El T397178#11021606, @ppelberg escribió:

Assigning this task over to Bárbara to evaluate the extent to which the issues this ticket describes are still happening in production.

Updated task description with the current issues to solve.

Moving relevant discussion over from T394713:

In T394713#11021615, @DLynch wrote:

Disabled feels like overkill -- it's too low-contrast to be easily readable to my eyes, and it's specified to be used in places when someone might still want to refer to the contents of the card. E.g. in add-reference, the card still contains the explanation for why you should add a citation.

In T394713#11023045, @bmartinezcalvo wrote:

Disabled elements are not required to meet AA contrast standards, and the current contrast follows the same approach used across other disabled elements. If we introduce a collapsed disabled state in the future, it would follow this same color approach. For consistency, I recommend using the existing color tokens applied to other disabled components.

In T394713#11025821, @DLynch wrote:

I suppose I could rephrase my position to "that shouldn't be disabled", if we have to use those colors.

To elaborate: I now don't think we should show the card as disabled, if that treatment is required. The actions within it are disabled, but the card is still the active task you're engaging with, which consists of the card and its instructions plus the citoid popup. (See also: the Tone check revise flow, where we're not going to make the tone directions illegible while you're revising.)

@DLynch thank you for your feedback. So, after reviewing this one more time, your proposal makes sense. We could disable the actions (either the ones within the card or the important ones like "Publish) when they are affected by other actions in the page, like this "Add a citation" popover. So we can leave the card as it is: enabled with just the buttons disabled.

So declining this task.