@MHorsey-WMF sorry! that was my mistake. i intended to write

thanks @Daimona! i'd make it a bit more direct and actionable, what about:

hi @OBenhmida, i'm not fully clear on the benefit of using the user page as the destination when opening a collection link. if someone opens a shared collection link, their intent is probably to view the collection itself. landing on the owner's user page first with the collection layered on top could feel slightly unrelated/indirect. would it be technically possible for the shared link to open a dedicated collection view/page instead? that way the user opens a collection link and lands on the collection, maybe we can show the username that links to the userpage within the collection view.

since this will be moved to a later version I'm removing this task from Q1 board and moving back to backlog

the design only shows a mobile layout. I have spoken with @JFernandez-WMF about this and she has said at desktop scale the cards should be in a 3 wide grid. what should we do with the buttons? I currently have them aligned left in the header.

thanks @OBenhmida! i see the benefit of reframing this away from 'claiming' since maybe we don't want it to feel like ownership/hard lock!

what was worked on for expansion of impact module:

some questions that came up for me about claiming:

some questions that came up for me about annotations:

i'm also not fully convinced yet that file import adds enough value. right now, users can already add articles in two ways: by searching for the page title, or by pasting a list of titles into the textarea. if an organizer has article titles in a spreadsheet for example, that would mean, IIUC, that they can already copy the relevant column and paste it directly into the dialog. i agree with the question from @Daimona about what would CSV import add that the current flow does not already support?

The patchdemo you are using is not showing the latest version of the code. We can create a new one, but I think we're also aiming to have this in beta real soon.

i've been testing on patchdemo and have some suggestions for the promotion dialog:

hi @cmelo, i think we should be using an empty header here as specified in figma - i don't think 'actions' provides meaningful information and can be redundant. let's just make sure the trash button has a proper label for screen readers. if we ever expand the column to have multiple actions then let's revise this argument, but for now i think it should be empty. let me know what you think!

@Daimona @SEgt-WMF thank you for the very spot-on feedback! @OBenhmida i don't think we have acted on this yet ^, i think we should. regarding copy, maybe we should change it to: "This article will be improved as part of these active events. Visit one to learn more."'

@OBenhmida and I decided to make a small tweak to the Preferences text making it explicit where the user should go to toggle this option.

Decided with @OBenhmida in 1:1 today:

thanks to all who provided feedback above ^^. this is the final copy that we landed on.

hi @Daimona that looks good to me, thank you!

@bmartinezcalvo thank you <3! i don't think the designs are definitive yet (only the text about hiding the message is)-- so i'll change that!

designs added, moving to ready for dev cc @ifried :)

@Daimona thx for the ping! since this message would only provide information, i would move from an in-line styled message (which is mostly used for validation on inputs) to a standard notice message. for the copy, i'm wondering if we can make it simpler and more straightforward, what about something like: 'Your email address may (or 'will'?) be visible to participants'. i'm curious if a term like 'reply-to' would be slightly technical for folks, but maybe not?

I added the designs for preferences - @ifried, @cmelo do we also need designs for the hide message in the dialog?

@ifried, I changed the copy of the label from 'Article' to 'Article name' and the description from 'Paste one article per line' to 'Paste one article name per line', since I thought 'Article' only was maybe too vague. but feel free to disagree and change it :)

sorry for the delay and thanks for flagging!
the example that we thought of to inform the decision on whether we wanted a white background or no background was if, for example, the progress bar appears in an article or above written content, e.g.:

these are the explorations that were done for this work - you can see them in figma.

attached is the .pdf that shows the ideas/designs that we prioritized for this sprint — post-publication dialog, echo notifications, promoting in high traffic pages and promoting in other event pages.

looks good to me! moving to prod sign off

thank you for tagging me on this and apologies for the delay - i actually think we should use notice here. the action does not create a failure (so no error), it is also not a success since nothing was added, and it also doesn't involve a risk/caution - there is no consequence or risk or something the user should avoid doing. what do you all think?

• Given that a user is on the Contributions tab,
  • And they are an organizer of the event,
  • Or they are a registered participant

✅ Move lock icon for private participants to left side

i think this is ready for dev yes, i just moved it on our sprint board

@cmelo im sorry, that was me just trying stuff out and forgot to remove it from the mock! i'll update it :)