[UX] Inventory every surface and define the redesign brief

claude-bot commented

2026-08-25 20:39:23 +00:00

Contributor

Found in the August 2026 session lifecycle review (#319). First step of the total UX overhaul — nothing else in this milestone starts until this exists.

Why

The review found the product has no navigational spine and no attention surface: one badge in the entire web app, one of thirteen Discord embeds linking back to it, and every high-value surface reachable by exactly one small link buried inside another page. Those are structural problems being fixed in v4.3.0. This milestone is the visual and interaction redesign that sits on top.

A redesign needs a brief, and the brief needs an honest inventory. The review already produced most of it.

What to produce

The surface inventory — every route, what it is for, who it is for, and how it is reached today. Review E's §2.1 route table is the starting point and includes the click-depth from the dashboard and whether each route is reachable without typing a URL.
The journeys that must work, from review E §3: GM first campaign; players notified → vote → RSVP → see the confirmed session; GM prepping; live session; after-session review and approval; player finding the recap.
The naming decisions, from review E §7.1. One concept currently has up to eight names — prep alone is planning / CampaignPlanning / GM Workbench / Session Prep / Session Prep Sheet / Beat Planner / beat notes / Session Shelf. The redesign must ship one vocabulary, and it should be settled in the brief rather than argued during implementation.
The constraints: the product is used live at a table, often on a phone or tablet; it serves two clearly distinct roles (GM and player) with very different needs; and it must remain usable by a group that is not Discord-native.
What is already good and should survive — review E §4.3 lists these, including the live recording panel, the four-stage lore status labelling, and the campaign-vs-viewer timezone display. A redesign that loses these is a regression.

Acceptance criteria

Complete surface inventory with purpose, audience, and current entry points
The six core journeys documented as the acceptance bar for any design
One vocabulary decided, with the mapping from every current name
Explicit list of existing behaviours that must be preserved
Brief is written down and agreed before wireframing begins

Found in the August 2026 session lifecycle review (#319). First step of the total UX overhaul — nothing else in this milestone starts until this exists. ## Why The review found the product has **no navigational spine and no attention surface**: one badge in the entire web app, one of thirteen Discord embeds linking back to it, and every high-value surface reachable by exactly one small link buried inside another page. Those are structural problems being fixed in v4.3.0. This milestone is the visual and interaction redesign that sits on top. A redesign needs a brief, and the brief needs an honest inventory. The review already produced most of it. ## What to produce - **The surface inventory** — every route, what it is for, who it is for, and how it is reached today. Review E's §2.1 route table is the starting point and includes the click-depth from the dashboard and whether each route is reachable without typing a URL. - **The journeys that must work**, from review E §3: GM first campaign; players notified → vote → RSVP → see the confirmed session; GM prepping; live session; after-session review and approval; player finding the recap. - **The naming decisions**, from review E §7.1. One concept currently has up to eight names — prep alone is *planning / CampaignPlanning / GM Workbench / Session Prep / Session Prep Sheet / Beat Planner / beat notes / Session Shelf*. The redesign must ship one vocabulary, and it should be settled in the brief rather than argued during implementation. - **The constraints**: the product is used live at a table, often on a phone or tablet; it serves two clearly distinct roles (GM and player) with very different needs; and it must remain usable by a group that is not Discord-native. - **What is already good and should survive** — review E §4.3 lists these, including the live recording panel, the four-stage lore status labelling, and the campaign-vs-viewer timezone display. A redesign that loses these is a regression. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Complete surface inventory with purpose, audience, and current entry points - [ ] The six core journeys documented as the acceptance bar for any design - [ ] One vocabulary decided, with the mapping from every current name - [ ] Explicit list of existing behaviours that must be preserved - [ ] Brief is written down and agreed before wireframing begins

claude-bot added this to the v4.4.0 - UX Overhaul: Design Exploration & Rebuild milestone

2026-08-25 20:39:23 +00:00

claude-bot added the

enhancement

frontend

labels

2026-08-25 20:39:23 +00:00

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-08-25 20:45:22 +00:00

[Review] Full audit of the session lifecycle: prep, recording, transcription, summarization, lore — scoping v4.0.0 #319

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-06 19:30:20 +00:00

v4.4.0 build order: UX Overhaul in six phases, with two review checkpoints #535

claude-bot commented

2026-09-06 19:45:57 +00:00

Author

Contributor

Picking this up (build order in #535). Two facts about the inputs, for the record:

The audit's review E is gone. docs/.internal/ is gitignored and the session-review folder exists on no machine or server I can reach, so the §2.1 route table, §3 journeys, §4.3 "already good" list and §7.1 naming cannot be quoted. Their substance survives in the v4.3.0 issue bodies (#368–#396), which were written from them and are now closed with completion notes; the naming decisions shipped in #379 as vocabulary.js.
A fresh inventory replaces the route table. v4.3.0 changed navigation enough (nav bar, redirects, new public routes) that the August table would have been wrong anyway. The new one covers every route (purpose, audience, entry points, click depth, size), the DOM order of every page, the responsive facts, the duplicated-concept list, and a visual baseline with counts. Headline measurements: the Shelf's six header controls vanish below sm with no substitute; 100 of 130 status classes are hard-coded dark; 87 inline copies of the primary button and 60 of the card; six copies of the wiki type labels; 39 confirm() and one alert(); seven routes three or more clicks deep; no typeface, no icon set, no progress indicator anywhere.

The brief (journeys, constraints, must-survive, the five vocabulary leftovers with recommendations, the inventory) is being presented together with the #362 concepts as one review page, so there is one checkpoint rather than two. It gets committed under docs/ once agreed.

Picking this up (build order in #535). Two facts about the inputs, for the record: - **The audit's review E is gone.** `docs/.internal/` is gitignored and the session-review folder exists on no machine or server I can reach, so the §2.1 route table, §3 journeys, §4.3 "already good" list and §7.1 naming cannot be quoted. Their substance survives in the v4.3.0 issue bodies (#368–#396), which were written from them and are now closed with completion notes; the naming decisions shipped in #379 as `vocabulary.js`. - **A fresh inventory replaces the route table.** v4.3.0 changed navigation enough (nav bar, redirects, new public routes) that the August table would have been wrong anyway. The new one covers every route (purpose, audience, entry points, click depth, size), the DOM order of every page, the responsive facts, the duplicated-concept list, and a visual baseline with counts. Headline measurements: the Shelf's six header controls vanish below `sm` with no substitute; 100 of 130 status classes are hard-coded dark; 87 inline copies of the primary button and 60 of the card; six copies of the wiki type labels; 39 `confirm()` and one `alert()`; seven routes three or more clicks deep; no typeface, no icon set, no progress indicator anywhere. The brief (journeys, constraints, must-survive, the five vocabulary leftovers with recommendations, the inventory) is being presented together with the #362 concepts as one review page, so there is one checkpoint rather than two. It gets committed under `docs/` once agreed.

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-06 19:46:04 +00:00

[UX] Wireframe exploration — 5-10 concepts across every surface #362

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-06 20:01:56 +00:00

[UX] Wireframe exploration — 5-10 concepts across every surface #362

claude-bot commented

2026-09-06 20:01:59 +00:00

Author

Contributor

The brief is presented for agreement as the first section of the checkpoint A page: https://claude.ai/code/artifact/6e06cfa2-41fb-4f9b-8ed2-1d4d2f891bfe — the lifecycle strip, the six journeys as the acceptance bar, what is wrong today (nine measured findings), the constraints, what must survive, the five vocabulary leftovers with a recommendation each (Shelf vs Table; fold the Beat Planner; Story / Recap and retire "Journal" from labels; "prep sheet" vs "notes"; one entry-type taxonomy), and the full route inventory behind a disclosure. It is committed under docs/ as v4.4.0-brief.md once agreed, with the checkpoint decisions written into it.

The brief is presented for agreement as the first section of the checkpoint A page: https://claude.ai/code/artifact/6e06cfa2-41fb-4f9b-8ed2-1d4d2f891bfe — the lifecycle strip, the six journeys as the acceptance bar, what is wrong today (nine measured findings), the constraints, what must survive, the five vocabulary leftovers with a recommendation each (Shelf vs Table; fold the Beat Planner; Story / Recap and retire "Journal" from labels; "prep sheet" vs "notes"; one entry-type taxonomy), and the full route inventory behind a disclosure. It is committed under `docs/` as `v4.4.0-brief.md` once agreed, with the checkpoint decisions written into it.

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-06 22:08:19 +00:00

[Design] In-person tables: the constraints the v4.4.0 redesign must satisfy now, and the features that come later #542

claude-bot referenced this issue

2026-09-06 22:22:40 +00:00

[UX] Wireframe exploration — 5-10 concepts across every surface #362

claude-bot commented

2026-09-06 22:22:42 +00:00

Author

Contributor

Brief amended at checkpoint A: a new constraint, the table may be in one room. The live surfaces need a shared-screen face readable at distance and driven from the GM's device; the recording surface must not assume Discord voice is its only source; and no step of play may require every player to hold a device. The in-person features come later (#542); the seams are designed now. Every concept now states where its shared screen lives, and the players' page draws that face for each.

Brief amended at checkpoint A: a new constraint, **the table may be in one room**. The live surfaces need a shared-screen face readable at distance and driven from the GM's device; the recording surface must not assume Discord voice is its only source; and no step of play may require every player to hold a device. The in-person features come later (#542); the seams are designed now. Every concept now states where its shared screen lives, and the players' page draws that face for each.