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

Re: Revamping Flags

From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 10:15:34 -0700
To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>, 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: <CE194DE9.89BBD%julee@adobe.com>
Ooo. I just thought of something to fix making it clear that the page
isn't a "finished" one. Maybe the flags -- or a critical one -- are
extended, by default? J


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





-----Original Message-----
From: julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Saturday, July 27, 2013 9:08 AM
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 Public List
<public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Revamping Flags

>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 17:16:05 UTC

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