- From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:11:12 +0100
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
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 W3C Fellow, web education and 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> 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 Tuesday, 25 June 2013 10:11:23 UTC