Re: Revamping Flags

Hi, Lea-

This looks good to me, though I'd prefer to see it in context on a page.

The colors need work, I think. Right now, 3 of them are much of a 
muchness, and I think it would be better if each color were distinct, to 
indicate the kind of issue; I think that would supplement the icon.

Regards-
-Doug

On 7/7/13 7:30 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
> Based on an idea by Doug, I worked on a prototype of how this limited
> set of flags could look like to make them less obtrusive:
> http://dabblet.com/gist/5937575
> They would reside at the top of the page, hence the "ribbon" look.
> They will have different icons, linked through a symbol webfont. I have
> included the kind of icons I had in mind in the CSS comments.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Lea
>
> Lea Verou
> W3C developer relations
> http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 20:23, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com
> <mailto:Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> Thanks.
>> Eliot
>> *From:*Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com <http://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
>> Cheers,
>> Clay
>>
>> 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 andwebplatform.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 Monday, 8 July 2013 00:11:49 UTC