Re: Revamping Flags

In response to both... +1

Cheers,
Clay


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Chris Mills <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
> W3C Fellow, web education and 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> 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
> >
>
>
>