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

Re: Revamping Flags

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:09:31 +0300
Message-ID: <CABc02_LyDGYzTsx35+sFfbz=3MpRPyCsjr8q6dvmat4Fv0c2ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francesco Iovine <f.iovine@gmail.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, 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>
1. I thought the same, but the title says the same as the flag itself, so
you are not really missing anything and it is needed for accessibility, I
believe, so other than being a bit annoying (on a feature that not a lot of
people would even use), I think this is fine.
2. Yes, but you have the annoying title, so... ;)


☆*PhistucK*


On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Francesco Iovine <f.iovine@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 16:10:39 UTC

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