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

RE: Revamping Flags

From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:23:00 +0000
To: Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <47f61feb29414fd9a85c9a23f909b18d@BL2PR03MB228.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
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.



From: Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@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


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 and webplatform.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 Tuesday, 25 June 2013 17:25:50 UTC

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