Re: User-definable custom lists of pages (based on preferred topics, flags and more)

fr0 & Paul,

The work here is looking really good. Thanks for all the great effort
earlier today!

Doug has some good ideas, too. Would it be hard to return checked-out
articles in red text? Then we could have a little note at the bottom of the
list to the effect that "Articles in red are currently being worked on."

We've already got it so that you can elect to display articles that are
checked out.


Oh, yes, another


Could we incorporate the queries for "Articles Needing Summaries" and
"Articles Needing Examples"?  Should be easy enough given that Paul has
already cooked up a list generator for "Articles Needing Examples" - which
we're using here<>

The Getting Started
Test<>page is
starting to take shape. To answer Julee's earlier question, my
approach is to first slice everything in terms of Basic / Involved /
Advanced. Then, within the Involved and Advanced sections, break down the
task lists further by domain (HTML, CSS, JS, MediaWiki, SMW, etc.) so that
we can satisfy the oft-cited requirement to provide domain breakout for

I have it on my list that we'll need to explain this better in the
three-column section at the top of the page, and to do that we need to
expand the size of the <div class="place-holder"><div class="inner">
sections, as they currently bleed into the body with too much text.

Does all that sound like the right approach?


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Doug May <> wrote:

> Not to get greedy, but I'd rather have the stuff that is checked out
> appear in a different color, and ideally disable the checkout button,
> but if I'm looking at some area of the docs I'd like to get the whole
> picture, so better to know that a piece exists (and is now being
> edited), than to see the artificially clipped list.  Maybe good as a
> default for "stuff to work on" queries (don't show what's checked
> out), but then again if I'm at a doc sprint I want the option of
> teaming up with whomever is working on it, so other than when it would
> overtly invite a content update collision, I vote for showing what's
> checked out.

Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 00:05:03 UTC