- From: Kevin Muldoon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:51:31 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
I agree naming conventions have not reached anywhere near standardization but I'm not certain naming key/values 'design tokens' is where we misalign. Let's start with colors. - Definitive Color names are **Purple**, **Grey**, **Lilac**, or even **#555555**. They say what the color is, but not its intention. - Contextual Color names such as **Color Accent**, **Color Text Body** are best described as 'contextual' since they typically use two other color tokens to describe behavior in dark/light mode in the context of backgrounds and/or specific components. - Semantic Colors are **primary**, **secondary**, **warning**, **info**, **danger**, **neutral**, etc. and describe design intention regardless of the specific color. When it comes to white-label, very valuable to abstract away from Definitive Color names. If the color is named **primary** it's very easy to update the green color to blue but very tedious to re-map all contextual colors from $green to $blue. I only know because I've been there, done that. At least for colors, we have a long way to go in alignment on what the name of color actually means, its purpose, and its intention. Calling **Color Text Body** a Semantic name comes from CSS Semantic naming conventions, but practically it is too specific a name IMHO. Anyway, in short, ALL ARE design tokens, but we need to work on the deeper meanings of what kind of tokens they are. -- GitHub Notification of comment by caoimghgin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/187#issuecomment-1325009914 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2022 12:51:32 UTC