UX critique and recommendations for CC Portal

## Good UX Stuff

### Constitution Page
- Well-structured with readable contrast.
- Scrollable, not overwhelming.
- Small, digestible content blocks.

### Magic Link Modal
- Visually appealing.
- Simple
- Could adopt new Design system look

### Appendix
- Sub-headers in the menu are helpful and allow easy scanning.

### Version History List
- Versions stack clearly with visible dates in reverse chronological order.
- Colour-coded changes (green for new, pink for deleted) work well visually.

---

## UX Issues and Pain Points

### Homepage & Navigation
- Homepage possibly redundant; the user might land directly on the Constitution, if not, homepage needs to set out more of what the app is about. Could look something like:


- Sign-in buried in footer; should follow convention (top-right corner).
- Navigation lacks clarity:
- Unclear what "members" means (organisations? individuals?).
- "Voting Updates" isn’t intuitive or useful in its current label/form. Could just say "Voting" or "Votes"?

### Content & Structure of Constitution page
- Menu issues:
- Article/section titles in the Constitution menu aren't clickable. They should be
- Repetition of "Article" in the headers and menu wastes space.
- Section headers lack descriptive titles. They are just called "Section"(?)
- Type hierarchy is inconsistent:
- Needs better visual distinction between headers and sub-headers (indentation, font size, casing).
- Footer only spans part of the page, should span all of it
- Comparison page scrolls behind menu - bug
- Back link should be at top of page as per web conventions

### Members Page
- Card blocks are too large, wasting space and hiding entries.
- No additional info on members or links to external profiles/websites.
- Design implies click-ability, but cards don’t lead anywhere.
- Inconsistent alignment and sizing of logos and titles.
- Search unnecessary with only 7 entries.

---

## Current Voting Page

### 1. Organization Is Inverted
- Votes are listed by member, making it impossible to see how all members voted on a single governance action (GA).
- Users want to understand outcomes per GA, not sift through individuals.

### 2. Usability Frustrations
- Can’t compare votes on the same GA easily.
- “Show more” in a modal isn’t discoverable or useful.
- Rationale links are broken or unusable (not clickable, not found).
- No voting history per member—no dedicated detail pages.
- Hard to scan—too much white space for such limited data.

### 3. Terminology and Layout
- “Voting Updates” is vague. This is just a voting record or log.
- GA titles are cut off.
- UI suggests interactivity that’s not there (e.g. rationale, links).
- Copy-to-clipboard hashes are cryptic without explanation.

---

## UX Recommendations

### Change the Primary Sorting Axis
- Group by Governance Action, not by voter.

### Add These Features
- Dropdown to filter by GA, or member if needed.
- Clickable links to rationale or a modal preview.
- Member detail pages with full vote history (like a profile).
- Ditch modal-based “Show more”; use detail page.

### Fix Broken UI Elements
- Clickable rationale links should work.

### Name It Better
- Call it Voting History, Governance Votes, or just Votes—“Voting Updates” is vague and sounds ephemeral.

### General
- Voting hashes: clarify what they represent (on-hover tooltip or label).
- Ability to compare any two versions of consitution via dropdown at top of diff columns - defaults to the two most recent

## Optional Features (Nice-to-Haves)
- “Jump to next change” button in GA comparison (like code diff tools).
- Sorting by date, GA title, or vote result.
- Highlight most recent GAs automatically.