Skip to content

Changing our name to more accurately describe what we are and what we do #2300

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

Closed
thisisdano opened this issue Jan 2, 2018 · 17 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@thisisdano
Copy link
Collaborator

This epic addresses the need to be a good player in government by being extra clear about what and who we are. We know that the word Standards is a sticking point as well as a useful lever, so our challenge is to maintain our authority and identity as we change to something more accurate and less controversial.

Issues related to this epic

  • Choose a new name for the system
  • Create an implementation path for the new name
  • Audit all places our old name is used
  • Work to change references to the old name — first in our own site, code, and documentation
@thisisdano thisisdano added the Epic label Jan 2, 2018
@maya maya added this to the 2018 Product roadmap milestone Jan 9, 2018
@maya
Copy link
Contributor

maya commented Jan 12, 2018

🔒 Naming decisions doc is complete.

@maya
Copy link
Contributor

maya commented Jan 16, 2018

@jeremyzilar
Copy link

I think this would be an opportunity to put out a few cards* for Twitter and Facebook that talk about

  • The name change
  • Why the U.S. Web Design System is important
  • How to contribute
    🇺🇸
The U.S. Web Design System is ready to help you make better digital services.
Become a part of the #uswds.
Over 400 people have contributed to The U.S. Web Design System. 
Become a part of the #uswds.
Build faster, and with greater assurance using The U.S. Web Design System. 
Become a part of the #uswds.
A design system for the public.
Accessible. Flexible. Fast.
Become a part of the #uswds.

* cards == jpgs with text on them

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

bruce-usab commented Jan 18, 2018

* cards == jpgs with text on them

2018 and there still is no good substitute! Just don’t forget the alt tag!

@jeremyzilar
Copy link

We can also reach out to a number of our friends in the Civic Tech space to help spread the word:

  • USDS comms team
  • Defense Digital Service
  • Code for America

@thisisdano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

URL-wise, I think I'm leaning toward designsystem.digital.gov — it may not be a future-forward as designsystem.gov, but I like how it establishes the digital scope of our product. It doesn't oversell us.

@thisisdano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm inclined to hold on too much in the way of cards and direct promo until we move to our new URL. I think our first announcement is that we will be changing our name, and a link to the relevant GH issues.

Then we do all the stuff in the list above, then we direct folks to the new URL and possibly the new GH org. I want these to be connected to tangible next steps, and to the more pedestrian task of re-bookmarking, etc

@gbinal
Copy link
Contributor

gbinal commented Jan 18, 2018

+1 to that URL, @thisisdano. It's a good balance.

@thisisdano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jeremyzilar what do we need to do to start getting moving on designsystem.digital.gov?

@thisisdano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We should issue-ize those URL-related steps.

@jeremyzilar
Copy link

jeremyzilar commented Jan 18, 2018

@maya The DNS is hosted through Route53. I can help make the change.

Prep

Switch-over

  • Get the cloudfront URL from @wslack or the existing DNS setup
  • Enter the Cloudfront URL into the digitalgov.gov terraform file
  • Wait 3 mins for it to be live at designsystem.digital.gov
  • Put in a redirect to designsystem.digital.gov
  • Check to see if we need to remove old DNS entries at usa.gov

@maya
Copy link
Contributor

maya commented Jan 18, 2018

@jeremyzilar Currently, playbook.cio.gov/designstandards redirects to standards.usa.gov. It may have been done by OMB CIO, but not positive. Has enough time passed from using that old URL that we maybe don't need it anymore?

@jeremyzilar
Copy link

@maya There is a 302 redirect there. We'll need to figure out where that is set, and hopefully we can add the new redirect in at that location.

@jeremyzilar
Copy link

Would we also move over components.standards.usa.gov to components.designsystem.digital.gov

@maya
Copy link
Contributor

maya commented Jan 18, 2018

Yes, that would make sense.

@wslack
Copy link

wslack commented Jan 18, 2018

We can run URL changes for cloudfront in two different ways:

  1. New site on new cloudfront domains (I recommend this one)

    • Will makes new domains
    • You point DNS for the new URLs to the new domains
    • confirm the HTTPS got set
    • You change the URL in Federalist settings for the repo
    • You set up redirects for the old URLs, possibly using a separate federalist repo that's already scanned
    • (if needed) Will points the old cloudfront address to any redirect repos.
    • (otherwise) the old CloudFront distribution is deleted
  2. New site on old cloudfront domains

    • Will updates your domains to serve for both URLs
    • You point DNS for the new URLs to the old cloudfront URLs
    • confirm the HTTPS got set
    • You change the URL in Federalist settings for the repo
    • You set up redirects for the old URLs, possibly using a separate federalist repo that's already scanned
    • (if needed) the old URL DNS is pointed at a new cloudfront address

Note that these are separate from changing the Github repo name or your org, which is currently only possible via deleting and re-adding the site to Federalist.

@maya
Copy link
Contributor

maya commented Jan 25, 2018

This is done. Thanks to everybody who helped get this across the line.

@maya maya closed this as completed Jan 25, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants