[ ] Assign this ticket to the team member(s) responsible for addressing feedback provided by Platform.
[ ] Comment on this ticket:
If the Platform reviewer has any Thoughts/Questions that require responses.
When Must feedback has been incorporated. As appropriate, link to any other GitHub issues or PRs related to this feedback.
When Should/Consider feedback has been incorporated, or if any feedback will not be addressed. As appropriate, link to any other GitHub issues or PRs related to this feedback.
[ ] Questions? For the most timely response, comment on Slack in your team channel tagging @platform-governance-team-members.
[ ] Close the ticket when all feedback has been addressed.
Thoughts/questions
Sorry for the late feedback! I completely blanked on this Friday afternoon and over the weekend.
Feedback
Practice areas will document their feedback on the VFS-provided artifacts following the Must, Should, and Consider Framework. Platform Governance reviewers may also provide additional notes that don’t comment on the artifacts themselves but are important for implementation (eg. engineering/coding notes).
[ ] Should: My biggest point of concern here is having so many expandable/conditionally revealing chunks of content nested within each other: first the accordion, then the "Add filters +" element, then the conditonally-revealed dates for the custom date range. Thinking about screen reader users, I think it's a situation where someone could lose track of what's open, what's close, what's associated with what, etc.
Thinking about it since the meeting, I think my recommendation here is to remove the "Add filters +" element and just make all of the filters visible when opening the accordion. It's two extra tab stops (assuming not doing custom dates), which is manageable for keyboard-only users. Given the other trade-offs I think it's the best option.
I'll note that the custom date reveal doesn't align with design system guidance on conditionally-revealed fields. That guidance was written with more traditional form flows in mind and I think deviating from it is fine in this context. I'm commenting on that here mainly so that I remember this is where I landed later on. 🙂
[ ] Should: I'll echo Erin on the summary text that describes what messages are shown. Rather than two lines of text ("[results] matches for..." and "Showing X to Y..."), it would be great to combine these into a single message, eg. "Showing X to Y of Z matches for [filter criteria]" or similar.
Governance team actions
[x] Format feedback as individual tasks (check boxes)
[x] Assign this ticket to the VFS team member that opened the Slack request
[x] Add the VFS team product label
[x] Add the VFS team the feature label (if applicable)
[x] Add the touchpoint labels
[x] Add the practice area labels
[x] Add the Collaboration Cycle initiative milestone
underpaid1ntern
commented
3 weeks ago
Next Steps for the VFS team
@platform-governance-team-members.Thoughts/questions
Feedback
Practice areas will document their feedback on the VFS-provided artifacts following the Must, Should, and Consider Framework. Platform Governance reviewers may also provide additional notes that don’t comment on the artifacts themselves but are important for implementation (eg. engineering/coding notes).
[ ] Should: My biggest point of concern here is having so many expandable/conditionally revealing chunks of content nested within each other: first the accordion, then the "Add filters +" element, then the conditonally-revealed dates for the custom date range. Thinking about screen reader users, I think it's a situation where someone could lose track of what's open, what's close, what's associated with what, etc.
Thinking about it since the meeting, I think my recommendation here is to remove the "Add filters +" element and just make all of the filters visible when opening the accordion. It's two extra tab stops (assuming not doing custom dates), which is manageable for keyboard-only users. Given the other trade-offs I think it's the best option.
I'll note that the custom date reveal doesn't align with design system guidance on conditionally-revealed fields. That guidance was written with more traditional form flows in mind and I think deviating from it is fine in this context. I'm commenting on that here mainly so that I remember this is where I landed later on. 🙂
Governance team actions