Suggest a Feature

We often need multiple versions of a single design that just have a different images. To do this in bulk in Figma Buzz currently, we would need to add the images to a spreadsheet, export to .xlsx and upload to Buzz. This is not faster than just adding each image to a Figma design.We would like to see added functionality built into Figma Buzz so that we can upload multiple images at once in the ‘bulk create’ section in order to create multiple iterations of the same design just with different images.We can see this working for designs that require multiple images as well – in the same way that Buzz allows us to assign columns of a spreadsheet to elements of a design, each image in a design could have its own multi-image upload button.This would speed up SO many tedious tasks!

Every time I open a file, comments are visible and I have to hide them manually with Shift+C. There's no way to set this once and forget it. A simple toggle in account preferences — just like the light/dark theme switch — would be perfect. Set it once, and comments stay hidden by default across all files.Also, visible comments noticeably slow things down, especially on older machines. Hiding them by default would make Figma feel much snappier day-to-day.

Figma, you guys are really cooking with the AI features. It's making workflow really, really special and I've been waiting for this moment for a long time. As I'm using it though, I'm seeing that there are some bottlenecks. I have a couple of ideas. I have a simple idea and a more complex one maybe for the future. The first one is simply just a prompt history where after you generate an image, you can see somewhere the original prompt that you used to generate that image. Many times when I need to iterate on a generation and I go back to edit the prompt, I can't find the prompt anywhere. I’ve started to copy the prompts that I write out and paste them into a text box every time I generate an image because I don't want to lose the prompt. I feel like it's a simple thing that would really improve the workflow. The second idea, and this one is a little bit more complex, but I think it's right in line with what you're moving towards, is prompt components with variables. So just like we hav

Figma once tried a Minimalist or hovering left & right panels in a beta version and then rolled it back. I loved the sensation of it because, sometimes, I feel trapped in the square of the canvas, and that layout made it feel freer while working. Yes, you can hide the UI, but you will need to show it again every time you need to click on a page/layer and edit something with the right panel. If people didn’t like it, make it optional, so we can decide our preference, as simple as that.

ProblemSlots are a powerful way to make components flexible, but today they are too open. Even when using Preferred Instances, designers can still insert any component or element into a slot. This flexibility often leads to misuse and breaks design system consistency—especially in large teams.Example:A Button component has an Icon slot.We want designers to use only approved icon components, but currently they can insert:Any other component Any vector or frame Any custom elementThis results in inconsistent UI, broken behavior, and extra review overhead for design system teams.Proposed FeatureAdd an option to restrict slot content to specific components or component sets.When creating or editing a slot, allow authors to:Define a restricted list of allowed components / component sets Prevent adding any elements outside this list Optionally show an error or warning when invalid content is attemptedHow this differs from Preferred InstancesPreferred Instances → Suggests what should be used R

When you delete an element in a nested structure, you lose all selection. This means if you want to continue working around that level, you have go dive again to that level (double-click, double click, double, click, double click…) Deleting an element should auto select the immediate upper level to stay where we’re currently working Or auto select the previous element in that hierarchy maybe, or the next one. But staying around there, not going back to root level.

Title: Figma Make GitHub connection flow does not clearly indicate organization-wide repository accessDescription:When connecting GitHub to Figma Make, the setup flow does not clearly communicate that the GitHub integration operates at the organization level and that repositories may be shared across users within the organization.As a result, repositories can receive content from other organization members' Figma Make projects, even when those projects are unrelated to the repository owner. Steps to Reproduce: Connect GitHub to Figma Make. Select a repository during setup. Create or work on projects within Figma Make. Observe content being pushed or appearing in the selected repository from projects created by other users in the same organization. Expected Behavior: The setup flow should explicitly state that the GitHub connection is organization-wide. Users should be informed that other organization members may be able to push content to the selected repository. Repository o

Chad Bergman announced in November 2025, during the Schema by Figma 2025, that the Figma tokens export is “completely aligned with the design tokens specification.” However, we later discovered that most composite tokens such as typography, gradients, and shadows are not yet supported, despite being in the stable revision of the specification in Design Tokens Format Module 2025.10.No clear future plans or roadmap for the export feature were communicated during the conference, which leads us to believe that we won’t receive any updates until the next keynote.Is support for composite token export planned in the near future, or do we have to stick to third-party plugins for now to obtain production-ready design token exports?

Here’s what happened: I’m writing a lot of content on a layout (a frame) I made once and copied over and over (why not using component? I modify the layout slightly to fit each content) again for each pages. I wrote 8 pages, and I want to make the 9th page, I try to duplicate the 8th page by pressing opt while dragging (or so I thought, we’ll come back to this later), I then started to remove all the texts on the newly duplicated page that is the 9th page, and start writing a bunch of new text, after I done, I zoomed out (zoomed in because I’m using a laptop and the text is small and want to keep my posture up, so I zoom in to make the text bigger while I’m typing) to see how the newly created blob of text fit with the previous page, and imagine my jaw drop when I saw the 8th page blank. I wrote a lot (and I mean A LOT) of text there and I’m starting to realize that I didn’t actually duplicate the frame, I must not press the option button hard enough for it to register. Here’s what I d

As editor and maybe also as viewer I want to be able to see where specific components are used. So I’m basically talking about way to find instances of a component across files. There’s a plugin called “Instance Finder” but unfortunately it’s just working within one file not across. For huge design systems with multiple files and different designers working on it this is far from ideal. This idea is not new but since the other topics are closed I guess I need to open a new thread. See: Searching for component instance in a view-only file Ask the community I am a manager of the design system library in my org and I am trying to find instances of components in other designer files via the Org Libraries options, to see how components are being used. Clicking on a component takes me to the design file, but it doesn’t link to the frame where the component is used, which is what I would expect (even if it’s used in multiple instances, I would want to see at least o

The new Chrome browser extension is pretty neat, but it can’t select or copy things from an iframe on the page. This should be technically feasible when the iframe’s domain is the same as the page’s domain, and would make it a lot more useful for a lot of the stuff I work on. Any chance this is on the roadmap?

My suggestions is to allow users to include annotations and / or measurements  when they export images. Seems that we can’t currently do thisThe user benefits –allows users to share images with annotations and measurements when creating images to be shared wither wider stakeholders and creating documentation for other platforms. If we can’t export annotations and measurements, then for those instances requiring annotations in an export as an image, users won’t use the annotations feature, and revert to creating “Notes” manuallyHope this makes sense

new AI agent “describe your idea” icon/text box feature when i click on an instance/frame in my design is a bit intrusive - little star icon gets in the way when i’m trying to adjust my design manually. maybe limiting it to the right click menu or simply creating a new hotkey would be better? also, telling this agent what to do is a miserable experience that usually just frustrates me back into doing the design myself as it is literally faster than typing it out. have seen a lot of feedback similar to this as well here.

Please include REM as a mode of measurement as it is becoming more and more used by developers. Having to manually convert the measurement is so tedious.

If I use the eyedropper to select a hex color value on an element and then go to my libraries to find a matching color style for it, display the closest matching library styles to that hex # at the top of the library list rather than make the user search through the list (useful for new design system designers who want to learn the system, have many variations of a gray in their system, and do not want to continuously search and break styles to view and manually match hex codes).

I typically like sorting by alphabetical, but it keeps defaulting to last modified. This is because we have multiple designers working from a project file, so last modified is not alway the last file I worked on. Alphabetical system works better for our team.

I was thinking about that when I started a meet while I was working in other project, And I catch me looking to five or six tabs about two different projects and wondering this question, “why not group this tabs by project? Oh, yes… I’m in the app, not in the browser”

We use fontawesome pro packages in our design system and has a auth token for it. However it's a struggle getting the design system packages to install in figma make, because it looks like figma sandbox resets .npmrc start of each session losing the fontawesome token causing pnpm install to fail.An option to provide custom registry with authToken would be great.

There are 2 organizational things that I’ve been really wanting since starting to use Figma:Tab Groups: As someone who has a ton of different projects/clients, I would love to have the ability to group my open Figma files into tab groups. It would be amazing to be able to have a bunch of my projects open without overwhelming crowding in the tab bar. This could be similar to browser tab groups. Page Groups: Creating design systems is complex and super layered!! It would be extremely helpful to be able to group pages within a file or be able to establish parent and child pages.I know this is not the first time these things have been requested, but I’m hoping they could be added as a quality of life update in the near future!

If you open a lot of projects the tab strip gets crowded. Chromium browsers solved this by allowing to group tabs, maybe Figma could do the same ?

When inserting a component, I want to prioritize inserting a local component rather than one from another library.For example, if I want to use a TextInput component, I want the local version. That’s why I filter by “Created in this file”:The problem is that this preference is not saved. So whenever I want to insert again, I have to:open the insert dialog type “TextInput” grab the mouse open the dropdown select “Created in this file”This gets annoying when wanting to insert multiple components, or multiple instances of the same component. If not for that dropdown selection, I could do it with the keyboard only. Now I have to switch from keyboard to mouse and sometimes keyboard again.You might ask “Why add an external library if you’re not going to use its components?”. Well a library can have hundreds of components and you only want to use a subset in this file. But for some components like a TextInput, you want the local version, not the library one.Anyway, I feel like saving the prev

Hi there. I’m loving the Chrome Extension so far, but would love it if there was some functionality to refine a selection to copy, similar to what the https://paper.design Chrome extension does to “fine tune the target”. This makes it easier to capture exactly what I want rather than capture a container element with the element inside it then extract it in Figma. I know doing this is not a big deal but the change would be a nice quality of life improvement.

Currently, corners can only be rounded at whatever size you set. However, it would be great if you could set different styles of corners such as inverted rounded or chamfer as you can in Illustrator. The goal would be to create a style like the image below: Does anyone use a plugin to achieve this effect?

To design for responsive web, we need the ability to use layout grids and percentages for widths of frames. For example: width=50%, or width=6 columns of the defined layout

Frames should support a max width defined as a percentage of their parent frame.I run into the same scenario repeatedly: I have several frames in a composition set to hug their contents, so the parent frame wraps them once they grow past its width. The problem is:When a frame is set to hug, max width only accepts px values, which isn't responsive. If I switch it to fill, the parent container never wraps it, because the frame no longer has an intrinsic width.So the min and max width/height on auto layout children only accept pixel values, this makes them break down in responsive compositions, since a px cap doesn't adapt when the parent resizes.The suggestion here is allowing percentages making these constraints behave the way they do in CSS, so you can use values like max-width: 100% or min-width: 50%Today the only workarounds are hardcoded px values or restructuring layers, both of which fall apart as soon as the composition needs to respond to different widths.