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

Re: Revamping Flags

From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:20:39 +0300
Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3BA27472-540E-4D57-9617-2DB5FF0BB146@w3.org>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Hi all,

So I changed the colors to be more distinct and customized the icons: http://lea.verou.me/webplatform/landing/border-radius.html
Thoughts?

Cheers,
Lea

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






On Jul 8, 2013, at 05:46, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
> 
> I used the warmer colors from our logo palette [1] to indicate that these are issues. I could instead just use random colors (the purple, the aqua etc) and I do see your point about the colors being distinct, in fact I struggled with the tradeoff myself. Do you think that would be better? Or, perhaps, you have a completely different idea?
> 
> Here is a draft of it in a page [2]. It looks a bit better in Chrome as Firefox is showing different icons. The end result will look equally good in both, since the icons will be coming from a webfont. (Sorry for uploading it on my website, I tried to upload it on WPD [3] but right now it gives a 404, even after deploying)
> 
> Cheers,
> Lea
> 
> [1]: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Design#Colors
> [2]: http://lea.verou.me/webplatform/static/webplatform/border-radius.html
> [3]: http://www.webplatform.org/border-radius.html
> 
> Lea Verou
> W3C developer relations
> http://w3.org/people/all#leahttp://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 03:11, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Lea-
>> 
>> This looks good to me, though I'd prefer to see it in context on a page.
>> 
>> The colors need work, I think. Right now, 3 of them are much of a muchness, and I think it would be better if each color were distinct, to indicate the kind of issue; I think that would supplement the icon.
>> 
>> Regards-
>> -Doug
>> 
>> On 7/7/13 7:30 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>>> <mailto: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 <http://dev.opera.com>
>>>>   W3C Fellow, web education andwebplatform.org <http://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
>>>>   <mailto: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 Saturday, 27 July 2013 10:20:50 UTC

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