Confirming:

• Bytes changed should go away, and the number will not be coming back.
• "32 mins ago" is a change we'll make in T421886 and can be ignored here.
• @Lwilson-ctr One question that came up - what happens (e.g. on mobile) if the username is so long that the timestamp needs to shift somewhere other than the same line?

Bytes changed should go away, and the number will not be coming back.

Yes! That is the intention.

what happens (e.g. on mobile) if the username is so long that the timestamp needs to shift somewhere other than the same line?

I've added this to the figma link I shared in the description.

(and also updated it to not include the timestamp change from that other ticket)

• We used the ellipsis formatting in the mobile diff footer/tray, if you need an existing example (T357352).
• If the username goes too long, truncate it and move the timestamp down to the next line.
• No need to worry about 'Show IP' for temporary accounts, we're not going to include that.
• We may decide to make the username not-clickable in the future, this is TBD. It would be great to have a more-final design for how usernames will work/be displayed in the feed, rather than making iterative changes towards there.

I updated this task to make it less granular/isolated!

@Samwalton9-WMF @Lwilson-ctr note that the grey background & margin parts are messy to implement in minerva in the current iteration of the dashboard because the design conflicts with minerva page styling.

In T421901#11841228, @jsn.sherman wrote:

@Samwalton9-WMF @Lwilson-ctr note that the grey background & margin parts are messy to implement in minerva in the current iteration of the dashboard because the design conflicts with minerva page styling.

Got it - does "messy" mean "we'd rather not"? Could you share any screenshots of what it looks like without that?

In T421901#11843094, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

Got it - does "messy" mean "we'd rather not"?

In this case, 'messy' means a bigger lift (I'd say a move from 3 points to 5) with more QA plus technical debt.

If this is the direction we want to go, we should probably move back to an overlay approach rather than showing the content within the page content area. Basically, there's stuff to talk through.

Change #1276815 had a related patch set uploaded (by Dillon; author: Dillon):

[mediawiki/extensions/PersonalDashboard@master] Improve UI of Review Changes and Active Discussions cards

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1276815

Test wiki created on Patch demo by DHardy-WMF using patch(es) linked to this task:
https://05d1a3c4b2.catalyst.wmcloud.org/w/

A few things I noticed upon testing the patch demo

• It looks like the info popover is no longer matching the designs:
• The user name should have color #101418, or design token Decision Tokens/text-color/emphasized

Otherwise it looks good. Note I haven't tested the Active Discussions so I wonder if we can put up a DNM patch with config to test the active discussions changes as well?

In T421901#11860090, @Kgraessle wrote:

A few things I noticed upon testing the patch demo

• It looks like the info popover is no longer matching the designs:
• The user name should have color #101418, or design token Decision Tokens/text-color/emphasized

Otherwise it looks good. Note I haven't tested the Active Discussions so I wonder if we can put up a DNM patch with config to test the active discussions changes as well?

Thanks for taking a look at the patch, Katy! I forgot to leave a comment earlier, but I spoke with @Samwalton9-WMF on April 15th via Slack and he said the info popover being on the grey background makes the most sense. As for the font color, I've pushed up a new patchset which fixes the ListCard's styles to use the correct Codex design tokens. I will create a DNM patch for testing purposes, however T424663: Active Discussions: Include example talk pages on Patch Demo should make reproducibility easier next time.

Test wiki created on Patch demo by DHardy-WMF using patch(es) linked to this task:
https://374f2a3f9e.catalyst.wmcloud.org/w/

In T421901#11843833, @jsn.sherman wrote:

In T421901#11843094, @Samwalton9-WMF wrote:

Got it - does "messy" mean "we'd rather not"?

In this case, 'messy' means a bigger lift (I'd say a move from 3 points to 5) with more QA plus technical debt.

If this is the direction we want to go, we should probably move back to an overlay approach rather than showing the content within the page content area. Basically, there's stuff to talk through.

I think the way this has been implemented currently is fine for now, we can always revisit this in the future if we think further refining is worthwhile.

Why do the Active Discussions and Review Changes cards behave differently in terms of width, out of interest? AD fills the screen width, whereas RC has a white border.

It looks like there's an overflow issue with long titles. Per the designs, titles should wrap onto the next line.

One more minor thing I have noticed on Patch Demo, particularly on the desktop view it appears there's additional spacing between the first card and the heading compared to Active Discussions:

Test wiki on Patch demo by DHardy-WMF using patch(es) linked to this task was deleted:

https://05d1a3c4b2.catalyst.wmcloud.org/w/

@Samwalton9-WMF @Kgraessle I have fixed all of the bugs you two mentioned in the previous comments. Patch Demo wiki has re-deployed with the latest patchset now.

Change #1276815 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/PersonalDashboard@master] Improve UI of Review Changes and Active Discussions cards

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1276815

Test wiki on Patch demo by DHardy-WMF using patch(es) linked to this task was deleted:

https://374f2a3f9e.catalyst.wmcloud.org/w/