- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:57:13 -0500
- To: WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi, folks– Last night, Eliezer Bernart (eliezerb) tackled one of our big outstanding actions (with my modest guidance): the page status markers. JuLee encouraged Eliezer to learn Semantic MediaWiki templates, given our dwindling resources there, and he really dived in. He asked for a specific task, and I suggested that he look at the outstanding flags issue. As background, we've already discussed that many people find the large number of flags on a page (and their presentation) as intimidating and discouraging, both for reading and for editing. We had general (though imperfect) consensus that we should simplify the flags. On a related note, we also wanted to make sure sure that readers knew what content they could trust, and what was less complete or reliable. This dovetails with the initial goal for flags. Eliot proposed the following set of minimal flags to reflect the various content statuses: * Unconfirmed import * Needs review * Missing Content * Deletion/Move candidate * Contains Errors We agreed that this is one of the tasks that we needed completed before we announced the CSS milestone. Eliezer has run a test on the flags template in the /test wiki, removing the unwanted flags. If a page has any flags checked, it will show on the page [2]; if no flags are checked, it will not show any flag markers [3]. Once we get the wording settled, this should be a clear indicator of a page's readiness (or unreadiness). You can also see that this is much less intimidating to edit [4]. Eliezer noted that if we change the flags template in the main wiki, we will lose all of the existing flags; I think this is unavoidable. He also explained that while he can set a flag as checked by default (e.g. "need review") for new pages, existing pages can't have any flags checked by default; so, we will need to find a way to efficiently check the "need review" flag for all pages we aren't confident about, so we can highlight the readiness of the CSS and certain API pages (maybe we could use a script to do this auto-checking?). I wanted to confirm with the community that this is the path we want to follow. What do you all think? Next steps: * clarify the wording used, to indicate that a page is not yet ready * settle on the visual appearance of flags (not critical, but nice to have) * deploy the new flags template on /wiki (the main content site) * make sure unready pages have a flag checked, and that ready pages are free from flags * rewrite the Getting Started and Editor's Guide pages to reflect the new flag statuses, per Scott's concern [5] Thoughts? Also, a big thanks to Eliezer! We should blog / tweet about this minor milestone. [0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Jun/0169.html [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Jun/0172.html [2] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/css/properties/border-radius [3] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/dom/methods/getElementById [4] http://docs.webplatform.org/t/index.php?title=css/properties/border-radius&action=formedit [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Jul/0005.html Regards- -Doug
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 20:57:20 UTC