[ ] 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
This looks good overall!
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).
[ ] Must: Something that didn't really register with me until after the meeting: At the 3rd Party question (are you an accredited rep), if you answer "no" you reach a dead end. In the user flow you indicated that you'd make it a dead end by removing the Continue button. With very few exceptions, we don't want to remove the Continue button. Conditionally removing a major structural element of the page can be disorienting for screen reader users who don't get the visual cue that something has changed. The better option here would be a page after pressing Continue that notifies the user about the dead end.
[ ] Should: By emphasizing legal statuses (dependent, beneficiary) over relationships (child, spouse) there's a trade-off for plain language. Defining unfamiliar terms and providing examples where appropriate will be important here. I think the way you're handling it with an additional info component in the Figma file is a good approach, but I think this is something you'll want to really emphasize in the guidance for this pattern.
[ ] Consider: The pattern opens with #1a and #1b together, and in the Figma file you have #1b displayed conditionally. It looks like you're following the guidance around conditional reveals, which is great! But conditional reveals in general aren't always easy to follow for screen reader users and I'm a little worried about the precedent set for VFS teams by starting a common pattern with a conditional reveal. This isn't a must by any means, but if it's possible to design a flow that doesn't open with a conditional reveal I think that would be a strong preference.
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
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).
Governance team actions