W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > May 2014

Re: new plan to replace flags with Readiness Markers

From: Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:18:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB0bRKMz6Dd7VX+yb-Lv6F_REi1eG=NYvaMiuA+NaXKB4hbE5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Cc: List WebPlatform public <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Thank you everyone who was on the call today for a great discussion. You
all had excellent feedback that will help me shape the final versions.

I do think these readiness markers will make a big difference in people's
1) being able to start using the content that's there, plus all the new
content that is soon coming; and 2) being able to figure out how to help &
get more excited about helping because others will be able to use the
content more easily right away.

I'm excited to see them in place. I bet we'll have this shipped by the end
of the month.

Thanks!!
Go team!!

Jen

Jen Simmons
designer, consultant and speaker
host of The Web Ahead
jensimmons.com
5by5.tv/webahead
twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>



On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for all these ideas Jen -- and especially the pictures and sample
> text, which make it much easier to start discussing from a common point of
> understanding.
>
> * On the definitions:
>
> My one concern is the phrase "or inaccurate" in the Almost Complete
> description.  I feel strongly that Almost Complete should only be used for
> good, reliable material that just does not yet include everything we would
> like to be there.
>
> I like your caveat in "Ready to Use" about the fact that standards are
> always changing and so a ready-to-use document may become out of date.  It
> makes me wonder, however, if we should introduce one more category:
>
> *Out of Date*
> A document should only be marked "Out of Date" if it was previously marked
> "Ready to Use" or "Almost Complete", but is no longer accurate due to
> changes in the standards or implementations discussed.  Of course, in most
> cases we would hope that the person who notices the article is out of date
> would be able to update it without need for a change in status. However, if
> an edit cannot be made immediately, this status will let others know that
> the document needs to be reviewed.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> * On how to display the status:
>
> I appreciate the careful argument against big warning boxes.  I think that
> sums up the feeling many people were having.
>
> That said, I know people want this to happen sooner rather than later.  If
> I go ahead with adding the "short and sweet" note box under the titles,
> giving each an appropriate class name, do you think you will be able to
> work with that later with CSS and absolute/fixed positions to move the
> information out of the main text flow?
>
> I like the look of the vertical stripes (especially with the rounded top),
> but I am worried about having the information too far away from the main
> content -- on a widescreen, having the stripe flush left could leave it
> well outside of anyone's field of view.  What about having it floating just
> outside of the main content "page"?
>
> In contrast, the angled ribbons are very visible, but might be annoying in
> that they overlap important navigation links.
>
> On the colours, I am concerned about the white text on yellow background.
>  You've made the yellow darker than normal, but it is still not exactly the
> demonstration of accessibility best practices that we should be aiming for
> (it's also a kind of ugly colour...).  I don't have a problem with the
> original colour scheme.  Purple is enough of an eye-grabbing colour that it
> should be understandable in combination with the text.
>
> Hopefully we can discuss more in the teleconference,
> Amelia
>
>
>
> On 12 May 2014 09:38, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com> wrote:
>
>> *DESIGN — PART3*
>> [While working out the site-wide implementation of the Readiness State
>> colors and names we created for the home page, I'm realizing I want to
>> change them a bit. Here's what I'm thinking.]
>>
>> Well, When creating the home page, I thought about going with a more
>> obvious green, yellow, orange, red set of colors to mean go, hesitate &
>> check a little, wait more iffy, nope don't go here. But I didn't go so
>> obvious because 1) I thought it'd be more interesting to play around the
>> edges of that convention, but not play into it fully. And 2) that yellow is
>> a very hard color to use — that the luminosity of that group is too wide
>> ranging. And 3) That I wanted to stick more closely to the logo colors.
>>
>> The home page works — with the four columns of color next to each other.
>> It's nice.
>>
>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>
>> But once I'm trying to work out the design of the individual document
>> pages, where only one color is showing, and where we want that color (along
>> with the words) to convey a lot of meaning all by itself.... then it's not
>> really obvious enough. Red means In Progress? Blue means All Ready To Go?
>> It's confusing.
>>
>> So I'm rethinking the color set. And did some sketches.
>>
>> Here are all the pages, each with a single color — in one image so you
>> can see them together. I think that better reflects what we want people to
>> do. Use green. Maybe use yellow, with a bit of care. Orange, not so much.
>> Definitely don't use red. (Again, this is for developers who are looking
>> for documentation, not for contributors.)
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> Here's  what those colors would look like on the home  page:
>>
>> [image: Inline image 3]
>> I don't like this as much, but I think usability should trump aesthetics.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jen
>>
>>
>>
>> Jen Simmons
>> designer, consultant and speaker
>> host of The Web Ahead
>> jensimmons.com
>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com> wrote:
>>
>>> *DESIGN — PART 2*
>>> [In this email, I'll show you some sketches of where we can put the
>>> readiness markers, with some different options. Take a look at the images,
>>> and see which options you prefer.]
>>>
>>> Ok, so let's pretend that we all agree that we will not put the
>>> readiness marker visually in a box on in the main content box. Where does
>>> it go?
>>>
>>> I'm playing with two ideas — 1) a diagonal ribbon across a top corner of
>>> the page, and 2) a strip of color down the side of the page. Neither idea
>>> is new or unique. Both will be quickly familiar to users.
>>>
>>> Let me first show you simple implementations of each. In both cases, the
>>> words "In Progress" / "Almost Ready" are a link to a page that explains
>>> what these mean and encourages people to contribute.
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 2][image: Inline image 4][image: Inline image 3][image:
>>> Inline image 1]
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Jen
>>>
>>> Jen Simmons
>>> designer, consultant and speaker
>>> host of The Web Ahead
>>> jensimmons.com
>>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> *DESIGN — PART 1*
>>>> [I'm going to write separate emails, each with a major point. This
>>>> first one is making a case for removing *all * warning boxes of any
>>>> kind from the space above the content inside the white box. It's a detailed
>>>> argument, but that's the only thing I'll talk about in here, and then start
>>>> a new email for the next point.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Eilot and Doug in the last couple emails — to keep the
>>>> readiness marker simple.
>>>>
>>>> I've been planning for the change to readiness states to allow us to
>>>> get rid of having *any* kind of giant box of meta-message at the top
>>>> of the page. I want the user to be able to get straight to the content, not
>>>> be hit first with information about the website.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, a lot of users will 1) need to know Some Thing about
>>>> HTML/CSS/SVG/JS/APIs, 2) google for help on The Thing, and 3) (hopefully
>>>> soon) see a WPD page as a top search result and click on it. They might be
>>>> coming to WPD for the first time. They might have never heard of WPD
>>>> before. They might come to WPD all the time, and start to like it more than
>>>> MDN, and land on WPD pages all the time without every taking any time to
>>>> explore the site or understand the culture that created it. I want to
>>>> encourage this behavior to happen more and more, even if it isn't happening
>>>> yet.
>>>>
>>>> If there's a giant box of meta-stuff in the way of getting straight to
>>>> the content, that slows people down from what they want to do. It doesn't
>>>> really matter if the box is purple, or red & pink, or yellow, or any other
>>>> color — it gets in the way.
>>>>
>>>> I want to move the Readiness Status off the main content box completely
>>>> — the same way the edit button, the tools button, and the breadcrumb are
>>>> outside the white content box.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Let me show you what I mean.*
>>>>
>>>> Here's a current CSS Property page:
>>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>>
>>>> It's hard for a new / disoriented / busy / confused person to see
>>>> what's going on here. There's friction introduced into the experience. A
>>>> user has to struggle a bit to figure this out. We could debate whether
>>>> that's a tiny bit or a large bit, but in every case, there's struggle.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the same page without any warning / metadata about what the WPD
>>>> web masters think about the content:
>>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>>>
>>>> This makes the page much clearer. Boom. "background". I know where to
>>>> put my eyes in the first half-second. I don't start by wondering what's
>>>> going on.
>>>>
>>>> Here's another example.
>>>>
>>>> Current SVG Element page:
>>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 3]
>>>>
>>>> I find this even more confusing, because there doesn't seem to be a
>>>> title.
>>>>
>>>> Let's remove the warnings and add a simple title.
>>>>
>>>> [image: Inline image 4]
>>>>
>>>> Much clearer.
>>>>
>>>> So, I feel very strongly that we should never put a warning box above
>>>> the content. There are many other places to convey what we need to convey.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so the next question is — where do we put it?
>>>>
>>>> I'll answer that in my next email.
>>>>
>>>> Jen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jen Simmons
>>>> designer, consultant and speaker
>>>> host of The Web Ahead
>>>> jensimmons.com
>>>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>>>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We also need to come to a final decision about definitions of the
>>>>>> different states.  Specifically: should "In Progress" only be used if the
>>>>>> article is actively being edited, or for anything that is half done?  What
>>>>>> defines "Almost Done"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that "In Progess" is for anything half-done, whether it's
>>>>> being actively edited or hasn't been touched in a while. It doesn't affect
>>>>> normal users (people looking for info, as opposed to people who are
>>>>> editing) whether the last edit was last week, last month, or last year. If
>>>>> the content is half-baked, it's "in progress".
>>>>>
>>>>> As for "Almost Done" — I think what defined something as Almost,
>>>>> instead of In Progress or Ready will change all the time and be very
>>>>> different from one kind of situation to another. I don't think we should be
>>>>> too prescriptive about what makes a page get Almost instead of Ready.
>>>>> Perhaps the best way to standardize it all is to say this:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Ready to Use*
>>>>> A document should be marked Ready to Use if a developer who is looking
>>>>> for reference material on this topic can randomly land on this page and get
>>>>> complete, accurate information. The information on a Ready to Use page is
>>>>> not outdated, and it's not incomplete in a way that would make the
>>>>> information confusing. Much of the documentation on webplatform.orgwill need to be continuously be revised and updated as standards and
>>>>> techniques change, so Ready to Use pages don't have to always be 100%
>>>>> perfect. They may need minor errors or quick updates.  Hopefully those
>>>>> kinds of edits are simple done as soon as the need for an edit is
>>>>> discovered. In that case, switching the readiness status of the page in a
>>>>> more complex workflow process isn't needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Almost Complete*
>>>>> A document should be marked Almost Complete if it's 80% ready, but
>>>>> still needs something that's clearly missing or inaccurate.  Almost
>>>>> Complete might be used when the descriptions are good, but there are no
>>>>> examples. Or when the editing that humans can do is complete, but there's
>>>>> still something else that needs to be coded in the system to make the pages
>>>>> ready — such as connecting the compatibility tables. This could be used as
>>>>> a way to mark a group of pages for review if an initiative needs such a
>>>>> tool, as a kind of Q/A stage. Or this status might not be used at all;
>>>>> pages can go straight from In Progress to Ready to Use if the circumstances
>>>>> warrant it.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In Progress*
>>>>> A document should be marked In Progress if work on it has officially
>>>>> begun, but it's not close to being ready yet. This marker will tell
>>>>> developers who may stumble across the page — hey, don't trust this
>>>>> documentation yet: It's not a reliable source of information, it's a page
>>>>> that's being heavily rewritten. Any page that's more than 10%, but less
>>>>> than 80% done should be marked In Progress. It doesn't matter whether there
>>>>> is active work being done on it currently or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Coming Later*
>>>>> A document should be marked Coming Later when it's just an idea. This
>>>>> can be used when someone has created a page, with a URL and a title, but
>>>>> not much else. It should also be used when content is imported from an
>>>>> outside source, but has not been looked at by WPD contributors or
>>>>> restructured for our system yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets put this information someplace for contributors to see. And
>>>>> rewrite it to be better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of design screenshots coming next....
>>>>>
>>>>> Jen
>>>>>
>>>>> Jen Simmons
>>>>> designer, consultant and speaker
>>>>> host of The Web Ahead
>>>>> jensimmons.com
>>>>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>>>>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
>>>>> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Eliot.  I'm definitely okay with switching to
>>>>>> a short and sweet approach if people want to get away from having big site
>>>>>> metadata blocks at the top of each page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your idea of putting the extra content, invitation to edit etc., into
>>>>>> the state definition page would provide another way to make the connection
>>>>>> between "this isn't done" and "please help finish it!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I know, the only written definitions are the sample ones I
>>>>>> drafted for the property page:
>>>>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if we're going to put a lot of content in there with the
>>>>>> definitions it might be worth creating a separate page in the WPD
>>>>>> namespace, effectively replacing the current FAQs about "What does alpha
>>>>>> mean?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Amelia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11 May 2014 12:00, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Hi Amelia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks so much for undertaking this. When this is done the site will
>>>>>>> look a ton cleaner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, the crucial information is this first sentence, and I think
>>>>>>> the ultimate solution is to just call this out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This article is Almost Done*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we make the term a link to the page with the definitions, we’ll
>>>>>>> satisfy the requirements for this feature:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This article is **Almost Done*<http://URL_for_page_with_defintions>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The target page can have the definitions plus any other information
>>>>>>> we want to add about editing resources, joining community, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry if I am forgetting, but do we have a wiki or page entry with
>>>>>>> drafts for the definitions of the readiness states? I remember talking
>>>>>>> about it, but I can’t find a link to anything. If we do, I am happy to
>>>>>>> chime in there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, thank you so much for driving this forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eliot
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Amelia Bellamy-Royds [mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 10, 2014 10:32 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Eliezer Bernart; Jen Simmons
>>>>>>> *Cc:* List WebPlatform public
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: new plan to replace flags with Readiness Markers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been put on the back-burner for a couple weeks, but I've
>>>>>>> got a bare-bones mock-up ready-to-go on the test wiki that I think meets
>>>>>>> all the goals that have been discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I could get feedback on the structure & wording before Tuesday,
>>>>>>> then I can start rolling it out on the main site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is still the possibility of making it prettier, with colour
>>>>>>> coding or icons, and suggestions or comments are welcome.  (I think this is
>>>>>>> Jen's domain...)  But getting it functional is the first priority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need to come to a final decision about definitions of the
>>>>>>> different states.  Specifically: should "In Progress" only be used if the
>>>>>>> article is actively being edited, or for anything that is half done?  What
>>>>>>> defines "Almost Done"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mock-up, without custom CSS, looks like [1]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   max-height
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This article is Almost Done*
>>>>>>> *:  Find out more about article readiness states
>>>>>>> <http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State>, or get involved to help
>>>>>>> make Web Platform Docs better
>>>>>>> <http://docs.webplatform.org/test/WPD:Contributors_Guide>! Already signed
>>>>>>> up? Go to the edit page
>>>>>>> <http://docs.webplatform.org/t/index.php?title=css/properties/max-height&action=edit>to
>>>>>>> find out what still needs to be done.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things to note:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * It takes up a large chunk of real estate on the top of the page,
>>>>>>> but remember that it will be replacing the big purple warning box [2].  The
>>>>>>> extra text serves the same purpose as the warning box, but now it's on a
>>>>>>> page-by-page basis instead of everywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * As agreed in the teleconference of April 29 [3], if the state is
>>>>>>> marked "Ready to Use", nothing prints out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Also as agreed, the status details field is not used at all on the
>>>>>>> final page (View mode), but would still show up when editing the form.  The
>>>>>>> form will also have a link to the Property page [4] with definitions of the
>>>>>>> different states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * The info text is the same regardless of state, all that changes is
>>>>>>> the "This article is..." heading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * The box uses the existing "Note" template, but the note is wrapped
>>>>>>> in a div with a state-dependent class name, so we can target it later for
>>>>>>> specific CSS (e.g. to match the colours and icons used on the home page).
>>>>>>>  For Ready To Use articles, there is an empty div if we decide to add an
>>>>>>> icon later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   If you want to play around with CSS, the final structure created
>>>>>>> by the templates is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       <div class="article-state State_Class"><div class="note">
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             <p><b>This article is {{{State}}}:</b><br/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                   Find out more...</p>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       </div></div>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   where State_Class would be one of Ready_to_Use, Almost_Done,
>>>>>>> In_Progress, Coming_Later, or Unreviewed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * For the test wiki, the above is currently encapsulated in its own
>>>>>>> template [5], but for roll-out it would just replace the existing flags
>>>>>>> template, and would appear on all pages that currently have the ability to
>>>>>>> display flags.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, the template is just the first step.  Once we get it
>>>>>>> up, we still have to go through and review everything to assign a state!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...Amelia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]: http://docs.webplatform.org/test/css/properties/max-height
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2]:
>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2014Apr/0031.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [3]:
>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2014Apr/0117.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [4]: http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [5]: http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Template:State
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 April 2014 20:54, Eliezer Bernart <eliezer.bernart@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The topic will be discussed with more emphasis tomorrow in the
>>>>>>> meeting, based on the agenda topics. So let's wait for the final decisions
>>>>>>> and then we can make our moves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you Amelia, for your efforts!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eliezer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @eliezerbernart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eliezerb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
>>>>>>> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Hey Eliezer (and all),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been playing around with the test wiki, trying to figure out a
>>>>>>> way to get a "show details" set-up to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One common approach is to use a hidden checkbox (so that the label
>>>>>>> of the checkbox is the link, and a combination of :checked pseudoclass
>>>>>>> selectors and sibling selectors is used to show hide content).  However,
>>>>>>> Mediawiki converts any `<input>` tags to plain text, so that doesn't work.
>>>>>>>  Same goes for `<details>`/`<summary>` tags, which also have the downside
>>>>>>> of not being supported in many browsers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another approach, which is slightly better semantically but which
>>>>>>> has the side effect of jumping the scroll position, is to use a same-page
>>>>>>> link to target the details and then use a `:target` pseudo-class to display
>>>>>>> the content.  I've got that implemented in the test template [1], so that
>>>>>>> it prints to the page like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     *Page status:* <http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State> Almost
>>>>>>> Done Details...<http://docs.webplatform.org/test/css/properties/max-height#showStateDetails>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that to avoid having two different links one after another,
>>>>>>> I've removed the link on "Almost Done" and instead added a link to the
>>>>>>> "Page status" heading.  That link goes to the property page [2], which I've
>>>>>>> edited a bit to show my idea of having it as a useful reference page, with
>>>>>>> definitions of the different property values and links to
>>>>>>> search-by-property for each value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, even in the test wiki I don't seem to have permission to
>>>>>>> make the relevant changes to the common CSS file [3] to enable the
>>>>>>> show/hide functionality.  It would need to be edited to add this block:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> div#showStateDetails:not(*:target)  #stateDetails{
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* hide if the browser supports the :target pseudoclass AND
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     the showStateDetails target isn't active */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> display: none; speak:none;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> div#showStateDetails:target  #stateDetailsLink {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* hide after being activated */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> display: none; speak:none;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/t/index.php?title=Template:State&action=edit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2]: http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [3]: http://docs.webplatform.org/test/MediaWiki:Common.css
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -ABR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P.S.  I hadn't clued in to the fact that there was a full wiki copy
>>>>>>> for playing around.  I'll know in the future not to dump sample code into
>>>>>>> an email when I can create a functional sample page instead!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 April 2014 22:07, Eliezer Bernart <eliezer.bernart@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Hey folks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today I worked on the new State templates (our old Flags Templates)
>>>>>>> on test wiki.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I followed some of the points talked today on IRC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So here is a Summary of what I did:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) Using the name "State" for the Semantic Templates [1][2] and
>>>>>>> Properties [3][4];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) Keeping the text field "State Details" in the semantic form [5].
>>>>>>> It's really large, but we can easily resize it to any dimension;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c) State is a Dropdown with only the allowed values in the semantic
>>>>>>> property State [3]. We still have a blank option, that I'm trying to figure
>>>>>>> out a way to remove, if someone know how to do, please update the template
>>>>>>> or let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> d) The field "State Details"[4] will not be displayed in the form
>>>>>>> when the user select the option "Ready to Use" in the State field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e) On the document [6], it's being displayed the link to all the
>>>>>>> pages with the same State;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> f) I was not able to find a way to create the <a> tag and make a
>>>>>>> button to hide and show the div which has the content of the "State
>>>>>>> Details" section. If someone has any idea of how do that, please let us
>>>>>>> know!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> g) The "Flags" template [7] was removed from the form, and in that
>>>>>>> place included the "State" template [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I forgot something or you think that something need to be
>>>>>>> changed, please let us know! To see the changes you just need hit the edit
>>>>>>> button in any document [6].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you all!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Template:State
>>>>>>> [2] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Template:State_Form_Section
>>>>>>> [3] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State
>>>>>>> [4] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Property:State_Details
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/t/index.php?title=css/properties/max-height&action=formedit
>>>>>>> [6] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/css/properties/max-height
>>>>>>> [7] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Template:Flags
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eliezer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @eliezerbernart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eliezerb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Ahhh! This email escaped from me before it was done!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was about to write a section about the open text field:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *      2) an open text field where editors can leave comments about
>>>>>>> what is needed. *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           Rather than trying to organize information about what
>>>>>>> each page needs into a pre-fab list of checkboxes (that everyone has to
>>>>>>> learn about before it becomes accurate or useful), we decided to have an
>>>>>>> open box where people can write whatever is appropriate. "Needs an
>>>>>>> example". Or "I changed this foo thing, but I'm not sure. Will someone
>>>>>>> check it?" Over time if we see a need to have something more, we can add
>>>>>>> some kind of flag system later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will use the readiness marker to also add a class to the body
>>>>>>> element of each doc page, like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <body class="almost-done">
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That way we can use the class to style the page however we want. We
>>>>>>> can put a colored stripe down the side of the page, or put a diagonal
>>>>>>> banner across a corner, or whatever. The body class alone provides
>>>>>>> everything needed to make the state of the page clear to the end user.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We might want to consider adding the state to the text of the page
>>>>>>> as well, for accessibility reasons. We should think this through. It's not
>>>>>>> needed in cases where there is no screen reader.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping that having the readiness state clearly displayed on each
>>>>>>> page will
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) help improve the trustworthiness of our content, and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) encourage people to help edit the content. If it says "almost
>>>>>>> ready", you can click & see in a clear box what's needed. Sign in, edit,
>>>>>>> change the state, and save — and when you save, the color coding state for
>>>>>>> the whole page will change. Exciting!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also want to figure out how we can better make lists of things. I
>>>>>>> want to see all HTML pages that are Almost Ready. I want to see everything
>>>>>>> that was moved to In Progress last week, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Questions? Comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Jen Simmons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> designer, consultant and speaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> host of The Web Ahead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jensimmons.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jen Simmons <jen@jensimmons.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On today's call, we had a long and fruitful discussion about the
>>>>>>> flags on the site, and the plan to change them. We revised the revised
>>>>>>> plan. Here's what we decided:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *A) Remove the mediawiki template that provides the current flag
>>>>>>> system. *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will keep the existing data in the database, but hide all
>>>>>>> evidence of it. Flags will no longer be displayed on a page for a regular
>>>>>>> user, and the flag form checkboxes will no longer show up for someone who's
>>>>>>> editing the page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will fix the problem that's been happening — people being
>>>>>>> scared away from the site by a long list of RED THINGS that SOUND SCARY but
>>>>>>> are actually quite hard to understand. Rather than trying to implement a
>>>>>>> complex educational process to teach everyone what all those flags mean, a
>>>>>>> decision was made long ago to simplify them. Today we realized rather than
>>>>>>> replacing them with simpler editor-focused technical to-do-list terms, we
>>>>>>> should be replacing them with end-user-focused information about the
>>>>>>> quality of the content. Thus will will:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *B) Add a "Readiness Marker" — two new fields to all Doc pages:*
>>>>>>> *     1) a drop down select with five choices: *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               > Ready to Use
>>>>>>>               > Almost Done
>>>>>>>               > In Progress
>>>>>>>               > Coming Later
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               > -unknown- (default)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *      2) an open text field where editors can leave comments about
>>>>>>> what is needed. *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a lot of discussion about the fact the current flags
>>>>>>> kinda-sorta don't even work right now. If you click on a flag term, it
>>>>>>> should go to a list of all content with that flag — and it doesn't. Of
>>>>>>> course, as smart developers in the meeting people's started thinking
>>>>>>> through how we could make this work... but a decision was made that this is
>>>>>>> not a priority and we have other things that are more pressing to work on
>>>>>>> (like getting the compatibility tables done). So we will *not* be
>>>>>>> working on any kind of flag system that makes lists of content anytime soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was agreed that we do need better ways for contributors to find
>>>>>>> tasks, and more easily find a set of pages to edit. We agreed that this
>>>>>>> should be approached from a design perspective (let's first ask: what kind
>>>>>>> of lists do people want? what kind of tools could be helpful? what is it
>>>>>>> people are looking for?) and then come up with a plan to choose technology
>>>>>>> to fulfill that need (which might include a new set of flags), instead of
>>>>>>> focusing on the flags alone and forcing a solution that might not meet the
>>>>>>> needs at hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Jen Simmons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> designer, consultant and speaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> host of The Web Ahead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jensimmons.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5by5.tv/webahead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> twitter: jensimmons <http://twitter.com/jensimmons>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


ex2-stripe-inprogress.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-stripe-inprogress.png)

newnamescolors.png
(image/png attachment: newnamescolors.png)

ex1-simplified.png
(image/png attachment: ex1-simplified.png)

newpalleteonhome.png
(image/png attachment: newpalleteonhome.png)

ex2-simplified.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-simplified.png)

ex2-before.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-before.png)

ex1-before.png
(image/png attachment: ex1-before.png)

ex2-ribbon-inprogress.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-ribbon-inprogress.png)

ex2-ribbon-almost.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-ribbon-almost.png)

currenthome.png
(image/png attachment: currenthome.png)

ex2-stripe-almost.png
(image/png attachment: ex2-stripe-almost.png)

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 18:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:01 UTC