The Field Reference table sucks

[dezzie]

By the time the actual table comes around, we've subjected users to

• too many acronyms
• links to "optional" readings

The table itself lacks

• usable definitions for each field
• calls to action

NEATO: We received feedback that people were going to the Explore Page of the HMDA website to look at the definitions of fields there because they were better.

Proposed fixes:

• Bring in the definitions from the Explore page and fold them into the table...some fields won't map out right but we'll figure it out then.
• Bring in the plain language names from the Explore page too
• Maybe the field page needs to come earlier in the nav?

[dezzie]

#24 This diminishes the usefulness of expanding on query language.

[virtix]

Can we beef this up and make it part of the API itself or at least a separate json file?