W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Revamping Flags

From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 02:30:59 +0300
Cc: Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7FA068E4-F02D-4E8E-AF58-5546EF8A90CD@w3.org>
To: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Based on an idea by Doug, I worked on a prototype of how this limited set of flags could look like to make them less obtrusive: http://dabblet.com/gist/5937575
They would reside at the top of the page, hence the "ribbon" look.
They will have different icons, linked through a symbol webfont. I have included the kind of icons I had in mind in the CSS comments.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Lea

Lea Verou
W3C developer relations
http://w3.org/people/all#leahttp://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou






On Jun 25, 2013, at 20:23, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I like the ideas here, and I would argue for the following set of flags:
>  
> Unconfirmed import (Specifically for content donated but yet to be reviewed)
> Needs review (for changes/additions to be buddy-checked)
> Missing Content (rather than missing examples, with notes to indicate what content is missing)
> Deletion/Move candidate (with notes to indicate details)
> Contains Errors (with notes to details)
>  
> I think these cover the central concerns in a way that is abstracted enough to contain most needs. We can use the editorial notes and develop a syntax that is readable and intuitive:
>  
> MISSING CONTENT (3 August 2013): no description of x parameter.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Eliot
>  
> From: Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:07 AM
> To: Chris Mills
> Cc: Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
> Subject: Re: Revamping Flags
>  
> In response to both... +1
>  
> Cheers,
> Clay
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:
> Yeah, couldn't agree more.
> 
> I reckon 4 or 5 is about the most we should have, keep things simple and unimposing.
> 
> Maybe a 4th flag along the lines of "Needs corrections/details adding", if inaccuracies or missing details have been found, either during the review, or just by a casual observer. Some details could then be left in the editorial notes block.
> 
> Chris Mills
> Opera Software, dev.opera.com
> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
> 
> On 25 Jun 2013, at 10:13, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, folks-
> >
> > We've had many people report that they are discouraged, intimidated, and confused by the current set of flags.
> >
> > Julee and I discussed this when I was giving her the rundown of the recent Seattle Doc Sprint, and we think perhaps we should remove most of the flags.
> >
> > We propose the following 3 flags (for now):
> > 1) Unconfirmed Imported Content: for MSDN or other automated content
> >
> > 2) Needs Review: general purpose, for people who want to review of the content they've changed, or people who want to flag something as odd
> >
> > 3) Needs Examples: For pages where the examples aren't up to snuff, or no examples exist. (In writing this email, it occurs to me that we could also add flags for each of the WPW tasks, but I haven't thought deeply about it.)
> >
> > I propose that we discuss the flags on this thread for the next week, then next week, we change the templates to remove most of the flags.
> >
> > Changes to the visible style will be done later.
> >
> > Regards-
> > -Doug
> >
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 23:31:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:52 UTC