Update VBA fieldset of VA Service taxonomy for CMS Team feedback

[xiongjaneg]

Description

CMS Team reviewed #14891 and provided the following feedback:

• Should Type of Care be Type of Service since VBA services aren't necessarily health-related?
• Should Patient Friendly Name be Service Name or something more general?
• Should Common conditions be Keywords or something more general?
• Also, will there be help text along with the field names to help editors?

This work is to incorporate their feedback into the fieldset.

Note for all new designs: Use USWDS v3 components when available. Preference is not to mix v3 and v1 components. Consult Amanda as needed.

Acceptance Criteria

• Updated design in Figma based on CMS team feedback prior to and from design intent
• Engineering review
• A11y review
• Shared with PO/PM for CMS Team review

Team

Please check the team(s) that will do this work.

• CMS Team
• Public Websites
• Facilities
• Accelerated Publishing

[davidmpickett]

We omitted both of these fields from the FE design that was shown to Veterans for testing

• Patient Friendly Name
• Common conditions

We included them in the sketch design for continuity / just in-case we decide they are needed
https://www.sketch.com/s/891d33ae-152d-471c-ab5d-9aedf89cf6ff/p/578C3207-C5A3-4303-AB18-4AFC27AC54D2/canvas?annotation=477729a6-0bb3-4809-af59-acf41f32ec95

[davidmpickett]

If the usability findings don't indicate that Veterans need either of these fields, then the path forward would be removing these fields, not renaming them.

[davidmpickett]

Historical context when we made a decision around this: #14123 (comment)

[xiongjaneg]

@davidmpickett @thejordanwood Let's leave those fields for now. We'll wait till end of sprint for Alexis' usability research results to see if they indicate a need for those placeholder fields or not. So at least one more kick down the road. Thank you!

[davidmpickett]

@xiongjaneg @mmiddaugh Now that we have the usability findings, I think we have enough information to make a decision here. Here is my proposal:

• Should Type of Care be Type of Service since VBA services aren't necessarily health-related?

Yes. We should also consult engineering on the trade offs of updating the machine name (currently field_vba_type_of_care). On the one hand, having the machine name formatted the same as the other type_of_care fields that do the exact same thing makes it easier to see the parallels in the code. On the other hand it is perpetuating legacy naming conventions that cause an equal amount of confusion for new devs.

• Should Patient Friendly Name be Service Name or something more general?

Remove this field, usability testing showed it was not needed

• Should Common conditions be Keywords or something more general?

Remove this field, usability testing showed it was not needed

• Also, will there be help text along with the field names to help editors?

This form desperately needs some help text. It has not been prioritized previously because the number of editors who interact with it are so few and typically power users (e.g. Dave C, Randi H, Michelle M). It also doesn't have a KB article (but I made a ticket about that). This is likely what the bulk of the work on this ticket would be

[xiongjaneg]

@davidmpickett Would you please add to next UX Refinement to discuss? Thank you!

[davidmpickett]

Per UX refinement - proposal is approved. Path forward on machine name can be conversation between Drupal and FE on implementation. Drupal implementation can be follow up ticket.

This ticket can be updating Figma to remove/rename fields and add some help text

@xiongjaneg @jilladams ^ this ticket is candidate for Sprint 96

[xiongjaneg]

@davidmpickett Is there anything in this ticket that needs to be reviewed at the CMS Team collab cycle meeting?

[davidmpickett]

@xiongjaneg It might be worth acknowledging that we're already planning to address the feedback they gave us previously. The Figma may not be updated to reflect that before Wednesday's meeting. I already added this ticket to the Collab cycle epic so there's a record of it

[ALogsdon3]

Spoke with @davidmpickett today to make sure I knew what was still outstanding on this ticket and was my responsibility.
To summarize, here are the tasks left to do on this from the design side:

Update design in Figma based on pre-design intent CMS team feedback (There is a separate ticket with CMS design intent recommendations, but the scope of those recommendations goes beyond what's documented here and requires review with the team)

• Update Type of care field to Type of service
• Remove Patient friendly name field
• Remove Common conditions field
• Add help text under field labels where needed

I will update this comment as I complete each task.

Update 11/20/23: I made a pass at some help text. I added a couple of comments, too. One is on Service description because I wasn't able to add a help text field under the header. the other is on the URL help text because I had a question about KB articles related to URLs. @thejordanwood @davidmpickett have a look when you can and let me know what questions you have.

[xiongjaneg]

No additional feedback, closing