It would be nice to see a new type of group (Frame???) Which could have the following properties:
Hi,
groups could be used to set backgrounds, border-radius and the non plus ultra would be adding a padding 
cheers
We need the āFrameā concept in Sketch. A group of sorts thatās able to get its own layer styles, at least a background and radius with options to clip contents.
Padding indeed would be a game-changer.
Hey folks, thanks for sharing.
This is on our radar and weāre discussing it internally. Weāll keep the community posted once we know more!
So one of the more useful features of applications such as Figma, Framer, Penpot etc. is the ability to use frames as a layout element rather than groups.
There are certain advantages to using frames rather than grouping such as:
Frames run the risk of creating confusion, when to use a frame instead of a group, a very known problem with Figma for instance. But there may be ways of enhancing groups to offer the advantages of frames while keeping the concept simpler.
The recent announcement of auto layout like features coming to Sketch may take a lot of these features into account, but I thought Iād throw the idea into the cosmos.
I think I mentioned something similar recently? But yeah Iām very down with the idea of allowing groups to do some of the things frames do, rather than an additional layer container type.
I used Figma every day for 5 years and my muscle memory from every app ever meant Iād instinctively press cmd+G then have to go back and selectively convert those groups to frames. The methodology is kinda dumb, just let users progressively enhance a known idea.
Hey @Hrellir, welcome to the Forum!
Thanks for sharing and we have some good news! The team is currently working on a new layout feature similar to auto layout and this relates to what youāve mentioned.
Although this project wonāt introduce a new container type (frames), the plan is to add frame-like features to groups like styling, so you donāt need to add extra layers to create them.
Groups already have layout features with Smart Layout, plus this new project now in development!
Itād be great to add your take in this call for feedback post 
Welcome again!
Excellent, very happy to hear. Iāve done a few product calls with you guys in the past, very happy to jump on another if you guys are testing the feature or doing exploratory calls.
Hey Hrellir,
Thatās awesome from you, thanks! Weāre not running product calls right now but weāll definitely keep you in mind if there are more.
Good news, weāre working on this! You can read more about it in:
Our sketch.com/roadmap page was also updated recently this information.
Iāve also merged the 4 posts above from a duplicate topic into this one.
One this Iām really interested in Paulo, is if artboard become more like Figma frames, how will you address the issue that many figma users run into with groups. Theyāre mostly reserved for things thatāll never be in auto layouts, many users never use them at all
@Ash Can you speak more about that issue? What is the problem?
So quite often Figma users advocate not using groups at all, as with the ability to nest frames, groups become very situational. Theyāre effectively a downgrade, to the extent where a lot of people find them vestigial. I personally have always specifically used groups for things that I know will not make use of an auto layout. But it becomes less of a convention and more of an individual choice, and I think Iām in the minority.
If Artboards can nest in Sketch, will you still be able to add layout tools to groups? How would that work with stack layouts? Would groups also inherit fixed widths/heights? And if so, what advantages would nesting frames have over groups if they were so functionally similar? Why would you continue to have both?
I mentioned previously having groups progresively enhance to do more, rather than allowing artboards to nest. This is kind of a nomenclature thing, but I think logically it makes a lot of sense.
For example:
Press cmd+G with a selection and a group is created, its width and height are set to auto/inherited.
Add a background colour to the group and it removes the need to have a containing shape define its size/colour, or just manually set a width and height to achieve the same thing.
You can still add a layout (Either smart or stack layout) and there you go, you have something that is functionally the same as a nested art board/frame and you havenāt diminished the value of groups.
You also havenāt introduced the cognitive load of having a user choose when to use a frame or a group/or the additional step of converting between the two when they change their mind. Additionally, this is still inline with the behaviour established today with smart layouts, groups can just do more things now. Visual indicators in both the properties and layer panels can help clearly communicate the state of a group. (Incidentally thereās a thread on here with some suggestions for layout display in the layer group thatās pretty interesting)
Hopefully that makes sense. Iām happy to do some diagrams or something to illustrate what I mean.
Iām aware of the need to replicate this functionality and Iām fully on board with it. From what Iāve seen from stack layouts and the welcome streamlining of the workflow (Though I fear this will introduce a degree of ambiguity that I think some will not like) I feel this is also a good way to bring a more refined implementation of an idea kind that is kind of half baked in Figma. As many Figma features are.
Iām not sure of the discussions internally, but I see coherent workflows and polish as core differentiators for Sketch, which is often regarded as āThe worse version of Figmaā in a lot of circles nowadays. Sketch wonāt ever gain feature parity with Figma, but having each feature you do adopt be more coherent is a major win.
I donāt agree with this.
I see frames as containers for āinterface workā, entities which represent named element in an interface (a sidebar, a modal, a card, a button, a menu item, etc). They define the coordinate space of their contents, can be fully styled, and may define a layout for their children. They give each child control over how its size and position should be affected by changes to the containerās size.
I see groups as a container for āgraphical workā, a much simpler container (in a good way!), more of an agglomeration of layers rather than a named entity that plays a role in a design. In an interface design scenario, they may exist purely for organization or convenience (e.g. selection), and play more of a supporting role. However, in other scenarios such as icon design or other graphical work, theyāll likely be the more common container type.
We wonāt be advocating for a blanket ādonāt use groupsā. To do that is to disregard the important role they play in non-interface-design scenarios, which are very important for us. We want to balance interface and graphical work, not treat any of them as a second-class citizen. Frames and groups are different containers for different needs.
Groups would be able to have Smart Layout. Anything with Stack Layout will become a frame, but you can always set the stackās sizing to Auto Ć Auto, AKA āhuggingā.
Currently, our plan is for frames to be fix-sized, and groups to be auto-sized.
We havenāt decided what āG will do yet.
Finally, let me reinforce weāre actively working on all of this. We donāt set out with a fixed idea of where weāll end up: we start with a problem, some ideas of possible solutions, and get to work as a team of designers and engineers to discuss those ideas, build our best bets, try and see how it feels ā over and over, until it feels right.
Iām not saying āThis is my opinionā, as I expanded on in the following paragraph how I use groups in Figma aligns with your interpretation. Having spent the last 5 or so years in Figma and around other Figma users, itās the general consensus. This is an anecdote, but itās a fairly accurate one. If you poll a couple of thousand Figma users on whether or not they use groups and how, I wouldnāt be shocked if the answer was āI donāt.ā Or āI just use auto layouts for everythingā (Another attitude I do not share.
This is the entire foundation of what Iām saying here and, no disrespect, you arenāt engaging with it. Just saying āWeāre working on itā itās a handwave. Iām aware you test things internally, Iām aware things move. I, and a lot of other people on this forum are also product designers.
For what itās worth, none of the this would be an impediment to me personally. Not in the slightest. I welcome the addition of nested frames.
Is your interpretation of the use for groups going to be communicated to new users? And if so, will they care? Or will they just say āI canāt change the size of the background of this group so I wonāt use themā if you have data to the contrary, let me know. Iām not even saying this is the most important thing ever, people will just get on with it. Itās just the lack of engagement is actually a little annoying, why ask me to elaborate at all?
Iām afraid we got our wires crossed, @Ash. I didnāt interpret what you said as your opinion. I understood that you were talking about the consensus of Figma users ā I do see the same, even if Iām not a daily user myself, but I know a lot of people who are. So, I agree with you. My disagreement was with that majority opinion that groups are a downgrade from frames and donāt have much of a point, not with you personally.
Hey @here, Iām happy to say that Frames are now part of our latest beta. You can find all the details right here: New Mac beta: 2025.1 (Athens) available now
Feel free to take a look and share your feedback in the beta topic (Iāll close this one now to keep everything in one place).