Implement new changes on name servers page

[gabydisarli]

Issue description

See parent issue for context.

Acceptance criteria

The below AC match numbered areas that are annotated with more detail in the Figma.

• (1) Add new empty state for Name servers page with Add name servers button. Change content to match Figma. (Figma link)
• (2) New flow for add a new name server matching Figma designs (Figma link)
• (3) Edit an existing name server flow and behavior. (Figma link)

Additional context

No response

Links to other issues

No response

[gabydisarli]

cc: @SamiyahKey will fill in more detail in Figma annotations on accessibility requirements like screenreader output, etc.

[abroddrick]

Putting to dev parking lot because I think this ticket needs a bit of refinement before being picked up. On PR review, most people look at the ticket and may miss ACs that are documented only in the annotations on a figma, those ACs should be brought over to make sure a PR reviewer and the original dev don't miss them

[gabydisarli]

@abroddrick I'd love to get our heads together to figure out a way to document these types of tickets and have them work in harmony with the annotations in Figma. I worry that if we directly copy everything over we'll lose some of the context that the Figma provides, it also kind of defeats the purpose of designers doing the work to write out all the annotations in Figma. Maybe we can find some kind of happy medium?

[abroddrick]

You make a good point we don't want to over duplicate stuff, but also make sure on the dev implementation and review, people aren't missing the ACs. Could this be a good candidate for a team workshop discussion? Or we could just chat separately first and see if we have any good middle ground?

[h-m-f-t]

I support more discussion on this.

Reading only these comments, though, it seems like we perhaps need to remind reviewers to read the whole issue, and/or maybe be even more explicit in each A/C to reference and match the details in Figma.

[gabydisarli]

@abroddrick conveniently I have a draft of a ticket I am creating to document more formally the process for design<>dev handoff and this sounds like a great candidate to use to model that process. I think we could meet in a smaller group, maybe me, you, Katherine, and another dev?