In T332364, we decided the initial version of the reference Edit Check would only present people with ONE prompt to include a reference within the edit they are attempting to publish.
...even in cases when the edit someone is attempting to publish likely warrants multiple references. E.g. adding new sentences in separate sections.
This task involves the work of designing and implementing an experience that enables Edit Check to show people multiple reference prompts when the edit they are attempting to publish warrants them.
TODO (design)
Mobile
| ID | Description | Screenshot | Proposed path forward | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | What feedback will we provide when people act on a Check? Asked another way: what is the "success state" of a check? What is the "no" state? At present, when you act on a Check, the card disappears entirely with no trace of its existence and your action upon it. | In the time between now and when we're ready to offer Checks mid-edit (e.g. T359107 and T365301), regardless of how you responded to the Reference Check (read: you completed the Yes or No workflow), show the existing success message/toast at the top of the viewport (beneath the toolbar) and clear the Check you just acted on (with now way to revisit). Note: in deciding this, we're also deciding that Edit Check will NOT re-check the state of the document during the proofreading moment in any case. | 🕵️ Ready for review | |
| 2. | What happens when you tap < and > when the Checks you're navigating between are in close proximity to one another (e.g. in the same paragraph)? | The text that is highlighted should always include the content that is relevant to the Check someone is being presented with. Regardless of how many Checks apply to a given piece of content, one layer of highlight should always be applied. | 🕵️ Ready for review | |
| 3. | No action needed. This question will become relevant when work on T359107 and T365301 begins. | ✅ Resolved | ||
Desktop
| ID | Description | Screenshot | Proposed path forward | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | What do we want to happen when you tap Yes on the Reference Check from within the "right rail"? At present, Citoid is opened and the dialog is "cut-off" by the right rail. | Design to propose path forward. | ||
| 2. | How might we make people aware of the transition into the "Proofreading moment" when they progress from "mid-edit" with ≥1 Check still needing to be addressed? | Design to propose path forward. | ||
| 3. | What feedback will we provide when people act on a Check? Asked another way: what is the "success state" of a check? What is the "no" state? At present, when you act on a Check, the card disappears entirely with no trace of its existence and your action upon it. | Same as "1." in "Mobile" above. | 🕵️ Ready for review | |
TODO (engineering)
Mobile
| ID | Description | Screenshot | Proposed path forward | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | In the "Proofreading" moment, all text outside of the paragraph Edit Checks are relevant to should be omitted and replaced with three vertical dots (similar to diff view) | When a Check card is expanded, text NOT relevant to Check will be grayed out. When someone collapses/hides a Check by tapping the chevron, previously grayed out text will assume full opacity. Update: For now the expected behavior is when someone collapses/hides a Check by tapping the chevron, previously grayed out text will NOT assume full opacity until they leave the proofreading stage by tapping the back button | 🕵️ Review: Right now, tapping the chevron next to Review Changes hides the check but text not relevant to the Check still stays grayed out, it does assume full opacity after getting out of the proofreading stage by tapping the back button | |
| 2. | The "Add a citation" card obfuscates/hides/appears "on top" of the text I added and the Check is relevant to | 🕵️ Review: I think this was happening on desktop? Not happening anymore after we moved the checks to the side rail | ||
| 3. | As you tap the < / > buttons within the Edit Check "card," the text area should move to show the area of the document relevant to the Check at-hand. At present, the text area does not move at all. | See UI comparison in Figma | 🕵️ Ready for review | |
Desktop
| ID | Description | Screenshot | Proposed path forward | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | ✅ Resolved | |||
| 2. | The "Before publishing" text within the navigation bar (term?) at the top of the editing interface ought to be centered rather than left-aligned | ✅ Resolved | ||
| 3. | Unfocused Checks should be visually accented with vertical bar, rather than same treatment used to highlight Check that is currently in focus | Clarification: we are considering the vertical bar to simply mean at least one check is present within the text area it exists alongside. Said another way: the vertical bar is binary. It does not communicate the quantity of Checks present. Note: in the future, the vertical bar could evolve to also communicate priority/severity/type/etc. | 🕵️ Ready for review | |
| 4. | The "Add a citation" card obfuscates/hides/appears "on top" of the text I added and the Check is relevant to | 🕵️ Review: Not happening anymore after we fixed the way scrolling works when a check is presented | ||
