87 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
87 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
# Research: Frontend Style Unification
|
|
|
|
## Decision 1: Tailwind-first unification through shared primitives and layout patterns
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Use existing shared UI components and route-level layout patterns as the primary unification mechanism, with Tailwind utility classes as the style source of truth.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Aligns with constitution requirement: Tailwind-first and minimal scoped styles.
|
|
- Reduces risk versus page-by-page ad-hoc class rewrites.
|
|
- Enables predictable rollout and easier review by centralizing style behavior.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Big-bang rewrite of all pages in one pass (rejected: high regression risk).
|
|
- Introducing a second styling abstraction layer (rejected: added complexity and drift).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision 2: Incremental conformance with explicit exception registry
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Apply style unification incrementally across core routes; for non-conformant legacy widgets, use documented fallback styles and track exceptions for follow-up.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Preserves functional behavior while raising consistency quickly.
|
|
- Supports FR-005/FR-006 in spec by preventing disruption of critical flows.
|
|
- Makes scope and technical debt explicit.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Block release until 100% conformance (rejected: delays value delivery).
|
|
- Ignore non-conformant areas (rejected: no governance and unresolved inconsistency).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision 3: Canonical UX state patterns for loading/empty/error/success
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Define one reusable state pattern per state type (layout placement, message format, recovery action position) and apply to targeted modules.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Directly supports UX reference and SC-003.
|
|
- Improves predictability and user trust.
|
|
- Simplifies QA with deterministic state contracts.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Module-specific state designs (rejected: reintroduces inconsistency).
|
|
- Visual-only alignment without message/rule alignment (rejected: incomplete UX consistency).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision 4: i18n and terminology normalization as part of style work
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Include text tone/terminology consistency in scope for user-facing state and action labels; avoid hardcoded strings during updates.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Required by constitution i18n rule.
|
|
- Prevents mixed terms after visual unification.
|
|
- Supports FR-007 and UX tone requirements.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Deferring terminology to a separate feature (rejected: causes visible inconsistency after style updates).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision 5: Accessibility-preserving visual alignment
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Keep focus visibility and readable contrast as non-negotiable constraints; when style and accessibility conflict, accessibility wins.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Matches edge-case requirements in spec.
|
|
- Reduces user risk and supports sustainable UI governance.
|
|
- Prevents regressions masked by purely visual approvals.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Prioritizing strict visual sameness in all cases (rejected: can degrade accessibility outcomes).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision 6: Verification model = conformance checklist + route smoke tests + UX state checks
|
|
|
|
**Decision**: Validate through structured cross-route conformance checks, independent user-story tests, and targeted UX state verification.
|
|
|
|
**Rationale**:
|
|
- Produces measurable evidence for SC-001..SC-005.
|
|
- Aligns with independent testability principle in constitution.
|
|
- Keeps verification technology-agnostic at feature level while staying executable in project context.
|
|
|
|
**Alternatives considered**:
|
|
- Pure visual review without scenario checks (rejected: misses behavior regressions).
|
|
- Full end-to-end redesign QA cycle before incremental rollout (rejected: too heavy for initial unification phase). |