RE: Page Status Indicators

Hi Doug.

Thank you and thanks to Eliezer to following up on this! If I understand correctly, what we're looking at here is removing all but the subset of flags. As the person who proposed the subset, I am in favor of this. :-)

Your next steps seem appropriate as well. Anyone want to kick off a thread with a recommendation for the text in the first next step?

Cheers,

Eliot

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:57 PM
>To: WebPlatform Community
>Subject: Page Status Indicators
>
>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 22:20:45 UTC