improve: why-lightspeed - Redesign the Why LightSpeed page #171

Improvement Summary

Redesign and rebuild the Why LightSpeed DEV page, following the issue structure and review approach of #151.

Use approved page-specific content and design. Do not inherit Testimonials-specific faults, quotations, media requirements or launch commitments.

Linked Stories/Tasks/PRs/Epic

#151 is the structural reference, not an implementation duplicate.

LSA-166 provides page-delivery context only; no native parent or PR association is established by this description.

#116 records an unresolved navigation-placement question involving Why LightSpeed. Confirm that decision before changing entry points.

Milestones & Timeline

No milestone, deadline or launch commitment is established for this page.

Is your improvement related to a problem? Please describe

The requested outcome is a redesign/rebuild of the existing page. Specific visual, content or functional faults have not been independently verified.

The homepage section’s source links to /why-lightspeed/, whereas the supplied target is /why/lightspeed/. This is a source-level discrepancy, not proof of a broken live link.

Describe the improvement you'd like

Rebuild the supplied DEV page using suitable existing theme patterns, semantic blocks and design tokens. Confirm approved content, layout and calls to action before implementation.

Separate WordPress page-content changes from necessary repository changes. Do not introduce a dedicated template or pattern without an evidenced need.

Preserve the supplied URL unless a separately approved routing decision changes it. Navigation, redirects and homepage-link changes are not automatically included.

Designs / Mockups

Approved page-specific design, content sources and review handoff remain implementation dependencies.

The existing homepage Why LightSpeed section is a reference only, not approval for the full page.

Accessibility Considerations

Check semantic headings, readable content, descriptive links, visible keyboard focus, contrast, image alternatives and responsive presentation.

Acceptance Criteria

• The supplied DEV page is rebuilt using approved page-specific content and design.
• Suitable existing theme patterns and tokens are reused.
• Any necessary repository changes follow an approved bounded file plan.
• The page URL, calls to action and relevant entry points are verified.
• Route discrepancies receive an approved decision rather than assumed redirects.
• Responsive, keyboard, heading, contrast and link checks are recorded.
• Design/content review is recorded before publication.
• All acceptance criteria met
• Documentation/changelog updated
• Tests added/updated
• PR uses correct branch prefix (feat/)
• PR description updated with relevant details
• Changelog entry prepared for PR (if applicable)
• Labels/types match org standards

The template’s fixed feat/ wording is retained for fidelity, not accepted as branch selection. Resolve the conflict below before implementation.

Testing Requirements

Verify the target page, internal links, calls to action, headings, keyboard interaction, contrast and responsive overflow.

For repository changes, run the applicable validation, linting and affected-file checks documented in AGENTS.md. Use the existing bounded page-testing workflow where applicable.

Record actual coverage and results. No page inspection or tests have been executed for this draft.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Assess composition using existing patterns and WordPress page content first. Introduce reusable code only where the approved design demonstrates a gap.

Database-only content/layout edits require no implementation branch.

Additional Context

Repository: lightspeedwp/ls-theme, checked at fca4809bd4e4d0cd713ad21a24f5027945714489.

Relevant references:

• patterns/sections/homepage-why-lightspeed.php — homepage section, not a verified full-page implementation.
• patterns/template-page-no-title.php — generic post-content shell, not evidence that a dedicated template is needed.

Description-sync behaviour is unverified, so ordinary headings are retained. Creation does not authorise GitHub synchronisation, taxonomy export, implementation, publication or deployment.

Branch instructions

• Repository: lightspeedwp/ls-theme
• Implementing issue: This proposed page issue; verify its saved scope before PR association.
• Parent epic context: Coordination only; never a native PR development or closing target.
• Allowed closing targets: None verified yet. Closing requires evidence that the whole implementing outcome is complete.
• Branch state: Unresolved.
• Branch: Unresolved—recommendation withheld.
• Base: Unresolved—recommendation withheld. Both develop and main exist; this does not settle the integration target.
• Naming policy: Repository AGENTS.md and the organisation branching strategy. A UI change may fit an authorised design/ or ux/ prefix; the Linear Improvement label does not determine it.
• Pull request template: Unresolved. No local template was found in the checked .github directory. Organisation routing and documented design-template guidance conflict.
• Constraints: Preserve unrelated changes. Do not force-push, merge, deploy, automatically close issues or delete branches. Do not change locked governance files.
• Conflicts or missing evidence: The epic specifies feature/phase-1-page-builds and integration into main; that branch was not returned in the current branch listing, and feature/ is absent from the checked organisation naming pattern. The Improvement template’s prefix wording does not resolve this.

Expected file changes

Plan status: Provisional; no page-specific repository file is justified yet.

• Out of scope: Testimonials content/media, unrelated styling, navigation redesign, redirects, homepage CTA changes, dependencies, governance, publication and deployment.
• Remaining discovery: Inspect the target page and approved design/content; assess existing patterns; identify exact code changes, if any; verify relevant existing branch/PR scope before recommending reuse.
• Scope-change gate: Stop for revised scope and approval before adding materially different files or operations.

Evidence and handoff packet

• Recipient and request: Issue-creation workflow; read-only branch advice for this proposed description.
• Selected record: The proposed Why LightSpeed issue, separate from the reference issue and epic.
• Implementing targets and criteria: The supplied DEV page and acceptance criteria above.
• Sources checked: Current reference issues, Improvement template, label registry, repository instructions, pattern guidance and workflows; organisation branching strategy and PR routing.
• Branch/PR evidence: No verified matching implementation branch or PR was established. This does not prove none exists.
• Association and closing rationale: GitHub/Linear mapping remains unresolved; no closing association is proposed.
• Unresolved points: Approved content/design, current page state, route discrepancy, exact file changes, base, branch reuse and PR template.
• Approval state: Draft only. Creation approval does not authorise implementation, branch operations, PR creation, publication or deployment.

Definition of Ready (DoR)

• Problem/opportunity defined
• Acceptance criteria written
• Designs attached (if relevant)
• Dependencies mapped
• Estimate added (if relevant)

Definition of Done (DoD)

• All AC met and demonstrated
• Documentation and changelog updated
• Tests added/updated
• Correct labels/types applied
• PR uses correct branch prefix (feat/)
• Branch deleted after merge
• Linked issue(s) updated with latest status and closed after merge,
• The related epic should not be closed, instead updated with a comment to reflect the closed issue

Template completion wording is preserved, not execution permission. Branch deletion, issue closure and epic comments require separate authority; merge alone does not establish acceptance or publication.