Agreed with @iamjolly: thanks for this, and I also don't love truncation. Truncation, as Karen McGrane so memorably puts it, is not a content strategy.

But I also agree with @iamjolly in terms of needing to anticipate possible pain points for teams adopting versions of the design system that don't behave like they used to. In the interest of that:

• Do we have any numbers on sites using USWDS (this version) that may be impacted?

No firm numbers that I have on hand at the moment, but to broad-brush this, we know that a majority of the federal-level sites using USWDS we can track that list a version number (the vast majority do not, I should note) are using version 2.0 or earlier. (I know, I know: I'd very much like that to be different too.)

Then keep in mind that not every team will update right away — there seems to be a tendency to batch version changes, from my memory of the research on the subject. Then keep in mind that many teams that could ingest this may be shortstaffed, which speaks both to updating being potentially a low priority, and also the care with which they may look at the changes involved (this item could go either way, to be honest).

• How should we communicate this change so that there is clarity for implementors on problems to look for and how to address them?

Great question: in the past USWDS has had more options available. The monthly call was certainly a primary venue, plus the newsletter, plus the public Slack channel, plus of course the release notes. It's possible to announce through some but not all of these, considering current staffing, unless someone in the community wants to step in to help.

• If the number of sites using the current version is below a certain threshold, should we publish now with the appropriate caveats/documentation addressed in the previous question?

So just now I pulled up the metrics that I do have available (that's a protected link, but anyone could fetch the info separately: thank you Site Scanning), and again, big caveat that these are only the sites that list a version number, but the grand total of sites tracked there that are using 3.10.0 or later is... 49. And a solid majority of those are TTS- or GSA-based sites, whose teams are much easier to communicate with.

So, long and short, definitely glad we're considering this together, but in this case I think the stats point toward being in fairly good shape to make this change, as long as there's some careful consideration to communication involved. (Which is, in the end, my responsibility.)

✅ All commits on this PR have a verified signature. Thanks!

I think this looks good. I appreciate the .usa-breadcrumb--truncate fallback. Approved.

Will just need to resolve these conflicts first 👇

package-lock.json
package.json

@annepetersen need your approval one more time since I did the last commit