Suggest a Feature

Coming from a design org where designers with full-seats have a variety of workflow-types. Some designers leverage AI heavily while others do not, thus some designers burn through AI credits and others have a generous amount that go to waste in that AI credit cycle. This trend can vary, of course, so as an admin, I think it would benefit our organization with some type of allocation or redistribution of AI credits to those seats who rely on them during a given credit cycle—credits that are technically available within our organization. It could even be a designer-to-designer interaction where Designer A shares 1000 credits with Designer B if they know they don’t need all their credits that cycle.Is anyone else seeing this trend in their organization, or see this as a potential scenario? I want to make sure we’re getting the most for our money and optimizing resources across the team.

Subject: Feature Request: Show Variable Usage Count Hello Figma Team 👋,I have a small suggestion that could improve designers' productivity.Please add a usage count for each Variable (Design Token) in the Variables panel. This would show how many times a variable is being used, so designers can quickly understand which variables are in use and which are not.This would help with:Finding unused variables Cleaning up design systems Avoiding accidental deletion of used variables Saving time when managing tokensI'm attaching a screenshot for reference.I would be happy if you could reply to my feedback.Thank you, and Happy Figma! 🎨✨Zahid

Whatever I try, I can’t seem to work with .mov or .webm videos with transparent background on Figma. Whenever I upload them, I get a black background. Am I doing something wrong? Or is there a workaround for this?

Web performance is no longer optional, it’s a core part of the user experience. Yet today, 2026, exporting assets from Figma still requires external tools or manual workflows when teams want to use modern formats like WebP.Adding WebP as a native export option in the export panel would solve a very real and widespread problem:Smaller file sizes without sacrificing quality Faster load times for websites and apps Better alignment with modern frontend standards and performance budgets Reduced reliance on third-party tools or batch conversion scripts (love your plugins folks, but let’s be realistic, it should be a core feature)Right now, the gap between design and production increases unnecessarily because designers can’t export assets in the formats the modern world actually uses. This creates friction, slows down workflows, and introduces inconsistencies (e.i. WordPress natively supports it now).Figma has always been about closing the gap between design and development. Supporting WebP e

I’m constantly clicking on this by accident. Is there a way to disable this shortcut so it doesn’t appear on every single frame?

As a Figma user, i would like to have the ability to add “items” to components. For example, to add a new selection option in an overlaying menu component or adding a new row to a table component. Currently to achieve this ability i have to create sets of components with either many items already existing, or several ranges of items (5,10,15,20 items) this creates more components to manage and is not scalable. if i need to add more, i have to detach the component 😱 😱 😱 Here is an example of how i currently work: An awesome ability would be to also rearrange the items within the component (without breaking it!) I would love to see this feature and hope you will consider it. Thank you!

I need to create internal linking PDF exports; a multipage document with a table of contents that provides links to the relevant pages. If I use the link tool, the links generated in the exported PDF go to the web URL of the linked frames, and does not navigate to the page within the PDF. Using prototype linking does not generate any interactivity in the PDF at all. It would be useful for either the prototyping tool or link tool to generate interactive internally-linked PDF exports.

{Commenting as Guests} Clients wanting to give access to prototypes to temporary teams without the need to create accounts as guests only, allowing comments and feedback within Figma prototypes. Possibly allowing these users to make comments on prototypes as Guests with temporary names.

Hello 👋 First, I’m happy about the opportunity where I can make an impact on this amazing product. My idea is pretty simple but can make a huge difference in the way we share files with stakeholders and colleagues. I suggest adding the ability to give different access (viewer/editor) for pages within a Figma file. Because in most cases, we’re trying to include a whole project, feature, or function, whether small or big, in one Figma file - it becomes a real pain-point if the lowest level of grant permissions it’s the file itself instead of the pages within the file. I’m sure a lot in this community can agree with me that many times you gave people access - it was relevant to certain areas of the file, and less to other areas. I want to give content writers access to a specific page where they can edit and review content. I want to give developers access to a specific page where they can play with responsive layers and explore edge-cases. I want to leave experiments (Some would

Hello, I tried Figma slides to re-create my portfolio, which I had already created in Figma, because I was attracted by the possibility to quickly reorder the slides. However, I noticed a problem: while I can create internal links in Figma slides which allow me to jump from a slide to another, when I export said slides as a PDF, the internal links are substituted with external links which jump back to the Figma website when clicked, instead of allowing you to navigate through the PDF inside your own pdf viewer. This is a problem for various reasons: you can’t easily navigate around the .pdf offline, since each time you click the supposedly internal links you instead get redirected to a web page; the offline .pdf and the online version can be out of sync. Meaning that the offline versions, which may be several and have different slide orders or different elements (it’s common practice to slightly tweak a portfolio when you send it to different clients) will all point to the same figmas

So I like to use tables inside my FigJam file to track work that I’ve done on a project. I have a list of things to do inside a cell in the table, and I use the “thumbs-up” sticker to mark that things are done. But if I later add rows to the table, the stickers I’ve placed on the table shift down to keep their position relative to the dimensions of the entire table. I think a better behaviour would be for stickers to keep their position relative to the cell of the table they’ve been placed on, similar to how they try to stick to the edge of a sticky note.

In Figma Capture, the left-side “Figma Capture” logo/label looks like a clickable button because it is placed in the same toolbar style as Capture page and Select element.At first, I clicked it multiple times thinking it was a button, but later realized it is only the logo/branding and not clickable. For normal users, this can be confusing because it looks like an action item.A small improvement could be to make the logo area visually different from the buttons, add more separation, or remove the button-like styling so users can clearly understand what is clickable and what is not.

Has anyone else needed to dynamically update the copyright year in their designs? Whether it's for a website footer, a presentation deck, or maybe a timestamp, it's tedious to manually update them to ensure they stay current.It would be incredibly useful if we could fetch a native {Current Date/Time} token directly within the value field of a "set variable" action.Imagine being able to write a simple expression like:"Copyright © " + {Current Date: YYYY} + " MyCompanyName"This feature would be a massive quality-of-life improvement.Additionally, it will also be great if an “Onload” Trigger can be added so these variables are available without any delay. 

Currently there is a huge limitation in prototyping possibilities because any dropdown menus appear underneath the following element in the autolayout flow. I can’t remove autolayout because it would break designs across all useage of design system components and we can’t properly demo prototypes. Anchored by the lack of a customizable z-index property.

We can connect a table with any other object in the FigJam using an arrow. But often I am trying to connect row items from a table with another table in FigJam. As soon as I make changes to table content the arrow don’t move. I would be nice to drop the source or destination end of arrow to a Row or column.

Managing local variables is pretty cumbersome and buried in menus. Bringing over the variable window found in Figma, would be big help in managing local variables.

I’d really like to be able to lock a layer, but continue to work on its child layers. This would be particularly useful when working within a layer within an auto-layout.

QOL feature request.I will never want AI in my workflow and it’s just kept being marketed to me which takes me out of the flow. It also gets very tedious to block these features one by one with a browser extension.It would be a very useful and friendly feature to make Figma account fully AI-free with a single toggle. I’d make it up to my team members if they want to use AI, so I wouldn’t make this a team/org level setting.

Could it be handsome to be able to extract a component from a design ?Because of our current process (no design system) we all do things similar a lot and it is a little difficult to produce a components library.Be able to extract a component directly form a design (with a direct replacement of what was extracted with corresponding instance) would be handsomely helping to build our design system more quickly.

The Check designs tool is really useful but I have one big problem with it. In some cases I have used items or colors outside the design system by intention, (annotations or information to the developer or business as the built in annotation is not visible for all). I would need to be able to ignore some design suggestions. Right now I can not use the check design function as only some of the suggestions actually applies. So, my suggestion is to either be able to ignore suggestions that aren’t correct or select those that you want to apply.

User groups in the admin panel currently get an auto-assigned icon (a generic people silhouette) and a randomly assigned background color. It would be great to have the option to customize both, similar to how workspaces already support custom icons and colors. Why it would help:- Makes groups easier to identify at a glance, especially for orgs with lots of groups- Lets teams align group visuals with their internal branding or team identity (e.g. a "Design" group with a design-related icon, a client team with the client's brand color)- Reduces the confusion of having group names and colors feel disconnected (a "Blue Team" showing up with a green icon, for example)

Hi Figma developers! It turns out that exporting Figma fonts in JSON format provides the result that looks smth like this: "style": { "fontFamily": "Quattrocento Sans", "fontPostScriptName": "QuattrocentoSans-BoldItalic", "fontSize": 72, "fontWeight": 700, "italic": true, "letterSpacing": 0, "lineHeightPercent": 100, "lineHeightPx": 84.375, "lineHeightUnit": "INTRINSIC_%", "textAlignHorizontal": "CENTER", "textAlignVertical": "CENTER" }, for a page like this: And we face the necessity to invent some special algorithms for knowing the actual style name (that is “Bold Italic” in the ex

Here’s the translation of your text into English: "The page and layer separators need improvement. Even though I create a lot of pages, every time the client wants to review the designs, they don’t realize that more pages have been created below. For example, maybe a slight fade effect could be added to the bottom of the pages to indicate that there are more pages below. Additionally, the separator between pages and the separator between pages and layers look very similar, making them hard to distinguish from one another."

I’ve run into a limitation with auto layout when working with components that use slots.Currently, the auto layout direction (horizontal/vertical) defined in the main component seems to be locked for any instances. When content is placed into a slot, it inherits that direction and there’s no way to override it locally at the instance level.This becomes restrictive in cases where the same structural component needs to adapt to slightly different layout contexts.Is there a technical reason why auto layout direction is fixed this way? For example, is it tied to how slots are implemented under the hood or how layout calculations propagate from the main component?It would be very useful to allow overriding the auto layout direction per slot.

hey Figma fam, so, we’ve been going on about this for ages, but seriously, when are we getting the “lock guides” feature? it’s 2024, and we’re still nudging guides by mistake 🙄 we all know the drill - you’re in the zone, designing away, and then oops, there goes your guide. it’s like playing a game of ‘spot the difference’ trying to get it back in place. super annoying. i mean, how many times do we need to ask, right? it’s a no-brainer feature that would make our lives so much easier. locked guides = no more accidental shifts. simple. let’s give it another shot. maybe if we all shout about it (again), Figma will finally listen and add it to their to-do list. who’s with me? catch ya later! flo