Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Spec list #326

Closed
4 tasks done
andij opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

Spec list #326

andij opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
Status: Completed Nothing further to be done with this issue. Awaiting to be closed Type: Documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@andij
Copy link
Contributor

andij commented Jan 17, 2024

Outcome

Display the specification tables into description lists instead.

Scope

  • Replace the <table> markup in specification.astro with <dl>
  • Integrate the properties into the same list as attributes
  • Decide on the most sensible content structure
  • Implement the additional tables (Slots, Events)
@andij andij self-assigned this Jan 17, 2024
@andij andij added the Type: Documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jan 17, 2024
@andij andij added this to the Internal tools milestone Jan 17, 2024
@andij
Copy link
Contributor Author

andij commented Jan 17, 2024

Here are two PRs to help facilitate the user testing. Neither of these PRs should be merged. Once the tests have been performed these PRs are to be closed.

This was referenced Jan 18, 2024
@RobTobias123
Copy link
Contributor

Here's the suggested fonts and styles applied to the same spec list - with 48px paragraph spacing and keylines. Just a suggestion using existing styles. https://www.figma.com/file/wyuLUEt3qm01mR8E6Wm2Pf/Nucleus-Docs-exploration---engaging-and-interactive?type=design&node-id=279%3A5416&mode=design&t=T367BSaTQr4S3o4j-1

@andij
Copy link
Contributor Author

andij commented Jan 29, 2024

@RobTobias123
Copy link
Contributor

Here's the results analysis of significant findings and recommendations from the user testing:

#328 (comment)

@RobTobias123
Copy link
Contributor

Summary based on the results of the user testing for specs...

  • DL format worked best for High-volume data by a significant amount.

  • Table format worked best for Low-volume data - though the difference was less.

The recommendation is to proceed with using both styles as above.

(However, it should be considered if it may be of benefit to utilise the same format for both if it reduces complexity/maintenance effort etc. If that is the case I would suggest using DL for both.)

@andij
Copy link
Contributor Author

andij commented Feb 7, 2024

To check, take a look at these preview pages:

@andij andij added the Status: Review Needed The issue has a PR attached to it which needs to be reviewed label Feb 7, 2024
This was referenced Feb 7, 2024
@andij andij closed this as completed Feb 9, 2024
@andij andij added Status: Completed Nothing further to be done with this issue. Awaiting to be closed and removed Status: Review Needed The issue has a PR attached to it which needs to be reviewed labels Feb 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Completed Nothing further to be done with this issue. Awaiting to be closed Type: Documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants