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

Re: Revamping Flags

From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:08:27 -0700
To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
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: <CE193D7E.89B79%julee@adobe.com>
Again, I think these look great. However, I just realized we are at odds
with two requirements:

1. To make flags less intimidating
2. To have a clear visual or UI indication of whether or not any given
page is done

I don't think these discrete flags are going to make it clear to the
visitor that a page is not really ready for public consumption.

What to do?

J

----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:20 AM
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Clay Wells
<cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, WebPlatform Public List
<public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Revamping Flags

>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#lea ? http://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#lea ? http://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#lea ?http://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 16:09:01 UTC

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