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

Re: Revamping Flags

From: Francesco Iovine <f.iovine@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 18:04:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CALE=BGSCnjj6nDadRmHvBkbxA8rAxW750=_Jv2_uhvJFp+Ot=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Love this version Lea :)

Here are some feedbacks:

   1. I don't think that the "title" attribute is necessary: it just covers
   the labels, in my opinion.
   2. Labels are hard to read mainly 'cause of the cursor covering them
   when open: maybe it would be enough to delay the animation timeout on mouse
   out (?)
   3. Does it work on touch devices by a "slide" gesture? Maybe handling a
   touchstart event would be enough (?)

Ciao ;)

Francesco <http://www.francesco.iovine.name>


On 27 July 2013 12:20, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 16:04:48 UTC

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