Re: Revamping Flags

Hi Doug,

I used the warmer colors from our logo palette [1] to indicate that these are issues. I could instead just use random colors (the purple, the aqua etc) and I do see your point about the colors being distinct, in fact I struggled with the tradeoff myself. Do you think that would be better? Or, perhaps, you have a completely different idea?

Here is a draft of it in a page [2]. It looks a bit better in Chrome as Firefox is showing different icons. The end result will look equally good in both, since the icons will be coming from a webfont. (Sorry for uploading it on my website, I tried to upload it on WPD [3] but right now it gives a 404, even after deploying)

Cheers,
Lea

[1]: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Design#Colors
[2]: http://lea.verou.me/webplatform/static/webplatform/border-radius.html
[3]: http://www.webplatform.org/border-radius.html

Lea Verou
W3C developer relations
http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou






On Jul 8, 2013, at 03:11, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 02:46:25 UTC