aff80334df
The work this batch exists for. Levi Halford approved two copy sheets on 2026-08-28 and sent them the same day; they were never deployed. Closes #220, #219 and #218. What ships, verbatim from the sheets: /services/unified-communications 1,125 words, 10 sections, 7 FAQs /services/contact-center 2,499 words, 12 sections, 10 FAQs Titles, H1s, hero subheadings and descriptions are the approved strings exactly, including descriptions at 164 and 191 characters, which are emitted whole rather than clamped. Each section opens with its direct answer, because that passage is what a search result or an AI answer quotes. Every section carries a stable, letter-first anchor, so an answer can deep-link to it. The FAQ is visible h3 and p, with no FAQPage markup, as the sheets require. The old copy goes: the unattributed "99.999% uptime reliability" the sheet named, and both pages' short blurbs, which the approved sections now say at length. idealFor stays, because the services index prints it as "Best fit". Levi's two constraints are held and proven, not assumed. The footer is byte for byte identical to the pre-batch build on all 19 pages. The Quick Info box is on both pages, unchanged. Verified against the built HTML, not the source: title, description and H1 match the sheets exactly; all 22 approved H2s and all 17 FAQ questions are present; no website-manager direction survived (checked against 20 phrases); no 99.999, no em dash, no U+FFFD, no markdown. In a browser: no horizontal scroll, no broken image, no console error at 320, 390, 768 and 1024; hydration clean on all 18 pages; all 24 section anchors deep-link correctly. Docs corrected in the same commit, because each would have sent the next writer the wrong way: REDESIGN_REVIEW's metrics lists now carry the owner's 2026-09-10 direction that a figure must be current, vendor-attributed and verified; OVERHAUL_PLAN gains the long-form blueprint and stops recommending an accordion for an FAQ; README stops claiming a server-rendered privacy fallback that never existed, and says what hydration actually does now. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| OVERHAUL_PLAN.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| REDESIGN_REVIEW.md | ||
README.md
Design — Queue North Website
Status: Current
Owner: _null
Last reviewed: 2026-08-18
Governs: docs/design/**
Review trigger: Any new user-facing surface, or a change to the product's tone
Documents here
Two, and they answer different questions. Both predate the template and both are this project's own writing.
| Document | Owns |
|---|---|
OVERHAUL_PLAN.md |
what it looks like — Tailwind theme tokens, the numeric-typography rule (Georgia for all numeric content), the type scale, section spacing and container sizes, radius/shadow/border rules, which shadcn-style primitives to use, the per-page layout blueprints, and the explicit anti-patterns. Its earlier Migration Phases and Agent Plan sections are history; the brief onward is live |
REDESIGN_REVIEW.md |
what it sounds like — the B2B positioning argument, the messaging shift from "interesting technical person" to "reliable communications and IT partner", and the anti-patterns of tone. The eleven open content issues in Batch 12 are defects measured against this |
The single most load-bearing sentence across both: business buyers purchase risk reduction, not technology. Copy that reads as clever costs trust here in a way it would not on a developer-facing product.
What belongs here
What it should feel like, and the decisions behind that:
- Product decisions — what the user can do, in what order, and what happens when they get it wrong. The error states are design, not an afterthought.
- UI plans — screens, states, and what each one is for. Include the empty state and the loading state; they are the two most people see first and the two most often left undesigned.
- Copy — the actual words. Interface text is a design surface, and writing it late means writing it badly.
- Tone — how this product talks. One paragraph is enough, and it settles a hundred small arguments.
What does not belong here
- How it is built — that is
docs/architecture/ - Scope and audience — that is
docs/planning/PROJECT_PLAN.md
Include the rejected version
For any decision that was genuinely close, record what was not chosen and why. Without it, the same option gets proposed every few months and re-argued from nothing.