Updated design

In T363863#9801862, @ifried wrote:

Thanks for sharing this, @gonyeahialam. I agree that we can remove the period at the end and also think the '3 more' should go to EventDetails. Otherwise, looks good!

In T355128#9758824, @Daimona wrote:

In T355128#9719899, @vaughnwalters wrote:

3. The h3 element that contains the participant question titles such as How confident do you feel contributing to the Wikimedia projects involved in this event? should be a lighter font weight / should not be bold.

I made it this way because that's the standard look of the Codex Accordion component (OOUI does not have accordions). I don't think we should change this default?

That is the default in codex but codex mentions that it can be changed to something else. Following the default would look like this, which we can go with:

Desktop

Latest design

Latest Design
Show a max of 2 organizers and show the number of remaining organizers not shown. Can wrap to the next line if the usernames are long.

Exploring some designs on this

Latest design

Re option 2: usernames are typically user page links. Also, I think the original request was to add user talk and contribs links; those could use the standard user tool links format

@MHorsey-WMF Oh yeah, that's true. Sorry about my error.

In T353382#9768006, @vaughnwalters wrote:

In T353382#9767311, @Daimona wrote:

Since we now have follow-up tasks for all of the above, and those tasks have been discussed and prioritized, should we close this task here?

This hasn't been to design sign off yet so it should go there before we call it done

Latest design iteration

In the past, I mentioned the need to provide a way to make the post-invitation list generation activities (sending messages) easier since we are not working on messaging yet.

In T361029#9768926, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Earlier in the week, I shared a video walkthrough of the current design of event invitation with the ambassadors and others - Georges, Bachounda, Isabel, Alex and Benedict.

Summary of feedback

1. General Impressions

What other forms? Almost every other form we have has post-submit validation, the main exception being the "Message participants" feature.

@Daimona I am referring to showing a warning message post validation. It is only error messages we do this for. Warning messages do not prevent form submission.

@Daimona

The standard input field for pages takes the page name, not the URL

Are you referring to the Event page URL? You mean you can just input the page name instead of the URL. If so, would it work for pages of different namespaces (e.g event pages not in the Event names space)

I am currently exploring how to handle errors in articles inputted. If out 50 articles entered 5 were not recognized, the tool doesn't need to prevent the organizers from going ahead with generating the invitation list with the remaining.
I am thinking about how we can inform the organizer that some articles have an error and give them the option to either fix the errors or go ahead to generate the list. The two ideas I have come up with so far:

@ifried We can share it with the community while I continue to get more feedback, iterate, explore and also start work on the desktop version.

Current design

@VPuffetMichel @ifried @MHorsey-WMF @Daimona @cmelo Please review the last two messages

Some Todos based on the feedback

Earlier in the week, I shared a video walkthrough of the current design of event invitation with the ambassadors and others - Georges, Bachounda, Isabel, Alex and Benedict.

In T353382#9757680, @MHorsey-WMF wrote:

@vaughnwalters The date picker is labelled "From" and so I think the current behaviour makes sense. I feel like at this point we should move forward and see what the community think.

@Daimona What are the accepted ways to separate the article titles in the text input fields? Note: Some articles have commas in their names.

In T353382#9755426, @vaughnwalters wrote:

I think we need to think about how we do the filtering by date here. For example, if an event starts Jan 1 2024 and goes through Dec 31 2024, but we set our filter to start at today's date (April 29, 2024) that event will currently not show up even though it is an active event. Instead of displaying events that start on the date of the filter, it should show events that are active on the date of the "From" filter. Thoughts on this? The way it is set up now, it excludes events that are active and ongoing events because they do not start on the Start date selector of the filter. See gif below.

Thoughts?

In T363211#9740740, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Eng - Design Meeting
For the first scenario, where no questions are enabled by the organizer from the start we can decide not to show the Response statistics tab

Eng - Design Meeting
For the first scenario, where no questions are enabled by the organizer from the start we can decide not to show the Response statistics tab

The design spec is up to date but the AC for the button text isn't updated. It should be Apply filter. @MHorsey-WMF @vaughnwalters

@vaughnwalters +1
@Daimona the font size of the headings are too big and disproportionate.

Perhaps we can just removed the columns of the removed questions and not show a message @vaughnwalters

@vaughnwalters For the first message/scenario we agreed to show that message rather than not showing the tab at all here T341341, though I can't find the reason for that. Perhaps @Daimona knows.
I don't think we should change it unless we know the reason for the previous decision.

We have a standard way of notifying users and that is Echo. I don't think any other option should be considered at all.

Why can't any other option like email be considered (in addition to echo) or do you get an email version for the echo? @Daimona

Eng-Design Meeting Notes

Updated design

Updated the designs

In T361019#9708252, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam I have updated the AC of this ticket and simplified the language in the modal text. Can your review the AC and the updated language to share any feedback/thoughts you have? Thanks!

In T361029#9701518, @Daimona wrote:

In T361029#9693502, @gonyeahialam wrote:

The generated editor list will need to be saved so that organizers can review and send invites over a period of time, they will likely not do it immediately after the list is generated.

I think a key question is what kind of storage we want. I assume we don't need want to persist the data indefinitely.

I was thinking of storing the data till the event ends but if the event isn't using Events Registration tool we wouldn't have that information. Perhaps we use 90days.

After you have submitted the work list you see a copy at the bottom of this screen telling you how long it will take and how you will be notified.

this might be hard to estimate.

So it isn't fixed? What determines how long the invitation list processing duration is?
My idea is that we notify the organisers via email, echo or other means when their invitation list is ready

@Daimona @MHorsey-WMF @cmelo Let me know your technical feedback on the flow and features

In T358529#9673292, @ifried wrote:

@gonyeahialam We have finished the internal review related to this ticket, including an update to the text that is more simplified (see AC). In that case, can we update the visual examples with the updated text? Also, do you know what feedback we received from the engineers on the two different possibilities? Are they both feasible and generally doable? If yes, do you have a recommendation/preference on which one of the two is a better user experience?

Updated the copy

Exploring ideas on event invitation flow.
The generated editor list will need to be saved so that organizers can review and send invites over a period of time, they will likely not do it immediately after the list is generated.
Also, we may need to allow organizers to generate multiple lists - for organizers organizing multiple events or in case the first list is not enough and organizers want to generate more with another worklist.

There may be a need for the generated list to persist/be saved, that is, organizers will be able to come back and view the editor list multiple times. This is necessary because organizers may not send the messages immediately after the list is generated. Also, because the mass message is capped at about 20 per day.
cc @ifried @Daimona

@ifried So once the editors usernames are generated organizers will have to copy them and paste them into the mass message tool?

@Daimona we could disable the checkboxes and communicate to the organizer using a tooltip as shown below

In T354880#9623040, @gonyeahialam wrote:

We would inform organizers of the consequence of removing a question after people have registered. Perhaps when they go to the Edit Enable Registration form and they try to unselect a question they get a dialog informing them of the consequence and to confirm their action cc @ifried

In T354880#9623040, @gonyeahialam wrote:

Just a side note not directly related to the above comments; We would inform organizers of the consequence of removing a question after people have registered. Perhaps when they go to the Edit Enable Registration form and they try to unselect a question they get a dialog informing them of the consequence and to confirm their action cc @ifried

@Daimona we could disable the checkboxes and communicate to the organizer using a tooltip as shown below

@ifried An example message can be:

We can use both echo and email.

@cmelo @Daimona Let me know if you have additional feedback.

Updated copy:

You are currently viewing a limited version of this page. Please visit this page on [wiki name], the wiki where the event was created to access the full event details and explore additional features.

Updated design based on feedback from Engineering-Design Meeting.

Here is the updated copy
Event details

You are currently viewing a limited version of the Event details page. Please visit this page on [wiki name], the wiki where the event was created to see the complete details of your event and perform more actions.

Made some updates to the design based on some of the past feedback