Re: interactive version of the design guide

Thanks Lisa.

I attempted a quick mock up of your suggested layout changes to "needs" 
and "testing" but given the 'early prototype' nature of the code it is 
not particularly flexible. I can still do so if required.

However, here are a few thoughts after thinking about this some more:

1) the code is currently a true mockup as it requires features not 
currently in the WAI web site framework. Thus there are rough edges, but 
it shows the concept. There is a GithHub issue so we can work with Eric 
and others of the Website team to get the best possible solution.

2) For the user needs I actually think they would be better moved so 
there is one, and only one, at the start of each pattern, placed after 

* Why would we list any user stories that do not have a pattern to 
address them?
* The user story would then frame the pattern so it is crystal clear 
what should be included, and also possibly highlight anything missing 
that should be added. That will help with the writing and review as 
sometimes it's not quite clear form the title alone.
* The web version could be enhanced to include interactive filters for 
user stories (etc) so they are all displayed together. There is lots we 
*could* do here to make the content as usable as possible, perhaps even 
for different reader groups.

3) If we have the user story in each pattern, we could do the same to 
each user testing point. However:

* The more general testing advice should probably not be in the design 
doc, but somewhere else. Perhaps enhancing existing WAI content
* Rather than an extra user testing point per pattern, doesn't the user 
story tell you exactly what to test at the right level of detail for 
this document?

Thus, by putting the effort in getting the user story correct, and based 
on the Gap Analysis etc., we should get benefits such as clearly 
understandable, implementable and testable Patterns.

Just some ideas and I'm jumping ahead a little of our current 1st Review


On 28/03/2019 15:16, lisa.seeman wrote:
> looking at
> It is looking really good!
> I suggest the following structure (from the mock up draft in google docs)
>   * design is understandable
>       * User needs
>       * User testing
>       * Patterns
>           o The purpose of a page is clear
>           o Each step in a process is clear
>           o Visual heirarchy, headings and whitespace are effective
>           o Call out boxes
>           o Chunk media
>     DO people think that is clearer? It might make the user needs and
>     testing more clear
> Lisa Seeman
> LinkedIn <>, Twitter 
> <>

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2019 17:38:41 UTC