and we must manually drill down into each nested element to replace images. This adds unnecessary friction and slows down production. It would be extremely helpful to bring back the ability to:• replace image fills from the parent frame selectionor• provide a quick “Replace image inside frame” actionFigma version 126.1.2 MAC OS This was a very efficient workflow for designers working with visual templates. Thank you 🙏 

I genuinely don’t understand how Figma continues to dominate given how hostile the experience has become — for both users and developers. The UX is chaotic and non-intuitive: layers buried under layers, controls hidden behind inconsistent interaction models, and navigation that feels designed to fight the user instead of helping them. For many people — especially neurodivergent users — the interface can feel actively exclusionary rather than empowering. It’s hard to shake the feeling that usability is no longer the priority. From a developer perspective, the situation is even worse. The platform is effectively closed. The MCP integration with Claude is read-only, and meaningful mutation requires plugins running inside Figma’s sandbox. There is no serious external API for programmatic design updates. That makes modern workflows — automation, CI-style pipelines, integration with engineering systems — far more difficult than they should be. Meanwhile nearly every capability surface seems

I think it would be very helpful to add select funtionality like selection colors for slots in the component instance panel.This would make it easier to quickly target the slot to use the repeat control, and also save library consumers from having to dig through the layers panel to find the slot on more complex components.

One of the things I used to love about Figma was collaboration. I have a paid Professional plan and my partner has another Professional plan. The thing is that we cannot collaborate in a same file. If I want to do that I have to paid another seat for her inside my team which is ridiculous because she is already paying for Figma.With that beeing said, the first time I fell into the trap and added her to my project. Nothing in the UI told me that I was going to be charged with another full seat (really bad UX and dark pattern from you Figma). There is only a button saying ‘Approve’, that’s it! I lost almost $80 because I added several friends to that single file. Figma, you robbered me.So, Figma, you are losing us, I saw this several years ago with Sketch and the community choose Figma. Now I’m open to explore other tools that allows me to work collaborative with other paid members (I’m not saying that I don’t want to pay).I used to love you, you changed! :(

I have a new branch and adding slots to some of libraries container components starting with modals. Set up and implmentation is fine but I added instructions to the slot description panel and I can’t seem to see how the designers are able to read them? When you select a slot in an instance you see two lines of text then it truncates, clicking the content does not open the rest of the instructions in a fly out and there seems to be no way to access the rest of the content. Am I missing something?  

I’m trying to recreate the structure of our Text Field web component with slots. I would prefer the Figma slots to behave similar to the <slot> element in that they wouldn’t reserve space until there is content in them.Currently I can work around this by adding a boolean property that controls visibility of each slot but this adds clutter to the property controls.In the properties panel slot contents are described as “Default” or “Modified”. Having a third state “Empty” that also hides the slot from Auto Layout would solve both for me. 

Here, I have an orange colour at 60% opacityPreviously I could paste a hex value in, and the colour would be replaced and remain at 60%Now it goes to 100% no matter what I paste here. As soon as I paste in a new hex value, I have to set it back to 60%.I am replacing a colour - not the opacity. Why change opacity as well? This is awful, and as of today, it has really slowed down my workflow. Thanks.

Has anyone else experienced a problem like this? I would like to understand why Figma is using such a sophisticated, misleading, simply a sharp practice of billing their services? I am a freelance start-up that has been charged for 8 other people accessing the file I have created. I have allowed access only for two of them and they shared further (probably) and I have been charged an additional $120 for their access. I was never alerted to the fact that apart from the monthly subscription, there will be additional charges. I don’t want to be a part of a service that is so wishy-washy in their billing offer. It is a disgusting practice. Probably I will look for alternatives to this service.

I’m not sure why this product is so disjointed.  integration is flimsy at best.

hey so im loving figma make ive built a few websites just by prompting but what i am confused about is why figma make and figma sites are 2 separate things i saw there is going to be an update to figma sites to be able to point and edit specific things but im just wondering where that then leaves figma make because now a couple of my websites are done i want to transfer them from figma make to figma site incase i want to make specific changes manually without prompting i just find the whole figma make and figma site separation confusing 

When you have a section selected, no colors show in the right-hand panel by default. So you click the “show colors” button and instead of showing you the colors, it gives a little preview of just 3 or so colors, and then you have to click again to show all the colors - this time with no prompt.What gives? Why make this take 2 clicks to see the damn colors? Also the second state takes up even less space than the first, just combine them into one so there’s a prompt for the user and a preview, or default to the second state from the beginning! Or the first state, frankly it doesn’t matter much its just annoying that its 2 clicks. Who would ever be like “Oh these 3 randomly chosen colors with no labels are exactly what I wanted to see here, all done.”UX rant over thanks.

Whether you are a major corporation or an emerging startup, you would have to decide which design system to utilise for your UX mockups.Do you choose a tried-and-true one like MUI or Carbon, which has a wide variety of created and produced components that are quick to implement but lack your brand's distinctive feel and representation?Or Do you choose an entirely original system that you build and install from the ground up to best represent your brand in terms of colour, font, iconography, and other elements that really set you apart?Let's examine the peculiar argument between Sir UI Kit and Captain Custom to see what works best for you.Consistency vs. Uniqueness88% of users anticipate scalability and smooth multi-device experiences from UI Kits, which also save developers time with defined patterns. Faster delivery and brand consistency are advantageous to businesses.Although they take more time and money, custom components provide distinctive, unforgettable experiences that are esse

When creating a new project within a workspace, you’re able to change access to invited people only, but it gives access to everyone in the project’s containing workspace. Below is the screen with messaging when I change access to Only invited people. “Only people you’ve directly invited can access this project” means, to me, that only people I’ve sent an invite to within the project space will be able to see its contents. However, when you create the project and go into “Share”, everyone in the workspace where the project was created can access the project (Shown below). You have to go into that row and remove the access of that group. This feels deceptive and creates an unnecessary step (or few) to resolve. 

Hi Team,I am writing to implore you to restore a small but critical interaction detail that was removed in a previous update.The Issue: Previously, when a user adjusted a property via a slider (specifically Drop Shadows, Strokes, or Corner Radius), the blue selection bounding box would temporarily disappear. This allowed us to see the exact effect of the change in real-time.Currently, the blue selection outline remains visible while adjusting these properties. Because the outline sits directly on top of the edge of the element, it physically obstructs the pixels we are trying to style.Why this is critical: We are designing blind: It is impossible to fine-tune a subtle shadow or a 1px border when a 2px blue line is covering it. Broken Workflow: What used to be a fluid process is now a friction loop. To see what I’ve actually designed, I have to: Adjust -> Click away to deselect -> Look -> Reselect -> Adjust again. This loss of immediate visual feedback hurts the craft of p

Picture this: You step into a role at a rapidly scaling enterprise launching multiple products simultaneously. Initially, team autonomy feels efficient. Everyone builds their own UI elements and moves fast. However, as the product suite grows, fractures begin to appear. You start noticing inconsistent visual styles, duplicate code, and misaligned user interfaces.As the developer responsible for creating cohesion, you realize the solution isn't just "fixing bugs", it’s implementing a Design System. This system serves as the anchor that keeps all teams aligned, regardless of how fast the organization grows.Bridging the Gap: The Birth of a Unified SystemThe journey begins with an audit. You gather the teams and discover a chaotic reality: three different versions of the same button, slightly varying modal windows, and inconsistent card layouts. To solve this, you need a Single Source of Truth.A robust design system unifies these scattered fragments. It is more than a component library; it

Like many design systems, our current library uses placeholders + instance swap and we would love to switch to slots.The issue: While it’s possible to wrap placeholders in a slot to preserve content in existing instances, that content is no longer preserved when the instance swap property is removed from the original component. As soon as we remove the instance swap property from the parent component, all instances lose their swapped content.This means we have two options:Remove the property anyway and cause major breaking changes to hundreds of projects Accept redundant properties in the already crowded property panel for any component we switch from instance swap to slotsI’d be very happy if we could remove the property, or rather reassign its function to the new slot. 

Recently I unpleasantly discovered that anyone with view access to my file could duplicate it to their drafts. When trying to prevent this privacy and intellectual property leak, I discovered a way to block this by adjusting my sharing settings and unchecking the option:However, soon after my developers realised that they could now not export icons.  It seems like a way to control the posibility to fully copy a design file should be independent from the capability from exporting content to non-editable formats. Unfortunately, I cannot find a way to do so. I currently have to choose what to jeaopardize, our design's intellectual property or developers work.Please let me know how to keep my designs files safe from duplication without impacting production. Thank you.

I use figma for a lot of subtracting and a bit more complex workflows, i would love to use figma’s tool more but working with pages that lag each time i make a change, cause of figma using only a few gb of RAM (I have 32) and only a single core is really annoying. Currently i use figma to design for game interfaces games and changing softwares is really not an options for me so adding this would definitely help a lot.

So the conclusion of today's update is that it is not easy to use and is prone to component explosion. It is only used in specific scenarios and is not as comfortable as using large components and instances. If we add slot content for switching in the future, there may be many gameplay options. Moreover, it is interesting to convert slots into components without using them. However, the problem now is that if I create a slot, about 3-5 components will be generated, which will explode later on

Hi Team,Super excited about slots. I was at the Figma Sydney event yesterday, loved hearing Zoe talk about the process. I’ve been trialling it out today. I notice that we have started putting slots into some of our DS components, particularly helpful for the the input field component, which is roughly 44 px high.I notice that if I have an instance of an input field into my design and try and use the slot in the leading icon spot, if my browser or window is zoomed out too far, I notice that the pink ring shows up but the tiny plus in the middle to add the component. I have to zoom in in order to see the plus icon and then interact with slots, because I notice that the area around or the pink field itself is not directly interactable.  Loving it otherwise!

I have created some slots for columns in my table component and I cannot duplicate them from the parent component instance. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. To solve this, I have to add a duplicate using the + button, and then they can be duplicated without any problems.