You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
These are some of the insights from the research @kathrynmcelroy did for our IA.
Another insight is that the term "Pattern" has a very different meaning to each person. To the visual designers, it was either visual patterns or code patterns made up of elements. Some UX designers used it for coded patterns or not at all. It was rarely used by everyone else because it was too general, and they preferred a more specific title such as "HTML Elements". Here are some of the quotes about "Pattern":
“Patterns are everywhere, not just code.”
"Patterns encompasses a lot: animations and navigation, etc.”
“Pattern library may be used elsewhere normally, but it doesn't resonate well with me.”
“Pattern library covers the entire ground, not just the elements.”
“I liked the titles that were more descriptive, I don’t like patterns, elements, guidelines.”
“HTML elements, elements, and patterns are a mix of the other ones (inside the UI group she made): elements are things, HTML is the specific code”
One visual designer had trouble finding the check box code because she didn't know what "Element", "Component", and "Layout" meant. - issue will be resolved with descriptions and having the content loaded on the screen
^^^ With these insights to inform our decision, are we all good to revert back to "Elements" as our title? Or is there a justification for why they should be called "Base Elements"?
For clarity, every instance that refers to "Base" should be switched to match the header ("Base Elements")
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: