review · segments
Untitled session
claude 36 events 2 segments authors-location-optimization-plan
segment 1 of 2
Read all referenced design and implementation files for the UX review
The assistant read the production facts, frontend UX spec, proximity search doc, location quality doc, favorite locations doc, design system doc, and the current blade templates for the filter toolbar and location typeahead. It also ran several grep commands to verify Flux component usage patterns across the codebase.
outcome
All required source documents and templates have been read and cross-referenced.
next steps
—
key decisions
- Verified that the spec's claims about Flux component usage (e.g., flux:switch, flux:popover, flux:toast) are accurate or overstated based on actual codebase grep results.
open questions
—
6 days ago → 6 days ago
segment 2 of 2
Write the adversarial UX review document
The assistant synthesized findings from all read documents into a structured review file at docs/authors-optimization/70-ux-review-notes.md. The review identified two blockers (radius preset set contradiction causing silent no-op, and under-specified coarse-location degrade) and several should-fix issues (quality control model inconsistency, home-base precedence invisibility, Followed×proximity composition gap). The verdict was 'not shippable as-is' but acknowledged strong craft.
outcome
Review document written with verdict, blockers, should-fix items, and cross-doc reconciliation notes.
next steps
—
key decisions
- Radius preset set must be reconciled across docs 20, 50, and 60 to avoid a silent no-op trap.
- Coarse-location (state) degrade must have a visible disabled state + inline hint, not just a transient toast.
- Quality control model must be unified (binary toggle vs granular select vs integer column).
- Home-base precedence must be visible in the UI with a label indicating filtered-by-home-base.
open questions
—
6 days ago → 6 days ago