@bmartinezcalvo thanks for sharing this proposal. These proposal seem logical to me so +1.

@STHart - can you review this for good measure and let us know the next steps?

@iamjessklein this proposal makes sense to me logically and visually in the demo that @bmartinezcalvo provided. Thank you both. Just for my knowledge, what is the difference between "normal" and "primary" buttons? I'm not suggesting we change the naming or anything like that, but from a naming perspective that seems like they are of equal importance.

Thanks for sharing @bmartinezcalvo and for the detailed explanation. Your proposal sounds like a good idea to me :)

In T305437#7879352, @STHart wrote:

@iamjessklein this proposal makes sense to me logically and visually in the demo that @bmartinezcalvo provided. Thank you both. Just for my knowledge, what is the difference between "normal" and "primary" buttons? I'm not suggesting we change the naming or anything like that, but from a naming perspective that seems like they are of equal importance.

@STHart these are the current names of our buttons. Primary are the solid buttons and Normal are the outline ones. I agree with Primary but not with Normal since Normal is too generic and doesn't give a real information of the button you are going to use. I would name them Primary and Secondary or Solid and Outlined but I'm not sure if we can update it now or if it's a big task since they are already with this name in all the code (both Codex and OOUI). cc: @Volker_E

• We could differentiate between disabled-toggled-off and disabled-toggled-on

In general, this task is following the right approach of trying to solve component limitations by introducing changes at a higher level in the system. Stylistically, the changes also look good. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that applying different styles to 'outline' and 'solid'/'filled' disabled buttons solves the original problem: allowing users to differentiate between disabled toggled-on and toggled-off buttons.

It might be just a personal impression, but the disabled option could not look apparent right away. We might need to validate the effectiveness of this solution, and find out whether further indications (e.g. a "selected" icon?) should be included.

In T305437#7881703, @Sarai-WMDE wrote:

• We could differentiate between disabled-toggled-off and disabled-toggled-on

In general, this task is following the right approach of trying to solve component limitations by introducing changes at a higher level in the system. Stylistically, the changes also look good. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that applying different styles to 'outline' and 'solid'/'filled' disabled buttons solves the original problem: allowing users to differentiate between disabled toggled-on and toggled-off buttons.

It might be just a personal impression, but the disabled option could not look apparent right away. We might need to validate the effectiveness of this solution, and find out whether further indications (e.g. a "selected" icon?) should be included.

@Sarai-WMDE good point of view, but I think we have another problem here which is that our current disabled-primary buttons are using white on gray that it's not the best solution. Maybe we should use content-color-disabled #72777D for both disabled-normal and disabled-primary texts. With this solution we would improve the experience between disabled-toggle-off and disabled-toggle-on.

We will continue working on this task as an exploration to study more use cases and improve our disabled buttons. Moving this into the backlog for now and can discuss scope in our next sprint.