Stronger research focus

[marcoscaceres]

The Explainer Explainer explicitly calls for User Research... which is actually really hard and expensive to do right.

User research

[If any user research has been conducted to inform the design choices presented,
discuss the process and findings.
We strongly encourage that API designers consider conducting user research to
verify that their designs meet user needs and iterate on them,
though we understand this is not always feasible.]

At the same time, it doesn't really talk about just researching a solution for whatever I being proposed.

I wonder if we should add a General "Research" section. That could provide guidance on "Did you conduct research on how what you are proposing works today in various platforms. How would it integrate with how browsers work?"

[csarven]

Well, it starts with "If" and uses advisement language ("strongly encourage").

That said, I think the general "Research" might be useful if and only if "User research" is preserved as a subsection. I think there is some value in being explicit about that. Even if actual user research wasn't conducted, it brings awareness for first time readers.

The general research section can also include other notable areas of research as subsections. For instance, academic, theoretical, fundamental research has importance on its own in many areas. They inform specification development or even pre-specification development like in many W3C workshops.

So, I'd be in favour of a general research section but still being explicit about some important areas, whether as subsections or simply list them in point form.

[marcoscaceres]

Totally fine to keep user research, even if seldom done correctly if at all.