Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas

[DrewAllen88]

Updated Feature areas should all have a fixed height as stated here.

See also https://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/72 and https://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/83

Home: 400px Homepage Feature Area

Level 1: 400px Feature Area

Suggested character limits: Left - 185 Right - 115

Level 2: 225px Feature Area/Header Feature Area/Navigation Feature Area

Level 3: 160px With and without nav option

Level 4: 160px Also need an option for this without the nav included.

[DrewAllen88]

File in Chatter along with the Campus Recruiting examples with dropdown navigation.

[DrewAllen88]

All level one pages have the feature area style option of "small header white color". Does that conform to the correct style from Miller Smith?

Images in the DAM are the right height? Right now they 464px and going down to 400px. Is this an issue?

@timproDev can you and I talk about these two items?

[DrewAllen88]

BAU to check what happens on level 2 if they are to make the current Feature Area component not statically included in the template.

[timproDev]

@joyjamir @DrewAllen88 I see that we are setting the height of the feature areas - I would advice against fixing this height and not allowing for the ability to expand. so after speaking with drew, we have determined that we will set the minimum height of the feature areas the the dimensions provided in the design comps. should the text require vertical flexibility, I will be building that behavior in. so the expectation is that there may be an instance where the feature area is in fact taller than the design calls for - make sense?

[joyjamir]

Is this not what we have now, which doesn't work? Would prefer to have this fixed. What's the concern with doing so?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:58 AM, timproDev notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@joyjamirhttps://github.com/joyjamir @DrewAllen88https://github.com/DrewAllen88 I see that we are setting the height of the feature areas - I would advice against fixing this height and not allowing for the ability to expand. so after speaking with drew, we have determined that we will set the minimum height of the feature areas the the dimensions provided in the design comps. should the text require vertical flexibility, I will be building that behavior in. so the expectation is that there may be an instance where the feature area is in fact taller than the design calls for - make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/41#issuecomment-135050026.

[joyjamir]

hi joy-

I am trying to avoid any cutting off of text within the range of break points. say we set a character limit for something that looks good on landscape of tablet. then when we re-orientated the tablet and set the break to portrait, the height will be fixed and the text may be cut off, possibly. it just seems that we may wish to exercise a little flexibility so that the design isn’t breaking by cutting off text. Adversely, if we optimize the character limit for portrait and rotate to landscape, then there is a bunch of unused space.

does that make sense? I can do a screenshot test if you like. I am also perfectly fine with keeping it a fixed height. am open to hearing everyone’s suggestion

tim

From: Jamir, Joy Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:02 PM To: DrewAllen88/Enhancements Cc: DrewAllen88/Enhancements; Allen, Drew; Schletter, Timothy Subject: Re: [Enhancements] Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas (#41)

Is this not what we have now, which doesn't work? Would prefer to have this fixed. What's the concern with doing so?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:58 AM, timproDev notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@joyjamirhttps://github.com/joyjamir @DrewAllen88https://github.com/DrewAllen88 I see that we are setting the height of the feature areas - I would advice against fixing this height and not allowing for the ability to expand. so after speaking with drew, we have determined that we will set the minimum height of the feature areas the the dimensions provided in the design comps. should the text require vertical flexibility, I will be building that behavior in. so the expectation is that there may be an instance where the feature area is in fact taller than the design calls for - make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/41#issuecomment-135050026.

---

---

This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you received this message by mistake and also permanently delete the original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

---

[DrewAllen88]

PSD files: Home updates Campus Recruiting level 1-4 Media Center

[joyjamir]

Hi Joy-

Any update on this? Feedback?

Tim

From: Schletter, Timothy Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:20 AM To: Jamir, Joy; DrewAllen88/Enhancements Cc: DrewAllen88/Enhancements; Allen, Drew Subject: RE: [Enhancements] Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas (#41)

hi joy-

I am trying to avoid any cutting off of text within the range of break points. say we set a character limit for something that looks good on landscape of tablet. then when we re-orientated the tablet and set the break to portrait, the height will be fixed and the text may be cut off, possibly. it just seems that we may wish to exercise a little flexibility so that the design isn’t breaking by cutting off text. Adversely, if we optimize the character limit for portrait and rotate to landscape, then there is a bunch of unused space.

does that make sense? I can do a screenshot test if you like. I am also perfectly fine with keeping it a fixed height. am open to hearing everyone’s suggestion

tim

From: Jamir, Joy Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:02 PM To: DrewAllen88/Enhancements Cc: DrewAllen88/Enhancements; Allen, Drew; Schletter, Timothy Subject: Re: [Enhancements] Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas (#41)

Is this not what we have now, which doesn't work? Would prefer to have this fixed. What's the concern with doing so?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:58 AM, timproDev notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@joyjamirhttps://github.com/joyjamir @DrewAllen88https://github.com/DrewAllen88 I see that we are setting the height of the feature areas - I would advice against fixing this height and not allowing for the ability to expand. so after speaking with drew, we have determined that we will set the minimum height of the feature areas the the dimensions provided in the design comps. should the text require vertical flexibility, I will be building that behavior in. so the expectation is that there may be an instance where the feature area is in fact taller than the design calls for - make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/41#issuecomment-135050026.

---

---

This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you received this message by mistake and also permanently delete the original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your computer. Thank you.

---

[joyjamir]

Can we discuss when I'm back?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 28, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Schletter, Timothy Timothy.Schletter@mmc.com<mailto:Timothy.Schletter@mmc.com> wrote:

Hi Joy-

Any update on this? Feedback?

Tim

From: Schletter, Timothy Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:20 AM To: Jamir, Joy; DrewAllen88/Enhancements Cc: DrewAllen88/Enhancements; Allen, Drew Subject: RE: [Enhancements] Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas (#41)

hi joy-

I am trying to avoid any cutting off of text within the range of break points. say we set a character limit for something that looks good on landscape of tablet. then when we re-orientated the tablet and set the break to portrait, the height will be fixed and the text may be cut off, possibly. it just seems that we may wish to exercise a little flexibility so that the design isn’t breaking by cutting off text. Adversely, if we optimize the character limit for portrait and rotate to landscape, then there is a bunch of unused space.

does that make sense? I can do a screenshot test if you like. I am also perfectly fine with keeping it a fixed height. am open to hearing everyone’s suggestion

tim

From: Jamir, Joy Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:02 PM To: DrewAllen88/Enhancements Cc: DrewAllen88/Enhancements; Allen, Drew; Schletter, Timothy Subject: Re: [Enhancements] Design Reconcilliation: Feature Areas (#41)

Is this not what we have now, which doesn't work? Would prefer to have this fixed. What's the concern with doing so?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2015, at 10:58 AM, timproDev notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@joyjamirhttps://github.com/joyjamir @DrewAllen88https://github.com/DrewAllen88 I see that we are setting the height of the feature areas - I would advice against fixing this height and not allowing for the ability to expand. so after speaking with drew, we have determined that we will set the minimum height of the feature areas the the dimensions provided in the design comps. should the text require vertical flexibility, I will be building that behavior in. so the expectation is that there may be an instance where the feature area is in fact taller than the design calls for - make sense?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/DrewAllen88/Enhancements/issues/41#issuecomment-135050026.

[timproDev]

FED complete - this will be included in the Sept 3 deliverable In the FED drop, these components will be found in templates documented in Abhishek's exel doc

[abhishek-a]

MAR-2115 ,MAR-2125 ,MAR-2134 and MAR-2143 Jira created for it. Please refer Jira and do not make any updates here on GITHUB.

[abhishek-a]

some more Jira associated with it - 2. MAR-2152, MAR-2160, MAR-2174, MAR-2182, MAR-2190, MAR-2198,MAR-2206, MAR-2214, MAR-2222