Personal take on terminology about open-ui

[LJWatson]

If I understand the aim of OpenUI properly, it is to document the generally agreed features, characteristics, properties and behaviours of components? If that's so, it feels more like a collection of blueprints than either a design system or a component library.

[gregwhitworth]

I'd note that I don't view Open UI as a design system but it is pulling in frameworks and people that work on design systems to inform the states, behaviors, anatomy, naming conventions of common components within component libraries. Any component library or platform that builds using the Open UI blueprints (to @LJWatson point) will allow for easier transition of its workers, interoperability across them (including the web platform) and also bubble up what necessary accessibility requirements (through links to ARIA/WICAG & possible spec modifications). Thanks for the feedback.

[gregwhitworth]

@thevangelist thanks, this is a term I've been using for the final output spec with folks while discussing Open UI. I don't think however we can replace the inputs into production of these blueprints.

[gregwhitworth]

Thanks for the feedback. Is the primary request here that you're asking that we not refer to Open UI as a design system but that of a component library?

[thevangelist]

Hi,

Commenting a bit late. Just wanted to raise awareness on the terminology.

Blueprints sounds better IMHO - Can't come up with a better name atm.