Good responsiveness support if config guidance followed. Templates and grid system help with rapid set up.

More of a framework (e.g. with grid system); visual components need some refining for EMR context - more useful for SaaS website or online store offering. Not so much styles or components that speed things up.

Heavy - may perceptively impact loading time.

Clear documentation, including data visualization.

More white space - would be helpful to compare spacing on dense page btwn Carbon/Lightning.

Different UI. 

Bigger learning curve for devs. Google-maintained. Extensive documentation. Tries to bring designs to life with more dynamic options like animation. 

Professional, enterprise tool oriented to professionals, by nature of being driven by Salesforce. Already has look and feel of an EMR. More data-heavy/less white space.

Proprietary font and icons - switching that out could have implications for weight of loading for users with low bandwidth

Has the CSS-only Lightning Component Blueprints if we don't want to use the component libraries.

• Familiar to many devs

• Mobile First / Responsive
• Strong Documentation and Community Support
• Bootstrap 5 to drop JQuery for VanillaJS

• Plenty of documentation on implementation / usage (https://websitesetup.org/bootstrap-tutorial-for-beginners/ )
• Plenty of free and professional templates, WordPress themes and plugins

• Huge community

Very strong/clear web documentation on how things should be done

• A lot of quick start elements with a search function for any of them 
• Well defined Icons library with various alternatives

• Provides strong guidance about design
• Get started kits for prototyping with sketch ,Azure and Adobe XD
• component Libraries for UI development with Sketch,react angular and Vue
• https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/resources/

• Extensive component library

• Maintained by Google and therefore has extensive Documentation
• Subtle skeuomorphism against flat design makes it easy for many users
• Mobile

• First / Responsive
• Promotes animation in designs, both for user feedback and to hint at how different features function.
• dark theme options have been made available (maybe good for analytics)
• Familiar UI for many users

• Huge community
• Component library has self-contained CSS and tree-shakes well

• Comprehensive UI
• SalesForce constraints are similar to OpenMRS's:
  • Users are professionals
  • Extensive use of tables and lists (small or big)
  • Need for trends
  • Input forms
• Simple design that looks professional.
• No animations that could divert user's attention
• Subtle skeuomorphism
• Responsive
• Component library has self-contained CSS and tree-shakes well

• Monotony across all sites using bootstrap .(All sites using Bootstrap can easily be recognized  they all look the same ). This means a lot of customization is necessary.
• Bootstrap sites can be heavy
• JavaScript is tied to jQuery and is one of the commonest library which thus leaves most of the plugins unused (Thanks to Bootstrap 5 )

• Grid system is basically redundant with CSS Grid
• Very little design guidance—just some easily reproducible "styles" that can be applied to basic components.
• Both react-bootstrap and reactstrap rely on global CSS to be imported

• Relatively small community
• Relies on global CSS to be imported
• Component libraries don't tree-shake well
• According to Adam Butterworth carbon

• had the following weaknesses in January 2019
  

  • Compiling SCSS on save takes more time than expected

• • (

• • Minor)

• •  Cannot pass className through DataTable to element nodes.
  • It seems that spacing and layout are mostly left to the app developer
  • most elements have zeroed-out margins.
  • Carbon leverages an import-once mixin to prevent multiple imports of the same scss file which may be responsible for slow compilation time .
  • Accessibility gap in React version of dropdown (V2 is on the way, not sure if it addresses it)
  • Documentation for React Components is not ideal.
  • More can be read Here

• Material Design is immediately identifiable and is strongly associated with Google and, specifically, Android.
• There is  a learning curve. Beginners may find that the Material Design specification is more complicated and harder to implement than other styles like flat design.(Material Design system is so comprehensive, there are a lot more things to consider and adhere to than many new devs / designers may be comfortable with)

• .
• There are also some usability issues in Material Design that can make websites and apps very user-unfriendly .One of them is “mystery meat” navigation encountered on many sites and mobile apps(it puts emphasis on aesthetics versus text which gives a bad user experience)

• React: Carbon Core team
• CSS/Vanilla: Carbon Core team
• Angular: Community maintained
• Vue: Community maintained

and for other frameworks, components can be built following this guideline  

https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/get-started/develop/other-frameworks

Component Blueprints: Yes. Pure HTML/CS.

Component libraries: Sort of; only officially for React and Angular.

React: https://react.lightningdesignsystem.com/getting-started/

Angular: https://ng-lightning.github.io/ng-lightning/#/

According to experience and user experience, while carbon is a great UI , is not easily configurable.

for example this comment "

• Changing the font family is difficult. This leads me to believe IBM has designed this for internal products only since it's using IBM Helvetica.
• Not all components have theme variables. Seems like few do actually. (https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/guidelines/themes)"

A

Already used by ___

Documentation is available from IBM carbon team 

https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/