Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: create model for adding appearances to components #86

Open
KingOfTac opened this issue May 9, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

feat: create model for adding appearances to components #86

KingOfTac opened this issue May 9, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@KingOfTac
Copy link
Member

Feature Request

Expected Behavior

Current Behavior

Possible Solution

Context

Examples

@KingOfTac KingOfTac added the enhancement New feature or request label May 9, 2023
@KingOfTac KingOfTac self-assigned this May 9, 2023
@bheston
Copy link
Member

bheston commented Sep 7, 2023

I've come across another place I'd like to use this model, which is that some components have different presentations. For instance, a component often referred to as a "segmented control" is, from an ARIA perspective, either a radiogroup or tablist. I'd like to use Adaptive UI to configure that presentation based on an attribute.

I realize with the model we're considering building we're not locked into the word "appearance", but I think "variant" may be a stronger default. To me it implies any difference that might not be strictly appearance related, and it better defines even a semantic name like "primary" or "secondary" because that's more about the function, which happens to have a different appearance often.

That said, I'm hoping we can work on this soon 😬

@KingOfTac
Copy link
Member Author

I've come across another place I'd like to use this model, which is that some components have different presentations. For instance, a component often referred to as a "segmented control" is, from an ARIA perspective, either a radiogroup or tablist. I'd like to use Adaptive UI to configure that presentation based on an attribute.

I realize with the model we're considering building we're not locked into the word "appearance", but I think "variant" may be a stronger default. To me it implies any difference that might not be strictly appearance related, and it better defines even a semantic name like "primary" or "secondary" because that's more about the function, which happens to have a different appearance often.

That said, I'm hoping we can work on this soon 😬

Agree with using variant over appearance. What would be an example of a segmented control?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants