Requirement for third button variant on milo

[bandana147]

Hello Team,

I wanted to bring to your attention a new requirement for a different CTA type, as mentioned in this ticket. Currently, Milo offers two button variants:

1. Primary - Bold link
2. Secondary - Italic link

Upon reviewing the documentation, I noticed an option that combines both Bold and Italic styles, resulting in a filled button. I would like to propose introducing a third button variant, which we can name primary-outlined (Bold + Italic).

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal.

Thank you.

[overmyheadandbody]

This might work for this particular use-case, but I'm not sure it's the best long-term strategy:

1. this is being done for an A/B test. It may be that the challenger is not a winner, so I'd argue we shouldn't be adding features to the main codebase, when in fact they might not get used. Using the quickest idea to get the test up&running might also not be preferable, since the stakeholder would then likely want to push the test winner to production, meaning you'd end up having to add that quick idea to the main codebase;
2. setting up bold+italic to mean primary outline CTAs essentially closes off all our future expansion possibilities. Say the stakeholder then wants a secondary outline CTA, what would we do then? What I'm saying is that we should be thinking of a long-term strategy;
3. we usually want to keep things consistent. The documentation you shared showcases that bold+italic=secondary outline CTA, whereas the A/B test needs a primary outline CTA. We should always aim to keep authoring experiences consistent between all the different parts of the website, bold+italic should always mean the same thing;
4. given the previous bullet points, my first course of action would be to try to persuade the stakeholder to simply use a secondary CTA, which should already be available and come at no extra development cost.

Only if 4 is a definite no-go should we start thinking of a good long-term strategy to handle multiple button types.

[rgclayton]

Button styling should go through Consonant. They will be the ones supporting this in the long run.

We also don't want to build stuff into Milo just for "tests".

We already have a PR submitted that is creating a dark gray filled button using a combo of bold and italic.
#2059

[ryanmparrish]

@bandana147 - Thanks for your example and foresight on button authoring. My PR that @rgclayton pointed to will already take up the proposed button authoring notation so I don't think that suggestion is a viable option. It looks like your example is scoped to the gnav.footer? I think that special use case can handle these from an authoring perspective w out trying to accommodate a global greater good. Correct me if i'm wrong but that design looks fairly isolated and it wouldn't be used in a regular page cadence. If this is accurate, those footer button/link/headline styles wouldn't inherit global button styles but a more curated design offering only available in the footer UI.

[bandana147]

Thank you, @overmyheadandbody, @rgclayton, and @ryanmparrish, for your valuable input. I agree that our options for adding new button variations through Sharepoint's link styling are limited.
While this requirement may be primarily for testing purposes at the moment, it's essential to consider our long-term strategy regarding multiple button variations, as @overmyheadandbody mentioned.

The button style is already existing in AEM and has been approved by Consonant apparently. The stakeholders expect to maintain consistency in the navigation experience across AEM and Milo pages.

I will work on persuading the stakeholder to consider using the secondary button for now.

[rgclayton]

@bandana147 You might want to double check with the Consonant team (Danielle). From what I'm hearing there are more discussions needed around CTA's in the gnav.