What a component isn't

All right. Hi everybody I'm Brad. So even with all these slides when I rehearsed. Yeah, yesterday night came out a little bit early. So, um, my plan is to talk slower, but also, you are all welcome to just pitch in with a question or a comment at any time during the presentation. It won't bother me, I swear. Webster's Dictionary defines component as a constituent part or ingredient. This is a very general definition, as lots of things are parts of a larger whole, so we must mean something more specific when it comes to web work. Or do we? So a component isn't most of the other words in the dictionary. Thank you. I appreciate your time today. Um. Classic misdirect. So why is there something rather than nothing? What's our purpose? What does it mean to lead a meaningful life? What are things and how do we define them? So this guy Plato, he said, I'm paraphrasing here, there's like this like perfect example of an apple, like out in heaven that all the earth apples are just trying to be like.

So if you want to know more about that, you can Wikipedia platonic idealism or the Theory of Forms. Um, so some of the earliest thought on the nature of our world and how we can conceptualize objects and concepts leads inextricably to there being an apple in the spirit realm. However, some time has passed since Plato and other folks have weighed in. So the main concept from this wall of text is that you can try to describe a thing or concept, or try to give enough examples that the description is implied. So, uh, if you describe something with too little detail, then your definition of an apple might accidentally include pears. But if you describe something too tightly, then like speckled green apples might get the boot, so it's a tough balancing act. Similarly, a few examples might lead your reader to like a murky understanding of what an apple is, whereas a huge list of examples like this one could be overwhelming and unhelpful. Um, so there's a there's a balance whether you do an intentional or an extensional definition of a word.

So why does the definition of the word definition, um, like what does that have to do with what a component is or isn't? And why does this matter? Well, if you've ever argued about whether a hot dog is a sandwich, an exercise, we probably don't have enough time to cover this hour. But you could pick up during the unconference. You know, where both intensional and extensional definitions fall apart. A description of everything we culturally think of as a sandwich is almost impossible to get into a sweet spot, and we cannot trust the dictionary writers to decide for us. If a taco is a sandwich, that's not happening. So what we're exploring here today doesn't have clear cut answers. You can give your opinion, but in a lot of cases, you'll be taking my flimsy word for it. And I am an unreliable narrator. On top of all this, there are two schools of thought around how dictionaries should work. So prescriptivists they think the dictionary is the source of truth and language. Evolution is more or less like incorrect usage.

They desperately want there not to be grey areas about components sandwiches or apples. Um descriptivists who correctly believe the dictionary should reflect language how we use it. So, um, they know language is messy and it changes over time and they're up for a good hot dog debate, aren't we all? So disclaimer I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but if we can agree on anything today, language could shift right under us tomorrow and us descriptivists can take that all in stride, whereas the Prescriptivists might, uh, need to take a nap. Okay, so back to apples, of course. Um, if I'm being honest, I made this slide thinking that there was like, a good point to be made here, but now I'm not so sure. I guess the biggest takeaway is like, um, a standard deviation or even like the Pareto 80 over 20 rule breakdown is often a good way to cover most of the things in a definition without going overboard. So getting it like 68% to 80% right is a passing grade most places. And um, yeah, don't worry, if you're an A student, you're still going to have your definition pretty close.

Okay. On the other hand, this slide, um, I only included it because it popped in my head, and it's fun with apples. Moving on. Okay, so now we're back to something resembling a point. Um, so crab apples are fruit from trees of the same species as regular apples. They meet the definition of apple as described intentionally. But we all know the difference between a regular apple and a crab. Apple and apple cider smells like apples and tastes like apples, but it's a liquid that otherwise shares no properties of an apple. And same with like, a Jolly Rancher. It's not a liquid, but you get the idea. Um, the fruit of knowledge of good and evil from the Garden of Eden is often thought to be an apple, though that's never explicitly stated. Pears are apple cousins. Um, they want to be apples so bad. Um, Fiona apples last name is Apple. That's cool. Apple bottom jeans might share some aesthetic properties with apples, and MacBooks have a picture of an apple on, so it's all a matter of degrees. Some things don't walk like an apple or quack like an apple, but aren't as far from apple attitude as you might initially suspect.

So this is all metaphor and foreshadowing. Something to think about when we're talking about other things later. All right, so Voltaire said, define your terms. You'll permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another. And this quote resonates with me, because arguments can sometimes be silly misunderstandings of language rather than substantive debates. And I think that's goofy. Um, it also lets me recommend the book Candide, which is a short, rewarding read. And you can take it from me. I'm a former librarian. Okay, so where were we? Right. Apples. Um. So what I was able to find out about the etymology of the word component is that it's super old, seeing as it comes from Latin, and a lot of old words, English wise are traced back to the 1600s. So component has been a fixture of the language and has meant something similar to its current meaning for that whole time. And in books. The word components are big upswing starting in the 1920s and going through 2000. But in recent years, there's been a decline, and it could be just about the source corpus from Google Ngram Viewer.

As much as the usage of the word. So I'm not sure there. But in Drupal we subdivide lots of stuff so that we can have a modular and flexible framework. Um, unfortunately, words like block and module and plugin, they're used in vastly different ways outside of Drupal. So even within, uh, other PHP content management systems, it can be confusing to keep it all straight. So anybody have any additions to the to the word list before we move on? Box. Box. All right. Well, I said in the in the session description that there would be prizes. Noise. It's sour cream or French onion dip.

>>:
And of course, your apple. Yes. So component is usually very generic but can be descriptive. So react using component in this matter manner led to two things. The first is people who use react mean it in a very specific way. And non react people at that point started pointing at stuff and calling it all components, which is is fine. It's kind of why we're here in this room. So, um, as we explore my opinion of what is and isn't a component, we can all test our assumptions of what we think component means and perhaps reflect on some of it and see if some of its kind of gatekeeper. We. So let's explore how an accordion component is born and grows and lives. How an accordion dies is your homework assignment. Okay. So I'm going to make a note here at the top. We'll be seeing things like this. Um, what I'm calling an accordion. Some of you might call an accordion item or an expando or a disclosure widget. Um, and you might insist that, like, a real accordion needs two or more of these, and I disagree.

So if you'd like to send me a strongly worded letter, I can give you my mailing address. Um. All right. So, like any well-lived life, we start with the platonic form of the component. And we've got the hottest new game show in America today. Is it a component? Woohoo! Yes. We don't argue with the spirit realm here. If it's in the platonic form, it's a component. Okay, so outside of the spirit realm and after the sprint zero kick off, the project manager slacks the technical architect who suddenly remembers to include a disclosure widget among the components. Is that a component? Not. Yes. Yeah. Interesting. I just don't like doctors. I disagree. Um, so I don't think this is like the Rhonda Byrne's The Secret. We're not, like, manifesting the accordion into existence, so not quite yet, I think. Let's see. So then we're in Jira, where the backlog is truth, and the PM stubs out the story with what they know about the component, and then assigns it to an architect or a developer to refine.

Is it a component this side of the room? Yes. No. All right. Got disagreement, I like it. Healthy debate. I'm going with. No. So, um, we need to put a little bit more around here, if we can call it juror story, a component. Uh, we'll have to start with a little bit more description around it, which is just what we're about to do. So this story could be touched by multiple designers, developers, QA testers and other subject matter experts. So having good detail is an important responsibility for a girh story. Um, but we've refined it to ready, and this accordion is ready for work to start. Is it a component? Yes. Yes. Oh, wow, a resounding yes over here. Hahaha. So it's said that the best plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy. And as good as a well defined story is, there's bound to be things that the resulting work deviates from. So you can make the case that a well rounded, jiro's story is the specification for a component that does not and may never exist. Okay, so this is something that looks like an accordion.

It could be prototyped to open and close on click, and it could be placed in the context of other mocked up content components. I'm interested to hear. Is it a component? Yes. All right. That's got a lot of.

>>:
Things going on here. Yeah. But we've got a big butt here, so it's only a component in the context of Figma. And rarely can you ship a Figma board as the final product. So maybe the notion that this is technically a component doesn't get us all that far, but we've got a yes, and not just in the spirit realm. Okay. And now all the Drupal people were were getting somewhere in parallel with those designs. The back end dev, uh, does the site building portion of the build out. So for the sake of this example, the components are built using paragraphs, with accordion being a bundle with fields specified in the refined story. Other alternatives here are block entity types, custom block classes um, that you could use like layout builder, um or other entities, and config schema that might map the necessary data. So Drupal. People. Is it a component? Yes. No. Very. He's got a lot of certitude. Nope. Um, like I said, I'm an unreliable narrator, and I'm very biased, so I'd almost give it a pass. But at this point, the paragraph doesn't look like the mockup.

Or show and hide and expand the detail text, which is sort of the core concept of an accordion. So it's part of a larger whole in that it's a paragraph bundle. Um, but it's in like a rough shape at this point. So does the.

>>:
Roughness of its shape affect the definition of whether it is a component or whether the component meets the requirements? I love it. Yeah. Um, what do you all think? Is there a. Oh. Thank you, thank you. Is there kind of a slippery slope or a sliding scale of some kind when it comes to, uh, when something has been sufficiently developed to go from this is a thing that we can't define to, we now know that we can put the word component and attach it to that. So, uh, does anybody have any components? This is a spectrum. Interesting. Uh, the component has to be usable as a component if it's just the definition that's not the component. I buy that everybody else like usability okay. So um, whether using pre-processed functions, twig templates, both or other approaches, a developer tells Drupal that the open attribute, uh, goes in the details tag and the title is wrapped with a summary tag. Um, and this templating leads the paragraph to have appropriate HTML markup for the application. So sometimes templating includes splitting out the entity from the concept.

But for the simplicity here I'm just showing like this is kind of the base level markup. So um, by the way this is supposed to be a beginner level session. So if there are things that you're unclear about, be happy to kind of dive into more, um, uh, detail here. One thing I'll point out here in this template is I love without. So if you're using a particular field in a template without can be handy. So you can use manage, display and Drupal to continue to, uh, shape the the content area without having to go back in and specify precise fields there. All right. Is it a. Component? No, no. Oh, wow. That's the spectrum is, uh, it's going to get us, um, if you want to, you know, meet me outside. Catch me outside. You can, um. So sight unseen. Yes. I'm being super semantic here, but is it. Are we talking about the code? In which case the answer is no? Or are we talking about the rendered code and the browser, which is a yes. Right. Yeah, exactly. So, um, you're bringing up a very good point is we have these different layers at which we can construe components and we'll be seeing sorry.

Spoiler alert, we'll be seeing about abstraction layers which factor into this spectrum, this amorphous definition of what a component may or may not be. So, um, as we saw earlier with the, uh, the dictionary definition and the etymology, uh, the, the word is so general that we can do a lot of things here. And so we have to, uh, kind of coalesce around some truth. So, um, yeah. So sight unseen, we know there's progress. There's a details tag with a valid summary. So it gives something that works like an accordion item, um, even if it doesn't look like the designs are completely matched, the Jira spec. And this is the first time we have something in code that's component ish. Component S, it has a, uh, the scent of a component. All right. So then the front end specialist, they make the markup look like the mockup. And sometimes the step feels like magic. Uh, I think we already know where this is going. Is it a component? Yes. Oh, yeah. So at this point the accordion has a paragraph bundle with the fields it needs, so it stands alone.

But as part of the overall system, it looks and works how most users expect. But it's not entirely polished. So let's do some polishing. So I'm going to point out something in the code here. But maybe this component doesn't need any JavaScript to work, since details is doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The details tab is really cool, though there are caveats. Uh, the front end developer is a real pro, and the JIRA story said to set up some JavaScript just in case. So one thing I want to point out here is the closest method here on the, um, you can use it a lot of different elements to, uh, narrow down an event listener. So the document is what we're listening to an event for. So every click on the document is going to go through this event. And we're just going to only care about if, uh, the bubbling of the event goes to an accordion. So, um, this doesn't do a whole heck of a lot, but that's a pattern that I kind of enjoy, because if you decide to dynamically insert an accordion on the page after the original load, then you'll be okay.

All right. Is it a component? Yeah. Um, so at this point, the story can likely go to testing and get closed out this sprint. Um, it's very much a component in the sense that it's a functional part of the system, but it isn't being used, so it just feels sort of aimless. And that goes to what you're saying is we have all the code in place and in a code sense, absolutely a component. But, uh, you know, if a tree falls in the forest kind of thing.

>>:
We have to. Train people and memorialize the work. So there's a lot to say about even one accordion component within a whole design system. So let's commit it to paper. At this point in the sprint, we're also doing QA, checking, accessibility, writing, automated tests, and other good code hygiene. Um, though the documentation angle is the most visible in the process. So documentation. Is it a component? Can you catch? All right. The documentation about a component is a part of the whole of documentation, so you could make the case based just on a definition of component that the documentation for accordion is a component of the overall documentation. If that's not entirely confusing, however, this isn't typically what we mean by component in the in the context of web. Okay. So. Storybook Pattern lab and other tools. They serve a useful purpose, and they also feel like something you should do when working with components, so they're a place to show examples of components. Give source code for implementation.

Document the options for using those components, sometimes interactively and in many cases provide more documentation around usage, accessibility, and other adjacent topics. Hmm'hmm. I'm interested to this one. I want to know where where, where we're at. So is it a component? No. It contains the component. Is anybody else? It is within the context of the. You saw my notes, okay. Um, sure. If the fully coded accordion is a component and Storybook contains the fully coded component at least once, then of course it's a component. But I just said that the documentation isn't a component, and a decent chunk of each component page is documentation. So there's that. But I think the strongest argument here is that you can have one or more components in your toolbox and skip the design library step and still be using components. So, um, this step of using something like Storybook feels componenti a lot, a very component, but it's not like a necessary step to using this concept. Okay, so finally the day comes when an accordion is needed and it happens to be on an FAQ page and there's an accordion placed on the site.

And not just for testing. Is it a component? Yes. Oh, sure. All right. Enthusiasm. This feels like the accordion from the earlier drawing, um, frolicking in the sunshine. It's the component has a purpose now. It's living its life, which it feels necessary, even though it's not a definitional requirement for a component in a web context. So, um, really glad that you're not playing the component drinking game right now. Um. Let's see. Then. And this is a reality of life is sometimes you have to rewrite code you've already written, but in another dialect. So in this case, the the client has a need for a marketing automation system that's outside of the main website. Um, and so you can see in the brief example that it's a flavor of JavaScript called an arrow function. And the return value is JSX and the component name. Um, uh, here starts with an uppercase letter. And the HTML that it returns looks a lot like that twig example from before. So, uh, a distinction that I'd like to highlight now as we, as we continue along, is that, um, react is an abstraction layer.

So you can use a tag with an uppercase, a accordion in your code and pass it props and do all the things that you do with react code, but you don't see that in the resulting HTML source. You see the HTML code that's being returned from in that statement. So that details tag prints to the page. All right, so we're back from commercial break and starting round two. Is it the same? You're going to see a recurring theme here, since the component is an abstraction layer, and the details tag prints the screen, the browser and users can see the react component is identical to the earlier twig one. Okay, so. Every 15 to 20 minutes, the react project releases a new major version that requires a partial rewrite of your code. Um. Um, and it's never quick and easy, but it's also not, like, painful enough to rage, quit, react altogether. So it's like a nice little balance. So you go in and you do rewrite number two of your component. Is it the same? Yes. Okay. Is anybody in need of an apple? Okay.

So yeah, hopefully as long as the rewrite doesn't cause regressions or other defects, um, the resulting component should be the same as the previous component, which is the same as the one before that. So let's say that a ship leaves port for a long journey, and along the way, some wooden boards break and the sailors repair the ship. Um, and the ship is a way at sea for so long that eventually every board and plank and mast has been replaced. When it returns to its home port, is it the same ship? Is when it departed? I don't know why that came to mind. Uh, yeah. Um, okay. So if you already have a component in the sense of a part of the whole system, and that part has styles and javascripts like our recording example, it should be pretty straightforward to adapt it into a single directory component. The directory may need a component YAML file that defines the slots and properties defined and documented earlier, which is like a new part of the code. Um, and the accordion might stand alone as its own thing, needing to be called separately from within the accordion paragraphs twig template outside that single directory.

Um, but overall this is an interesting exercise and encapsulation. So. Is it the. Same? Yes. Yes, yes. We're moving files around and changing some formats, but the accordion looks and works the same as it did before, so that checks out. CSS custom properties, also known as CSS variables, let you define things like brand colors one time, then refer to them elsewhere, um, in your styling code, and you just have to declare it once. So, um, this lets you set up maybe like ten variables in one file and then drastically rebrand an entire design system. This is a wonderful thing for reusing of components and themes. I like the pattern where you're, like, nesting, uh, variables. If you want to nerd out about that during coffee exchange. Um, so we've, uh, we've adapted and done a little rewrite to put in some CSS custom properties. Is it the same? Yep. Yes. So even with deeply nested variables, the original values that define how an accordion is styled still come through in the end. So it looks and works the same still.

So in Greek. Mythology, Sisyphus was a mean king whom the gods punished by forcing him to push a boulder up a hill for eternity, and every time he got close to the top, the boulder would fall back down the hill and have to start all over again. I'm not really sure why. Old Greek myths keep popping in my head. Um, okay. So. You've gotten so far in here, and now we're talking about web components. Um, web components are the new hotness and a browser supported web standard, and they're great for at least two things. So the first one is, if you're defining a component that isn't covered by an existing HTML tag or a simple combination of tags like a copy all button or a multi-select, or a responsive table, or a video aspect ratio wrapper for doing responsive stuff. Um, that's a great application for a web component, um, because it's transportable. And the second application would be like if you have a large enterprise organization with a sophisticated design needs and a big team with a large budget, and you need to ensure compliance with the design system, um, everything can be a web component.

Since web components are less prone to accidental bad styling than regular HTML markup, they're great for controlling the experience within them. Here we go. Got. I don't even remember which rewrite we're on. Is it the same? No, no. Hot dog. All right. I want to hear some justification. Why is it not a the same? Depending on how you make the web component will.

>>:
Behave very differently. To create a web component, be closed and thus not allow the web component to consume styles from the global context. And in that way the component is very much not the same as it once was. Devel is different. It doesn't matter how the user uses it. Interesting. So that's going back to the code versus usage okay. Interesting. You guys have all the right guesses. Need to need to find a way to surprise you all. Um. You like apples? Oh, yeah. Man. First one you gave me already. Oh. All you have to share. I still have some stickers left. If, uh, if there's any good to. Get him in the hands. All right, so the bears are going to draft you. Sorry. Uh, yeah. Going to what y'all said. At the very least, there's a new tag rapping the accordion. And remember, in the react component that it was an abstraction that still prints out the same HTML with web components. One interesting difference is that the abstraction part doesn't disappear. It stays there. Wrapping all that markup inside kind of, um, and I'd be fine if you see it as like a distinction without a difference, because there's the different modes.

Um, so I've got to get in my controversy somewhere. So what is a web component? If you use that exact phrase web component as opposed to just the word component in the context of web, you're talking about something specific as seen in action at the bottom of this slide. Um, so the HTML web standard now includes custom elements, which is a way to name your own HTML tags. And the main rule is that the tag has to have a hyphen in it. It's fun. Um, otherwise that's just an invalid markup. So, um, along with that tag naming scheme for custom elements, web components also include, uh, using some JavaScript to register the element. Uh, and then a way to template the insides of the component and put the reusable markup in something called the shadow Dom. That's where Barb from Stranger Things is, um, a uh, and then there's like this special barrier with the shadow dom. So where the regular Dom ends and the shadow dom begins, um, styling in some scripting that only certain rules can cross it. So CSS variables very easily get through.

But that random style you wrote three sprints ago that infected the rest of the site, that can't affect the components insides for the most part. And the other piece of it is that there's a consistent way to pass information into the component. So simple values can be included in attributes which are like you might know them as props, uh, while markup can be like sent in using slots. So um, it's difficult kind of to see but slot equals default. And then in there there's a paragraph. So that would be a way to pass something into that template. All right, man, fly in here. Um, so I'm going to keep this slide up until we get at least one example. So you're going to have to talk. Um, what else can we learn about components on the web from just how the word component is used in real life? A component is a unit of a larger organism. It can be used. Small components can be used to comprise a larger system. Just like a car engine. Okay, man, I should have bought more apples. Okay. The is there an industry or some something not web related where you remember hearing the word component before?

I said it 600 times today. Stereo. Stereo. Great. Roofing. Roofing. Computers like Apple computer. Right? All right. I dig it. Well, okay. We're getting towards the end here. So, um, I kind of came up with this concept for this presentation. Yeah. This didn't just happen weirdly. Um, because like a few years back, I was on this project and another developer wanted to do everything in react. And I don't have anything like, particularly against react. Um, but, like, I wasn't a fan of that idea for everything to be that way. And we can get into that because we're going to have some time left over. Um, but I wanted to justify my position. And, um, as we kind of discussed, there's the front end piece of it. There's the code piece of it, um, to an end user, uh, the HTML and all that stuff doesn't really matter as long as you can do the thing that you want. And especially for like a content editor, if you're putting in those fields, you could swap out the implementation of the component, and it would still do the largely the same thing, sort of.

So, um. Eventually, um, instead of like, making this slideshow for them, I voted with my feet and they're probably still making, uh, react pages with big payloads and stuff to this day. Um, but, uh, if plain old HTML and CSS are functionally equivalent to react component, then in my mind there's nothing wrong using old fashioned markup alongside the trendy new technology this season, of course, there's a benefit. There's an economy of scale to having everything on the team, everybody on the team doing things the same way. And that's a big reason for making component libraries and design systems in the first place. So, um, take my sincere desire to just write HTML the rest of my career with a grain of salt, since your mileage may vary. So, um, along this journey, I came up with a few other controversial opinions, mostly to confound your expectations. Though you're wily and you came up with the right answers for all of these. Uh, hopefully now we have a greater appreciation for the world of components, even if we disagree.

Um, so with that, let's see. Oh, um, just a quick plug here. This doesn't have single directory components, web components, React Storybook or Layout Builder. Um, but you will find an aggressively component based starter kit with solid bones and time saving tricks. Garlinghouse. Um. All right. I'm going to skip. And show you the last two slides here real quick, and then we can come back to questions. So, uh, my stepdaughter wanted to be a part of the presentation. Go look and do as I say, not as I do. Remember that contribution day is tomorrow. All right. We all talked out. Yes. Do you find that single directory components is in line with your philosophy of like, if you can make a component with just CSS, you know, like web first languages, e.g. HTML, CSS, JavaScript, that's a good thing. Certainly is. Yeah. Uh, I think one piece of single directory components that we need to flesh out is like all the talk about, uh, CSS variables. Um, there are things that are going to be at a global scope rather than, um, encapsulated in the single directory.

So, um, having sort of a front end architecture that supports both. This is the standalone thing and it's in the larger context or larger ecosystem is important. But yeah, there's nothing that precludes on its own, uh, to being able to use plain old HTML and CSS and JavaScript. So that's a, that's a great happy. With having components in a theme rather than in modules. You get, uh, six one, half a dozen and the other. Sometimes it really depends on the use case. There are there are legitimate reasons to declare base components or something for, um, maybe a design system at the module level and then override them in the theme. That's sort of the pattern that we've glommed onto as a framework. So yeah, very good questions. Yes. Our components for the maker or the consumer. So what I mean by that is do we make components for the people who are developing and creating content, or are components intended for the end user to use? Also an excellent question. And that kind of gets also into, uh, developer experience versus user experience.

So, um, and that's one of those, uh, reacted criticism type things. It's like, uh, am I doing all of this work, um, and using this particular system because it makes my life easier or it makes somebody else's life easier. Um, what I found and your mileage may vary is components make logical sense for content entry specifically. So, um, even taking a lot of that stuff out of the equation, uh, if you want to be able to have a consistent experience in all of those things, be able to test and all that, uh, it helps to use components in in that sense, even if you have a very loose idea of what a component is and it's you're pasting in some markup into a Wysiwyg or something like that. So, um, yeah, I don't know that the that somebody has ever landed on a page and gone, oh, look at all these components. I'm glad that's there. Like it's, it's for people who are doing content entry or doing development, I think. What do you think? Uh, no, I agree with you. I think it's all for the, you know, for the for the entity that is making things to be able to, to have a consistent user experience, a consistent developer experience, you know, and like that's why whenever like we talk to clients about, you know, design systems, we're not talking we talk a little bit about how it benefits the users, but it benefits the users because the site editors can do things faster and focus on what is better.

You know, for the company than you know than necessarily otherwise. Absolutely. I don't. Have any opinions about games, so I can't. Help you with. That's okay. I've got lots and lots of opinions about games. Um, has anybody had some experience, uh, using a component system or a design system or a library of that nature in their organization and found some transformation? Please go ahead. Just raise your hand. Storybook. Storybook. Um. Please emulsify. Of starter being for. Vast majority of our sites now. Thanks. Big plug for four kitchens. Okay. All right. We should talk about the emulsify. Oh, right. Nice to meet you.

>>:
Thanks for an amazing. An amazing project. It's been a lifesaver. That's awesome. Thank you. Anybody else have any apples for you? I'm sorry. That's alright. There's a couple. Hanging out over at that table, I think. So, if you have a craving. Yes, we have a. Pattern aging pattern. Lab. So. Trying to figure out how to get out of it. Storybook. Uh, would you be taking on, like, a larger refactor to do something like SDC or something like that, or is it shifting from Pattern Lab to. I guess it depends. That could make a very good, uh, unconference. Uh. Topic of anybody else is interested. All right. Well, uh. Oh, my goodness. Barely used my time. One last question. So, um, when it's by itself, just text and a reveal, that's a disclosure. And accordion is a collection of disclosures. So you need my mailing address. Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. Um. Here's the counterpoint. Um, because it's expanding and contracting, and that's what an accordion instrument does. A single element to me can be considered an accordion, even though it doesn't have, like, two sides the way that, um, the instrument does.

So, uh, tactile, like the, the tactile experience of it seems on its own to be that way. But if you're if you're thinking about it as each ballo in an accordion is an individual element, I understand the argument. I'm being facetious. But, you know, don't bring your hot dog music into my argument. Uh. Do you want to have a conversation with me? You have to define your terms. Exactly. I think I did an okay job. It's fine. Um. So, uh. Yeah, there's there's a certain amount of fun in being pedantic. So when I said earlier that, um, there are arguments that are largely just misunderstandings about language and that that's goofy. Um, I may not have been entirely forthcoming because I really do. And like, I do enjoy, uh, goofy arguments like that. So true. Yes. What is the next.

>>:
Word you're going to pick for this presentation? I'm dying to know. Uh. I'm no longer welcome here, so. Um. Not true. Uh, that's a good question. We'll see what the next, uh, big trend is that I can be all ornery about. Okay, well, hey, um, you've got a little bit of extra time. I wish I could have filled it up more with some crude drawings, so thank you very much for your time.