Thanks. Let’s close it for now. It is still "off" in its shape but the prio is not so high.

so it has all bold fonts?
If that is the case, just close the ticket.

for the historical records: It gave me peace of mind that the rendering of fonts is not as off as I assumed.

Is this life (somewhere) or do I need to run the branch?

we aspire to have at some point a vue-js component library that is in its mission similar to OOUI. Such a thing would clearly need ownership and ideally right from the start.

Are we afraid that different hikes using/working on the library will have conflicting ideas as to what the library should contain,
or how specific component interfaces should look like? I would hope that our usual code review processes are enough of a solution.

Worth mentioning that the resulting package will be, in contrast to the APIs which stable interface policy notoriously applies to, versioned.

Isn't that confusing in case their server is slow or something?

This is the mockup: (sorry, was a bit hidden)

However, in that case we might as well just scroll up to the topmost empty input field rather than first scrolling the user up to a redundant box telling them to scroll down again.

From issue description:

reuse the messages that are displayed near the fields? (they could be too long)

Using something like storybook would probably ease it for PM and UX to join such conversations and it might also be a useful place to store/view component documentation.

I assume the purpose of the error summary is to make it easier for the person to identify the wrong fields.

It is the same style as :active , however it remains such after the click. The text "Überprüfen"+the icon are centered (as if the icon would be a character). The icon is not right-attached to the centered text (then, both as visual unity would be off-center).

I'd say having a text/icon near the submit button makes most sense.

The problem of people missing the error entirely can only be alleviated by showing where errors are. Suggested behavior is jumping to the top of the page and listing the problems there, so you get an overview and go past the problematic fields by scrolling.

Are there plans to show spinners or other indicators while smth. is going on in the background?

can be closed

it does, thanks!

Choosing "Firma" disables the membership type option "Aktive Mitgliedschaft".

thanks, that worked.

did so – T227774

@elukey I see – will you create the nda group task, or shall I do create it?

Sadly, it does not work, still get

@Nuria I tried and got a 401 after username/password.

yes, this is fine. It should look like the donation confirmation page.

@Nuria sure – ldap: WMDE-jand

Still in analysis phase, I hope for it to be published in the next month.

I was expecting one box for all the info, in yellow, because it is a revertible error message, thinking this was mediawiki standard behavior. Do you know what the standard behavior is?

sounds fine to me if you know where to append the text (probably at the very end to not mess up anything)

@kai.nissen told me that the current labeling suggestion would be problematic, since they are not composed of parameter name and value.
In case the current suggestions are too difficult to implement, a variant which would allow this would be:

If Graphana can create them reliably, last-[n]-weeks histograms would be nice for time, MB, revisions. (if people want something really fancy: Kernel density overlayed)

A colleague was pointing out that

Header: Haben Sie 3 Minuten Zeit für uns? (it really does not take longer than that)

We kindly ask you …

You're trying to import a file with the extension <extension name>. This file type is not allowed in this wiki.

Also, + 1 for active wording (e.g. "Sie können uns Ihre aktuelle Adresse auch mitteilen, wenn Sie keine Bescheinigung erhalten möchten."). Remember we want them to add their address even if they do not need a Zuwendungsbescheinigung.

I assumes it is form-language-standard, but yes, we should make this easier by getting rid of "optional".

I see two problems here:

For the person implementing it: This is the arab beta features page showing the existing right-to-left icons

Great! Were there any overall findings that could help us in future designs? (For example, it seems that repeatedly, the UIs suggested to start with a property, but users wanted to start with an item.)
Also, to roughly keep track: How many users did test the UIs?

if the line was moved to below the selection

How about we put that checkbox above the presets, in the actual expandable part? Like in the screenshots below:

If we want to keep the current UX, the prerequisite for starting this task is having browser tests for the current behavior.

There was the problem that there is nothing gained if a user activates "all" by default (since the pills are so many that any other space saving is small in comparison). However, it seems that "Articles" is the default, which means it makes sense.

Raw data of visitor logs is not available anymore. Do you agree, that this task can be closed?

We want to find out if the rollback confirmation prompt is useful.

ValueMapping is better to be done in frontend.

If we do this it should be very subtle; I looked at some other pages and did not see any highlighting in Wikipedia articles or e.g. at this handbook so it might be perceived as unusual or irritating. But we could just enable the browser defaults as on this page (I think this is the browser style; on Firefox it is black dotted outline, on chrome it is blue solid outline)

If there is a demo page, I could check from UX point of view.

@Tobias_Schumann_WMDE thanks! This might help to rename them e.g. to "Donationform_10h16_page1" or so.

For some reason they are in the city-code order, but I do not know why. Probably carelessness on my part, if possible, swap them.

It seems matomo was updated. Can I request a lot, again? Or do you want to try first and then tell me (I can't restart the crashed thing myself)

you mean a different section like section A…

I don't doubt the usefulness of opt-out for receipts.

In case it should be there nevertheless, this is what it would look like:

@Jan_Dittrich I just noticed that the donation receipt opt-out ("Ich benötige keine Spendenbescheinigung.") is missing in the design. Can you provide an updated version?