- From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:20:39 +0300
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi all, So I changed the colors to be more distinct and customized the icons: http://lea.verou.me/webplatform/landing/border-radius.html Thoughts? Cheers, Lea Lea Verou W3C developer relations http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou On Jul 8, 2013, at 05:46, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote: > 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 Saturday, 27 July 2013 10:20:50 UTC