Represent rankings

[foolip]

In addition to listing URLs for each feature, I think we need some way of representing feature rankings from a single source. In other words, in addition to saying that both :has() and CSS Nesting appear in https://2023.stateofcss.com/en-US/usage/#css_interoperability_features, we should represent that they appear in a certain order.

It doesn't have to be survey results, a signal like https://frontendmasters.com/blog/the-popular-vote-of-interop-2024/ is also a ranking.

cc @devnook @robnyman

[foolip]

Another signal could be https://webwewant.fyi/wants/ if it can be sorted by "votes" somehow. @captainbrosset do you know if that's possible?

[captainbrosset]

@aarongustafson and @ststimac would know how to sort by votes. I'm sure it is possible to do in the DB somewhere, but not in the UI of the website, I don't think.

Note that the WebWeWant isn't only about web features though. Its scope is broader than that. There are Wants in there that are about the browser UI, or tooling, or broad areas that people think the Web shoud head towards. There's value in discussing if the WWW could act as a repo for web dev signals on web features/APIs, but it would require, at the very least, some filtering.

[foolip]

This was discussed in the WebDX CG call today, and we talked about how this would be used. What I'd like is some sense of whether a signal is positive, neutral, or negative. And probably how positive. I don't really see a reason to attempt combining multiple rankings, just listing signals and their valence would suffice for prioritization.

I didn't suggest assigning an interpretation originally because that seems hard to have clear guidelines for this, but from the meeting it sounds like we should consider that. Most tractable is probably defining bars to clear for "positive signal" and not condemning any feature with a "meh" or "boo" based on survey results.