12f1fd54df
The rule is none in replies, commits, issues, docs or site copy, and the last commit put 40 of them into five documents, two scripts and two comments. Nothing reached the site: dist/ has none, and the content validator refuses U+2014 in src/data. Rewritten by sentence rather than substituted, so the punctuation carries the same meaning it did. scripts/lib/css-audit.js is a copy of another repository's file and its 20 were repunctuated with it. Its header now says so, because "lifted verbatim" would otherwise be a claim a byte diff disproves. The logic is untouched, and the sweep still reports zero findings on all ten devices. The four Batch 19 issue bodies were edited in the tracker for the same reason. 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.